The Law of Causality is one of the fundamental laws on which Science is predicated upon; to deny the law of causality is to attack science. Let us agree, with respect to causality, that every effect has at least one cause; or alternatively more than one/multiple causes. But the effect is real, not illusory, as Sankar would have us believe; were the effect illusory, we may as well shut down all scientific work since the pursuit of science would then become futile.
One of the terms Adi Sankar uses in his writings is vivarta-vada, by which is to be understood the denial of change and the denial of causality.
Two contesting theories regarding causality were existing around the time of Sankar. One was called arambha-vada (or asat-karya-vada) and was associated with the Nyaya-Vaisesika system. According to this, the effect was something genuinely new and not a mere manifestation of what was already contained in the cause. The curd for example was not in the milk; it was something new.
The other theory was called parinama-vada (or sat-karya-vada) and was associated with the Sankhya system. According to this, the effect could not be anything other than what was already contained in the cause: that which was potential in the cause became actual in the effect. But note that according to this theory, the effect is real and not illusory.
Sankar argues against both these theories, freely utilising the arguments of one against the other. He thus wants us to think that that on the one hand, the effect was something new, while on the other hand, it could not be anything new. In other words, the concept of causation was infected with an internal contradiction, and as such it was only an illusion, according to Sankar. This is the essence of Sankar's vivarta-vada or the doctrine of the illusory modification of the cause. The cause alone was real and what appeared as the effect was only an illusion.
But the necessity of such a view of causation was obvious for the Advaita philosophy. Admitting that Brahman or the self was the only reality, Adi Sankar was obliged to argue that its modification in the form of the world was only illusory.
The great prestige which Sankar's Vedanta came to enjoy in the later history of Indian philosophy proved to be a curse for Indian science. One of the foremost chemists of modern India, P.C. Ray, comments thus on Adi Sankar's negative and destructive influence on Indian Science while comparing Adi Sankar's irrational and unscientific philosophical views with the science oriented Vaisesika philosophy which was essentially the physics of ancient times and which included the conception of atomism (of course, given the times in which they lived, what the Vaisesikas have in mind is a primitive model of the atom):
(PC Ray, History of Hindu Chemistry, vol. 1, pg 195-6):
The Vedanta philosophy, as modified and expanded by Sankara, which teaches the unreality of the material world, is also to a large extent responsible for bringing the physical science into disrepute. Sankara is unsparing in his strictures on Kanada and his system. One or two extracts from Sankara's Commentary on the Vedanta Sutras, will make the point clear: [Observed Sankara:]
"It thus appears that the atomic doctrine is supported by very weak arguments only, is opposed to those scriptural passages which declare the Lord to be the general cause, and is not accepted by any of the authorities taking their stand on scripture, such as Manu and others. Hence, it is to be altogether disregarded by highminded men who have a regard for their own spiritual welfare."
And again [Observed Sankara]:
"The reasons on account of which the doctrine of the Vaisesikas cannot be accepted have been stated above. That doctrine may be called semi-destructive (or semi-nihilistic)."
Close
