Satkarya-vada

Satkarya-vada

सत्कार्य-वाद, satkārya-vāda

The metaphysics of Sankhya, and especially its doctrine of matter, is based mainly on its theory of causality, known as satkarya-vada, the theory of the relationship of a consequence to its material cause. This theory contains the following question “Does the consequence reside in the cause before it appears as such?”.

Buddhists and representatives of nyaya-vaisheshika give a negative answer to this question. In their opinion, it cannot be said that a consequence actually exists even before it is generated by some cause. If a consequence already existed in a material cause, then there is no point in what we call its consequence, that is, caused or produced in any way. In addition, in this case we will not be able to explain why the activity of any acting cause is necessary to obtain a consequence. If the pot already exists in clay, then why does the potter expend effort and use tools to make it? Moreover, if the consequence was in its material cause, then it would logically follow that it (the consequence) cannot be distinguished from the cause and that we would have to use the same name for both pot and clay; moreover, for the same purpose we could then serve both a pot and a piece of clay. It cannot be said that there is a difference in form between the consequence and its material cause, because in this case we must admit that there is something in the consequence that should not be contained in its cause, and therefore the consequence does not really exist in the cause. This theory of the non-existence of a consequence in its material cause before it is generated is called "asatkarya-vada", that is, the doctrine (vada) that a consequence (karya) is unreal (asat) before its production. It is also called "arambha-vada", that is, the theory of the origin of the new in consequence.

Sankhya teaching rejects this understanding of causality, interpreting satkarya-vada in its own way as the presence of a consequence in a material cause before its production. This interpretation is based on the following provisions:

a. If the consequence was not really contained in the material cause, then no effort could have caused its appearance. Can anyone turn blue into red or sugar into salt? This means that if a consequence is generated by some material cause, then it has somehow already been contained in the cause and manifests itself only with the help of certain favorable conditions, just as squeezing seeds gives vegetable oil. The activity of the active causes, such as a potter and his tools, is necessary for the appearance of the consequence (pot), which is already hidden in the clay.

b. There is an invariable connection between the material cause and its consequence. A material cause can only cause the consequence with which it is causally related. A material cause cannot produce a consequence that is not related to it. But it can't be connected to something that doesn't exist. Therefore, the consequence must exist in the material cause even before it is actually generated.

с. We see that certain consequences can only be generated by certain causes. Cottage cheese can be obtained only from milk, and fabric from yarn. This shows that the consequence exists in one way or another in the cause. Otherwise, any consequence could be generated by any cause: a potter could use milk, yarn, or anything else instead of clay to make pots.

d. The fact that only a potential cause can produce the desired result shows that the consequence must potentially be contained in the cause. The potential cause of a consequence is something that has a force definitely related to the consequence. But force cannot be associated with a consequence unless the latter exists in some form. This means that the consequence exists in the cause in an unmanifested form even before it is received or manifested.

e. If the consequence did not really exist in the cause, then when it manifests, we would have to say that the non-existent becomes existing, that is, something arises out of nothing, but such a statement is absurd.

e.  Finally, we see that the consequence does not differ from the material cause and, in fact, is identical to it. Therefore, if there is a cause, then there must be a consequence. In reality, consequence and cause are nothing more than hidden and open states of the same substance. The fabric does not really differ from the yarn from which it is made; the statue is the same as its material cause – stone, only in a transformed form and a new form; the weight of the table is equal to the weight of the pieces of wood used for its manufacture.

The satkarya-vada theory splits into parinama-vada and vivarta-vada. According to the first of them, when a consequence occurs, there is a real transformation (parinama) of the cause into the consequence, for example, the production of a pot from clay or cottage cheese from milk. Sankhya inclines in favor of this view as a further development of the satkarya-vada theory.

The second one, which advaita-vedantists adhere to, believes that the transition of the cause to the consequence is only an appearance. When we mistake a rope for a snake, it does not mean that the rope has actually turned into a snake; it only seems to us. Similarly, God, or Brahman, does not actually transform into the universe he created, but remains identical to himself. To think that he is undergoing a change, turning into the universe himself, would be a clear mistake.