Chapter IV
Alatasanti Prakaran (On Quenching of The Firebrand)
Introduction In this chapter, Gauḍapada consolidates the teachings of the previous three chapters and establishes the doctrine of non-origination (ajativada). He also examines and refutes rival philosophical systems to reinforce the Advaitic vision of non-duality. In the first two karikas, Gaudapada pays salutations to Narayana, the the Adi Guru, who initiated the lineage of teachers (guru-parampara). He was the first to teach non-duality, i.e., identity of jiva and Brahman. Gaudapada pays obeisance to asparsh-yoga which is without any contradiction. It is both beneficial and enjoyable because it culminates in liberation, which is of the nature of limitless bliss.
K 3-5 Gauḍapada introduces two dualist systems, namely, Saṃkya and Nyaya-Vaisesika (NV). The debate between these two systems is: Is an existent world created or a non-existent world created? Samkhya says that a non-existent world cannot be created because it is non-existent. Nothing non-existent can be created because matter can never be created or destroyed. In other words, Samkhya postulates manifestation of a pre-existing world. According to NV the existent world cannot be created because it is already existent and there is no need to create something which already exists. In other words, it postulates production of an effect that did not previously exist.
Samkhya theory is called satkaryavada and NV theory is called asatkaryavada. Their opposing positions expose the logical difficulties inherent in both theories of causation and thereby prepare the ground for Gauḍapada’s doctrine of ajativada.
K 6-8 These are reiteration of K 20-23 of Chapter III where it has been shown that Brahman is birthless and the creation, though experienced, has no real existence. Brahman lends existence to the world and the world is an appearance upon Brahman.
K 9-10 Nature of an entity is intrinsic and does not change. The entity does not acquire its nature. It is born with its nature. Being hot is the nature of fire. The nature does not depend on time and place. Liberation is eternal. If it is acquired, then it can be lost also. Freedom, fullness, and happiness are the true nature of the jiva, because the real nature of the jiva is none other than Brahman and everyone wants to be happy. Due to ignorance, a jiva thinks that he is bonded just like a snake is imagined in place of rope in dim light.
K 11-13 In K 3-5, the two dualist systems have been briefly discussed. Gaudapada does not discuss asatkaryavada of NV because it is too weak to be discussed. Its postulation that a non-existing thing gives rise to an existing thing is logically not possible. Moreover, if it is so, then anything can be created from anything, e.g., milk can be created from wood. Gaudapada directly refutes satkaryavada of Samkhya. It is desirable to know briefly about its creation theory. Samkhya postulates two realities, Purusha and Pradhana. Purusha is consciousness and Pradhana is material. Pradhana is beginningless, without birth, and eternal. It transforms into the world. Gauḍapada points out several logical inconsistencies in this theory.
1 To say that Pradhana is eternal, i.e., changeless, and at the same time it transforms into world are contradictory. A changeless entity cannot undergo change.
2 According to Samkhya, effect pre-exists in the cause and that cause and effect are essentially same. As Pradhana is the cause and world is the effect, they are essentially the same. Therefore, world is also birthless like Pradhana. It is not correct according to Samkhya itself.
3 In our experience, a cause is an effect of an earlier cause. Seed is the cause of tree and tree is the cause of the seed. Therefore, Pradhana should also be an effect of a cause. In that case, Pradhana cannot be birthless and beginningless.
K 14-20
Doctrine of creation and causality presented by the Vedas are provisional and not ultimately real. It is only for a beginner during the adhyaropa prakriya and is dropped later in apavada prakriya. The doctrine of karma is not intended to establish the ultimate reality of creation. It provisionally explains the order and diversity within the empirically experienced world. Once the student is prepared for the highest teaching, even this explanatory framework is sublated by the doctrine of non-origination (ajativada).
It has been earlier shown that Brahman cannot be the cause of creation because It is changeless. If it is said that Isvara, i.e., Brahman with maya power, is the creator, a question arises why is there so much disparity in the creation? Is the creation dependent on the whims and fancies of Isvara? To this, it is replied that Isvara is the general cause of creation and jiva’s karmas are the specific cause which is responsible for disparity.
Gauḍapada says that this theory of creation based on karma does not withstand logical scrutiny. There are six ways in which Karmic law can explain creation. Of the six, the first four are relatively simple and the last two are the main ones. They are:
1. Karma is the first cause of the body, which is representative of the entire creation. (karma first)
2. Body is the first cause of karma. (body first)
3. Both karma and body originate simultaneously like the two horns of a cow growing simultaneously.
4. Each pair of karma and body are mutually cause and effect. Karma is born of a body and the body is born of karma.
5. Karma and body form a long series. From karma, body comes, from the body, karma comes, from karma, body comes and so on.
6. Karma-body series is beginningless.
Refutations
1 Karma cannot be the first cause because it is always associated with body which is engaged in action.
2 The body cannot be the first cause because then the question would be about the basis on which Isvara creates a body.
3 Karma and body cannot originate simultaneously like two horns of a cow because then they will be devoid of cause-effect relationship.
4 Karma comes from body and body comes from karma, i.e., each pair of karma and body constitutes cause and effect within itself. It amounts to saying that Dasaratha is the father of Rama and Rama is the father of Dasaratha.
5 The body has come out of karma which has come out of its previous body and not from some other body. The previous body came out of its previous karma which has come from its previous body. Thus karma 1 produces body 1, body 1 produces karma 2, karma 2 produces body 2, body 2 produces karma 3, etc. It can be a different series starting with body. In both types of series there is no defect of the mutual cause-effect relationship. However, the fallacy is that in either series, the first cause has been chosen arbitrarily. In other words, it is beset with the problem of specifying the ‘first cause’.
6 There are two fallacies in an anadi karma-body series. Anadi is an adjective. Is ‘anadi’ an attribute of karma or of body or of karma-body series? It cannot be an attribute of karma or body as shown at 1 and 2 above. Therefore, anadi has to be an attribute of the series. The word ‘series’ is only a concept. There is no such thing called series other than the individual members. Fruit salad is only a concept. The substance are the individual fruits on the plate. This is fallacy 1. The attempt to explain creation by karma-body series on the basis of seed-tree series is no explanation as seed-tree series is itself unexplained.
Swami Parmarthananda examines another fallacy (K30) which runs deep. If karma-body series is anadi, liberation is not possible due to the unending series of Samsara. The argument that the series is infinite but it has an end in a particular case due to spiritual sadhana is not tenable because any liberation that has a beginning must necessarily have an end. Such a temporary liberation cannot be true liberation.
Gauḍapqda concludes that the proponents of the karmic theory of creation have failed to provide a logically satisfactory explanation of creation. As a result, they remain ignorant whereas wise ones hold the view of no-creation.
K 21-23 Shankaracharya says that there is clear indication of birthlessness since there is no logical way to explain the idea of creation. In everyday life, it is easy to know the cause of an effect but impossible in the case of creation. Shankaracharya reinforces it with an illustration. A jar is obviously not born of itself. If it already exists, it need not be born. If it does not exist, then there is no way it can be brought into existence.
He adds, “True, the ignorant have such notions and use such words as ‘It exists’, `It takes birth’. Those very words and notions are examined by the discriminating people as to whether they are true or false, inasmuch as things called a jar, a son, and so on, which are contents of words and notions, are found on examination to be reduced to mere words, as is declared in the Vedic text, ‘(All modification) has speech as its basis…’ (Ch. VI. i. 4). [Swami Gambhirananda. Eight Upanishads, Advaita Ashrama
As seen above, the idea of ‘anadi’ leads nowhere. That which is truly beginningless (anadi) cannot have originated at any point in time. Thus, beginninglessness implies birthlessness (ajati). Therefore, ajativada is the highest truth.
Contd