Philosophy:Cause and effect in Advaita Vedanta
Cause and effect are an important topic in all schools of Vedanta. These concepts are discussed in ancient and medieval texts of Hinduism, and other Indian religions, using synonymous terms. Cause is referred to as kāraṇa (कारण), nidana (निदान), hetu (हेतु) or mulam (मूलम्), while effect is referred to as kārya (कार्य), phala (फल), parinam (परिणाम) or Shungam (शुङ्ग).[1][2][3] Vedanta sub-schools have proposed and debated different causality theories.[web 1]
Causality
All schools of Vedanta subscribe to the theory of Satkāryavāda,[web 1] which means that the effect is pre-existent in the cause. But there are different views on the causal relationship and the nature of the empirical world from the perspective of metaphysical Brahman. The Brahma Sutras, the ancient Vedantins, most sub-schools of Vedanta,[4][web 1] as well as Samkhya school of Hindu philosophy,[web 1] support Parinamavada, the idea that the world is a real transformation (parinama) of Brahman.[4]
Scholars disagree on the whether Adi Shankara and his Advaita Vedanta explained causality through vivarta.[web 1][4][5] According to Andrew Nicholson, instead of parinama-vada, the competing causality theory is Vivartavada, which says "the world, is merely an unreal manifestation (vivarta) of Brahman. Vivartavada states that although Brahman appears to undergo a transformation, in fact no real change takes place. The myriad of beings are unreal manifestation, as the only real being is Brahman, that ultimate reality which is unborn, unchanging, and entirely without parts". The advocates of this illusive, unreal transformation based causality theory, states Nicholson, have been the Advaitins, the followers of Shankara.[4] "Although the world can be described as conventionally real", adds Nicholson, "the Advaitins claim that all of Brahman’s effects must ultimately be acknowledged as unreal before the individual self can be liberated".[web 1]
However, other scholars such as Hajime Nakamura and Paul Hacker disagree.[note 1] Hacker and others state that Adi Shankara did not advocate Vivartavada, and his explanations are "remote from any connotation of illusion". According to these scholars, it was the 13th century scholar Prakasatman who gave a definition to Vivarta, and it is Prakasatman's theory that is sometimes misunderstood as Adi Shankara's position.[5] To Shankara, the word maya has hardly any terminological weight.[7] Andrew Nicholson concurs with Hacker and other scholars, adding that the vivarta-vada isn't Shankara's theory, that Shankara's ideas appear closer to parinama-vada, and the vivarta explanation likely emerged gradually in Advaita subschool later.[web 1]
According to Eliot Deutsch, Advaita Vedanta states that from "the standpoint of Brahman-experience and Brahman itself, there is no creation" in the absolute sense, all empirically observed creation is relative and mere transformation of one state into another, all states are provisional and a cause-effect driven modification.[8]
Nimitta kāraṇa and Upādāna kāraṇa
Two sorts of causes are recognised:[9]
- Nimitta kāraṇa, the efficient cause.
- Upādāna kāraṇa, the material cause.
kārya-kāraṇa ananyatva
Advaita states that effect (kārya) is non-different from cause (kāraṇa), but the cause is different from the effect:
- kārya is not different from kāraṇa; however kāraṇa is different from kārya
This principle is called kārya-kāraṇa ananyatva.
Effect is not different from cause
When the cause is destroyed, the effect will no longer exist. For example, cotton cloth is the effect of the cotton threads, which is the material cause. Without threads there will be no cotton cloth. Without cotton there will be no thread.
According to Swami Sivananda, in his comments on the Brahmasūtra-Bhāṣya 2.1.9, Adi Shankara describes this as follows:
See also
Notes
References
- ↑ cause, effect, Sanskrit English Dictionary, Koeln University, Germany
- ↑ Paul Deussen (2015). The System of the Vedanta. Reprint: KB (Original: 1912, Oxford). p. 264. ISBN 978-1-5191-1778-6. https://books.google.com/books?id=DI7cCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA264.
- ↑ Gadjin M. Nagao (1991). Madhyamika and Yogacara: A Study of Mahayana Philosophies. State University of New York Press. pp. 127–128. ISBN 978-0-7914-0187-3. https://books.google.com/books?id=9ygVT2FA0h4C&pg=PA127.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Nicholson 2010, p. 27.
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Mayeda 2006, pp. 25-27.
- ↑ Hugh Nicholson 2011, p. 266 note 20, 167-170.
- ↑ Hugh Nicholson 2011, p. 266 note 21.
- ↑ Deutsch 1973, pp. 40-43.
- ↑ Lipner, Julius J. (1996). "Ancient Banyan: an Inquiry into the Meaning of 'Hinduness'". Religious Studies (Cambridge University Press) 32 (1): 109–126. doi:10.1017/s0034412500024100.
Sources
Published sources
- Deutsch, Eliot (1973), Advaita Vedanta: A Philosophical Reconstruction, University of Hawaii Press, ISBN 978-0-8248-0271-4, https://books.google.com/books?id=63gdKwhHeV0C
- Mayeda, Sengaku (2006), "An Introduction to the Life and Thought of Sankara", in Mayeda, Sengaku, A Thousand Teachings: The Upadeśasāhasrī of Śaṅkara, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120827714
- Nicholson, Andrew J. (2010), Unifying Hinduism: Philosophy and Identity in Indian Intellectual History, Columbia University Press
- Hugh Nicholson (2011). Comparative Theology and the Problem of Religious Rivalry. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-977286-5. https://books.google.com/books?id=QOsVDAAAQBAJ.
Web-sources
 |
