The non-originated, non-relational, ever-enlightened Consciousness

In kārikā 95 Gauḍapāda says:

‘They alone will be possessed of great wisdom in this world, who will be firm in their conviction that ātman/ Brahman is unborn and uniformly alike without change. But the ordinary/common men cannot understand this’.

According to Śaṅkara this essence of Ultimate Reality cannot be understood by men of poor intellect, by the unwise, by those who are outside the knowledge of Vedānta, by the low/narrow minded persons. Those persons, even though they may be women or others, who are firmly convinced that the Ultimate Reality is unborn and of the same nature, they alone in this world are possessed of great wisdom (mahājñānaḥ). The essence of Reality known to such people, can never be grasped by the men of ordinary intellect.

It is stated in the smṛti (Mahābhārata. ŚāntīParvan 239.23-24),

‘As it is not possible to mark the footprints of birds flying in the sky, so even the gods get puzzled in trying to trace the course of one who is the ātman of all living beings, who is a source of bliss to all, and who has no goal to reach’.

The track of one who has known the Supreme Reality is not traceable like the marks of footprints of birds flying in the sky. For such knower of Reality has not to go anywhere–he is gantavyapada-rahita. In this regard the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad (3-2-5) says that those knowers of Reality become one with the whole universe (sarvam evaāviśanti).

Gauḍapāda in this kārikā says that a Mahājñāni is ‘one who has the knowledge of the non-dual ātman/ Brahman’. One should not understand that the Knowledge (Consciousness) is different from Brahman.

In the kārikā 96 he says,

‘Knowledge (Consciousness), which is the very essence of the unborn jīvas (ātmans), is itself called unborn and non-relational. This knowledge has no objective relation and is described as unattached’.

Swami Nikhilananda following the traditional commentator Śaṅkara remarks that,

‘Knowledge which constitutes the essence of the dharmas (jīvas), unborn, immutable and identical with ātman, is also admitted to be unborn and immutable’.^[1]

From the Absolute standpoint dharmas (ātmans) are identical with unborn knowledge (ajajñāna), as the sun is identical with its heat and light. Śaṅkara says that the knowledge (jñānam [jñāna]) which is not related to any other object (asaṃkrāntam [asaṃkrānta]), is said to be unborn. It is described as unconditioned like the ākāśa (ākāśakalpa).

The import of this kārikā is that the ātman is knowledge itself. They are inseparable, just as the sun is inseparable from its light and heat. Knowledge is the very essence of unborn ātman. Like the ātman, knowledge is also independent, for it is not derived from some other source. And just as the ātman is unborn and eternal, knowledge is also uncreated and eternal. It is the Self/ ātman.

In kārikā 97, it is stated that without the attainment of the relationless condition (asaṅgatā), there can be no removal of the veil or covering (utāvaraṇacyutiḥ).

The kārikā reads as follows:

‘The slightest idea of variety (in ātman) entertained by the ignorant bars their approach to the unconditioned. The destruction of the veil (covering the real nature of ātman) is out of the question’.

Śaṅkara explains that the least idea of variety (duality), either subjective (internal) or objective (external), in the mind of the ignorant person, prevents him to realise the ever unattached ātman. Therefore, there is no possibility of the destruction of the bondage.

According to both Gauḍapāda and Śaṅkara the Absolute Reality is changeless and non-dual. The knowledge is regarded as unattached/untouched (asaṅga) as there is no object (viṣaya) for knowledge and there is nothing else besides the ātman. Ātman is untouched and of the nature of eternal knowledge (jñāna nitya-vijñapti-rūpa).

In other schools of thought, the knowledge is related to objects (saviṣayaka) and thus it is attached to objects. But like the ignorant persons, if the birth or creation of an object be admitted, then as a consequence knowledge is related to that object. In that case the immutable and unattached nature of knowledge cannot be justified. One cannot speak of liberation, as liberation is liable to change.

“The slightest difference” as stated in this kārikā refers to the Taittirīya Upaniṣad (27) which says that there is fear if even the slightest difference is entertained (udaram antaram kurute).

The term ‘āvaraṇa’ in this kārikā is a technical term in Mahāyāyna thought whose meaning Bhattacharya illustrates in a quotation from the Laṅkāvatārasūtra, a Buddhist text:

jñeyāvaraṇaṃ punar mahāmate dharmanairātmya darśanaviśeṣād viśudhyate.
kleśāvaraṇam tu pudgala nairātmyadarśanābhyāsa-pūrvakaṃ prahīyate.^[2]

This particular text indicates that the jñeya-āvaraṇa disappears by one's realising the unreality of the elements of existence as separate entities (dharma-nairātmya). While kleśāvaraṇa disappears through a similar realisation concerning one’s imagined status as a personal being.

The appearance of “āvaraṇa” in this kārikā is from the perspective of relative truth. Hence the removal of āvaraṇa is referred here. Again the kārikā 98 brings to bear the doctrine of non-origination, from its most radical paramārtha perspective. It is said in this kārikā that there is no veil or covering (āvaraṇa) at all.

The kārikā reads as follows:

‘All Dharmas (i.e. jīvas) are without any veil (or bondage), as by their very nature, they are pure. From the very beginning they are Pure Consciousness and therefore are liberated. They are called as "being realised" as they have the capability of having the knowledge of the Ultimate Reality’.

Śaṅkara poses a question in his commentary and claims that this kārikā is a reply to the objectionist. The objectionist asks, the preceding kārikā has stated that the destruction of the veil, covering the real nature of the ātman, is not possible. It may be contended that this is a tacit admission by the Vedāntin that “ātman is covered by a veil”. To dispel this doubt Śaṅkara says that the bondage (or the obstruction to knowledge), are of the nature of ignorance (avidyā). The ātmans (jīvas) are ever free from any bondage/veil (alabdhāvaraṇāḥ). They are intrinsically pure and always liberated. They are ever illumined and free from the very beginning as they are by nature eternally pure, illumined and liberated.

The question may arise here if this is so, why do they (ātmans) described as "being realised" (budhyante)? The answer is that the dharmas (ātmans) are nāyakas, masters of themselves, have the power of knowing i.e. they have the power/capability of knowing the nature of the Ultimate Reality.

The phrase ‘ātman becomes the knower’ means ātman is by nature endowed with the power of knowledge. Śaṅkara explains this idea by an analogy. He says, this is just like saying, 'the sun shines', even though the sun is of the very nature of luminosity. Or it is like saying that the ‘mountains as standing’, though they have no movement at all. The meaning is that the verb, subject, grammatical termination etc. are not to be taken in their primary sense here, in the case of ātman. We speak the language of relative experiences and we do superimpose upon the sun such qualities as rising, setting, moving, shinning etc. which are all false from the stand-point of the sun.

This kārikā is differently interpreted both by Bhattacharya and Karmarkar. Śaṅkara interprets nāyakas as ‘swāminaḥ samarthāḥ boddhum’ and ‘budhyante’ is taken metaphorically. Bhattacharya interprets nāyakas as Buddhas.

Karmarkar says that the second line of the kārikā is not connected with the first line of the kārikā. He also says that nāyakas refer to Buddhas but remarks that Gauḍapāda differs from Buddhists who believe that some are ādibuddhas and some acquire Buddhahood later, while according to Gauḍapāda all are ādibuddhas and muktas and there is no vaidharmya among them. When all ātmans (dharmas) are prakṛtinirmala, the distinction that some dharmas are ādibuddha or ādimukta or ādiśānta is meaningless^[3].

Gauḍapada in kārikā 99 says:

‘The knowledge of the realised one (buddhasya), who is all-light/wisdom (tāyinaḥ) is ever untouched by objects. Similarly, all the entities as well as knowledge (which are non-different) are also ever-untouched by any object. This is not the view of the Buddha’.

Śaṅkara explains that the knowledge (Consciousness) of one who has realised the Ultimate Reality, is not related to the objects or jīvas. This knowledge is ever centred in (or identified with) the jīva (i.e., ātman) like light in the sun. It pervades (tāyin) everything like ākāśa. Śaṅkara glosses the term ‘tāyin’ as meaning “all light”, or “tāyin” may mean deserving veneration or possessed of wisdom. All dharmas (ātmans) also are like the knowledge, all pervasive like the ākāśa and they, too, are not related to objects.

Gauḍapāda in kārikā 1, spoke of knowledge (jñāna) which has been compared to ākāśa and which is non-different from the knowledge of the enlightened one who is all-pervasive by virtue of his identity with knowledge itself. And this knowledge is not related to any other object. So, also are the entities/ dharmas not related (asaṅga) to anything.

Brahman, the essence of all the entities is like ākāśa, unchanging, immutable, undivided, eternal, non-dual, untouched, unattached, unseen, and incomprehensible, beyond hunger and thirst (and other desires).

As the Śruti says,

‘There is no cessation of the seeing of a seer’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad IV.3.23).^[4]

In the second line of kārikā 99 it is stated:

‘This knowledge (jñāna) regarding the absolute Reality, without a second and free from the differences of knowledge, known, and knower, is not the same as that preached by the Buddha (naitad buddhena bhāṣitam [bhāṣita])’.

Even though his doctrine rejects the existence of external objects and admits the existence of ideas alone, is very near the non-dual ātman. But this non-duality, the essence of the absolute Reality, is to be known from the Upaniṣad only.

The statement: “This was not said by the Buddha” in this kārikā has evoked different interpretations. Bhattacharya considers that this statement should be understood only in its implied sense. He has his own theory about this kārikā. The statement “this has not been said by the Buddha” is interpreted by him as “avacanaṃ Buddhavacanam”^[5], which is taken to mean that the transcendental truth cannot be conveyed by instruction through language and thus silence of Gautama Buddha is the silence of Noble–silence only is his speech^[6]. Contemporary scholars such as Thomas Wood^[7] and Richard King,^[8] have essentially agreed with Bhattacharya's interpretation of this kārikā.

Bhattacharya is keen on identifying Gauḍapāda's doctrine with the schools of Buddhism. But neither the eminent Buddhists have accepted Gauḍapāda as a Buddhist nor the Vedāntins have accepted the tenets of Buddhism. As Śaṅkara has pointed out, the difference in the two sets of tenets cannot be ignored.

Karmarkar observes that Laṅkāvatārasūtra contains the expression “Bhāṣiṣye' ham tava” repeated many times and put in the mouth of Buddha who is made to discourse on various topics there. But what Gauḍapāda means to say is that he (Buddha) could not grasp the ajātivāda which is the only proper solution of the problem about saṃsāra.

Karmarkar says:

“Buddha no doubt denied the existence of external objects (vāhyārtha), and admitted the Vijñānavāda, but he... could not get out of the idea of causal relation and origination. To that extent Buddha's philosophy is defective. This seems to be the meaning of kārikā 99”.^[9]

Gauḍapāda concludes the fourth prakaraṇa in kārikā 100 with a salutation to the extremely deep/highest (atigaṃbhīram [atigaṃbhīra]) state of liberation (padam [pada]).

He says that,

‘Having realised that condition (i.e., the knowledge of the Supreme Reality) which is extremely difficult to be grasped, profound, birthless, always the same, all-light, and free from multiplicity, we salute it as best as we can’.

Śaṅkara in his commentary states, at the conclusion of this treatise, that we offer our salutations to praise the essence of Reality. The knowledge of the non-dual ātman is difficult to be comprehended. This knowledge is free from the four possible predicates such as “Is”, “Is not” etc., advocated by various schools of philosophy. Therefore, it is very profound, beyond the reach of the ignorant like the bottom of the ocean. Having realised such a state free from multiplicity, unborn, ever the same and full of wisdom, and having become one with it, we offer our obeisance to it. Though this absolute knowledge is beyond our empirical experience (like salutations etc.), we try to bring it within the range of empirical standpoint and offer our salutations to that state to the best of our ability. No salutation is possible with regard to the non-dual Self because the knowledge (jñānam [jñāna]) and the Self are identical. Salutation or adoration implies duality and is possible only from the empirical standpoint. To realise the Self/ ātman is itself the greatest worship that one can offer to the Self. The greatest adoration that we can give to the absolute knowledge is to become it.

Bhattacharya notes that the term 'pada' is used in Buddhist literature to mean nirvāṇa, quoting the Abhidhānappadipikā:

“Padaṃṭhāne parittāṇe nibbānamhi ca kāraṇe”.^[10]

He remarks that the epithets used in this kārikā viz. durdarśam and atigaṃbhīram, strengthen the probability that pada here is equivalent with nirvāṇa, because these epithets are often connected with nirvāṇa in Budhist literature.

He gives the example of the following phrase which occurs three times in the Lalitavistara:

nirvāṇarūpo dharmo gambhīro durdṛśaśca.^[11]

Karmarkar points out that it is quite unnecessary to take pada to mean nirvāṇa. The expression, usually 'parama pada', is used often in philosophical literature to mean liberation (mokṣa).^[12]

The final analysis of this chapter Alātaśanti (quenching of fire-brand) reveals the absence of causality in ātman and establishes the supreme truth of non-duality which is unoriginated, eternal and self-luminous. This chapter establishes the unintelligibility of the concept of causality through dialectic. Gauḍapāda has chosen the metaphor of fire-brand to explain the doctrine of non-origination. As is evident, this chapter derives its name from this unique and appropriate metaphor. This very metaphor explains the illusoriness of the phenomenal world by comparing it to the non-real designs produced by the movement of fire-brand. The absolute state of Asparśa yoga and the nature of the Self are the prominent feature of this chapter.

Asparśa-Yoga is the yoga of transcendence having no contact (sparśa) or relationship with anything at anytime. It is the very nature of Self (Brahma svabhāva). It is well known to the knowers of Brahman. In this yoga nothing is touched. The Self neither touches anything nor is touched by anything, as a rope is not touched by the illusory snake superimposed on it. Similarly the ākāśa is untouched by the apparent blueness perceived of it. As there exists nothing other than the Self, there is no duality. The socalled duality is only imaginary. This yoga promotes happiness of all beings and is conducive to the wellbeing of all. It is free from dispute (avivāda) and contradiction (aviruddha) both philosophically and experientially.

The doctrine of non-origination (ajātivāda) also implies that the Self is unborn (aja) and is beyond the apparent cause-effect phenomena. Origination (jāti), activity (calatva), and objectivity (vastutva) are all false appearances. The Self has neither antecedent nor consequent (apūrvam aparam [apara]), neither outside nor inside (abāhyam anantaram [anantara]), neither birth nor motion nor materiality (ajam, acalam [acala]). It means the Self is devoid of time, space, causality, motion and matter (substance). The description that the Self is unborn is an empirical truth which is imagined. In reality it is not even unborn. It is so imagined only relatively for the refutation of those views which demonstrate that the Self is born.

The dualists believe in origination and dispute among themselves over the source of origination by expounding their own doctrines of causation. Some disputants (i.e the Sāṅkhyas) maintain that the origination is of a thing which is already existent, while there are others (i.e Nyāya-Vaiśeṣikas) who think that it is of a thing which is nonexistent. They dispute with each other and contradict one another. Their philosophy is false as it gives rise to passions like attachment and aversion. The falsification of their views automatically establishes the truth of non-duality with the help of the method of negative reasoning. In this process the doctrine of non-origination (ajātivāda) gets established.

Refuting the claims of the dualists, Gauḍapāda says that the birth of an unborn cannot be justified. It is universally experienced that, what has no birth (ajāta) has also no death (amṛta). An unborn entity by its very nature is immortal. When the intrinsic nature of an object never changes in the phenomenal world like heat and light of the fire, the absolute immortal nature of the Self can never be subject to change. The immortal cannot be mortal nor can the mortal be immortal, for the nature of a thing can in no way be changed. Even the identification of the jīvas with the body is an illusion. The essential nature of the jīvas is that of ātman itself which is free from all changes i.e, birth, growth, maturity, decay and death. That the jīvas are subject to birth and death is a mere imagination. Due to ignorance of the Self when the jīvas identifies itself with the body-mind complex, it is bound by birth, death, merits, demerits, happiness, sorrow etc. The phenomena of birth and death are only apparent. Anything which comes within the purview of limited knowledge of the jīva is called birth; and when it goes out of the purview of the limited knowledge of the jīva is called death.

The dialectical critique of the notion of causality proves that the Self is unborn. This viewpoint is plausible considering the following arguments that: (a) nothing is born of anything for the reason that whatever is supposed to be born is not of itself, or of another, or of both another and itself. Nothing is born of itself, i.e, of its own form. Nothing can produce itself as a jar cannot produce itself. Nor is anything produced from something else, as a cloth from a jar. Again, nothing can be born of both itself and another, for it involves a contradiction. A jar and a cloth cannot together produce either the one or the other. (b) Nothing is ever produced whether it is existent, nonexistent or both. If the object which is said to be produced is ever existent like clay, it cannot be produced, for it is already there before production. If it is non-existent like the horns of a hare, it cannot, by its very nature, be ever produced. If it is both existent and non-existent it would be contradictory.

The unreal (asat) as well as the real (sat) cannot have the unreal as their cause; nor can the real have the real as their cause. It is impossible for the real to be the cause of the unreal. It means that (a) an unreal thing cannot have an unreal cause, as the horns of a hare cannot be the cause of a sky flower; (b) a real thing cannot have an unreal cause, as the horns of a hare cannot be the cause of a jar; (c) a real thing cannot have a real cause, as a jar cannot be the cause of another jar or cloth; (d) an unreal thing cannot have a real cause, as a jar cannot be the cause of a sky flower. When we reflect upon causality, we find only these four types of relation (catuskoṭi), none of which is, however, possible. Thus causality is refuted and the doctrine of non-origination is established. The notion of cause and effect exists only in the empirical realm. From the ultimate standpoint the phenomena of cause and effect does not exist.

The metaphor of the fire-brand (alāta) establishes the point that the appearance of the phenomenal world is due to the imaginary movement (spandana) of the mind (citta).When a fire-brand moves, it appears to assume various forms like straight, crooked, circles etc. Similarly Consciousness appears to move and projects forms of the perceiver, the perceived and the like. In reality there is no motion in Consciousness. It only appears to be moving. This apparent movement in Consciousness is due to ignorance (avidyā). When the fire-brand is not in motion, it does not take any form. Being free from all appearances it remains changeless. So also when Consciousness is not in motion, it has no appearance of subject-object. In other words when ignorance ceases, Consciousness does not appear to move or vibrate.

When the fire-brand moves, the appearance of forms such as straight, crooked, circles etc., do not come from elsewhere. When the firebrand stops moving, neither do these appearances go elsewhere nor do they go back to the fire-brand itself. The appearances do not emerge from the fire-brand because they are not of the nature of the substance. The same is the case with reference to Consciousness as there is no difference in the basic nature of appearance in both the cases. Everything with regard to Consciousness is similar to that of the fire-brand except that Consciousness is ever unchanging (acala).

When Consciousness apparently moves in the dream and waking states, the appearances of the perceiver, perceived and the like that are seen in these states do not arise from something other than the Consciousness. When Consciousness is motionless in the state of deep-sleep, the said appearances vanish but not into Consciousness nor into something else. These appearances have no substance whatsoever. In other words, the phenomenal world has not come from anywhere or from Consciousness nor does it dissolve back into Consciousness. As the appearances have not originated from Consciousness, there is no cause-effect relationship between Consciousness and the appearances. In essence, Consciousness is unborn and motionless, thus free from appearances.

The apparent motion of Consciousness is generally referred to as mind. The world of duality comprising of the perceiver and the perceived is nothing but the creation of the mind. The objects seen in the dream and the wakeful states are not different from the mind. The objects and their relation with the mind are perceived only in the state of ignorance. Even when the ignorant person perceived the mind to be associated with the subject-object relationship, the mind in reality is non-dual, unattached. It means from the standpoint of Reality, the mind (citta) is ātman, devoid of relations with objects (nirviṣayam [nirviṣaya]) and is consequently described as eternal (nityam [nitya]), unattached and unrelated (asaṅga).Therefore neither the mind nor the objects seen by it are ever produced.

The Self is without birth (ajam [aja]), without sleep (anidram [anidra]) and without dreams (asvapnam [asvapna]). The term ‘ajam’ implies the negation of the wakeful state i.e. Viśva; ‘anidram’ implies the negation of deep-sleep state i.e prājña and ‘asvapanam’ implies the negation of the dream state i.e, is Taijasa.

Ignorant of the real nature of the ātman, people associate ātman with various illusory ideas (kalpanā) on account of false attachment to their own theories. Some disputant (Vaiśeṣika) asserts that ātman exists (asti). Another disputant (the Buddhists), says, that it is non-existent (nāsti). A third disputant (Jainas), proclaims that ātman both exists and does not exists (asti-nāsti). The fourth category of disputant known as the absolute Nihilist says that ātman is absolutely non-existent (nāsti-nāsti). All these four schools of disputants, trying to find ātman by attributing to It, change, no change, a combination of both and absolute negation, create a veil between themselves and ātman. He who knows the ātman as untouched by any of these four alternative theories, is the seer of all (sarvadṛk), is the seer of the Absolute i.e Omniscient (sarvajña). Having attained this state of Omniscience, a non-dual state devoid of origin, continuance and dissolution, there remains nothing else to be known by him. He realises immortality (amṛtatva). He does not make any effort after the realisation of ātman. He attains to natural peace, rests in the serene and calm state which is the characteristic of the nature of ātman. He becomes the Absolute Itself. He is the man of the highest intellect (Mahādhiḥ) because his intellect grasps that which transcends all objects of empirical experiences. He alone is the real Brahmana who has directly realised himself as Brahman.

The Ultimate Truth is that the very nature of the true being (ātman) of all the jīvas (dharmas) is beginningless, subtle, all-pervasive, free from all blemishes and untouched like ākāśa. All jīvas are, by their very nature ever free, pure and illumined. They are eternally peaceful. The multiplicity of jīvas is seen only from the empirical standpoint due to ignorance. In reality, there is no multiplicity in the jīvas. They are one and the same. Those who believe in separateness of jīvas are narrow-minded persons with limited understanding (kṛpanaḥ).They obstinately assert duality and always preoccupied with phenomenal experiences. They never realise the natural purity of ātman. They ever persist in the path of duality which is only imagined by ignorance (avidyā).

Those who have the right knowledge that the Ultimate Reality is unborn and uniform (sama), are indeed the people of Highest wisdom. Highest wisdom constitutes the knowledge of the Self. The Self and Knowledge (Jñānam [Jñāna]) are inseparable, just as the sun is inseparable from its light and heat. Knowledge is the very essence of the Self. Like the ātman, Knowledge is also independent, for it is not derived from some other source. The Knowledge of Self is not the result of any practice or activity such as upāsanā, karma and yoga etc. And just as the Self is unborn and unrelated, Knowledge is also unborn and unrelated. The Self is Knowledge itself. The Self, the Knower of Self, and the Knowledge of Self, are all one and the same.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Swami Nikhilananda, The Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad, 308.

[2]:

Bhattacharya, Āgama śāstra, 211.

[3]:

Karmarkar, Gauḍapāda Kārikā, 145.

[4]:

S. Radhakrishnan, The Principal Upaniṣads, 264.

[5]:

Bhattacharya, Āgama śāstra, 216.

[6]:

Karmarkar, Gauḍapāda Kārikā, 146.

[7]:

Thomas Wood, The Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad and the Āgama śāstra, 76.

[8]:

Richard King, Early Advaita Vedānta and Buddhism, 191.

[9]:

Karmarkar, Gauḍapāda Kārikā, 146.

[10]:

Bhattacharya, Āgama śāstra, 217.

[11]:

Ibid., 218.

[12]:

Karmarkar, Gauḍapāda Kārikā, 146.