Part 8
Chapter IV
K 24–28 concern Buddhist schools of philosophy (See the Annexure at the conclusion of the series).
K 29
There is no satisfactory explanation of creation. Creation implies the birth of an effect, which immediately raises the question of its cause. If that cause is identified, it in turn becomes the effect of an earlier cause. Ultimately, one has to arrive at a causeless cause. Such a cause must necessarily be birthless, eternal, and changeless. But creation implies change. Therefore, the notions of an eternal cause and a real creation are mutually contradictory.
K 30
If the world is beginningless in the sense of an endless cycle of karma and rebirth, liberation would be impossible because samsara would have no end. On the other hand, if liberation itself has a beginning, it must also have an end. Such liberation would only be temporary. (This point was discussed earlier under K 14–20)
K 31–35
Gauḍapada revisits the theme of Chapter II. Although the world is experienced, it has already been shown that there is no real creation. The world is therefore only an appearance.
The doctrine of non-origination (ajativada) and the mithya status of the world express the same truth from two complementary standpoints. The world has no independent reality in the beginning, in the middle, or in the end, even though it is experienced as though it were real. Indeed, whatever has a beginning and an end cannot be absolutely real.
The dream world is unreal because dream objects cannot exist within the limited space of the dream body, nor can one travel vast distances in a moment. Moreover, nothing acquired in a dream remains upon waking. Dreams have a beginning and an end and therefore lack independent reality, although while dreaming they appear as real as the waking world. Dream water certainly quenches dream thirst, but utility by itself does not establish reality.
As Shankaracharya says:
“Having conversed with friends and others in a dream, one does not receive confirmation from them on waking. Nor does one find on waking anything that one had acquired in the dream.”
—Swami Gambhirananda, Eight Upanishads, Advaita Ashrama
K 36–39
The similarity between the waking and dream states was discussed extensively in Chapter II to establish that the waking world is no more ultimately real than the dream world.
In dream, there is a dream body distinct from the sleeping body. The dream body is unreal, and everything experienced through it is equally unreal. Likewise, the waking body and the waking world are also appearances in Consciousness.
Both waking and dream involve the duality of subject and object. One may object that dreams are private whereas the waking world is common to all and exhibits continuity. This objection was examined in Chapter II. Continuity should not be judged solely from the standpoint of the waking state but from an impartial standpoint.
Here Gauḍapada presents another argument. If the waking world is objectively real, it must have a real cause. But it has already been shown that no theory of causation is logically tenable.
He also removes the misconception that the waking state is the cause of the dream. The dream is merely a projection of impressions (vasanas) gathered during the waking state. This does not imply that the waking state is ultimately real.
K 40
This karika reiterates the teaching of Karika 22. Neither satkaryavada nor asatkaryavada can satisfactorily explain creation. An existent entity cannot originate because it already exists. A non-existent entity cannot originate because it does not exist. Thus, an existent cannot arise from either an existent or a non-existent, nor can a non-existent arise from either.
The very notion of creation is therefore logically untenable.
Shankaracharya comments:
“So the idea implied is that, to discriminating people, the causal relationship of anything whatsoever is really an unestablished fact.”
—Swami Gambhirananda, Eight Upanishads, Advaita Ashrama
K 41 In the waking state, one experiences unreal things, e.g., a snake as though it is real. Likewise, during a dream, the dreamer experiences dream objects considering them as real though they are unreal. The idea can be extended to the waking state as a whole. In the waking state, a person experiences the waking world considering it as real though they are unreal from the Absolute viewpoint.
K 42–44
Ajativada is the final teaching of the Vedas. It means that Brahman alone is real and the world is mithya. It is difficult for an undiscriminating mind to accept the unreality of the world for two reasons. First, the world is experienced and has practical utility. Second, a person depends upon the world for security, happiness, and fulfilment. If the world does not provide the necessary support, he turns to God. In either case, he seeks support from something external because he considers himself limited and insecure.
For such a person, Advaita appears to remove external support and thereby reinforce fear. Therefore, the Vedas first teach creation, duality, Karma Yoga, and Upasana Yoga to prepare and mature the mind. The doctrine of ajativada is introduced only at a later stage, when the seeker has acquired the maturity to understand the mithya nature of the world.
This teaching methodology is both practical and compassionate. Any temporary acceptance of the reality of the world is only provisional and serves a higher purpose. There is little harm in accepting the empirical reality of the world so long as it helps one progress towards Self-knowledge. It is like temporarily accepting the reality of an elephant conjured by a magician and enjoying it as long as the magic lasts.
K45–46
If the world is mithya, how does it appear to exist? An unreal entity cannot exist independently. Existence belongs to Consciousness alone. Consciousness lends existence to the world. Consciousness is birthless, eternal, and non-material. It is the substratum upon which the phenomenal world appears. Owing to this appearance, Consciousness seems to undergo movement, vibration, and birth, though in reality, it remains changeless.
The true nature of every individual (jiva) is this very Consciousness. Those who recognize this truth are no longer caught in the cycle of saṃsara.
K 47–52
In these six karikas, Gauḍapadacharya employs the famous metaphor of the firebrand to illustrate the apparent relationship—or, more accurately, the absence of any real relationship—between Consciousness and the world.
A firebrand is a stick with one glowing end. When the glowing tip is rapidly moved in a dark room, various luminous patterns appear. When the firebrand is held still, the patterns disappear.
The glowing tip represents Consciousness, while the various patterns represent the world of multiplicity. The patterns have no existence independent of the glowing tip.
It is commonly, though incorrectly, imagined that the patterns emerge from the moving firebrand and disappear back into it when the movement ceases. At the same time, it is equally true that they do not come from anywhere outside the firebrand. Thus, the patterns neither emerge from within nor arrive from outside; yet they are experienced. This is the mystery of appearance. Children—and sometimes adults—delight in the patterns without reflecting upon this mystery.
The conclusion is that the glowing tip alone appears as the various patterns. The patterns are not separate entities; they are merely appearances and lack independent substance. The glowing tip alone is the underlying reality.
A relationship is possible only between two distinct entities. Since the patterns are not separate from the glowing tip, no real relationship exists between them. Likewise, Consciousness alone appears as the world. Consciousness alone is the reality, while the world is only an appearance upon It. Consequently, there is no real cause-and-effect relationship between Consciousness and the world.
In his book A-U-M: Awakening to Reality, Dennis Waite highlights additional aspects of this metaphor. The glowing tip is one, whereas the patterns are many. The glowing tip represents Advaita, while the patterns represent duality. The glowing tip, like Consciousness, is self-evident.
Quoting Swami Dayananda, he observes that if a high-speed camera were to photograph one of the luminous patterns at a single instant, the photograph would reveal only the glowing tip. Similarly, if the waking or dream world could be “photographed” in an analogous manner, nothing would remain except non-dual Consciousness.
Contd