Causal Models

In Indian philosophy, there are three
different models describing the relationships between cause and effect:
satkaryavada, asatkaryavada, and
anekantavada. The first model,
satkaryavada, assumes that effects preexist in their causes. Effects are thus
transformations (real or apparent) of
these causes. The classic example is the
transformation of milk to curds, butter,
and clarified butter. According to
satkaryavada’s proponents, each of
these effects was already present in the
cause and emerges from it through a
natural transformation of that cause.
The second model, asatkaryavada,
assumes that effects do not preexist
in their causes—they are completely
distinct. In the classic examples for this
model, one creates a clay pot by putting
together the two halves of the pot, or
one weaves a cloth from strands of
thread. According to asatkaryavada’s
proponents, with each of these acts, certain material and instrumental causes
create an entirely new object.
The third model, anekantavada (“the
view that things are not single”), seeks to
occupy the middle ground between the
other two models. Anekantavada stresses
the importance of one’s perspective and
the way it can color a judgment. In viewing the transformation of milk to curds,
butter, and clarified butter, an anekantavada proponent would claim that
these substances were contained in the
causes (supporting the satkaryavada
notion) but that the qualities of these
substances were newly created each
time (supporting the asatkaryavada
notion). Thus causes and effects are
simultaneously both the same and different, depending on the way one looks
at them.
All of these philosophical schools
believe that if one understands the
causal process correctly and can manipulate it through one’s conscious actions,
it is possible to gain final liberation of
the soul (moksha). Each of these causal
models thus has profound implications
on religious life. Satkaryavada believes
that causal relations are strong, but they
may be so strong that humans cannot
affect the causal chain; the asatkaryavada
believes that causal relations are weak,
with the danger that human action is
too unreliable to bring about a desired
effect; anekantavada purports to find a
middle ground but can be construed as
inconsistent or self-contradictory. For
further information see Karl H. Potter
(ed.), Presuppositions of India’s
Philosophies, 1972.