False adherence to the notion of causality

In the earlier kārikās (47-52) Gauḍapāda says that causality cannot be established between Consciousness (vijñāna) and its appearances because the appearances are not other than Consciousness itself. In kārikā 53 he gives a dialectical reasoning. He says that, ‘a substance might be the cause of another substance (dravyaṃ dravyasya hetuḥ syād). A category (like guṇa) which is not a substance (dravya) may be the cause of another category which is not a substance (anyad anyasya). But the jīvas (beings) cannot possibly be either a substance or any category other than substance (dravyatvam anyabhāvo vādharmānāṃ nopapadyate)’.

Śaṅkara says that it has been established that the essence of ātman is unborn and one. Ātman is not a substance being without parts and is unborn (aja). Ātman is not something other than substance, say attributes and is one. The doctrine of causality implies that there must be two substances, so that one substance can be the cause of another substance. But a thing cannot be the cause of its own Self. In our common experience, we never see a non-substance to be an independent cause of anything whatsoever. A quality (guṇa) which is non-substance (adravya) cannot be independently the cause of anything. The selves (beings) are neither substance nor something other than substance (like guna). Therefore, they (jīvas/ beings) cannot be the effect or cause of anything.

In this kārikā, Śaṅkara interprets the word 'dharmāḥ’ as ātmans (jīvas). In the kārikā 54 the word ‘dharmas’ is used in the sense of entities or external objects or appearances. Karmarkar interprets “dharmas” in kārikā 53 also as appearances of external objects or entities. Śaṅkara explains the nature of ātman as unborn (aja), nondual, partless, non-substantive (adravya), without attributes (nirguṇa) and pure existence (sanmātra). Gauḍapāda uses (in the entire kārikās) the word “dharma” in both the senses–of ātman (jīva) and entities or external objects or appearances.

Gauḍapāda in kārikā 54 says that the seers of Brahman see no cause and no effect in the ātman. The relationship of cause and effect has never come into being (hetuphalājāti). Cause and effect appear because of our strong psychological adherence to that concept (hetuphalāvesa). He says that, ‘Thus the appearances of external objects (and jīvas) are not caused by the mind (citta) nor is the mind originated from these appearances of external objects (jīvas). In this way, the wise have accepted the doctrine of non-origination of cause and effect.

As Śaṅkara in his commentary on this kārikā says that the real being of mind is the ātman itself. In other words, the mind is nothing but Consciousness. External objects are not born of the mind, nor is the mind originated from external objects (and jīvas),

for all beings, the mind and the external objects are mere appearances in Consciousness. Consequently, the effect is not born out of the cause or the cause out of the effect. In this way the knowers of Brahman arrive at the non-existence of cause and effect. It may be noted here that the Vijñānavādin Buddhists appear to hold that dharmas are born of mind (citta). But this is not possible according to Gauḍapāda. The mind is of the same nature as the essence of Consciousness (ātmavijñānasvarupa) and the external objects (dharmas) are the appearances of Consciousness i.e. (vijñānasvarupābhāśamātra). There cannot be any causal relation between them.

Gauḍapāda in kārikā 55 says:

‘As long as a man persists in the belief in causality he will find the working of cause and effect. But when attachment to causality vanishes, cause and effect become non-existence’.

As Śaṅkara remarks when the adherence to causality disappears, the duality also disappears. So long as a man thinks, “I am the agent; these merits (dharmas) and demerits (adharmas) belong to me. I shall enjoy the results of these actions, being born in course of time as some being etc.” He shall enjoy the results of these actions and come to suffer or enjoy according to the quality or nature of his actions. This is called ‘hetuphalāvesa’. In this way, as long as one is possessed with the spirit of “cause and effect” i.e., superimposes the idea of causality on ātman, so long (till that time), will the cause and effect operate. That is to say, merit and demerit and their results must continue to act on that individual.

According to Śaṅkara, just as through the power of incantations and herbal medicines, one can be dispossessed of the evil spirits; similarly by the realization of non-duality (advaita), one is dispossessed of the spirit of cause and effect, which arises from ignorance. When the obsession for cause and effect disappears, there is cessation of the operation of cause and effect. The essence of this kārikā according to him is that the belief in causation is somehow responsible for the cycle of birth and death. When one is freed from causation one is also freed from the cycle of birth and death. One realises the doctrine of non-origination (ajātivāda) in its fullness.

Gauḍapāda in kārikā 56 continues the same point. He says that it is only as long as there is false adherence to the notion of causality that there appears to be origination of things, one originates from another. But when this wrong notion disappears, there is neither cause nor effect.

He says:

‘As long as there is faith in causality, the (endless) chain of birth and death will be there. When that faith is destroyed (by knowledge) birth and death become non-existent’.

Śaṅkara in his commentary replies to the question as to what harm there is in the operation of cause and effect. He says that as long as the idea of cause and effect is not removed by proper discrimination, the cycle of birth and death in this world will continue. But when the possession of the idea of cause and effect ceases to exist, the world of transmigration also ceases to manifest, as there is no cause for that to exist.