Indian Philosophy v2.c24.s5.98

v2.c24.s5.98

Vācaspati subjects the Buddhist view to a severe scrutiny. The law of causality, as the Buddhist conceives it, will be satisfied if we trace the smoke on the occasion of fire to the agency of an invisible demon (piśāca). Nor is there any necessity why the same effect should have the same cause. If the cause is what precedes the effect, it is not simultaneous with it. From the perception of smoke we can infer, not the present but the past existence of fire. If two things are identical, then the perception of one means the perception of the other, and there is no need for inference. Vācaspati and Jayanta urge that the relation between the pine and the tree is not one of identity, since all trees are not pines.¹ The Buddhist does not tell us how his principles of causality and identity of essence are themselves derived. There are many cases of concomitance which have little to do with causality or identity. The Naiyāyika includes all reciprocal relations under vyāpti, and not merely those of causal successions and genus and species, but such others as "all horned animals have cloven hoofs."²