The relationship shared between a cause and its effect is a concept that has occupied the minds of philosophers for thousands of years. The study of this relationship, otherwise known as causality, has received particular attention from the many schools of Indian philosophy. One of the more contentious issues is whether or not an effect is present, or inherent, in its cause before its creation, appearance, or manifestation. The Samkhya philosophers, who answer this question in the affirmative, are a prime example of the wealth of thought in the area. This essay seeks to evaluate some of the arguments proposed by the Samkhya in support of the idea that an effect exists within its cause, making use of some of the challenges to this view offered by the Yoga, and Nyaya philosophers. It will be argued that the division of a cause and its effect into two separate entities, as posited by the Nyaya, is artificial, however the claim that the cause and the effect are one in the same ignores some basic evidential and practical refutations. The Yoga philosophers see causation not as a relation of one form to another, but rather as the relation of a form, such as a jar, to the matter; clay. It will be argued that rather than the jar existing within the clay, as the Samkhya maintain, the jar is a result of the application of a separate entity, known as ‘nimitta’ to the clay, which unleashes the potentiality of the clay. It is this potentiality which dictates what form the clay may take, and in this sense it may be said the potentiality of the jar, rather than the jar itself, exists within the clay.
In ‘Causality and its Application: Samkhya, Bauddha and Nyaya’, J.L. Shaw outlines five arguments offered by the Samkhya in favour of the notion that the effect exists, before its manifestation, within the cause. The first of these arguments is based on the idea that if the effect does not exist before its appearance, then it is unreal, and thus cannot be brought into...