The teaching of non-origination (ajātivāda)

Gauḍapāda in kārikās 42-44 argues that the teaching of non-origination (ajātivāda) is not contradicted by the perception of duality. In kārikā 42 he says that,

‘Wise men support causality only for the sake of those who, being afraid of absolute non-manifestation (of things), stick to the (apparent) reality of (external) objects on account of their perception (of such objects) and their faith in religious observances’.

According to Śaṅkara, such people, being of an inferior grade of intelligence, require the support of causality for grasping the knowledge of the Ultimate Reality i.e. the higher truths of Vedānta. Those engaged in the study of Vedānta naturally realize the unborn and non-dual ātman and do not regard the external objects as real. The ritualists who are dull-witted, are through want of discrimination (always afraid of) the destruction of their own individuality in the doctrine of non-origination. So causality/origination is assumed for the sake of helping such people over their ignorance.

Śaṅkara interprets the kārikā to mean that the doctrine of creation is advocated for those students who are on threshold of understanding the Truth. Such students who heavily rely on dualism who have mild capacity for discrimination, but possess faith approach a wise man for knowledge. The wise teacher begins his instruction by postulating different accounts of causality. In reality there is no causality operating anywhere is directly taught only to a ready disciple. The student of the former category cannot accept non-causality or doctrine of non-birth. Hence, the wise teacher uses the strategy advancing the theory of causation only to finally negate it.

Bhattacharya points out that this technique of provisional teaching is called by Candrakirti in the Madhyamakakārikāvṛtti, tatrāvatāra (or gradual understanding of reality) and that Candrakirti also uses the term lokāvatāropāyatvāt.^[1] This is a close terminological link with Gauḍapādakārikā 3:15, which uses the phrase ‘upāyah so vatārāya’. This kārikā (Gauḍapādakārikā 3:15), states that creation texts constitute a gradual introduction to the higher truth of non-origination.

The word “samācāra” in the kārikā has been interpreted as “the prevailing etiquette” and as “common practice” by Bhattacharya. Śaṅkara equates this word with leading a virtuous life as prescribed by Dharmaśāstra including the various duties of caste and other stages of life (varṇāśrama dharmas) where ‘samācāra’ practically mean ‘sadācāra’.

According to Karmārkar the word “Buddhaiḥ” is rightly interpreted as “by the wise, the enlightened” like the use of the word ‘Manīṣiṇah’ elsewhere. He says that Bhattacharya understands by ‘buddhaiḥ’ here as referring the Buddhsits. But surely the Buddha never preached the doctrine of non-origination (ajātivāda).

Gauḍapāda now makes an important point by stating that even those who believe and accept the world of duality, do not suffer the disastrous consequence of accepting causality. This is so because (i) they lead a virtuous life and (ii) they possess discrimination. Thus even though they accept causality they suffer less. When they know the Supreme Truth they are forever freed from the suffering which was due to their beliefs in causality.

The kārikā reads:

‘Those who, being afraid of the truth of absolute non-manifestation, and also on account of their perception (of phenomenal objects), do not admit ajāti (absolute non-creation), are not much affected by the evil consequent on the belief in causality. The evil effect, if any, is rather insignificant’.

According to Śaṅkara those who are afraid of the doctrine of non-origination (absolute non-creation), still follow the path of righteousness with faith. As they pursue the way leading to discrimination, the evil consequences of their belief in origination do not prove effective. But they do not attain perfection. Even if there is evil, that is very insignificant.

The kārikā 43 strikes a note of compassion. It clearly states that simply to have heard the teaching of non-origination is such a powerful event that various resistances to it will be naturally overcome.

Gauḍapāda, then, points out that non-duality does not mean the absence of perceptual duality, but it is the awareness that this empirically experienced duality is unreal in the absolute sense.

In kārikā 44 he says:

‘Just as an elephant conjured up by magic (māyāhasti) is said to exist (in reality) on account of its being perceived and its adequate behaviour in common practice (to a real elephant), similarly (external) objects are said to exist (in reality) on account of their being perceived and common practice of treating them (as existing in reality).In truth, the objects of sense perception are as unreal as the magician’s elephant’.

According to Śaṅkara, the reality of external objects cannot be proved on the basis of mere perception and common utility. For, an illusory elephant, conjured up by magic cannot exist in reality though we all may see it moving or carrying men. The illusory elephant behaves in the same manner as a real elephant. It can be tied with a rope, can be climbed upon and can have similar activities like a real elephant. Even though unreal it is still experienced /perceived as a really existing elephant. Though it has no real existence, it is said to exist.

Similarly, the phenomenal world appears to be real according to our perception and common utility, though it is as unreal as a magical creation. Therefore there is no second object other than the perceiver.

Gauḍapāda also said in kārikā 2:31 that,

“Like a dream and a magic are seen, and just as a mirage city is seen in the sky, so is this universe seen by those who are well-versed in Upaniṣads”.

In kārikā 44 Gauḍapāda explains that an illusory elephant either due to magic or seen in a dream is said to exist, because it is perceived and it can be made use of.

Bhattacharya points out that the māyāhastin is a Buddhist rather than an Upanisadic analogy, appearing, in Laṅkāvatārasūtra X.126 and elsewhere.^[2]

It now becomes important for Gauḍapāda to describe the indescribable Ultimate Reality after having said in the earlier kārikā that one who knows the ultimate as free from causality is free from all suffering. He utilises the adhyāropa and apavāda method here. He uses three terms namely jāti, calam and vastu. The objects appear to be born, appear to possess movements and also properties. In the second line of the kārikā all the three negated to show that the vijñānam/ Consciousness is not born, does not possess movement or property. It is thus free from materiality; it is ever peaceful and non-dual.

The kārikā 45 reads:

‘Consciousness (vijñāna) is ever at peace, non-dual, unborn, unmoving, and is not an object (i.e. never a percept or material substance). It appears (ābhāsa) as if born, as if moving and as a if it is a percept’.

This description of vijñāna by Gauḍapāda is definitely different from the doctrine of vijñāna in Buddhism. Consciousness (vijñāna/citta) of the Buddhists is neither unborn (aja) nor motionless (acala). Vijñāna is changing from moment to moment; a new vijñāna is born every moment. And this birth presupposes movement (calam [cala]). According to Vijñānavādins, the terms “consciousness” (vijñāna) and “mind” (citta or manas) are used interchangeably. Gauḍapāda also uses these words as synonyms, but he utilises them with his own meaning. He says that Consciousness only appears to have origination etc. This view is similar to the earlier kārikā 3:19 which reads as, “this unborn, non-dual, Turīyaātman becomes different just through māyā, not otherwise”.

The Vijñānavādins accept that Consciousness has the false division of subject and object etc., which must be removed by yogic practice. The word ‘dvaya’ in this kārikā refers to grāhya and grāhaka, the percipient and the perceptible respectively. According to Gauḍapāda Consciousness does not really have such divisions; Consciousness has no origin (aja), it does not move (acala), nor is it an object (avastuttva), i.e. free from materiality, quiescent (śānta) and non-dual. He says vijñāna is advayai. e. without a second, without anything apart from vijñāna.

Śaṅkara in his commentary on this kārikā explains that the Ultimate Reality (Śat/ Existence) is the substratum for the superimposition of unreal birth etc.

(i) Though devoid of birth, it appears as if it is born (jātyābhāsam [jātyābhāsa]) as when we say that Debadatta is born.

(ii) Consciousness alone appears as if it moves (calābhāsam [calābhāsa]), as when we say “Debadatta goes”/“Debadatta is going”.

(iii) Again, Consciousness alone appears as if it were an object possessing attributes, (vastvābhāsam [vastvābhāsa]), as when we say that Debadatta is born, is stout, is tall etc.

Consciousness appears as if born, moving, possessing properties but from the absolute point of view it is ever unborn, unmoving and not having the characteristic of being a material substance (i.e., it is never an object with attributes).

Gauḍapāda in kārikā 46 asserts that, as vijñāna, so citta and dharmas are unborn; in fact, all three terms are describing the same truth. The kārikā reads:

‘Thus the mind (citta) is never born. All beings (dharmas) are indeed free from birth. Those who have realised this Truth are never again subject to erroneous knowledge (viparitajñāna)–any misapprehension of Reality’.

Śaṅkara says that Brahman is of the nature of Cit (Consciousness) and is unborn. This was established in the earlier kārikās and is now stated by the way of conclusion (upasaṃhāra). The knower of Brahman says that the mind and the ātman (dharmas, jīvas) are not born. The word ‘dharmāḥ’ (selves or ātman) in the kārikā is stated in the plural in the secondary sense. Since the non-dual ātman/ Self itself appears to be different/many in accordance with the differences in the bodies. Those who know Consciousness as being devoid of birth, non-dual and as the essence of the ātman, do not again fall into the deep ocean of ignorance (avidyā), as they see nothing outside of themselves. The meaning is that they renounce all cravings for external objects. This is confirmed by the Śruti which says, ‘... what delusion and what sorrow can there be for that seer of oneness’ (Īśa Upaniṣad 7)?

It is not clear as to what the word ‘citta’ in this kārikā is intended to communicate. It has been translated as mind by some authors like Swami Nikhilananda, Vidhusekhara Bhattacharya etc.

Gauḍapāda in kārikās 47-52 presents the famous analogy of the fire brand (alāta). He introduces the example of firebrand (alāta) to bring home the point that all that around us is nothing but an appearance. This chapter derives its name from this very unique and appropriate metaphor used to describe the nature of ābhāsa or illusoriness of the so-called objects. It has been a primitive practice to carry a fire brand in the dark to throw light on the path of one moving in the darkness. Firebrand is also used by jugglers in village fairs to entertain the children and adults. A pole with its two sides ignited by fire is held in the middle either with one fists or both the fists and rotated with great speed. As the firebrand is thus rotated many forms are “created” a horizontal, a vertical, circular/crooked form appears and disappears with the movement of the firebrand by the dexterous performance of the juggler. The ignorant children see the various forms and believe that they are real, they are born out of the swirling of the firebrand. The movement of the firebrand is so fast that the two points of the fire on either side of the pole are not visible/seen. When the rotation stops the appearance of circles and lines also cease. This is the metaphor that is utilised by Gauḍapāda in the following six kārikās to highlight the point that the appearance of the phenomenal world is due to the movement/ spandam of the mind (citta).

The Sanskrit term for firebrand is (alāta). The exponent of Māṇḍūkya Kārikā Swami Akhandananda in his scholarly work called Māṇḍūkyakārikā observes that the word “alāta” in sanskrit means not available for perception. What is meant by this is that because of not knowing the given as it is, one tends to see things which are not present in it. This is based on the Vedānta methodology of agrahaṇaṃ for noncognition leading to distortion or anyathāgrahaṇa. The non-perception of the two points of fire in the firebrands along with the fast movement of the firebrand makes one to perceive the multiple forms and believe that they are generated by the fire brand. The fire-brand when not in motion has no figures, one clearly sees the two points. It should be noted that even when moved with great speed the firebrand is nothing but two points of fire on both the sides. Consciousness alone exists. It is ever a homogenous presence. But the movement/ spandana is seen by the perceiver due to ignorance of the real nature of Consciousness. Consciousness is acalam. There is not a slightest movement in it. But the ignorant imagined illusory subject-object division and movements it it. Consciousness appears to be changing and generating objects. And this is surely due to the ignorance of the perceiving mind.

The six following kārikās are very significant because they are central to the doctrine of non-origination (ajātivāda). When the alāta or firebrand is in motion there is an illusory appearance of lines etc. When the firebrand is not moved (the alātaśānti) the illusory appearances cease. When Consciousness is known as acalam, śāntam and advyam then there is no multiplicity perceived. When Consciousness is not thus known, then one sees forms etc. due to ābhāsaṃ vijñānaspanditaṃ.

Gauḍapāda in kārikā 47 states that,

‘As the movement of a firebrand itself (alātaspanditam [alātaspandita]) appears to be straight or crooked (ṛjuvakrādikābhāsam [ṛjuvakrādikābhāsa]) and the like, even so it is the vibration of consciousness (vijñānaspanditam [vijñānaspandita]) that appears to be the perceiver and the perception of the object (grahaṇagrāhakābhāsam [grahaṇagrāhakābhāsa])’.

According to Śaṅkara there is no vibration/motion in Consciousness. Consciousness appears in the various forms of objects (viṣaya) and the subjective consciousness (viṣayi) which are verily the apparent movement of the Consciousness alone. This apparent movement of Consciousness (vijñāna) is a projection brought about by ignorance.

Śaṅkara while commenting the above kārikā explains that when a firebrand moves, it appears to assume various forms, like straight and crooked etc. These forms are the forms of its movement, not of the firebrand. Similarly, the forms of the perceiver and the perceived that Consciousness appears to project are the forms of its motion/vibration, not of Consciousness Itself. This apparent movement in Consciousness is due to ignorance (avidyā) and is not real. Gauḍapāda has already described in kārikā 45 that Consciousness is unborn and unmoving (ajācalam [ajācala]).

The karika 48 reads:

‘As the fire-brand (alātam [alāta]) when not in motion, is free from all appearances (straight or crooked) and is unborn, similarly, Consciousness, when not in motion (imaginary action), is free from all appearance and remains changeless, when ignorance disappears, Consciousness does not appear to vibrate and will remain free from all appearances, birth, forms etc. and remains unborn (aja) and motionless (acala)’.

Gauḍapāda in kārikā 49 says:

‘When the firebrand is in motion, the appearances (that are seen in it) do not come from elsewhere. When the firebrand is not moved, the appearances do not go elsewhere from the motionless firebrand. Further, the appearances, when the firebrand is not moved, do not enter into the firebrand itself’.

As Śaṅkara explains the appearances of the moving firebrand, such as being straight or crooked etc., do not take their birth from anywhere outside the firebrand (anyataḥ) and then enter into it. Again, when it becomes motionless, the appearances do not go out anywhere else from the firebrand (tataḥ nispandāt). Nor do they enter into the motionless firebrand itself (Na te alātaṃpraviśanti).

The appearances of the fire-brand in motion as straight or crooked, are unreal because it is not possible to ascertain their substance. They do not come from elsewhere. When the firebrand is motionless, they do not leave it (alāta) and go out of it, they also do not enter into it (alāta), as the fire-brand is not their material (upādāna) cause and so they cannot have their absorption or the resolving point (laya) in the firebrand. If the movement of the fire-brand was the efficient (nimitta) cause and the firebrand is the material cause (upādana kāraṇa), then even in the absence of movement (i.e. nimitta kārāṇa)–the straight and crooked appearances would continue to appear as when the potter (nimitta-kāraṇa) is absent, the pots/jars do not disappear. But when the fire-brand is not in motion the appearances like straight/crooked do not occur. Therefore the appearances are unreal (mithyā).

Gauḍapāda continues the same argument in kārikā 50. He says: ‘The appearances do not emerge from the firebrand because they are not of the nature of a substance. The same is the case with reference to Consciousness as there is no difference in the basic nature of appearances (in both cases)’.

Śaṅkara while commenting on the above kārikā says that these appearances do not emanate from the fire-brand (na nirgatāḥ alātāt). Only things that are substantial can emanate from something, like something emerging from a house. But these appearances are unsubstantial. Therefore they cannot emerge from the source. Unsubstantiality means that they are unreal and unreal things neither come out/emanate nor merge back into a source. The same holds true of the appearances of Consciousness (vijñāna), its appearances of birth (jāti) etc. are unreal. For in both the cases of fire-brand and Consciousness, appearances are of the same nature. The meaning is that, the so-called external objects are nothing but appearances.

The purport of this kārikā is that the ‘absence of being a substance’ is the reason why the entry or exit of those appearances of firebrand from or into anything else is impossible. Movement can only be of a substance (dravya), not of adravya (according to Naiyāyikas). The same is the case with Consciousness.

The appearances are not real. They do not go or come. Going in or out is possible only of real substances. It is a substance, dvavya, that can move from one place to another, but appearances are not substances, and hence they cannot move. There is no difference whatsoever in the appearance of both the cases of firebrand and Consciousness.

Gauḍapada in kārikās 51-52 says:

‘When Consciousness is associated with the idea of activity (as in the dream and waking states),the appearances (that are seen in it) do not come from elsewhere. When Consciousness is inactive (as in deep sleep) appearances do not go elsewhere from the inactive Consciousness. Further, appearances do not enter into it. The appearances do not emerge from Consciousness because they are not of the nature of a substance. These are always beyond our comprehension on account of their not being subject to the relation of cause and effect’.

Śaṅkara in his commentary on these two kārikās says that everything with regard to Consciousness is similar to that of the firebrand. But in the case of Consciousness the special feature is that it is ever immutable (unmoving). In these kārikās it is being pointed out as to what causes the appearances of origination etc., in the motionless Consciousness. In the absence of the relation of cause and effect, the relation of product/creator and produced /creation cannot be reasonably established between the appearances and Consciousness. They (i.e the appearances) being the nature of nonexistence are ever beyond comprehension (sadāeva acintyāḥ). The meaning is that the firebrand is associated with various forms/ideas as straight or crooked etc., even though these appearances of straight, crooked etc., are non-existent. The fire-brand as such is neither straight nor crooked. Similarly, Consciousness is associated with origin/creation etc., even though these appearances of creation etc., are non-existent. Birth and death of Consciousness are as unreal as are the illusory appearances of the firebrand as straight or crooked. The appearances are all false. They are mere superimpositions on Consciousness.

In this connection, Bhattacharya quotes from several Buddhist sources to illustrate the central Mahayana notion of ‘neither coming nor going’.^[3] The characteristic of acintya refers to the status of appearances as neither being nor non-being (nor both, nor neither). This was taken up by Śaṅkara as the doctrine of indefinability (anirvacaniya), to be applied to the status of appearance (māyā). It cannot be counted real since it is sublated. Yet it is not unreal, since it is cognized. The illusory object is, therefore, indefinable (anirvacaniya) as real (sat), or as unreal (asat), or as real and unreal both, which is contradictory.^[4]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

, 150.

[2]:

Ibid., 152.

[3]:

Bhattacharya, Āgama śāstra, 147-57

[4]:

Satprakashananda Swami, Methods of Knowledge According to Advaita Vedānta, (London: George Allen and Unwin,1965), 127.