What is Cause? Notes

 What is Cause? Notes.

Introduction On reading the title of this Chapter you may say, “this is something that everyone knows, then what is the reason behind asking this question?” This question is asked because we use many words in our day-to-day conversations, but if we are asked what is exactly the concept that the word denotes, we get baffled and start thinking about it. From whatever you have studied in Philosophy by now you must have realized that in this subject, questions are raised about the concepts that seem to be easy to use or understand. The horizon of our knowledge broadens as we go deeper into these questions. ‘Cause’ is one such concept. This concept is as much important in epistemology and ethics as in metaphysics. Isn’t this a sufficient reason to study this concept and the meaning embedded in it? Concept of Cause Curiosity is a beautiful gift human beings have received from nature. Our curiosity is not limited to the things that are necessary for survival or to the things that are useful. It extends beyond that. It doesn’t end merely by thinking about what is beneficial or harmful, what is useful or useless for us. It is from such curiosity that the question arises what is there in the universe? Not only this, but we also ask why everything is the way it is? Why does change occur in it? We ask such questions due to a natural curiosity.

Once a question arises, how can our reason be at rest unless it finds the answers? With this quest begins the journey, for finding out the reasons behind the nature of objects and the causes behind the events in nature, in society and in the mind! It is not only the philosophers who are confronted with these questions, you too are confronted with these questions. For example, at home when some device of regular use, like radio or television, does not work we immediately ask “why?” When at times it suddenly rains and we wonder “Why it must have rained?” 

When a healthy person falls sick we wonder “What must be the reason?”. All these are examples of unexpected events. However, even when things happen as expected, the concept of ‘cause’ is always with us knowingly or unknowingly. For example, when a friend who does not attend classes regularly faces difficulty during the examination and is about to cry, you say, ‘this is the reason why I would ask you to attend classes.’ When you have high temperature after getting drenched in the rain your mother says ‘the cause of your fever is nothing else but your wandering in rain.’ Whatever ‘happens’ to us is due to some reason. Similarly, there is always some reason behind the things that we do consciously. Our intentions, desires, motivations etc. are the reasons behind our behaviour and actions. 

The search for causes is very important for science too. Explanation and prediction of events are considered to be major tasks  of science. In order to carry out both of these tasks, science explores the cause - effect relationships. Causes and effects are related to change. That reason due to which change occurs is the cause and what is generated from that change is known as an effect or a consequence. The task of science is to know what is the effect of a particular event and the regularity with which it occurs. It is the function of scientific laws to explain the regular correlation that is found between events. This correlation is often of the nature of cause-effect relationship. Do you remember the law ‘all metals expand when heated’? This law states that because of the cause ‘heat’ the effect ‘expansion of metal’ takes place. On the basis of cause-effect relationship natural sciences explain the occurrences in the nature; similarly, the social sciences explain social events on the basis of causeeffect relations of social behaviour. The same law that is used to give explanation, is used for making predictions. For example, the law that explains the expansion of the mercury in the thermometer, also predicts that if the person has fever the level of mercury will rise up.

 Like science, religion too speaks about cause. Some religions look for the cause of the existence of the universe. They also explore the causes behind the nature of the universe. Some religions also provide causal explanations of the incidences of human life that are not easily explainable. Concepts like merit-demerit, karma and its consequences are its indicators. The belief that good deeds will lead to heaven whereas bad deeds will lead to hell, is based on the belief that relation between the action and its fruits / consequences is a causal one.

In short, this notion of causation has pervaded in many areas of our lives and knowledge. It is not surprising that it is important in Philosophy. It should be noted here that Philosophy is interested in understanding the concept of ‘cause’ and the principles associated with it. It is not the function of Philosophy to discover the causes underlying existence. All such attempts made by Philosophy in ancient period were theoretical in nature. The major questions philosophers studied were as follows : What is the exact nature of cause-effect relationship? Are effect and cause completely different from one-another? Is causal relation applicable to every event? Is this relation necessary? Let’s study these questions and the major responses given to them in Philosophy. While studying this, one must keep in mind the period in which these various responses are given. Why so? It is because the questions which were asked in the most initial period of philosophical contemplation and the answers they received are as if the foundation of the tower of knowledge on the top of which we stand today. We have ascended to the place where we have reached today, by gradually following the sequence of questions and answers; giving rise in their turn to newer questions and answers. 

Have you ever seen the Dahi Handi? In it, we see that the hands of the individuals standing at the lowest layer of the human pyramid surely cannot reach the pot at the top, but it is only because of them that the player at the top can break the pot. Got it? The notion of ‘cause’ in Indian Philosophy Background Let us first understand the major theories of causation in Indian Philosophy and the context in which they have been discussed. Although these relations have been discussed in both Indian and Western traditions, their cultural backgrounds are different. As we have seen in the previous year, Philosophy and culture keep influencing each-other. From this point of view, it seems that being aware of the cultural background helps us understand the Philosophy that has developed in a particular culture in a better manner. One of the key-features of Indian Philosophy is that this Philosophy is related to the issues we face in our actual lives. As the study of this Philosophy satisfies intellectual inquisitiveness, it also teaches us how to live. This does not mean that it provides specific solutions to the specific practical problems that arise in our day-today life. Rather it develops a broader perspective towards life. This life-perspective is primarily concerned with what ought to be the goals of human life. Later, we will study the concept of ‘Purushartha’ in Indian tradition which talks about the goals of human life. Almost all the Indian schools of Philosophy have contemplated over the problem of suffering. No one desires sorrow. But, understanding that it is an inseparable part of one’s life, these schools have tried to find the cause of this suffering. At the same time, they have also suggested the ways to get rid of this suffering permanently. All the major schools of Indian Philosophy except materialist Charvaka, accept the notion of rebirth. These schools also believe that birth inevitably gives rise to suffering. That is why they propound liberation from the cycle of re-birth as the highest goal of life. This liberation has been named variously by different schools as moksha, mukti, kaivalya, apvarga, nirvana etc. However, all these schools agree upon one point that, it is one’s ignorance regarding one’s own self and the world that is the root cause of being bound in the sorrowful cycle of re-birth. Obviously, these schools have propounded that one must eliminate ignorance and know the true nature of one’s self and the world and accordingly live life in a proper way. 

The cause-effect relationship has been discussed while studying the existence of universe and the things existing in it, their nature and their interrelations. In this context, the views of Charvaka, Jain, Sankhya and Advaita Vedanta schools regarding the nature of ultimate reality that we studied in the previous lesson must be kept in mind. Though, the nature of the ultimate reality, the notion of ‘Self’ and the cause-effect relationship, have been discussed separately in different chapters for convenience, we must not forget that, in fact, these three are inter-connected issues in Metaphysics. We must take into account the inter-relationship among Metaphysics, epistemology and ethics.The congnitive, moral and artistic capabalities of human being are a part of their nature. The relationship between man and the universe is at least to some extent determined on the basis of these capabalities. Though it may appear that we are discussing different issues in different chapters of this book we need to keep in mind that there is a common thread which holds them together. Let us now turn towards the study of theories of causation in Indian tradition. In the Indian tradition, material cause and efficient cause are considered to be the two main types of causes. We have already seen that the concept of ‘cause’ is related to change. 

That in which change occurs, is known as material cause. The effect/or consequence emerges from the material cause. This creation requires motion. That which causes this momentum, is known as the efficient cause. Wood is the material cause of a cricket bat and the craftsman/carpenter who shapes the wood into a bat is the efficient cause. That which produces the effect from the material cause is the efficient cause. It is generally believed that both these types are required for the occurrence of the effect, that is, the consequence.

However, there seems to be a disagreement among Indian schools of philosophy regarding what is their relative role and to what extent in the production of the effect. These differences are in relation to two questions. (1) Does the effect exist in the material cause in some or the other form prior to the process of change? And (2) is the effect independent and distinct from the cause? Based on the responses given to these questions, the two main theories of causation were propounded, namely - ‘satkaryavada’ and ‘asatkaryavada’. Samkhya Darshana has accepted satkaryavada. Nyaya Darshana advocates asatkaryavada. Satkaryavada The term ‘Sat’ indicates existence. The theory according to which the effect pre-exists in its material cause before its explicit manifestation is called ‘satkaryavada’. Sankhyas have presented many influential arguments in support of this theory. If we assume that the effect does not pre-exist in the cause and is subsequently generated, then we will have to accept that being or existence originates from non-being or non-existence. However, that is not possible. Creation of anything is not possible out of Nothing. Effect can only be generated through some processes, with the help of efficient cause. This means it is already implicit in the material cause in the form of a latent potentiality. Therefore, one is unable to distinguish it from the material cause. If a particular effect is to be produced, then only that material cause should be chosen in which the effect is latently present. If, we add culture to water it cannot produce curd because water lacks that potentiality. Culture is the efficient cause due to which the potentiality of the milk to produce curd is actualized. Sankhya’s theory of satkaryavada is also known as Parinamvada; in the process of creation of effect it is the cause itself that actually transform into effect. Advaita Vedanta darshana also accepts satkaryavada, but their theory is known as ‘Vivartavada’. According to Advaita Vedanta, the transformation of the cause into effect is merely an illusion, a Maya. The rope that appears / looks like a snake is not a snake; but it appears to be a snake. Similarly, the world does not originate from Brahman. It is only the Brahman which exists while the world only appears to exist. If, there was no such relation between potentiality and actuality then any effect could have been produced from any material cause. But, that doesn’t actually happen. If, somebody moves the hand in the air and shows us either kumkum or any precious thing we would say that it is just a trick. To believe that this is not a trick is a superstition. Effect cannot be produced without a material cause. 

Moreover there must be specific potentialities inherent in that material cause. The same truth is expressed in the proverb, ‘As you sow, so shall you reap’. If you want mangoes, then, it is of no use sowing seeds of sapota in the soil. This means that cause and effect are qualitatively not different, they are the latent and manifested states of one and the same thing. The effect is the implicit power in the cause in a non-manifested form and is manifested under appropriate circumstances. When, we switch on the tubelight the electric energy that exists in a non-manifested form in the lamp gets manifested in the form of light. This happens because it is already there. The bulb or tubelight which has lost its potentiality, does not lit even if we press the connected switch.

Asatkaryavada Asatkaryavada of Nyaya darshana presents a view opposite to Sankhya view. The effect does not exist prior to the process of change; that means it is non-existent in the cause. It does not exist in its material cause prior to its production. The Naiyayikas think that the effect is newly produced in the process of change and does not exist in the material cause prior to its coming into being. They have also presented their arguments to prove this. If the effect pre-exists in the material cause then there would be no need of efficient cause. Milk will change into curd automatically without culture and wood will change into a bat without the artisan. But, that never happens.

 through the cause and the effect are different. Their functions are also different. One does not have same kind of pleasure by observing the stone, that one obtains by observing a sculpture created by a sculptor. One cannot hit fours and sixes with a crooked piece of wood. Apart from this, it seems that various things can be made out of the same material cause. Many objects can be made out of wood. The properties, appearance and purpose of all these objects are different from eachother. Naiyayikas propound that there is no point in saying that all these effects pre-exist in the material cause. The existence of the effect gets initiated with the process of creation. Hence, this view is known as ‘Arambhavada’.