This paper discusses the incompatibility between satkāryavāda and the accumulation theory. According to the classical Sāṃkhya system, especially in the Sāṃkhyakārikā by Īśvarakr̥ṣṇa, the five elements (bhūta) are respectively generated from the five tanmātras. To explain, the ether element (ākāśa) is generated from the sound (śabda) tanmātra; the wind element (vāyu) from the touch (sparśa) tanmātra; the fire element (tejas) from the color (rūpa) tanmātra; the water element (ap) from the taste (rasa) tanmātra; and the earth element (pr̥thivī) from the smell (gandha) tanmātra. According to most commentaries on the Sāṃkhyakārikā, however, the properties of the wind and the following elements are acknowledged to be accumulative; more specifically, the wind element possesses sound and touch; the fire element possesses sound, touch, and color; the water element possesses sound, touch, color, and taste; and the earth element possesses sound, touch, color, taste, and smell. This accumulation theory is theoretically incompatible with satkāryavāda, which is a representative doctrine of the classical Sāṃkhya system, according to which effects potentially preexist in their causes before their production.<br />
This incompatibility cannot be resolved in the commentaries on the Sāṃkhyakārikā; on the contrary, a difficulty of the accumulation theory is inadvertently exposed, especially in the commentary Yuktidīpikā. In the Yuktidīpikā each tanmātra is considered a pure element as a kind of &quot;universal,&quot; whereas these five tanmātras themselves also accumulatively possess their own property/properties. This difficulty suggests that the accumulation theory was originally incompatible with satkāryavāda.<br />
In fact, a close examination of the accumulation theory in the Mokṣadharma section of the Mahābhārata (12.224.35–39) shows that the accumulation theory can effectively function under the scheme of the element generated from the preceding element. Under this scheme, which is totally different from that in the classical Sāṃkhya system, the ether element generates the wind element; the wind element generates the fire element; the fire element generates the water element; and the water element generates the earth element. This affinity between the accumulation theory and this scheme can be corroborated by Śaṅkara&#039;s commentaries on the Upaniṣads. Śaṅkara in his commentary on Taittirīyopaniṣad 2.1, according to which the elements are generated from particular elements one by one, much more persuasively expounds the accumulation of the property than in his commentary on Praśnopaniṣad 6.4, according to which the elements are generated from prāṇa all together in no specific order. Taking everything into consideration, we can surmise that the accumulation theory is incompatible with the evolutionary scheme in the Sāṃkhya system, by which we conclude that this theory is one of the key concepts in determining the date when satkāryavāda was introduced or was modified.