The main Argument: Contingency of effect

Next, Udayana goes into elaboration. It is argued by Nyaya that if one accepts an effect one has also to accept a cause. This is because it is generally observed that an effect is contingent, i.e. it is sometimes present and sometimes absent. This would not be possible unless there be something else on which the effect is dependent. When the other thing is present, the effect is present. But if the other thing is not present the effect is absent. Anything which is not dependent upon something else would be either always present or always absent. For example, ākāśa does not depend on anything. It is therefore eternal and it is never absent. On the other hand, a hare’s horn also does not depend upon anything, but it is never present, absent always. If no cause-effect relation is admitted, things will become independent. Then they should be either always present, like ākāśa, or always absent like a hare’s horn. Thus to justify both the presence and absence of an effect relating to different times one has got to admit that it has a definite cause.^[1]