that the changes in the material world
involve the genuine transformation
(parinama) of one thing into another,
which can be explained by cause and
effect. The Advaita school upholds a
philosophical position known as
monism, which is the belief that a single
Ultimate Reality lies behind all things,
which are merely differing forms of that
reality. For the Advaitins, this single real-
ity is the formless, unqualified
Brahman. Advaitins explain the appear-
ance of difference and diversity in the
everyday world as an illusory rather
than a genuine transformation of
Brahman, a philosophical outlook
known as vivartavada. This illusory
transformation is caused by a quality of
the human mind, which leads to the
mental superimposition (adhyasa) of a
mistaken understanding in place of the
real one. For the Advaitins, as for all of
the other schools, the ultimate problem
is still avidya, or mistaken understand-
ing, which must be replaced by correct
understanding. Whereas all of the other
schools give some importance to
actions, the Advaitins believe that avidya
is the sole cause and its removal the sole
solution. For further information see
Karl H. Potter (ed.), Presuppositions of
India’s Philosophies, 1972.
Causal Models
In Indian philosophy, there are three
different models describing the relation-
ships between cause and effect:
satkaryavada, asatkaryavada, and
anekantavada. The first model,
satkaryavada, assumes that effects pre-
exist in their causes. Effects are thus
transformations (real or apparent) of
these causes. The classic example is the
transformation of milk to curds, butter,
and clarified butter. According to
satkaryavada’s proponents, each of
these effects was already present in the
cause and emerges from it through a
natural transformation of that cause.
The second model, asatkaryavada,
assumes that effects do not preexist
in their causes—they are completely
distinct. In the classic examples for this
model, one creates a clay pot by putting
together the two halves of the pot, or
one weaves a cloth from strands of
thread. According to asatkaryavada’s
proponents, with each of these acts, cer-
tain material and instrumental causes
create an entirely new object.
The third model, anekantavada (“the
view that things are not single”), seeks to
occupy the middle ground between the
other two models. Anekantavada stresses
the importance of one’s perspective and
the way it can color a judgment. In view-
ing the transformation of milk to curds,
butter, and clarified butter, an anekan-
tavada proponent would claim that
these substances were contained in the
causes (supporting the satkaryavada
notion) but that the qualities of these
substances were newly created each
time (supporting the asatkaryavada
notion). Thus causes and effects are
simultaneously both the same and dif-
ferent, depending on the way one looks
at them.
All of these philosophical schools
believe that if one understands the
causal process correctly and can manip-
ulate it through one’s conscious actions,
it is possible to gain final liberation of
the soul (moksha). Each of these causal
models thus has profound implications
on religious life. Satkaryavada believes
that causal relations are strong, but they
may be so strong that humans cannot
affect the causal chain; the asatkaryavada
believes that causal relations are weak,
with the danger that human action is
too unreliable to bring about a desired
effect; anekantavada purports to find a
middle ground but can be construed as
inconsistent or self-contradictory. For
further information see Karl H. Potter
(ed.), Presuppositions of India’s
Philosophies, 1972.Cauvery
Southern Indian river rising at the base
of the western ghats in the state of
Karnataka, then flowing east through
the state of Tamil Nadubefore enteringCauvery