Causality in the Nyaaya-Vai`se.sika school

·期刊原文

Causality in the Nyaaya-Vai`se.sika school

By Bimal Krishna Matilal

Philosophy East & West

V.25 (1975) pp. 41-48

Copyright 1975 by University of Hawaii Press

Hawaii, USA

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

p. 41

Causality implies a host of philosophic problems which are pertinent to different branches of philosophical studies. My aim here is, however, a modest one. While explaining the notion of cause as it was understood by different philosophical schools of classical India, I shall try to show that (a) concern for the notion of causation was taken more seriously in some Indian philosophical schools than it had been in some of their Western counterparts, and (b) that the meaning of "cause" (kaara.na) is much wider in Indian philosophy than it is in the West.

To substantiate the second point first, I shall first wry briefly refer to the classification of 'causal conditions' as found in the Abhidharmako`sa of Vasubandhu and then to another classification found in the Vai`se.sika school. Two different terms, hetu and pratyaya, are used to cover all causal notions in the Abhidharma system. There is, however, no essential difference between these two concepts, the six types of hetu being included under the broader notion of pratyaya.

The Abhidharmako`sa first explains six types of hetu, of which the first is called the kaara.na-hetu, the 'prototype' of a hetu. The definition of a kaara.na-hetu reflects the attitude of the Abhidharma school toward the general notion of cause. In fact, to be a cause in this sense means to exist without being a 'hindrance' (vighna) to the production of the effect in question. Thus, if x is a dharma that originates, then any dharma other than the 'own-being' (svabhaava) of it may be called its kaara.na-hetu. [1]

Four types of pratyaya are: (1) hetu-pratyaya, (1) aalambana-pratyaya, (3) samanantara-pratyaya, and (4) adhipati-pratyaya. Of these, the first includes the 'remaining' five hetus in the foregoing classification while the last includes the 'prototype', that is, the kaara.na-hetu. [2] The second and the third are found useful only with regard to the states of consciousness. The aalambana is the 'causal basis', that is, the object, of a particular state of consciousness which is regarded as an effect or event. The samanantara is the 'causal precedent', that is, the preceding moment of consciousness conditioning the succeeding moment. It should also be mentioned that in the remaining five hetus (a discussion of which I will skip here) of the six types mentioned earlier are included hetus like a sahabhuu hetu, where two dharmas originating simultaneously are said to mutually condition each other.

This breathtaking classification of the Abhidharma will be enough to show hetu or 'cause' is being used here in its widest possible sense. It is sometimes pointed out that we should not probably translate hetu or kaara.na in this context as a 'cause' or a 'causal condition'. But I am in favor of retaining such translations simply because such terms as 'hetu and 'pratyaya' mean almost the same thing (and, by the same token, share the same ambiguity) in ordinary Sanskrit

p. 42

as terms like 'cause' and 'causal condition' do in ordinary English. It is a philosopher's privilege to use an ordinary term in a highly specialized sense.

If to cause an effect in the Abhidharma means not to obstruct the production of that effect (that is, that dharma), to cause an effect in the Vai`se.sika system means to be its immediate (and 'unconditional') antecedent. The Vai`se.sikas speak of a causal substrate or a 'substantial' cause (samavaayikaara.na) which is the substance where the effect occurs (through the relation of inherence). Ordinarily, this is the material cause of an effect, even comparable to the 'material' cause in the fourfold division of Aristotle. But strictly speaking, this is a wider notion in the Vai`se.sika system, since such 'nonmaterial' substances as the soul and the physical space are said to be causal substrates of suitable effects. For example, a state of consciousness as an event is said to occur in the soul (that is, the person) which is its causal substrate.

All causal conditions other than the causal substrate that are relevant to the effect are classified by the Vai`se.sikas into two groups: asamavaayin cause (non-substantial, literally 'noninherent' cause), und the nimitta 'efficient' cause. The former forms an artificial group which includes only qualities (and relational qualities like 'conjunction' sa.myoga) that inhere in the causal substrate and are causally relevant to the effect. [3] For example, color of the threads causes the color of the cloth, or conjunction of different parts of a table causes the table in this manner. The group of 'efficient' cause includes everything else that is causally relevant to the effect in question. Thus, the potter, along with the potter's wheel, rod, water, etc., is called the 'efficient' cause of the effect, pot. Aristotle's notion of the 'efficient' cause, in a liberal interpretation, can match this Vai`se.sika notion. But nothing like Aristotle's notion of the 'final' cause or the 'formal' cause can be found in the Indian schools. [4]

The distinction of a 'nonsubstantial' cause from the group of efficient causes seems to be artificial. It was probably based upon the awareness that as long as the effect, the color of a cloth, exists its 'nonsubstantial' cause (that is, the color of the threads) should, like the causal substrate, also exist. But an 'efficient' cause like the potter's wheel may wither away (after the effect is born) without affecting the effect in any way. In other words, the father may die after the son is born, but what inheres in the son's body and limbs must stay as long as the son is alive. [5] A notion parallel to that of a 'nonsubstantial' cause of the Vai`se.sikas is hard to find in the Western tradition.

Concern for a causal notion was fundamental in almost all schools of Indian philosophy. We should remember that philosophic activity in India arose out of the cosmogonic speculations of the Vedas and the Upani.sads. The all important business of philosophy was to attempt, to discover some simple, unitary cause for the origin of this complex universe. Various alternative theories were propounded from the very early period, as is well evidenced in the passages of the `Svetaa`svatara Upani.sad, and in the Nyaayasuutra, chapter 4. [6] Some of the main views about the original cause of the universe were: (a) time,

p. 43

(b) nature or 'own-nature', (c) pradhaana 'the unmanifest' matter, (d) god, (e) atoms, and (f) cyclical dependent origination. Of these, I shall briefly allude to the three important views, the Saa.mkhya, the Buddhist, and the Nyaaya-Vai`se.sika views.

The earliest critique of the notion of cause is to be found in India in the satkaaryavaada doctrine of the Saa.mkhya school, which was historically the earliest of Indian philosophic systems. The doctrine means that the so-called effect preexists in its cause, causation being merely a change of transformation from one state to another while the original 'thing' (cf. dharmin) remains constant and unchanging. An effect means a change in only the attributes or characteristics of the thing, a new state of affairs means manifestation of what was potentially present (cf., sat) in the early state of affairs, that is, in its so-called cause. [7] The Saa.mkhya metaphysics posits an ultimate, original matter, the pradhaana or avyakta (the "chief" or the 'unmanifest') from which the whole material world evolves. It is also admitted that the potential becomes actual at every moment and thus transformation of the world is automatic and instantaneous. This aspect of the Saa.mkhya theory might have influenced the Buddhist doctrine of universal flux.

The Buddha's doctrine of impermanence (anityataa) was developed by the later Buddhists as the doctrine of universal flux. Causation in Buddhism is spanned by its doctrine of conditioned (or dependent) origination (pratiityasamutpaada). In Abhidharma, for example, every sa.msk.rta dharma, that is, every effect, is said to originate merely depending upon what is called its pratyaya (or hetu). Like the empiricist in the West, the Buddhists reduced causal dependence to nothing more than a mere sequence, a very loose relation usually expressed in the formula: if x is, y arises (cf., asmin sati ida.m bhavati hrasve sati diirgha.m yathaa). The Maadhyamikas rejected the notion of svabhaava 'own-being' of things as well as origin (udaya) and decay (vyaya) of things (bhaavas). [8] Thus, they might have paved the way for the doctrine of non-origination (ajaati-vaada) of Gau.dapaada. [9] The popular belief that an effect is brought about by its causes is reduced to an absurdity by the Maadhyamika dialecticians.

The doctrine of universal flux is the result of the Buddhist rejection of the notion of potentiality. To be causally potent means here only actual production of the effect. Everything is in a flux, there being so stability (sthiratva). Causation is simply incessant succession of events. Unlike the Saa.mkhya, the Buddhists rejected the notion of any unchanging core of things, any unchanging dharmin underlying the seeming fluctuations. [10]

The Nyaaya-Vai`se.sika school opposed the Saa.mkhya by its doctrine of a-sat-kaarya-vaada, according to which an effect is a new creation, and hence numerically different, from its cause. The description of causation in this school is closer to the commonsense view of a cause. True to the spirit of empiricism, causal relation is described here also as one of invariable sequence. Udayana

p. 44

asserted, in answer to the skepticism about causality, that a causal explanation of an event is needed unless we want to settle for a total accidentality or 'whimsicality' of everything. A particular effect happens at a particular moment, not always. This is what is called the 'temporality' (kaadaacitkatva) of an effect, and this temporality implies dependence of the effect upon something other than itself. Causal relation is nothing more than this obligatory dependence. [11]

The Nyaaya school rejected also the notion of `sakti, 'power', 'efficacy' or 'force', connected with causation. The Miimaa.msakas, being consistent with the common belief, argued in favor of an efficacious power or `sakti present in the cause to produce the effect -- a power which can be destroyed by the presence of an 'antidote' (pratibandhaka) and can conceivably be resuscitated by an 'antidote to the antidote' (cf., uttejaka). Thus, fire burns because of its power to burn -- a power which either can be destroyed or resuscitated under suitable conditions. While refuting the notion of `sakti, Udayana solved the problem presented by the influence of antidotes by boldly asserting that causation implies presence of not only 'positive' causal conditions but also of relevant 'negative' conditions. For a particular effect to happen, the absence of the relevant antidote is also needed as one of its causal conditions. [12]

The Navyanyaaya treatment of causation is interesting in many ways. The notion of invariable sequence is explained as holding between generalities rather than between particular events. Thus, `Sa`sadhara defined a cause as one belonging to a class, individual members of which invariably precede individual members of another class, the relevant effect-class (cf., kaaryaniyatapuurvav.rttijaariiyatva). [13] A potter's wheel is said to be a cause of a particular pot because it belongs to the class of those wheels, members of which are seen to precede invariably the production of members of the pot-class. The notion of invariable sequence is, however, to be derived from experience, from what is called anvaya and vyatireka (seeing cases of association and absence).

Although in rejecting the notion of 'efficacy' or 'power' Nyaaya resembled the position of David Hume, the doctrine of invariable sequence was not propounded here exactly in Humean spirit. For Hume, it is only the mind that spreads itself on external objects and conjoins them as cause and effect while nothing really exists between them to be so conjoined. [14] This is more like the Buddhist view than the Nyaaya view. For Nyaaya, invariable sequence is discovered by the mind but it exists between extramental realities like universals or class characters. Perhaps Nyaaya shuns the Humean empiricism while it asserts its doctrine of real universals. In fact, although the early Nyaaya-Vai`se.sika doctrine of universal was modified by Navyanyaaya, it still maintained that certain class-characters were real in order to explain, among other things, the relation of cause and effect. [15]

Thus, it was felt in Navyanyaaya that the criterion of invariable sequence was not enough for distinguishing causal conditions of a particular effect. For example, the production of a pot is preceded invariably not simply by the

p. 45

potter's wheel but also the color and circularity of the potter's wheel. But the color of the wheel is immaterial and irrelevant to the production of the pot. To exclude such irrelevant items from being considered as causes of the particular effect in question, such Navyanyaaya authors as `Sa`sadhara and Ga^nge`sa introduced the notion of what they called ananyathaasiddhatva 'unconditionality'. The invariable presence of the color of the wheel before the pot is produced is conditioned by the presence of the wheel itself and hence it need not be taken into account while we consider the relevant (causal) conditions for the effect in question. By same token Navyanyaaya excludes the cause of a cause from being considered as a cause of a particular effect. This takes care also of a conceivable case where each time a pot is produced on the potter's wheel, a donkey always walks by immediately before the event. Experience of invariable sequence may demand that we construe the two events as causally related. But Nyaaya claims that the 'unconditionality' criterion can save the situation since it is possible to find a reasonable explanation of each case of such appearances of a donkey. If such reasonable explanation is found, the donkey's appearance will no longer be an 'unconditional' antecedent. [16]

If the Navyanyaaya analysis of the causal relation seems to be somewhat embarrassing to a Humean empiricist, we may introduce here a brief discussion of some contemporary problems of causation. David Hume's critique of causality brought into focus two important questions in contemporary philosophy. The first question is: whether there is, after all, any necessary connection between a cause and its effect? The second, and perhaps more basic question is: whether the notion of cause is at all a viable concept in philosophy, useful for explanation and understanding of what are called 'events'?

Because of the muddle and complexity associated with the notion of 'cause', some modem philosophers (notably Bertrand Russell) despaired of making any sense of the word 'cause', and hence recommended "its complete extrusion from the philosophical vocabulary." [17] The rise of modern theoretical physics, some doctrines of which throw doubt even upon the once universally acclaimed universality principle of causation (the principle that states, "every event must have a cause"), has contributed further to the modern despair about the notion of cause. But whatever may be the situation in theoretical and higher physics, it is almost undeniable that the concept of a cause is quite useful in the common affairs of life, in applied technology, in moral fields, in law and jurisprudence. Thus, I believe a philosopher can hardly afford to be totally indifferent to this concept. It will be enough to point out here that respectable modern philosophers such as A. J. Ayer, R. G. Collingwood, C. J. Ducasse and G. E. van Wright, have found the concept of causality to be useful. [18]

Modern despair about the notion of cause can partly be ascribed to Hume's rigid demand for the empirical analysis of causation. Hume used the notion of similarity or resemblance in giving an empirical explanation of cause. A cause is defined as "an object precedent and contiguous to another, and where all the

p. 46

objects resembling the former are placed in a like relation of priority and contiguity to those objects, that resemble the latter." [19] Unfortunately the notion of similarity invites a number of philosophic problems in empiricism. For one thing, an event today must be similar to an event of yesterday in some essential respects in order to be caused by a similar cause. We may recall that Navyanyaaya introduced the notion of real universals or class character. To avoid this quandary of empiricism, a follower of Hume might argue that similar effects, in order to have similar causes, must be similar only in certain crucial or relevant respects. It is, however, easy to see that the notion of such "relevance" cannot be explained without reporting to the causal notion, and thus it will involve us in a circularity.

The question of relevance may enter in the discussion of causal relation in another way. If, following Hume, the notion of necessity is completely eliminated and causation is reduced to mere invariable sequence, then, as Thomas Reid pointed out against David Hume, we will have to admit that day is the cause of night and vice versa, since day is seen to be invariably followed by night and night by day. [20] J. S. Mill referred to this criticism of Reid and defended Hume by introducing the notion of 'unconditionality' in defining the notion of cause. Mill argued as follows: "If there be any meaning which confessedly belongs to the term, it is unconditionalness ... The succession of day and night evidently is not necessary in this sense. It is conditional on the occurrence of other antecedents." [21] Since it is conceivable that there could be circumstances (for example, sudden stopping of the rotation of the earth) under which day will not be followed by night and vice versa, Mill said, the two are not unconditionally conjoined and hence not causally connected. It is unfortunate that Mill here abandoned, quite unconsciously, the very point of the empirical analysis of Hume, and reintroduced the notion of necessity disguised as 'unconditionality'. Besides, if, as Mill explained, conceivability of the circumstances under which a known invariable sequence may not follow is enough to upset the causal connection between events, then very few events could be said to be causally connected.

Mill's own explanation of the 'unconditionality' criterion was thus hardly satisfactory. However, one may justify the 'unconditionality' criterion in order to distinguish irrelevant antecedents from the causally relevant antecedents. But then we are thinking of what Navyanyaaya calls ananyathaasiddhatva (which I have translated above as the criterion of 'unconditionality'), and not Mill's 'unconditionality' criterion.

The point at issue may he made in the following way. Suppose there is a unique tribe, each adult member of which has produced, after going through the usual tribal training period, a particular craft. This craft is unique to this tribe, and let us assume that no one else on earth has succeeded in producing that craft. Now suppose that each such adult member, after his training period and before producing the craft, has gotten up from bed at 6 A.M. on two succes-

p. 47

sive Sundays. If invariable sequence is enough to establish causal connection, then not only the tribal training period but also their getting up at 6 A.M. on two successive Sundays should be considered causally relevant! In fact, to be true to the Humean spirit of empiricism, one has to accept such an apparently absurd consequence. The question of what is relevant, namely, the training period, and what is not relevant to the production of the craft cannot be decided unless some notion like the Navyanyaaya idea of ananyathaasiddhatva is introduced. It may be noted that an Abhidharma Buddhist can nicely tackle the problem here by taking the bull by the horns. As noted earlier, he can claim that when something has been produced nothing that was prior to it was really irrelevant to its production. Vasubandhu exemplified the point as follows: When the village folk have successfully organized a feast without interference from the proverbial village troublemaker, they can say that the success of the feast was owing also to the help of that troublemaker. In other words, when an event is caused, almost every thing, through its noninterference, can be causally responsible for it. Thus, the question of excluding irrelevant items from the domain of causation does not arise.

For Navyanyaaya, the fact of their getting up at 6 A.M on two Sunday mornings will be what is called anyathaasiddha 'conditioned otherwise', and hence it cannot be causally relevant. In other words, if we investigated each case separately, we could find in each case reasonable explanation of why that particular adult in that case got up at 6 A.M. on two successive Sunday mornings before the said craft was produced. And such an explanation would reveal that each of these facts was conditioned otherwise, anyathaasiddha. In the same way, Navyanyaaya would declare that while being dry, that is, the lack of dampness, is a 'negative' causal condition for the matchstick to ignite, but the color of the match stick is anyathaasiddha, being immaterial to its igniting. [22]

NOTES

1. See Abhidharmako`sa and Bhaa.sya of Vasubandhu, Part I, ed. Swami Dwarikadas Sastri (Varanasi: Bauddha Bharati, 1971), pp. 279-282.

2. Ibid., p.349.

3. See Pra`sastapaada, Padaarthadharmasa.mgraha, ed. Durgadhara Jha (Varanasi: Sanskrit Visvavidyalaya, 1963), pp 244, 246.

4. This is a general comment, which may be subject to qualification. In fact, Asok Gangadean criticized this comment. But I am yet to be convinced by his arguments.

5. For this notion of nimittakaara.na, see Vyomavatii of Vyoma`sivaacaarya, commentary on Pra`sastapaadabhaa.sya, ed. Gopinath Kaviraj and Dhundhiraj Sastri, (Banaras: Chowkhamba, 1930). p 140-142.

6. See Nyaayasuutra and Nyaayabhaa.sya, ed. Ganganath Jha, (Poona: Oriental Book Agency, 1930), p. 246-270.

7. See Saa.mkhyakaarikaa and Yuktidiipikaa, ed. Ramasamkar Tripathi, (Varanasi: B. Tripathi, 1970), p. 59-69.

p. 48

8. See Maadhyamikakaarikaa of Naagaarjuna, ed. P. L. Vaidya (Darbhanga: Mithila Institute, 1960), chapts. 1 and 15.

9. See AAgamasaastra of Gau.dapaada, ed. Vidhusekhara Bhattacharya (Calcutta: University of Calcutta, 1943), pp. 101-112.

10. For the Buddhist criticism of potentiality (saamarthya), see Ratnakiirti-nibandhaavalii, ed. Anantalal Thakur (Patna: K. P. Jayaswal Research Institute), pp. 62-76.

11. See Nyaayakusumaa~njali of Udayana, eds. P. Upadhyaya and D. Sastri, (Varanasi: Chowkhamba, 1957), pp. 41-60.

12. Ibid., pp. 103-117.

13. See Nyaayasiddhaantadiipa, ed. V. P. Dwivedi and Dhundhiraj Shastri, (Benares Cantt.: Lazarus & Co., 1924), pp. 89-92. A critical edition of this text has already been prepared by me and is forthcoming in the L. D. Indological Series, Ahmedabad.

14. David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, ed. L. A. Selby-Bigge (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1951), Book I, Part III, Sec. XIV, pp. 166-172.

15. See my Epistemology, Logic and Grammar in Indian Philosophical Analysis, (The Hague: Mouton, 1971), pp. 71-77.

16. See for a discussion of ananyathaasiddhatva, Tattvacintaama.ni of Ga^nge`sa, ed. Kamakhyanatha Tarkavagisa (Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1884-1901), Part 2, vol. 3, pp. 154-155.

17. See B. Russell, Mysticism and Logic (1917; reprint ed., Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday Anchor Books), pp. 174-201.

18. A. J. Ayer, Foundations of Empirical Knowledge (London: Macmillan & Co., 1951), Chap. 4. R. G. Collingwood, An Essay on Metaphysics (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1940), Part 3-C. C. J. Ducasse, Nature, Mind and Death, Part II (La Salle, Illinois: The Open Court Publ. Co., 1951).

19. David Hume, op. cit., p. 172.

20. Thomas Reid, Essays on the Active Power of the Human Mind, Essay 4, included in Works, ed. Sir William Hamilton, (Edinburgh: Maclachlan & Stewart, 1846-1863).

21. J. S. Mill, A System of Logic, 8th ed., Book III, Chap. V, Sec. 6 (1843; New York: Harper, 1881).

22. In fact, the ananyathaasiddhatva criterion cannot, in final analysis, successfully exclude all irrelevant factors from the relevant causal factors. Ga^nge`sa discusses this problem in Tattvacintaama.ni, Part 2, vol. 3, p. 154-155. The important question, namely, why, of two invariably conjoined factors, one is taken to be the causal factor rather than the other, depends partly, according to Ga^nge`sa, on our intuitive notion of simplicity (laaghava) and relevance.