| Part ofa series on | |
| Hindu philosophy | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Orthodox | |
| Heterodox | |
Sub-schools | |
| |
TheSamkhya school of philosophy, which follows Prakṛti Parinama-vada (doctrine of the transformation of objective nature), describes the origination and evolution of universe through its theory ofSatkāryavāda (Sanskrit:सत्कार्यवाद) which is the theory of causation. According to this theory, the manifested effect is pre-existent in the cause; and the original material cause of everything that is perceived is Prakriti. When Prakriti is not in proximity with immutable Purusha, the conscious ability (chiti-shakti), the three modes (gunas-sattva, rajas and tamas) of prakriti are in equipoise and prakriti is an unmanifest potential. When the conscious ability and the objective ability interact the three modes of the objective nature become disturbed and enter a state of flux giving rise to diverse manifest appearance.
Satkāryavāda is theSamkhya theory of the pre-existent effect, which states that the effectKarya already exists in its material cause, which isSat, and therefore nothing new is brought into existence.
This theory uses two basic concepts.
This theory asserts that something that exists (Sat), cannot originate from non-existence (Asat).
This theory, also associated with theYoga school of Patanjali, is the systematic unfolding ofUddalaka Aruni’s 'substantialism' and 'eternalism' (Sassatavada). Ishvarakrishna in hisSamkhyakarika Sl.9 gives five reasons why the effect has to pre-exist in its material cause –
असदकरणादुपादानग्रहणात् सर्वसम्भवाभावात् ।
शक्तस्य शक्यकरणात् कारणभावाच्च सत्कार्यम् ॥ ९ ॥[1]
DuringVedic times, in seeking to determine therta or order underlying all phenomena, a postulation was made that change can be understood in terms of a potency inherent in these phenomena, that is, in the cause to produce the effect, this potency was termedsvadha (own power). But later on, the reality of change itself came into question. However, theUpanishads andSamkhya, though differing on whether phenomenal change was an illusion or real, acceptedsatkaryavada.Svadha andsatkaryavada go beyond efficient causation to partake of nature of formal and material cause.Pratītyasamutpāda of theBuddhists implies a non-linear kind of causality; the wordpaccaya ofpaccaya-namarupa literally means support, and this presents causation not in terms of unilateral power but in terms of relationship. TheBuddhists consider all modes of relation to have casual significance.[3]
FromChandogya Upanishad III.19 andTaittiriya Upanishad II.7, it appears that being emerged from the pregnant and undifferentiated chaos known asasat ('non-being') but theBrahmanas describe creation as the transformation of sat referred to as the impersonal abstract reality (Taittiriya Upanishad II.i ) or as the personal creator (Prasna Upanishad I.4);satkaryavada envisages creation asparinama::vikara ('modification') of Brahman (Brahma Sutras II.i.7) which orthodox view is not accepted by the followers ofAdvaita Vedanta who place their belief inVivartavada, the theory of superimposition.[4]
Gaudapada, advocatingajativada, states thatmithya ('false', 'unreal') effect has amithya origination; it is not a real origination. Therefore,Totakacharya, a disciple ofShankara, inSrutisarasamuddharanam Sloka 151 states – even if one thinks that the world, beginning with the mind, does somehow originate according to either the prior existence or the non-existence (of the effect), even then it is not real; for thesruti has declared that it is unreal.[5]
According toVedanta,Brahman, the ever-existingnon-dual entitysat but who is the eternal subject and not an object to be known, is the sole source of joy (rasah), a non-entity cannot be a source of happiness. Brahman is the cause of creation. AsSaguna Brahman orIshvara, with his power of the beginninglessmaya, he brings forth this creation which is also beginningless, controls and rules it as the Lord within. Maya isPrakrti (avayakrta) composed of threeGunas.Sankara extendssatkaryavada to state that creation is but manifestation of names and forms only; by transforming into Becoming the indeterminate becomes determinate in association withmaya, otherwise the world is unreal – the acosmic approach shows creation to be a superimposition on Brahman whereas according to the subjective approach the phenomenal world of diversity is unreal, a mere dream.[6]
Sankara defendssatkaryavada againstasatkaryavada but in the light ofvivartavada as distinguished fromparinamavada, he posits the infinite and eternal as the goal of human aspirations, distinguishingparamartha andvyavahara and agreeing that the former is timeless and the latter, fundamentally impermanent and insubstantial, differing though in their analysis of empirical things and causality.[7] He states that the sruti speaks ofprarabdha from an empirical point of view;prarabdha is accepted for origination (or birth) to account for differences of beings etc., which difference cannot be otherwise produced.[8] In the same context but opposing Sankara’s view-point,Ramanuja, the proponent ofVishishtadvaita, in hisVedarthasamgraha defines creation thus – Brahman whose body is formed by animate and inanimate beings, who in his gross form is divided by distinctions of names and forms, is presented in the effect; this disunited and gross state of Brahman is called creation.[9]
Satkaryavada is theSamkhya theory of the pre-existent effect, that the effect (karya) already exists in its material cause and therefore, nothing new is brought into existence or produced in the process of creation. This theory, also associated with theYoga school, is the systematic unfolding of Udalaka Aruni’s (Chandogya Upanishad VI.i.4-5) 'substantialism' and 'eternalism'. Ishvarakrishna in hisSamkhyakarika (Sloka 9):
gives five reasons why the effect has to pre-exist in its material cause – a)asadkarnat - what is not cannot be produced, b)upadana grahanat - the effect requires a material cause, c)sarvasambhavabhavat - not everything arises from everything, d)saktasya-sakya-karnat - the cause produces only what corresponds to its potential and e)karanabhavat - the effect has the nature of the cause.[10]
The followers of the Samkhya school hold thatkarya ('effect') issat ('existent') even beforekarakavyapara ('causal operation') rendersavirbhuta ('manifest') fromtirohita ('unmanifest condition'). The Samkhyas uphold Parinama-vada, that the cause is continuously transforming itself into effect.[11] They advocate two eternal realities,Prakrti andPurusha; the five-fold reasoning for the inference ofPurusha are (Samkhyakarika Sl.10)–
Prakrti and its evolutes all serve the purpose of the self which is Consciousness, b) the self whose purpose is served byPrakrti must be different from everything composed of the three gunas, c) experiences suggest a transcendental synthetic unity of pure consciousness to co-ordinate all experiences for knowledge pre-supposes the existence of the self, d) the physical universe needs a sentientpurusha to experience it and e) there is the desire to escape fromprakrti (Samkhyakarika Sl.10).[12]
Asatkaryavada also called the arambhavada or new beginning. Against theasatkaryavada view of causality accepted by theNyaya and theVaisheshikas,[13] the Samkhyas aver that if the effect were something totally new, without prior existence in any form, then one would have to admit the production of existence from non-existence, which is not possible. But Sankara questions the Samkhya contention, he asks – if the effect actually pre-exists how can there be genuine change?[14]
St.462-463
