Asatkāryavāda (b): Pratītyasamutpāda-vāda

The Buddhists also do not accept the pre-existence of the effect in the cause. Hence, they are also asatkāryavādins. The Buddhist theory is known as Pratītyasamutpādavāda. The term means that the emergence of something after the presence of something else. The Buddhists hold that causation means the succession of two events, of which the former is the cause and the latter is the effect. They hold that a thing can never change into another thing, because a thing is what it is (svalakṣaṇa).^[1] Causation, according to them, is dependent origination. There being some event, another event is sure to follow. It is generally believed that the cause continues to exist in the effect. But the Buddhists uphold that the effect is produced only after the cause is destroyed. According to them, the sprout (i.e., the effect) arises only after the destruction of the seed (i.e., the cause).^[2] Thus, the Buddhists are also asatkāryavādins.

The Buddhists also refute the view of the satkāryavādins that the cause and the effect are identical. They point out that it is meaningless to hold that the effect is identical with the cause. The Sāṃkhyas also accept the fact that there emerge some new elements or modes in the effect. Moreover, if it is accepted that the cause itself reappears in the effect, then there will be ceaseless production of the effect. Because, says the Buddhist, the presence of the cause entails the emergence of the effect.^[3] Again the Sāṃkhya maintain that the origination of the effect only means the manifestation of some modes or forms, while the essence of the cause remains the same. To this the Buddhists argue the acceptance of such a manifestation of modes also goes against the view of the Sāṃkhyas. For the modes which are manifested should be accepted as the new elements, the modes being not there in the cause.^[4] There is also differences in practical efficiency of the cause and effect in as much as that while a jar can hold water, earth cannot. Hence, there is difference between the cause and the effect. Nāgārjuna also, “Identity between the cause and the effect is utterly untenable, since if it were so, there would be no difference between the doer and the thing done.^[5]

Now, the Naiyāyikas are asatkāryavādins, the Buddhists are also the same. They also look upon the effect as completely different from the cause and as a new creation, just like the Naiyāyikas. But there is a difference between the views of the Naiyāyikas and the Buddhists. K.P. Sinha rightly observes, “The Naiyāyikas regards the effect as produced from the cause and as related to it through the relation of samavāya or inherence. This means that, though different, the cause exists inseparably along with the effect. The Buddhists on the other hand, do not say that the effect is produced from the cause; nor do they regard the effect as related to the cause.In their view, the cause is completely destroyed before the production of the effect and, hence, does not exist long with the latter.”^[6]