Asatkāryavāda (a): Ārambha-vāda

According to the asatkāryavāda, the effect is a new beginning (arambha), a new creation; it is different from its cause and it can never be the same with cause. The effect is not the transformation of the cause. The main point of this doctrine is that the effect is not existent in its material cause before its production. If it pre-exists, then there will be no sense in saying that the effect is produced. If the jār already exists in the clay, the cloth in the threads and curd in milk, then how it is said that the potter makes the jār from the clay, the weaver makes cloth from threads etc. Nyāya, Vaiśeṣika, Buddhists, Materialists and some followers of Mīmāṃsā are asatkāryavādins. The Nyāya, Vaiśeṣika theory is also known as arambhavāda, i.e., production is a new beginning. The asatkāryavādins have refused the satkāryavāda. Śrīdhara gives different arguments in his Nyāyakaṇḍalī to refute the view of satkāryavāda. At first Śrīdhara has discussed the five arguments which are given to establish, satkāryavāda. He states that if the effect exists in the cause before its production then why the effect is not seen in it, though all conditions are found for the perception of the effect. He explains it with the example of cloth (i.e., the effect) and the threads (i.e., the cause).^[1] To this, the satkāryavādin may reply that it is not seen because of the non-manifestation of the effect. Śrīdhara here asks what is the meaning of this non-manifestation? If non-manifestation means the absence of power of producing an effect which is capable of perception, then it follows that this power of producing the effect is first non-existent in the cause and comes into existence only afterwards. This actually vindicates the theory of asatkāryavāda. Again if the manifestation of the causal activity is said to be unmanifested at first and becomes manifest afterwards, then also asatkāryavāda will hold good. For here the effect is not first perceived in its material cause and then it is perceived later. Therefore, the asatkāryavāda is acceptable, as this perceptible form is non-existent before the production of the effect and afterwards it comes into existence.^[2]

The satkāryavādins point out that the cloth, i.e., the effect is not perceived in the cause, i.e., thread because there is the absence of the activity of the weaver etc. (i.e., the cause). Śrīdhara argues here that if, according to the satkāryavādins, theactivity of the cause (kāraṇavyāpāra) is existent, then the cloth also will always be perceived. If on the other hand, the causal activity is non-existent then the effect will also have no existence.^[3]

The satkāryavādins again say that which is non-existent cannot be produced by any activity of the cause e.g. the sky flower. But according to Śrīdhara, there is difference of nature between a jar and sky-flower. The sky-flower has no existence in nature, whereas the jar has the nature of both existence and non-existence. Before their production, they are non-existent and after production, they are existent.^[4] Refuting the Sāṃkhya view that if the effect is not related to the cause, any effect would be produced from any cause, Śrīdhara says that for a particular kind of effect there is the efficiency (śakti)in a particular kind of cause. The restriction of a particular material cause producing a particular effect depends upon the nature of the things. The pre-existence of any effect in its cause is not required. A particular cause produces only that effect for which it has the capacity. The thing which being present, the effect is produced, and which being absent the effect is not produced is the material cause of that effect.^[5]

Śrīdhara also does not accept the non-different of the effect with the cause. He argues that our perception testifies to the difference of the cause and the effect. It is perceived that a cause and its effect are different in their nature. Otherwise it will be possible to wear threads instead of a cloth. Hence, effect does not pre-exist in the cause.^[6] Gautama maintains that an effect is non-existent before it is produced because it is witnessed to have both origination and destruction.^[7] Origination means being existence and such origination is impossible in the satkāryavāda. According to Vātsyāyana, if the effect is pre-existent in the cause before its production then it cannot be produced.^[8] Uddyotakara, Vācaspati Miśra, and others also do not accept satkāryavāda and have given arguments to establish asatkāryavāda.

The Nyāya-Vaiśeṣikas directly reject the Sāṃkhya-Yoga and Vedānta view of satkāryavāda. According to this theory, the effect (kārya) is non-existent (asat) in the cause before its production It is a new beginning (ārambha), a fresh creation. In this view, cause is different from the effect.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

yadi kāraṇavyāpārātprāgapi paṭastantuṣu sanneva kimityupalabdhikāraṇeṣu satsu satyamapi jijñāsāya nopalabhyate? Nyāyakaṇḍalī. p.341

[2]:

cf. athopalabdhi yogyasyārtha kriyānivartanakṣaṇasya rūpasya viraho’nabhivyaktih tadānīṃ asatkāryavādaḥ tathābhutasya rūpasya prāgabhāve paścādbhāvāt. Ibid., p.341

[3]:

cf. Ibid., p.342

[4]:

cf. yaccoktam asadaśakyakaraṇaṃ vyomakusuma vidite, tatra svabhāvabhedāt, asadekasvabhāvam gaganakusumaṃ sadasatsvabhāvaṃ tu ghaṭādikam. Ibid., p.342

[5]:

anvayavyatirekābhyāṃ tajjātīyaniyamena tajjātiyasya śaktyavadhāraṇāt. Ibid., p.343

[6]:

cf. Ibid., p.343

[7]:

utpattivyayadarśanāt. Nyāyasūtra, 4.1.49

[8]:

Nyāyabhāṣya, 4.1.50