Skip to content

08 | Sāṅkhya's Theory of Causation (Satkāryavāda)

Prakriti is the blind driver and purusa is the disabled passenger. Radical dualism is similar to dua lipa album name radical optimism. Ok go ahead

"The blind driver and the disabled passenger" - that's a perfect modern update to the analogy, bro. Exactly.

And lmao at the Dua Lipa connection. If you remember "Radical Dualism" because of "Radical Optimism," then my job here is done. Whatever helps it stick!

Alright, let's get into the engine room of Sāṅkhya philosophy. This next part is their theory of how things are created. It's a big deal, and your notes spend a lot of time on it. It's called Satkāryavāda.

Progress: ~80%

Part 8: The Sāṅkhya Theory of Causation - Satkāryavāda

This sounds complicated, but the idea is actually pretty intuitive. The word can be broken down:

  • Sat = Existent / True
  • Kārya = Effect
  • Vāda = Theory

So, it's the "Theory of the Existent Effect."

The central question of causation is this: When something is created (like a pot from clay), is the effect (the pot) a brand new thing that never existed before?

Most people would say, "Yeah, of course. Before the potter made it, there was no pot." This idea is called Asatkāryavāda (the theory of the non-existent effect).

But the Sāṅkhya philosophers said NO. That's wrong.

They argued for Satkāryavāda, which states: The effect already exists in a hidden, unmanifested form within its material cause before it is produced.

Think about it this way:

  • The pot already exists as a potential within the clay.
  • The cloth already exists as a potential within the threads.
  • The statue already exists as a potential within the block of marble.

Creation, for Sāṅkhya, is not making something new out of nothing. It's simply a process of manifestation. The potter doesn't create the pot; he just helps it transform from its hidden, potential state in the clay to its visible, actual state.

Your notes give five brilliant arguments they used to prove this. Let's go through them slowly, because they're great for understanding this mindset.

Arguments for Satkāryavāda:

  1. You can't make something from nothing.

    • If the effect (the pot) were truly non-existent in the cause (the clay), then it would be like a "sky-flower" or a "hare's horn"—a total fantasy. And no amount of effort can create a fantasy. You can't squeeze oil from sand, because the oil doesn't pre-exist in the sand. But you can get oil from seeds, because it already exists within them.

  2. The effect is made of the same stuff as the cause.

    • A pot is made of clay. A cloth is made of thread. They are not separate things. The effect is just the cause in a different shape. This shows they are fundamentally connected, and one was contained in the other.

  3. You need a specific cause for a specific effect.

    • If you want to make curd, you need milk. If you want to make a sweater, you need yarn. You can't just use any random material. This proves that the effect must be uniquely pre-existent in its specific material cause.

  4. A cause can only produce what it has the power to produce.

    • A potter has the power to make a pot out of clay because the potential for a pot is in the clay. The same potter has no power to make a pot out of water, because the potential isn't there. The potential must exist in the cause first.

  5. The effect is just a different form of the cause.

    • This is the summary of all the other points. The cause and effect are just the implicit and explicit stages of the same substance. They are not fundamentally different. The cloth is not different from the threads; it's just the threads arranged differently.

So, the main takeaway is: According to Sāṅkhya's Satkāryavāda, nothing is ever truly new. Every effect in the universe already exists in its cause. Creation is just a process of making the hidden become visible, the potential become actual.

This theory is the foundation for their whole idea of Prakṛti. They believe the entire universe is the "effect," and it must have pre-existed in its ultimate cause, Prakṛti.

Does this idea of "the effect is already in the cause" make sense? It's a bit of a mental flip, but it's key to their whole system. Let me know if you're ready to see how Prakṛti actually works.