Advaita is non-contradiction

In kārikā 17, Gauḍapāda says that the dualists obstinately cling to the conclusions arrived at by their enquiries (as being the truth). So they contradict one another; whereas the Advaitins finds no conflict with them.

Commenting on this kārikā Śaṅkara says the dualists who follow the views of Kapila (Sāṅkhyas), Kanāḍa (Vaiśeṣika), Buddha (Buddhists), Arhat (Jains), and others are firmly rooted (niścitāḥ) in the methodologies leading to their own conclusions. They think that “the view of our school alone is the ultimate Reality-it cannot be otherwise”. They remain attached to their points of view. They detest every rival school. In this way they are overcome by attachment and aversion on account of their adherence to their own conclusions, they mutually contradict one another.

But the view of the non-dualists, with its universal acceptance and the support of the vedas, does not conflict with any other view. As one is not at conflict with one’s own hands and feet, for the limbs are its integral parts, so also, just because of nondifference from all, this vedic view, consisting in seeing the same Self in everyone is not opposed (na virudhyate) to them, who are mutually at conflict. Thus the meaning is that the right view consists in realizing the unity of ātman, for this view is free from the defects of attachment and aversion etc.

In this kārikā Gauḍapāda says that non-duality (advaita) is all pervading and so includes duality as well. No one can be at conflict with something belonging to or included in oneself. He says that the non-dualist on account of his knowledge of identity of everything and unity (ekatva) of ātman, does not get affected with the views of dualist, for he knows these so called dualists view (difference) to be his own Self. He realizes the entire world to be the projection of his own thought (kalpanā). The thoughts are also identical with the Self (Brahman) as the various dream-objects are identical with the mind. Therefore the theories of dualist are not in conflict with non-duality because they are identical with Brahman. The Śruti passage corroborates this view as “All this is verily Brahman”.

The words ‘dvaita’ and ‘dvaitins’ occurs in kārikā 18. It refers to the realists who believe the existence of the external world independent of the perceiver. According to the dualists the origin of the world has to be explained and hence they proposed varieties of theories. The Sāṅkhya school, for example propound the view that the world (jagat) has evolved from prakṛti which undergoes a change. The manifest world is not an appearance but a reality. The Puruṣa who is the seer is independent of prakṛti and the evolutes. Thus this school propounds an uncompromising dualism. The followers of Kaṇāda that is Vaiśeṣika school accept paramāṇu or atoms as the cause of the world. The paramāṇus combined and through permutation and combination of various atoms the world is created. The world is real and is brought under seven padārthas. The self is one of the padārthas namely dravya. The self and the world are two independent entities.

Even though Kapila and Kaṇāda seem to accept the external world as independent of consciousness, they propose different theories of causation namely, satkāryavāda and asatkāryavāda. According to the former the effect pre-exists in the cause as the potential. In other words effect is not a new product. While the latter, who accept asatkāryavāda, the effect is not potentially present in the cause, but due to various combination of the atoms and intervention of the efficient and instrumental cause it assumes a new form. The Sāṅkhya philosophers do not accept Kaṇādas view and vice versa. This has been pointed out by Gauḍapāda that there is obstinacy in clinging to their positions amongst themselves despite both being dualist they contradict one another.

Gauḍapāda in kārikā 18 says that: As non-duality is the ultimate Reality, therefore duality is said to be its effect (kārya or bheda). The dualists perceive duality either way (i.e., both in the Absolute and in the phenomena). Therefore the non-dual position does not conflict with the dualist’s position.

Śaṅkara in his commentary of this kārikā gives reason as to why the non-dualist does not conflict with the dualist’s position; although it is evident that dualism must necessarily be in opposition to non-dualism. He says that, advaita is the paramārtha and this position does not contest with the dualist’s position. For this he gives scriptural evidence that the duality is considered only as an effect (bheda) i.e. an apparent effect of non-duality (advaita). Śaṅkara uses the term kārya, while Gauḍapada uses the term bheda. According to advaita, the effect is not created through the transformation of the cause. In other words the non-dual Brahman does not undergo modification like Prakṛti undergoes in the Sāṅkhya philosophy for producing the effect i.e., the world. The Śruti says that, ‘in the beginning this was being alone, one only without a second….it sent forth fire (Chāndogya Upaniṣad VI.2.2-3).^[1] This text proves that the duality is the effect of non-duality. From the Absolute standpoint the effect is non different from the cause. It is the cause that has become the effect. It has no independent existence. Duality is only another name for non-duality. It is effect, and non-duality is the cause. The waves are non-different from the ocean. The cause like the ocean alone is real. It is the One that has become many, many only in names and forms.

According to Śaṅkara the non-duality (advaita) is further proved by reason. In the absence of the activity of the mind either in the states of samādhi, or, swoon, or in the deep-sleep, duality is not perceived. Therefore duality is said to be the effect of nonduality. Duality exists only in the state of ignorance. It is not ultimately real.

So far as the dualists are concerned, they hold that duality exists both in the absolute standpoint and also in the relative stand point. Śaṅkara points out that we have no conflict with the dualists as duality is perceived only by the ignorant (deluded) people and non-duality by the enlightened people which is supported both by the scripture and reason. The Śruti also says that, “Indra (the Lord) goes about in many forms by his māyās” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. II.5.19)^[2] “There is not, however, a second, nothing else separate from him that he could see” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. IV.3.23)^[3].

Śaṅkara says the non-dualist is like the case of a man riding a spirited elephant, who knows that none can oppose him. If a deluded person, though standing on the ground, thinks that he, too, is on an elephant and challenges the other to drive his beast upon him, the former laughs at him and goes his own way without entering into any conflict with him. Similarly, the non-dualist is fully aware of the truth of his assertions and does not think it necessary to enter into any argument with a dualist. Thus, from the absolute standpoint, the knower of Brahman is the very Self (ātman) of the dualist. For the non-dualist there is no opponent. He is not conscious of another. He regards all as his own Self.

As interesting point has been raised by Śaṅkara to distinguish between Parmārtha, absolutely real and aparamārtha. For the dualists the duality is real at both levels. In other words the world is real, independent of the perceiver. According to Kaṇāda e.g. the world created through the various combination of paramāṇu exists independent of paramātmā or jīvatmā. The Vedāntins on the other hand declare that since the world is seen only when there is a cittaspandanaṃ [cittaspandana] or activity of mind and is absent when there is no cittaspandanam [cittaspandana] like swoon, deep sleep and samādhi. According to Śaṅkara if the world were real it should persist in these states. Since this is not the case the world depends for its existence on the mind of the perceiver. Therefore the world is not absolutely real whereas the continuous presence of Self identical with non-dual Brahman is the Ultimate Reality. Advaita reiterates that dualism is not real in the absolute sense. And hence there is no quarrel with them. The gold in the gold ornaments has no conflicts with its effect namely the ornament or the oceanic water with the waves, foam, bubbles.

Gauḍapāda in kārikā 19 says: ‘This changeless, unborn, non-dual absolute reality appears to undergo modification only on account of māyā (illusion) and not otherwise. For, if this modification were real, the immortal (Brahman) would become the mortal’.

Śaṅkara in his commentary on this kārikā anticipates an objection: If it is stated that duality is the effect of non-duality in kārikā 18, then a doubt may arise that like nonduality (advaita), duality too is the absolute reality. Śankara says that to dispel this doubt it is being stated in this kārikā that non-duality is the absolute Truth that appears manifold through illusion (māyā). It is like a person with a defective eye seeing many moons or one erroneously seeing the rope as a snake or a line of water, a garland etc.. The non-dual ātman has not in any way become the phenomenal universe. The ātman does not undergo real transformation because it is not a whole composed of parts. The ātman has no parts. A composite thing can get transformed through a change in its components, e.g. earth gets transformed into jars etc.

Therefore, the ever unborn ātman which is without parts, admits of no distinction in any manner, (other than) excepting through māyā or which is due to the illusion of the perceiver. According to Gauḍapāda and Śaṅkara if the modification is real, then the immortal (amṛtaṃ), the unborn (ajam), the non-dual ātman would become mortal (vrajet martyatām). It is like fire acquiring the attribute of coldness whose intrinsic nature is heat. This would amount to giving up one’s own intrinsic nature which is not desired by any one because such a position is opposed to all means of proof. It contradicts all modes of reasoning. Therefore, all modifications that the unborn, undecaying ātman undergoes are modifications in appearance alone and not in reality. The non-dual ātman appears as if with distinction, only through illusion (māyā) of the perceiver. Thus duality is not the ultimate reality, but only an appearance of reality.

In the vaitathya prakaraṇa Gauḍapāda says:

“ātman, the Self-luminous through the powers of his own māyā imagines the plurality in Himself by Himself”.

In kārikā 19 Gauḍapāda says that the dispersal of the One into the many is only an apparent phenomenon. Its manifoldness is only an illusion of the perceiver.

Gauḍapāda in kārikās 19-22 analyses the doctrine of ajātivāda (birthlessness). These kārikās contain a dialectical, syllogistic argument for the doctrine of ajātivāda, with a strikingly new syntax and terminology.

Gauḍapāda in kārikā 20 says that, ‘the disputants (i.e. the dualists) contend that the ever unborn (changeless) entity (ātman) undergoes a change. How could an entity which is changeless and immortal partake of the nature of the mortal’?

Commenting on this kārikā Śaṅkara says that the word ‘disputant’ (vādinaḥ) refers to the dualistic interpreters of the Upaniṣads. They claim that the unborn Reality-the ātman which is by nature immortal really passes into birth as the universe. The meaning is the dualist disputants are those who opt for doctrine of origination of an entity (ātman) which is really unborn (ajātasyaiva dharmasya jātim icchanti vādinaḥ). This is in contrast with the Advaitins, who asserts the doctrine of nonorigination (ajātivāda). According to Śaṅkara if an entity (ātman) really passes into birth then it necessarily becomes subject to mortality. Ātman can never become subject to annihilation as that is a complete reversal of his intrinsic nature. The dualist’s contention that the changeless atman undergoes a change is a contradiction. This is brought out by Gauḍapāda when he asks how the immortal can ever become mortal. The subject never becomes an object. The word ‘aja’, unborn has a double sense i.e., having no cause from which It is born (unorginated) and having no effect to which It gives birth (unoriginating). According to Gauḍapāda an unborn, eternal entity by its very nature cannot modify or transform in any way. Thus kārikā 19-20 reassert the non-transformative nature of the Self.

Gauḍapāda in kārikā 21 says that, ‘the immortal cannot become mortal, nor can the mortal ever become immortal. For, it is never possible for a thing to change its nature’. Śaṅkara says that the reversal of one’s own intrinsic nature never takes place under any circumstances. He gives an illustration of fire. Fire can never change its intrinsic nature, of being hot and naturally becoming cold.

Gauḍapāda in kārikā 22 says that, ‘how can he, who believes that the naturally immortal entity becomes mortal, maintain that the Immortal, after passing through change, retains its changeless nature’?

Śaṅkara in his commentary explains this kārikā as: The disputant argues that before the creation, Brahman the cause is immortal, but subsequent to the creation i.e., an entity becomes the effect by transformation and therefore mortal. Thus “immortality (changeless) and mortality (change) apply to the two states of ātman. Then there is no inconsistency”. Both Śaṅkara and Gauḍapāda refute this contention. They say that how then an entity which is really born (kṛtaka) become inherently immortal and changeless? How can the “immortal”, that which passes through birth be said to stand changeless? It can never remain changeless. This cannot be justified in any manner. Thus in the case of those disputants who believe that ātman passes into birth, there can be no entity which is unborn (aja) and changeless. In that case, according to them, everything is mortal. They cannot conceive the possibility of liberation/ freedom from the cycle of birth and death.

Continuing with the discussion on ajātivāda Gauḍapāda in kārikā 23 says that both the views that the creation is real and that it is unreal have been equally emphasized in the Śruti. That which is supported by the Śruti declaration and corroborated by reason alone should be accepted and not otherwise.

It may be contended that those who support the doctrine of non-creation (ajātivāda) cannot explain the scriptural passages describing the creation doctrine by following the laws of causality. In reply it is said that there are indeed such Śruti texts which describe creation; but their meaning serve other purposes. It has already been explained in kārikā 15-16, that all such Śruti texts serve only as helps to the mind in the act of grasping the absolute. In other words “Such Śruti texts are intended as a means for generating the sense of oneness in the mind of people of ordinary intelligence”. It is only a way of preparing the mind to comprehend non-dualism (advaita).

According to Śaṅkara the intention of this kārikā is to prove that creation is unreal and in that connection the specific Śruti passages like “he created”, “he became” would appear as contradicting the doctrine of unreality of creation. Therefore in order to remove all doubts in that matter, the same contention and its reply is restated in this kārikā.

Śaṅkara says that whether we take the creation of things as real (bhūtataḥ) or as a mere illusion created by a magician (abhūtataḥ), the scriptural texts regarding creation remains unaffected. It may be urged in this connection, that when choice has to be made between the two possible meanings, i.e., primary and Secondary, it is reasonable to understand a word in its primary meaning.

Śaṅkara emphatically denies this possibility of two meaning of a text. The reason is that creation in any sense other than illusion is not recognized. It has already been stated in kārikā 15 that no purpose is served by admitting the real creation. All creation, whether primary (as in the waking state) or secondary (as in the dream state) are only due to ignorance (avidyā).

There is no creation from the absolute point of view. In this regard Śaṅkara quotes the Śruti passage:

“Divine and formless is the person, He is without and within, unborn, without breath and without mind, pure and higher than the highest immutable” (Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad II.1.2)^[4].

Therefore, what the Śruti text has firmly ascertained (niscitam) is that ātman is only one, without a second, unborn (changeless) and immortal and is also based upon rational coherence (yuktiyuktam). Both Gauḍapāda and Śaṅkara emphasize the import of Śruti text which is supported by reason (yuktiyuktam).

The purpose of this kārikā is to reject pariṇāma-vādai. e., the real transformation of a cause and establish the doctrine of non-creation (ajātivāda). The rendering therefore, creation of something in reality (bhūtataḥ) and creation not in reality but only as appearance (abhūtataḥ), which is created by the magician is appropriate in this context^[5]. There is no ‘creation’ or ‘becoming’ for ātman, because the ātman is always the same. The idea of any action or change is incompatible with ātman. According to Advaita Vedānta, all creations, real or illusory, are equally unreal. The creation of objects in dreams is called illusory in relation to objects perceived in the waking state. But the objects of the waking state are also realized to be unreal from the stand point of ultimate reality (ātman).

Both illusory objects and so called real objects belong to the realm of phenomena. The purpose of the Śruti texts is not to establish the creation, real (pariṇāma) as apparent (vivarta), but to establish the doctrine of non-origination (ajātivāda). The Śruti texts describe liberation (mokṣa) as the goal of human life. If the creation is taken to be real, that goal cannot be achieved. Both reason and Śruti texts support this view.

Gauḍapāda in kārikā 24 again quotes the Śruti texts. He says that the Śruti passages as “there is no diversity here” (neha nānāiti Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. IV.4.99, Kaṭha Upaniṣad IV.II) and “Indra through māyā (‘Indro māyābhir iti ṚV VI. 47.18; Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. II. 5-19) etc. assumes diverse forms” etc., it is implied that the ever unborn ātman appears as born in many forms only through māyā i.e. wrong knowledge causing super imposition.

Śaṅkara in his commentary on this kārikā explains that if the creation is absolutely real, the variety of experiences must necessarily be real. In that case there would have been no scriptural texts to assert that they are unreal. But there are such texts in fact to deny the reality of duality. For example: ‘There is nothing of variety here’ (KaṭhaU II.1.11)^[6]. The creation is imagined as a means for the seeker to comprehend the nonduality of the ātman. Creation as such is not a reality. This is like the imagined interlogue of prāṇa and other sense organs to ultimately prove the superiority of prāṇa (mukhya prāṇa).

In the second Śruti text cited by Gauḍapāda (‘Indra through māyā’) the word māyā is used to indicate the unreality of the objects of creation. To the objection that the word ‘māyā’ is also used to mean knowledge, Śaṅkara says that the word māyā is used to indicate the sense-knowledge (prajñā) only and as sense-knowledge it is included in avidyā (ignorance). He says that there is nothing wrong in using the word māyā as illusion. The meaning of the plural word “māyābhiḥ” is “through sense-knowledge which is illusory”. The expression “through māyā” means “through our having senseorgans pervaded by avidyā”. The vedic text (Yajur-Veda 31.19) again says, ‘though unborn, It appears to be born in diverse ways’^[7]. Hence the conclusion of this kārikā is that the ātman becomes subject to birth through māyā alone. Birthlessness and ‘birth in many ways’ are two statements contrary to each other and are like the simultaneous predication of heat and cold in the case of fire. The real meaning of the scripture is the realization of the non-dual ātman which produces the good result i.e. the removal of all miseries. In this regard Śaṅkara quotes two Upaniṣadic texts as the text of praise and also the Śruti text which censures a person who sees multiplicity through creation. They are: ‘What delusion and what sorrow can be to him who has seen the oneness’ (IśaU 7)^[8] and ‘Whatever is here, that (is) there. Whatever is there, that, too, is here. Whoever perceives anything like manyness here goes from death to death’ (KaṭhaU II.1.10)^[9].

Gauḍapāda further in kārikā 25 fortifies his contention by referring other Śruti texts which deny a real creation, such as the denial of “coming into being” (saṃ bhuti) in the Īśa Upaniṣad, and the passage in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad which denies any preexisting cause for the origination of the jīva: “who can cause it to pass into birth”? In this kārikā Gauḍapāda gives a direct reference to Śruti texts for the refutation of the theory of causality and thereby creation.

He quotes the Śruti passage:

“Those who meditate upon saṃ bhutii. e. the kārya Brahman known as Hiraṇyagarbha enter into blinding darkness”, says the Śruti text (Īśa Upaniṣad 12). T

his text censures the worship of saṃbhuti. Thus all the subsequent creation i.e. the whole of the effects evolving from saṃbhuti is negated. If this saṃbhuti (Hiraṇyagarbha) were absolutely real, there would not have been any denunciation/censure of his worship.

Śaṅkara in his commentary on the above kārikā points out the reason for the denouncing saṃbhuti because the opponents may believe that saṃbhuti is used here for co-coordinating with avidyā or karma. The opponents may not accept the view that the intention of this mantra in Īśa Upaniṣad is to censure the saṃbhuti upāsanā. A person has to perform rituals as well as contemplate (upāsanā) and a perfect balance freeze him from the cycle of birth and death. Hence proving that the effects (saṃbhuti are relative and non-real) and thereby considering a saṃbhuti upāsanā is futile which is going against the scriptural passage. Śaṅkara concedes to this point made by the opponent and says that the intention of the upāsanā is to combine saṃbhuti with karma yet it is important to understand the limitation of saṃbhuti upāsanā and karma.

The objector points out another Śruti passage (Īśa Upaniṣad 11) and says that the real purpose is not to censure and negate saṃbhuti but to prescribe a samuccaya or combination of vināśai. e. karma and upāsanā of saṃbhuti (Hiraṇyagarbha deity). The Śruti passage (Īśa Upaniṣad 9) also declares that: ‘They enter into blinding darkness who worship ignorance (avidyā) and those who delight in knowledge enter into still greater darkness, as it were’^[10].

Śaṅkara in his reply to this objection says, it is true that the condemnation of the meditation on worship of Hiraṇyagarbha is meant for enjoining a combination of the meditation on the Deity, viz. Hiraṇyagarbha, with rites, referred to by the word vināśa (karma). According to Śaṅkara, just as vināśai. e. the karma like agnihotra ritual takes one beyond the death in the nature of activities (not sanctioned by scriptures) of people due to their natural ignorance, similarly the combination of that agnihotra karma with meditation on the deity Hiraṇyagarbha which is for the purpose of saṃskārai. e. purifying the mind.

The saṃbhuti and vināśa do not directly generate the knowledge of oneness of the Self with Brahman (Brahma-ektvabhāva). They indirectly produce purity of mind and that facilitates the discrimination etc. that is congenial to listening (sravanam) of the Upaniṣadic śāśtra and cogitating on it and realizing the Ultimate Reality. Thus the utility of saṃbhuti upāsanā and karma together are for mental purification. If it were not so, then the mere performance of action and contemplating conjointly can liberate a person. But this is not the case. Moreover the effects or the kārya utpatti itself is not absolutely real; has only a relative existence. Therefore they can be sublated in final illumination. When such an illumination takes place the sublated world and its effects do not reoccur just as with the destruction of the illusion of the snake on the rope. If a person properly understands the rope then the snake illusion will never haunt him. Similarly for the illuminated person, there is neither the kārya (the world) nor the cause. This kārikā is very crucial because the author Gauḍapāda uses the authenticity of the scripture to negate the effect and thereby the cause leading to his final doctrine of ajātivāda which is a significant contribution to the school of the Advaita Vedānta.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

S. Radhakrishnan, The Principal Upaniṣads, 449.

[2]:

Ibid.,208.

[3]:

Ibid.,264.

[4]:

S. Radhakrishnan, The Principal Upaniṣads, 680.

[5]:

Vidhushekhara Bhattacharya takes “bhūtataḥ” to mean ‘from the existent’(All this was Sat before Chāndogya Upaniṣad V1, 2-1) and abhūtatah ‘from the non-existent (All this was Asat before TaiU II. 7.1), and remarks ‘according to Śaṅkara bhūtataḥ is paramārthataḥ and abhūthatḥ is māyā-yā. But in kārikā IV.3 he explains the same words saying ‘bhūstasya vidayamānasya, abhūtasa avidyamānasya’. Karmarkar criticised this view as incorrect. He says that ‘Sat’ and ‘Asat’ mean not necessarily ‘existent’ and ‘non-existent’ but ‘manifestation’ and ‘unmanifestation’ also. He says that in this kārikā, Gauḍapāda is concerned with pointing out the real nature of the process of creation and not the creation of anything. Karmarkar rightly criticises Vidhusekhar in his notes but retains his translation for bhūtataḥ (by mistake perhaps). Karmarkar, Gauḍapāda-Kārikā, 98-9.

[6]:

S. Radhakrishnan, The Principal Upaniṣads, 634.

[7]:

Gambhirananda Swami, trans. Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad with the Commentary of Śaṅkarācārya, (Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 2000), 129.

[8]:

S. Radhakrishnan, The Principal Upaniṣads, 578.

[9]:

Ibid., 634.

[10]:

Ibid., 573.