Vada in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c8.s9.10

c8.s9.10

Dharmakīrti devotes a sizeable portion in the first chapter of his *Pramāṇavārtika* on refuting the concept of the Absolute. The logic that there is always a creator for a cause would lead to fallacies. If there is a pot, then its creator is a *kumbhakāra*. This would make the *kumbhakāra* a creator of *valmīka* (anthill) also. In this way all the *hetus* cited for proving the existence of God are fallacious. The logic proving one substance as the causality of an effect can be employed to prove the non-causality of the same substance for the same effect.⁵⁶ Further acceptance of an eternal God as the cause of the world leads to fallacy, because it is not possible to formulate an invariable concomitance, rendering the inference invalid. When it is said that God is the cause of the world, one will have to accept that God was not the cause of this world when it was not created, and He becomes the cause of the world at the time of creation. This implies a change in the nature of God again rendering Naiyāyika's position untenable.