Karanvad - Book Summary | JainGPT

This document, "Karanvad" by Jitendra B. Shah, explores various theories of causation in ancient Indian philosophy, with a particular focus on the Jain perspective as presented in texts like the Dvadasharnayachakra. The book examines several prominent 'causal theories' (Karanavada) that attempt to explain the diversity and workings of the universe.

Here's a summary of the key causal theories discussed:

1. Kalavada (Time-ism):

Core Idea: Time is considered the ultimate cause of creation, sustenance, and destruction.
Evidence: Early mentions are found in the Atharvaveda, which attributes the origin of Earth, the sun's heat, and the functioning of all beings to time. The Mahabharata further emphasizes time as the basis for the joys and sorrows, life and death of all creatures.
Arguments: Time causes things to ripen, grow, and perish. Even when other causal factors (like ingredients for cooking) are present, timely occurrence is crucial for the process to begin. Time is seen as an extraordinary, even sole, cause.
Jain Perspective: The Tattvartha Adhigama Sutra defines time by its characteristics of change, transformation, action, and relative posteriority and anteriority. The Dvadasharnayachakra also highlights time's role in sequential and simultaneous events, and in the efficacy of human pursuits like dharma, artha, kama, moksha.
Critique (from Dvadasharnayachakra): If time is the sole cause, then the distinction between cause and effect, and general and particular, becomes impossible. If time's nature is its causality, it's akin to svabhavavada. Making time dependent on convention undermines its independent existence.

2. Svabhavavada (Naturalism/Essentialism):

Core Idea: The inherent nature or essence of a thing is its sole cause. Things come into being and cease to exist naturally.
Evidence: Found in Upanishads and texts like Buddha Charita and Mahabharata. The sharpness of thorns, the sweetness of sugarcane, and the bitterness of neem are cited as examples of natural qualities.
Arguments: The cause of diversity or similarity lies in the inherent nature of things. A mango seed will always produce a mango, and a jujube seed a jujube. Human effort cannot change this.
Jain Perspective: The Dvadasharnayachakra argues that an entity's existence (like a pot) is its inherent nature. Sequential processes like growth are also natural. Different seeds produce different plants despite similar environmental factors, demonstrating the role of inherent nature.
Critique (from Vishēshāvasyakabhāṣya): If nature is a distinct entity, it needs proof. If it's formless (amurta), it cannot be a cause. A formless cause cannot produce formful (murta) effects. If nature is causelessness, all things would arise simultaneously and without order. If such occurrences are "accidental," they wouldn't have a consistent form.
Critique (from Dvadasharnayachakra): If nature is the cause, why are certain materials suited for specific creations (e.g., clay for pots, not cloth)? Why is a particular form (like sharpness in thorns) or beauty (in peacocks) inherent and not something else? The argument is that specific natures lead to specific outcomes.
Further Jain Critique: The concept of bhāvavāda (discussed later) is presented as superior, as nature itself is a 'state of being' (bhāva).

3. Niyativada (Determinism/Fate-ism):

Core Idea: Events occur according to a predetermined order, fate, or destiny. No external cause or effort can alter this.
Evidence: Mentioned in the Shvetashvatara Upanishad, Tripitaka, and Jain Agamas. Philosophers like Goshala were known for this view.
Arguments: All occurrences in the world are predetermined. Beings are caught in a cycle of fate that they cannot change. The cycle itself drives beings. Moksha occurs automatically when the cycle ends. Goshala argued that purity and impurity are causeless, human effort is powerless, and everyone achieves liberation at a predetermined time.
Jain Perspective (within Dvadasharnayachakra): Every event happens with a fixed cause, in a fixed order, and at a fixed time. This view blends aspects of time, nature, and fate. The Dvadasharnayachakra establishes this theory with logical arguments, stating that without favorable destiny, even simple actions like cooking mung beans won't happen. It argues that if destiny were uniform, all outcomes would be uniform; if it were varied, it would explain diverse outcomes.
Support within Dvadasharnayachakra: Certainty in outcomes (e.g., a pot being made from clay and not cloth) is attributed to destiny. The selective mortality in accidents is also explained by destiny governing life and death. A verse states that what is meant to be obtained through destiny, good or bad, will be obtained.
Critique (within Dvadasharnayachakra): If destiny is the sole cause, why is timely occurrence (like seasons) not always observed, and why do events sometimes happen out of season? If nature is the cause, why do different stages of life (childhood, youth) not occur simultaneously? Thus, destiny is proposed as the underlying principle.
Critique of Niyativada (from later parts of the book): The Dvadasharnayachakra also refutes niyativada by pointing out inconsistencies when its arguments are extended to their logical conclusions.

4. Purushavada (Soul-ism/Self-ism):

Core Idea: The 'Purusha' (Supreme Being, Soul, or Brahman) is the sole cause of the universe's diversity and existence.
Evidence: Traced back to the "Purusha Sukta" of the Rigveda. The Upanishads also mention Purusha as the cause.
Arguments: The Rigvedic hymn describes a cosmic Purusha pervading everything, being the origin of all that was, is, and will be. This Purusha is the controller of the universe, and all existence is its manifestation. The Dvadasharnayachakra cites this, stating that Purusha is the sole cause and that all existence is identical to it. The wise and free Purusha is the creator.
Jain Perspective (within Dvadasharnayachakra): The text quotes Bhagavan Mahavir saying, "I am one, and I am many," to support the all-encompassing nature of the Purusha. It is argued that only the knowledgeable and free can be creators.
Arguments for Equating Purusha with other concepts: The Dvadasharnayachakra attempts to equate Purusha with Time (kāla), Nature (prakṛti), Destiny (niyati), and Nature (svabhāva) based on etymological interpretations and functional similarities. For example, "kalanat kalaḥ" (time is that which counts/knows) implies time is knowledge, and since Purusha is knowledge, time is Purusha. Similarly, prakṛti (that which expands) is equated with Purusha as it expands the world.
Critique (from Dvadasharnayachakra): If Purusha is knower and free, why does it experience misfortune? If misfortune is due to its 'attentive state' (pramatta), then its freedom is compromised, making it a dependent. If Purusha is dependent and yet considered the cause, it leads to a contradiction. The critique concludes that niyativada is superior to purushavada in this context, as the latter relies on the former for resolution.

5. Bhavavada (Existentialism/Realism):

Core Idea: Existence or being (bhāva) is the sole cause of creation. Nothing can arise from non-existence (abhāva).
Arguments: The question of whether creation arises from existence or non-existence is fundamental. Originating from non-existence is deemed impossible. Existence is the basis of all things. The concept of bhāvavāda is linked to satkāryavāda (the theory of pre-existent causality).
Jain Perspective (within Dvadasharnayachakra): "That from which something comes into being is bhāva." It emphasizes that existence is the root of all things. The diversity in the world is an apparent, not ultimate, difference within a single existent.
Critique of Bhavavada: If existence alone is the cause, why does clay have the potential for a pot and not a cloth? The argument that bhāva implies being-created (utpanna-dharma) means that destruction is not accounted for.

Overall Conclusion:

The book concludes that while these various causal theories (Time-ism, Naturalism, Determinism, Soul-ism, Existentialism) were prevalent in ancient Indian thought, no single theory can be considered the sole correct explanation. The Dvadasharnayachakra, in particular, engages in detailed discussions of these theories, establishing them and then critically refuting them, often highlighting the limitations and contradictions within each. The underlying theme is that attributing causality to any single factor leads to logical fallacies. The text suggests a more nuanced understanding where multiple factors might be at play, and the emphasis shifts between different schools of thought.