See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/388270034

a comparative analysis of indian & western theories of causation

Article in Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research · January 2025

CITATIONS READS

0 162

2 authors, including:

Manoranjan Bisoi
Rama Devi Women's University Bhuaneswar
4 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Manoranjan Bisoi on 22 January 2025.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF INDIAN

Mr. Manoranjan Bisoi

Abstract
This paper undertakes a comparative analysis of the theories of causation articulated by key Indian and
Western philosophers. The concept of causation has been a central focus in both Indian and Western
philosophical traditions, it is the most popular and essential concept for both Indian and Western
philosophers they interpret it in different ways. Very ancient Indian tradition (Nyāya, Sāmkhya, Buddha,
Mimāṁsā etc.) discovery pot and clay have some relation which we do not perceive directly (sense
perception) but this relation may possible indirectly (logical argument). Similarly, western philosophers
they also established the relation between cause and effect in indirectly (logical argument). In Western
philosophy, causation is traditionally explored through metaphysical frameworks, with significant
contributions from Philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, J.S. Mill, John Locke, George Berkeley, David
Hume, Immanuel Kant etc. they all are believe cause and effect have a relation.
The study examines how Indian thinkers conceptualise causality in relation to cosmic order, spiritual
liberation, and ethical actions, contrasting these views with Western ideas that typically emphasise
mechanistic causality. This paper’s aims to foster a deeper understanding of how different philosophical
traditions approach the fundamental question of why things happen and how causes and effects are related.

Keywords: Upadanakārana, Nimittakārana, Svabhāvavāda, Parinamavāda, svabhābavāda,

Research Methodology: Qualitative, Interpretative, Analytical and Critical.

JETIR2501422 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org e164
© 2025 JETIR January 2025, Volume 12, Issue 1 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

Introduction
There are several schools in Indian Philosophy, but they do not form a historical or chronological
order. They developed through mutual criticisms by attempting to be self-consistent and comprehensive.
In the history of Western philosophy, the various schools have evolved one after the other in a
chronological order. One school of thought reigns supreme for some time and then replaced by a new
school. But in the case of Indian Philosophy, different philosophical schools are found to co-exist without
trying to eclipse the others. The cause of this peculiar phenomenon is to be found in the intimate relation
between philosophy and life. Philosophy, in India, is not a mere theoretical knowledge. It is a way of life.
The followers of particular school of philosophy in India live their lives according to that philosophy and
hand down their faiths to the posterior generation. In this way, the views of each school of Indian thought
survived, after the passing away of the leader, as an active way of life.

Theory of causation is very popular and scientific theory in both philosophical world and scientific
world. The word ‘causation’ as also refers to causality. It means the relation between an first event (cause)
and a second event (effect), where the first event is understood to be responsible for the second one. In
common uses of causation are also relation between a set of factors (causes) and phenomena (the effect).
Basically, cause and effects are typically related to changes events or processes. If we discuss the theory
of causation philosophically, in the basis of philosophical ideas, which had been given by many
philosophers, such as Indian Philosophers and Western Philosophers. In this Paper I have discusses the
theory of causation which had already presented by many philosophers in western philosophical world. I
will discuss some important historical movements in evolution of the concept of cause which shows the
tensions in historical development in western. I will focus my attention upon the conception of cause in
successively which had been discussed, that is ancient Greek philosophy (Aristotle and stoics), the Middle
Ages (Aquinas), and the Modern period (Descartes, Hobbes, Leibnitz, Spinoza, Locke, Berkeley, Hume,
Newton, Kant and Mill).
Views on Ancient Greek Philosophers
The concept of causation has a very popular theory which has discussed by some ancient Greek
philosophers. But, when study deeply and in detailed all ancient Greek world I have not get any specific
relations which has certainly established cause and its effect, but majority ancient Greek philosophers
believe the causality except Plato and Aristotle. In Greek world Plato and Aristotle clearly emphasize and
also established the causality. I Try to introduce Pre-Socrates philosophers. The concept of causation has
emerged in Pre-Socrates philosophy that is “every event must have a cause.”

If we look in ancient period that is Pre-Greek or pre- Socrates period, then we get they are the first
philosophers in western philosophical world who advocate the fundamental principles of the universe,
what is the cause of this universe? In this sense there are different schools comes they are - Ionians,
Pythagorean, Eleatic etc. Except Aristotle, all the predecessors of his time they do not accept four causes

JETIR2501422 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org e165
© 2025 JETIR January 2025, Volume 12, Issue 1 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

(Material, efficient, Formal, Final) simultaneously. Basically, Ionians are emphasized on material cause.
Thales, Anaximenes and Anaximander all are belong to Ionians’ school. They are the materialist, because
they focus on matter. According to Thales, “water is the fundamental principle of this universe".
Regarding to this principle there is no any authentic proof, because there is no any works which was
written by Thales, whatever we know this is possible only through Aristotle. So, water is the fundamental
principle it is proof by two propositions. “One is all things comes from water and all things return into
water and second one is the earth is a flat disc which floats upon water.” According to the first principle,
Thales stated that 'water’ is the primal matter and everything in this universe is the modification of the
water. Thales choose water is the fundamental principle, because he may be observing that the nutriment
of all things is moist, wet etc. that is why according to him, water is the single matter of this multiple city
world. Ionians are materialist, because from the beginning they all are raised one question, that is the
fundamental Reality of universe and their answers is the nature of that Reality in a sensuous object that is
water and other members of this schools their views also different. Those who emphasis ‘matter’ and
matter as the Ultimate, they sometimes called ‘Hylicists’. This word is derived from ‘Greek’ word ‘hule’
which means matter. This type of explanation about world is cosmological. Therefore, they are
cosmogonist.
After Thales, Anaximander comes and he also agrees that the Ultimate things is material but he didn’t
regard that is water. According to Anaximander, the Ultimate principle is not particular rather it is
formless, indefinite and that principle is featureless. He names it something ‘boundless’. It is boundless,
because it is indeterminate in quality. Similarly, for Anaximenes, air as first principle. Anaximenes like
Anaximander believes this principle pervades, stretches illimitably through space. Anaximenes stated that
air has motion which is inherent in it and through this motion brought about the development of the
universe from air and this is happen in two opposite processes. One is Rarefaction and another one is
Condensation. “Rarefaction is growing hot and Condensation is growing cold. Through rarefaction air
becomes fire, then fire becomes stars. And by the condensation air becomes clouds, by the degrees of
condensation process air becomes water, earth and rocks. So, according to him, “earth to be a flat disc
floating upon air”. By the help of air, we can able to breath which is the principle of life. Therefore,
Anaximenes holds that air is the fundamental principle or cause of the universe. They explain only
material cause and the avoid all other causes which is Aristotle advocates. Similarly, Heraclitus considered
as fire is the Ultimate, Empedocles accordingly four elements is the cause. Anaxagoras described an
indefinite number of matters. Pythagoras regarded as the number theory. He explains the whole by the
help of numbers. So, pre-Socratic philosophers more or less focus on material cause but Aristotle thinks
that material cause alone does not produce the effect that’s why motion is necessary and this motion will
be efficient cause. Because clay itself do not produce pot and threads itself do not produced cloth, wood
do not have motion to produced bad or other furniture. But Eleatic denied efficient cause Parmenides
somehow agrees about efficient cause. So, Empedocles named moving force as efficient cause.
Anaxagoras used named as Nous. Pythagoras recognized formal cause, because he said numbers are

JETIR2501422 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org e166
© 2025 JETIR January 2025, Volume 12, Issue 1 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

formal. The number is the Ultimate stuff of the Universe. But Plato formulates both formal cause and
material cause out of the four causes. Plato did not contain efficient cause in his philosophy.
Probably, Plato who first stated the principle of causality; “everything becomes some causes, for
nothing can come without cause (Timaeus28a).” All the majority of pre-Socrates theory of causality
emerged with in platonic idea. Plato expresses in his Phaedo the causal relation that the ideas are the cause
of the particular. It means that because of the ideas the particular things are known. For example, the idea
of the beauty is the cause of the beautiful things. According to Plato how we know a large person, that is
only possible because of largeness, which meant that Universals are exist, therefore, particulars are exist.
Plato also admits that causality is almost identity. Every effect is deduced from their respective cause.
Plato’s causal relation is not a physical level. In this context, some critics are there who arise a question,
“Are the Plato theory of ideas are material or efficient or formal or final cause?” Aristotelian believed
that, Plato made ideas as efficient cause. But Plato was criticized by Aristotelian that ideas cannot be an
efficient cause, because ideas are immutable and immutable cannot be a mutable. And ideas are not
formal, because ideas are transcendental and forms are immanent. In this way material cause cannot be
the ideas. And lastly, Aristotle refuses final cause is also not the ideas. According to Plato particulars are
the bundle of the Universal. From above discussion we concluded that Plato’s theory of ideas is not the
under of Aristotle’s four causes. Plato believes that only the ideas are real and all other particular object,
which is changeable are not ultimately real, it is unreal, only ideas are real. Plato’s theory of ideas we
called as Universal. The difference between Plato and Aristotle is that Plato stated that Universal are the
cause of particular but Aristotle focus on the particulars. According to Plato, because of cowness, cow
exists, because of manness, men exist but according to Aristotle because of particular we know Universals.
Because of cow, we know cowness. In Platonic view, universals are the cause and particulars or
changeable objects are the effect.
Theory of causation was given by Aristotle who was a disciple of Plato and the Teacher of
Alexander. According to theory of causation everything has a cause. That means anything presented
Universe that has a cause. As per Aristotle there are four causes behind everything. Aristotle theory of
causation is not scientific but metaphysical, because metaphysical problem is the most important for
philosophers. Both Indian and Western side raise this type of questions i.e., what is the nature of the world
or what is the root cause of the world? This question is common for all philosophers, and this was also
the problem of Aristotle. Not only Aristotle but his predecessors and also modern philosophers, they
explain the nature of the world in their point of view. Before Aristotle, Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes,
etc. mostly focus on the material cause. But, according to Aristotle, there are four causes i., e. material
cause, efficient cause, formal cause and final cause. For Aristotle, the word “material “cause is not the
physical matter like soil, water etc., this is something very subtlest. That is why his causation is called
metaphysical. According to Aristotle, the four kinds of cause do act simultaneously, not one by one.
Aristotle’s philosophical explanation of the world reduced from the combination of four kinds of causes.
For example, in making a pot there is the soil which may be called material cause, who produced the pot
or there is the skill, instruments through which pot produced, it called as efficient cause, the shape, size

JETIR2501422 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org e167
© 2025 JETIR January 2025, Volume 12, Issue 1 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

of the pot is called formal cause. And finally, the purpose for which the pot is made is called final cause.
Further, Aristotle, all these four kinds of causes are reduced in to two, one is form and another is matter.
The efficient, formal and final causes are reduced to “form” and material cause into “matter”. According
to Aristotle, formal and final causes are really identical. The above two things (Form and matter) can
explain all the movement of the world. “Matter” is not like that what we ordinarily think. Aristotle goes
to depth and said it has neither shape, size, quality nor heavy, light, color. It is neither hard nor smooth,
but it is moulded into physical matter by the form. But it has no definite form. In Aristotle’s thought it is
primal matter. By the form it gives way to all things, forms do not exist independently. It means that both
form and matter are depended on each other. Matter has potentiality to become anything. So, that Aristotle
calls it “potentiality”. Matter has capacity to produce the actuality and it is possible that only the principle
of actualization that is “form”. So, form is the actuality and matter are the potentiality. For example,
“soil” it has the capacity of becoming the various things, such as, pot, bricks etc. but it itself is nothing.
Potentiality and actuality work simultaneously, we cannot separate them in actual but it may be
distinguished in our thought. Matter is formless and form is matterless. According to Aristotle the
matterless form is Actuspurus which is in the top of the hierarchical order. It has no potentiality rather, it
has actuality. This Actuspurus called by Aristotle “God”. Aristotle also called it prime mover, because He
remains unmoved but He moves everything. On the other hand, formless matter which is called primordial
matter stands at the bottom of the hierarchical order which has pure potentiality. It is something which is
became anything under the influence of unmoved mover. In Aristotle’s view form is like universal, which
Plato called as “idea”. But Aristotle stated without particulars universal cannot exist. For example, a green
leaf exists, that is why we know greenness, and cow exists, so that we know cowness.
Views on Modern Western Philosophers
Francis Bacon is regarded as the father of modern philosophy. He is an empiricist philosopher and
also called as father of empiricism. He is a scientific enquirer and he believes in observation and
experiment. If we deeply observe the Bacon’s philosophy, we find two ideas, first one, he wanted to
understand nature by discovering its laws and last one he wanted to understand nature and man for the
sake of securing practical result.1 That is why he regarded as father of Pragmatism. Before Bacon specially
Aristotle they were or their method is purely deductive, or formal in nature. They based on authority and
untested knowledge. Therefore, Bacon opposed to the Aristotle’s syllogism. According to Bacon,
deductive method fails to give new knowledge. Bacon believes that truth comes after investigation. So,
after opposed to syllogism, he gave the method of investigation. Bacon knew that the new method can
give us new knowledge and it is based on experience of facts. Both experimentation and observation lead
to understanding. But here is the problem arises that, Bacon’s previous philosophers was based on
untested knowledge, their belief was not verifiable, that is why their mind becomes full of prejudice, blind
belief and in Bacon’s language it is called “Idola”. It meant to say that before going to the new method,
first we all are free from biasness, prejudice etc. this was the problem of Bacon. According to Bacon, first

1
Masih Y., 1947, A Critical History of Western Philosophy, Motilal Banarasidass: Delhi, p.193
JETIR2501422 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org e168
© 2025 JETIR January 2025, Volume 12, Issue 1 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

of all we release our mind all types of blind-belief or untested knowledge, then we can get tested
knowledge through his method. His method is known as Inductive method. Because, it is a systematic
process and specific to general is its nature. Through Inductive method Bacon discovered the laws of
nature or the forms of things, which was the first idea of him. Then here the questions arise what is forms?
Bacon did not clear what forms mean. But Bacon says forms do not mean shape, size etc. It is something
which we can say the essence of thing. In Haffoding language, it is a hidden essence.2 According to Bacon,
it may be generative nature of things.3 It is not like Plato’s idea; it is a law, through which the individual
bodies act.4 This form is the cause of active nature of things; it is eternal which determines its particular
qualities. Bacon calls it essential property. It is like an atom but not exactly like that. Form is an
imperceptible. To discover the forms Bacon mention there are three ways. These are Tabula presentiae,
Tabula absentiae and the Tabula Gradum, which is correspond to the Mill’s three out of the five
experimental method, that is method of agreement, Mill’s joint method and the method of concomitance
variation in respectively. In case of Tabula presentiae, first we should collect the instances and find the
common one by given instances, which is the common factor, this common factor is the cause, this is the
affirmative technique which find relation between cause and effect according to Mill. Then, in case of
Tabula absentiae in all the instances which is the common factor is absent. The last one is the comparison
in which we collect the instances, for example, the heat in a candle or in sunlight or in gas, then the degrees
of heat are increases or decreases. Finally, Bacon concluded that by the method of induction we discovered
the forms. And the forms are the only cause, through which others bodies move or act.
Jhon Stuart Mill is an English Philosopher or Logician. His causal relation is based on his method.
He wanted to establish the causal relation between two events (cause and effect), that is why he advocated
of five ways. These five ways are called Mill’s experimental method. The aim of scientific induction is
establishment of general real proposition, which is based on the causal relation. Some logicians, who have
suggested certain method to determine the causal relation (cause and effect). There are several methos
which are given by Mill to established causal connection by his experimental methods. It is a fundamental
maxim that events are happen under certain condition. There are two types of conditions; these are
necessary and sufficient condition. A necessary condition for the occurrence of a specified event is a
circumstance in whose absence the event cannot occur.5 For example, the present of oxygen is the
necessary condition for burning a candle. If it is not, then the absence of oxygen the burning candle cannot
occur. Similarly, we take another example, if we feel hungry, then food is the necessary condition for
avoiding hungriness. Another condition is sufficient condition for which the occurrence of an event is a
circumstance in whose presence the event must occur.6 For example, burning candle oxygen must exist,
it is a necessary condition, but burning a candle that range of temperature in the presence of oxygen is a
sufficient condition. Like, food is the necessary condition but a little amount of food can avoid the hunger,

2
Ibid, p.195
3
Ibid
4
Pati R.K, 2016, History of Modern European philosophy, A.K. Mishra: Mumbai, p.16
5
Copi.Irving M. Cohen Carl,1998, Introduction to Logic.p.496
6
Ibid, p.497
JETIR2501422 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org e169
© 2025 JETIR January 2025, Volume 12, Issue 1 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

it is the sufficient condition. So, a causal relation fulfils these two types of condition. But necessary
condition plays an important role in between two events. Because, it helps to eliminate some undesirable
phenomena, and find out what is necessary to its existence. For example, a physician searches the cause
of malaria fever, suddenly, he found Anopheles Mosquito is the cause and he eliminate other conditions,
which he takes previously.
According to Mill, “every phenomenon which has a beginning must have a cause”. 7 According to
Mill, theory of causation is the formal ground of scientific Induction.8 Mill and Bain formulate the law of
causation as ‘the same cause produces the same effect always. 9
The cause also used in the sense of sufficient condition, in which not to eliminate something
undesirable. Casual relation is not a logical or a priori rather, it is empirical or a posteriori through
experience. According to Mill, there are three principles are there, which is help to five methods for
establishing causal relation. This elimination of principle comes to reason is that, cause always precedes
the event, but out of the so many phenomena which one the cause is difficult to find. That is why we need
three eliminations of principle. Through these principles which one is irrelevant we can easily find out,
and ultimately, we can discover the cause. According to Mill, the cause is qualitatively, invariable
unconditional, immediate antecedent and quantitatively, cause is equal to effect. In this elimination of
principles correspond to the five experimental methods. First principle corresponds to the first method
that is method of agreement and second principle into the second method that is method of difference.
And the third principle corresponds to the method of concomitant variation. But the joint method is a
modification of both first and second principle. Last method, that is method of residues correspond to the
second principle. The method of agreement found relevance circumstances and it helps of eliminates
irrelevant circumstances. J. S. Mill defines a cause “as the sum total of positive conditions and negative
conditions taken together”-the positive conditions being present and the negative condition being absent”.
10

David Hume is an Empiricist, that’s why his view is that, all knowledge is derived from experience.
According to Hume, we never apprehend the causal relation between cause and effect. Because he
believes all knowledge is based on experience and we never know causal relation through sense
experience. We experience only object or which is already produced or a mere succession. Hume also like
other philosophers stated that cause is an invariable antecedent of an effect. According to David Hume
causality is not objective but subjective idea, because it is the experience of habitual conjunctions. For
example, we experience in the past that smoke with fire and also in the present that is wherever there is
smoke, there is fire but it not necessary that wherever there is fire, there is smoke. The next important
point is that causality is not efficiency, because cause doesn’t produce effect and production is never
11
perceived, according to Hume. It is subjective, that is why there is no necessary connection between

7
Durzie.N, Mohanty.N, 2018, Text book of Logic -1, Pitambara Misra, Balubazar: Cuttack, p.110
8
Ibid, p.110
9
Ibid
10
Sinha J.N, 2020, Introduction to Philosophy, new central book agency: Kolkata, p.106
11
Ibid
JETIR2501422 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org e170
© 2025 JETIR January 2025, Volume 12, Issue 1 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

them (cause and effect). So, what we experience is real, and what we do not experience is unreal.
According to Hume both cause and effect are not identical but separate. They are the individual. They
have no any relation. Hume causation is completely different from others. Hume has not denied causality
itself but he denies certain theories or principles which associated with causality. These theories are: one
is, “causal necessity is a logical necessity”. For example, black clouds and rain. Hume thought that they
are no any logical connection, because indicator of rain, that is why he denies logical relation but only
psychological relation. Second one, he denies there is a power in cause through which effect generate.
This one is the similar to the Asatkāryavāda. According to Hume, there is no causal force or power, which
produces an effect, because it never perceived. A cause is an invariable antecedent and an effect is no
necessary connection between cause and effect. According to Hume, causality ultimately is nothing but a
belief and necessity involves in it is a psychological necessity rather than logical necessity. Thus, Hume
redefines causality as, causal relation means that A is followed by B in such manner that whenever
anything like A occurs the mind is lead to the thought of the other that is B.” Hume concluded that it is
reality just the constant conjunction of A and B that we take for causation. Thus, causality is a
phenomenon in which the occurrence of cause produces in our mind and expectation that effect will also
occur. In his Treatise of Human nature 1739 proposed that, there must be three conditions for causality:
a) Contiguity in space and time of cause and effect.
b) Causality occurs before effect.
c) There is a necessary connection of cause and effect.
Now, Hume there was a problem, there is no problem in the first two conditions but problem is last one
that is necessary connection between cause and effect. According to Hume, causality does not occur in
reality. It is mental construction due to the repeated and constant conjunction between the events we call
cause and that we call effect. For Hume induction does not guarantee certain knowledge. Hume does not
propose to abandon induction, but to give up the goal of achieving certain, necessary knowledge. For
Hume, causal link is not a-posteriori, because we do not experience.
Like, Hume Kant also stated that causality is real only within the scope of experience. It can be known
only phenomena not in noumena, because according to Kant, noumena unknown and unknowable, it is
things is a-priori. So, here we will see there is some difference arises between Kant and Hume. According
to Hume, causality is a-posteriori but Kant stated that it is a-priori. But both are believing that it is
subjective and we know only experience. So, we concluded that Kant believes subjective a-priori
category. That is why according him “All changes, say Kant take place according to the causal connection
of cause and effect”.12 Causality can be applied in the phenomena world, because we can experience only
this world. According to Kant, it (causality) is not accidental but necessary connection between them.
Kant stated that causality is an abstract concept which Hume supposed. Critique of Human reason in 1781
like, Hume, causality is in the mind. But Hume, causality is an innate a-priori category (a schema), which
allows us to perceive events happening one after the other. According to Kant, causality is Universal and

12
Ibid
JETIR2501422 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org e171
© 2025 JETIR January 2025, Volume 12, Issue 1 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

necessary relation. For example, get sensation of fire and heat, but heat not already contained into fire.
Fire and heat spaced and timed. Among twelve moulds, one mould for causality which a- priori, innate.
So, it is necessary and invariable also.
A Comparative Study Between Indian and Western
If we compared the Indian with western theory of causation, then we find out that the Indian thinkers
stress on Material cause and western thinkers basically focus on the efficient cause. They (western)
neglected material cause. But Indian thinker does not neglect the efficient cause, they mostly accept the
Nimittakārana or Efficient cause but their main focus on the material cause, that means the primal matter,
from which the effect arises and this was possible only through the activity of the agent, that is efficient
cause. So, Indian tradition whenever accept the material cause, at that moment they also accept efficient
cause. Although, Indian thinkers believe material cause, but the nature of material cause differs from one
tradition from another tradition. Here, the most important point is that in Indian thought of material cause
is not passive, rather it is active. For example, the prakriti of the Sāṁkhya. The whole universe is the
parināma of prakriti which is active body.
Now, it is time to compared the western thinkers with Indian thinkers. First, we will see the famous
materialist Philosopher of Indian tradition, that is Chārvak. Chārvak Philosophy is known as materialism
system, because according to him the matter is the only reality. Chārvak in his epistemology, explained
that perception is the only source of valid knowledge. And what will be perceive that is the real
knowledge. In this process this system rejected inference and testimony as a reliable knowledge. Because
inference do not give us always valid knowledge. It is like leap in the dark. And inference is based upon
other source of knowledge i.e., perception, which is reliable according to Cārvāk. This system rejected
any Universal relation. Because, through perception we do not perceive universal relation. That is why it
rejected invariable concomitance relation which is the nerve system of inference. Here, Chārvak also
logically argue that logic is divided into two-deductive inference and inductive inference. First of all,
Chārvak rejected the distinction between deductive and inductive inference. And then reject inference is
an unreliable source of knowledge, which do not provide any validity of knowledge. According to Cārvāk,
deductive inference faces the fallacy of petitio principii or another name is circular demonstrando. For
example, all men are mortal, Ram is a man, therefore Ram is mortal. Here the conclusion is already
contained in the premises. Second thing is when we say “All men are mortal” here ‘all’ means past, present
and future. For Chārvak we experience only past or present but future is uncertain and we couldn’t
experience it. So, in this sense he rejects deductive inference. Likewise, there is big problem of inductive
inference, that is particular to universal. For example, Mr. X is mortal, Mr. Y is mortal, Mr. Z is mortal;
therefore, all men are mortal. Here, it is the problem that, we cannot say our future is like the past and
present. Because, X, Y, Z is reliable but not all men. We can perceive individual but not general. The
metaphysics of Chārvak philosophy is completely based on Epistemology. We can say the metaphysics
is the consequence of epistemology. According to materialism, matter is the only reality. So, in this sense
Chārvak is also materialist, that’s why he believes matter is ultimate. According to Chārvāk, there are
four elements which is called ‘matter’. These four elements are the sole cause of the material world, that
JETIR2501422 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org e172
© 2025 JETIR January 2025, Volume 12, Issue 1 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

is animate or inanimate. These are -earth, water, air and fire. He rejects ether, because we cannot perceive
it but only inferred. But here one questions arises, how these four elements are combined? Answer is
Chārvak as a naturalist, this is why he said that by nature or svabhāva they are automatically combined to
each other in proper order. When they are combined in way, then it became a material body or world. It
means, these elements are material cause or efficient cause also. But Chārvak denied the cause-effect
relation. Because through perception we cannot able to perceive it. Cause-effect relation is like invariable
-concomitance relation or vyāpti which is the universal. So, we concluded that the causation of Chārvak
philosophy is Svabhāvavāda or yadr̥cchāvāda.
The famous empiricist philosopher David Hume’s argument against causation as a ‘necessary
connection’. Basically, Hume not only denies causation as a necessary relation, but those who claim that,
like, rationalist conceptions of causation that involve necessary connection, he also argues them.
According to Hume, there are two categories of all the objects of human reasoning, one is ‘relation to the
ideas’ and another one is ‘matters of fact’. The former deals with analytic or a -priori and the later deals
with synthetic or a -posteriori. The first one is the mere operation of thought and it does not depend any
external agency, that means it is independent of the existent world. And the second one depends on sense
impression and it is about the world. But here one questions arises how we know the idea of causal
relation. So, in this case Hume said that it is know either “the relation to the ideas” or “the matters of
fact”. But in another sense Hume’s answer only the “matters of fact”. And why not the notion of causal
relation is based on ideas, in this context Hume gives several arguments. Hume suggests to us that,
according to a -priori reasoning, all object or we can say cause it appears to the mind and independent of
experience. So, it can never be shows that there is the inseparable relation between cause and effect. That
is why according to David Hume causation can be establish only a-posteriori or synthetic not in a-priori.
In this sense, according to Hume, rationalists fail to prove idea of power or necessary connection. For
Hume’s language, one event followed another event, but we never seen necktie between them. They
appear conjoined but not connected.13 Till, Hume does not draw any conclusion related to causal relation,
he only tries to figure out that the using of causal connection. If we deeply study to Hume’s philosophy,
then we find out that causal-talk will be meaning less that already discussed in the above of this chapter.
Still, it will be discussed little more. Causation is the constant conjunction of two events what we called
cause and effect. Our mind always expects that one event will follow to another. That is why we think
that there is some relation or connection between them. This is the action of the mind or we can say just
a custom, habit or feeling. This type of feeling provides the content for the idea of causation.14 According
to Hume, knowledge depends on matters of fact and the idea of cause is to be true and real and it can be
traced by some impressions. The idea of cause is derived from the relations among objects.15 A things or
objects to be regarded as cause and effect, when it is contiguous like, water and cool, fire and heat, food
and nourishment etc. and another thing is cause always regarded as prior of the effect, it means cause is

13
Anderson Joshua, 2019, Hume, Causation and Counterfactuals, p.4
14
Ibid
15
Masih Y., 2017, A Critical History of Western Philosophy, Motilal Banarasidass: Delhi, p. 322
JETIR2501422 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org e173
© 2025 JETIR January 2025, Volume 12, Issue 1 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

antecedent and effect is consequent, this is another type of relation. 16 And the element of power or
necessary connection it is the most important element in causation. But Hume point out that we never
perceive the relation of necessary connection. For example, “one billiard ball strikes the other and the
other moves”, but we never perceive any power between them which one passing to the other.17 According
Hume, after several repetition of similar instances our mind is carried by habit, custom, belief etc. It is
impression of previous experience, that’s why mind expect one event to another.
Lastly, we concluded that for Hume causation is based on two-one is philosophical analysis and
another is psychological analysis. In case of philosophical analysis causation found in two events or
objects, contiguous, succession and constant conjunction. It creates a mental habit of expectation.
Similarly, in case of psychological analysis causation is the imagination, the product of resemblance and
this relation based on associative inference. It means both (Chārvakand Hume) denied the necessary
connection between cause and effect. They both admit that, causality is the habit of mind. Their view is
that we cannot perceive the relation of causality, if we could not perceive then how can accept the causal
relation? That is why their theory name is the denial of causation. In this sense Cārvāka view name is
Svabhāvavāda and Ydr̥cchāvāda.
Now, we will compare Sāṁkhya satkāryavāda and Aristotle’s theory of causation. Basically,
Aristotle’s matter and form or potentiality or actuality. Not only Samkhya but also Yoga, both are allied
or samānatantra system and that is why both believe sat-kāryavāda. Their view is same, but difference
is only in the Yoga philosophy is very practical and Samkhya is theoretical. Yoga is theistic or Svesvara
Sāṁkhya and Sāṁkhya is atheistic or Nirisvara Sāṁkhya, there is no room for God. We know that
Sāṁkhya causation is Satkāryavāda. It means before the causal process the effect is already present in the
potential or latent form. In the opposite view of Asatkāryavāda, before the causal process the effect is
absence in the cause, it completely a new entity which was already discussed. For Sāṁkhya, effect is the
essentially same as material cause, but changed only in its form. According to Sāṁkhya, cause has a
potentiality to produce an effect. To prove the Sāṁkhya satkāryavāda Īsvarakrishna gives argument in
his Sāṁkhya-kārika. That is Asadkaranad, Upadānagrahanat, Sarva-sambavābhāvat, saktasyasakya-
karanāt, kārana-bhāvat, satkāryaṁ. These five-argument discussed in chapter one, that’s why there is no
need to explain again. It has two forms to understand the different conception of Reality. Those who
believe that by the causal process change actually happen and cause actually takes the shape of effect, it
is the one type of Satkāryavāda, it is called Parināmavāda or Vivartavāda which is advocated by
Sāṁkhya-Yoga and Rāmānuja. It means that the whole universe is pre-exist in the latent or unmanifested
in the potential cause and that cause is prakriti. Prakriti is trigunātmikā the combination of Satva, Rajas
and Tamas. When prakriti is transform into the world at that moment, the shape, size, form is changed
but their essence is same, that is Satva, Rajas and Tamas. In this world each object may be differ from
each other but they are essentially same, because the trigunātmikā prakriti transform or Parināma into
the universe and the same gunas present in all. Each and every object have Satva, Rajas and Tamas we

16
Ibid
17
Ibid
JETIR2501422 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org e174
© 2025 JETIR January 2025, Volume 12, Issue 1 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

cannot perceive it but it will only be inferred by the pleasure, pain and indifference which is derive from
three gunas. And this change will be occurred in two processes. One is homogeneous (Svarupa lakśana)
and another is heterogeneous (Virūpa lakśana). In homogeneous process, the creation is not possible,
because in this stage the three gunas remain own place that means equilibrium stage. This is why
dissolution is happened. But when these gunas mixed with each other or we can say when disturbance of
equilibrium stage or when one guna predominate with another, then the creation will be possible otherwise
not. So, in this process the world is create and destroyed. According to Sāṁkhya, although in the time of
creation the newer and newer form arises, yet they are identical, it means both cause and effect are
identical. So, Sāṁkhya parināma is prakriti-parināmavādin. Similarly, Rāmānuja’s parināma. Because,
according to him the world is the Parināma of Brahman. Brahman itself transform into universe.
According to Rāmānuja, the whole universe is pre-existed in the Ultimate Reality “Brahman”. So,
Brahman is both material cause and efficient cause. Therefore, Parināmavāda is also two types Brahma-
Parināmavāda and Prakriti-Parināmavāda. So, it was the one kind of Satkāryavāda. Now, we see another
kind of Satkāryavāda, those who believe that this transformation is unreal or unreal appearance, they are
Vivartavādins. According to them, the ultimate Reality is unchanging and all types of changes is only
apparent or illusory. This view advocated by Sankarāchārya. Sankarāchārya stated that effect is unreal
but cause is real. This Jagat is mithyā only Brahman is Sat. So, this theory name is Satkāranavāda. Here,
unreal does not mean that non-existent, rather it is existed but not in the permanence sense. It means that
appearance is unreal. For example, in the case of rope-snake, the snake is only appearing instead of rope
but that rope itself is not snake.
According to Sāṁkhya, not only prakriti but both purusa and prakriti play their role to construction
of the world. Because without prakriti purusa is not work and without purusa prakriti is not work like a
blindman and lame man. They both serve their purpose to help each other. Similarly, the development of
the world or manifestation of the world they both are responsible. Which is similar to Aristotle’s form
and matter. According to Aristotle, these two things form and matter can explain the development, all
types of movement in the whole universe, which is include man, organism and Nature.18 Let’s try to
explain in detail what is these two? And how it works.
The causation of Aristotle is metaphysical. Aristotle advocate four types of causes viz-material,
efficient, formal and final cause. The most important point is that these four causes work simultaneously.
These four causes are found not only in human but also in cosmic production. Let’s explain what is these
four causes. The material cause is a raw material which becomes the thing. It is a matter of which a thing
composed. Aristotle defines the efficient cause as a ‘motion’ or energy or moving force. He defines formal
cause as a concept. Like Plato’s theory of ideas and the final cause as the purpose or aim or end. Here this
type of example may be taken, suppose in case of ‘cloth’, it is the effect, threads is the material cause,
weaver is the efficient cause, the shape, size of the cloth is the formal cause and the purpose of the cloth
that is ‘wearing’ or ‘covering’ that is the final cause. Aristotle’s four principles or causes are reduced into

18
Maish Y., 2017, A Critical History of Western Philosophy, Motilal Banarasidass: Delhi, p. 94
JETIR2501422 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org e175
© 2025 JETIR January 2025, Volume 12, Issue 1 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

two, that is form and matter. The formal, final and efficient cause are reduced into ‘form’ and the material
cause only reduce into ‘matter’. This matter and form are two fundamental categories of Aristotle’s
philosophy. Through matter and form Aristotle explains the entire universe. According to him, they are
inseparable, though they are two different or opposite principle, in this sense it can separate only in
thought not in the fact. Without matter, form is nothing and form without matter there is no such thing.
Each and every individual thing is compound of matter and form. Here form is not a shape or size. In
geometrical standpoint, the shape is that which exist by themselves. But in factual stand point, there is no
such things that is squares, circles, triangles etc. but only circular object or triangle object or square object
exist.19 It will be remembered that the above example is given only to understand the matter and form.
Like, shape without object and object without shape is nothing. Similarly, the matter and form like that.
For Aristotle, form is universal and matter is the particular. One thing is noted that, it is fundamental of
Aristotle’s philosophy, universal exist only in particular, particular is not mean that individual. Because,
individual is a compound of matter and form. If we confused that matter is individual, then it will be
mistaken for us. Because which is particular it has no universal in it. And the isolated particular from
universal it also doesn’t exist. For example, from a gold ornament when we apart the yellowness,
heaviness then we do not call as a ornaments. Aristotle’s matter is formless, lawless etc. It is formless it’s
true, but it does not mean that it is non-being. Because it has the capacity to produce anything by the
generating principle of form. Suppose a piece of gold itself is nothing but it has the capacity or potentiality
to produce different types of Jewellery, such as-earing, nose ring, bangles, neckless etc. So, matter has
potentiality to produced something which is actual and this actual is the form. So, form is the principle of
actualization. This type of explanation according to Aristotle is teleological. For him, all change, all
motion is due to potentiality to actuality or matter to form respectively.
Aristotle stated that matter is earlier and form is later. Form is actuality and perfect being. Form is
higher than matter. But in order to Reality, matter is higher than the form. All things in this world arranged
in the hierarchical order. If we thoroughly go to hierarchical order, at the top of is matterless form and in
the bottom of is formless matter. The matterless form is Actuspurus, which is called by Aristotle ‘God’.
He is unmoved mover or called prime mover, because He moves everything but He itself remains
unmoved. The formless matter is the pure potentiality, it is indeterminate and it is called primordial matter
and is influenced by prime mover.20 So, finally we concluded that the whole universe is development of
the matter and form. If we compare the Sāṁkhya prakriti and purusa with Aristotle’s matter and form,
both accepted that the whole world is the developed or transformed by two principles. The difference is,
there is no place of God in Sāṁkhya system, they accept purusa as consciousness. But Aristotle regarded
Actuspurus which is perfect being and this perfect being is God and by the influence of God matter is
work.

19
Stace W. T, 2011, A Critical History of Greek Philosophy, Macmillan: India, p. 275
20
Masih Y., 2017, A Critical History of Western Philosophy, Motilal Banarasidass: Delhi, p. 97
JETIR2501422 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org e176
© 2025 JETIR January 2025, Volume 12, Issue 1 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

Conclusion
Satkāryavāda and Asatkāryavāda played major role in Indian system. The common believe of every
system was cause is the prior of the effect and effect is the latter of the cause like the ideas of former and
latter (Purvāparabhāba). Both theories (Satkāryavāda and asatkāryavāda) accept the causation of an
effect from a cause. Causal relation is a Universal relation and it is known only in the inference. Because
of causality we know the Reality like Dualism, monism, pluralism etc. So, in this sense it is the
metaphysical concept. And Indian scholars identified this Reality only in the objective standpoint. For
example, ‘Prakriti’ means the combination of Sattva, Rajas and tamas it is corresponded to pleasure, pain
and indifference and these three qualities exist only in the object and when we break this compound object,
we reached an unbroken or indivisible state, that is prakriti. So, it is material principle and purusa is the
efficient cause. Because in Sāṁkhya system purusa is regarded as self and the presence of the self can be
the cause of changes in prakriti. So, in this sense this system is dualistic. Yoga philosophy believes
practical methods of purification and self-control for the realization of true nature of man and the cessation
from sufferings (tāpadukha, saṁskāradukha and parināmadukha). This is possible only through the
astāngikayoga (Yama, Niyama, Āsana, Prānāyāma, Pratyāhāra, Dhāranā, Dhyāna, Samādhi). So, self-
realization has a solid foundation in both Sāṁkhya and Yoga metaphysics, but their methods are different.
The same philosophy, Sāṁkhya express theoretical way and Yoga express in practical way.
Similarly, Nyāya system is a atomistic and logical realism and through logic to solve the problem of
life and find out the ultimate Reality. This system considers as atom is the Reality or material cause but it
is motionless (Niskriya), this is why Adr̥sta comes and through the will of God Adr̥sta provides motion
into atoms. Adr̥sta is unseen power who has stock of merits and demerits from our good and bad actions.
Our good actions determined good result and bad actions determined bad result. Some causes are there
which are active or some passive but which is not active it is activate by the God or nature or an external
force.

References:
 Bharatiya M. C, Causation in Indian Philosophy, Vimal Prakashan: Ghaziabad, 1973.
 Causality, Lectures Delivered Before the Philosophical Union,University Of California, University of
California Press, 1932.
 Chatarjee S., Nyāya Theory of Knowledge, Rupa Publication; New Delhi, 2015.
 Chatterjee S.C. and Datta D.M. An Introduction to Indian Philosophy, University of Calcutta, 1968.
 Chatteijee, M, (Ed.) Contemporary Indian Philosophy, Series II, Calcutta Rupa and Co.
 Copi.Irving M. Cohen Carl, Introduction to Logic, Macmillan Publisher: New York, 1990.
 Das Gupta S.N, A History of Indian Philosophy, Volume 1, Cambridge University Press: London,1992.
 Das Basant Kumar, Eassay in Philosophy; Indian and Western, Jñānayoga: BBSR,2009.
 Dasgupta, S.N. Yoga Philosophy and Religion, Motilal Banarasidas: Delhi. 1973.
 Dasgupta, S.N., A History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. II, Motilal Banarasidas: Delhi, 1975.
JETIR2501422 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org e177
© 2025 JETIR January 2025, Volume 12, Issue 1 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

 Dasgupta, S.N., Yoga Philosophy in Relation to Other Systems of Indian Thought, Motilal Banarisadas:
New Delhi, 1979. 240
 Davids T.W. Rhys, History of Indian Buddhism, Cosmo Publication:New Delhi, 2002.
 Dr. Kar Bijayananda, Sāmkhya Darsan, Os Bereau of Text Preparation,2005
 Dr. Radhakrishnan S., Indian Philosophy, Volume 1, Oxford University: New Delhi, 1992.
 Dr. Radhakrishnan S., Indian Philosophy, Volume 2, Oxford University: New Delhi, 1992.
 Durzie.N, Mohanty.N, Text Book of Logic -1, Pitambara Misra, Balubazar: Cuttack, 2018.
 Garbe, Richard, The Philosophy of Ancient India, K.N. Mishra, (Ed) Ananda Prakashan Sansthan:
Varanasi (India).
 Hiriyana. M., The Essentials of Indian Philosophy, Blackie & Son: Bombay, 1948.
 Hiriyana M., Outlines of Indian Philosophy, Motilal Banarasidass: Delhi, 2009.
 Hospers John, An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis, Sunil Sachdev: New Delhi, 1967.
 Keith A.B., The Karma Mimamsa, Association Press, 5, Russell Street: Calcutta.
 Lewis, H. D. (Ed) Contemporary Indian Philosophy.
 Locke John, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, London, 1989
 “Lokayata Darsana Or Lokayata : The Materialist Philosophy of India”, Dr. Apurba Chandra
Barthakuria, Published by Dr. Apurba Chandra Barthakuria, 2004.
 Masih Y., A Critical History of Western Philosophy, Motilal Banarasidass: Delhi, 1947.
 Maxmuller,F., The Six Systems Of Indian Philosophy, The Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office:
Varanasi - 1 (India), 1971.
 Maxmuller, F., Vedanta Philosophy, Cosmo Publication: New Delhi, 1985.
 Mishra G., THE ADVITVA CONCEPTION OF PHILOSOPHY: ITS METHOD, SCOP AND Limits,
Shree Biswaranjan Misha; BBSR,1991
 Moghe S.G., Studies in The Purva Mimamsa, Ajanta Publication:India, 1984.
 Mohanty A.K, Concepts and Issues of Indian Philosophy, Elite Publication: BBSR, 2008.
 Murti T.R.V., The Central Philosophy of Buddhism, George Allen And Unwin Ltd.: London, 1960.
 Narayana Rao K. Om, Deductive and Inductive, Volume 1, Kalyani Publisher: New Delhi, 2020.
 Nayak G.C, Bharatiya Darsana, GOV. Of Bereau,1978.
 Pandit S. Balakrishna, Western Philosophy (Metaphysics), S.B.D: Delhi, 2008.
 Pati R.K, History of Modern European Philosophy, A.K. Mishra: Mumbai, 2016.
 Phukan R.N., The Samkhya Karika of Iswara Krishana, Finna K.L. Mukhopandhyana, 6/1, A
Banchharam Akrur Lane: Calcutta, 1960.
 Puligandla Ramakrishna, Fundamentals Of Indian Philosophy, D.K. Print: New Delhi, 2008.
 Radhakrishnan, S., The Principal Upanisads, George Allen And Unwin Ltd: London, 1953.
 Sastri D.N., Bharatiya Darsana Sastra, Nyaya-Vaisesika (Hindi) Motilal.
 Sastri, D.N., Critique of Indian Realism, Agra University: Agra, 1964.

JETIR2501422 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org e178
© 2025 JETIR January 2025, Volume 12, Issue 1 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

 Sengupta. Anima, Samkhya & Advaita Vedanta: A Comparative Study, Published by The Authoress,
1973.
 Sengupta, Anima, The Evolution of The Samkhya School Of Thought, Lucknow, Pioneer Press Ltd.,
1959.
 Sinha J.N, Indian Philosophy, Volume 2, Motilal Banarasidass: Delhi,1999
 Sinha J.N, Introduction to Philosophy, New Central Book Agency: Kolkata, 2020.
 Sinha J.N, Indian Philosophy, Volume 1, Motilal Banarasidass: New Delhi,1930.
 Sinha, J.N., Outlines of Indian Philosophy, New Central Book Agency 8/1, Chinta Moni Das Lane,
Calcutta, Second Edition, 1985.
 Sharma C.D, Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy, Motilal Banarasidass: Delhi,2000.
 Sogen Yamakami, Systems of Buddhistic Thought, Cosmo Publication: New Delhi, 2002.
 Sri, Aurobindo, The Life Devine, Vol-I, Pandichery, 1955 Six Ways Of Knowing, Vol. II, C.S.S.,
Banaras.
 Stace W. T, A Critical History of Greek Philosophy, Macmillan: India, 2011.
 Stcherbatsky, T., Buddhist Logic, Vol. I, Dover Publication Inc.,: New York, 1962.
 Stcherbatsky, T., The Central Conception of Buddhism, And The Meaning Of the Word “Dharma”,
Royal Asiatic Society, London, 1923.
 Takakusu Junjiro, The Essentials of Buddhist Philosophy, Motilal Banarisi Das: Delhi, Patha,
Banarasa, 2002.
 Anderson Joshua, “Hume, Causation and Counterfactuals”, 2019.
 Anjum. Rani Lill., “A Powerful Theory of Causation”, Issue: January 2010.
 Bhattacharyya, H. (Ed.) “The Cultural Heritage of India”, Vol. Ill,(TCHI) The Ramkrishna Mission
Institute of Calcutta, 2005.
 “Biswa Bharti Journal of Philosophy” P. O. Santiniketan, West Bengal.
 Chutia Thagendra., “Causation in Indian Philosophy: An Overview”,Volume 11, International Journal
of Management, Issue 10 October 2020.
 Devi. Parul, “Theories of Causation in Indian Philosophy: An Analytical Study”, Gauhati University:
Gauhati,2009
 “Essays On Gita First Series”, Sri Aurobindo Arya Publishing House: Calcutta, 1922.
 “Indian Philosophical Quarterly” Journal of The Department of Philosophy, University of Pune, Pin
271107
 Matilal. Bimal Krishna., “Causality in The Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika School”, JSTOR
 Seth, Jinesh. R,“Causation In Indian Philosophy: Absolutism And Non- Absolutism” The Rastriya
Jaina Vidvat Sangosthi, 2020.
 Sutradhar. Apu., “Causation in Indian Philosophy”, IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science,
Volume 23, Issue 9, 2018.

JETIR2501422 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org e179
© 2025 JETIR January 2025, Volume 12, Issue 1 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

 Zimmer H., “Philosophies of India” (Ed) Josheph Cambell, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. Broad Way
House, Cater Lane, London, E.C.M. 43
 Audi Robert, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Second Edition, 1999.
 Bunnin Nicholas And YU NN Jiyu, The Blackwell Dictionary Of Western Philosophy, Blackwell:
Austrelia,2004.
 Delacy. H. Philli Edwards Paul, Chief Editor, The Encyclopedia Of Philosophy, The Macmillan
Company and The Free Press: New York, 1967.
 Grimes. John, A Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy, Saskrit Terms Defined in English, State
university of Newyork Press; Albany 1948
 Jaini, JJL., Outlines of Jainism, Cambridge University Press, 1916.
 Kapoor Subodh, Companion Encyclopaedia of Hindu Philosophy, 2002.
 Keith A.B., Buddhist Philosophy in India and Ecylon, Oxford, 1923.
 Srinivas. K, A Concise Dictionary of Philosophy, D. K. Printed: New Delhi, 2007.
 The Concise Routledge, Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Routledge:London and Newyork,2000

JETIR2501422
View publication stats
Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org e180