Chapter III – Advaita Prakarana (On Non-duality)
This chapter discusses the word ‘advaitam’ occurring in the seventh mantra of the Mandukya Upanishad.
K 1–2
In the empirical world, there are two types of transactions: sacred and secular. Both involve duality. Secular transactions involve I and mine on the one hand and the world on the other. Sacred transactions involve I and mine on the one hand and God on the other.
In the sacred sphere, I worship God because I consider myself limited and insecure, while I regard God as all-powerful and compassionate. I am a devotee of God. The Vedas do prescribe devotion in their earlier portion. However, Gauḍapada says that remaining a devotee forever is not the final goal and that such a devotee is unfortunate, because devotion by itself is not a permanent remedy of human suffering. Self-knowledge alone is the permanent remedy. The Self is non-dual.
In the beginning, devotion is recommended for purifying the mind so that one may eventually progress to the path of Self-knowledge. Beginning one’s spiritual journey as a devotee is appropriate but ending it merely as a devotee is not the ideal envisaged by the Upanishads.
Shankaracharya comments:
“That which is not uttered by speech, but that by which speech is revealed—know That alone to be Brahman, and not what people worship here as an object.” (Kena Upanishad I.5)
—Swami Gambhirananda, Eight Upanishads, Advaita Ashrama
Gauḍapda proposes to teach the non-dual Self, which is unborn, limitless, and free from suffering.
K 3–4
Atma is like space. Both are all-pervading, limitless, and unbounded. Because of Its infinitude, Atma is called Paramatma. When a potter makes a pot, what appears to be pot-space comes into being. Similarly, when Atma is seemingly enclosed by the body of a jiva, it is referred to as jivatma.
Pot-space is not different from all-pervading space. In the same way, jivatma is not different from Atma. There is only a seeming creation of pot-space or jivatma. There appears to be a distinction between the space inside the pot and the space outside it. In reality, there is neither distinction nor creation.
When the pot is broken, pot-space is said to merge with total space. Similarly, upon gaining Self-knowledge, the apparent distinction between Paramatma and jivatma disappears. When the qualifying words jiva and para are dropped, what remains is Atma alone. There are many jivas, but Atma is one. In other words, the birth of the jiva is negated. It should be noted that Atma is non-transactional, whereas the jiva is engaged in worldly transactions.
Shankaracharya comments:
“The idea implied is that the emergence of individual souls from the supreme Self, that is heard of in the Upanishads, is comparable to the emergence of the spaces in the jars from the supreme space; but this is not so in any real sense of the term. Just as from that very space evolve composite things like jars, etc., so also from the supreme Self, which is comparable to space, emerge the composite things like the earth, etc., as well as the bodies and senses that constitute the individual, all of them taking birth through imagination like a snake on a rope.”
—Swami Gambhirananda, Eight Upanishads, Advaita Ashrama
K 5–6
Atma is one, just as space is one. Jivas are many, like the many pot-spaces. If one pot-space is associated with dirt or smoke, all pot-spaces are not thereby affected. Similarly, if one jiva experiences pleasure or pain, all jivas do not experience the same.
The different objects contained in various enclosed spaces seem to make those spaces assume the properties of the objects. Likewise, different jivas appear to possess different attributes. Just as pot-spaces differ only in form, function, and name, the apparent differences among jivas arise from their limiting adjuncts, making Atma seem to be different in each. In reality, however, there are no differences in Atma. Gauḍapada cautions against concluding that Atma is many.
K 7
The possibilities of jivatma being either a product or a part of Atma are ruled out. The potter creates the pot, not the pot-space. Pot-space is not a product of total space; it already existed in total space before the pot was made. Nor is pot-space a part of total space, because space is indivisible. Similarly, jivatma is neither a product nor a part of Atma.
K 8
When there is dust or smoke in the air, children who do not know the facts imagine that the sky itself has become sullied. Similarly, an ignorant person attributes the impurities of the body to Atma and considers It impure. In reality, the impurities belong only to the body; they are falsely superimposed upon Atma, which is ever pure and free from attributes.
K 9
The potter creates the pot, not the pot-space. Pot-space is never different from total space. When the pot is broken, pot-space is said to merge into total space. In truth, there was never any real separation between the two; at most, there was only an apparent separation. Therefore, there is no real creation, existence, or destruction of pot-space. Likewise, there is no real creation, sustenance, or death of the jivatma.
K 10
The earlier karikas established through reasoning that jivatma is unborn. But what about the body, which appears to enclose Atma? Should not the creation of the body—and, by extension, the creation of the world—be accepted, just as the creation of the pot is accepted?
Gauḍapada clarifies that although the body appears and is experienced, it does not follow that it truly exists as an independently originated entity. He explains this with the example of the dream. The dream world is experienced, yet it has no reality of its own. Upon waking, it is recognized as unreal. This was discussed in detail in Chapter II.
The waking world, including all jivas, should be understood in the same manner. It appears and is experienced owing to the power of Maya. Although the waking world is empirically superior to the dream world, from the standpoint of the Self both are mithya and stand on the same footing. Therefore, there is no real creation.
K 11-14
In earlier verses, creation of jiva and the world have been negated using reasons. The karikas 11 to 14 give the scriptural authority of the same. The central teaching of Upanishads is identity of Brahman and jiva. In Taittiriya Upanishad, by the method of five sheaths starting from food-sheath, it has been shown that Atma is the innermost and is different from the sheaths. The five sheaths are objects of experience and dependent on Atma, the witnessing consciousness and the ultimate subject. The sheaths are mithya and have no independent existence other than that of Atma. Thus, jiva has a seeming creation and not a real creation.
In Madhubrahman of Brihadaranakya Upanishad, the world is divided into several pairs belonging to the individual planes, microcosm and the corresponding macrocosm. For example, the eyes are vyaṣṭi (microcosm) and surya devata is the samaṣṭi (macrocosm) (adhyatmaṃ and adhidaivaṃ). Taking these vyaṣṭi-samaṣṭi pairs, the Upanishad says that even though superficially they are different, the essence of both of them is only one Atma.
Taking several pairs, the Upanishad says that the same Atma as the essence of the total is called paramatma and as the essence of the individual is called jivatma. Thus, identity of Brahman and jiva is established. Therefore, it is not correct to say that jiva is born from Brahman. The Upanishads through the four great statements and other similar statements repeatedly assert the identity of Brahman and jiva. The knowledge of identity is glorified as it leads to realization of liberation.
Gauḍapada clarifies a possible doubt. The jivatma-paramatma identity is glorified in all the Upanishads and the difference is criticized. The Upanishads form a small part of the Vedas. The foundation of entire Karma-kanda which is much bigger is difference between jiva and the God. In meditation on the God, the difference is maintained. Gauḍapada says that the goal of Vedas is teach the identity. Vedas do not negate the difference but encourage to use to prepare the mind for gaining knowledge. On gaining knowledge, the apparent difference is removed and identity is established. It is like removing the skin of a banana only after the fruit ripens.
Contd