Chapter 3.4 - Explanation of Ajativada

As an Advaitin, Gaudapada treats the idea of Advaitain accordance with theShruti revelations. He consciously try to reject the duality and difference asmaya or mere illusion. Brahman is negatively established in place of the absolute reality by the denial of duality for which purpose he must have been influenced bycause.

Gaudapadiya-karika says:

“That which is already existent does not come into being, and that which is non-existentdoes not also come into being; debating thus the followers of thedoctrine of advaya assert absolute non-becoming.” (Gaudapadiya-karika 4.4)

Gaudapada discusses this point at length and in favour of his Ajativada, he says:

“No individual soul is born, nor is there any possibility of it. This is that highest reality where nothing is born. As there is absence of capability, or complete ignorance, or, again, incompatibility of orders, the Buddhas elucidated the theory of absolute non-origination.” (IV.19)

This was indeed a very different development in the Indian Philosophical tradition and it was well against Brahminism. This development of non-dual (advaita) reality by means of dialectic was revolution in the orthodox schools of Indian philosophy. Murti says “it was "the drive towards self-consistency which was at work in the pre-ShankaraVedanta too, and the adoption of the technique already perfected by the Madhyamika and also used by the Vijnanavada. ^[1] Apart from Gaudapada's rejection of the pure epistemic idealism in Vijnanavada, both agree that the real is the absolute Vijnanaor Atman which is pure transcendental consciousness beyond the sense-perception and language. It can be realized in immediate intuition wherein subject, object, and knowledge become one.

We find a very crucial connection with regard to the ongoing subject in the text: Gaudapada says:

“There is only consciousness (Vijnana) without the two (advaya), which is quiescent free from all sorts of disturbances, it has no origin (aja 'unborn'), it does not move (acala), nor is it an object (avastutva), yet it appears to have an origin jatyabhasa), it appears to admit movements (calabhasa), and it also appears to be an object.” (Gaudapadiya-karika IV.45).

Gaudapada accepts the doctrine of non-origination of the Advayavadims which seems to have been borrowed from the non-dual Buddhist schools. Like the other orthodox schools, the Vedantims believe in the doctrine of origination which is no doubt based on the Brahmasutra,1.1.2. This reality of the origination, i.e., the actual existence of an effect in its cause, is not accepted by the Advaitins. Gaudapada says: “We express our approval of ajati which they declare; we do not dispute with them, and listen how there cannot be any dispute.” (G.K. IV.5)

A question may arise here as to how is it that the thing which is unborn and immortal should become mortal? Gaudapada answers this saying that the birth of an unborn one cannot be justified. Because it is accepted on all hands that what has no birth has also no death. Now when how the opponent can says that birth is of an unborn one, you have necessarily to admit that it has death; and so it follows that you also admit the death of an immortal one. Now an unborn one is by its own nature immortal. And this death of the immortal one is utterly meaningless.^[2]

Then he says in the following shloka that

“the immortal does not become mortal and a mortal one does not also become immortal; for the change of nature can in no way be possible”

Gaudapada proves the non-origination of causation by demonstrating the falsity of the world which is an appearance of non-dual reality (Brahman-Atman). The metaphor of 'ropesnake' is the best known tool intermittently used for the Advaitic viewpoint on Atman that runs as follows: As the rope in darkness is mistaken for a stream of water, snake, stick etc. similarly Atman is mistaken for all sorts of things by different people according to their power of imagination. When the rope is realized in its true nature, the imagination vanishes, similarly when Atman is realized as non-dual, the different imaginations about Atman vanishes.

The non-dual reality appears in the empirical world of subject and object as the projection of avidya or the illusion. In other words, the real reflects itself as individual subjects among the world of objects which is dream only empiricallyand not in reality (na-tattvatah)). This illusion of subject and object can be removed by the annihilation in difference between appearance and reality, Atman and Brahman. When the absolute reality is finally realized, there is no cause for origination as such.

The Ag. IV.46 reassuringly confirms the point at hand:

“Thus the mind is not originated, and the objects are declared to be without origination. Those who know it in this way do not fall into error.”

Even though the reality of Atman is only one (eka-eva), it remains in the physical body in three forms of waking (jagrat), dream (svapna), and deep sleep (sushupti). When he has the all-pervading consciousness of outside (vishva) he is in waking state; when he has the brilliant consciousness of inside (taijasa) he is in dream; and, when his consciousness is concentrated he is in prajna. the only one, the self, exists in three forms.

In addition to these three forms the Self, Gaudapada presents the fourth called turiya. The turiya ‘fourth one' is said to be all-pervading, efficient in removing all miseries, the shining one, changeless, and of all things without a second. It is held that those two, vishva and taijasa, are bound with cause and effect, prajna is bound with cause, but in turiya neither of them can be asserted. ^[3] It is said that only the awakened one from maya or illusion can realize the fourth of turiya stage in which there is no-duality. without a second. When the mind ceases from all of its imagination or activities, it becomes Brahman free from fear and radiant as jnana on all sides.

The highest reality (paramartha) is clearly stated in the Mandukya-karika and it goes thus:

“There is nothing born; there is no disappearance, nor origination; on one is inbondage, no one who works for success; no one who is desirous of emancipation, no one who is emancipated”. (II.32)

Professor TRV Murti reflects on this point saying:

This is the nature of the revolution in the Upanishads tradition ushered in by Shankara. All these are present in essentials in Gaudapada's Mandukya-karika. He clearly declares that duality (dvaita) is unreal (mithya) and advaita (non-duality) is ultimate. There is complete identity between jiva and Brahman. The difference is only apparent and circumstanced by delimiting adjuncts (upadhis). There is no creation or parceling out of Brahman, and all accounts of creation in the scriptures are to be taken as but devices to teach the identity of Brahman and the world.^[4]

Shankara's non-dualistic theory which identifies the Absolute Brahman with the individual self or Atman was influenced by Gaudapada. He conceived of Advaita as an absolute unity of the highest knowledge with the real of all things which is Brahman. On the basis of non-dual unity, he tried to develop a world-view in harmony with dialectical knowledge through his own spiritual experience. Shankara's non-dualism aims for the realization of self-knowledge that the inner Self is not different from Brahman, the sole reality, consciousness, and bliss. Through the understanding the teachings of Shruti, one's mind will be free from attachment and ignorance so that it becomes one with the ultimate knowledge, the non-dual Absolute Brahman. On the other hand, Gaudapada’s non-dualism is similar to the idealistic school of Vijnanavada. In his commentary on Gaudapada’s Mandukya-karika Shankarahas shown authentic criteria of the Upanishadic reality of Brahman. Though he accepts the Buddhist idealism in the empirical reality, his non-dual Advaitism differs from the Buddhistic idealism in recognizing the Supreme Reality which can be only known from authentic Shruti passages.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

TRV Murty, The Central Philosophy of Buddhism, p. 56.

[2]:

Shankarabhasya on GPK IV.6.

[3]:

GPK, I. 10 & 11

[4]:

TRV Murti, The central Philosophy of Buddhism, 111-112