गौडपादकारिका (आङ्ग्लानुवादसहिता)

by गौडपादः

गौडपादकारिका गौडपादः

with a complete translation into English, Notes, introduction and Appendices By Ragunath Damodar Karmarkar Director, Post-Graduate and Research Department, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute ( Ex-Principal, Sir: parasurambhau College, Poona )

Published by Bhandarkar 0riental Research institute P00NA 1953 from Copies can be had direct the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona 4(India) Price: Rs.5 per copy, exclusive of postage Printed and published by Dr. R. N. Dandekar, M.A„ Ph.D., at the Bhandarkar Institute Press, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona No.4. राजकीया प्राच्यग्रन्थश्रेणिः, अनुक्रमाङ्कः "ब" ९ गौडपादकारिका सरपरशुरामभाऊमहाविद्यालयभूतपूर्वप्राचार्येण भाण्डारकरप्राच्यविद्यासंशोधनमन्दिरस्थसंशोधन- विभागाधिपतिना करमरकरकुलावतंसेन दामोदरसूनुना रघुनाथशर्मणा विरचितैराङ्ग्लभाषानुवाद- टिप्पण्यादिभिः समेता तेजस्वीनावधीतमस्तु

पुण्यपत्तनस्थ- भाण्डारकरप्राच्यविद्यासंशोधनमन्दिराधिकृतैः स्वकीये मुद्रणालये मुदयित्वा प्राकाश्यं नीता शाके १८७५ वत्सरे १९५३ ख्रिस्ताब्दे मूल्यं पञ्च रूप्यकाः Dedicated to The Sacred Memory of The Late Mahamahopadhyaya VASUDEVA SHASTRI ABHYANKAR [1862-1942] who did his utmost throughout his life to expound and popularise the Philosophy of §ankaracarya PREFACE Prof. Vidhusekbara Bhattacharya published his edition of Gauya- padakārikás ( or Agamasastra ) some years ago. A close perusal of that edition clearly showed that Prof. Bhattacharya bad allowed himself to be carried a little too far by his leanings towards Buddhism, and hence some of his interpretations appeared clearly to be biassed and forced. While teaching Gaudapādakārskā to the M. A. students, I liad occasion to criticise Prof. Bhattacharya's interpretations, and I felt that it would be better to present my views in a book-form, before a larger circle of readers so that a balanced view of Gauçapāda's philosophy could be taken. The present edition has been brought forth with such a back-ground. Fortunately as regards the text of the Karikás, there is no difference of opinion. Prof. Bhattacharya has collated a large number of Mss, but his text does not materially differ from that published in the Anandāśrama series more than fifty years ago. I also looked into two Mss. specially lent by the Prājñapāthaśālä, Wai. (1) Ms. No. 172 - (माण्डूक्यकारिका) 44 This is not a very old Ms. It contains four Prakaranas, and the colophon at the end of the fourth Prakarana is इति गौडपादभगवतः कृतौ आगमग्रन्थे उपदेशग्रन्थे वेदान्तमूले चतुर्थं प्रकरणम् । No. 167 (माण्डूक्योपनिषत्कारिकाभाष्य ) 9 This also is not a very old Ms. It contains the first Prakarana only, and the commentary of Anandagiri. The colophon reads इति श्रीमत्परमहंसपरिब्राजकाचार्यस्य शङ्करभगवतः कृतौ आगमशास्त्रविवरणे माण्डूक्योपनिषद्भाष्ये प्रञ्चमं प्रकरणं संपूर्णम् । In the Bhandarkar Oriental Institute Collection, there is a Ms. called 590TFU which contains only the 3rd and the 2nd Prakarana of the Gaudapädakārikās. None of these Mss. show any marhed variations of readings. It may therefore be taken for granted that the text of the Karikás is more or less fixed. 2 Preface I have in effect stated above that the present edition is intended to show how Prof. Bhattacharya's Buddhistic interpretations of the Karikas are not acceptable. I am aware that I might be charged with having taken a partisan view myself. In the Introduction, I have discussed several important topics in this connection, and have tried to show that Gaudapada was a traditional Vedantist and that he took particular care to show now and then that his philosophy differed from that of the Buddhists. I have to thank the authorities of the Bhandarkar O. R. Institute for having undertaken to publish this work in their Government Oriental Series. I must also thank Prof. Dr. Miss Sulochana Nachane, of the M. S. University of Baroda. for helping me in various ways. In the end, I hope this edition would meet the needs of students of Indian philosophy, who wish to understand and appreciate Gaudapada's Ajativada. Poona

28 August 1953

R.D.Karmarkar CONTENTS Introduction Pages I Gauda pāda: His Date, Life, Works etc. i-x II The contents of Gaudapāda-Kärikä X-xxi: III Was Gaudapäda a Buddhist ? xxii-xxvii IV The Title of the whole work and the several Prakaranas thereof xxvii-sviii V The Mandukyopanişad and the twenty-nine Karikās in the first Prakarana xxviii-xxxii VI Are the four Prakaranas inter-related ? xxxiii-Li VII The Sources of Gauda pada-Kärikä XLi-xLvii VIII Gaudapāda's contribution to Indian Philosophical Thought xLvii-Lii Text and Translation प्रथम प्रकरणम् १-९ द्वितीयं प्रकरणम् तृतीयं प्रकरणम् चतुर्थ प्रकरणम् Notes Chapter 1 57-70 Chapter II 71-88 Chapter III 88-107 Chapter IV 108-146 Appendix I An Alphabetical Index to the Karikas 147-154 Appendix II Index to Important Words in the Notes 155-157 [ The usual Abbreviations are used in this edition. The Bhäşya on the Kārikās, attributed to Sankarācārya is referred to as K.bhāşya or Sankara-bhaşya. ] INTRODUCTION I Gaudapada: His Date, Life, Works etc. In the traditional salutation formula repeated daily by the followers of Sankarācārya, Gaudapada stands as the grand preceptor (paramaguru ) of Sarkarácārya. गौडपाद comes after शुक, then गोविन्दयोगीन्द्र whose pupil Sankara was; thus - (1) नारायण (2) ब्रह्मदेव, the lotus-born one (3) वसिष्ठ (4) शक्ति (5) पराशर (6) व्यास (7) शुक (8) गौड़पाद the great (9) गोविन्द ( 10 ) शङ्कर (11-14) पद्मपाद, हस्तामलक, त्रोटक, and वार्तिककार (सुरेश्वर), From Närāyaṇa up to Suka, there is the पितृ-पुत्र succession ; from Suka onwards there is the गुरु-शिष्य succession. The tradi- tional date of Suka would be about 3000 B. C., as he was the son of Vyasa who lived at the time of the Mahābhārata war. Even if the latest date for the Mahābhārata war, viz. 1000 B.C. is accepted, and if Gauda pada was a direct pupil of Šuka as tradition asserts, the date of Gauda pāda would be not earlier than 1ooo B. C., and then Salikarācārya who was the pupil of the pupil of Gaudapàda, would have to be taken as having lived sometime between 2900 B. C. and ii Gaudapada-Karika 900 B.C. Tradition' again tries to avoid such a conclusion by assign- ing a long life of thousands of years to Suka, as well as to Gauda- păda. A more rational way to explain the position would be to believe that only the chief names, and not all the names, have been preserved by tradition as lying between Suka and Sankarācārya. Luckily some fresh evidence 2 has recently come to light in respect of the relation between Gaudapāda and Sankara. A work called • Śri Vidyārnava dealing with the Śakta doctrines by Vidyāranya (circa 100 A. D.) says गौडादिशङ्करान्ताश्च सप्तसंख्या समीरिताः ।, that is, there are five names of Acāryas between Gauadpada and Sankara. The same work says that Sankarăcārya's direct pupils were fourteen (शङ्कराचार्य शिष्याश्च चतुर्दश दृढव्रताः। दिव्यात्मानो दृढात्मानो निग्रहानुग्रहक्षमाः ॥ ). Of these the names of the four pupils पद्मपाद, सुरेश्वर, हस्तामलक and त्रोटक have become more well-known (only पद्मपादs name is given in the श्रीविद्यार्णव). The account seems plausible enough, but the writer who lived about 1100 A. D. speaks of himself as living in the fourth generation from Sankaräcārya, which is not in con- formity with the generally accepted date 788 A. D. for Sankara. Anandagiri 3 in his commentary on the Gaudapāda-Kārika- bhāşya (that goes under the name of Sankara ) mentions that Gaudapāda practised penance at Badarikāśrama, and Narayana revealed to him the Kärikäs on the Mandukyopanişad. Šankara in his bhāşya on the Svetāśvataropanişad says तथा च शुकशिष्यो गौडपादाचार्यः. It is true that here Gaudapada is referred to in the singular, but so is Vyása himself in the Brahmasūtrabhāșya. 1 The Yogavāsiştha describes Suka as the greatest of Yogins was enjoyed the Samādhi state for more than ten thousand years! जगाम शिखरं मेरोः समाध्यर्थमनिन्दितम् ।। सत्र वर्षसहस्त्रापि निर्विकल्पसमाधिना । दश स्थित्वा शशामासावामन्यस्नेहदीपवत् ।। (II. 1-43-44 ). 2 See the article "A Survey of the Sakta School' (in Marathi) by Prof. H. B. Bhide, in Bharata ltihāsa Sarsodhaka Mandala Quarterly Vol. XXXIII No4.1 & 2, 1953, आचार्यो हि पुर। बदरिकाश्रमे नरनारायणाधिष्ठिते नारायणं भगवन्तमभिप्रेत्य दपो महदतप्यत ततो भगवाननिप्रसन्नस्तस्मै विद्या प्रादादिति प्रसिद्रं परमगुरुत्वं परमेश्वरस्येति भावः I on IV. 1. ३ Introduction : 1 Gandapada: His Dute, Life, Works etc. The gods, likewise, are often mentioned in the singular, so the rule about the plural being used honorifically is not without its exceptions. Balakrsnānanda (circa 17th century) in his शारीरकमीमांसाभाष्य- वार्तिक, describes Gaudapada as गौड़जातिश्रेष्ठ and as one being in Samadhi right up from the Dväpara yuga. There is no reason to doubt the historicity of Gauda pâda, on the strength of the above traditional account which could not have possibly invented him, The Karikas have been quoted by well-known writers, both Vedāntists and Buddhists :- Śäntirakṣita and Bkāvaviveka 4 quote some Kārikās as coming from some Vedāntaśāstra. As both the above Buddhist writers were concerned with the doctrines and not the name of the author, the non-mention of Gaudapāda need not appear surprising. In fact, Sanskrit writers normally quote passages from other works, without specifying the names of the authors. Sankarācārya quotes the Kārikā अनादिमायया ... in his sútrabhāṣya (II. 1, 9), with the remark अत्रोक्तं वेदान्तसंप्रदायविद्भिराचार्यः, and Karika 1II. I5 in the bháșya (I. IV. 14), with the remark 70 तथा च संप्रदायविदो वदन्ति(The plural used in both the cases is obviously intended to show respect and refers to only one Acārya and not to many ). Šureśvara in his Naişkarmyasiddhi, quotes two G. Kärikäs (1. 11 and 15 ), and one from Upadeśasahasri of Sankara, with the remark एवं गौडेर्द्राविडैर्नः पूज्यैरयमर्थः प्रभाषितः 1 As द्राविडैः here refers to Satikara, siit: must refer to only one individual viz. गौडपाद. Dr. Walleser misunderstands गौडैः and द्राविडैः to mean representa- tives of the Gauda and Drāviņa tradition'. The commentator ज्ञानोत्तम calls the G. Karikās quoted in the नैष्कर्म्यसिद्धि, गौडपादीयवाक्य. Vidyāranya in his पञ्चदशी refers to Gaudapāda's teaching which is characterised as आचार्यसंमति by his commentator. The Vedäntasära of Sadananda quotes two G. Karikas ( III. 44, 45 ) as being 100 well-known, with the remark तदुक्तम्. 4 About the 5th and 8th centuries A D. 5 IV, 41, 42, iv Gardapada-Karika All this shows that Gaudapāda's work at any rate was fairly known to authors and commentators and he was referred to in terms of respect (though not by name ). Gaudapăda seems to be a nickname and not a proper name, are being used to show respect; and Gauda apparently refers to the Gauda territory where the Karikas were written and where their author became famous. Bhávaviveka ( 500 A. D.), in his commentary तर्कज्वाला on his own work मध्यप्रकदुदयकारिका, quotes four passages which closely resemble G. Kárikas. Šāntiraksita ( 700 A. D.) in his मध्यमकालङ्कार कारिका quotes about ten G. Karikas in connection with the औपनिषद views, which are called उपनिषदशास्त्र by Kamalasila, disciple of Šantirakṣita. Gaudapāda in all probability cannot thus be later than soo A. D. The Karikās of Gaudapāda show more than a similarity of thought and expression with the Mülamadhyamakarikās of Nagarjuna ( whose date is accepted as circa third century A. D.) and with Catuhsataka of Aryadeva who was the disciple of Nāgārjuna. The Karikās of Gaudapāda are indebted a lot to the Bhagavad- gita, and if we believe in the genuine nature of the bhasya by Gaudapāda on the Sankhyakārikās of īśvarakışņa (circa 2nd century), it is clear that the date of Gauda pāda must be somewhere between 300 to 500 A. D. Alberuni ( 11th century A D. ) ( pp. 131-2, Alberuni's India ) says-,.. the Hindus have books about the jurisprudence of their religion, on theosophy, on ascetics, on the process of becoming god and seeking liberation from the world as, e. g. the book composed by Gauda the anchorite, which goes by his name ... Further on, Alberuni refers to the book Sāmkhya, composed by Kapila, the book of Patañjali, the book Nyayabhāşa composed by Kapila, the book Mimansa, composed by Jaimini, the book Lokayata, the book Agastyamata composed by Agastya, and the book Vişnu- dharma. It is clear that Alberuni mentions Gauda the anchorite as representing the Vedāntic doctrine first, because the Vedāntic philosophy was held in high estimation. Though we do not know even now anything about Nyayabbaşa of Kapila or Agastyamata by Agastya, we think there is no reason to doubt the existence of some — Introduction

J Gaudapada

His Date, Life, Works etc. v work by Gauda as sufficiently well-known in Alberuni's time. Anyway Gauda the anchorite, mentioned by Alberuni, can reasonably be identified with Gaudapada, the author of the Gauda- pada-karika. The tradition of Gaudapada as being a great Yogin is also corroborated by Alberuni. One Sadasivabrahmendra in his जगद्गुरुमालास्तव refers to Gauda- pada as having expounded the bhasya of Patanjali, and as having been the preceptor of Apolonys. The commentator Atmabodhendra says Gaudapada came into contact with Apalunya ( equated with Apollonius, the Pythagorean philosopher who lived in ioo A. D. ). Even if this tradition is held to be correct, it would only show that some Indian philosopher had met the Greek philosopher, not nece- ssarily Gaudapada. Again, it is now held that the Greek accounts in this connection are not at all trustworthy. Works of Gaudapada Besides the Karikas, the following works are known traditionally to have come from Gaudapada. No definite evidence is available on this point, but it would not be wrong generally to believe in tradition unless there is evidence to the contrary

Bhasya on the Sankhyakarika of Isvarakrsna Some scholars are of opinion that the bhasya on the Sankhya- karikas is of a very poor quality and betrays no flashes of deep thought, and hence it could not have been written by Gaudapada. These same critics, curiously enough, have no hesitation in thinking highly of the Matharavriti ( bhasya by Mathara on the Sankhya- karikas, which is certainly not better in any way than Gauda- pada's bhasya and has so many passages in common with it ) which is supposed to have the honour of being translated into Chinese about the middle of the sixth century. According to some both Mathara and Gaudapada have drawn upon a common source which was known to the Chinese in translation 6 . The bhasya is a matter-of-fact tame work, but Gaudapada had really not much scope to show his brilliance here, as he was required to follow the Sankhya-karikas. Perhaps it was his first work when 6 Could it be that Mathara and Gaudapada are identical and that the Matharavritti and Gaudapadabhasya are but two editions of the same work? ________________

Gaudapada-Karika he was attracted to the tenets of the Sankhya philosophy. Anyway we are not prepared to regard this work as not genuine. At the end of the 69th Kārikā-bhāşya, we read सांख्यं कपिलमुनिना प्रोक्तं संसारविमुक्तिकारणं हि । यत्रैताः सप्ततिरार्या भाष्यं चात्र गौडपादकृतम् ।। The bhasya designates the Karikās of Isvarakrsna. as आर्याs. It contains the following quotation, (Karika :) सनकश्च सनन्दश्च तृतीयश्च सनातनः । आसुरिः कपिलश्चैव वोढुः पञ्चशिखस्तथा । इत्येते ब्रह्मणः पुत्राः सप्त प्रोक्ता ब्रह्मर्षयः ॥ where some of the Sankhya philosophers are described as sons of Brahmadeva. पञ्चविंशतितत्त्वज्ञो यत्र तत्राश्रमे बसेत् । जटी मुण्डी शिखी वापि मुच्येत नात्र संशयः ।। This quotation from पञ्चशिख is given twice in the bhāsya (also under Karikā 22 ). We give below the passages quoted from other works in the bhāşya to give the reader a general idea about the work.

(Karika1) अपाम सोमममृता अभूमागन्म ज्योतिरविदाम देवान् ।

किं नूनमस्मान् कृणबदरातिः किमु धूर्तिरमृतमार्यस्य ।

( This is from अथर्वशिरस, Rgveda VIII. 48. 3)

तथा चोक्तम्

( Karika 2) षट् शतानि वियुज्यन्ते पशूनां मध्यमेऽहनि ।

अश्वमेधस्य वचनादूनानि पशुभिस्त्रिभिः ।

(Mahidhara quotes this in his bhāsya on Yajurveda-Samhitā XXIV ).

बहूनीन्द्रसहस्राणि देवानां च युगे युगे । कालेन समतीतानि कालो हि दुरतिक्रमः ।। अपि चोक्तम् ( Kartka 4) आगमो ह्याप्तवचनमाप्तं दोषक्षयाद्विदुः । क्षीणदोषोऽनृतं वाक्यं न ब्रूयाद्हेत्वसंभवात् !!

स्वकर्मण्यभियुक्तो यः सङ्गद्वेषविवर्जितः । 

पूजितस्तद्विधैर्नियमाप्तो ज्ञेयः स तादृशः। Introduction : 1 Gandapada : his Dale, Life, Works etc. vit प्रतिभा यथा- दक्षिणेन च विन्ध्यस्य सह्यस्य च यदुत्तरम् । पृथिव्यामासमुद्रायां स प्रदेशो मनोरमः ॥ उक्तं च- (Karika 12 ) रजसो मिथुनं सत्वं सत्वस्य मिथुन रजः। उभयो सत्वरजसोर्मिथुनं तम उच्यते ।। ( This is usually taken to come from देवीभागवत ) गुणा गुणेषु वर्तन्ते ( Gita III. 28 ) इति वचनात् । ( Karika 23) तत्र यमाश्च नियमाश्च पातञ्जलेऽभिहिताः। अहिंसासत्यास्तेयब्रह्मचर्यापरिग्रहा यमा शौचसन्तोषतपस्वाध्यायेश्वरप्रणिधानानि नियमाः ।। ( योगसूत्र 30,32) ( Karikā 61) अज्ञो जन्तुरनीशोऽयमात्मनः सुखदुःखयोः । ईश्वरप्रेरितो गच्छेत्स्वर्गं नरकमेव वा ॥ (महाभारत III. 30-88) केन शुक्लीकृता हंसा मयूरा: केन चित्रिताः ।। उक्तं च- काल: पचति भूतानि कालः संहरते जगत् । कालः सुप्तेषु जागर्ति कालो हि दुरतिक्रमः ॥ Thus the bhasya quotes from the Mahabharata, Bhagavadgita, Purana, Yogasútras etc. A study of the Saikhya philosophy which preached that मूलप्रकृति was अविकृति led Gaudapada to declare that there cannot be अन्यथाभाव of the प्रकृति, and the doctrine of the Purusa being a mere looker on, coupled with the statement of the Bhagavad- gita that the qualities, सत्त्व, रजम् and तमम् are responsible for the Samsara (गुणा गुणेषु वर्तन्ते ) was utilised by him to enunciate ultimately his doctrine of Ajātivāda in course of time. There is a strong probability that Gaudapāda wrote a mentary on the Sankhyakātikā and called his own independent work कारिका as well. (2) उत्तरगीता-Gaudapāda's commentary on this work is known from the colophons as गौडपादीयव्याख्या on the उत्तरगीता, and commences with अखण्ड सच्चिदानन्दमवाङ्मनसगोचरम् । आत्मानमखिलाधार- माश्रयेऽभीष्टसिद्धये ॥ इह खलु, अर्जुनः अशोच्यानन्त्रशोचस्त्वम् इत्यारभ्य भगवदुपदिष्ट- मात्मतत्त्वोपदेश विषयभोगप्राबल्येन विस्मृत्य पुनस्तदात्मतत्त्वं भगवन्तं पृच्छति-, and com- viii Gaudapada-Karika

ends with आत्मयोगमवोचयो भक्तियोगशिरोमणिः । तं बन्दे परमानन्दं नन्दनन्दन- मीश्वरम् ॥ A good edition of this work is still a desideratum. The Vani- vilas Press at Sri Rangam and the Gujarati Printing Press, Bombay have published this small work, but the text cannot be said to have been properly edited. Strangely enough, the Vanivilas editor says that several translations of this work have been published in English and other languages. We were unable to find even one after a search for the same all over India. The one English translation by Mr. Lahari, published by the Theosophical Society of Madras has been long out of print and we were unable to see it. We consulted eight Mss. of this work at the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, and the following observations about them would show why a reliable edition of this work should be undertaken as early as possible : Ms. No. 162 gives a total of 241 verses distributed in six chapters (1-39 ; 11-30; III-42; IV-37; V-37; VI-56) and the colophon reads इति श्रीमहाभारते भीष्मपर्वणि उत्तरगीतायां योगशास्त्रे 'ब्रह्मविद्यायां श्रीकृष्णार्जुनसंवादे etc. Ms. No. 163 gives a total of 137 verses only, distributed in three chapters (l-54; II-56; 111-27 ) and the colophon reads इति श्रीमद्भागवते उत्तरगीतासूपनिषत्सु ब्रह्मविद्यायां योगशास्त्रे श्रीकृष्णा र्जुनसंवादे etc. Ms, No. 164 gives a total of 160 verses, distributed in three chapters ( I-65; II-59; III-35 ) and the colophon reads इति श्रीउत्तरगीतासूपनिषत्सु ... अश्वमेधपर्वणि Mss, 165-189 contain the commentary which is called गौडपादीय- दीपिका or उत्तरगीताव्याख्या ( गौडपादाचार्यविरचिता) or गौडपादीयव्याख्या. The text is distributed in three chapters, bur the number of verses varies ( as 110, 116, 112, 123 ). The name of the commentator however is the same viz. Gaudapāda throughout. The unreliability of the colophons to the Uttaragîtā is clearly shown from the fact that in no versions of the Mahābhārata is the Uttaragitā found either in the Bhişmaparvan or the Aśvamedhika parvan. Similarly it is not found in the Bhagavata. a Introduction : 1 Gaudapada : His Date, Life, Works etc. ix This raises the question whether the Uttaragitã was written by Gaudapāda himself, along with the commentary. It is not unlikely that Gaudapāda who seems to be indebted to the Bhagavadgitā for many ideas in his Kärikäs, may have thought of emphasising the Yoga element in the Gitā, by writing a supplement to it. The Uttaragitā, besides describing the nature of Brahman, Jivanmukti etc, gives a detailed description of the Nādis, Kundalini etc. (3) सुभगोदयस्तुति-- This is a small Tantric or Sakta work of the Stotra type, containing 52 verses. It begins thus :- भवानि त्वां वन्दे भवमहिषि सञ्चित्सुखवपुः पराकारां देवीममृतलहरीमैन्दवकलाम् | महाकालातीतां कलितसरणीकल्पिततनुं सुधासिन्धोरन्तर्वसतिमनिशं वासरमयीम् ।। It refers to the two schools, समय and कौल of the sāktas and con demns the कौल in no uncertain terms ( तदेतत्कौलानां प्रतिदिनमनुष्टेयमुदितं भवत्या वामाख्यं मलमपि परित्याज्यम्नुभयम् । ४२; ... अतो बाह्या पूजा भवति भगरूपेण च ततो निषिद्धाचारोऽयं निगमविदहोऽनिन्धचरिते । 43). As can be expected, it refers to the पिङ्गला , इडा,चक्र,बिन्दु etc. Verse 31 ककाराकाराभ्यां स्वरगणमवष्टभ्य निखिलं etc. is similar to काकीमुखककारान्त उकारश्चेतनाकृतिः 1 अकारस्य च लुप्तस्य कोऽर्थः संप्रतिपद्यते ।। ( Uttaragita ). On the whole, this small work reveals poetic talents of a high order. It is argued by some that the author of this Tantric or Sakra work must be some other Gaudapāda. We do not think that there is any reasonable ground for such a supposition. As the author of the Karikas had interested himself in the Sänklya and Bauddha philosophical works, he could have been equally interested in the Sakta school which attached so much importance to Yoga in its practical aspect. (4) श्रीविद्यारण्यसूत्र is another Tantric work attributed to Gauda- pāda, as also commentaries on (s) Durgāsaprašati, ( 6 ) Anugită and on (7) Nrsimhottarattapaniyopanişad. The Mandukyopanişad has much in common with the Nrsimhot- taratâpaniyopanişad, and as Gaudapāda had used the Māņdükya as a basis for his Kārikās, tradition seems to have regarded him as the author of the commentary on the Nrsimha as well, 2 X Gaudapada-Karika li appears to us that Gaudapâda's authorship of the Sankhya- Karikabhäşya, Uttaragitä and Subhagodayastuti can be reasonably accepted to be correct. Gaudapāda appears to have been attracted by the Sankhyakärikās in the beginning, from which he learnt of the Puruşa being entirely different from the Prakrti which alone was responsible for the evolved world. Then he was influenced by the Múlamadhyamakārikā of Nagarjuna, which advocated the unreality of the world, and this enabled him to advocate his Ajätıvāda based upon the cardinal doctrine of the Upanışads, the oneness of Brahman, and he wrote his own Kārkās to preach his Vedāntic doctrine, and especially to controvert the teachings of the Lankavatāra where the Buddha teaches a large number of doctrines, but fails to grasp the most important one which fact Gaudapāda proclaims by saying नेतद्बुद्धेन भाषितम् in IV-99. II The Contents of Gaudapada-Karika Prakarana 1 :— There is only one Paramātman who is all- pervading, but he, in association with the various Upādhis or limit- ing adjuncts, functions in different ways in different states. Thus- (1) He resides in the body in the right eye, is known as Visva, experiences the gross world ( by means of the sense organs and the mind) in the waking state, (2) He is known as Taijasa, residing inside in the mind and experiences the subtle or non-gross in the dream state. (3) He is known as Prājña, residing in the heart-Akāśa, and experiences bliss in the state of deep sleep. This all-pervading Paramātman is known as Turya, the Fourth, being immutable, non-dual, where no duality which is the source of all miseries has any scope. Viśva and Taijasa are bound down by the relation of cause and effect, perceiver and perceived, subject and object etc., under the influence of duality, Prājña only by the cause ( Ajñāna ) and they function accordingly; while the Fourth is beyond all this and is but consciousness or Jñana, and is all-seeing and beyond all duality. In the case of both Präjña and Turya, there is no experience of ________________

Introduction : 11 The Contents of Gandapada-Karika xi duality, but the Prājña remains influenced by the basic Avidvā or Ajñāna which is absent in the case of the Turya. Some philosophers who believe in a real process of creation regard the creation as the manifestation of the Lord, or as resembling the dream or magic phenomena, or as due to the will of the Lord, or as coming from Kāla ( Time) or as serving the purpose of enjoyment or sport for the Lord, or as being the nature of the Lord. But all these theories are wrong. If the highest is known to be Aptakāma ( whose desires are fulfilled ), how could he be associated with creation in any capacity, without changing his own nature ? So, the correct position in this matter is that all duality is but illusion and Advaita the only reality. When the soul, who is, so to speak, asleep under the intuence of (Avidya or ) Maya is awakened and frees himself from the clutches of Avidya, Advaita, unoriginated, uncontaminated by ile experiences in the waking, dream or deep sleep, flashes forth. If the creation were real, it would ever remain real, for none can ever change his nature. The various theories of creation have their use in gradually making the soul realise the Advaita which is extremely difficult to grasp, especially by people of ordinary intelligence. The realisation of Advaita can be achieved by the worship of or meditation on the sacred ओङ्कार. Corresponding to the three states ( 1जाग्रत्, स्वप्न and सुषुप्ति) we have विश्व, तेजस and प्राज्ञ forms of Atman and these can be taken to resemble or as equated with अ, उ and म, the three मात्राs of ओङ्कार. For the purposes of उपासना, the symbol ओम् is very useful as it enables the साधक to get a proper idea of the Paramātman easily. Thus ओङ्कार परमात्मन् (1) Has three मात्राs-अ,उ,म्, (1) -Has three पाद-विश्व, तेजस and प्राज्ञ ( respectively concerned with जाग्रत, स्वप्न and सुषुप्ति states ). (2)अ is the first of the (2) विश्वdeals with the gross alphabet, and which is first perceived and thus resembles अ. xii Gaudapada-Karika अ is all-pervading विश्व can be equated with अ; as be also experiences all out-side world. [ So by meditating upon अ as resembling विश्व or as identical with विश्व, the साधक secures pre-eminence and all his desires ]. (3) उ represents उत्कृष्टता and (3) Similarly तैजस also is उत्कृष्ट links अ with म् as he is able to perceive the सूक्ष्म, and is also the link between the waking state and the state of deep sleep. [ By meditating upon उ as resembling तैजस or as equated with तैजस, the साधक secures excess and equanimity - (4) म्represents' measur- ( 4 ) प्राज्ञ similarly lays down the ing' and 'merging limits of विश्व and तेजस, For,म् represents the and after सुषुप्ति comes again limit of ओम् and म् merges the जाग्रत state. into अ and उ to give a complete idea of ओम् . [ By meditating upon म् as resembling प्राज्ञ or as equated with प्राज्ञ, the साधक secures omniscience and the idea about merg ing into the highest ] The meditation on the three मात्राs of ओम् the three quarters of thë परमात्मन् however does not lead to the highest knowledge which is to realise तुर्य or the अत्मन् as without any quarters. This would correspond to the ओम् known as one unit (the नादब्रह्मात्मक ओम् ). The meditation on the Matra-less ओम् makes the साधक free from fear, for he is nothing but the immutable Brahman which is the beginning, middle and end of all, all-pervading, and All- Controller, auspicious and non-dual. One who has known ओम् in this way is alone Muni par excellence; other Munis are called as by courtesy Introduction : 11 The Contents of Gandapada-Karika xiit Prakarana II can It is admitted by all that the objects seen in dream are false, because they are seen within the limited space of the body and within a very short time. One sees mountains and rivers and goes to distant lands, even though one's body is lying motionless on the bed. Again, the सप्रयोजनता ( the ability to serve a purpose ) of objects in the dream is vitiated in the waking state. One who has enjoyed a full meal in the dream feels still hungry when he wakes up. Objects seen in the waking state have similarly their सप्रयोजनता vitiated in the dream state. So, there is no reason to suppose that they are in any way different from the objects in the dream. An object which is सत्य must retain its state under all circumstances and can never change its nature. Again, the truth of the dictum whatever is not there before and is not there in the end, must not be existing in the present as well' is self-evident. Judged in the light of this dictum, objects experienced both in the waking and the dream states are false and be spoken of as being only imagined. This means that the Paramātman himself by his Māyā imagines himself as Jiva or individual soul who in turn creates a world of his own for himself. Nothing is really originated. The objects in the dream are real only to the dreamer; the objects in the waking state are likewise real to the person who has experienced them. Objects in the dream are Cittakāla (lasting as long as the mind imagines them ), objects in the waking state are Dvayakāla (imagined by the mind and also related to the external objects which are also imagined ); but both are equally false. Objects in the waking state require, in addition, the use of sense-organs for being perceived, but that does not make them real. Just as, in darkness, one superimposes the snake upon the rope, people superimpose upon the Paramātman all kinds of ideas, shapes and forms. There is naturally no limit to one's imagination; different people (as long as they have not secured the right knowledge ) indulge in the pastime of describing the Paramātman in various ways. Thus the Atman is taken to be ( 1 ) Praņa, ( 2 ) Elements, ( 3 ) Guņas, ( 4 ) Tattvas, ( ) Pada, ( 6 ) Objects of sense, (7) Worlds, ( 8 ) Gods, (9) Vedas, (10) Sacrifices, ( 11 ) Enjoyer, ( 12 ) Object of enjoyment, (12) Subtle, (13) Gross, ( 14 ) Possessed of form, ( 15 ) Form-less, (16) ________________

xiv Gandapada-Käraka Time, (16) Quarters, (18) Topics for discussion, (19) Universedivisions, ( 20 ) Mind, ( 21 ) Intellect, ( 22 ) Citta, ( 23 ) Merit and demerit, (24) Twenty-five principles, ( 25 ) Twenty-six principles, ( 26 ) Thirty-one principles, ( 27 ) Infinite, ( 28 ) People, ( 29 ) Aśramas, ( 39 ) Man and Woman, ( 29 ) High and Low, ( 30 ) Creation, ( 31 ) Dissolution, ( 32 ) Stability, ( 33 ) Allexisting and so forth. In short, whatever one is pleased to imagine about or to superimpose upon Atman, that becomes that Atman for him. But people well-versed in the Vedänta know the so called creation as nothing but a castle in the air, as false as objects in the dream or as the creation by magic. The Highest truth can thus be summarised as :-- "There is no annihilation, no birth, no one bound down to Samsāra, no one trying for liberation, no one desirous of liberation, no one liberated'. For, only Advaita exists and it is unoriginated, and there is nothing distinct or nondistinct apart from Atinan. Sages free from passion, fear and anger, well-versed in the Vedic lore, realise the Atman as non-dual, auspicious, free from all distinction and where there is the sublation of Samsära. One who has realised the Atman in this way has no use for prayers to deities or sacrificial offerings to Pitrs; he is beyond all Vidhi or Nişedha rules, he stays or wanders at will and goes on with his daily avocations like an automaton. Having realised the Advaita in this way, the sage should take care to see that he does not fall down from that state, till the body comes to an end. Prakarana III - When it is proved that there cannot be any origination or change associated with the Paramātman, all talk about the individual soul or Jiva having recourse to the Upasana or meditation on the Paramātman is really meaningless. For, the Jiva is Paramātman himself, and it is scant courtesy shown to Jiva if we narrow his functions and powers by calling him inferior to Paramātman. Really the Paramātman is like Akaša, infinite and subtle and Jivas are like Ghatakaśa, Patākāśa etc. which are nothing but Akaśa associated with the Upadhis, Ghata, Pata etc. When the Upadhis vanish away, Ghatakaśa is merged into Akasa, similarly the Jivas, with the Upādhis, body etc. gone, are merged into the Paramātman. So long as the Upādhis are there, the jivas retain ________________

Introduction : 11 7 be Contents of Gaudapada-Karika XY their individualities, names and forms and experience happiness or misery. Akāśa is not changed or divided by Ghaţākāśa etc.; similarly the Paramätman undergoes no change on account of the Jīvas. Ghațākāśa is not a part or transformation of Akasa, so Jiva likewise is not a part or transformation of the Paramātman who has these Upadhis superimposed upon him by the ignorant. The Taittiriyopanişad clearly points out how Paramātman is the in most, unchangeable in the five sheaths of the lival; similarly in the Madhukanda we are told how the Atman is one like Akasa in the Adhyätma and Adhidaiva pairs. The oneness of Atman and Jiva is always acclaimed and their manifoldness decried by the Sruti. Sometimes the Sruti describes creation as something arising from the Paramatman (like sparks from fire, or jar from earth or a pair of scissors from iron ), but such passages must not be taken at their face value. In this world, there are different grades of intelligent people ; some are too dull-witted to understand the highest truth of Advaita all at once; it is for their sake that the Śruti, out of pity for them, speaks in a manner which can be understood by them. Passages speaking of duality are to be understood metaphorically only. Advaita is the highest reality which can be only one; those who believe in Dvaita have ample scope for their imagination to run riot, with the result that they put forth all sorts of theories (for, who can curb their imagination ?) and are always quarreling among themselves. Advaita looks on amusedly, pitying these Dvaitins ; it can possibly have no quarrel with them. There cannot be any dispute about imagined things. If then, there exists only the unoriginated Paramātman, the creation that is experienced can be explained only on the theory that it is due to Māyā and not real, A real creation is an impossibility. When a thing is produced, that means it was unproduced before, that is, its nature was to be unproduced'. Now norbing can ever change its nature. An unproduced thing must ever remain unproduced There are some Śruti passages that speak of creation fromभूत , others from अभूत We shall have to decide the question as to which passages are authoritative by strict logical reasoning, and should not ________________

xvi Gauda pada-Karika accept blindly what Śruti says. "There is here nothing manifold' Indra acts with his Maya powers' -- these passages clearly point out that production or creation is due to Māyā. Some passages directly condemo production, others like 'Who could possibly create him'? deny the existence of cause', The production or birth of an existent thing can only be due to Māya, never in reality; if the production were to be real, it would be tantamount to saying that a ching already produced is being produced ! A non-existent thing, it is obvious enough, cannot be produced either in reality or through Māyā; the son of a barren woman cannot be there even through Maya ! So, just as the mind vibrates in dreain to produce false objects, it acts in the same manner in the waking state as well; the mind remains the same non-dual throughout. This duality is thus brought about by the mind-vibration; when the mind ceases its pranks, duality disappears. When the mind ceases to function, there is no perceivable, and pure, eternal, unoriginated consciousness, that is, Brahman, flashes forth. This is how the mind free from vibration, and under proper control, acts. In the state of deep sleep, the mind is still under the spell of ignorance, and has its mischiefmaking tendencies only lying dormant; but the properly controlled mind enjoying the Samadhi is nothing but Brahman itself, all light, and omniscient. This is a true description of such a mind, not a metaphorical one. In such a state of Samadhi, there is no desire, no anxiety, all is peace and quiet, light and fearlessness. There is self-realisation, unoriginated and unchangeable consciousness. This state can be achieved by what may be called the Free. from-touch yoga'. Ordinary yogins cannot reach it. Most of them are afraid that thereby there would be annihilation of the Atman, The greatest self-control, and perseverance are required before one can reach this goal (some may find the task as difficult as to empty the ocean by means of taking out drops of water with a Kusa grass blade). Desire and enjoyment would lead साधक away from his goal now and then; even the temporary pleasure in the Samadhi may delude him, but he should strive with all his might against such temptations, set his face against Káma (desire ) and Bhoga (enjoyment ), concentrating his mind upon the unoriginated Brahman alone. He should awaken the deluded mind in the ________________

Introduction : II The Contents of Gandapada-Karika svii Samadhi, put it on the proper track when distracted, and see that it does not swerve from the stable path; when he is able to do this, he has reached his goal, the mind has become Brahman, calm and eternal bliss. The highest truth, therefore, is :-The doctrine of non-origination is the only true one, no individual soul is born, there is no cause that can produce him. Nothing is originated, Prakarana IV : The individual souls are not different from the Paramátman, being all-pervading, subtle and incapable of being contaminated like Äkäsa-- this is known by Jñana which is also like Åkāśa and not different from the Paramātman. The 'Free-from-touch Yoga' which enables one to secure the right knowledge is beneficial to all creatures, conducive to their happiness, beyond all dispute and free from opposition. Some disputants (the Sarkhyas ) declare that an existent is produced; others (the Vaišeşikas ) declare that a non-existent alone can be produced. Thus they carry on dispute with one another, and they controvert their opponents' position, with the result that they both help in establishing the non-origination theory. The अजातिवादिन् is thankful to the सत्कार्यवादिन्s (Sankhyas ) for showing how futile the arguments of the असत्कार्यवादिन्s (वैशेषिक) are, and to the latter for controverting the former. Both the सत्कार्यवादिन्s and असत्कार्यवादिनs forget the basic principle that nothing can change one's own nature. If a thing is असत्, it would ever remain असत्, it can never be changed into सत् and vice versa. It is the nature of all souls to be free from old age and death, but they imagine themselves to be subject to these ills and suffer accordingly, According to the सत्कार्यवाद, the कारण itself ( प्रधान) is transformed into ( जगत् ), which means that what is being produced is the कारण ( प्रधान ) itself; if so, how can they assert that प्रधान ( which is capable of being changed ) is अज Further, they say कार्य is not different from कारण; if so, then कार्य would be अज like कारण, and कारण would be subject to change and decay like the कार्य No illustration can be given which can prove to us that an अज thing can produce any कार्य; and there would be the fault of endlessness if it is assumed that a जात मूलकारण produces further जात कार्य. xviii Gaud'apada - Karika The view of the असत्कार्यवादिनs that असत् ( कारण ) produces सत् ( कार्य ) is ulltenable on the face of it. An असत् could produce only असत्, never a सत्. If the घट is non-existing before its production, where can the कारकसामग्री (the potter, wheel, etc. ) work upon ? If the मृत्तिका is worked upon, then we will have to say that मृत्तिका is being produced and not घट! Some try to account for the creation of the world and कार्यकारणभाव in general on the strength of the argument of अनादित्व. Thus they argue :- धर्माधर्म is the cause of देहादिसंघात, and देहादिसंघात is in turn the cause of धर्माधर्म and this series has no beginning. But this argument cannot stand. For, according to these अनादित्ववादिन्s, both धर्माधर्म and देहादिसंघात are कार्य, and as such both must have another आदि or कारण; the whole प्रपञ्च or संसार must also have an आदि in that case. To say that the कार्य देहादिसंघात ( which is the कार्य of धर्माधर्म) produces the कारण धर्माधर्म, is as absurd as to say that a son produces the father! To prove that there exists a कार्यकारणभाव between two objects, you ought to be able to indicate clearly what the order is in respect of कार्य and कारण:- (1) कार्य and कारण cannot obviously come into existence simultaneously; otherwise, we will have to admit कार्यकारणभाव between the left and right horns of a cow! (2) कार्य cannot produce कारण, for the कारण has to be there first to produce the कार्य. (-3) The mere statement that कार्य and कारण are interdependent and mutually produce each other not do. You must tell us which of these is the कारण ( which must necessarily be पूर्व) and which is the कार्य (which must be अपर). But this you are unable to do. Thus the कार्यकारणभाव stands unproven. Nobody can say, which comes first, कार्य or कारण ; and without the पूर्वापरभाव, कार्यकारणभाव cannot be proved, for कार्य and कारण cannot be produced simultane- ously. Taking all these difficulties into consideration, the wise philosophers have decreed that non-origination is the only true doctrine ! Introduction : II The contents of Gandapada-Karika sis (4) The maxim of the seed and the sprout ( where mutual कार्यकारणभाव is seen) cannot help the जातिवादिन्, for unless you first prove the कार्यकारणभाव between बीज and अङ्कुर independently, you cannot make use of this illustration. (5) The very fact that you are not able to say, which comes first, कार्य or कारण, proves the non-origination theory: for, :f a thing is being produced, you ought to be able to say what is there prior to its production, So, the upshot of this all is that nothing is produced of itself or from another. Nothing is originated, whether it is existent, non-existent or existent-non-existent. Whatever has no beginning can have no origination. If then only Brahman (which is प्रज्ञानघन, massed consciousness) exists, how do we get the experience of the particularity of knowledge of Ghata, Pata etc.)? So, the existence of external objects of knowledge will have to be admitted on the strength of logical reasoning (so argue the बाह्यार्थवादिन्s ). To this the reply would be ( in accordance with the views of the विज्ञानवादिन्s ) that reasoning must give way to facts. The existence of external objects is not necessary to produce Prajnāpti (or ज्ञानविशेष), for without them, we get that kind of knowledge in dreams. The Citta (or mind, Vijñāna l of its own accord, without contacting external objects or appearances ( Arthābhāsa ) can produce that knowledge. Arthabhasa and Artha both are really non-existent. Citta knows no independent object at any time. The Vijñanavadi Bauddhas however believe in some kind of transformation of the Citta. Gaudapada lays down his proposition against them as under :- Neither Citta, nor perceivable by Citta is originated; those ( like the Vijñanevādins ) who admit their origina- tion see the foot-prints of birds in the sky (that is, they make an absolutely impossible claim ). To believe in the origination of the Aja Citta or Cittadrśya is to believe in the charge of one's nature; to say that Samsára is beginningless means that Samsåra can never end and Liberation, if it has a beginning, would never be eternal. Like objects in dream, objects in the waking state also are false. The Citta sees in dream things by means of another body (the body of the dreamer lies on the bed all the time ) going to XX Gaudapada-Karika different regions; all admit that this body of the dreamer is false. Applying the same argument to the waking state, the Citta can be proved to perceive false objects in the waking state as well ( Besides, these objects are perceivable only to the particular Citta ). So, we have to admit that nothing can be really originated; a non-existent thing can never come from सत्. An असत् can not come from असत्, सद् cannot come from असत, सद can not come from सत् and असत् cannot come from सत्. In the waking state ( as in dream ), one perceives things imagined by the Citta, For those who cannot grasp this philosophical truth, the wise have enunciated as a temporary phase, the doctrine of origination and the existence of external objects on the ground that such objects are perceived and can be put to practical use. But ultimately such people come to realise that the external objects are like the magic- elephant unreal, and that Vijñāna which creates these objects or appearances is unoriginated, without any duality, unmoving and unruffled. The Citta can be aptly compared to a fire-brand. When the fire-brand is whirled about, it produces various forms, straight, crooked etc. which are not seen when the fire-brand is at rest; these forms do not come from outside, nor do they enter the fire- brand when the brand is at rest, or go out. कार्यकारणभाव can be seen between the fire-brand and these forms which must be declared to be unreal and inscrutable. In the same manner, the vibration of the Citta appears to give rise to various objects or Dharmas which are unreal and inscrutable. So, these Dharmas are not originated by the Citra, nor is the Citta originated the Dharmas ( the Bauddhas do believe in some kind of origination for the Dharmas ) and so the wise philosophers proclaim the doctrine of' non-origination' So long as the obsession about the हेतुफलभाव continues, there would be no freedom from the results of the causal relation, and from the Samsära; when the obsession ceases, the Samsāra also comes to naught. Everything is originated by Māya and that is consequently not permanent; unoriginated सत् can have no end. The Dharmas that are spoken of as originated by some, are not really so; their production is due to Māyā which has no real existence. Iniroduction : Il The Contents of Gandapada. Karika xxi A magic sprout produced by a magic seed, can not be described as either eternal or non-eternal; the same is true of Dharmas In the case of originated things, the expressions eternal or non-eternal are meaningless. In dream we find the Citta active and producing duality on account of Maya, though it is non-dual ; in the waking state also, the Citra acts likewise. In dream, the dreamer sees all kinds of objects which are really not different from his Citta, and are percei- vable by him alone; the same thing happens in the waking state. Both Citta and Citra-drśya are interdependent and are not different from each other. As the objects in dream or those created by magic or yogic power are born and perish, so also all these Dharmas are born and perish due to Māyā. The Highest truth can once more be stated as: No Jiva is originated, no origination is possible, nothing is originated—this alone is the true doctrine. All the duality involving the relation of perceiver and percei. vable is but the vibration of the Citta which is itself void of contact with objects and is unchangeable. What exists on account of Maya does not exist in reality (other schools of philosophy may postulate to the contrary). A thing imagined as unoriginated by Māya can not be really unoriginated. When the absence of duality is realised, there is no cause for origination'. This state of the Citta, unori- ginated, is always same and free from duality; having realised this, one secures the highest place ( Brahman ) free from grief, desire and fear. Once it is realised that there are no independent Drśya things, the Citta turns back from its wrong obsession and the calm natural state of the Citta, unoriginated and non-dual is realised by the enlightened ones. The Citta flashes forth in all its eternal glory and light. But the Citta ( or Brahman or Atman ) is wrongly taken to be associated with any dharma involving duality and ideas about 'is, is not, is and is not, is not is not,' by the ignorant and only he

who realises that the Citta is unconnected with duality, can be said to be all-knowing. What more can a person want after he has secured this omniscience and the highest place aimed at by the Brahmaņas, non-dual, without beginning, middle or end! This realisation is the goal of the training of the Brāhmaṇas; this is the natural self-control and calm, ________________

xxii Gaudapada-Karika The wise have described what is Jñana, jñeya and Vijneya ; this should be properly grasped. In Laukika Jnana, there is duality where the external objects are believed to exist, along with their perception. In Pure Laukika Jnana, there are no external objects but their perception is admitted. In Lokottara Jñana, there are neither external objects, nor their perception and in course of time, the wise one would be entitled to have omniscience, All dharmas are by nature without beginning, like Akasa ; there is nothing manifold about them in any way. All are enlightened from the very beginning; all are likewise tranquil and pure from the very beginning. Every thing is thus unoriginated and same, Those who believe in manifold nature of Jivas or Dharmas are narrow-minded and dull-witted ; only those of large intellect can realise the unoriginated eternal. The unoriginated Dharmas have this Jñana by nature; it is not transferred to them, hence Jñāna is said to be contactless. Even if there is the slightest idea of manifoldness, the person comes to grief, for his Jñana ceases to be Asanga'. All dharmas are thus naturally pure, enlightened from the beginning, and liberated, -so realise the wise ones. The highest Jñana as described above is natural and cannot be transferred. Gautama Buddha did not preach this, The highest place (or Moksa ) is thus unoriginated, same, pure, free from duality, very difficult to grasp and to realise. III Was Gaudapada a Buddhist ?

Prof. Dasgupta in his 'A History of Indian Philosophy' (Vol. I, pp. 423-429 ) has discussed the question whether Gaudapada was a Buddhist, in great detail and his conclusion is that there is sufficient evidence in the Karikas for thinking that he was possibly himself a Buddhist and considered that the teachings of the Upanişads tallied with those of Buddha Gauda pāda assimilated all the Buddhist Sünyavāda and Vijñānavada teachings and thought that these hold good of the ultimate truth preached by the Upnisads.It is immaterial whether he was a Hindu or a Buddhist, so long as ________________

Intoduction : II Was Gandapada a Buddhist ? we are sure that he had the highest respect for Buddha and for his teachings which he believed to be his ". Prof. Vidhuśekhara Bhattacharya is another great champion of Buddhism and has endeavoured in his edition of Gaudapādakārikas, to prove that Gaudapāda was merely reproducing Buddhist philosophical ideas in his work and no more. While Prof. Dasgupta does not appear to have made a detailed study of the Karikas, and so confines himself to a few salient points in his criticism, Prof. Vidhusekhara goes all out to uphold his thesis that Gaudapāda was a Buddhist. In our Notes, we have shown in detail how the interpretations put on the Karikās by Prof. Vidbuśckhara, do not bring out the meaning he wants to extract from them. Here we would be discussing the problem in a more general manner. To begin with, it must be made clear how the two Professors have chosen to ignore some basic facts in their enthusiasm for glorifying Buddhism : (1) The following verse is traditionally regarded as giving the Guruparampara of Sankaräcārya, नारायणं पद्मभवं वसिष्टं शक्तिं च तन्पुत्रपराशरं च व्यासं शुक्र गौडपदं महान्तं गोविन्दयोगीन्द्रमथास्य शिष्यम् । श्रीशङ्कराचार्यमथास्य पद्मपादं च हस्तामलकं च शिष्यं तं तोटकं वार्तिककारमन्यानस्मद्गुरून् सन्ततमानतोऽस्मि ।। Here Gaudapāda is mentioned as either the teacher's teacher (or, at any rate a predecessor ) of Sankatācārya. It is simply unthinkable that, if Gaudapāda were a Buddhist, he would have been so solemnly selected every day in the Sankarapithas that undoubtedly stand for the traditional Hinduism. Traditions are often, it is true, not quite trustworthy, but traditions involving daily practice can not be ignored. (2) Sankarācārya in his Sūtrabhāşya, quotes Gaudapādakārika, with the remark अत्रोक्तं वेदान्तार्थसंप्रदायविदिभिराचार्यैः अनादिमायया सुप्तो

etc. (I. 16 )'. He thus refers to Gaudapada, most respectfully as a great Ācārya who knows the traditional Vedanta teachings. Such a reference would be quite out of order, if Gaudapāda had been a Buddhist,

7 Same as गौडपाद; the use of पद् for पाद is perhaps due to the exigence of the metre. ________________

XXIV Gaudapada-Karika 6) The state of Mokşa is called ब्राह्मण्य पद (IV. 85 ) in the Kärikäs. Would a genuine Buddhist refer to Moksa in terms of a rival philosophy ? (4) The Karikás have as their basis the Māņdūkyopanişad ( in the First Prakarana ), quote Taittiriyopanişad by name, and are indebted to the Brhadaranyaka, Chandogya, the Bhagavadgită, etc. for its doctrines. All these are Vedāntic works. No Buddhist would have shown such reverence and preference for non-Buddhist works. (5) After having enunciated his doctrines, Gaudapäda at the end of his work categorically says that his philosophy has not been taught by Buddha (नैतद्बुद्धेनभाषितम् IV.99 ). It is true that attempts have been made to explain away this passage, so as not to be regarded as anti-Buddhistic, but these carry no conviction. (6) Gaudapāda in II-25, refers to the Bauddhas ( मन इति मनोविदो बुद्घिरिति च तद्विद: ) for the purpose of combating them. In IV. 54, he comes to the conclusion एवं न चित्तजा धर्माश्चित्तं वापि न धर्मजम्, thus showing that he does not hold the Vijñanavāda of the Bauddhas, Similarly the Báhyárthavādins are also shown to be wrong in their views. In the face of the above positive pieces of evidence, it appears strange to us, how the question of Gauda pada being a Buddhist could have been ever taken up seriously. We shall now briefly consider the arguments put forth by Dasgupta and V. Bhattacharya. (1) It is contended that the expression द्विपदां वर in IV, 1. refers to गौतम बुद्ध. We have shown in our Notes on the Karika in question how the Mahabharata uses the expression a number of times and that द्विपरां वर was never accepted as a peculiar epithet of Buddha. There is a greater probability of the expression referring to Nārāyana or Suka. (2) There are various terms current in Buddhistic philosophy, used in his Karikās by Gaudapäda, such as धर्म, धातु, लोकोत्तर , तायिन्, देशित, वैशारद्य,संवृति, etc. This however might at the most prove that 8 Bee B, O.K. I. Annals Vol. XXXII pp. 166-173 Dvipadam Varam by R. D. Karmarkar, XXY Introduction : III Was Goudapada a Buddhisi? Gaudapada had studied Buddhistic philosophy very well, which no one denies. We have shown in the Notes, how Gaudapada uses some of the above terms ( धर्म, संवृति etc.) in a more or less Vedantic sense. Gaudapāda did accept the Buddhistic terminology, in order to be in a better position to contradict the Buddhist tenets successfully. (3) अस्पर्शयोग referred to so respectfully in IV. 2, is a characteristic feature in Buddhistic philosophy. The expression अस्पर्शयोग is not actually found used in Buddhist literature. Gaudapada owes that expression to the Bhagavadgita which refers to मात्रास्पर्श as दुःखयोनि (मात्रास्पर्शास्तु कौन्तेय शीतोष्णसुख- दुःखदाः । ... II, II, V. 21 ) and consequently अस्पर्शयोग is the panacea to end all misery. (4) The simile of the fire-brand ( अलात ) is peculiarly Buddhistic. Gaudapada need not have gone to the Buddhists for the simile. अलात is found used in Ramayana (Kiskindhākānda)", Mahabharata. (Karņaparvan) to and Yogavāsiştha. The idea of whirling the fire-brand could have been easily suggested by the expression भ्रामयन्सर्वभूतानि यन्त्रारूढानि मायया in the Gita ( XVIII-61), (5) There is a large number of passages in Gaudapādakārika which seem to be the echoes of the Mulamadhyamakarikás of Nagarjuna, such as भूतं न जायते किश्चिदभूतं नैव जायते । ( IV-4) स्वतो वा परतो वापि न किञ्चिद्वस्तु जायते । ( IV-22). 9 आदर्शतलसंकाशा ततो वै पृथिवी मया । अलातचक्रप्रतिमा दृष्टा गोष्पदवत्कृता || Kiskindhakapda XLVI. 13. 10 अलातचक्रवत्सैन्यं तदा बभ्राम तावकम् । Karpaparv an, 86. 42. 11 यथालातपरिस्पन्दादग्निचक्रं प्रदृश्यते । असदेव सदाभासं चित्तस्पन्दात्तथा जगत् ॥ v. 78. 1. मिथ्यैव मे विवल्गन्ति नीरूपा नयनादयः । अलातचक्रप्रतिमाः सर्परज्जुभ्रमोपमाः ॥ v. 8. 28. the major portion of the Yogavisistha can be assigned to the period later than that of Gaudapada, but there are undoubtedly some strata in that work, which belong to the earlier period, ________________

xxvi Gaudapadu-Karika There need be no hesitation in admitting that Gauda pada has borrowed several ideas from his predecessors, both Buddhists and Vedāntins. Various passages in the Paramarthasära and Yogavāsıştha can be shown to bear striking similarity with those in Gaudapāda's work. (6) The expression in its various forms (बुद्धैः,बुद्धानां etc.) has been used to refer to the Buddhists and Gautama Buddha is directly mentioned in IV-99. It has been shown in the Notes, how the expression बुद्ध is in most cases used by Gaudapāda merely in the sense of the wise one' and it is unfair to read too much in it. (7) The चातुष्कोटिक idea mentioned in (IV-83, 84) is borrowed by Gaudapāda from Samjaya Belattiputta, a pre-Buddhist heretic. Even if Gauda pāda is taken to have been a borrower as suggested above, that does not prove anything. (8) Agrayāna in Kārikā IV-90 means Mahāyāna. It may very well mean the Purvamimāīsā '.12 It would thus be seen that the attempt of certain scholars to prove that Gaudapāda was a Buddhist and that he preached Buddhistic philosophy or that he incorporated Buddhistic ideas in the Upanişadic philosophy, can not be said to be successful in the least. There is no doubt that Gaudapāda studied very carefully the various philosophical systems current in his own time ( such as the Sankhya, Buddhistic, Gitā) in addition to the Upanişads and evolved his famous doctrine of Ajātivāda, which is certainly far removed from the main tenets of Buddhist philosophers, viz. (1) Momentariness ( kşanikatva ) and (2) Dependent origination (pratityasamutpāda ) which all schools of Buddhistic philosophy accept. The teachings of Gauda pāda can under no circumstances be described as identical with or approximating to those of Śünyavāda of Nagarjuna. Gauda pada thus seems to have been neither a Buddhist nor a Buddhist in disguise, but one who had a profound respect for 10 See notes p. 149. Introduction : 17' The Title of the whole work etc. xxvii Vedāntic tradition and who evolved his doctrine of non-origination, after having studied the different systems of pliilosophy current in his time, and having found that they could not stand the test of logical reasoning. He was, in short, a Vedāntist, both by tradition and conviction; hence it was possible for Śankarācārya and other Vedāntists to take his philosophy as their firm basis to build their detailed theories upon. IV The Title of the whole work and the several Prakaranas thereof The two hundred and fifteen Kärikäs comprising the four Prakarañas, as a whole are described in the Manuscripts variously as गौडपादीयकारिका, or गौडपादकारिका ( in the plural or the singular) or अगमशास्त्र. Fortunately there is no discrepancy as regards the number of the Karikas. Similarly there are no material variants or different readings worth noting as regards the text itself, Prof. Vidhusekhara Bhattacharya has collated a large number of Mss. but nothing very striking has been revealed in the matter of the text proper. We also looked into several more Manuscripts at the Bhandarkar Insti- tute and two more specially obtained from Wai, but have not found any new readings worth considering. One Ms. No. 171 at the B.O. R. I, which contains the third ( अद्वैताख्य ) and the second (वैतथ्याख्य ) Prakaranas calls the work उपदेशग्रन्थ. The Buddhisr writer शांतिरक्षित who quotes a number of Kärikās, quotes them as from वेदान्तशास्त्र. One commentator on the Pancadaśī seems to call Gaudapada's -work माण्डूक्यवार्तिक' and Gaudapada as वार्तिककार. Prof. Vidhusekhara apparently likes to call the work आगमशास्त्र. There is no particular reason why one title should be regarded as preferable to the other. The simpler title गौडपादकारिका appears to us most likely to be the genuine one. As regards the titles of the four Prakarañas, there is no contro- versy a tour the names of Prakaranas II, III and IV which are respec- tively called वैतथ्यप्रकरण, अद्वैतप्रकरण and अलातशान्तिप्रकरण. According 13 The title माण्डूक्योपनिषद: is also found in some colophons, Xxviii Gaudapada-Karika to K-bhäşya,14 the second Prakarana proves logically the वैतथ्य of द्वैत (तस्य व्रतस्य हेतुतो वैतथ्यप्रतिपादनाय द्वितीयं प्रकरणम् ) and hence the name वैतथ्यप्रकरण. Perhaps the real reason is that the first Kārika in the second Prakaraṇa begins with the word वैतथ्य (it would be remembered that the केनोपनिषद is so called because it begins with the expression केनेषितं ). The third Prakarana is called अद्वैतप्रकरण, because it like- wise proves the reality of the अद्वैत (तथाद्वैतस्यापि वैतथ्यप्रसङ्गप्राप्तौ युक्तितस्तथास्वदर्शनाय तृतीयं प्रकरणम् ). The fourth Prakarana is obviously called अलातशांतिप्रकरण on account of the striking simile of the अलात there ( Kärikās 47-50 ). The first Prakarana is variously described in the Manuscripts as आगम, ओङ्कारनिर्णय and ओङ्कारोपासना. In favour of calling the Prakarana आगमप्रकरण, the argument is usually advanced that it is based mainly on आगम or Sruti. The K-bhāşya remarks तत्र तावदोङ्कारनिर्णयाय प्रथमं प्रकरणमागमप्रधानमात्मतत्वप्रतिपत्त्युपायभूतम् ! While it is true that the first Prakaraña is mainly based upon the Mandū. kyopanişad, there is nothing specially characteristic about it so as to differentiate it from the other Prakaranas and to name it आगम. Besides, the word आगं is usually associated with special sectarian doctrines (cf. पाञचरात्रागम, शैवागम) and not with the general Upa- nişadic tenets which are referred to in the Kärikäs. This also will show how the name आगमशास्त्र does not seem to be appropriate for the Kärikäs as a whole. The concluding sections of the first Prakarana describe the sacred syllable ओम् in detail and wind up with the statement that 'he is the real sage who knows the Omkāra' (ओङ्कारो विदितो येन स मुनिनेतरो जनः । I-29). The name ओङ्कारनिर्णय or ओङ्कारोपासना or better still ओङ्कार as Anandagiri would have it, would be far more appropriate for the Prakarapa.'s V The Mandukyopanisad and the twenty-nine Karikas in the first Prakarana The Mandukyopanişad contains 12 prose passages or Mantras and commentators on the first Prakarana of the Kārikås apparently 14 We have described the bhāsya on the Karikas, attributed to Sankara- carya as K. bhasya, as we are of opinion that the bhāşya could not have been written by the great Sankara. A separate paper on this topic is going to be published by us in the near future. 15 Tha colophons in Ms. giving the titles of sections of chapters of a work vary so much that they can be regarded as but noting the individaal fancy of the copyist or the commentator. There are more than half a dozen titles found in Mss. for some of the Achyāyas in such a well-known work as the Bhagavadgita. Introduction : V The Mandakyopanişad etc. xxix " " 8-II >1 " 12 " " " regard the Karikas as part of the Mandukya and distribute the twenty-nine Karikās as follows, with the introductory expression अत्रैते श्लोका भवन्ति- (1) Mandukya 1-6 followed by Karikas I-9 (2) 10-18 (3) 19-23 (4) 24-29 K-bhāşya seems to regard the Mäşdükyopanisad and the four Prakaranas as one work (ओमित्येतदक्षरमिदं सर्व तस्योपयाख्यानम् । वेदान्तार्थ- सारसंग्रह भूतमिदं प्रकरणचतुष्टयमोमित्येतदक्षरमित्यारभ्यने । ). According to Madhvācārya ( 13th century) and his followers, both the Mantras and the Karikas were revealed by Nārāyaṇa to Varuna in the form of a frog ( the Kārikās had been revealed earlier to Brahmadeva ), Madhva quotes passages in this connection from the Padma and Garuda Puraņas and also the Harivamša, but these are not found in any of the editions of those works available so far; Kūranārāyana, a follower of the Rāmānuja school, says that the Kārikās corroborate the sense of the Mantras which, being स्वप्रमाण, need no corroboration, This raises the questions: (1) Do the Karikās form part of the Māņdükya, and (2) if not, what is the purpose of the Karikás and how do they come to be associated with the Māndūkyopanişad ? The answer to the first question can only be an emphatic No, for the following convincing reasons: — (1) In several Mss. of the Măndukyopanişad, only the Mantras (the prose portion ) are given and there is no indication in the Mss, that the Karikās ever formed part of the Māndükya, as is clear from the Nirnayasagar edition of the Upanişads. (2) It is only the commentators commenting upon the Upanişad and the Karikās together, who seem to regard the two as forming one complete whole. (3) The Upanişads being Śruti are supposed to be apauruseya (not composed by any human agency ) and it would be going ________________

XXX Gandapada-Karika against all tradition to make Gaudapăda, who was after all a human being (even though a great Yogin ), the author of a Sruti work. (4) The Kärikäs are undoubtedly Gaudapāda's and Sankaracärya rightly refers to Gaudapāda merely as one who knows the Vedānta tradition ( वेदान्तार्थसंप्रदायविद्). (3) It is admitted that sometimes the Karikās are regarded as Sruti by some writers, but that simply would prove that the word Śruti' is loosely used in a broad sense, and nothing more. It is unnecessary to pursue this topic further, for nothing can upset the traditional view of the Upanişads being without any known human author, and so Gaudapada could not be regarded as the author of the Mäņdukyopanişad proper. (6) If the Kārikas which are introduced with the words अत्रैते श्लोका भवन्ति are regarded as forming part of the Upanişad, it would mean that Gaudapāda lived at least some centuries earlier than the time when the Māndukya was written, so as to be famous enough to have his work quoted in it! The Māņdūkya is generally regarded as one of the old Upanişads, while according to the above theory, it would have to be assigned to the 7th or the 8th century at the earliest! In order to obviate this difficulty attempts are made to show that Gaudapāda may have lived in the first century B. C. or even earlier, but that would not solve the basic absurdity of a human work being quoted in an Upanişad ! . . (7) The expression अत्रैते श्लोका भवन्ति with which the Karikas are distributed among the Mantras of the Mandukya, no doubt suggests that the Karikas existed before the Upanişad; similar expressions occur in the other old Upanişads (and Brāhmaṇas) also. Thus in the Taittiriyopanişad, we have the expression ac तदप्येष श्लोक: used as many as eight times. In all these cases, we have a prose passage stating a particular topic and then comes the emphatic dignified तदप्येष श्लोक:, introducing verses corroborating what has been stated before or the श्लोक has the sense of a संग्रहश्लोक. In the Chāndogya also, we have तदेष श्लोको or तदेष श्लोको भवति used seven times in a similar context. The Chandogya uses अत्रैते श्लोका भवन्ति in one place and ushers as many as fifteen verses there, but there is reason to doubt whether these are genuine or interpolations. (In later Introduction : V The Mandukyopanişad ole. Xxxi Upanişads we have a similar expression ushering about 10 verses in the मैत्रायणी, or as many as 75 verses in the मुक्तिकोपनिषद etc ). Even a superficial scrutiny of the passages in the old Upanışads where the श्लोकs are introduced, shows that the Ślokas are used by way of clinching the argument or corroborating briefly and emphatically the argument used before in longer prose passages. In fact, the expression तदप्येष श्लोको भवति has an authori- tative ring about it, as compared with the docile and timid expression अत्रैते श्लोका भवन्ति, with which Gaudapāda's Kārikās are introduced. (10) Prof. Vidhusektara has rightly pointed out how Gauda- pāda's Karikas can in no way be regarded as a commentary on the prose portion of the Mandukya. In fact, the matter is so obvious as not to require any elaborute attempt to support it. The Karikas refer to matters not mentioned in the Upanişad, fail to explain important terms therein, enumerate several riews about creation which matter is not even hinted at in the Upanisad and so on. Thus the first group of Kārikās fails to explain the important words सप्ताङ्ग and एकोनविंशतिमुख in the prose portion of the Mantra, The Karikas use the expression वैश्वानर in place of विश्व ; जागरितस्थान, स्वप्नस्थान and सुषुप्तिस्थान in the prose portion are not found in the Kärikäs and so on. Similarly the prose portion appears to explain some terms in the Kārikās. There are also differences of interpretation about the words तुर्य, मिति, आप्ति etc. But all this criticism is based upon the wrong supposition that the Kärikäs are a commentary on the Mantra prose portion or vice versa. The proper view is that the Kārikās have the Mantra portion as their basis and Gaudapăda emphasises only those points which are useful for his own purpose which is to establish the Ajativada. Prof. Vidhusekhara makes use of certain Kärikās in the first Prakarana to prove that the Karikas were earlier than the Mantra portion, but in our opinion they cannot possibly bear the interpretation he seeks to put on them, ( All these cases have been discussed in detail in the Notes). The Karikās take the Māngukyopanişad as their basis and are mainly concerned with pointing out the importance of the Upāsanā of the sacred syllable Om, and incidentally refer to the different views of those who believe creation to be real. Kärikā 1.7, स्वप्नमायारूपाति सृष्टिरन्येर्विकल्पिता refers to those who believe in a real creation ( the Višiştādvaitins and some Buddhists) and not to the Advaita xxxii Gauqapada-Karika Vedāntins as is clear from the expression अन्यै:. Similarly Kārika I-8, देवस्यैष स्वभावोऽयमाप्तकामस्य का स्पृहा does not contain Gaudapada's view, but has in mind the स्वभाववादिन्s, according to whom creation is real and can be attributed to the Lord's nature alone. The position as regards the Karikās in the first Prakaraṇa is therefore as follows: (1) The Kārikās do not form part of the Māndukyopanişad. They are as Anandagiri puts it, तद( उपनिषद् विवरणरूप. (ii) Gaudapāda could not have written the Upanişad which could not have under any circumstances any human author. (iii) Gaudapāda wrote the Karikās ; they are आचार्यप्रणीत as Anandagiri expressly says. 6 (iv) The Kårikås did not exist before the Upanişad, but were written long after. (v) In the case of other Upanişads where similar ślokas have been introduced, they are invariably shown as part of the Upanişads in the Mss of those Upanişads, whereas several Mss. of the Mându- kyopanişad contain only the prose portion. If the Karikās did not form part of the Upanişad, how did they come to be associated with it in such an intimate manner? Bearing in mind that this intimate association is found mostly in the com- mentaries on the Kārikás, the answer appears to be that the Karikās on account of their having the Māndukyopanişad as their basis, and their importance as a well-known work on Advaita, came as a rule 16 Sankarācārya quotes the karika { I. 16 ) अनादिमायया सुप्तो यदा जीवः प्रयुज्यते in his bhāsya on Brahmanūtea II. 1. 9, and the Karikā [II. 15 मृल्लोहविस्फुलिङ्गाद्यैः सृष्टियां चोदितान्यथा in the bhasya on I. 4. 14. The Karikas are वेदान्तार्थसंप्रदायविदाचार्यप्रणीत according to Sankara. Sureśvara, sankara's pupil, in his Naiskarmyasiddhi (V. 41-44 ) quotes two Karikas (I. 11 and 15 ) कार्यकारणबदौ ताविष्येते विश्वतैजसो etc. and अन्यथा गृह्णतः स्वप्नो निद्रा सत्त्वमजानता etc, expressly mentioning that they are Gauda( pada )'s. Similarly in his Brħadvärtika, Sureśvara quotes some of the Karikās, to the face of this evidence it is idle to deny that the Karikās in the first Prakarana were written by Gaudapāda, Introduction : VI Are the four Prakaranas inter-related? xxxiii to be studied side by side with the Upanișad, and the teacher while explaining the Upanişad introduced the Kārikās to the pupil at suitable stages and the tradition was respected by the commentators and is even now kept up in the Pathaśālās. It is therefore unnece- ssary to read any deeper meaning in the expression अत्रेते श्लोका भवन्ति which innocent-looking expression has unnecessarily caused such a furore amongst students of Advaita Vedānta. VI Are the four Prakaranas inter-related ? Prof. Vidhusekhara argues out the case that the four Prakaranas are not inter-related, but are independent treatises which were later put together and called Agamaśāstra. He criticises the arguments of the K-bhāşya which shows the inter-connection of different Prakaranas, and comes to the conclusion that K-bhāşya has not succeeded in proving its thesis. The arguments of the K-bhasya are to be found in its comments at the beginning of each Prakarana. At the very beginning of the first Prakarana it takes stock of the whole work as follows:- (1) The first Prakarana is mainly based upon the scripture for the purpose of ascertaining the Omkāra, and shows the means for understanding the nature of Atman. (2) The second Prakarana shows logically how duality is false, as the knowledge of Advaita can only be had when the Sarnsära projected by duality is sublated. (3) Dvaita is false, but the Advaita is not so ; this is logically proved in the third Prakarapa. (4) The fourth Prakarana discusses the rival doctrines opposed to Advaita and points out how they are opposed to one another. K-bhāşya, in its introductory comments at the beginning of the second Prakarana says that the existence of the one without a second was stated in the first Prakaraña on the strength mostly of the Sruti passages. The second Prakaraņa shows that the non-reality of duality can be proved by reasoning and by suitable analogies, 5 ________________

xxxiv Gaudapada-Karika The third Prakaraņa shows how Advaita can be known, not merely by Sruti but by reasoning also. The fourth Prakarana describes in detail how the rival theories being opposed to one another, show their own false nature and thus Advaita becomes triumphant as a matter of course,"7 Prof. Vidhusekhara objects in toto to the above exposition of the K-bhāşya and finds nothing acceptable in it. His objections are : (1) The first Prakarana is not आगममात्र, it contains some reasoning or तर्क as well. 11 We quote here the original Sanskrit comments in full, which clearly show how the author of K-bhāşya had a good grasp of the Karikas as a whole. तत्र तावदोङ्कारनिर्णयाय प्रथम प्रकरणमागमप्रधानमात्मतत्वप्रतिपत्त्युपायभूतम् । यस्य द्वैतप्रपञ्चस्योपशमेऽद्वैतप्रतिपत्तौ रज्ज्वामिव सर्पादिविकल्पोपशमे रज्जुतत्त्वप्रतिपत्तिः। तस्य द्वैतस्य हेतुतो वैतथ्यप्रतिपादनाय द्वितीयं प्रकरणम् । तथाद्वैतस्यापि वैतथ्यप्रसङ्गप्राप्तौ युक्तितस्तथावदर्शनाय तृतीयं प्रकरणम् । __ अद्वैतस्य तथात्वप्रतिपत्तिप्रतिपक्षभूतानि यानि वादान्तराण्यवैदिकानि तेषामन्योन्यविरोधिस्यादतथार्थत्वेन तदुपपत्तिभिरेव निराकरणाय चतुर्थं प्रकरणम् । ज्ञाते द्वैतं न विद्यत इत्युक्तम् । एकमेवाद्वितीयमित्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः । आगममात्रं तत् । तत्रोपपत्त्यापिं द्वैतस्य वैतथ्यं शक्यते ऽवधारयितुमिति द्वितीयं प्रकरणमारभ्यते। ओङ्कारनिर्णय उक्तः प्रपञ्चोपशमः शिवोऽद्वैत आत्मेति प्रतिज्ञामात्रेण । ज्ञाते द्वैतं न. विद्यते इति च । तत्र द्वैताभावस्तु वैतथ्यप्रकरणेन स्वप्नमायागन्धर्वनगरादिदृष्टान्तैर्दृश्यत्वाद्यन्स्तववादिहेतभिस्तर्केण च प्रतिपादितः। अद्वैतं किमागममात्रेण प्रतिपत्तव्यमाहोस्वित्तर्केणापीत्यत आह । शक्यते तर्केणापि ज्ञातुम् । तत्कथमित्यद्वैतप्रकरणमारभ्यते । ___ ओङ्कारनिर्णयद्वारेणायमतः प्रतिज्ञातस्याद्वैतस्य बाह्यविषयभेदवैतथ्याञ्च सिद्धस्य पुनरद्वैते शास्त्रयुक्तिभ्यां साक्षान्निर्धारितस्यैतदुत्तमं सत्यमित्युपसंहारः कृतः । अन्ते- तस्यैतस्यागमार्थस्याद्वैतदर्शनस्य प्रतिपक्षभूता द्वैतिनो वैनाशिकाश्च तेषां चान्योन्यविरोधाद्रागद्वेषादिक्लेशास्पदं दर्शनमिति मिथ्यादर्शनत्वं सूचितम् । क्लेशानास्पदत्वात्सम्यन्दर्शनमित्यद्वैतदर्शनं स्तूयते । तदिह विस्तरेणान्योन्यविरुद्धतयासम्यग्दर्शनत्वं प्रदर्घ तत्प्रतिषेधेनाद्वैतदर्शनासिद्धिरुपसंहर्तव्यावीतम्यायनेस्वलातशान्तिारभ्यते । ________________

Introduction : 7] Are true four Prakaranas inter-related ? XXXV This objection simply shows that Prof. Vidhusekhara is hhypercritical, that is all. Surely K-bhäşya wants to say that the first Prakarana dealing as it does with the ओङ्कारोपासना and the चतुष्पाद Brahman by implication, takes its stand upon Sruti, not that it excludes Tarka or reasoning entirely. (2) The Professor further asks: 'If the connection between Books I and II is really as it is shown by Sankara (K-bhāşya ) to be, then why is it that the author of Book II himself does not say so just at its beginning though he could do so easily?' The answer to this would be that is authors all over the world had been so obliging and logical, there would have been no work left for commentators or critics. But the fact is that authors do not, as a rule, say things in a clear-cut manner as one would like them to do. Take the case of the author of the Bhagavadgita. It is no exaggeration to say that there are as many views about the Gitā as there are writers on it. And if we apply the above test put forward by Prof. Vidhusekhara to the Gitā, as regards the inter-connection between the different Achyâyas, the author of the Gită would be cutting a very sorry figure indeed! Similarly, while studying the interpretitions of the Brahmasútras by different Bbāşyakāras, how many times in sheer annoyance has one to blurt out why does not the Sūtrakāra say so directly, if that was his intention ?' But we have to take things as they are. The criticism in such cases ought to be in the spirit of स्थितस्य गतिश्चिन्तनीया (3) Prof. Vidhusekhara says that there was no necessity. of having two separate Prakaranas II and III at all. There should have been only one Prakarana. For, in both the Prakaranas, reasoning has been resorted to in order to prove the same topic 'non-duality' ultimately. The answer is that though the topic is the same ultimately, the emphasis is different. The second Prakarana deals mainly with the illusoriness of the Prapanca; the third Prakarana deals with the non-origination so as to prove the non-duality. Thus the approach in the two Prakaranas to the ultimate problem is different. (4) Prof. Vidhusekhara would like to enunciate a general rule that a Prakarana is entitled to be called an independent work if the Xxxvi Gaudapada-Karika contents in it could be understood without any reference to the earlier Prakarana, This dictum cannot possibly be accepted by any one. In that case, the Bhagavadgitā can easily be shown to be comprising at least half a dozen independent Adhyāyas. It is no use arguing that it does not matter in the least if we have a dozen Gītās instead of one. For, this is after all a defeatist attitude in a way. There is bound to be a connecting link, in the case of a well-known work, which knits the different sections thereof and it is the commentator's duty to point this out in a sympathetic manner and to represent the intentions of the original author in a connected reasoned way. If objections can be taken in a hyper-critical spirit, we may as well object to the fact that Gauda pāda repeats certain Kärikäs now and then, makes use of four Karikás while describing the similarity between Alata and Vijñāna (IV-49-52 ) in self-same words ( he could have easily said simply that Vijñāna acts in the same way as Alāta, instead of repeating the idea word for word) or writes three Karikās in describing the Svapnamaya, Māyāmaya and Nirmitaka Jivas ( IV-68-70 ), when he could have disposed of the topic in one Kärikä and so on. Such criticism is clearly unhelpful. Broadly speaking therefore, it must be conceded that the first three Prakaraņas are written in the same style, giving due importance to both Śruti and Tarka, and discussing the general topic of Advaita, though with a different emphasis and thus are closely related with one another, The Fourth Prakarana, unlike the first three Prakarañas, can have some claim to being regarded as a distinct piece of work, though related to the first three Prakaranas, Prof. Vidhusekhara, in his criticism of K-bháşya's comments about the fourth Prakarana, unnecessarily spoils his case by over-stating it. (1) Prof. Vidhusekhara does not admit that the views of the Dvaitins and the Vaināśikas are discussed in the fourth Prakarana. This is quite an untenable position. Gauďapāda says, भूतस्य जातिमिच्छन्ति वादिनः केचिदेव हि । भभूतस्यापरे धीरा विवदन्तः परस्परम् ॥३॥ Introduction : VI Are the four Prakaranas inter-related ? xxxvii भूतं न जायते किश्चिदभूतं नैव जायते । विवदन्तोऽदया ह्येवमजातिं ख्यापयन्ति ते ॥४॥ ख्याप्यमानामजातिं तैरनुमोदामहे वयम् । विवदामो न तैः सार्धमविवादं विबोधत ॥ ५॥ Here obviously the Asarkaryavada of the Vaisesikas and the Satkaryavada of the Sankhyas are referred to and they are shown to destroy each other and thus to help in proclaiming the Ajativada. Later the whole concept of causality is attacked and the conclusion drawn एवं हि सर्वथा बुद्धरैजातिः परिदीपिता (19). When we remember that the Vaibhāşika Bauddhas did accept the Satkāryaväda, and the Yogăcāra Bauddhas the Astkāryavāda, it is idle to deny that the fourth Prakarana does refer to the Vainasika Bauddhas, Karikās 25-27-- प्रज्ञप्तेः सनिमित्तत्वमिष्यते युक्तिदर्शनात् । निमित्तस्यानिमित्तत्वमिष्यते सूतदर्शनात् ॥ २५॥ चित्तं न संस्पृशत्यर्थं नार्थाभासं तथैव च । अभूतो हि यतश्चार्थो नार्थाभासस्ततः पृथक् ॥ २६॥ निमित्तं न सदा चित्तं संस्पृशत्यध्यसु त्रिषु । अनिमित्तो विपर्यासः कथं तस्य भविष्यति ।। २७ ॥ make use of the arguments of the विज्ञानवादि Bauddhas to prove the सर्वास्तित्ववादि Bauddhas wrong and Karika 28-- तस्मान्न जायते चित्तं चित्तदृश्यं न जायते । तस्य पश्यन्ति ये जातिं खे वै पश्यन्ति ते पदम् ॥ is a hit against the विज्ञान वादिन्s themselves. Similarly in एवं न चित्तजा धर्माश्चित्तं वापि न धर्मजम् । एवं हेतुफलाजातिं प्रविशन्ति मनीषिणः ॥ ४४ ।। the Vijñānavāda is refuted, and in क्रमते न हि बुद्धस्य ज्ञानं धर्मेषु तायिनः । सर्वे धर्मास्तथा ज्ञानं नैतद्बुद्धेन भाषितम ॥ 99॥ 18 18 We have discussed in detail the different interpretations of this Karika, as also the meaning of the expression द्विपदा वरम् in ( IV.1) in our paper 'Dvipadam Varara' Annals, B.O. R. 1. Vol. XXXII, Pp, 166-173. xxxviii Gaudapada-Karika Gauậapada directly says that his philosophical doctrine is different from that preached by Gautama Buddha. It is clear therefore that the position taken by the K-bhășya regarding the fourth Prakarana is unassailable and the arguments put forward by Prof. Vidhusekhara only prove the truth of the adage None are so blind as those who will not see'. It is further contended by Prof. Vidhuśekhara and others that the fourth Prakarana contains an exposition of Buddhist philoso- phical views and abounds in Buddhist thought and ideas. Various Kärikās are interpreted by them in this light. In the Notes, we have tried to show what should be the proper interpretation of these passages. Here we shall briefly discuss a few general objections. (1) Gaudapāda salutes Gautama Buddha who is referred to as द्विपदां वर at the beginning of the fourth Prakarana, and the अस्पर्शयोग taught by Buddha, at the end. Gaudapāda seems to have deliberately put in a Mangalasloka both at the beginning and at the end in imitation of certain Buddhistic works. He presumably wanted to meet the Buddhists on their own ground and to pay them in their own coin. Nägarjuna, while paying his obeisance to Buddha calls him again; Gaudapāda goes one better and calls his Master द्विपदां वर (the best of all human beings ), We have already shown elsewhere that द्विपदां वर cannot be regarded as a peculiarly Buddhist expression ; it is found in the Mahabhārata, and it probably refers to Suka, son of Vyasa, who is traditionally regarded as Gaudapāda's teacher, or to Nārāyana himself from whom the Vedantaśutrăstras come forth. Similarly अस्पर्शयोग is not directly referred to in Buddhist literature and Gaudapāda is undoubtedly indebted to the Bhagavad- gita. (मात्रास्पर्शास्तु कौन्तेय दुःखयोनय एव ते II. 14 and ये हि संस्पर्शजा भोगा ......V. 22 तं विद्यादुःखसंयोग etc. VI. 23 ) for the term अस्पर्शयोगः (2) Gaudapāda makes use of phraseology strongly reminiscent of Buddhist schools, and has modelled some of his Kārikäs on those of Nāgārjuna, Aryadeva, Asanga etc. The main doctrines taught in the fourth Prakarana are the unreality of the world and ________________

Introduction: V1 Are the tour Prakaranas inter-related ? xxxis Sünyatā respectively held by the Vijñanavādins and the Madhyamikas, The three kinds of jñāna, the two kinds of Satya etc, are all Buddhist ideas and were borrowed by Gaudapāda from the Buddhist writers. The use of a very large number of Buddhist terms, such as अद्वय, अद्वन् (time), तायिन्, धर्मधातु, नायक, निर्मितक, वैशारद्य, संश्लेष, सङ्घात, संवृति, the simile of the अलात and मायाहस्तिन-all this points out how Gaudapāda was obsessed by Buddhistic ideas which he has taught in the fourth Prakarana. We have discussed in the Notes at the proper places, the arguments involved in the above contention. Here we shall deal with their general implications. It may be freely admitted that Gaudapāda was well-versed in Buddhistic philosophy, had studied carefully the important Buddhist writers, and had no hesitation in borrowing from them. But this does not mean that he had accepted their teachings. Gaudapāda, so to speak, attacks the Buddhists_on_their own ground and using their own phraseology, wants to prove how their teachings are wrong. Gaudapāda perhaps feels sorry that the Buddhist philosophers, having come so near the truth of Ajāti or oneness of Atman, by preaching the Vijñānavāda or Sūnyavāda were not bold or rationalists enough to understand the Vedāntic Nirvāna and hence missed their bus. Thus the Madhyamikas merely content themselves with following a middle path between eternality and annihilation, instead of accepting the Ajātivāda. Gaudapāda had ample material in the Upanişads and the Bhagavadgitā to fall back upon, in order to promulgate his Vedāntic theories. The simile and Mayahastin illustration need not be regarded as specially Buddhistic, as they had been well-known in pre-Buddhistic literature as well. Gaudapäda clearly points out wherein he differs from the Buddhists in Kárikā IV. 99, by his statemeut नैतद् बुद्धेन भाषितम्. Buddhra has told many things, but this viz Ajātivāda, he has not told ). As we have pointed out in the Notes, नैतद् बुद्धेन भाषितम् has a direct reference to the passages ... भाषिष्येडहं तव, put in the mouth of Buddha a score of times in the Lankavatāra. Attempts are made by Prof, Vidhusekhara and others to explain away the expression नैतद् बुद्धेन भाषितम् so as to make it conform with Buddhistic notions. Thus we are told that it is equal to अवचनं बुद्धवचनम् meaning that Buddha's silence on the nature of the highest truth implies that A XL Gaudapada-Karika can not be learnt through instruction, but intuitively by every one for himself or that the nature of existence does not depend upon the existence or otherwise of the Tathågata. Both these explana- tions are, to say the least, quite unconvincing. The Vijñānavādi Bauddhas rightly admitted the illusoriness of the world, but failed to notice that illusion can not be understood unless there is a permanent real element as its resort or alambana or adhisthāna. They later admitted the Alayavijñāna ( which is the Buddhist nearest approach to Atman ) which however, being but a continuous series of fleeting ideas, cannot play the role of an Adhişthäna. The Sünyavādins by their categorical statement that all is Súnya, made their šūnyavāda itself Sünya. Their attempts to make the Sünyavāda a Madhyama way between two extremes in conformity with the supposed teachings of Buddha, satisfied no one. Sankarācārya attacked this weak spot in the armour of the Sünya- vādins, and showed how they are beneath contempt. Both the Vijîānavada and Sūnyavāda can become philosophically sound only if an unchangeable permanent reality is admitted, and Buddha failed to do this according to Gaudapāda. The Ajätivāda of Gaudapāda has thus nothing in common with the Sūnyavāda of the Buddhists. Gaudapāda believes in a perma- nent, unchangeable Principle which cannot be proved to be originated. That alone is the Highest truth or Reality and Advaita cannot have any quarrel with any philosophical theories preaching Dvaita, for all such theories have their ultimate basis in Advaita, being themselves mere products of imagination. (3) The expression अग्रयाण (हेयज्ञेयाध्यपाक्यानि विज्ञेयान्याप्रयाणतः । IV. 90 ) refers to महायान. Gaudapada seems to refer to महायान as well as to the पूर्वमीमांसा here by the deliberately chosen expression अग्रयाण. It would be easily conceded that हेय, ज्ञेय, आप्य and पाक्य are more pointedly referred to in the पूर्वमीमांसा than in the महायान. There are several Upanişadic expressions found in the fourth Prakarana ( सोऽमृतत्वाय कल्पते, IV. 92 ; विद्यते न हि नानात्वम्, 91; विद्वान् शमं व्रजेत् 86 ; ब्राह्मण्यं पदम् 85; सकृद्विभातो 81; अभयं पदमश्नुते 78 ; असङ्ग तेन कीर्तितम्, 72... खे वै पश्यन्ति ते पदम्, 28. etc.). Karikas from the 2nd Introduction : V11 The Sources of Gaudapada-Karika XLi and the 3rd Prakarana are repeated in the fourth Prakarina where the aim of Gaudapāda is obviously to show how the Buddhistic ideas fall short of the Vedantic उत्तम सत्य. There is thus no reason to doubt that the fourth Prakarana is also inter-related with the first three Prakaranas and all the four Prakaranas constitute a single and complete treatise propounding the Upanişadic philosophy. VII The Sources of Gaudapāda-Karika Gaudapāda, according to the present state of our knowledge must have lived about the 6th century, and could be presumed to have been acquainted with the important pliilosophical works that were current in his own times. It is possible to point out to similarities of thought and expression in Gaudapāda-Kārika and other works that undoubtedly been written earlier. It would not perhaps be a correct statement to make that Gaudapada was indebted to, or drew his inspiration from, such works, but it can be said that he was influenced by such works and that he made Occasional use of them in writing his Kārikås. The expression 'sources' is thus used by us in a broader sense. We give below a list of similarities of thought and expression in the Kārikās and other works, both Vedāntic and Buddhistic ( a large portion of the First Prakarana is obviously based on the Māņdukyopanişad and so similarities between the two are not specially pointed out below ). I Aitareya Brāhmana Kärikä I. 25 युञ्जीत प्रणव चेतः तेभ्योऽभितप्तेभ्यस्त्रयो वर्णा etc. II Brhadaranyakopanışad Karika I. 26 अपूर्वोऽनन्तरोऽबाह्यो etc. अनन्तरोऽबाह्यः ( IV, 4.13) II. 3 अभावश्च रथादीनां श्रूयते स यन्त्र प्रस्वपिति...( IV. 3.7) न्यायपूर्वकम् । न तत्र रथा न रथयोगा स वा एष एतस्मिन्संप्रसादे रत्वा चरित्वा (IV. 3. 14-18) II. 5 स्वप्नजागरितस्थाने तस्य या एतस्य पुरुषस्य द्वे एव स्थाने (IV. 3.9 ) 6 ...... xiii Gaudapada-Karika II. 36 जडवल्लोकमाचरेत् तस्माद्ब्राह्मणः .. बाल्येन तिष्टासेत् (III. 5.1) III. 12 द्वयोर्द्वयोर्मधुज्ञाने परं ब्रह्म मधुविद्या or मधुज्ञानम् ( II.5) प्रतिष्टितम् । III. 13 जीवात्मनोरनन्यत्वमभेदेन इदं सर्वे यदयमात्मा । ( II. 4.6) प्रशस्थते । नानात्वं निन्द्यते नेह नानास्ति किंचन । (IV. 4.19) III. IF मूल्लोहविस्फुलिङ्गाद्यैः सृष्टिर्या यथा अग्ने क्षुद्रा विस्फुलिङ्गा (II. 1.20) स यथाद्रैधा... (IV. S.II) III. 24 इन्द्रो मायाभिरित्यपि इन्द्रो मायाभिः पुरुरूप ईयते (II. 5.19 ) III. 26 स एष नेति नेतीति व्याख्यातं अथात आदेशो नेति नेति (II. 3.6) स एष नेति नेतीति ( III. 9.26%; IV, 2.4, 22 ) III. 35 तदेव निर्भयं ब्रह्म अभय वै जनक प्राप्तोऽसि (IV. 2.4) वै III Chandogya Karika II. 20 प्राण इति प्राणविदो प्राणे सर्व प्रतिष्टितम् (I. II. 4-5) II. 21 पादा इति पादविदो चतुष्कलः पादो ब्रह्मणः (IV. 4-8) II. 22 भोज्यामिति च तद्विदः अन्नं हीदं सर्व स्थितम् ( I. 3.6) III. 7 नाकाशस्य घटाकाशो वाचारम्भणं विकारः (VI. I.4) HI. 13 जीवात्मनोरनन्यत्वं etc. ऐतदात्म्यमिदं (VI. 8.7 ) III. 15 भृल्लाहविस्फुलिङ्गाद्यैः etc. यथा सोम्यैकेन मृत्पिण्डेन (VI. 13.4-6) III. 23 भूततोऽभूततो वापि सदेव सोम्येदमग्र आसीत (VI. 2.1) III. 34 निगृहीतस्य मनसो etc. यत्रैतत्पुरुषः स्वपिति ( V1. 8.1 ) IV Gita Karika I. 3 आनन्दभुक्तथा प्राज्ञ ... ये हि संस्पर्शजा भोगाः (V. 22 ) I. S ... स भुञ्जानो न लिप्यते सर्वभूतात्मभूतात्मा कुर्वन्नपि न लिप्यते। I. 6 चतोशून्पुरुषः पृथक् ... लिप्यते न स पापेन (V. 7,10) ममैवांशो जीवलोके जीवभूतः सनातनः। (XV.7) अक्षराणामकारोऽस्मि (X,33) I. 19 विश्वस्यात्वविवक्षायामादि- सामान्यमुत्कटम् । 1. 23 अकारो नयते विश्वम् यो यच्छ्रद्धः स एव सः ( XVII. 3) ... Introduction : VII The Sources of Gaudapāda-Karika xliii I, 25 युञ्जीत प्रणवे चेतः प्रणवो ॐ तत्सदिति निर्देशो ब्रह्मणस्त्रिविधः ब्रह्म निर्भयम् । स्मृतः । ... (XVII. 23-24) I. 28 प्रणवं हीश्वरं विद्यात् सर्वस्य ईश्वरः सर्वभूतानां ह्रद्देशेऽर्जुन हृदि संस्थितम् तिष्ठति। (XVIII. 61) ज्ञान ज्ञेयं ज्ञानगम्य...(XIII. IT) II. 20 भूतानीति च तद्विदः भूतानि यान्ति भूतेज्या: (IX. 25) II. 20 गुणा इति गुणविदस्तत्त्वानीति (Adliyāyas XVI, XVII) च तद्विदः। II. 21 देवा इति च तद्विदः यान्ति देवव्रता देवान् (IX, 25) II. 22 यज्ञा इति च तद्विदः यज्ञशिष्टामृतभुजो ... ( IV. 31; IV. 23-24) II. 22 भोक्तेति च भोक्तृविदो अहं हि सर्वयज्ञानां भोक्ता च प्रभुरेव ( IX. 24) उपद्रष्टानुमन्ता च ...(XIII. 22) II. 23 मूर्त इति मूर्तविदो प्रकृति स्वामधिष्ठाय ... ( IV. 6) संभवामि युगे युगे ( IV. 8) II. 24 काल इति कालविदो कालोऽस्मि लोकक्षयत्प्रवृद्धो . (XI. 32 ) मृत्युः सर्वहरचाहम् ! (X.34) II. 29 यं भावं दर्शयेद्यस्य यो यच्छद्धः स एव सः (XVII. 3) तद्ग्रहः समुपैति तम् ।। II. 35 वीतरागभयक्रोधैः वीतरागभयक्रोध (11. 56 ) ( वीतरागमयक्रोधाः etc. (IV. 10) III. 13 जीवात्मनोरन्यत्वम् वासुदेवः सर्वमिति (VIII. -19) III, 16 आश्रमास्त्रिविधा हीनमध्यमो. ऊर्ध्व गच्छन्ति सत्त्वस्था मध्ये त्कृष्टदृष्टयः। तिष्ठन्ति राजसा: etc. (XIV. 18, XVII. 2) III. 21 न भवत्यमृत मर्त्यै जातस्य हि ध्रुवा मृत्यु: ( II. 27) III. 21 प्रकृतेरन्यथाभावो न कथं- मिथ्येष व्यवसायस्ते प्रकृतिस्त्वां चिद्भविष्यति। नियोक्ष्यति। (XVIII. 59 ) III. 34 निगृहीतस्य मनसो शनैः शनैरुपरमेद् बुद्धया धृति निर्विकल्पस्य धीमतः। गृहीतया। (VI. 25 ) III. 38 आत्मसंस्थं तदा ज्ञान आत्मसंस्थं मनः कृत्वा... (VI. 25) III. 39 अस्पर्शयोगो तं विद्यादुःखसंयोगवियोगं (VI. 23) मात्रास्पर्शास्तु कौन्तेय (II. 14) III. 4. मनसो निग्रहस्तद्वद्भवेद- स निश्चयेन योक्तव्यो योगोऽनिर्विण परिखेदतः। चेतसा। (VI. 23) III. 42 उपायेन निरीयाद्विक्षिप्तं अभ्यासेन तु कौन्तेय वैराग्येण च कामभोगयोः। गृह्यते (VI. 35-36) xLiv Gaudapada-Karika III. 44 लये संबोधयश्चित्तं विक्षिप्तं शमयेत्पुनः । सकषाय विजा- नीयात्समप्राप्तं न चालयेत् ॥ III. 46 यदा न लीयते चित्तं... अनिङ्गनमनाभासं निष्पन्नं ब्रह्म तत्तदा ॥ III. 47 स्वस्थं शान्तं सनिर्वाणमकथ्यं सुखमुत्तमम् etc. संकल्पप्रभवान्कामांस्त्यक्वा सर्वा- नशेषतः । मनसैवेन्द्रियग्रामं विनि- यम्य समन्ततः etc. (VI, 24-28) यथा दीपो निवातस्थो नेगते सोपमा स्मृता। (VI. 19 ) IV. 10 जरामरणमिच्छन्तश्चयवन्ते IV. 43 अजातेस्रसतां तेषामुपलम्भात् योन्तामुखोऽन्तरारामस्तथान्तज्योति- रेव यः। स योगी ब्रह्मनिर्वाणं ब्रह्म- भूतोऽधिगच्छति etc. (V. 24-26%; also VI. 27-283; II. 71-72) यं यं वापि स्मरन्भावं ... (VIII. 6) साधुरेव स मन्तव्य .(1X. 30 ) न हि कल्याणकृत्कश्चित्...(VI. 40) श्रुतिविप्रतिपन्ना ते यदा स्थास्यति निश्चला । etc. (II. 53 also II. 61, 65, 68) न तद्भासयते सूर्यो (XV. 6) IV. 80 निवृत्तस्याप्रवृत्त हि तदा स्थितिः। निश्चला यस्त्वात्मरतिरेव स्यात् (III. 17-18) योगारूढस्य तस्यैव शमः (VI.3) IV. 81 अजमनिद्रमस्वप्नं प्रभातं भवति स्वयम्। IV. 85 प्राप्य सर्वज्ञतां कृत्स्नां IV. 86 विषाणां विनयो ह्येष शम: etc. IV. 88 ज्ञान ज्ञेयं च विज्ञेयं IV. 89 सर्वज्ञता हि सर्वत्र भवतीह महाधियः। IV. 94 भेदनिम्नाः पृथग्वादा। (XIII. 7-17) यो मामेषमसंमूढो (XV. 19) कार्पण्यदोषोपहतस्वभावः (II.7) v Isa Karika III. 25 संभूतरपवादाच संभवः प्रति- अन्धं तमः प्रविशन्ति येऽसंभूति- विध्यते। मुपासते । (12) VI Katha Karika 1. 26 प्रणवो ह्यपरं ब्रह्म प्रणवश्च महत: परमव्यक्तमव्यक्तात्पुरुषः परः। पर स्मृतः। (1. 3. 11.) I. 28 प्रणव हीश्वरं विद्यात् सर्वस्य अङ्गुष्टमात्रः पुरुषोऽन्तरात्मा सदा ह्रदि संस्थितम । जनानां हृदये संनिविष्टः । (II. I.12) III. 24 नेह नानेति चाम्नायात् नेह नानास्ति किंचन ( II. I. II) III. 38 ग्रहो न तत्र नोत्सर्गः यदा पञ्चावतिष्ठन्ते (II. 3. 10) Introduction : VII The Sources of Gaudapada-Kärikā XLV VII Kausitaki Karika I. 6 सर्वे जनयति प्राणः अथ खलुप्राण एक प्रज्ञात्मा III. 15 मुल्लोहाविस्फुलिङ्गाद्यैः यथाग्नेर्ज्वलतो विस्फलिङ्गा etc. (III. 3) VIII Kena Karika III. 1 उपासनाश्रितो धर्मो जाते तदेव ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि नेदं यदिदमुपा- ब्रह्मणि वर्तते...तेनासौ कृपणः सते (1.8) स्मृतः॥ IX Lankávatära Karika 1. 7 स्वप्नमायासरूपेति etc. मायोपमाः सर्वधर्माः etc. (13) मायास्वप्नोपमं दृश्य विज्ञप्त्या न विकल्पयेत् (11) मायोपमं समाधिं च (16) स्वप्रविभ्रममायाख्यं (66) (also-144, 291, 561,582, 875) II. 32 न निरोधो च चोत्पत्तिः नात्र कश्चिन्महामते बध्यते न च मुच्यते (79) III. 46 यदा न लीयते चित्तं...अनिङ्गा- तदा योगी ह्यनाभासं प्रज्ञया पश्यते नमनाभासं निष्पन्नं ब्रह्म (94) जगत्। तत्तदा॥ IV.83-84 अस्ति नास्त्यस्ति नास्त्स्तीति कारणैः प्रत्ययैवापि येषां लोक-प्रव- etc. कोट्यश्चतत्र एतास्तु etc. fat etc. (III. 20, 21 ) also (pages 96, 171, 188 ) IV.87-88 सवस्तु सोपलम्भं च etc. लौकिकं ज्ञानं... लोकोत्तरं ज्ञान... लोकोत्तरतमं ज्ञानं... p. 157) Iv. 96 अजेयजमनाक्रान्तं... ( pages 157-158) यतो न क्रमते ज्ञानमसङ्गं तेन कीर्तितम् ॥ X Manusmrti Karika I. 25 युञ्जीत प्रणवे चेतः etc. ब्रह्मणः प्रणवं कुर्यादादावन्ते च सर्वदा। (II. 74,76-78) stvi Gaudapăda-Karika XI Mundaka Karika I. 6सर्वं जनयति प्राणश्वेतोंश- यथा सुदीप्तात् पावकात् .. न्पुरुषः पृथक। तथाक्षराद्विविधाः सौम्य प्रजायन्ते ( II. I.I) II. 27 ...परापरमथापरे भिद्यते हृदयग्रन्थिा ( II, 2.8 ) III. 13 जीवात्मनोरनन्यत्वम् ब्रह्मैवेदं सर्वम् (II. 2.11 ) XII Prasna Karika I. 26 अपूर्वोऽनन्तरोऽबाह्योऽनपर: एतद्वै सत्यकाम पर चापरं च ब्रह्म प्रणवोऽव्ययः। दोङ्कार. (V. 2) II. 27 परापरमथापरे एतदै सत्यकाम (V.2) III. 24 नेह नानेति चाम्नायात् ... प्रजापतिश्चरति गर्भे...( III. I. 7) XIII Svetasvatara Karika I. 8 कालात्प्रसूतिं भूतानां मन्यन्ते काल: स्वभावो नियतिर्यदृच्छा कालचिन्तकाः। भूतानि योनिः पुरुष इति चिन्त्यम् । (I. 2) XIV Taittiriya Karika II. 22 वेदा इति वेदविदो प्राणो वा अन्नम् etc. ( III. 7.9) III. II. रसादयो हि ये कोशा: etc. Adhyāya II. III. 23 भूतलोऽभूततो वापि सृज्यमाने असद्वा इदमग्र आसीत् (II. 7.1 ) समा श्रुतिः । etc. IV. 43 अजातेस्त्रसतो तेषां उदरमन्तरं कुरुते। अथ तस्य भयं भवति । (II. 7. 13) XV Yogavāsiştha Karika 1, 18 उपदेशादयं वादो ज्ञात द्वैतं न अविबोधादयं वादो ज्ञाते बैतं न विद्यते। विद्यते। ( III. 84.25) उपदेशादयं वादो ज्ञाते द्वैतं न विद्यते (III. 84.27) II. 3 वैतथ्यं तेन वै प्राप्तं स्वप्न आहुः यादृगर्थे जगद्गृपं etc. ( III. 19. प्रकाशितम् । II. 32 ...न बद्धोनच साधकः। वस्तुतस्तु न बद्धोऽस्ति न मोक्षोऽस्ति महामते। III. 3. मनसो ह्यमनीभावे द्वैतं नैयो- यद्रष्टुरस्याद्रष्ट्रत्वं etc. पलभ्यते। । ________________

Introduction : VIII Gandapada's Contribution etc, XLvii We see from the above, that of the Vedic works proper, Gaudapada makes most use of the Mandukya, Brhadåranyaka and Chandogya Upanişads, and in a lesser measure of Isa, Katha, Mundaka, Praśna and the Svetāśvatara. Of the Smrti(works, Bhagavadgită has influenced Gaudapāda most, giving him the idea of Asparśayoga, Mäyå and so forth. It would be possible to point out scores of similarities in the Yogavasiştha, but as that work ( at any rate a very large portion of it ) is generally taken to be later than Gauda pāda, we have not taken much note of it. The same can be said to be the case with Paramārthasāra of Seșa. Of the non-Vedic works, the Lańkävatāra and the Mulamadhyamakärikäs have undoubtedly influenced Gaudapāda a good deal. He seems to have thoroughly mastered the Mahāyāna Buddhist philosophy, but mainly for the purpose of showing where his doctrine of nonorigination differed from that of the Buddhists, In short, Gaudapáda, after having studied the current philosophical thoughts of his time, was willing to borrow from earlier works whatever would strengthen his. Ajātivāda against rival doctrines, whether Vedic or non-Vedic. VIII Gaudapāda's Contribution to Indian Philosophical Thought Gauda pada can claim to be the first systematic exponent of the Advaita doctrine, and especially of Ajātivada. Sankarācārya describes him as one who knew well the traditional Vedānta doctrines. Gaudapäda's teachings provided the firm foundation on which Sankarācārya and his successors in the Advaita field, built their edifice of detailed, analytical exposition of the Advaita theory. The late Mahamahopadhyāya Vasudeva Shastri Abhyankar (in the introduction to his edition of Siddhāntabindu ) makes the following observations in this connection, which clearly bring out the significance and importance of the contribution of both Gauda pada and Sankarācārya. कारिकास्वसु यद् गौडपादाचार्याणामभिप्रेतं तच्छङ्कराचार्यैः ध्वनितम् । ध्वनितं । यद् गौडपादाचार्यैः प्रतिपादितं तच्छङ्कराचार्यैः साधितम् यद् गौड़पादाचार्यैः तच्छङ्कराचार्यैः सिद्धान्ततया प्रतिष्ठापितम् । ________________

XL viii Gauda pada-Karika तथैव यद् गौडपादाचार्यैः तुच्छमिति ध्वनितं तच्छङ्कराचार्यैः प्रणिन्दितम् । यद् गौडपादाचार्यैः निन्दितं तच्छङ्कराचार्यैः साक्रोशमधिक्षिप्तम् । यद् गौडपादाचार्यैः साक्रोशमधिक्षिप्त तच्छङ्कराचार्यैरनभिमतमिति परित्यक्तम् यद् गौडपादाचार्यैरनभिमतमिति परित्यक्तं तच्छङ्कराचार्यैरवस्कन्दितम् । यद् गौडपादाचार्यैस्वस्कन्दितं तच्छङ्कराचार्यैर्निमूलसन्मथितम् । संक्षेपत इत्थं प्रतिपादनीयं भवति-गौडपादानां परम्परया शिष्यभूताः शङ्कराचार्या गुरूणां गुरुतमैर्गौडपादाचार्यः प्रवर्तितं मायावादं न केवलं प्रतिपादयामासुः किन्तु स्वमतिविभवेन बुद्धिप्रभावेणातुलप्रतिपादनशैल्याप्रविहततर्कशक्त्या व्याख्यापयामामुः साधयामासुः प्रस्थापयामासुश्च । (Whatever Gaudapada intended to say in his Karikās, Sankarācārya has hinted in his Bhäşya. Whatever Gauda pāda merely hinted, Sankarácārya propounded. Whatever Gaudapāda propounded, sankarācārya proved by ___ reasoning. Whatever G. proved, S. established firmly. Whatever G. hinted as worthless, S. treated with contempt. Whatever G. treated with contempt, S. condemned outright. Whatever G.condemned outright,S. brushed aside unceremo. niously. Whatever G. brashed aside, S. threw overboard mercilessly. Whatever G. threw overboard, S. destroyed, lock, stock and barrel. __In short, Sankaracarya, the spiritual successor of Gaudapada. not only propounded the Māyāvāda adumbrated by his 'paramaguru' Gaudapāda, but expounded, promulgated, framed and established the same by his acute intellectual powers, unparalleled expository skill, and relentless logical reasoning". ] Gaudapåda's philosophical doctrine of Ajātivāda which he calls the Uttama Satya' is based upon the following basic ideas which he is never tired of emphasising in the Karikas. (1) प्रकृतेरन्यथाभावो न कथंचिद्भविष्यति । ( Nothing can ever change its nature; for, if it changed its natural characteristic even in the slightest manner, if would cease to be the original entity ). Introduction : VIII Gaudopada's Contribution etc. XLIX While writing his bhāşya upon Isvarakışņa's Sāåkhyakārikās, Gaudapāda must have been struck by the discrepancy between the Saikhya teners मूलप्रकृतिरविकृतिः and महदाद्याः प्रकृतिविकृतयः सप्त. How can the प्रकृति which has no विकृति by nature, give rise to विकारs? In the course of his bhāşya on the Sānkhyakārikās, be quotes गुणा गुणेषु वर्तन्ते ( from the Bhagavadgită ) twice, which points a way out of the difficulty, by declaring that the विकृति concerns only the गुणs. This would naturally lead to the acceptance of the theory of an unreal or illusory production, (2) सर्व सद्भावेनाजम्:--All is सत् and unoriginated. From the Upanișadic passages, Gaudapāda concluded that every thing that exists is Brahman and as Brahman could not ever change its nature, it must be regarded as being अजं साम्यं विशारदम्. (3) कार्यकारणभाव cannot be proved to exist. All complex and gross can be reduced to its simplest and subtlest form. The big Nyagrodha tree can be seen to have its rise from the subtle seed. So, this vast universe can be taken to have for its cause only one entity in the ultimate analysis. Even the Naiyāyikas admit that only number i really exists, other numbers 2, 3 etc. are produced byअपेक्षाबुद्धि with respect to number 1. This being so, the ultimate cause can be described in the Upanişadic language as एकमेवाद्वितीयम्. How did the Universe come to be produced from this एक and अद्वितीय cause which is variously described as Brahman, Atman etc.? The creation can not be described as real, because the relation of cause and effect can not be proved.. Thus- कारण implies that (1) कारण and कार्य different, (2) that असत् must have existed before कार्य, that is, कार्य must have been असत् before it is produced. Both these suppositions are wrong. If कार्य and कारण are different, anything can be produced out of anything (पट can be produced from मृत्तिका); if कार्य is असत् before, it would always remain असत्. A कार्य must have its nature similar to that of the कारण- Therefore (1) A सत् can not produce an असत् (2) An असत् can not produce a सत्, (3) सत् can not produce another सत्, for there would be विक्रिया in its nature during the process. (4) A non-existent thing can obviously not be pro- duced from a non-existent thing, 7 ________________

Gaudapada-Karika (4) कार्यकारणभाव can not be proved by resorting to the maxim of the seed and the sprout' wherein there is mutual interdependence leading to the establishment of the fact that the series is अनादि or beginningless. For, here also we ought to be able to know what comes first, the seed or the sprout, and in the absence of this knowledge, no relation of cause and effect could be postulated, (5) Thus there can be no origination. There being no relation of cause and effect, and no change or transformation of one's nature being admissible, we have to fall back upon the only possible idea that there is only one 'entity in this world, which must be unborn, immutable and all-pervading, All duality can be only an appearance due to Māya which again can have no existence in reality. (6) Whatever is in accordance with correct reasoning must alone be accepted. The Sruti texts are entitled to respect, but not at the expense of reasoning. Once the idea of non-origination is accepted, there is no difficulty. about the interpretation of conflicting passages in the Upanişads. Advaita is the highest reality; Dvaita can be just a part of and based on. Advaita, for Advaita encompasses all and so can have no antagonism for the Dvaita ideas which are manifestly 'imagined and are useful for a time till the realisation of the Highest Reality as unoriginated. Gaudapāda can legitimately claim to have placed the Advaita doctrine on a firm foundation by boldly proclaiming that the Sruti passages are to be accepted only if they do not go against the conclusions supported by reasonings. Sankara also takes the same stand when he declares that even hundreds of Sruti texts could not prove that fire is not hot, or that simply because your ancestor was a fool, that does not mean that you should also act as a fool. Gaudapada, being more interested in the establishment of the doctrine of non-origination does not go into details as to how the 19 निश्चितं युक्तियुक्तं च यत्तद्भवति नैतरत् \ III. 23 20 नहि पूर्वजो मुढ आसीदित्यात्मनापि मूढेन भवितव्यमिति किंचिदस्ति प्रमाणम् । Bhasya on II. 1, 11 ( Brahmasutra ) Introduction : PIII Gaudapada's Contribution etc. Li origination is illusion or appearance. It was left for Sankarācārya to make this more explicit. Sarkara, on his part, gives more thought to the establishment of the Avidya or Maya doctrine. In fact, it may be said that Ajātivada and Māyāvāda are but two sides of the same shield Advaita. Sankara declared Avidyā to be.सदसद्विलक्षणा

and hence अनिर्वचनीया and Sankara's successors used all their

ingenuity to explain the real nature of Avidyā, by resorting to one- or other of the theories of Avacchedą, Pratibimba; Abhāsa etc. Gauda pada was the first to make the fullest: use of the doctrine of the three states, waking, dream and deep sleep, described in the Bșhadāraṇyaka and the Chándogya, for the purpose of esta. blishing Advaita. There is surely no valid reason why the expe. riences in the waking state alone should be given greater attention than those in the other states, or why they should be taken as the standard by which are to be judged the other two. In the waking state, the soul perceives the gross with the help of the mind and the sense-organs; in the dream, the sense-organs do not function and the soul perceives only the inside subtle, with the mind; in the deep- sleep state, both the mind and the sense-organs are inactive and the soul perceives nothing. Thus the soul can be said to be really free from any encubrances only in the Suşupti state, while in the other two states, he is dependent upon other means. The experiences in the waking state are contradicted in the dream-state and vice versa, which shows that there can not be any vital difference between the two stales; the same is the case with the experience in the deep sleep, the perception there in the form of 'I did not perceive any thing' being due to the cessation of the effort by the mind and the sense-organs and the absence of any objects of perception. Now that alone can be the highest truth which is the same everywhere, irrespective of different environments. In order to realise this we must take into account the totality of our experience. This leads Gaudapäda to declare that the highest reality can only be the Fourth' or Turya, beyond the three states, unoriginated, same and ancontaminated. The nature of this Turya, as the Sākşin or Witness of all experiences in the three states, was further dilated upon by Sankarăcărya and his successors, ________________

Lij Gandapada-Karika Gaudapada had studied the Buddhist philosophical works and he agrees with the Vijñanavadins that external objects are illusory and the Vijñāna alone matters for producing our experiences, but there he parts company with them. According to the Bauddhas (the Sūnyavādins included ) everything is momentary, while Gaudapāda declares that the highest is eternal and unoriginated. The Sunyavādins by declaring that the highest is Sünya, lend themselves open to the charge of contradicting themselves and are unable to explain how the illusory nature or Sunyatva of objects can be understood without any relation to some unchanging, immutable' Adhişthāna or other, श्रीः। गौडपादीयकारिकाः। [ अथ माण्डूक्योपनिषत् । हरिः ॐ। ओमित्यदक्षरमिदं सर्व तस्योपव्याख्यानं भूतं भवद्भविष्यदिति सर्वमोङ्कार एव । यच्चान्यत् त्रिकालातीतं तदप्योङ्कार एव ॥ १॥ सर्व ह्येतद्ब्रह्मायमात्मा ब्रह्म सोऽयमात्मा चतुष्पात् ॥२॥ जागरितस्थानो बहिष्प्रज्ञः सप्ताङ्ग एकोनविंशतिमुखः स्थूलभुग्वैश्वानरः प्रथमः पादः ॥३॥ स्वप्नस्थानोऽन्तःप्रज्ञः सप्ताङ्ग एकोनविंशतिमुखः प्रविविक्तभुक् तैजसो द्वितीयः पादः ॥४॥ यत्र सुप्तो न कंचन कामं कामयते न कंचन स्वप्नं पश्यति तत्सुषुप्तम् ।। सुषुप्तस्थान एकीभूतः प्रज्ञानधन एवानन्दमयो ह्यानन्दभुक् चेतोमुखः प्राज्ञ- स्तृतीयः पादः ॥५॥ एष सर्वेश्वर एष सर्वज्ञ एषोऽन्तर्याम्येष योनिः सर्वस्य प्रभवाप्ययौ हि भूतानाम् ॥ ६॥] (अत्रैते श्लोका भवन्ति) प्रथमं प्रकरणम् । बहिष्प्रज्ञो विभुर्विश्वो ह्यन्ताप्रज्ञस्तु तैजसः । घनप्रज्ञस्तथा प्राज्ञ एक एव त्रिधा स्मृतः ॥१॥ (१) अन्वयः--एकः एव विभुः बहिष्प्रज्ञः हि विश्वः, अन्तःप्रज्ञः तु तैजसः, तथा घनप्रज्ञः प्राज्ञः ( इति ) त्रिधा स्मृतः । Sri Gaudapada-Karika FIRST CHAPTER (1) One and the same All-pervading is traditionally known [ lit. remembered ] (as being ] three-fold-(1) Visva, cogniser of outside, ( 2 ) Taijasa again, cogniser of inside, [ and ] ( 3 ) Prājña, likewise, cognition massed, गौडपादीयकारिकाः। दक्षिणाक्षिमुखे विश्वो मनस्यन्तस्तु तैजसः । आकाशे च हृदि प्राज्ञस्त्रिधा देहे व्यवस्थितः ॥२॥ (२) अन्वयः-(एकः एव विभुः ) विश्वः दक्षिणाक्षिमुखे, तैजसः तु मनसि अन्तः, प्राज्ञः च हृदि आकाशे ( इति ) देहे त्रिधा व्यवस्थितः । विश्वो हि स्थूलभूङ्नित्यं तैजसः प्रविविक्तभुक् । आनन्दभुक्तथा प्राज्ञस्त्रिधा भोगं निबोधत ॥३॥ (३) अन्वयः-नित्यं विश्वः हि स्थूलभुक्, तैजसः प्रविविक्तभुक्, तथा प्राज्ञः आनन्दभुक् (इति) त्रिधा भोगं निबोधत । स्थूलं तर्पयते विश्वं प्रविविक्तं तु तैजसम् । आनन्दश्च तथा प्राज्ञं त्रिधा तृप्तिं निबोधत ॥४॥ (४) अन्वयः-स्थूलं विश्वं तर्पयते, प्रविविक्तं तु तैजसं (तर्पयते), तथा आनन्दः प्राज्ञं (तर्पयते), ( इति ) त्रिधा तृप्ति निबोधत । त्रिषु धामसु योज्यं भोक्ता यश्च प्रकीर्तितः । वैदैतदुभयं यस्तु स भुञ्जानो न लिप्यते ॥५॥ (५) अन्वयः- -त्रिषु धामसु यद् भोज्यं (प्रकीर्तितम् ), यः च भोक्ता प्रकीर्तितः-यः तु एतत् उभयं वेद, भुञ्जानः (अपि सन् ) सः न लिप्यते। (2) [One and the same All-pervading] is well set up three- fold in the body--Viśva in the front of the right eye, Taijasa again, inside in the mind, and Prājña in the Åkāśa ( void, sky) in the heart. (3) For (hi), always, Viśva [ is ] the enjoyer of the gross, Taijasa [ is ] the enjoyer of the rarified, Prājña likewise [ is ] the enjoyer of bliss-know the enjoyment [ thus to be ] three-fold. (4) The gross gratifies Visva; the rarified again, Taijasa; and bliss likewise, Prajna--- know gratification [ thus to be ] three-fold. (5) What enjoyable [ is proclaimed ] in the three abodes, ] and what enjoyer is proclaimed [ in the three abodes ] - he again, who knows this dual, [ although ] enjoying, is not contaminated. प्रथम प्रकरणम् । ३ ७ ory प्रभवः सर्वभावानां सतामिति विनिश्चयः । सर्वं जनयति प्राणश्वेतोंशून्पुरुषः पृथक् ॥ ६ ॥ (६) अन्वयः सतां सर्वभावानां प्रभवः इति विनिश्चयः; प्राणः सर्व जनयतिः पुरुषः पृथक् चेतोंशून्' (जनयति ) । विभूतिं प्रसवं त्वन्ये मन्यन्ते सृष्टिचिन्तकाः । स्वममायासरूपेति सृष्टिरन्यैर्विकल्पिता ।। ७ ॥ (७) अन्वयः----अन्ये सृष्टिचिन्तकाः तु प्रसवं विभूति मन्यन्ते; अन्यैः सृष्टिः स्वप्नमायासरूपा इति विकल्पिता । इच्छामात्रं प्रभोः सृष्टिरिति सृष्टौ विनिश्चिताः । कालात्प्रसूति भूतानां मन्यन्ते कालचिन्तकाः ॥ ८॥ (८) अन्वयः-- - सृष्टिः प्रभोः इच्छामात्रम् इति अन्ये सृष्टौ विनिश्चिताः (or इति सृष्टौ विनिश्चिताः अन्ये मन्यन्ते ); कालचिन्तकाः भूतानां कालात् प्रसूतिं मन्यन्ते। भोगार्थं सृष्टिरित्यन्ये क्रीडार्थमिति चापरे । देवस्यैष स्वभावोऽयमाप्तकामस्य का स्पृहा ॥९॥ (९) अन्वयः- -सृष्टिः भोगार्थम् इति अन्ये, क्रीडार्थम् इति च अपरे (मन्यन्ते ); एषः अयं देवस्य स्वभावः ( इति अन्ये मन्यन्ते ), आप्तकामस्य का स्पृहा ( इति न्यायात्)। (6) There must be some ) origin of all entities that exist this [ is the well-considered conclusion. Prana creates all, Purusa [ creates the rays of the mind [ that is, the individual souls), separate [ from one another ]. (7) Other creation-theorists, on the other hand (lu), consider creation i to be the manifestation ! of Purusa ]; creation is imagined by others as having the same nature as dream and illusion ( maya ). (8) Creation ( is due to ] just the will of the Lord -so [ think others who are ] quite convinced about [ there being a ] creation; the Time-theorists consider the creation of beings as from Time. (9) Creation [ is ] for the sake of enjoyment [ of the Lord ] so [ say ] others; for the sake of sport-so [ say jstill others. This again [ is ] the | very.] nature of Gods the shining one ] [ so say others, arguing ] "What [ possible ] desire [can there be in the case ) of [ the Lord ] whose cravings are already ) fulfilled.? a गौडपादीयकारिकाः। ' [नान्तःप्रज्ञं न बहिष्प्रज्ञं नोभयतःप्रज्ञं न प्रज्ञानधनं न प्रज्ञं नाप्रज्ञम् ।। अदृष्टमव्यवहार्यमग्राह्यमलक्षणमचिन्त्यमव्यपदेश्यमेकात्मप्रत्ययसारं प्रपञ्चोपशमं शान्तं शिवमद्वैतं चतुर्थं मन्यन्ते स आत्मा स विज्ञेयः ॥७॥] ( अत्रैते श्लोका भवन्ति) निवृत्तेः सर्वदुःखानामीशानः प्रभुरव्ययः । अद्वैतः सर्वभावानां देवस्तुर्यों विभुः स्मृतः ॥१०॥ (१०) अन्वयः-सर्वदुःखानां निवृत्तेः ईशानः, प्रभुः, अव्ययः, सर्वभावानाम् अद्वैतः देवः विभुः तुर्यः स्मृतः । कार्यकारणबद्धौ ताविष्येते विश्वतैजसौ । प्राज्ञः कारणबद्धस्तु द्वौ तौ तुर्ये न सिध्यतः ॥११॥ (११) अन्वयः--तौ विश्वतैजसौ कार्यकारणबद्धौ इष्येते; प्राज्ञः तु कारणबद्धः ( इष्यते); तौ द्वौ तुर्ये न सिध्यतः । नात्मानं न परांश्चैव न सत्यं नापि चानृतम् । प्राज्ञः किंच न संवेत्ति तुर्य तत्सर्वदृक्सदा ।। १२ ।। (१२) अन्वयः-प्राज्ञः, आत्मानं न, परान् च एव न, सत्यं न, अनृतं च अपि न, किंच न संवेत्ति; तत् तुर्यं सदा सर्वदृक् । (10) The All-pervading is traditionally known as Turya [ the Fourth ]- capable of controlling the cessation of all miseries, powerful, immutable, non-dual among all entities, refulgent. (11) Those two I well-known ) Visva and Taijasa are taken [ lit. desired ] to be conditioned by cause and effect; Prājña, on the other hand, | is j conditioned by cause [ alone }; those two [ the cause and effect ] have no locus standi in [ the case of ] Turya. (12) Neither the Self, nor others again, for the matter of that ; neither truth, nor again the untruth-nothing whatever does Prājña comprehend. That Turya however [is] always all-seeing. प्रथमं प्रकरणम् । द्वैतस्याग्रहणं तुल्यमुभयोः प्राज्ञतुर्ययोः । बीजनिद्रायुतः प्राज्ञः सा च तुर्ये न विद्यते ॥ १३ ॥ (१३) अन्वयः--

--द्वैतस्य अग्रहणम् उभयोः प्राज्ञतुर्ययोः तुल्यम्;

प्राज्ञः बीजनिद्रायुतः; सा ( बीजनिद्रा ) च तुर्ये न विद्यते । स्वमनिद्रायुतावाद्यौ प्राज्ञस्त्वस्वमनिद्रया । न निद्रां नैव च स्वप्नं तुर्य पश्यन्ति निश्चिताः ॥ १४ ॥ (१४) अन्वयः--आद्यौ (विश्वतैजसौ) स्वप्ननिद्रायुतौ; प्राज्ञः तु अस्वप्ननिद्रया (युतः ); निश्चिताः तुर्ये निद्रां न, स्वप्नं च न एवं पश्यन्ति । अन्यथा गृह्णतः स्वमो निद्रा तत्त्वमजानतः । विपर्यासे तयोः क्षीणे तुरीयं पदमश्नुते ॥ १५ ॥ (१५) अन्वयः-तत्त्वम् अन्यथा गृह्णतः (पुरुषस्य ) स्वप्नः, तत्त्वम् अजानतः (पुरुषस्य ) निद्रा तयोः ( स्वप्ननिद्रयोः) विपर्यासे क्षीणे (सति पुरुषः ) तुरीयं पदम् अश्नुते । अनादिमायया सुप्तो यदा जीवः प्रबुध्यते । अजमनिद्रमस्वप्नममद्वैत बुध्यते तदा ॥ १६ ॥ (१६) अन्वयः---यदा अनादिमायया सुप्तः जीवः प्रबुध्यते, तदा अजम् अनिन्द्रम् अस्वप्नम् अद्वैतं बुध्यते। (13) The non-perception of duality [ is ] common to both Prajña and Turya. Prājña ( is } stuck up with the causal sleep, while it does not exist in Turya. (14) The first two [ that is, Visva and Taijasa are ] stuck up with dream and sleep, Prājña, on other hand, with dreamless sleep. The convinced ones [ about Advaita ] do see in Turya neither sleep, nor again dream for the matter of that. (15) Dream ( is ) for one comprehending reality otherwise ; sleep for one who does not know reality. When the wrong apprehension in those two becomes extinct, one attains to the Fourth stage. (16) When the individual Soul, asleep, owing to the beginning-less Máyi is awakened, he then realises the unborn, sleepless, dreamless non-duality. गौडपादीयकारिकाः। प्रपञ्चो यदि विद्येत निवर्तेत न संशयः । मायामात्रमिदं द्वैतमद्वैतं परमार्थतः ॥ १७ ॥ (१७) अन्वयः--यदि प्रपञ्चः विद्युत (तर्हि सः) निवर्तेत, न संशयः; इदं द्वैतं मायामात्रम् ; परमार्थतः अद्वैतम् ( एव विद्यते)। विकल्पो विनिवर्तेत कल्पितो यदि केनचित् । उपदेशादयं वादो ज्ञाते द्वैतं न विद्यते ॥ १८ ॥ (१८) अन्वयः-- ---यदि केनचित् विकल्पः कल्पितः (तर्हि सः विकल्पः ) विनिवर्तेत; अयं ( विकल्प-) वादः उपदेशात् ; ( परमार्थतत्त्वे ) ज्ञाते द्वैतं न विद्यते। [ सोऽयमात्माध्यक्षरमोङ्कारोऽधिमात्रं पादा मात्रा मात्राश्च पादा अकार उकारो मकार इति ॥ ८॥ जागरितस्थानो वैश्वानरोऽकारः प्रथमा मात्रातरादिमत्त्वाद्वा । आप्नोति ह वै सर्वान्कामानादिश्च भवति य एवं वेद ॥९॥ स्वप्नस्थानस्तैजस उकारो द्वितीया मात्रोत्कर्षादुमयत्वाद्वा । उत्कर्षति ह वै

ज्ञानसन्ततिं समानश्च भवति नास्याब्रह्मवित्कुले भवति य एवं वेद ॥ १० ॥ सुषुप्तस्थानः प्राज्ञो मकारतूस्तीया मात्रा मितेरपीतेर्वा । मिनोति ह वा इदं सर्वमपीतिश्च भवति य एवं वेद ।। ११ ।।] ( अत्रैते श्लोका भवन्ति ) (17) If the projected creation (Prapanca ) were [ really ] existing, it would continue to be, no doubt. [ But ] this duality is just Māyā [ illusion, appearance ]; I there is only ) non-duality in reality. (18) If [ some ) illusion is imagined by some one, it is liable to [ or could } be turned away. This statement [ involving Vikalpa, is on account of its usefulness for ] instruction; when [ the Highest is ] known, duality does not exist. प्रथमं प्रकरणम् । ७ विश्वस्यात्वविवक्षायामादिसामान्यमुत्कटम् । मात्रासंप्रतिपत्तौ स्वादाप्तिसामान्यमेव च ॥ १९॥ (१९) अन्वयः---विश्वस्य अत्वविवक्षायाम् आदिसामान्यम् उत्कटं स्यात् , मात्रासंप्रतिपत्तौ आतिसामान्यम् एव च (उत्कटं स्यात्) । तैजस्योत्वविज्ञान उत्कर्षों दृश्यते स्फुटम् । मात्रासंप्रतिपत्तौ स्यादुभयत्वं तथाविधम् ॥ २०॥ (२०) अन्वयः---तैजसस्य उत्वविज्ञाने उत्कर्षः स्फुटं दृश्यते, मात्रा- संप्रतिपत्तौ उभयत्वं तथाविधं स्यात् । मकारभावे प्राज्ञस्य मानसामान्यमुत्कटम् । मात्रासंप्रतिपत्तौ तु लयसामान्यमेव च ॥२१॥ (२१) अन्वयः-----प्राज्ञस्य मकारभावे मानसामान्यम् उत्कटम् , मात्रा. संप्रतिपत्तौ तु लयसामान्यम् एव च (उत्कटम् )। त्रिषु धामसु यत्तुल्यं सामान्यं वेत्ति निश्चितः । स पूज्यः सर्वभूतानां वन्द्यश्चैव महामुनिः ॥ २२ ॥ (२२) अन्वयः---निश्चितः (यः) त्रिषु धामम् यत् तुल्यं सामान्यं वेत्ति सः महामुनिः सर्वभूतानां पूज्यः बन्धः च एव । (19) When there is the desire to state that Viśva has A-ness, the common quality [ viz.] being the first [would be prominent; and for the equating of [ Viśva ] with the syllabic ) portion [ A in Aum ), the common quality of pervading, itself { would be prominent ). (20) _As regards the knowledge of Taijasa being possessed of U-ness [ the common quality ] superiority [ or posteriority ] is distinctly seen; for the equating of [ Taijasa with ] the syllabic ] portion [U in Aum) [ the common quality! the nature of being both, could be of the same type [ that is, is distinctly seen i. ( 21 ) As regards Prăjña possessing the state of M, the common quality, the measure [ by which the remaining two are measured is ] prominent; for the equating of [ Prajna with ] the [ syllabic ] portion [ M in Aum ] on the other hand, the common quality, merging, itself [is prominent]. (22) When one [or, he who has become ]. firm [ in his realisation of the truth ] knows the equal common quality in the three abodes, he, the great sage, [ is ] worthy of worship, and adorable by all beings. गौडपादीयकारिकाः। अकारो नयते विश्वमुकारश्चापि तैजसम् । मकारश्च पुनः प्राज्ञं नामात्रे विद्यते गतिः ॥ २३ ॥ (२३) अन्वयः--अकारः विश्वं नयते, उकारः च अपि तैजसं (नयते), मकारः च पुनः प्राज्ञं (नयते); अमात्रे गतिः न विद्यते। [ अमात्रश्चतुर्थोऽन्यवहार्यः प्रपञ्चोपशमः शिवोऽद्वैत एवमोङ्कार आत्मैव संविशत्यात्मनात्मानं य एवं वेद ॥ १२ ॥] (अत्रैते श्लोका भवन्ति) ओंकारं पादशो विद्यात्पादा मात्रा न संशयः। ओंकारं पादशो ज्ञात्वा न किंचिदपि चिन्तयेत् ॥ २४ ॥ (२४) अन्वयः--ओंकारं पादशः विद्यात् , पादाः मात्राः [ सन्ति, अत्र] न संशयः; ओंकारं पादशः ज्ञात्वा किंचित् अपि न चिन्तयेत् । युञ्जीत प्रणवे चेतः प्रणवो ब्रह्म निर्भयम् । प्रणवे नित्ययुक्तस्य न भयं विद्यते क्वचित् ॥ २५ ॥ (२५) अन्वयः---प्रणवे चेतः युञ्जीत; प्रणवः निर्भयं ब्रह्म प्रणवे नित्ययुक्तस्य क्वचित् भयं न विद्यते। (23) The syllable A leads on to Visva and the syllable U as well, to Taijasa, and the syllable M again to Prăjña. There is no course towards what has no [ syllabic ] portions. (24) One should know the letter (or, sound ] Om, quarter by quarter; the quarters ( are ) the syllabic ] portions, no doubt. Having known the Omkāra, quarter by quarter, one should meditate upon nothing [ else ] whatever. ( 25 ) One should fix the mind upon Praņava [ the syllable Om ]; Prarava [ is ] Brahman void of fear ; for him ever fixed upon Pranava, there is no fear anywhere, प्रथमं प्रकरणम् । प्रणवो ह्यपरं ब्रह्म प्रणवश्च पर स्मृतः । अपूर्वोऽनन्तरोऽबाह्योऽनपर प्रणवोऽव्ययः ॥ २६ ॥ (२६) अन्वयः--प्रणवः हि अपरं ब्रह्म, प्रणवः च परः स्मृतः; प्रणवः अपूर्वः अनन्तरः अबाह्यः अनपरः अव्ययः । सर्वस्य प्रणवो ह्यादिमध्यमन्तस्तथैव च । एवं हि प्रणवं ज्ञात्वा व्यश्नुते तदनन्तरम् ॥ २७ ॥ (२७) अन्वयः--प्रणवः हि सर्वस्य आदिः मध्यं तथा एव च अन्तः एवं हि प्रणवं ज्ञात्वा अनन्तरं तत् [ or, तदनन्तरं प्रणवं ] व्यश्नुते । प्रणवं हीश्वरं विद्यात्सर्वस्य हृदि संस्थितम् । सर्वव्यापिनमोंकारं मत्वा धीरो न शोचति ॥ २८ ॥ (२८) अन्वयः---प्रणवं हि सर्वस्य ह्रदि संस्थितम् ईश्वरं विद्यात् । धीरः सर्वव्यापिनम् ओंकारं मत्वा न शोचति । अमात्रोऽनन्तमात्रश्च द्वैतस्योपशमः शिवः । ओंकारो विदितो येन स मुनिर्नेतरो जनः ॥ २९ ॥ (२९) अन्वयः--येन अमात्रः, अनन्तमात्रः च, द्वैतस्य उपशमः, शिवः ओंकारः विदितः सः मुनिः, इतरः जनः न (मुनिः )। इति गौडपादीयकारिकायां प्रथम प्रकरणम् । ( 26 ). Praņava indeed ( is ] the lower Brahman, Pranava like- wise (ca) [ is ] the Higher [ Atman ). Beginningless, undifferen- tiated, [or, without inside], without outside, unique [ and ] immutable [' is ] Pranaya. (27) Pranava indeed [ is ] the beginning, middle and like- wise the end itself of everything. Having indeed known Pranava thus, one attains to it [ Brahman ] immediately for, attains to Pranava afterwards 7. (28) One should indeed know Pranava as the Lord well set up in the heart of all. Having thought of the all-pervading Omkāra, the wise one does not grieve. ( 29 ) He, by whom has been known the Omkāra, portion- less, possessed likewise of infinite portions, the [ cause of ] cessation of duality, [ and ] auspicious, [is ] the sage, nor any other. Here ends the First charter in the Gaudapada-karika 2 गौडपादीयकारिका। , द्वितीयं प्रकरणम् । वैतथ्यं सर्वभावानां स्वप्न आहुर्मनीषिणः । अन्तःस्थानात्तु भावानां संवृतत्वेन हेतुना ॥१॥ (१ अन्वयः- मनीषिणः स्वप्ने तु संवृतत्वेन हेतुना भावानाम् अन्तःस्थानात् सर्वभावानां वैतथ्यम् आहुः । अदीर्घत्वाञ्च कालस्य गत्वा देशान्न पश्यति । प्रतिबुद्धश्च वै सर्वस्तस्मिन्देशे न विद्यते ॥ २ ॥ (२) अन्वयः- (पुरुषः ) कालस्य अदीर्घत्वात् च देशान् गत्वा न पश्यति; सर्वः वै प्रतिबुद्धः च तस्मिन् देशे न विद्यते। अभावश्च रथादीनां श्रूयते न्यायपूर्वकम् । वैतथ्यं तेन वै प्राप्त स्वप्न आहुः प्रकाशितम् ॥ ३ ॥ ( ३ ) अन्वयः-- रथादीनाम् अभावः च न्यायपूर्वकं श्रूयते, तेन वै प्राप्त वैतथ्यं स्वप्ने प्रकाशितम् आहुः (ब्रह्मविदः)। अन्तःस्थानात्तु भेदानां तस्माज्जागरिते स्मृतम् । यथा तत्र तथा स्वप्ने संवृतत्वेन भिद्यते ॥४॥ (४) अन्वयः---- तस्मात् भेदानाम् अन्तःस्थानात् तु जागरिते (वैतथ्यं ) स्मृतम् ; यथा तत्र (जागरिते भेदानाम् अन्तःस्थानं ) तथा स्वप्ने संवृतत्वेन (स्वप्नः जागरितात् ) भिद्यते । SECOND CHAPTER (1) The wise speak of the unreality of all_entities in dream, verily, on account of the entities having [ their ] location within, owing to [ their ] being enclosed. (2) And on account of the time being not long, [ a person ] does not see [ things in a dream , having [ actually.] gens over to [ different ] regions, and further, I when ] awakened, every one is nor in that region [ which he had travelled over to in the dream ]. (3) The negation of chariots and others [ seen in dream ] is shown in the Sruti along with [ the soul's ] entering and going out [ of ( nyaya ) [ the different states ]; they speak of the unreality as indeed proved by that ( statement ), as being evident in dream. (4) Therefore, again, [ the unreality of entities ] in the waking state is traditionally known, from the location within of the entities. As it that is, the location within of entities] there [ in the waking state ], so in dream. [ Bur waking state and dream are not the same; dream ] differs [ from the waking state owing to its being characterised ] by the state of being enclosed. द्वितीयं प्रकरणम् । ११ स्वप्नजागरितस्थाने ह्येकमाहुर्मनीषिणः । भेदानां हि समत्वेन प्रसिद्धेनैव हेतुना ॥ ५ ॥ (५) अन्वयः-- मनीषिणः हि प्रसिद्धेन एव हेतुना भेदानां हि समत्वेन, स्वप्नजागरितस्थाने एकम् आहुः । आदावन्ते च यन्नास्ति वर्तमानेऽपि तत्तथा । वितथैः सदृशाः सन्तोऽवितथा इव लक्षिताः ॥ ६ ॥ (६) अन्वयः- यत् आदौ अन्ते च न अस्ति, वर्तमाने अपि तत् तया (न अस्ति); वितथैः सदृशाः सन्तः (भेदाः) अवितथाः इव लक्षिताः। सप्रयोजनता तेषां स्वप्ने विप्रतिपद्यते । तस्मादाधन्तवत्त्वेन मिथ्यैव खलु ते स्मृताः ॥ ७ ॥ (७) अन्वयः-- तेषां (भेदानां ) सप्रयोजनता स्वप्ने विप्रतिपद्यते, तस्मात् खलु ते आद्यन्तवत्वेन मिथ्याः एव स्मृताः । अपूर्वं स्थानिधर्मो हि यथा स्वर्गनिवासिनाम् । तानयं प्रेक्षते गत्वा यथैवेह सुशिक्षितः ॥ ८॥ (८) अन्वयः-- यथा स्वर्गनिवासिनां ( तथा ) स्थानिधर्म:-( एतत् ) अपूर्वम् ; यथा एव इह सुशिक्षितः (तथा ) अयं (स्थानी ) गत्वा तान् (भेदान् ) प्रेक्षते। (5) The wise speak of the dream and waking states as one, verily, on account of the common nature of entities (in the two states ] on the strength of well-established reasoning. (6) What is not at the beginning and at the end, [ is ] so also in the present; existing [ things ] [ though ] similar to illusions are noted as though real. (7) Being possessed of a purpose in the case of ] the enti- ties [ in the waking state ] is contradicted in the dream; therefore they indeed are traditionally known as unreal and nothing else (eva) on account of [ their ] having a beginning and an end. (8) [ It is all ] wonderful ! verily, the nature of the local agent. in dream, is ] as [ in the case of the dwellers in heaven. As indeed a well-trained person here, [so ] this [ person dreaming ] sees those various objects or regions ], having gone [ there ]. १२ गौडपादीयकारिका। , स्वप्नवृत्तावपि त्वन्तश्चेतसा कल्पितं त्वसत् । बहिश्चेतोगृहीतं सद् दृष्टं वैतथ्यमेतयोः ॥९॥ (९) अन्वयः-- ( स्वप्नवृत्तौ अपि तु चेतसा अन्तःकल्पितं तु असत् ,

बहिः चेतोगृहीतं सत् ; एतयोः वैतथ्यं दृष्टम् ।

जाग्रद्वृत्तावपि त्वन्तश्चेतसा कल्पितं त्वसत् । बहिश्चेतोगृहीतं सद्युक्तं वैतथ्यमेतयोः ॥१०॥ (१०) अन्वयः--- - जानवृत्तौ अपि तु चेतसा अन्तःकल्पितं तु असत्,बहिः चेतोगृहीतं सत् ; एतयोः वैतथ्यं युक्तम् । उभयोरपि वैतथ्यं भेदानां स्थानयोर्यदि। क एतान्बुध्यते भेदान्को वै तेषां विकल्पकः ॥ ११ ॥ (११) अन्वयः- ( यदि भेदानाम् उभयोः स्थानयोः अपि वैतथ्यम्-, कः एतान् भेदान् बुध्यते, कः वै तेषां विकल्पकः । कल्पयत्यात्मनात्मानमात्मा देवः स्वमायया । स एव बुध्यते भेदानिति वेदान्तनिश्चयः ॥ १२ ॥ (१२) अन्वयः-- देवः आत्मा स्वमायया आत्मानम् आत्मना कल्पयति, सः एव भेदान् बुध्यते इति वेदान्तनिश्चयः । (9) Even in the dream-state, again, what is imagined by the mind within [ is ] verily (tu.) non-existing: what is apprehended by the mind outside [ is ] existing -[so people differentiate, but in reality ] the unreality of these two [ is actually ] seen [ or, experi- enced ). ( 10 ) Even in the waking state, again, what is imagined by the mind within ( is ] verily ( tu ) non-existing; what is apprehended by the mind outside [is] existing-the unreality of these two [ ought co be held to be likewise ] reasonable. (1) If there [ is thus ] unreality of entities in even both the states, who [ then] cognises these entities? Who, again (vai ), their imaginer ? (12) The shining Atman imagines himself by himself, through his Māyā; [ it is ] he alone { that ] cognises the entities--this [ is ] the conclusion of the Vedanta [Upanisads ]. द्वितीयं प्रकरणम् । विकरोत्यपरान्मावानन्तश्चित्ते व्यवस्थितान् । नियतांश्च बहिश्चित्त एवं कल्पयते प्रभुः ॥ १३ ॥ (१३) अन्वयः- ( आत्मा) बहिश्चित्तः ( सन् ) अन्तश्चित्ते व्यव- स्थितान् नियतान् च अपरान् भावान् विकरोति-एवं प्रभुः कल्पयते । चित्तकाला हि येऽन्तस्तु द्वयकालाश्च ये बहिः । कल्पिता एव ते सर्वे विशेषो नान्यहेतुकः ॥ १४ ।। (१४) अन्वयः-- ये हि तु अन्तः चित्तकालाः, ये च बहिः द्वयकालाः, ते सर्वे कल्पिताः एव; अन्यहेतुकः विशेषः न । अव्यक्ता एव येऽन्तस्तु स्फुटा एव च ये बहिः । कल्पिता एव ते सर्वे विशेषस्त्विन्द्रियान्तरे ॥ १५ ॥ (१५) अन्वयः-- ये तु अन्तः अव्यक्ताः एव, ये च बहिः स्फुटाः एव, ते सर्वे कल्पिताः एव; विशेषः तु इन्द्रियान्तरे। जीवं कल्पयते पूर्व ततो भावान्पृथग्विधान् । बाह्यानाध्यात्मिकांश्चैव यथाविधस्तथास्मृतिः ॥ १६ ॥ (१६) अन्वयः- - (प्रभुः) पूर्वं जीवं कल्पयते, ततः बाह्यान् आध्यात्मिकान् च एव पृथग्विधान् भावान् ( कल्पयते); यथाविद्यः तथास्मृतिः (जीवः)। (13) [ The Atman ], outward-minded, diversities other enti- ties, -- [ those ] differently set up, as also ( those ) fixed up within the mind; thus does the Lord imagine. (14) Those thought-timers [ lasting as long as the thought lasts] within likewise, and the duality-timers ( amenable to the grahya-grahaka formula ] outside-all those [ are ] mere products of imagination [ lit. imagined ]; the differentiation [ between the two is ] not due to any other reason. (15) Those again [ that are } just unmanifest within, and those that are ] just manifest without-all those [ are ] mere products of imagination [ lir. imagined ]; the differentiation again [ lies ] in [ being associated with ] different organs of sense. (16) [The Lord ] first imagines the Jiva ( the individual soul ], then, verily, the entities of various sorts, external objective ] and internal [ subjective ]; as one cognises so one remembers. गौडपादीयकारिका । अनिश्चिता यथा रज्जुरन्धकारे विकल्पिता। सर्पधारादिभिर्भावस्तद्वदात्मा विकल्पितः ॥ १७ ॥ (१७) अन्वयः-- यथा अन्धकारे अनिश्चिता रज्जुः सर्पधारादिभिः भावैः विकल्पिता तद्वत् आत्मा विकल्पितः । निश्चितायां यथा रज्ज्वां विकल्पो विनिवर्तते । रज्जुरेवेति चाद्वैतं तद्वदात्मविनिश्चयः ॥ १८ ॥ (१८) अन्वयः-- यथा निश्चितायां रज्ज्वां विकल्पः विनिवर्तते, रज्जुः एव इति अद्वैत (निष्पद्यते ), तद्वत् आत्मविनिश्चयः । प्राणादिभिरनन्तैश्च भावैरेतैर्विकल्पितः। मायैषा तस्य देवस्य यया संमोहितः स्वयम् ॥ १९ ॥ (१९) अन्वयः---- (आत्मा) प्राणादिभिः एतैः अनन्तैः भावैः च विकल्पितः; तस्य देवस्य एषा माया यया स्वयं संमोहितः। प्राण इति प्राणविदो भूतानीति च तद्विदः । गुणा इति गुणविदस्तत्त्वानीति च तद्विदः ॥२०॥ (२०) अन्वयः-- (आत्मा) प्राणः इति प्राणविदः (विकल्पन्ते), भूतानि इति च तद्विदः, गुणाः इति गुणविदः, तत्त्वानि इति च तद्विदः । (17) As the rope, [ with its nature ] not definitely ascertained in the dark, is imagined to be [ possessed of the nature of ] entities like the serpent, [ water-] line etc; so likewise [ is ] Atman imagined [ to be all sorts of things ]. (18) When the rope is definitely ascertained [ as the rope ], the imagined attribute turns away, and the non-duality [ emerges ] in the form ( iti ) [ This is ] the rope itself' So likewise, [ takes place ] the ascertaiment of Atman. (19) [ Atman ] is imagined to be Prana [ life ] etc. and these innumerable entities. This [ is ] the Maya of that shining one [ [ Atman ] by which [ he ] himself has been deluded. (20) As Prāņa, the Prāņa-knowers ( imagine Atman ]; and as Bhutas [ elements ], Knowers of them the Bhutas ]; as Gunas, the Guna-knowers, and as Tattvas, the Knowers of them the Tattvas 7: द्वितीयं प्रकरणम् । १५ पादा इति पादविदो विषया इति तद्विदः । लोका इति लोकविदो देवा इति च तद्विदः ॥ २१ ॥ (२१) अन्वयः-- पादाः इति पादविदः, विषयाः इति तद्विदः, लोकाः इति लोकविदः, देवाः इति च तद्विदः । वेदा इति वेदविदो यज्ञा इति च तद्विदः । भोक्तेति च भोक्तृविदो भोज्यमिति च तद्विदः ॥२२॥ (२२) अन्वयः-- वेदाः इति वेदविदः, यज्ञाः इति च तद्विदः, भोक्ता इति च भोक्तृविदः, भोज्यम् इति च तद्विदः । सूक्ष्म इति सूक्ष्मविदः स्थूल इति च तद्विदः । मूर्त इति मूर्तविदोऽमूर्त इति च तद्विदः ॥ २३ ॥ (२३) अन्वयः--- सूक्ष्मः इति सूक्ष्मविदः, स्थूलः इति च तद्विदः, मूर्तः इति मूर्तविदः, अमूर्तः इति च तद्विदः । काल इति कालविदो दिश इति च तद्विदः । वादा इति वादविदो भुवनानीति तद्विदः ॥ २४ ॥ (२४) अन्वयः --- कालः इति कालविदः, दिशः इति च तद्विदः, वादाः इति वादविदः, भुवनानि इति तद्विदः । " (21) As Padas, the Pada-knowers; as Objects, the Knowers or them [ objects ]; as the Lokas, the Loka-knowers; and as Gods, the Knowers of them [ gods ]; ( 22 ) as Vedas, the Veda-knowers; and as Sacrifices, the Knowers of them [ sacrifices ];, as the Enjoyer, the Enjoyer-knowers; and as the Object of enjoyment, the Knowers of it [ the Bhojya ] (23) as the Subtle, the Subtle knowers; and as Gross, the Knowers of it [ Sthula ]; as the Murta [ possessed of form ], the Mürta-knowers; and as the Form-less, the Knowers of it [ Amûrta ); (24) as Kala [ time, the Kala-knowers; and as the Quarters, the Knowers of them [ Disah ]; as Vadas [ discussions, theories ], the Vada-knowers; as Worlds, the Knowers of them [ Bhuvanas ]; गौडपादीयकारिका । मन इति मनोविदो बुद्धिरिति च तद्विदः । चित्तमिति चित्तविदो धर्माधर्मौ च तद्विदः ॥२५॥ (२५) अन्वयः- मनः इति मनोविदः, बुद्धिः इति च तद्विदः, चित्तम् इति चित्तविदः, धर्माधर्मौ च तद्विदः । पञ्चविंशक इत्येके षड्विंश इति चापरे । एकत्रिंशक इत्याहुरनन्त इति चापरे ॥ २६ ॥ (२६) अन्वयः-- पञ्चविंशकः इति एके, षड्विंशः इति च अपरे, एकत्रिंशकः इति ( अपरे) आहुः, अनन्तः इति च अपरे। लोकाँल्लोकविदः प्राहुराश्रमा इति तद्विदः । स्त्रीपुंनपुंसकं लैङ्गाः परापरमथापरे ॥ २७ ॥ (२७) अन्वयः-- लोकविदः लोकान् , तद्विदः आश्रमाः इति,लैङ्गाः स्त्रीनपुंसकं, अथ अपरे परापरं प्राहुः । सृष्टिरिति सृष्टिविदो लय इति च तद्विदः । स्थितिरिति स्थितिविदः सर्वे चेह तु सर्वदा ॥ २८ ॥ (२८) अन्वय:---- सृष्टिः इति सृष्टिविदः, लयः इति च तद्विदः, स्थितिः इति स्थितिविदः-सर्वे च (भेदाः) तु सर्वदा इह (आत्मनि कल्प्यन्ते)। (25) as Mind, the Mind-knowers; and as Intellect, the Knowers of it [ Buddhi ]; as Thought, the Thought-knowers; and Merit and Demerit, the Knowers of them [ Dharma and Adharma]; (26) Some speak of (Atman ] as constituted of twenty-five; and as constituted of twenty-six, others; ( some ) as constituted of thirty-one; and as unending, others. (27) The Loka-knowers speak of [ Atman ] as People [Lokas 1; as Aśramas, the Knowers of them [ Aśramas, modes of life ]; the Laingas [ grammarians, or knowers of sex ], as Male, Female and Neuter; and others, as higher and lower ; (28) as Creation, the Knowers of creation; and as Dissolution, the Knowers of dissolution [ Laya ] ; as Subsistence [ Sthiti ], the Knowers of subsistence, and all these [ are imagined ] again, always

here [ in respect of Atman ].

द्वितयं प्रकरणम् । १७
यं भावं दर्शयेद्यस्य तं भावं स तु पश्यति ।
ते चावति स भूत्वासौ तद्ग्रहः समुपैति तम् ॥ २९ ॥

(२९) अन्वयः--“ यस्य यं भावं दर्शयेत् सः तु तं भावं पश्यति;
असौ भूत्वा सः च तम् अवति, तद्ग्रहः तं समुपैति ।

एतैरेषोऽपृथग्भावैः पृथगेवेति लक्षितः ।
एवं यो वेद तत्त्वेन कल्पयेत्सोऽविशङ्कितः ॥ ३० ॥

(३० ) अन्वयः-- एषः ( आत्मा ) एतैः अपृथग्भावैः पृथक् एव इति
लक्षितःयः एवं तत्त्वेन वेद सः अविंशङ्कितः ( सन्) कल्पयेत् ।

स्वप्नमाये यथा दृष्टे गन्धर्वनगरं यथा ।
तथा विश्वमिदं दृष्टं वेदान्तेषु विचक्षणैः ॥ ३१ ॥

( ३१ ) अन्वयः-- यथा स्वप्नमाये दृष्टे, यथा गन्धर्वनगरं ( दृष्टं ), तथा
वेदान्तेषु विचक्षणैः इदं चित्रं दृष्टम् ।

न निरोधो न चोत्पत्तिर्न बद्धो न च साधकः ।
न मुमुक्षुर्न वै मुक्त इत्येषा परमार्थतr ॥ ३२ ॥

( ३२ ) अन्वयः - निरोधः न, उत्पत्तिः च न; बद्धः न, साधकः च
न; मुमुक्षुः न, मुक्तः वै न; इति परमार्थता एषा ।

( 29 ) What entity [ one } would present to one, he again
sees that entity. And that [ entity, having assumed his form, pro.
tects him; strong attachment to that [ entity } encompasses him.
(3० ) This [ (Atman ] is noticed as indeed separate, owing to
these entities { though really non-separate. One who knows thus as
the real state of things, may imagine [ Atman to be any thing ] with-
out hesitation.
( 3 ) As are seen dream and Maya [ illusion , as [ is seen )
the Gandharva-city [ castle in the air], so is seen this universe by
the well-versed in the Vedantas,
( 32 ) Neither destruction, nor again origination; neither one
bound down { to this samsara , nor again aspirant [ or, one
working ) for salvation; neither one desirous of salvation, nor again
one emancipated-thus [ is } this highest truth ,

गौडपादीयकारिका ।

भावैरसद्भिरेवायमद्वयेन च कल्पितः। भावा अध्यद्वयेनैव तस्मादद्वयता शिवा ॥ ३३ ॥ (३३) अन्वयः---- असद्भिः भावैः एव अयं च अद्वयेन कल्पितः; भावाः अपि अद्वयेन एव ( कल्पिताः); तस्मात् अद्वयता शिवा । नात्मभावेन नानेदं न स्वेनापि कथंचन । न पृथङ् नापृथक्किंचिदिति तत्त्वविदो विदुः ।। ३४ ॥ (३४) अन्वयः--- आत्मभावेन इदं नाना न, कथचन स्वेन अपि ( नाना न ); किंचित् पृथक् न, (किंचित् ) अपृथक् न; इति तत्त्वविदः विदुः । वीतरागभयक्रोधैर्मुनिभिर्वेदपारगैः। निर्विकल्पो ह्ययं दृष्टः प्रपञ्चोपशमोऽद्वयः ॥ ३५ ॥ (३५) अन्वयः-- वीतरागभयक्रौधैः वेदपारगैः मुनिभिः हि अयं निर्विकल्पः प्रपञ्चोपशमः अद्वयः दृष्टः । तस्मादेवं विदित्वैनमद्वैते योजयेत्स्मृतिम् । अद्वैतं समनुप्राप्य जडवल्लोकमाचरेत् ॥ ३६ ॥ (३६) अन्वयः---- तस्मात् एवं एनं विदित्वा स्मृतिम् अद्वैते योजयेत् ; अद्वैतं समनुप्राप्य जडवत् लोकम् आचरेत् । (33) This [ Arman ] further (ca ) is imagined to be non- existing entities themselves by the non-dual; the entities also [ are imagined ] by the non-dual itself; therefore non - duality [ is ] auspicious. (34) This [ universe is] manifold neither owing to the nature of Atman, nor somehow owing to its own [ nature ] even; nothing whatever [ is separate or non-separate--this the knowers of reality know. (35) By the sages void of attachment, fear and anger, who have completely mastered [lit. gone to the other shore of ] the Vedas, is seen this cessation of Prapanca, free from imagined attributes [ and ) non-dual. ( 36). Therefore, having known this (Atman] thus, one should fix [ one's 1 memory on non-duality; having secured [ or, realised ] non-duality, one should carry on the worldly activities like an insensate one. तृतीयं प्रकरणम् । निःस्तुतिर्निर्नमस्कारो निःस्वधाकार एव च । चलाचलनिकेतश्च यतिर्यादृच्छिको भवेत् ॥ ३७॥ (३७) अन्वयः-- निःस्तुतिः निर्नमस्कारः निःस्वधाकारः एव च, चलाचलनिकेतः च यतिः यादृच्छिकः भवेत् । तत्त्वमाध्यात्मिकं दृष्ट्वा तत्त्वं दृष्ट्वा तु बाह्यतः । तत्त्वीभूतस्तदारामस्तत्त्वादप्रच्युतो भवेत् ॥ ३८ ॥ (३८) अन्वयः--- आध्यात्मिकं तत्वं दृष्ट्वा, बाह्यतः तु तत्त्वं दृष्ट्वा तत्त्वीभूतः तदारामः तत्त्वात् अप्रच्युतः भवेत् । इति गौडपादीयकारिकायां द्वितीय प्रकरणम् । तृतीयं प्रकरणम् । उपासनाश्रितो धर्मो जाते ब्रह्माणि वर्तते । प्रागुत्पत्तेरजं सर्वं तेनासौ कृपणः स्मृतः ॥ १॥ (१) अन्वयः- ब्रह्मणि जाते उपासनाश्रितः धर्मः वर्तते; सर्व उत्पत्तेः प्राक् अजम् ; तेन असौ ( धर्मः ) कृपणः स्मृतः । + (37) Disassociated with praise, disassociated with salutation and quite disassociated with the utterance of Svadhā ( that is, per- formance of Sraddha rites in honour of Pitrs j, and having no fixed residence whatever, one should become an ascetic acting according to [ his ] will [ or, chance ]. (38) Having realised the truth relating to within the body, having realised as well the truth from ourside [ that is, relating to objects outside ), having become the Reality, delighting in it, one should not be slipping away from the reality. Here ends the Second Chapter in the Gandapāda-karika THIRD CHAPTER (1) Dharma [ Jiva] associated with devotion arises when Brahman is [ regarded as having been ) born. Prior to birth, all [is ) unborn: therefore he [ Dharma, Jiva is ] traditionally known as pitiable. २० गौडपादीयकारिका। अतो वक्ष्याम्यकार्पण्यमजाति समतां गतम् । यथा न जायते किंचिज्जायमानं समन्ततः॥२॥ (२) अन्वयः--- अतः अकार्पण्यम् अजाति समतां गतं वक्ष्यामि यथा समन्ततः जायमानं किंचित् न जायते । आत्मा ह्याकाशवज्जीवैर्घटाकाशैरिवोदितः। घटादिवच्च संघातैर्जातावेतन्निदर्शनम् ॥ ३॥ ( ३ ) अन्वयः---- आत्मा हि आकाशवत् जीवैः घटाकाशैः इव उदितः, घटादिवत् च संघातैः ( उदितः ); जातौ एतत् निदर्शनम् । घटादिषु प्रलीनेषु घटाकाशादयो यथा । आकाशे संप्रलीयन्ते तद्वज्जीवा इहात्मनि ॥४॥ (१) अन्वयः--- यथा घटादिषु प्रलीनेषु घटाकाशादयः आकाशे संपलीयन्ते, तद्वत् जीवाः इह आत्मनि ( संप्रलीयन्ते)। यथैकस्मिन्धटाकाशे रजोधूमादिभिर्युते । न सर्वे संप्रयुज्यन्ते तद्वतज्जीवाः सुखादिभिः ॥ ५ ॥ (५) अन्वयः--- यथा रजोधूमादिभिः युते एकस्मिन् घटाकाशे सर्वे (घटाकाशाः) न संप्रयुज्यन्ते, तद्वत् जीवाः सुखादिभिः (न संप्रयुज्यन्ते)। (2) I shall therefore speak of the non-pitiableness (which is] without birth, maintaining sameness throughout, so that anything [ supposed as ] being born all around is not [ really ] born. (3) Atman like the Akasa rises up indeed in [ the form of ] Jivas [ individual souls ] like Ghatakasas [ spaces enclosed by earthen jars ], and in [ the form of ] aggregates [ bodies etc.] like earthen jar etc. This [ is ] the illustration in [ the matter of ] birth ! or, origination] (4) As the earthen jar etc. being dissolved, Ghatakasa etc. are dissolved in the Akasa, so [ are dissolved ] the individual souls here in Atman. (5) As when one Ghatakasa is connected with dust, smoke etc , not all [ Ghatakasas ] are associated [ with then ], so [ are ] the individual souls with happiness etc. तृतीयं प्रकरणम् । २१ रूपकार्यसमाख्याश्च भिद्यन्ते तत्र तत्र वै । आकाशस्य न भेदोऽस्ति तद्वज्जीवेषु निर्णयः ॥ ६ ॥ (६) अन्वयः---- तत्र तत्र वै रूपकार्यसमाख्याः च भिद्यन्ते; आकाशस्य भेदः न अस्ति; तद्वत् जीवेषु निर्णयः । नाकाशस्य घटाकाशो विकारावयवौ यथा । नैवात्मनः सदा जीवो विकारावयवौ तथा ।। ७ ।। (७) अन्वयः यथा आकाशस्य घटाकाशः विकारावयवी न, तथा आत्मनः सदा जीवः विकारावयवौ न एव । यथा भवति बालानां गगनं मलिनं मलैः। तथा भवत्यबुद्धानामात्मापि मलिनो मलैः ॥ ८ ॥ (८) अन्वयः---- यथा बालानां गगनं मलैः मलिनं भवति तथा अबुद्धानाम् आत्मा अपि मलैः मलिनो भवति । मरणे संभवे चैत्र गत्यागमनयोरपि । स्थितौ सर्वशरीरेषु आकाशेनाविलक्षणः ॥ ९ ॥ (९) अन्वयः- मरणे संभवे च एव, गत्यागमनयोः अपि, स्थितौ, सर्वशरीरेषु आकाशेन अविलक्षणः ( आत्मा )। 1 (6) in the various cases ( lit. there and there ) indeed, form, function and name [ do ) differ, [ but ] there is no splitting up of the Akasas so the upshot in [ respect of ] the individual souls. (7) As the Ghatākāśa [is] no transformation or portion of the Akāśa, similarly [is] the individual soul always no transformation or portion of Atman. (8) As the sky becomes to { that is, in the opinion of] the children, soiled owing to impurities, similarly Atman also becomes to ( that is, in the opinion of) the non-wise, soiled owing to impurities. (9) In death and verily in birth, in going and coming as well, in remaining in position, in all bodies, i Atman is not dissimilar to the Akāśa. २२ गौडपादीयकारिका । संघाता। स्वप्नवत्सर्व आत्ममायाविसर्जिताः । आधिक्यै सर्वसाम्ये वा नोपपत्तिर्हि विद्यते ॥ १० ॥ (१०) अन्वयः- सर्वे संघाताः स्वप्नवत् आत्ममायाविसर्जिताः, आधिक्ये सर्वसाम्ये वा उपपत्तिः हि न विद्यते । रसादयो हि ये कोशा व्याख्यातास्तैत्तिरीयके । तेषामात्मा परो जीव: खं यथा संप्रकाशितः ॥ ११ ॥ (११) अन्वयः---- ये हि रसादयः कोशाः तैत्तिरीयके व्याख्याताः तेषाम् आत्मा परः जीवः यथा खं संप्रकाशितः । द्वयोर्द्वयोर्मधुज्ञाने परं ब्रह्म प्रकाशितम् । पृथिव्यामुदरे चैव यथाकाश: प्रकाशितः ॥ १२ ॥ (१२) अन्वयः-- मधुज्ञाने द्वयोः द्वयोः परं ब्रह्म प्रकाशितम् ; यथा पृथिव्याम् उदरे च एव आकाशः प्रकाशितः । जीवात्मनोरनन्यत्वमभेदेन प्रशस्यते । नानात्वं निन्द्यते यच्च तदेवं हि समञ्जसम् ॥ १३ ॥ (१३) अन्वयः - यत् जीवात्मनोः अनन्यत्वम् अभेदेन प्रशस्यते, नानात्वं च निन्द्यते, तत् हि एवं समञ्जसम् । ( 10 ) All aggregates are set forth by the Māyā of Atman, like dream. In [ respect of ] [ their ] superiority or equality every. where, there does not exist any proper ground ( which would enable us to prove that the samghatas are real ]. (II) The sheaths, essence etc. that are indeed expounded in the Taittiriyaka upanisad] of them, the supreme Jiva is clearly shown up as Atman, like Akasa. ( 12 ) In the Madhu-jñāna ( that is, Madhuvidya chapter in the Brhadaranyakopanisad ], in the various [ or, in each of the ] pairs [ described as Adhidaiva and Adhyătma I is shown up the Highest Brahman, as Akasa is shown up in the earth and in the belly itself. (13) That the identity of Jiva and Atman without any difference, is praised and variety [ or, multiplicity ] is censured-that is indeed rational only thus [ by assuming that Jiva is the creation [ of Maya ). तृतीयं प्रकरणम् । २३ जीवात्मनोः पृथक्त्वं यत्प्रागुत्पत्तेः प्रकीर्तितम् । भविष्यवृत्या गौणं तन्मुख्यत्वं हि न युज्यते ॥ १४ ॥ (१४) अन्वयः -- उत्पत्तेः प्राक् यत् जीवात्मनोः पृथक्त्वं प्रकीर्तितम् तत् भविष्यवृत्त्या गौणम् ; मुख्यत्वं हि न युज्यते । मृल्लोहविस्फुलिङ्गाद्यैः सृष्टिर्या चोदितान्यथा । उपायः सोऽवताराय नास्ति भेदः कथंचन ।। १५ ।। (१५) अन्वयः---- या मृल्लोहविस्फुलिङ्गाद्यैः अन्यथा सृष्टिः चोदिता, सः अवताराय उपायः; भेदः कथंचन न अस्ति । आश्रमास्त्रिविधा हीनमध्यमोत्कृष्टदृष्टयः । उपासनोपदिष्टेयं तदर्थमनुकम्पया ॥ १६ ॥ (१६) अन्वयः--- हीनमध्यमोत्कृष्टदृष्टयः त्रिविधाः आश्रमाः: इयम् उपासना तदर्थम् अनुकम्पया उपदिष्टा । स्वसिद्धान्तव्यवस्थासु द्वैतिनो निश्चिता दृढम् । परस्परं विरुध्यन्ते तैरयं न विरुध्यते ॥ १७ ॥ (१७) अन्वयः--- द्वैतिनः स्वसिद्धान्तव्यवस्थासु दृढं निश्चिताः; (द्वैतिनः ) परस्पर विरुध्यन्ते; तैः अयम् ( आत्मैकत्वदर्शनपक्षः ) न विरुध्यते । (14) What separateness of Jiva and Atman prior to creation, has been declared, that is } figurative, referring [ as it does ] to the state to come; ( to regard it as having the nature of the primary ( sense ) indeed does not fit in. (15) The creation which has been authoritatively mentioned otherwise by [ illustrations of į earth, iron, sparks etc, that [ is ] a device for the grasping of the true position ] ; no difference what- soever [ between Jiva and Arman ] exists. (16) There are ] three-fold stages of life, having low, middle and excellent vision; this ( mode of ] worship is prescribed for them, out of compassion [ by the śruti ). (17) The dualists are firmly fixed in (their ) laying out of their conclusions; they contradict one another; this ! (Ajātivāda) does not conflict with them. २४ गौडपादीयकारिका। अद्वैतं परमार्थो हि द्वैतं तद्भेद उच्यते । तेषामुभयथा द्वैतं तेनायं न विरुध्यते ॥ १८ ॥ (१८) अन्वयः----- अद्वैतं हि परमार्थः, द्वैतं तद्भेदः उच्यते; तेषां (द्वैतिनाम् ) उभयथा द्वैतम्; तेन अयं न विरुध्यते । मायया भिद्यते ह्येतन्नान्यथाजं कथंचन । तत्त्वतो भिद्यमाने हि मर्त्यताममृतं व्रजेत् ॥ १९ ।। (१९) अन्वयः----- एतत् हि अजम् ( अद्वैतं) मायया भिद्यते, अन्यथा कथंचन न; तत्त्वतः हि भिद्यमाने अमृतं मर्त्यतां व्रजेत् । अजातस्यैव भावस्य जातिमिच्छन्ति वादिनः । अजातो ह्यमृतो भावो मर्त्यंतां कथमेष्यति ॥ २०॥ (२०) अन्वयः वादिनः अजातस्य एव भावस्य जातिम् इच्छन्ति; अजातः अमृतः भावः हि कथं मर्त्यताम् एष्यति । न भवत्यमृतं मर्त्यं न मर्त्यममृतं तथा । प्रकृतेरन्यथाभावो न कथंचिद्भविष्यति ।। २१ ।। (२१) अन्वयः---- अमृतं मर्त्यं न भवति, तथा मर्त्यम् अमृतं ( न भवति ); प्रकृतेः अन्यथाभावः कथंचित् न भविष्यति । (18) Non-duality [ is ] indeed the highest reality; duality is spoken of as its outcome [ or, modification ). For them [ the dualists, exists ] duality in both ways; therefore [ or, with that dvaita ] this advaita ] does not conflict. [ (19) This unborn ( advaita ] indeed becomes modified [ or, different through Māyā, not otherwise under any circumstances. If indeed it vere to be modified in reality, the immortal would go the way of mortality! (20) The disputants [ dvaitins ] wish to prove ] the origination of the entity (which is) verily unoriginated. How indeed can an unborn (and therefore] immortal entity, pass on to mortality? (21) The immortal does not become mortal, nor likewise the mortal immortal. There would not be under any circumstances, a change otherwise of [ one's ] nature. तृतीयं प्रकरणम् । २५ स्वभावेनामृतो यस्य भावो गच्छति मर्त्यताम् कृतकेनामृतस्तस्य कथं स्थास्यति निश्चलः ॥ २२ ॥ (२२) अन्वयः- यस्य स्वभावेन अमृतः भावः मर्त्यतां गच्छति तस्य कृतकेन अमृतः कथं निश्चलः स्थास्यति । भूततोऽभूततो वापि सृज्यमाने समा श्रुतिः । निश्चितं युक्तियुक्तं च यत्तद्भवति नेतरत् ।। २३ ॥ (२३) अन्वयः--- भूततः वा अभूततः अपि सृज्यमाने श्रुतिः समा; यत् युक्तियुक्तं निश्चितं च तत् भवति इतरत् न ( भवति ) । नेह नानेति चाम्नायादिन्द्रो मायाभिरित्यपि । अजायमानो बहुधा मायया जायते तु सः ॥ २४ ॥ (२१) अन्वयः----- न इह नाना इति च, इन्द्रः मायामिः इति अपि, अजायमानः सः तु मायया बहुधा जायते इति आम्नायात्। संभूतेरपवादाच्च संभवः प्रतिषिध्यते। को न्वेनं जनयेदिति कारणं प्रतिषिध्यते ॥ २५॥ (२५) अन्वयः---- संभूतेः अपवादात् च संभवः प्रतिषिध्यते, कः नु एने जनयेत् इति कारणं प्रतिषिध्यते । (22) He ] for whom [ that is, in whose opinion ] an entity immortal in (its) own nature, goes to mortality;-how will the immortal of his [ that is, admitted by him ) artificially made [ subject to artificial effort ], remain changeless [ or, unmoving ] ? (23) In [ the matter of ] being created, whether from the (already ] existent, or from the non-existent also, the Sruti [ is ] equal [ that is, supporting both the views ]. What is associated ( or, fortified ] with logical reasoning and ascertained, holds, not the other. (24) And from the Śruti text “ No multiple here, ' [ from the Śruti text)' Indra by means of Māyā powers as well, ( from the Sruti text]' He being unborn is however born in various ways through Maya (25) and from the denial of origination [ in the Isavasyopa- nişad ), origination is barred out. "By the Sruti ] “Who possibly ( nu ) would produce this ( Åtman )?' the cause [ of origination ] is barred out. ? 4 २६ गौडपादीयकारिका। स एष नेति नेतीति व्याख्यातं निह्रते यतः । सर्वमग्राह्यभावेन हेतुनाजं प्रकाशते ॥ २६ ॥ (२६) अन्वयः-- यतः सः एषः न इति न इति व्याख्यातम् अग्राह्यभावेन हेतुना सर्वं निह्रुते, अजं प्रकाशते । सतो हि मायया जन्म युज्यते न तु तत्वतः । तत्त्वतो जायते यस्य जातं तस्य हि जायते ॥ २७ ॥ (२७) अन्वयः- सतः जन्म मायया हि युज्यते, न तु तत्त्वतः; यस्य तत्त्वतः जायते तस्य हि जातं जायते । असतो मायया जन्म तत्वतो नैव युज्यते । वन्ध्यापुत्रो न तत्त्वेन मायया वापि जायते ॥ २८ ॥ (२८) अन्वयः-- असतः मायया, तत्त्वतः जन्म न एव युज्यते; वन्ध्यापुत्रः तत्त्वेन मायया वा अपि न जायते । यथा स्वप्ना द्वयाभासं स्पन्दते मायया मनः। तथा जाग्रद्वयाभासं स्पन्दते मायया मनः ॥ २९ ॥ . (२९) अन्वयः-- यथा मायया मनः स्वप्ने द्वयाभासं स्पन्दते तथा मायया मनः जाग्रत् द्वयाभासं स्पन्दते । ( 26 ) As the explanation viz. ' This one, he [ is ] not, [ is ] not' denies [or, conceals ] all by the reason of the incomprehensi- bility [ of Atman ], the unborn [ Atman ] shines forth. (27) The birth of the existent is indeed reasonable through Maya, but not in reality. For whom [ that is, in whose opinion ] is born [ the existent ) in reality, for him [ that is, he would have to admit ] indeed the [ already ] born is born ! (28) The birth of the non-existent [ either ] through Maya [ or ] in reality is assuredly not reasonable; the son of a barren woman is not born either in reality or through Māyā even. (29) As through Mayā the mind in dream vibrates into the appearance of two [ grāhya and grahaka ], so through Mayā the mind in the waking stare vibrates into the appearance of two [ grāhya and grahaka]. तृतीयं प्रकरणम् । २७ अद्वयं च द्वयाभासं मनः स्वप्ने न संशयः। अद्वयं च द्वयाभासं तथा जाग्रन्न संशयः॥३०॥ (३०) अन्वयः-- स्वप्ने च अद्वयं मनः द्वयाभासं, न संशयः; तथा जाग्रत् च अद्वयं ( मनः) द्वयाभासं, न संशयः । मनोदृश्यामिदं द्वैतं यत्किंचित्सचराचरम् । मनसो ह्यमनीभावे द्वैतं नैवोपलभ्यते ॥ ३१ ॥ (३१) अन्वयः- इदं यत्किंचित् सचराचरं द्वैतं मनोदश्यम् ; मनसः अमनीभावे हि द्वैतं न एवं उपलभ्यते । आत्मसत्यानुबोधेन न संकल्पयते यदा । अमनस्तां तदा याति ग्राह्याभावे तदग्रहम् ।। ३२ ॥ (३२) अन्वयः--- यदा आत्मसत्यानुबोधेन (मनः) न संकल्पयते तदा अमनस्तां याति, ग्राह्याभावे तत् अग्रहम् । अकल्पकमजं ज्ञानं ज्ञेयाभिन्नं प्रचक्षते । ब्रह्म ज्ञेयमजं नित्यमजेनाजं विबुध्यते ।। ३३ ।। (३३) अन्वयः- अकल्पकम् अजं ज्ञानं ज्ञेयाभिन्न प्रचक्षते; अजं नित्यं ब्रह्म ज्ञेयम् ; अजम् अजेन विबुध्यते । ( 30 ) In dream again, the non-dual mind [is] appear- ing as dual, no doubt ( about it ] ; and similarly in the waking state, the non-dual mind [ is ] appearing as dual, no doubt, ( 37 ) ( All ] this duality whatsoever, comprising the movable and the immovable, [ is ] perceivable by the mind; when the mind has indeed become non-mind, duality is assuredly not experienced. ( 32 ) When [ the mind ] does not imagine owing to the comprehension of the truth about [or, namely ] Atman, [ it ) goes to the state of non-mind; it [ is ] without cognition in the absence of the cognisable. (33) They assert the jnana free from imagination [ and ] unborn as [ being ) not different from the knowable. Brahman ( is ] the knowable, unborn ( and ) eternal. (Thus ) is made known the unborn by the unborn २८ गौडपादीयकारिका । निगृहीतस्य मनसो निर्विकल्पस्य धीमतः । प्रचारः स तु विज्ञेयः सुषुप्तेऽन्यो न तत्समः ॥ ३४ ॥ (३४) अन्वयः---- निगृहीतस्य निर्विकल्पस्य धीमतः मनसः सः प्रचारः तु विज्ञेयः; सुषुप्ते अन्यः (प्रचारः), तत्समः न ! लीयते हि सुषुप्ते तन्निगृहीतं न लीयते । तदेव निर्भयं ब्रह्म ज्ञानालोकं समन्ततः ॥ ३५ ॥ (३५) अन्वयः--- सुषुप्ते हि तत् ( मनः) लीयते, निगृहीतं (तत्) न लोयते, तत् एव निर्भयं समन्ततः ज्ञानालोकं ब्रह्म । अजमनिद्रमस्वप्नमनामकमरूपकम् । सकृद्विभातं सर्वज्ञं नोपचारः कथंचन ॥ ३६॥ (३६) अन्वयः---- - (ब्रह्म ) अजम् , अनिद्रम् , अस्वप्नम् , अनामकम् , अरूपकं, सकृद्विभातं, सर्वज्ञम् ; कथंचन न उपचारः। सर्वाभिलाषविगतः सर्वचिन्तासमुत्थितः । सुप्रशान्तः सकृज्ज्योतिः समाधिरचलोऽभयः ॥ ३७॥ (३७) अन्वयः-~- सर्वाभिलाषविगतः सर्वचिन्तासमुत्थितः सुप्रशान्तः सकृज्ज्योतिः अचलः अभयः समाधिः। . (34) But that procedure of the mind completely controlled [ and ] free from imagination, endowed with discernment [ or, of the discerning person ] has to be known properly; [ the procedure of the mind) in sleep sleep [is] different, not like that [ of the Nigrhita mind, described above ]. (35) In deep sleep indeed, it [ the mind ] is laid low; completely controlled [ it ) is not laid low. That itself [is] the Brahman void of fear, with the illumination of jñāna all around, (36) unborn, without sleep, without dream, without name, without form, flashing up once for all, [ and ) omniscient. ( There is in this description of Brahman ] no figurative use in any way whatever. (37) [ That is ] the intense concentration, gone beyond all statement in words, risen above all thought, completely calm, illumination once for all, unmoving [ and ] free from fear. तृतीयं प्रकरणम् । ग्रहो न तत्र नोत्सर्गश्चिन्ता यत्र न विद्यते । आत्मसंस्थं तदा ज्ञानमजाति समतां गतम् ।। ३८ ॥ (३८) अन्वयः-- यत्र चिन्ता न विद्यते तत्र ग्रहः न, उत्सर्गः न; तदा आत्मसंस्थं ज्ञानं अजाति समतां गतम् । अस्पर्शयोगो वै नाम दुर्दर्शः सर्वयोगिभिः । योगिनो बिभ्यति ह्यस्मादभये भयदर्शिनः ॥ ३९ ॥ (३९) अन्वयः-- सर्वयोगिभिः दुर्दर्शः अस्पर्शयोगः वै नाम; अभये भयदर्शिनः योगिनः हि अस्मात् बिभ्यति । मनसो निग्रहायत्तमभयं सर्वयोगिनाम् । दुःखक्षयः प्रबोधश्चाप्यक्षया शान्तिरेव च ॥ ४० ॥ (४०) अन्वयः---- सर्वयोगिनां मनसः निग्रहायत्तम् अभयम् , दुःख- क्षयः प्रबोधः अपि च, अक्षया शान्तिः एव च । उत्सेक उदधेर्यद्वत्कुशाग्रेणैकबिन्दुना । मनसो निग्रहस्तद्वद्भवेदपरिखेदतः ॥४१॥ (४१) अन्वयः---- यद्वत कुशाग्रेण एकबिन्दुना उदधेः उत्सेकः तद्वत् अपरिखेदतः मनसः निग्रहः भवेत् । ( 38 ) Where there does not exist thought, there [is] no taking up that is, apprehension ), no giving up [ either ). At that time the jñāna well set in itself [ or, in the Atman ], [ is ] non- originated [ and ] remaining the same [ lit. going to sameness ). ( 39 ) [This is) verily, the 'non-touch-Yoga' by name, difficult to be realised by all [ ordinary ] Yogins; the Yogins are indeed afraid of it, seeing fear in something free from fear. (40) For all Yogins, depending upon the control of the mind, [ are ] absence of fear, destruction of misery, and complete awaken- ing and eternal peace itself. (41) As [ there would be ) the draining out of the sea by one drop [ of water at a time ] by means of the point of [ a blade of ] Kusa grass, so would be the control of the mind without all our toiling. ३० गौडपादीयकारिका। उपायेन निगृह्णीयाद्विक्षिप्तं कामभोगयोः । सुप्रसन्नं लये चैव यथा कामो लयस्तथा ॥ ४२ ॥ (४२) अन्वयः---- - कामभोगयोः विक्षिप्तं लये च एव सुप्रसन्नं (मनः) उपायेन निगृह्णियात् ; यथा कामः तथा लयः (अनर्थहेतुः) । दुःखं सर्वमनुस्मृत्य कामभोगान्निवर्तयेत् । अजं सर्वमनुस्मृत्य जातं नैव तु पश्यति ॥ ४३ ॥ (४३) अन्वयः- सर्व दुःखम् अनुस्मृत्य कामभोगान् निवर्तयेत् ; सर्वं अजम् अनुस्मृत्य जातं तु न एव पश्यति । लये संबोधच्चित्तं विक्षिप्तं शमयेत्पुनः । सकषायं विजानीयात्समप्राप्तं न चालयेत् ॥ ४४ ॥ (४४) अन्वयः--- लये चित्तं संबोधयेत् , विक्षिप्तं (चित्तं) पुनः शमयेत् , सकषायं (चित्तं) विजानीयात् , समप्राप्तं (चित्तं) न चालयेत् । नास्वादयेत्सुखं तत्र निःसंगः प्रज्ञया भवेत् । निश्चलं निश्चरच्चित्तमेकीकुर्यात्प्रयत्नतः ॥ ४५ ॥ (४५) अन्वयः- तत्र सुखं न आस्वादयेत् , प्रज्ञया निःसंगः भवेत् , प्रयत्नतः निश्चलं निश्वरत् चित्तम् एकीकुर्यात् । (42) By [ the prescribed ] means, one should control [ the mind ) tossed about in desire and enjoyment and also quite at ease in the lying low [ state ); as desire, so the lying low [ both states are equally undesirable and harmful ]. (43) Having continually (anu ) remembered all [ to be ] misery, one should turn back [ the mind from ] desires and enjoy- ments; having continually remembered all [ to be ] unborn, one assuredly does not see the born for the maूूer of that (tu). (44) One should fully awaken the mind [ when ] in the lying low í state ), should pacify [it] again [ when ) tossed about; should know [ it'] particularly ( to be ] with passion, I and ] should not shake [ it ] up I when ] attained to equilibrium. (45) One should not relish pleasure there [ in Samādhi }; one should be free from attachment through discernment; one should unify, by effort, the steadied mind ( if it be ] moving out [ towards objects of enjoyment]. चतुर्थ प्रकरणम् । ३१ यदा न लीयते चित्तं न च विक्षिप्यते पुनः । । अनिङ्गनमनाभासं निष्पन्नं ब्रह्म तत्तदा ॥ ४६ ।। (४६) अन्वयः---- यदा चित्तं न लीयते, पुनः च न विक्षिप्यते तदा तत् अनिङ्गनम् अनाभासं (सत् ) ब्रह्म निष्पन्नम् । स्वस्थं शान्तं सनिर्वाणमकथ्यं सुखमुत्तमम् । अजमजेन ज्ञेयेन सर्वज्ञं परिचक्षते ॥ ४७ ।। (४७) अन्वयः--- स्वस्थं शान्तं सनिर्वाणम् अकथ्यम् उत्तमं सुखम् ज्ञेयेन अजेन अजं परिचक्षते । न कश्चिज्जायते जीवः संभवोऽस्य न विद्यते । एतत्तदुत्तमं सत्यं यत्र किंचिन्न जायते ॥ ४८ ।। (४८) अन्वयः-- - कश्चित् जीवः न जायते, अस्य संभवः न विद्यते; एतत् तत् उत्तमं सत्यं यत्र किंचित् न जायते । इति गौडपादीयकारिकायां तृतीयं प्रकरणन् । चतुर्थं प्रकरणम् । ज्ञानेनाकाशकल्पन धर्मान्यो गगनोपमान् । ज्ञेयाभिन्नेन संबुद्धस्तं वन्दे द्विपदां वरम् ॥ १ ॥ (१) अन्वयः--- यः आकाशकल्पेन ज्ञेयाभिन्नेन ज्ञानेन गगनोपमान् धर्मान् संबुद्धः तं द्विपदां वरं वन्दे । (46) When the mind does not lie low, and is not again tossed about, then that [ being ] without movement, and not pre- senting any appearance, culminates into Brahman. (47) Resting in itself, calm, with Nirvana, indescribable, highest happiness, unborn ( and one ) with the unborn knowable, omniscient-[ thus of it ] they say. (48) No creature whatever is born; no origination of it exists ( or, takes place ). This [ is ] that highest truth where noth- ing whatever is born. Here ends the Third Chapter in the Gaudapada-karika. FOURTH CHAPTER (1) I salute that best of the bipeds, who by jñāna almost like the sky [ and ] not different from the knowable, fully realised the entities [ or, jivas, individual souls) comparable to the sky. ३२ गौडपादीयकारिका । अस्पर्शयोगो वै नाम सर्वसत्त्वसुखो हितः ।। अविवादोऽविरुद्धश्च देशितस्तं नमाम्यहम् ॥ २॥ (२) अन्वयः- (येन) सर्वसत्त्वसुखः हितः अविवादः अविरुद्धः च अस्पर्शयोगः वै नाम देशितः तम् अहं नमामि । भूतस्य जातिमिच्छन्ति वादिनः केचिदेव हि । अभूतस्यापरे धीरा विवदन्तः परस्परम् ॥ ३ ॥ (३) अन्वयः----- केचित् एव वादिनः हि भूतस्य जातिम् इच्छन्ति, अपरे धीराः अभूतस्य (जातिम् इच्छन्ति ), परस्परं विवदन्तः ( एवम् एते)। भूतं न जायते किंचिदभूतं नैव जायते । विवदन्तो द्वया ह्येवमजातिं ख्यापयन्ति ते ॥ ४ ॥ (४) अन्वयः----- भूतं किंचित् न जायते, अभूतं (किंचित् ) न एव जायते; एवं विवदन्तः ते द्वयाः हि अजातिं ख्यापयन्ति । ख्याप्यमानामजाति तैरनुमोदामहे वयम् । विवदामो न तैः सार्धमविवादं निबोधत ॥ ५ ॥ (५) अन्वयः- वयं तैः ख्याप्यमानाम् अजातिम् अनुमोदामहे; तैः सार्धं न विवदामः; (अजातिम् ) अविवाद निबोधत । (2) I bow down to him [ by whom ] was preached the non-touch-Yoga verily so called, [ which is for ] the pleasure of all beings, beneficial, without any dispute and unopposed (3) Some disputants indeed fancy the origination of the existent; other intelligent [ disputants ], of the non-existent; [ thus they are seen ] disputing with one another. (4) No existent whatever is originated; a non-existent is assuredly not originated; those dualists [ disputants ] indeed disput- ing thus proclaim non-origination. (5) We endorse the ron-origination proclaimed by them; we dispute not with them. Know [ how the ajătivāda is ] free from dispute. चतुर्थं प्रकरणम् । अजातस्यैव धर्मस्य जातिमिच्छन्ति वादिमः। अजातो ह्यमृतो धर्मों मर्त्यतां कथमेष्यति ॥ ६ ॥ (६) अन्वयः-- वादिनः अजातस्य एवं धर्मस्य जातिम् इच्छन्ति; अजातः हि अमृतः धर्मः, ( सः ) कथं मर्त्यताम् एष्यति ? न भवत्यमृतं मर्त्यं न मर्त्यममृतं तथा । प्रकृतेरन्यथाभावो न कथंचिद्भविष्यति ॥ ७॥ (७) अन्वयः-- अमृतं मर्यं न भवति, तथा मर्त्यम् अमृतं न ( भवति); प्रकृतेः अन्यथाभावः कथंचित् न भविष्यति । स्वभावेनामृतो यस्य धर्मो गच्छति मर्त्यताम् । कृतकेनामृतस्तस्य कथं स्थास्यति निश्चलः ॥ ८ ॥ (८) अन्वयः-- यस्य स्वभावेन अमृतः धर्मः मर्त्यतां गच्छति तस्य कृतकेन अमृतः कथं निश्चलः स्थास्यति ? सांसिद्धिकी स्वाभाविकी सहजा अकृता च या । प्रकृतिः सति विज्ञेया स्वभावं न जहाति या ॥ ९ ॥ (९) अन्वयः-- या सांसिद्धिकी स्वाभाविकी सहजा अकृता च, या स्वभावं न जहाति, सा प्रकृतिः इति विज्ञेया। (6) The disputants [ dvaitins ] wish [ to prove ] the origination of the entity [ which is ] verily unoriginated. How indeed can an unborn [ and therefore ] immortal entity, pass on to mortality? (7) The immortal does not become mortal, nor likewise the mortal immortal. There would not be under any circumstances, a change otherwise of [ one's ] nature. (8) [ He ] for whom [ that is, in whose opinion ] an entity immortal in [ its ) own nature, goes to mortality--how will the immortal of his [ that is, admitted by him ] artificially made [or, subject to artificial effort ], remain changeless [ or, unmoving ]? (9) That should be well known as nature which [is ] fully established, natural, inborn and not made [ artificially ), [and] which does not abandon (its ] own nature. . गौडपादीयकारिका जरामरणनिर्मुक्ताः सर्वे धर्माः स्वभावतः । जरामरणमिच्छन्तश्च्यवन्ते तन्मनीषया ॥ १० ॥ (१०) अन्वयः- सर्वे धर्माः स्वभावतः जरामरणनिर्मुक्ताः ; जरा- मरणम् इच्छन्तः (ते) तन्मनीषया च्यवन्ते । कारणं यस्य वै कार्यं कारणं तस्य जायते । जायमानं कथमजं भिन्नं नित्यं कथं च तत् ॥ ११ ॥ (११) अन्वयः----- यस्य वै कारण कार्यं तस्य कारणं जायते; जायमानं कथम् अजम् ? भिन्नं च तत् कथं नित्यम् ? कारणाद्यद्यनन्यत्वमतः कार्यमजं यदि । जायमानाद्धि चै कार्यात्कारणं ते कथं ध्रुवम् ॥ १२ ॥ (१२) अन्वयः----- यदि कारणात् अनन्यत्वम् , अतः यदि कार्यम् अजम् , ( तर्हि ) ते जायमानात् वै कार्यात् हि ( अनन्यं ) कारणं कथं ध्रुवम् ? अजाद्वै जायते यस्य दृष्टान्तस्तस्य नास्ति वै । जाताच्च जायमानस्य नव्यवस्था प्रसज्यते ॥ १३ ॥ (१३ ) अन्वयः--- यस्य वै अजात् जायते तस्य वै दृष्टान्तः न अस्ति; जातात् च जायमानस्य नव्यवस्था प्रसज्यते । ( 10 ) All entities [ are ] by nature freed from old age and death. Wishing for old age and death, they deviate [ from their nature ] by the thought of them, (II) For whom indeed [ that is, who holds that ] the cause [ is ) the effect, for him [ that is, he would have to admit that ] the cause is originated; (if the cause is ] being originated, how I can it be ] unborn and how again [ can ] That [if] modified [ be (eternal? (12) If [ it is argued by you that there is ] non-difference [ of the effect ] from the cause, and therefore if the effect ( is regard- ed as] unoriginated, how [ can your .cause indeed [ which is non-different from the effect being originated [ be spoken of by you as ] unchanging ? (13). For whom [ that is, in whose opinion ] [ the effect ] is originated from the uporiginated. [ cause ], for him there is assuredly no illustration [to corroborate his theory]; and in the case ] of [ the effect ] being originated from the originated, there would be the undesirable contingency of the regressus ad infinitum. चतुर्थ प्रकरणम् । ३५ हेतोरादिः फलं येषामादिर्हेतुः फलस्य च । हेतोः फलस्य चानादिः कथं तैरुपवर्ण्यते ॥ १४ ॥ (१४) अन्वय:---- येषां हेतोः आदिः फलम् , हेतुः च फलस्य आदिः, तैः कथं हेतोः फलस्य च अनादिः उपवर्ण्येते ? हेतोरादिः फलं येषामादिर्हेतुः फलस्य च । तथा जन्म भवेत्तेषां पुत्राज्जन्म पितुर्यथा ॥ १५॥ (१५) अन्वयः-- -येषां हेतोः आदिः फलम् , हेतु: च फलस्य आदिः, यथा पुत्रात् पितुः जन्म तथा तेषां जन्म भवेत् । संभवे हेतुफलयोरेषितव्यः क्रमस्त्वया । युगपत्संभवे यस्मादसंबन्धो विषाणवत् ।। १६ ।। (१६) अन्वयः-~~ हेतुफलयोः संभवे त्वया क्रमः एषितव्यः, यस्मात् युगपत्संभवे विषाणवत् असंबन्धः । (14) For whom [ that is, in whose opinion ] the effect [ is ] the producer [ or, beginning ] of the cause and the cause [ is ] the producer [ or, beginning ] of the effect-how can be [ nonchalantly ] described by them, the beginningless of the cause as well as the effect? (15) For whom [ that is, is whose opinion ] the effect [ is ] the producer [ or, beginning ] of the cause and the cause [ is ] the producer [ or, beginning ) of the effect, for them, there would be the birth in the same manner as the birth of the father from the son ! (16) In the case of ] origination of the cause and effect [if admitted }, the order [ in which this takes place ] has got to be searched after by you, in as much as (yourself ) in the { case of ] simultaneous origination [ of cause and effect ], [ there would be the absence of [ mutual connection, like the [ left and right] horns [ of a bull ] गौडपादीयकारिका । 2 फलादुत्पद्यमानः सन्न ते हेतुः प्रसिध्यति । अप्रसिद्धः कथं हेतुः फलमुत्पादयिष्यति ॥ १७ ॥ (१७) अन्वयः----- फलात् उत्पधमानः सन् ते हेतुः न प्रसिध्यति; कथम् अप्रसिद्धः हेतुः फलम् उत्पादयिष्यति ? यदि हेतोः फलासिद्धिः फलसिद्भिश्च हेतुतः । कतरत्पूर्वनिष्पन्नं यस्य सिद्धिरपेक्षया ॥ १८ ॥ (१८) अन्वयः- यदि फलात् हेतोः सिद्धि', हेतुतः च फलसिद्धिः, ( तर्हि ) यस्य अपेक्षया सिद्धिः ( तत् ) कतरत् पूर्वनिष्पन्नम् ? ( अशक्तिरपरिज्ञानं क्रमकोपोऽथ वा पुनः । एवं हि सर्वथा बुद्धरजातिः परिदीपिता ॥ १९॥ (१९) अन्वयः---- अशक्तिः, अपरिज्ञानम् , अथ वा पुनः क्रमकोपः, एवं हि बुद्धैः सर्वथा अजातिः परिदीपिता । बीजाङ्कुराख्यो दृष्टान्तः सदा साध्यसमो हि सः । न हि साध्यसमो हेतुः सिद्धौ साध्यस्य युज्यते ॥ २० ॥ (२०) अन्वयः---- सः बीजाङ्कुराख्या दृष्टान्तः हि सदा साध्यसमः; साध्यसमः हेतुः हि साध्यस्य सिद्धौ न युज्यते । (17) Your cause being brought into being from the effect, would not be substantiated; how will the unsubstantiated cause produce the effect? (18) If [ there is ] the substantiation of the cause from the effect and the substantiation of the effect from the cause, which one [ of the two is ] produced first, whose substantiation [ is ] dependent [ upon the other ] (19) Incapability [ of the hetu to prove the sadhya ), the absence of full knowledge [ about what is prior and what is posterior ], the violation again of [ the reasonable ] order--in view of this ( or, thus ) indeed, non-origination in every way has been blazoned forth by the wise. That ( well-known] illustration called ' seed and sprout' [is } indeed always in the category of ( sama ) ' to be proven'. Surely no reason in the category of 'to be proven employed for the establishment of a thing to be proved. (20 is चतुर्थ प्रकरणम् । पूर्वापरापरिज्ञानमजातेः परिदीपकम् । जायमानाद्धि वै धर्मात्कथं पूर्व न गृह्यते ॥ २१ ॥ (२१) अन्वयः- पूर्वापरापरिज्ञानम् अजातेः परिदीपकम् ; कथं हि जायमानात् धर्मात् पूर्व न गृह्यते ? स्वतो वा परतो वापि न किंचिद्वस्तु जायते । सदसत्सदसद्वापि न किंचिद्वस्तु जायते ॥ २२ ॥ (२२) अन्वयः-- किंचित् वस्तु स्वतः वा परतः वा अपि न जायते; सत्, असत् , सदसत् वा अपि किंचित् वस्तु न जायते । हेतुर्न जायतेऽनादेः फलं चापि स्वभावतः । आदिर्न विद्यते यस्य तस्य ह्यादिर्न विद्यते ।। २३ ॥ (२३) अन्वयः---- स्वभावतः अनादेः हेतुः न जायते, फलं च अपि ( न जायते); यस्य आदिः न विद्यते तस्य हि आदिः न विद्यते । प्रज्ञप्तेः सनिमित्तत्वमन्यथा द्वयनाशतः । संक्लेशस्योपलब्धेश्च परतन्त्रास्तिता मता ॥ २४ ॥ (२४) अन्वयः-- - प्रज्ञप्तेः सनिमित्तत्वम् ; अन्यथा द्वयनाशतः संक्लेशस्य उपलब्धेः च परतन्त्रास्तिता मता । (21) The absence of full knowledge about the priority and posteriority [ of cause and effect ] [ is ] the full illuminator of non- origination. How indeed can not be comprehended the [ thing ] prior to an entity that is being originated for the matter of that? ( 22 ) Nothing whatever is originated either from itself or from something else also; nothing whatever, [ whether ] existent, non-existent or existent-nonexistent as well, is originated. (23) By [ its ) own nature the cause is not originated from the beginningless, and the effect too. For which there is no beginning, there is no cause indeed for it. (24) Cognition is [ or, has the state of being with [ that is, due to some ] cause ; otherwise [ there would be no prajnpti and no cognition of the dravya; so ] on account of the destruction of the dual and on account of the experience of afflictions, the existence [ of external objects in the philosophy of others [ is indicated as ] favoured [ by some 1. गौडपादीयकारिका । प्रज्ञप्तेः सनिमित्तत्वमिष्यते युक्तिदर्शनात् । निमित्तस्यानिमित्तत्त्वमिष्यते भूतदर्शनात् ॥ २५ ॥ (२५) अन्वयः- युक्तिदर्शनात् प्रज्ञप्तेः सनिमित्तत्वम् इष्यते; भूत- दर्शनात् निमित्तस्य अनिमित्तत्वम् इष्यते । चित्तं न संस्पृशत्यर्थं नार्थाभासं तथैव च । अभूतो हि यतश्चार्थो नार्थाभासस्ततः पृथक् ॥ २६ ।। (२६) अन्वयः- चित्तम् अर्थ न संस्पृशति, तथा एव च न अर्था- भासं (संस्पृशति ); यतः च अर्थः हि अभूतः, अर्थाभासः ततः पृथक् न । निमित्तं न सदा चित्तं संस्पृशत्यध्वसु त्रिषु । अनिमित्तो विपर्यासः कथं तस्य भविष्यति ॥ २७ ॥ (२७) अन्वयः---- सदा त्रिषु अध्वसु चित्तं निमित्तं न संस्पृशतिः कथं तस्य अनिमित्तः विपर्यासः भविष्यति ? तस्मान जायते चित्तं चित्तदृश्यं न जायते । तस्य पश्यन्ति ये जातिं खे वै पश्यन्ति ते पदम् ॥ २८ ॥ (२८) अन्वयः-- तस्मात् चित्तं न जायते, चित्तदृश्यं न जायते; ये तस्य जातिं पश्यन्ति ते वै खे पदं पश्यन्ति । ( 25 ) That the cognition is [ or, has the state of being ] with [ that is, due to some ] cause, is fancied on seeing [ that is, on the strength of the presentation of the above ] logical reasoning: [ but ] that the cause has the state of being without a cause is fancied on seeing ( that is, on the strength of ] the actual state of things [ or, the reality]. (26) The mind does not contact the object, and similarly indeed not the object-appearance. And because the object again [ is ] non-existent, the object-appearance [ is ] not different from it. (27) Ever in the three paths [ of time ], the mind for all time does not contact the cause; how would there be its causeless false impression [ or, modification ] ? (28) Therefore, the mind is not originated, the mind-per- ceivable is not originated [ either ] ; those who perceive its origina- tion, they verily perceive the foot [ - prints of birds ] in the sky! चतुर्थ प्रकरणम् । अजातं जायते यस्मादजातिः प्रकृतिस्ततः । प्रकृतेरन्यथाभावो न कथंचिद्भविष्यति ।। २९ ।। (२९) अन्वयः-- यस्मात् अजातं जायते ततः प्रकृतिः अजातिः; प्रकृतेः अन्यथाभावः कथंचित् न भविष्यति । अनादेरन्तवत्वं च संसारस्य न सेत्स्यति । अनन्तता चादिमतो मोक्षस्य न भविष्यति ॥३०॥ (३०) अन्वय:---- अनादेः संसारस्य अन्तवत्त्वं च न सेत्स्यति, आदिमतः मोक्षस्य अनन्तता च न भविष्यति । आदावन्ते च यन्नास्ति वर्तमानेऽपि तत्तथा । वितथैः सदृशाः सन्तोऽवितथा इव लक्षिताः ॥ ३१ ॥ (३१) अन्वयः- यत् आदौ अन्ते च न अस्ति, वर्तमाने अपि तत् तथा (न अस्ति); वितथैः सदृशाः सन्तः ( भेदाः) अवितथाः इव लक्षिताः । सप्रयोजनता तेषां स्वप्ने विप्रतिपद्यते । तस्मादाद्यन्तवत्त्वेन मिथ्यैव खलु ते स्मृताः ॥ ३२ ॥ (३२) अन्वयः--- - तेषां ( भेदानां ) सप्रयोजनता स्वप्ने विप्रतिपद्यते, तस्मात् खलु ते आद्यन्तवत्त्वेन मिथ्याः एव स्मृताः । , ( 29 ) In asmuch as the unoriginated is [ said to be ) origi- nated, therefore non-origination [ is ] [ its] nature. There would not be under any circumstances, a change otherwise of one's ] nature. (30) There would not again be resulting for, be established] the coming to an end of the beginningless mundane creation; and there would not be the endlessness of salvation having a beginning. (31) What is not at the beginning and at the end [ is ] so also in the present ; existing [ things ] [ though ] similar to illusions, are noted as though real. (32) Being possessed of a purpose in [ the case of ] the entities [ in the waking state ] is contradicted in the dream; therefore they indeed are traditionally known as unreal and nothing else (eva) on account of [ their ] having a beginning and an end. ४० गौडपादीयकारिका। न सर्वे धर्मा मृषा स्वप्ने कायस्यान्तनिदर्शनात् । संवृतेऽस्मिन्प्रदेशे भूतानां दर्शनं कुतः ॥ ३३ ॥ (३३) अन्वयः---- सर्वे धर्माः स्वप्ने कायस्य अन्तः निदर्शनात् मृषा; कुतः अस्मिन् संवृते प्रदेशे भूतानां दर्शनं वै ? न युक्तं दर्शनं गत्वा कालस्यानियमाद्गतौ । प्रतिबुद्धश्च वै सर्वस्तस्मिन्देशे न विद्यते ॥ ३४ ॥ (३४) अन्वयः-- गतौ कालस्य अनियमात् गत्वा दर्शनं न युक्तम् ; सर्वः वै प्रतिबुद्धः च तस्मिन् देशे न विद्यते । मित्राद्यैः सह संमन्त्र्य संबुद्धो न प्रपद्यते । गृहीतं चापि यत्किंचित्प्रतिबुद्धो न पश्यति ॥ ३५ ॥ (३५) अन्वयः-- - मित्राद्यैः सह संमन्त्र्य संबुद्धः न प्रपद्यते; प्रतिबुद्धः गृहीतं च अपि यत् किंचित् न पश्यति । स्वप्ने चावस्तुकः कायः पृथगन्यस्य दर्शनात् । यथा कायस्तथा सर्व चित्तदृश्यमवस्तुकम् ॥ ३६ ॥ ( ३६ ) अन्वयः--- स्वप्ने च अन्यस्य ( कायस्य ) पृथक् दर्शनात् कायः अवस्तुःयथा कायः तथा चितदृश्यं सर्वम् अवस्तुकम् । (33) All entities in dream are false on account of their percep- tion within the body. Whence [can there be the perception of exist- ing things within this enclosed region? (34) On account of the non-fixation of time [ required ] for the movement, the perception [ of things ] by ( actually ] going [ there ] [ is ] unwarranted ; and further, [ when ] awakened every one is not in that region [ which he had travelled over to in the dream]. (35) Having conversed together with [ his ] friends etc., one [ when ] re-awakened does not attain [ to all that]; and further whatever had been taken [by one in the dream), one (when] re-awakened does not perceive. ( 36 ) The body in the dream [ is ] again unsubsntial owing to the perception of another [ body as ) distinct ( from it ]; as the body, so all mind-perceivable [ is ) unsubstantial. चतुर्थ प्रकरणम् । ग्रहणाजागरितवत् तद्धेतुः स्वप्न इष्यते । तद्धेतुत्वात्तु तस्यैव सञ्जागरितमिष्यते ॥ ३७ ॥ (३७) अन्वय:---- जागरितवत् ग्रहणात् स्वप्नः तद्धेतुः इष्यते; तद्धेतुत्वात् तु तस्य ( स्वप्नदृशः ) एव जागरितं सत् इष्यते । उत्पादस्याप्रसिद्धत्वादजं सर्वमुदाहृतम् । न च भूतादभूतस्य संभवोऽस्ति कथंचन ॥ ३८ ।। ( ३८ ) अन्वयः-- उत्पादस्य अप्रसिद्धत्वात् सर्वम् अजम् उदाहृतम् ; भूतात् च अभूतस्य संभवः कथंचन न अस्ति । असज्जागरिते दृष्ट्वा स्वप्ने पश्यति तन्मयः । असत्स्वप्नेऽपि दृष्ट्वा च प्रतिबुद्धो न पश्यति ॥ ३९ ॥ (३९) अन्वयः-- जागरिते असत् दृष्ट्वा तन्मयः स्वप्ने पश्यति, स्वमे अपि च असत् दृष्ट्वा प्रतिबुद्धः न पश्यति । नास्त्यसद्धेतुकमसत्सदसद्धेतुकं तथा । सच्च सद्धेतुकं नास्ति सद्धेतुकमसत्कुतः ॥ ४० ॥ (४०) अन्वयः--- असत् असहेतुकं न अस्ति, तथा सत् असहेतुकं (न अस्ति ), सत् च सद्धेतुकं न अस्ति, असत् सद्धेतुकं कुतः ? (37) Owing to the apprehension (of objects in dream, being] similar to [ that in ] the waking state, dream is fancied to have that [ waking state ] as [ its ] cause. And owing to [ dream ] having that [ waking state ] as the cause, the waking state is fancied to be real for him [ that is, the dreamer ] alone. (38) Owing to the production not being quite established, all is laid down as unoriginated. And there is no origination in any way of the non-existent from the existent. (39) Having seen the unreal in the waking state, one being deeply absorbed in it, sees [ the same ] in the dream; and having seen the unreal in the dream also, one [ when ] reawakened sees [ [ it ] not. (40) The unreal has not the unreal as [ its ] cause, likewise the real the unreal as [ its ] cause. The real as well has not the real as [ its ] cause; whence [ can ] the unreal [ have ] the real as [ its] cause? 6 ४२ गौडपादीयकारिका। विपर्यासाद्यथा जाग्रदचिन्त्यान्भूतवत्स्पृशेत् । तथा स्वप्ने विपर्यासाद्धर्मास्तत्रैव पश्यति ॥ ४१ ॥ (४१) अन्वयः-- यथा जाग्रत् विपर्यासात् अचिन्त्यान् भूतवत् स्पृशेत् , तथा स्वप्ने विपर्यासात् तत्र एव धर्मान् पश्यति । उपलम्भात्समाचारादस्तिवस्तुत्ववादिनाम् । जातिस्तु देशिता बुद्धैरजातेस्रसतां सदा ॥ ४२ ॥ (४२) अन्वयः---- बुद्धैः तु उपलम्भात् , समाचारात् , अजातेः सदा त्रसताम् अस्तिवस्तुत्ववादिनाम् जातिः देशिता । अजातेस्त्रसतां तेषामुपलम्भाद्वियन्ति ये । जातिदोषा न सेत्स्यन्ति दोषोऽप्यल्पो भविष्यति ॥४३॥ (१३) अन्वयः--- ये उपलम्भात् वियन्ति, अजातेः त्रसतां तेषां जातिदोषाः न सेत्स्यन्ति, दोषः अपि अल्पः भविष्यति । उपलम्भात्समाचारान्मायाहस्ती यथोच्यते । उपलम्भात्समाचारादस्तिवस्तु तथोच्यते ॥ ४४ ॥ (११) अन्वयः-- यथा उपलम्भात् समाचारात् मायाहस्ती उच्यते, तथा उपलम्भात् समाचारात् अस्तिवस्तु उच्यते । (41) As in the waking state, one through misinterpretation may come upon [ or, touch ] unthinkable [ objects ] as though real, similarly in dream, one perceives through misinterpretation, objects there itself. (42). By the wise [ lit. the awakened ] has been preached the doctrine of ) 'origination' for those who contend that things exist [ in reality ]' because of the perception [ of those things [ and ] of the prevailing etiquette, [ and who are ] ever frightened of [ the doctrine of ] non-origination. (43) Who, on account of the perception [of things, as though they are real ] go astray,-- in the case ] of those frightened of the doctrine of ] non-origination, evils due to [ belief in ] origination would not be forthcoming; [ there ] the evil again [if at all ] would be negligible [ lit. small.) 44) As an illusion-elephant is spoken of as real ] because perception [ and ] of the prevailing etiquette, similarly things exist' is spoken of ( as depicting a real state of things ] because of perception and ] of the prevailing etiquette. चतुर्थ प्रकरणम् । १३ जात्याभासं चलाभासं वस्त्वामासं तथैव च । अजाचलवस्तुत्वं विज्ञानं शान्तमद्वयम् ॥ ४५ ॥ (१५) अन्वयः--- जात्याभासं चलाभासं तथा एव च वस्त्वाभासं विज्ञानम् अजाचलम् अवस्तुत्वं शान्तम् अद्वयम् । एवं न जायते चित्तमेवं धर्मा अजाः स्मृताः । एवमेव विजानन्तो न पतन्ति विपर्यये ।। ४६ ॥ (१६) अन्वयः---- एवं चित्तं न जायते, एवं धर्माः अजाः स्मृताः, एवम् एव विजानन्तः विपर्यये न पतन्ति । ऋजुवक्रादिकाभासमलातस्पन्दितं यथा । ग्रहणग्राहकाभासं विज्ञानस्पन्दितं तथा ॥ ४७ (१७) अन्वयः--- यथा अलातस्पन्दितम् ऋजुवक्रादिकाभासं तथा विज्ञानस्पन्दितं ग्रहणग्राहकाभासम् । अस्पन्दमानमलातमनाभासमजं यथा । अस्पन्दमानं विज्ञानमनाभासमजं तथा ॥४८॥ (४८) अन्वयः-- यथा अस्पन्दमानम् अलातम् अजम् अनाभासम् , तथा अस्पन्दमानं विज्ञानम् अजम् अनाभासम् । (45) Origination-appearance, moving-appearance, and thing- appearance exactly in the same way [ are nothing but ] vijñāna, un- originated and unmoving, unsubstantiality, calm [ and ] without any dual. (46) Thus is not originated the mind; thus are the entities traditionally known as unoriginated; those fully knowing [ the reality ] thus alone do not fall into error. (47) As the shaking of the fire-brand [ is with ] the appear- ance of straight, crooked etc., so the vibration of vijñāna [ is with ] the appearance of perception and perceiver. (48) As the fire-brand not shaking, presenting no appearance [ is unoriginated, so [ is ] the vijnana not shaking, presenting no appearance, unoriginated. गौडपादीयकारिका अलाते स्पन्दमाने बै नाभासा अन्यतोभुवः । न ततोऽन्यत्र निस्पन्दानालातं प्रविशन्ति ते ॥ १९ ॥ (४९) अन्वयः-- स्पन्दमाने अलाते वै आमासाः अन्यतोभुवः न, निस्वन्दात् ततः अन्यत्र न; ते अलातं न प्रविशन्ति । न निर्गता अलाताचे द्रव्यत्वाभावयोगतः । विज्ञानेऽपि तथैव स्युराभासस्याविशेषतः ॥५०॥ (५०) अन्वयः-~- द्रव्यत्वाभावयोगतः ते अलातात् न निर्गताः; आभासस्य अविशेषतः विज्ञाने अपि तथा एव स्युः । विज्ञाने स्पन्दमाने वै नाभासा अन्यतोभुवः । न ततोऽन्यत्र निस्पन्दान विज्ञानं विशन्ति ते ॥ (५१) अन्वयः-- स्पन्दमाने विज्ञाने वै आभासाः अन्यतोभुवः न, निस्पन्दात् ततः अन्यत्र न ते विज्ञानं न विशन्ति । न निर्गतास्ते विज्ञानाच्यत्वाभावयोगतः। कार्यकारणताभावाद्यतोऽचिन्त्याः सदैव ते ॥ ५२ ।। (५२) अन्वयः--- द्रव्यत्वाभावयोगतः ते विज्ञानात् न निर्गताः, यतः कार्यकारणताऽभावात् ते सदा एव अचिन्त्याः (49) When the fire-brand is verily shaking up, the appearances do not arise from anything else ; as a result of non-shaking up, [ the appearances are ] not elsewhere other than there, nor do they enter the fire-brand. (50) They do not get out from the fire-brand, owing to their ) connection with the absence of the nature of a substance that is, owing to their not being a substance ]; they would be just like that [ in respect of ] the vijnana also, on account of the non- difference in appearance I that is, appearances as such are the same by nature ]. (SI) When the vijñāna is verily vibrating, the appearances do not arise from anything else; as a result of non-vibration, they [ the appearances are ] not elsewhere other than there, nor do they enter the vijñāna, (52) They do not get out from the vijñāna, owing to [their] connection with the absence of the nature of a substance [ that is, owing to their not being a substance ]; because of the absence of the relation of cause and effect, they are ever and anon income prehensible. चतुर्थ प्रकरणम् । ४५ , द्रव्यं द्रव्यस्य हेतुः स्यादन्यदन्यस्य चैव हि । द्रव्यत्वमन्यभावो वा धर्माणां नोपपद्यते ।। ५३ ।। (५३) अन्वयः-- द्रव्यं द्रव्यस्य, अन्यत् अन्यस्य च एव हि हेतुः स्यात् ; धर्माणां द्रव्यत्वम् अन्यभावः वा न उपपद्यते । एवं न चित्तजा धर्माश्चित्तं वापि न धर्मजम् । एवं हेतुफलाजातिं प्रविशन्ति मनीषिणः ।। ५४ ।। (५४) अन्वयः-- एवं धर्माः चित्तजाः न, चित्तं वा अपि धर्मजं न; एवं मनीषिणः हेतुफलाजातिं प्रविशन्ति । यावद्धेतुफलावेशस्तावद्धेतुफलोद्भवः। क्षीणे हेतुफलावेशे नास्ति हेतुफलोद्भवः ।। ५५ ॥ (५५) अन्वयः-- यावत् हेतुफलावेशः तावत् हेतुफलोद्भवः हेतुफलावेशे क्षीणे ( सति ) हेतुफलोद्भवः न अस्ति । यावद्धेतुफलावेशः संसारस्तावदायतः । क्षीणे हेतुफलावेशे संसारं न प्रपद्यते ।। ५६ ॥ (५६) अन्वयः- यावत् हेतुफलावेशः तावत् संसारः आयतः, हेतुफलावेशे क्षीणे ( सति ) ( पुरुषः ) संसारं न प्रपद्यते । (53) Substance may be the cause of substance; and [a category] other [ than substance ] of [ a category ] other [ than substance ] assuredly. The nature of a substance or the nature of [ some ] other [ category] is not reasonable in the case of entities, 54). Thus, entities [ are ] nor originated from the mind ; the mind also for the matter of that [ is ] not originated from entities. Thus the wise enter into [ that is, have to fall back upon ] [ the doctrine of ] non-origination of cause and effect. (55) As long as [ there is ] the obsession of cause and effect, so long [ is ] the uprising of cause and effect ; when the obsession of cause and effect ceases to exist, there is no uprising of cause and effect. (56) As long as [ there is ] the obsession of cause and effect, so long the world existance (is) prolonged; when the obsession of cause and effect ceases to exist, one does not attain to worldly existence. ४६ गौडपादीयकारिका संवृत्या जायते सर्वं शाश्वतं नास्ति तेन वै। सद्भावेन ह्यजं सर्वमुच्छेदस्तेन नास्ति वै ॥ ५७ ॥ (५७) अन्वयः-- सर्व संवृत्या जायते, तेन वै शाश्वतं न अस्ति; सर्व हि सद्भावेन अजम् , तेन वै उच्छेदः न अस्ति । धर्मा य इति जायन्ते जायन्ते ते न तत्त्वतः । जन्म मायोपमं तेषां सा च माया न विद्यते ॥ ५८ ॥ (५८) अन्वयः-- ये धर्माः जायन्ते इति ते तत्त्वतः न जायन्ते; तेषां जन्म मायोपमम् , सा माया च न विद्यते । यथा मायामयाद्वीजाज्जायते तन्मयोऽङ्कुरः । नासौ नित्यो न चोच्छेदी तद्वद्धर्मेषु योजना ॥ ५९ ॥ (५९) अन्वयः-- यथा मायामयात् बीजात् तन्मयः अङ्कुरः जायते; असौ नित्यः न उच्छेदी च न, तद्वत् धर्मेषु योजना । नाजेषु सर्वधर्मेषु शाश्वताशाश्वताभिधा। यत्र वर्णा न वर्तन्ते विवेकस्तत्र नोच्यते ॥ ६॥ (६०) अन्वयः- सर्वधर्मेषु अजेषु ( सत्सु) शाश्वताशाश्वताभिधा न; यत्र वर्णाः न वर्तन्ते तत्र विवेकः न उच्यते । (57) Everything is originated on account of empirical experin ence, therefore indeed ( what is so originated ] is not eternal [or, permanent ]. Everything characterised by the nature of existent ( is ] unoriginated, and therefore there is no annihilation. (58) The entities which are spoken of (iti) as originated, they are not originated in reality. Their origination is comparable to illusion; that illusion too does not exist. (59) As from a seed made up by illusion, is originated a sprout constituted of it ( illusion ), that [ sprout ] is not eternal, nor again liable to annihilation; so likewise, the scheme in respect of entities. (60) The designation of eternal and non-eternal is not [ significant ] when all entities ( are ] unoriginated; where words [ lit. alphabet, letters ] do not function [ lit. exist ), discrimination is not spoken of there [ that is, cannot be said to have any scope ]. चतुर्थ प्रकरणम् । यथा स्वप्ने द्वयाभासं चित्तं चलति मायया । तथा जाग्रद्वयाभासं चित्तं चलति मायया ॥ ६१॥ (६१) अन्वयः---- यथा स्वप्ने चित्तं मायया द्वयाभासं चलति, तथा जाग्रत् चित्तं मायया द्वयाभासं चलति । अद्वयं च द्वयाभासं चित्तं स्वप्ने न संशयः। अद्वयं च द्वयाभासं तथा जाग्रन्न संशयः ॥ ६२ ॥ (६२) अन्वयः--- • स्वप्ने अद्वयं च चित्तं द्वयाभासम् , न संशयः; तथा जाग्रत् अद्वयं च द्वयाभासम् , न संशयः । स्वप्नदृक्प्रचरन्स्वप्ने दिक्षु वै दशसु स्थितान् । अण्डजान्स्वेदजान्वापि जीवान्पश्यति यान्सदा ॥ ६३ ।। (६३) अन्वयः ---- स्वप्ने प्रचरन् स्वप्नदृक् वै दशसु दिक्षु स्थितान् यान् अण्डजान् स्वेदजान् वा अपि जीवान् सदा पश्यति, स्वप्नदृश्चित्तदृश्यास्ते न विद्यन्ते ततः पृथक् । तथा तदृश्यमेवेदं स्वमदृक्चित्तमिष्यते ।। ६४ ।। (६४) अन्वयः- ते स्वप्नदृक्चित्तदृश्याः, ततः पृथक् न विद्यन्ते; तथा तद्दश्यम् एव इदं स्वप्नदृक्चित्तम् इष्यते । (61) As in dream, the mind through māyā moves, having [ or, presenting ] the appearance of the dual [ grahya and grahaka ], so in the waking state, the mind through mayā moves, having [ or, presenting ) the appearance of the dual. ( 62 ) In dream, the non-dual mind again has the appearance of the dual, no doubt [ about it ] ; similarly in the waking state, the non-dual mind again has the appearance of the dual, no doubt [ about it ). (63) The creatures-oviparous or born of perspiration, as well-which the dream-beholder moving about in dream, always beholds, (as being ] located verily in the ten quarters- (64) they are [ all ] capable of being seen [ only ] by the mind of the dream-beholder; [ they ] do not exist apart from it [ the mind ]; so likewise, this capable of being seen only by it [ the mind ] is fancied [ 1o be ] the mind of the dream-beholder. गौडपादीयकारिका । , चरञ्जागरिते जाग्रदिक्षु वै दशसु स्थितान् । वै अण्डजान्स्वेदजान्वापि जीवान्पश्यति यान्सदा ॥ ६५ ॥ (६५) अन्वयः-- जागरिते चरन् जाग्रत् वै दशसु दिक्षु स्थितान् यान् अण्डजान् स्वेदजान् वा अपि जीवान् सदा पश्यति, जाग्रच्चित्तेक्षणीयास्ते न विद्यन्ते ततः पृथक् । तथा तदृश्यमेवेदं जाग्रतश्चित्तमिष्यते ॥ ६६ ॥ (६६) अन्वयः- ते जाग्रच्चित्तेक्षणीयाः, ततः पृथक् न विद्यन्ते; तथा तदृश्यम् इदं जाग्रतः चित्तम् इष्यते । • उभे ह्यन्योन्यदृश्ये ते किं तदस्तीति नोच्यते । लक्षणाशून्यमुभयं तन्मतेनैव गृह्यते ।। ६७ ॥ (६७) अन्वयः- ते उभे हि अन्योन्यदृश्ये, तत् किम् अस्ति ? न इति उच्यते; उभयं लक्षणाशून्यम् तन्मतेन एव गृह्यते । यथा स्वममयो जीवो जायते म्रियतेऽपि च । तथा जीवा अमी सर्वे भवन्ति न भवन्ति च ॥ ६८॥ (६८) अन्वयः-- यथा स्वप्नमयः जीवः जायते अपि च म्रियते, तथा अमी सर्वे जीवाः भवन्ति न भवन्ति च । (65) The creatures-oviparous born of perspiration as well-~-which the waking one moving in the waking state, always beholds, [ as being ] located verily in the ten quarters-- (66) they are [all ] capable of being beheld [ only ] by the mind of the waking one ; [ they ] do not exist apart from it [ the mind ]; so likewise, this capable of being seen only by it [the mind is fancied [ to be ] the mind of the waking one. (67) They both [ are ] capable of being perceived by each other; then what is it [ that is real ] ? Nothing is the answer (ucyate ). Both, void of characteristics, are perceived by their thought itself. ( 68 ) As a dream-made creature is born and also dies, so likewise, all these creatures are and also are not. चतुर्थ प्रकरणम् । यथा मायामयो जीवो जायते म्रियतेऽपि च । तथा जीवा अमी सर्वे भवन्ति न भवन्ति च ॥ ६९ ॥ (६९) अन्वयः- यथा मायामयः जीवः जायते अपि च म्रियते, तथा अमी सर्वे जीवाः भवन्ति न भवन्ति च । यथा निर्मितको जीवो जायते म्रियतेऽपि वा। तथा जीवा अमी सर्वे भवन्ति न भवन्ति च ॥ ७० ॥ (७०) अन्वयः---- यथा निर्मितकः जीवः जायते अपि वा म्रियते, तथा अमी सर्वे जीवाः भवन्ति न भवन्ति च । न कश्चिजायते जीव: संभवोऽस्य म विद्यते । एतत्चदुत्तमं सत्यं यत्र किंचिन्न जायते ।। ७१ ॥ (७१) अन्वयः-- कश्चित् जीवः न जायते, अस्य संभवः न विद्यते; एतत् तत् उत्तमं सत्यं यत्र किंचित् न जायते । चित्तस्पन्दितमेवेदं ग्राह्यग्राहकवद्वयम् । चित्तं निर्विषयं नित्यमसंगं तेन कीर्तितम् ॥ ७२ ॥ (७२) अन्वय:--- इदं ग्राह्यग्राहकवत् द्वयं चित्तस्पन्दितम् एत्र चित्तं निर्विषयं तेन नित्यम् असंगं कीर्तितम् । (69) As a māyā-made creature is born and also dies, so likewise, all those creatures are and also are not. (70) As a creature created by supernatural power is born and also dies, so likewise, all those creatures are and also are not. (71) No creature whatever is born; no origination of it exists [ or, takes place ]. This [ is ] that highest truth where nothing whatever is born. (72) This dual, associated with [or, involving ] the percepti- ble and perceiver [ is ] the mind-vibration itself; the mind [ is ] unrelated to the object; therefore [it is ) glorified as eternal [ and ] without attachment. १ ५० गौडपादीयकारिका । योऽस्ति कल्पितसंवृत्या परमार्थेन नास्त्यसौ। परतन्त्राभिसंवृत्या स्यान्नास्ति परमार्थतः ॥ ७३ ॥ (७३) अन्वयः-- यः कल्पितसंवृत्या अस्ति असौ परमार्थेन न अस्ति; परतन्त्राभिसंवृत्या स्यात् , परमार्थतः न अस्ति । अजः कल्पितसंवृत्या परमार्थेन नाप्यजः । परतन्त्राभिनिष्पत्त्या संवृत्या जायते तु सः ।। ७४॥ (७४) अन्वयः-- कल्पितसंवृत्या अजः अपि परमार्थेन न अजः सः तु परतन्त्राभिनिष्पत्त्या संवृत्या जायते । अभूताभिनिवेशोऽस्ति द्वयं तत्र न विद्यते । द्वयाभावं स बुद्ध्वैव निर्निमित्तो न जायते ॥ ७५ ॥ (७५) अन्वयः- ( यत्र ) अभूताभिनिवेशः अस्ति, तत्र द्वयं न विद्यते; द्वयाभावं बुद्ध्वा एव सः निर्निमित्तः न जायते । यदा न लभते हेतूनुत्तमाधममध्यमान् । तदा न जायते चित्तं हेत्वभावे फलं कुतः ।। ७६ ॥ (७६) अन्वयः--- यदा उत्तमाधममध्यमान् हेतून् न लभते तदा चित्तं न जायते; हेत्वभावे कुतः फलम् ? (73) What is on account of the imagined phenomenal experi- ence, that exists not in reality. It may exist in accordance with the phenomenal experience accepted in other schools of philosophy ], [ but it ] exists not in realiry. (74). What [is] even unoriginated on account of the imagined phenomenal experience ( is ] not unoriginated in reality. But that (same ] is [ held to be ] originated by the phenomenal experience established in other schools [ of philosophy ] ! (75) [Where is persistent adherence to the unoriginated, [or, [ in the other schools of philosophy ] there is persistent adherence to the non-existent; } there the dual exists not; having just understood the absence of the dual, he is not born, being without a cause [ for being born ]. (76) When one does not get [ that is, become associated with causes, superior, inferior or middling, then the mind is not originated. In the absence of the cause, whence the effect ? चतुर्थ प्रकरणम् । अजातस्यैव सर्वस्य चित्तदृश्यं हि तद्यतः । अनिमित्तस्य चित्तस्य यानुत्पत्तिः समाद्वया ॥ ७ ॥ (७७) अन्वयः---- यतः हि तत् (चित्तं ) चित्तदृश्यं (ततः) अनिमित्तस्य चित्तस्य---अजातस्य सर्वस्य एव-~-या अनुत्पत्तिः (सा) समा, अद्वया (च)। बुद्ध्वानिमित्ततां सत्यां हेतुं पृथगनाप्नुवन् । वीतशोकं तथाकाममभयं पदमश्नुते ।। ७८ ।। (७८) अन्वयः-- सत्याम् अनिमित्ततां बुद्ध्वा हेतुं पृथक् अनाप्नुवन् वीतशोकं तथा अकामम् अभयं पदम् अश्नुते । अभूताभिनिवेशाद्धि सदृशे तत्प्रवर्तते । वस्त्वभावं स बुद्ध्वैव निःसंगं विनिवर्तते ।। ७९ ॥ (७९) अन्वयः----- अभूताभिनिवेशात् हि तत् सदृशे प्रवर्तते; सः वस्त्वभावं बुद्ध्वा एव निःसंग विनिवर्तते । निवृत्तस्याप्रवृत्तस्य निश्चला हि तदा स्थितिः । विषयः स हि बुद्धानां तत्साम्यमजमद्वयम् ॥ ८० ॥ (८०) अन्वयः--- तदा निवृत्तस्य अप्रवृत्तस्य हि स्थितिः निश्चला; सः हि बुद्धानां विषयः, तत् साम्यम् अजम् अद्वयम् । ( 77 ) In asmuch as that [ mind is ] verily the mind-percepti- ble, what non-origination, of the mind free from causal relation [or for the matter of that ), of everything unorinaigited as well, [ there is, it is the ] same, free from the dual. (78) Having i thus ] understood the true causelessness, not finding our [another] separate cause, one secures the state [which is] void of grief, free from desire [ and ] free from fear. ( 79 ) That [ mind ], owing to [its ) persistent adherence to the non-existent proceeds to a similar [ entity , ] ; having verily realised the absence of a real ] object, he turns back, without any attachment. (80) Then the state of [ him, or the mind ] turned away and not active, [ is ] verily unmoving. (That is] indeed the province (visayah) of the Enlightened. It [ is ] same, unoriginated, free from the dual. ५२ गौडपादीयकारिका। अजमनिद्रमस्वप्नं प्रभातं भवति स्वयम् । सकृद्विभातो ह्येवैष धर्मो धातुस्वभावतः ॥ ८१॥ (८१) अन्वयः-- अजम् अनिद्रम् अस्वप्नं स्वयं प्रभातं भवति। एषः हि धर्मः धातुस्वभावतः एव सकृद्विभातः । सुखमाव्रियते नित्यं दुःखं विव्रियते सदा । यस्य कस्य च धर्मस्य ग्रहेण भगवानसौ ॥ ८२ ॥ ( ८२ ) अन्वयः-- यस्य कस्य च धर्मस्य ग्रहेण असौ भगवान् नित्यं सुखम् आव्रियते, सदा दुःखं विव्रियते । अस्ति नास्त्यस्ति नास्तीति नास्ति नास्तीति वा पुनः । चलस्थिरोभयाभावैरावृणोत्येव बालिशः॥ ८३॥ (८३ ) अन्वयः--- अस्ति, न अस्ति, अस्ति न अस्ति इति, न अस्ति न अस्ति इति वा पुनः बालिशः चलस्थिरोभयाभावैः ( भगवन्तम् ) आवृणोति एव । कोट्यश्चतस्र एतास्तु ग्रहैर्यासां सदावृतः । भगवानाभिरस्पृष्टो येन दृष्टः स सर्वदृक् ॥ ८४ ।। (८४) अन्वय: ---- एताः चतस्रः कोट्यः, यासां ग्रहै: तु सदा आवृतः भगवान् आभिः अस्पृष्टः येन दृष्टः सः सर्वदृक् । ( 81 ) Unoriginated, free from sleep, free from dream, it [ the highest ] blazes forth itself. This entity indeed is illuminated once for all owing to [ its ] fundamental nature. (82) By the apprehension of some object or other again, is continuously covered over [ or, concealed ] that Lord easily [and] is always uncovered with difficulty. ( 83 ) Is, is not, is [ and ] is not, is not is not-thus again the untrained one ( bališa ) does encompass (the Bhagavat ] with [ notions of him as ] moving, steady, both [ moving and steady ] and free from both. (84) These [ are the ] four points [ alternative theories ], by apprehensions of which, the Lord again is always encompassed, - he is omniscient by whom [ the Lord ] is seen as being unconta- minated by these. चतुर्थ प्रकरणम् । प्राप्य सर्वज्ञतां कृत्वां ब्राह्मण्यं पदमद्वयम् । अनापन्नादिमध्यान्तं किमतः परमीहते ॥ ८५ ॥ (८५) अन्वयः- • कृत्स्नां सर्वज्ञतां अनापन्नादिमध्यान्तम् अद्वयं ब्राह्मण्यं पदं प्राप्य अतः परं किम् ईहते ? विप्राणां विनयो ह्येष शमः प्राकृत उच्यते । दमः प्रकृतिदान्तत्वादेवं विद्वान्शमं व्रजेत् ।। ८६ ।। (८६) अन्वयः-- एषः विप्राणां विनयः हि प्राकृतः शमः, प्रकृति- दान्तत्वात् दमः उच्यते; एवं विद्वान् शमं ब्रजेत् । सवस्तु सोपलम्भं च द्वयं लौकिकमिष्यते । अवस्तु सोपलम्भं च शुद्धं लौकिकमिष्यते ॥ ८७ ॥ (८७) अन्वयः- सवस्तु सोपलम्भं च द्वयं लौकिकम् इष्यते, अवस्तु सोपलम्भं च शुद्धं लौकिकम् इष्यते । अवस्त्वनुपलम्भं च लोकोत्तरमिति स्मृतम् । ज्ञानं ज्ञेयं च विज्ञेयं सदा बुद्धैः प्रकीर्तितम् ।। ८८ ॥ (८८) अन्वय:---- अवस्तु अनुपलम्भं च लोकोत्तरम् इति स्मृतम् । बुद्धैः सदा ज्ञानं ज्ञेयं विज्ञेयं च प्रकीर्तितम् । (85) Having atrained to complete omniscience, the state beneficial to a Brāhmana, non-dual, not amenable to any beginning, middle and end, what more than this does one yearn for ? (86) This discipline of the Brāhmanas indeed is spoken of as the natural calm and control owing to the nature ( itself ] being controlled. Knowing thus, one should attain to calm. (87) The dual, with the object and with [ its] perception, is fancied [ or, looked upon ] as ' practical '; [ the dual ] without the object and with [ its ] perception is looked upon as 'pure practical'. (88) [ The dual ] without the object and without [ its ] perception is traditionally known as 'super-practical'. Knowledge, the object of knowledge and particularly the knowable [ these three ) are always proclaimed by the enlightened. ५४ गौडपादीयकारिका। ज्ञाने च त्रिविधे ज्ञेये क्रमेण विदिते स्वयम् । सर्वज्ञता हि सर्वत्र भवतीह महाधियः ॥ ८९ ॥ (८९) अन्वयः-- ज्ञाने त्रिविधे ज्ञेये च क्रमेण विदिते ( सति ) महाधियः हि स्वयं सर्वत्र सर्वज्ञता भवति । हेयज्ञेयायपाक्यानि विज्ञेयान्यग्रयाणतः। तेषामन्यत्र विज्ञेयादुपलम्भस्त्रिषु स्मृतः ॥ ९ ॥ (९०) अन्वयः--- अग्रयाणतः हेयज्ञेयाप्यपाक्यानि विज्ञेयानि तेषां विज्ञेयात् अन्यत्र त्रिषु उपलम्भः स्मृतः । प्रकृत्याकाशवज्ज्ञेयाः सर्वे धर्मा अनादयः । विद्यते न हि नानात्वं तेषां क्वचन किंचन ॥ ९१ ।। (९१) अन्वयः----- सर्वे धर्माः आकाशवत् प्रकृत्या अनादयः ज्ञेयाः, तेषां हि क्वचन किंचन नानात्वं न विद्यते । आदिबुद्धाः प्रकृत्यैव सर्वे धर्माः सुनिश्चिताः । यस्यैवं भवति क्षान्तिः सोऽमृतत्वाय कल्पते ।। ९२ ।। ( ९२ ) अन्वयः-- प्रकृत्या एव सर्वे धर्माः आदिबुद्धाः सुनिश्चिताः; यस्य एवं क्षान्तिः भवति, सः अमृतत्वाय कल्पते । (89) Knowledge and the three-fold objects of knowledge being known gradually [ or, in order ], omniscience, of its own accord, accrues here on all sides to one of high intellect. (90) What is fit to be abandoned, what is fit to be known, what is fit to be secured, what is fit to be made perfect are to be known from the Agrayāna. Of these, of the three excluding that fit to be particularly known, perception is traditionally known [ to take place ] (91) All entities should be known as naturally biginningless like the sky. In their case, no multiplicity indeed of any- where exists. (92) All entities by nature itself are well ascertained as Adi- buddhas ( enlightened from the very beginning }; one who has self-sufficiency in this way, is capable of [ securing ] immortality. any kind चतुर्थ प्रकरणम् । 7 आदिशान्ता ह्यनुत्पन्नाः प्रकृत्यैव सुनिर्वृताः। सर्वे धर्माः समाभिन्ना अजं साम्यं विशारदम् ॥ ९३ ।। (९३) अन्वयः---- सर्वे धर्माः हि आदिशान्ताः अनुत्पन्नाः प्रकृत्या एव सुनिर्वृताः समाभिन्नाः; अजं साम्यं विशारदम् । वैशारद्यं तु वै नास्ति भेदे विचरतां सदा । भेदनिम्नाः पृथग्वादास्तस्मात्ते कृपणाः स्मृताः ।। ९४ ।। (९४) अन्वयः--- सदा भेदे विचरतां तु वैशारद्यं वै नास्ति; पृथग्वादाः भेदनिम्नाः, तस्मात् ते कृपणाः स्मृताः । अजे साम्ये तु ये केचिद्भविष्यन्ति सुनिश्चिताः । ते हि लोके महाज्ञानास्तच्च लोको न गाहते ॥ ९५ ॥ (९५) अन्वयः- ये केचित् तु अजे साम्ये सुनिश्चिताः भविष्यन्ति ते हि लोके महाज्ञानाः, लोकः तत् च न गाहते । अजेष्वजमसंक्रान्तं धर्मेषु ज्ञानमिष्यते । यतो न क्रमते ज्ञानमसंगं तेन कीर्तितम् ॥ ९६ ॥ (९६) अन्वयः-- अजेषु धर्मेषु अजं ज्ञानम् असंक्रान्तम् इष्यते; यतः ज्ञानं न क्रमते तेन असंगं कीर्तितम् । (93) All entities indeed ( are ) calm from the very beginning, unoriginated, quite happy [ in nirvana ] by nature itself, [ always the ] same and non-different. [ The highest is ] unoriginated, sameness and self-confident. ( 94 ) But there is indeed no self-confidence in the case of those who move about in [ a world of] difference. Those who hold the doctrine of separateness descend down to differences. Theretore they are traditionally known as nervous wrecks [ or, pitiable ]. (95). On the other hand (tu) whosoever those would be well set up in the unoriginated sameness, they { are ] indeed those of high knowledge in the world. The world [ in general ] however (ca) does not delve into it. (96) The unoriginated knowledge is fancied [ or, regarded ] as not crossing over to the unorigद्inated [entities]; as the knowledge does not cross over, it is therefore proclaimed to be ] without attachment. ५६ गौडपादीयकारिका । अणुमात्रेऽपि वैधर्म्ये जायमानेऽविपश्चितः । असंगता सदा नास्ति किमुतावरणच्युतिः ॥ ९७ ॥ (९७) अन्वयः-- अणुमात्रे अपि वैधर्म्ये जायमाने अविपश्चितः सदा असंगता न अस्ति; आवरणच्युतिः किम् उत ? अलब्धावरणाः सर्वे धर्माः प्रकृतिनिर्मलाः। आदौ बुद्धास्तथा मुक्ता बुध्यन्त इति नायकाः॥९८ ।। (९८) अन्वयः--- सर्वे धर्माः अलब्धावरणाः प्रकृतिनिर्मलाः आदौ बुद्धाः तथा मुक्ताः इति नायकाः बुध्यन्ते । क्रमते न हि बुद्धस्य ज्ञानं धर्मेषु तायिनः । सर्वे धर्मास्तथा ज्ञानं नैतद् बुद्धेन भाषितम् ॥ ९९ ॥ (९९) अन्वयः- - तायिनः बुद्धस्य ज्ञानं हि धर्मेषु न क्रमते, सर्वे धर्माः तथा ज्ञानं ( न क्रमन्ते )-बुद्धेन एतत् न भाषितम् । दुर्दर्शमतिगम्मीरमजं साम्यं विशारदम् । बुद्ध्वा पदमनानात्वं नमस्कुर्मों यथाबलम् ॥ १० ॥ (१००) अन्वयः----- - दुर्दर्शम् अतिगम्भीरम् अजं साम्यं विशारदम् अनानात्वं पदं बुद्ध्वा यथावलं नमस्कुर्मः । इति गौडपादीयकारिकायां चतुर्थ प्रकरणम् । (97) If there is difference even of the measure of an atom, being produced, for an unwise one, there is not always the state of being without attachment; much more therefore there is no ] slipping away of the veil [ covering the Highest ]. (98) All entities [. are ) those who have [ never ] secured any covering, naturally unsullied; [ they are ] enlightened as well as liberated from the beginning-- so understand the Leaders (the wise). (99) The knowledge of the eternal enlightened one, does not cross over into the entities; all entities likewise [ do not cross over into ] the knowledge--this has not been declared by Buddha. (100) Having realised the state, difficult to see, very pro- found, unoriginated, sameness, self-confident, without multiplicity, we salute [ it ] to the best of our power. Here ends the Fourth Chapter in the Gaudapada-karika. NOTES The first Prakaraṇa contains twenty-nine Kärikās or verses. Verses 1-9, 10-18, 19-23, and 24-29 are usually inserted in the Måndúkyopanişad with the expression अत्रैते श्लोका भवन्ति after paragraphs 1-6, 7, 8-10, and 11 respectively and the whole is taken to be the text of the Māndukyopanişad by Kúranärāyana of the Rāmānuja school and Madhva. Colophons in manuscripts name the first Prakaraña variously as आगमप्रकरण, ओङ्कारनिर्णय etc. (see Introduction for a detailed consideration of all these topics ). Gaudapāda has obviously planned his first Prakarana on the basis of the Māņdúkyopanişad. He only refers to such points therein as are pertinent to his own thesis, ignores several details given in the Måndukya, and introduces some new matter to make his position clear. It is clear from the last verse ( 29 ) in the Prakarana that Gaudapāda intends to advocate the Upasana of Omkara which he identifies with the Turya or the Highest. (1) The विभु ( All-pervading ) is here described as assuming three forms corresponding to the three states जाग्रत् ( waking ), स्वप्न( dream ) and सुषुप्ति( deep sleep). विश्व is बहिष्यज्ञ, because in the waking state, the जीव perceives by means of the sense-organs which are turned outward (पराञ्चि खानि व्यतृणद स्वयंभूस्तस्मात् पराक् पश्यति नान्तरात्मन् | Katha ). The outward universe is called विश्व so the soul is also called जीव, as he perceives the outward universe in the जाग्रत् state. The Mandükya calls the signal, art. Gaudapäda charged वैश्वानर into विश्व, probably because वैश्वानर in Brahmasutra 1.2.24 is taken to mean Brahman. वैश्वानर is thus explained by Kura- nārāyana, विश्यते गम्यते सर्वैर्ज्ञायत इति ... । विश्वं सर्वैर्ज्ञेयं स्थूलं बस्तूच्यते । भोक्तृतया तत्सम्बन्धी विश्वः । न रीयते क्षीयत इति नरः। विश्वश्वासौ नरश्चेति । Sankara, on the other hand, explains the term as follows:-- विश्वेषां नराणामनेकधा नयनाद्वैश्वानरः । यद्वा विश्वश्चासौ मरश्वेति विश्वानरो, विश्वानर एव बैश्वानरःI Yaska derires as under:--- वैश्वानरः करमादिश्वान्नरान्नयति । विश्व एनं नरा नयन्तीति वा । अपि वा विश्वानर एव स्यात प्रत्युतः सर्वाणि भूतानि तस्य वैश्वानरः। 8 58 Notes on Gaudapada-Karika In the dream state, the विभु is called तैजस, because the perception is there due to the soul's own light, without the intervention of the sense-organs. He is अन्त:प्रज्ञ, because he perceives everything then within the body itself ( इन्द्रियापेक्षयाऽन्तःस्थत्वान्मनस्तद्वासनारूपा च स्वप्ने प्रज्ञा यस्येत्यन्तःप्रज्ञः विषय शून्यायां प्रज्ञायां केवलप्रकाशस्वरूपायों विषयित्वेन भवतीति तैजसः 1 Sankara) In the state of deep sleep, the soul is धनप्रज्ञ ( same as the mana of the Mandukya; प्रज्ञानघन इत्यस्य धनप्रज्ञान इति विपरीतसमासो ध्येय: Kura- nārāyana ), because there being no object of knowledge, the soul is just massed consciousness or purely self-conscious. He is called प्राज्ञ, because he is capable of knowing everything, being consciousness and nothing else ( भूतभविष्यज्ज्ञातृत्वं सर्वविषयज्ञातृत्वमस्यैवेति प्राज्ञः ... अथवा प्रज्ञप्तिमात्रमस्यैवासाधारण रूपमिति प्राज्ञः । Sankara). Kuranārāyana explains प्राज्ञ as one not throwing light on बाह्य or स्वाप्न things(प्रकर्षेण ज्ञापयतीति प्राज्ञः । जीवस्वरूपकालाज्ञानातिरिक्त बाह्यं स्वाप्नं वा किमपि न ज्ञापयतीति प्राज्ञनामक इत्यर्थः । ). स्मृतः is explained by Kuranārāyana as मन्त्रदृष्टा ब्रह्मणा भगवद्रूपाणामेतेषामेकत्वं स्मृतमित्यर्थः । He regards the Karikās as Mantras, and so brings in Brahman to account for the स्मरण! (2) The location of the three विश्व, तेजस and प्राज्ञ in the body is given here. As the eye is the most important organ of perception, the विश्व is located there (cf. रूपोपलब्धिसाधनमिन्द्रियं चक्षु: कृष्णतारीग्रवर्ति 1 Tarkabhāṣā). Sankara refers here to the श्रुति, इन्धो ह वै नामेष योऽयं दक्षिणेऽक्षन्पुरुषः ( Brhadaranyakopanisad II. I. I7). But that passage mentions the name as इन्ध: and इन्ध apparently means the reflection of a man in the eye of the person sitting opposite to him. This is surely not meant here. Other Upanişadic passages referring to the Puruşa in the eye, likewise are irrelevant here. Gaudapāda is only interested in giving a local habitation to each of the three, विश्व etc. The तैजस resides in the mind which alone is active in dream. प्राज्ञ resides in the ह्रार्दाकाश or the दहराकाश which is so often referred to in the Upanişads. Sankara remarks दक्षिणाक्षिणतो रूपं दृष्ट्वा निमीलिताक्षस्तदेव स्मरन्मनस्यन्तः स्वप्न इव तदेव वासनारूपा- भिव्यक्तं पश्यति । यथाऽत्र तथा स्वप्ने । अतो मनस्यन्तस्तु तैजसोऽपि विश्व एव । Sankara thus says that तैजस is विश्व himself. This also does not appear to be the view of Gaudapăda. It is one thing to say that विश्व, तैजस and प्राज्ञ are the three forms of विभु, and another that तैजस and विश्व should be regarded as one, when they are deliberately described as different. ________________

Chapter 1 59 (3) As a corollary to what is stated in the second Kārikā, the objects of enjoyment for the three विश्व, तेजस, and प्राज्ञ are respectively, gross, subtle and आनन्द. In the स्वप्न state, the भोग is प्रविविक्त, because the विषय being absent, only the वासना divorced from the विषयs is the भोज्य. In the सुषुप्ति state, आनन्द is the भोज्य, because there is दुखाभाव; दुःख is caused by the contact with विषय and वासना (cf. ये हि संस्पर्शजा भोगा दुःखयोनय एव ते ! B.G. II. 22); both विषय and वासना being absent in सुषुप्ति, the प्राज्ञ enjoys only दुखाभाव or आनन्द. (4) विश्व, तेजस and प्राज्ञ are satisfied with their lot in being able to enjoy स्थूल, प्राविविक्त and आनन्द respectively, and so तृप्ति is also of three kinds. Kuranārāyana reads विज्ञान (for निबोधत) and remarks विजानथ बिजानीय विकरणव्यत्ययात्, आनन्दमानन्दो लिङ्गपत्ययात्. The Mandukya mentions two more characteristics सप्ताङग and एकोनविंशतिमुख for both विश्व (वैश्वानर) and तैजस, and एकीभूत and आनन्दमय for प्राज्ञ. Gaudapada ignores them, because they are unnecessary for his main purpose which is ultimately to establish the अजातिवाद. Read the following from the Bhasya by Sankara for the terms सप्ताङ्ग and एकोनविंशति मुख-तथा सप्ताङ्गान्यस्य तस्य ह वा एतस्यात्मनो वैश्वानरस्य मूर्धैव सुतेजाश्चक्षुर्विश्वरूप प्राणः पृथग्वर्त्मात्मा संदेहो बहुलो बस्तिरेव रयिः पृथिव्येव पादौ इत्यग्निहोत्र कल्पनाशेषत्वेनाहवनीयोऽग्निरस्य मुखत्वेनोक्त इत्येवं सप्ताङ्गानि यस्य स सप्ताङ्गाः। तथैकोनविंशतिर्मुखान्धस्य बुद्धीन्द्रियाणि कर्मेन्द्रियाणि च दश वायवश्व प्राणादयः पञ्च मनो बुद्धिरहंकारचित्तमिति मुखानीव मुखानि तान्युपलब्धिद्वाराणीत्यर्थः । Kuranarayana gives the following fantastic explanation, चत्वारो हस्ता द्वा पादौ गजमुखात्बाद्गजहस्त इति सप्ताङ्गः । एकोनविंशतिमुखः । मध्यममुखं गजमुखाकारं पार्श्वद्वये तु नव नव मुखानि पुरुषमुखाकाराणीति विवेकः। (5) One who knows that विश्व, तेजस and प्राज्ञ are really just the forms of one and the same विभु, and the three-fold as is likewise concerned only with the three forms, knows that the way is really the one Atman and hence he is not contaminated in any way by the empirical experience. यो वेदैतमयं भोज्यभोक्तृतयानेकधा भिन्नं स भुञ्जानो न लिप्यते । भोज्यस्य सर्वस्येकस्य भोक्तुभोज्यत्वात् । न हि यस्य यो विषयः स तेन हीयते वर्धते वा न ह्यग्निः स्वविषये दग्ध्वा काष्ठादि तद्वत् 1 (Saikara); Kuranarayana says, तत्तत्स्थानेषु तत्तत्फलमोजयिता स्वस्य स्वेतरस्य च जीवस्य कर्मफलप्रदः सर्वेश्वर एवं न ममात्र भोग इतरजीवानां वा स्वातन्त्र्यमिति मत्वा नविकरोतीति भावः। The same idea is contained in सर्वभूतात्मभूतात्मा कुर्वन्नपि न लिप्यते ॥ Gitav.7 नैव किंचित् करोमीति युक्तो मन्येत तत्त्ववित् 1... इन्द्रियाणीन्द्रियार्थेषु वर्तन्त इति धारयन् । ... लिप्यते न स पापन | ibid V. 8-10. 60 Notes on Gandapada-Kárika (6) Prof, Vidhuśekhara takes सतां to mean ' of sages. This is impossible, when we remember that Gaudapāda holds the अजाति- वाद. There is no doubt that verses 6-9 describe the views of Gaudapāda's opponents. All of them take it as axiomatic truth that Whatever exists must have a source, and base their various theories on it. Kärikās 6-10 seem to have for their basis in the Mandúkya the sixth paragraph, where the प्राज्ञ is described as सर्वेश्वर, सर्वज्ञ, अन्तर्यामिन्, सर्वस्य योनि, and भूतानां प्रभवाप्ययो. The theories about creation referred to by Gaudapāda in Kärikäs 6-9, appear to us to be of the nature of उपदेशादयं वादः, to quote Gauda- pada's own words. Gaudapada's own view is न कश्चि ज्जायते जीवः संभवोऽस्य न विद्यते । एतत्तदुत्तमं सत्यं यत्र किंचिन्न जायते (HI. 48 ; IV. 71 ). Gaudapāda points out how his opponents, not realising the highest truth-the non-origination theory-indulge in starting different theories about creation, seemingly supported by śruti texts which they misinterpret to suit their own views. The very foundation on which they base their theories, viz. there must be a प्रभव for all that is existent, is shaky; no wonder therefore that the super- structure based on it topples down under the onslaught of अजातिवाद. As we interpret Kärikäs 6-9, there are nine different theories of creation referred 0 by Gauda păda. [1] The first theory is that of प्राणवादिन्s; their view is सर्वं जनयति प्राणः. This is also the popular view. A thing without प्राण is dead; with प्राण, it is full of life. So प्राण can be regarded as putting life into objects. Passages like अथ खलु प्राण एव प्रज्ञात्मेदं शरीरं परिगृह्मोत्यापयति, स एष प्राण एव प्रज्ञात्मानन्दोऽजरोऽमृतः (Kausiraki Upanisad) may be cited in support of this theory (Sankara in his Bhāşya on Brahmasúira I. I. 28, shows that प्राण means Brahmap). [2] The पुरूषवादिन्s believe in a personal God and describe पुरूष as creating जीवाs as different bits of चैतन्य, as portions of him. self. They take their stand upon passages like पुरूष एवेदं सर्वं यद्भूतं यञ्च भव्यम्, ( Purusasukta, R. X.90), ममैवांशो जीवलोके जीवभूतः सनातनः । (Gita XV.7), यथा सुदीप्तापावकाद्विस्फुलिङ्गाः सहस्रशः प्रभवन्ते सरूपाः । तथाक्षराद्विविधाः सोम्य प्रजायन्ते तत्र चैवापि यन्ति ॥ (Mundaka II. I). चेतोंशून् rays or bits of चैतन्य. The पुरूष is a store-house of चैतन्य, from which जीव can be said to have taken the necessary portion for themselves. Vidhusekhara thinks that the चेतोंशून् refers to the ________________

Chapta ! 61 चित्तस्पन्दित mentioned in IV. 72. This is very unlikely. Kuranirāyana says सर्वस्य प्रणेतृत्वहेतुना प्राणनामा सर्वै जनयतीत्युक्त्वा न विवर्तरूपमुपादानत्वं सर्वप्रभवत्वमित्युक्तं भवति । पुरुषः पूर्णषड्गुणत्वादिना पुरुषनामा प्रागुक्तनामा चतुरूपात्मा हरिः । चेतोंशुज्ञानाख्यरश्मियुक्ताञ्जीवानिति यावत् । पृथग्देवदानवमानवादिभेदेन जनयति । He thus takes both प्राण and पुरुष to refer to हरि. (7) [3] The विभूतिवादिन्s, apparently taking their stand upon the विभूतिs of the Lord described in the Gită and Purānas, explain the process of creation, by attributing the expansion or manifestation of the universe to the supernatural power of the Lord which makes him perceivable in the created objects. सृष्टिचिन्तक--One who is absorbed in reasoning out how the creation proceeded. The सृष्टिचिन्तकs take it for granted that there is a सृष्टि, their worry is only about how it came to be there. The परिणामवादिन् (सांख्यs and others) may also come under this category. 141 The स्वप्नमायावादिन्s are undoubtedly the Mahayana Buddhists who deny the existence of बाह्यार्थ. They are referred to in Brahmasutra ( II. 2. 29, वैधर्म्याच्च न स्वप्नादिवत् ) where Sankara refutes their view. Prof. Vidhusekhara strangely enough remarks This view is held by some of the Vedāntists including our teacher' ( that is, Gaudapada ). Could Gaudapada have referred to himself as अन्यैः सृष्टिर्विकल्पिता? We think that Gaudapada has in his mind here passages from the Lankavatarasutra, like मायास्वप्नोपमं दृश्यं विज्ञप्त्या न विकल्पयेत् ॥ ११ ॥ मायोपमाः सर्वधर्माश्वित्तविज्ञानवर्जिताः ॥ १३॥ मायोपमं समाधि च दशभूमिविनिर्मतम्।। १६ ।। स्वप्नविभ्रममायाख्यं शून्यं वै कल्पितं जगत् ॥६६॥ अनुत्पन्ना ह्यमी धर्मा न चैवैते न सन्ति च । गन्धर्वनगरस्वप्नमायानिर्माणसदृशाः ।। १४४ ॥ गन्धर्वस्वप्नमाया या मृगतृष्णा ह्यभौतिका !! २९१ मायास्वप्नोपमं लोकं हेतुप्रत्ययवर्जितम् ॥ ५६१।। गन्धर्वस्वप्नमायाख्या भावा विद्यन्यहेतुकाः ॥५८२।। मायास्वमनिभा भाषा ... ।। ८७५ || where माया and स्वप्न are used together in one and the same passage. Those who believe सृष्टि to be like स्वप्न or माया, do believe in the reality of the creation-process, while Ramānuja goes to the extent of saying that the creation in dream is real enough. Kuranārāyana remarks, सृष्टिचिन्तका इत्यनेन यथावदृब्रह्मस्वरूपानभिज्ञा इति सूचितम् ! (8)[5] इच्छावादिन; they believe in a real creation by a personal creator who does not stand in need of any उपादानकारण etc. to create, but is able to bring about creation merely by his will. ________________

62 Notes on Gaudapada-Karika This view is referred to in the Upanisadic passages like सोऽकामयत बहु स्यां प्रजायेय. Kuranārayana takes this as the opinion of the औपनिषदs (those who advocate the philosophy of the Upanişads ) and hence the Siddhanta view. According to Kuranārāyaṇa, the second half of the Karika again refers to मतान्तरs. He seems to have been misled by the expression विनिश्चित्ता: which does not necessarily refer to the Siddhānta view. It is unnatural to espect the Siddhanta view to be sandwiched berween the मतान्तरs. Kāranārāyana sees the above difficulty, but tries to meet it, lamely enough, by remarking कालचिन्तकाः ... उपलक्षणमेतत् । यदृच्छानियतिस्वभावादीनां तेषां निरास: पुरुषप्रभुपदाभ्यामेव ज्ञेयः। अत एवेच्छामात्रस्य पक्षस्य मध्ये निवेश। [6] कालवादिनs advocate that काल or Time is the great dispenser. The श्वेताश्वतरोपनिषद refers to काल (कालः स्वभावो नियतिर्यदृच्छा भूतादि योनिः पुरुष इति चिन्त्यम् 1 1.1). Atharvaveda and the Mahabhărata also refer to these philosophers. It is wrong to call them astronomers. (9) Those who believe in a real creation by a personal creator, differ as to the cause or purpose of the creation all the same. [7] भोगवादिनs say that the creation is intended for the enjoyment by the जीव (cf. रङ्गस्थ दर्शयित्वा निवर्तते नर्तकी यथा नृत्यात् । पुरुषस्य तथात्मानं प्रकाश्य विनिवर्तते प्रकृतिः !! सांख्यकारिका, 59). [s] क्रीडावादिन्s say that the creation is just for the sport of the Lord. [9] स्वभाववादिes argue that the Lord being आप्तकाम cannot possibly have any desire or purpose in creation which is just his लीला (cf. लोकवत् लीलाकैवल्यम्, Brahmasutra. II. 1,33). The proper explanation is, therefore, that it is the स्वभाव of the Lord to create. Kuranarayana thinks देवस्यैष स्वभाव: etc. is the सिद्धान्त view (स्वमतमाह श्रुतिः देवस्येति । देवस्य क्रीडाशैलस्यैष लीलारूपोऽयं मुख्यादिविषयः स्वभाव एव नान्याप्रयोजनमिति भावः!). He seems also to combine क्रीडा and स्वभाव into one प्रयोजन. Sankara says भोगार्थ क्रीडार्थमिति चान्ये सृष्टिं मन्यन्ते । अनयोः पक्षयोर्दूषणं देवस्यैष स्वभावोऽयमिति ! According to Sankara, स्वभाव means here अविद्या. We have already stated above that the अजातिवाद has no scope for a creation even by means of अविद्या. Chapter ! 63 ... (10) Having mentioned the various theories about creation, Gaudapäda now says that there is only non-duality, the Turya (the fourth', apart from Viśva, Taijasa and Prājña ) that is real, capable of ending all misery, eternal and विभु. The question of creation does not therefore arise. निवृत्तेः: goes with ईशान. Kura- narayana says, सर्वदुःखाना निवृत्ते कारणमिति शेष. The reading निवृत्तिः would mean that the तुर्य is the negation of all misery. (1) In the जाग्रत and स्वप्न states, the द्वैतबुद्धि in the form of विषयविषयिभाव, ग्राह्यग्राहकभाव, ज्ञातृज्ञेयभाव, कार्यकारणभाव etc. persists. In the सुषुप्ति state, there is no विशय, no ग्राह्य, no ज्ञेय etc., but प्राज्ञ is still in the clutches of अविद्याकारण and अहंभाव; the तुर्य on the other hand is pure consciousness and light, free from all द्वैत. कार्य फलभावः कारण बीजभावः, तत्त्वाग्रहणान्यथाग्रहणाभ्यां बीजफलाभावाभ्यां तौ यथोक्तौ विश्वतैजसो बद्धौ ... प्राज्ञस्तु बीजभावनैव बद्धः। तत्त्वाप्रतिबोधमात्रमेव हि बीजं प्राज्ञत्वे निमित्तम् । ( Sankara); अज्ञानकार्यभूतोऽहंममतादिभ्रम स्तद्रूपकार्यबन्धः । तत्कारणाविद्याबन्धः कारणबन्धः । ( Kuranārāyana), ( 12 ) In the सुषुप्ति state', the ज्ञान of the प्राज्ञ takes the form of न किंचिदवेदिषम, as there is no विषय to be cognised. तुरीय on the other hand is all light and consciousness, hence सर्वदृक् though there too no द्वेत exists. सर्व च तच दृक्च is the explanation of सर्वदृक according to Sankara who remarks अथवा जाग्रत्स्वप्नयोः सर्वभूतावस्थः सर्ववस्तुद्गाभास्तुरीय एवेति सर्वदृक्तदा । (सर्वं दर्शयतीति Kuranarayana). (13) Both प्राज्ञ and तुर्य do not cognise द्वैत, but they are as poles asunder. प्राज्ञ still remains wedded to the मूलविद्या which can only vanish when the highest truth is realised. निद्रा is explained as तत्त्वाग्रहण in Kārıkā 15 below. (14) विश्व and तैजस are always encumbered with स्वप्न (अन्यथा ग्रहणम् ) and निद्रा (तत्वाप्रतिवोधः); प्राज्ञ with तत्वाप्रतिबोध only, there being no अन्यथाग्रहण in सुति. र्य is completely unencumbered, there being neither अन्यथाग्रहण nor तत्त्वाप्रतिबोध. अस्वप्ननिद्रया is explained by Sankara as स्वप्नवर्जितकेवलयव निद्रया, by Kuranārāyaṇa as Team विनाकृतकेवलाविद्यया, It will be seen that निद्रा is common to all the three, विश्व, तैजस and प्राज्ञ. जाग्रत् is not specifically mentioned, for Gaudapada regards जाग्रत् and स्वप्न states to be identical for all practical purposes, as is made clear in the second Prakarana. Both जाग्रत् and स्वप्न states are वितथ. ________________

64 Notes on Gaudapada-Karika (15) A person in dream ( and in 19€ state, as well) sees tbings as they are not. Hence rate is the sine qua non of *** (as well as ava); in sleep a person knows nothing, here the विपर्यास is अज्ञानरूप. When अन्यथाग्रहण and तत्त्वाज्ञान vanish, one secures the Ta of 4 and becomes as (16) अनादिमायया is taken by Kuranarayana with both मुप्तः ( are cuttraTICHITTA ETT ) and Tge (HTETETT 7774757 FICH). -- In staa there cannot be any FTVIVE or Arnars. This Karika is quoted by Sankara in Bralmasútrabhasya II, 1, 9, with the remark মাদাম শুমাৰীঘাষণা चभासन रज्ज्वा इव सादिभावेनेति । (17) An objection is raised to the statement sa na in the last Kärika. If we is realised, what happens to the ya which we all experience? The answer is: 992 is just RTOFFE, mere illusion which disappears immediately aim is secured. The question raised by the opponent could be taken seriously if 1727 were real; even in that case would have to go in the face of 376; but we would have been required to search for some effective means to get rid of it. But the problem does not arise, as 4 is just illusion. Or, we might take an as the subject of f a ; if 2 did exist, then area would have to retire from the field, for both ga and a could not stay together. But the question does not arise, as sign is the only reality and ca is but A[TA12 like the creation in the expression AIOTAE is found in Brahmasutra III. 2-3, FQIAIS T R ANH grala ). This, however, does not seem to be intended. Gauda pada perhaps uses saada in the sense would definitely continue to exist' (aaa = a t ada as opposed to famaia would turn away in the next Kārika ), If x2 is real, it could not cease to exist on any account. For a thing cannot ever change its nature. (18) If various ideas about creation and 73 are put forth by people through some reason or other, those would have necessarily to be given up ultimately. They are sometimes useful to beginners who cannot grasp the it all at once. Kuranārāyana reads न निवर्तत (for विनिवर्तेत), and explains it as उपदेशाFESTESa dana a da! With the reading trama, the idea would be as follows:- If the 9929 were to exist in reality, it 65 Chapter 1 would never disappear, for a thing can never change its nature as is stated in III. 27 below. But if प्रपञ्च is merely कल्पित, surely it must disappear; for a कल्पना is unreal. ज्ञाते, supplyअद्वैते with The second line is found in Yogavāsistha ( III 84. 27) विवदन्ते ह्यनंबुद्धाः स्वविकल्प- ( विजृम्भितः । उपदेशादयं वादो etc. and in III. 8.1. 25, as अविबोधादयं वादो ज्ञाने द्वैतं न विद्यते । ज्ञाने संशान्तकलनं मौनमेवावशिष्यते ।। (19) Verses 19-23 describe how the three states are to be equated with the three Mātrās of Omkara, and the तुर्य to the Matra-less. ओम् has three portions, ्, उ and म्; the totality of these portions (or the नाद ) can be said to be the अमात्र. विश्व resides in the first of the starés, ् is the first of the Matrās; so when we want to say विश्व has the nature of अ ( This would be the निदर्शना figure of speech, अभवन्वस्तुसंबन्ध उपमापरिकल्पकः , resulting in उपमा ) or विश्व is like अ, the साधारणधर्म is 'the being at the head of the series'; when for purposes of उपासना and the like, विश्व is to be identified with अ (that is, when the idea of रूपक is involved, where the साधारणधर्म is more intimately connected than in उपमा ), the common ground is आप्ति ( pervading nature ). विश्व pervades the whole outside crea- tion, अकार is also all-pervading, as अक्षराणामकारोडस्मि ( Gita X. 32 ) shows अ to be the विभूति of the Lord. This kind of identification is frequently met with in Brahmana literature, The फल of this एकत्वोपासना is आप्नोति ह वै सर्वान् कामानादिः प्रथमश्च भवति महताम् । (Sankara on Māndükya 9 ) ( 20 ) तैजस ( in the second state ) is like उ, because तैजस is more exalted than विश्व, being more subtle, and उ has greater उत्कर्ष, because it follows अ like a king coming after the servant ! Or, we might take it to mean just ' coming after': उ follows अ, तैजस follows विश्व (as स्वप्न is dependent upon the जाग्रत् state ). तैजस can be identified with उ, because तैजस is midway between (and so connected with both )विश्व and प्राज्ञ, and is midway between (and so connected with both) अ and म्' The फल of this एकत्वो- पासना is उत्कर्षति ह वै ज्ञानसंततिम् । विज्ञान संततिं वर्धयतीयर्त्थ । समानस्तुल्यश्च मित्रपक्षस्यैव शत्रुपक्षाणामध्यद्वेष्यो भवति ! अब्रह्मबिदस्य कुले न भवति । ( Sankara on Mandükya 1o). ( 21 ) प्राज्ञ is like म, because प्राज्ञ acts as a limit ( मानम्), being the last, andम् also acts as a limit, being the last syllable of ओम्. 9 ________________

66 Notes on Gauda pada-Karika प्रा% can be identified with म्, because विश्व and तेजप्त merge into प्राज्ञ in the सुषुप्ति state, and अ and उ erge into म् ( like वर्णs in the स्फोट शब्द) after being uttered. मिर्मितिर्मानं मीयते इव हि विश्वतैजसो प्राज्ञेन प्रलयोत्पत्योः प्रवेशनिर्गमाभ्यां प्रस्थेनेव यवाः । तथोंकारसमाप्तौ पुनः प्रयोगे च प्रविश्य निर्गच्छत इवाकारोकारौ मकारे। ( Sankara). The फल of this एकात्वोपासना is मिनोति हवा इदं सर्वं जगद्याथात्म्यं जानातीत्यर्थः । अपीतिश्व जगत्कारणात्मा भवतीत्यर्थः । ( Sankara on Mandukya ll). (22) तुल्यं सामान्यम्, the common ground between each of the three pairs. महामुनिः ब्रह्मवित् ( Sankara). (23) The उपासक of विश्व (as identified with अकार ) secures his goal viz. विश्व; that of तैजस (as identified with उकार ) तेजस: that of प्राज्ञ (as identified with मकार) the प्राज्ञ, in accordance with the doctrine, यो यच्छ्रद्धः स एव सः (Gita XVII. 3). But the worshipper of Mātrāless portion of ओङ्कार has not to go anywhere to secure his goal. He realises himself as Brahman. The ङपासक of विश्व, तेजस and प्राज्ञ secures only the lower फल, and as such is inferior to the उपासक of the अमात्र. But Karika 22 calls him a महामुनि, while in Karika. 29, one who knows the ओङ्कार as अमात्र etc. is called only a मुनि. This is strange. Kārikā 22 appears to be a suspicious one. (24) Karikas 24-29 glorify the उपासना and the उपासक of ओङ्कार as a whole, and especially its अमात्र aspect. One who knows ओङ्कार as अमात्र, अनन्तमात्र, द्वैतस्योपशमः etc. is the real Muni. ओङ्कार is also known as प्रणव. To know it as a whole, one must know its parts or Mātrās equated with the आत्मपादs. There is no necessity of meditating upon anything else. (25) प्रणव or ओङ्कार is ब्रह्मन् which is described in the Upanisads as absolutely free from fear, प्रणव is ओम, lit. which is praised (प्रणूयते इति) or uttered first. A Vedic passage is expected to begin and end with A. Read the following from Manusmrti, ब्राह्मणाः प्रणव कुर्यादादावन्ते च सर्वदा । स्रवत्यनोङ्कृतं पूर्वं पुरस्ताच्च विनश्यति ।। ... अकारं चाप्युकारं च मकारं च प्रजापतिः । वेदत्रयास्निरदुहद् भूर्भुवः स्वरितीति च । एतदक्षरमेतां च जपन्व्याहृतिपूर्षिकाम् । संध्योर्वेदविद् विप्रो वेदपुण्येन युज्यते ।। II.74,76,78. The Aitareyabrahmana says तेभ्योऽभितप्तेभ्यस्त्रयो वर्णा अजायन्ताकार उकारो मकार इति ताननेकधा समभरत्तदेतदो३मिति । तस्मादो ________________

Chapter 1 मिति प्रणीत्योमिति वै स्वर्गो लोक ओमित्यसो योऽसौ तपति । In later literature ओम् is said to refer to the Trinity, Brahmadeva, Vişnu and Mahesa, अकारो विष्णुरुद्दिष्ट उकारस्तु महेश्वरः । सकारणोच्यते ब्रह्मा प्रणवस्तु त्रयो मताः। The Gita (XVII. 23-24) also says, ॐ तत्सदिति निर्दिशो ब्रह्मणस्त्रिविधः स्मृतः । ब्राह्मणास्तेन वेदाश्व यज्ञाश्च विहिताः पुरः । तस्मादोमित्युदाहृत्य यज्ञदानतपःक्रियाः । प्रवर्तन्ते विधानोक्ताः सततं ब्रह्मवादिनाम् । (26) Vidhusekhara reads परं स्मृतम् for परः स्मृतः. There is no doubt that पर: स्मृत: is the original reading which was emended so as to refer to परं ब्रह्म which is generally spoken of along with अपर ब्रह्म. पर: is the परः आत्मा or परः पुरुषः referred to in the Kathopanisad ( महतः परमव्यक्तमव्यक्तात्पुरुषः परः । पुरुषान्न परं किंचित्सा काष्ठा सा परा गतिः ॥ III. H ). अपरं ब्रह्म the lower Brahman associated with उपाधिs. There is no point in describing प्रणय as अपरं ब्रह्म, when प्रणव is to be immediately shown as परः आत्मा . Kuranārāyana boldly explains अपरं as अपरः पूर्वतनो मूलरूपपूर्वावतारात्मा प्रणवो हरिः .. , and पर: as पञ्चाननो विश्वाद्यवताररूपः प्रणवो हरिः .., पूर्वावतारे पश्चिमावतारे च पूर्णतैव न क्वचिदापि न्यूनतेति भावः। Could it be that the original reading was प्रणवो हि परं ब्रह्म, so that प्रणव is described as परं ब्रह्म and पर: आत्मा, thus equating ब्रह्नन् and आत्मन् at the same time? On the other hand, in Prasna V. 2, we read एतद्वै सत्यकाम परं चापरं च ब्रह्म यदोंकारस्तस्माद्विद्वानतेनैवायतनेनैकतरमन्वेति ।. अनन्तरोऽवाह्यः-- This expression is found in Brhadaranyaka IV.5. 12. अपूर्वः, न विद्यते पूर्वं कारणं यस्य सोऽपूर्वः प्रणवः कारणहीनः । (Kuranatayana). (27) तदनन्तरम्-प्रारब्धभोगानन्तरं (Kuranarayana), तदात्मभावं (Sankara). तत apparently refers to Brahman in Karika 26. (28) Compare for the first line, ईश्वरः सर्वभूतानां हृदेशेऽर्जुन तिष्ठति । (Gita XVIII. 61), also ज्ञानं ज्ञेयं ज्ञानगम्यं हदि सर्वस्य विष्टितम् । (X.III. 17), अङ्गुष्टमात्र पुरुषोऽन्तरात्मा सदा जनानां हृदये संनिविष्टः (Kathopanisad (II. 217). न शोचति, तरति शोकमात्मवित् इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः। ( Sankara). (29) द्वैतस्योपशम :--- 'There being only अद्वैत, all duality ceases. इतरो जनः, शास्त्रविदपि (Sankara.). People well-versed only in the Sästras cannot be called मुनिs, if they do not know the Omkära. Of the older Upanisads, besides the Mandakya, Katha, Prasna, Mundaka, Taittiriya, Chandogya and Maitri refer to Omkāra Pranava, describe its identification with Brahman, glorify the various ________________

68 Notes on Gandapada-Karika uses for meditation and fruit of ओंकारोपासना. The following extracts will be found interesting in this connection. Kathopanisad : सर्वे वेदा यत्पदमामनन्ति तपांसि सर्वाणि च यद्वदन्ति । यदिच्छन्तो ब्रह्मचर्य चरन्ति तत्ते पदं संग्रहेण ब्रवीमि ।। ओमित्येतत् ॥ I.215 एतद्धेवाक्षरं ब्रह्म ह्येतदेवाक्षरं परम् | पतद्धेवाक्षरं ज्ञात्वा यो यदिच्छति तस्य तत् I.12.16 एतदालम्बनं श्रेष्टमेतदालम्बनं परम् । एतदालम्बनं ज्ञावा ब्रह्मलोके महीयते ।। I.12.17 Prasnopanisad : एतद्वै सत्यकाम परं चापरं च ब्रह्म यदोङ्कार स्तस्माद्विद्वानेतेनैवायतनेनैकतरमन्वेति ।। V.2 स यद्येकमानमाभिध्याधीत स तेनैव संवेदितस्तूर्णमेव जगत्यामभिसंपद्यते । तस्यो लोकप्नुपनयन्ते स तत्र तपसा ब्रह्मचर्येण श्रद्धया संपन्नो महिमानमनुभवति । V. 3 अथ यदि द्विमात्रेण मनसि संपद्यते सोऽन्तरिक्षे यजुर्भिरन्नीयते स सोमलोकं स सोमलोके विभूतिमनुभूय पुनरावर्तते ।। V.4 यः पुनरेतत्रिमात्रेणोमित्येतेनैवाक्षरेण परं पुरुषमभिध्यायीत स तेजसि सूर्ये संपन्नः । यथा पादोदरस्त्वचा विनिर्मुच्येत एवं ह वै स पाप्मना विनिर्मुक्तः स सामभिरुन्नीयते ब्रह्मलोकं स एतस्माज्जीवधनापरात्परं पुरिशयं पुरुषमीक्षते ॥ तदेतौ श्लोको भवतः । V.5 तिस्रो मात्रा मृत्युमत्यः प्रयुक्ता अन्योन्यसक्ता अनुविप्रयुक्ताः। क्रियासु बाह्याभ्यन्तरमध्यमासु सम्यक्प्रयुक्तासु न कम्पते ज्ञः ।। 1.6 ऋग्भिरतं यजुर्भिरतरिक्षं ससामभिर्यत्तत्कवयो वेदयन्ते । तमोङकारेणैवायतनेनान्वेति विद्वान्यत्तस्छान्तमजरममृतमभयं परं चेति ॥ .7 Mundaka : -- प्रणवो धनुः शरो ह्यात्मा ब्रह्म तल्लक्ष्यमुच्यते । अप्रमत्तेन वेद्धव्यं शरवत्तन्मयो भवेत् || II.2.4 Taittiriya: ओमिति ब्रह्म। ओमितीदसर्वम् । ओमित्येतदनुकृतिर्ह स्म वा अप्यो श्रावयेत्याश्रावयन्ति ।। ओमिति सामानि गायन्ति । ओ शामिति शस्त्राणि शसन्ति ॥ ओमिस्पध्वर्यु: प्रतिगरं प्रतिगृणाति । ओमिति ब्रह्मा प्रस्तौति । ओमित्यग्निहोत्रमनुजानाति । ओमिति ब्राह्मणः प्रवक्ष्यन्नाह ब्रह्मोपानवानीति ब्रह्मैवोपाप्नोति । I.8 ________________

Chapter 1 Chandogya :ओमित्येतदक्षरमुद्गीथमुपासीतोमिति ह्यद्गायति तस्योपव्याख्यानम् । I.1. ! वागेवर्क् प्राणः सामोमित्येतदक्षरमुद्गीथस्तदा एतन्मिथुनं यद्वार्क् च प्राणश्चर्क, च । साम च। तदेतन्मिथुनमोमित्यस्मिन्नक्षरे ससृज्यते ... I. 1.5.6 तेनेयं त्रयी विद्या वर्तते ओमित्याश्रावयत्योमिति शँसत्योमित्युदायत्येतस्यैवाक्षरस्यापचित्यै महिना रसेन । I.1.8 बदा वा ऋचमाप्नोत्योमित्येवातिस्वरत्येवँसामैव यजुरेष उ स्वरो यदेतदक्षरमेतदमृतमभयं तत्प्रविश्य देवा अमृता अभवन् । I.4.4 अथ खलु य उद्गीथः स प्रणवो यः प्रणवः स उद्गीथ इत्यसौ वा आदित्य उद्गीथ एव प्रणव ओमिति ह्येष स्वरन्नेति । I... प्रजापतिर्लोकावभ्यतपत्तेभ्योऽभितप्तेभ्यस्त्रयी विद्या संप्रास्रवत्तामभ्यतपत्तस्था अभितप्ताया एतान्यक्षराणि संप्रास्रवन्त भूर्भुवःस्वरिति । II.13.2 तान्यभ्यतपत्तेभ्योऽभितप्तेभ्य ॐकारः संप्रास्त्रवत्तद्यथा । शङ्कुना सर्वाणि पर्णानि संतृण्णान्येवमोङ्कारेण सर्वा वाक् संतृगणोङ्कार एवेद सर्वमोङ्कार एवेदँसर्वम् ।। II. 13.3 अर्वाग्विचरत एतौ प्राणादित्या एता उपासीतोमित्यक्षरेण व्याहृतिभिः सावित्र्या चेति || VI.2 Maitri :---- हे वाव ब्रह्मणो रूपे मूर्ते चामूर्ते चाथ यन्मर्ते तदसत्यं यदमूर्तं तत्सत्यं तद्ब्रह्म तज्ज्योतिर्यज्ज्योतिः स आदित्य स वा एष ओमित्येतदात्माभवत्स त्रेधात्मानं व्यकुरुतौमिति तिस्त्रो मात्रा एताभिः सर्वमिदमोतं प्रोतं चैवास्मीत्येवं ह्याहैतद्वा आदित्य ओमित्थं ध्यायतात्मानं युञ्जीतेति ! VI.3 अथ खलु य उद्गीथः स प्रणवो यः प्रणवः स उद्गीथः । इत्यसौ वा आदित्य उद्गीथ एष प्रणव इत्येवं ह्याहोद्गीथं प्रणवाख्यं प्रणेतारं भारूपं विगतनिद्रं विजरं विमृत्यु त्रिपदं त्रयक्षरं पुनः पश्चधा ज्ञेयं निहितं गृहायामित्येवं ह्याह। ... ओमित्येतदक्षरस्य चैतत् तस्मादोमित्यनेनैतदुपासीताजस्रमिति । ... एतदेवाक्षरं पुण्यमेतदेवाक्षरं परम् । एतदेवाक्षरं ज्ञात्या यो यदिच्छति तस्य तत् । VI.4 अथान्यत्राप्युक्तं स्वनवत्येषास्य ततः । ओमिति स्त्रीपुंनपुंसकेति लिङ्गवत्येषा अथ अग्निर्वायुरादित्य इति भास्वत्येषा अथ ब्रह्म रुद्रो विष्णुरिति अधिपतिवत्येषा अथ ऋक्यजुःसामेति विज्ञानवत्येषा ________________

70 Notes on Gaudapada-Karika अथ भुर्भुवः स्वरिति लोकवत्येषा अथ भूतं भव्यं भविष्यदिति कालवत्येषा अथ प्राणोऽग्निः सूर्य इति प्रतापवत्येषा अथ अस्रमापश्चन्द्रमा इति अप्यायनवत्येषा अथ बुद्धिर्मनोऽहंकार इति चेतनवत्येषा अथ प्राणोऽपानो ध्यान इति प्राणवत्येषा इत्यत ओमित्युक्तेनैताः प्रस्तुता अर्चिता अर्पिता भवन्तीत्येवं ह्याहतद्वै सत्यकाम पर चापरं च ब्रह्म यदोमित्येतदक्षरमिति । VI.S अन्नं वा अस्य सर्वस्य योनि कालश्वान्नस्य सूर्यो योनिः कालस्य ... यावत्यो वै कालस्य कलास्तावतीषु चरत्यसौ या कालं ब्रह्मेत्युपासीत कालस्तस्यातिदूरमपसरतीत्येवं ह्याह। कालात्स्रवन्ति भूतानि कालाद्वृद्धिं प्रयान्ति च । काले चास्तं नियच्छन्ति कालो मूर्तिरमूर्तिमान् ॥ VI.14 अथ यथोर्णनाभिस्तन्तुनोमुर्ध्वमुत्क्रान्तोऽवकाशं लभतीत्येवं वाव खल्वसाधभिध्यातोमित्यनेनोर्ध्वमुत्क्रान्तः स्वातन्त्र्यं लभते । ... VI.22 धनु शरीरमोमित्येतच्छर-शिखास्य मनस्तमोलक्षणं भित्त्वा तमोऽतमाविष्टमागच्छ. त्यथाविष्टं भित्त्वा अलातचक्रमिव स्फुरन्तमादित्यवर्णमूर्जस्वन्तं ब्रह्मतमसः पर्यमश्यत् । VI.24 निद्रोवान्तर्हितेन्द्रियः शुद्धितमया धिया स्वप्न इव यः पश्यतीन्द्रियबिलेऽविवश: प्रणवाख्यं प्रणेतारं भारूपं विगतनिद्रं विजरं विमृत्युं विशोकं च सोऽपि प्रणयाख्यः प्रणेता भारूपो विगतनिद्रो विजरो विमृत्युर्विशोको भवति । VI.25 Kürapārāyana tries his best to show that Hari with his four forms is the object of Upāsanā described in the first Prakarana, Madhva also follows the same line. It is unnecessary to take the interpretations of Kúranārāyana and Madhva seriously. In the eyes of both of them, Gaudapādiyakärikās in the first Prakarana form a part of the Māndukyopanışad. They do not seem to be aware of the other three Prakaranas of the Gaudapàdiyakārikas. The colophons in the Manuscripts at the end of this Prakarana vary considerably, such as इति माण्डूक्योपनिषत् समाप्ता, प्रथमं प्रकरणम् ( without any specific name)... ओङ्कारनिर्णयः प्रथम प्रकरणम् , ओङ्काराख्यं प्रथमं प्रकरणम् , ... आगमशास्त्रविवरणे प्रथमप्रकरणे माण्डकव्याख्यानं समाप्तम् । There does not appear to be any good authority for calling this प्रकरण, आगम, as is done by Prof. Vidhusekhara, ओङ्कारोपासना perhaps is the most fitting title for this Prakarana, if any is to be given. CHAPTER II This Prakarana contains 38 Kárikās and is usually called वैतथ्य , presumably because the first word of the first Kariká in this Praka- raņa is वैतथ्य. Gaudapada tries to prove here that there is no difference between the जाग्रत् and a स्वप्न, and परमार्थता consists in the belief that there is neither निरोध nor उत्पत्ति, neither बद्ध nor साधक etc. a (1) Things seen in a dream are admitted to be false, because they are seen within the body in a very limited space. Mountains, chariots etc. seen in a dream cannot possibly be accommodated in the small limited space occupied by the body of the dreamer. So they must be false or imaginary. (2) The objector might argue as follows:- The mountains etc. are not within the body; the dreamer may be actually travell. ing to those regions, in which case the things seen in a dream may be regarded as real. To this we answer :-- It is impossible for the dreamer to actually travel to the regions within the short period of time he is dreaming; the dream hardly lasts, say an hour or so; how could he be travelling thousands of miles during that period ? Secondly, many a time the dreamer awakes suddenly, but he does not find himself, when awake, in the regions which he had visited in his dream. All this shows that the objects seen in a dream are within the body itself; the dreaner does not go out to see them. (3) The following passage from the Brhadāraṇyaka shows how the objects in a dream are created by the soul out of the material of this all-containing world, but they really do not exist. स यत्र प्रस्वपिति अस्य लोकस्य सवितो मात्रामुपादाय स्वयं बिहत्य स्वयं निर्माय स्वेन भासा स्वेन ज्योतिषा पित्यत्रायं पुरुषः स्वयंज्योतिर्भवति । न तत्र रथा न रथयोगा न पन्थानो भवन्त्यथ रथान रथयोगान्पथः सृजते न तत्रानन्दा मुदः प्रमुदो भवन्त्ययानन्दान् मुदः प्रमुदः सृजते न तत्र वेशान्तार पुष्करिण्यः स्रवन्त्यो भवन्त्यथ वेशान्तान् पुष्करिणीः स्रवन्तीः सृजते स हि कर्ता ( IV. 3. 10). The expression न्यायपूर्वकम् is usually understood to mean,' with the logical reasoning therefore'. युक्तितः (Šankara ). But there is no युक्ति as such in the above passages from the Brhadāraṇyaka, which are undoubtedly what Gaudapada is referring to here. वैतथ्यं श्रुत्या स्वप्ने स्वयंज्योतिष्ट्रप्रतिपादन- परया प्रकाशितमाहुर्ब्रह्मविदः says Sankara; but स्वयंज्योतिः would simply ________________

Notes on Gauda pada-Karika emphasise that the soul does not require the help of other means to perceive things, not that they are unreal. Their unreality or अभाव is just dogmatically asserted in the above passage, न रथा न रथयोगा etc. Some sort of reasoning is to be found in Yogavāsistha III. 19, यादृगर्थ जगद्रूपं तवै वोदेति तत्क्षणात् । न देशकालदीर्घत्वं न वैचित्र्यं पदार्थजम् ॥ १९॥ बाह्यमाभ्यन्तर भाति स्वप्नार्थोऽत्र निदर्शनम् । यदन्तः स्वप्नसंकल्पपुरं च कंचनं चितेः ॥ २०॥ तदेतद्बाह्यनाम्नैव स्वाभ्यासासस्फुटं स्थितम् । ... ॥२१॥ सद्रूपा एव चैतस्य स्वप्नसंकल्पसैन्यवत् । अविसंवादि सर्वार्थरूपं यदनुभूयते ॥२३॥ तस्य तावद्वद कथं कीदृशी वापि सत्यता । अथवोत्तरकाले तु भङ्गुरत्वादवस्तु तत् ।।२४।। ईदृक्च सर्वमेवेदं तत्र का नास्तिताधिका | स्वप्ने जाग्रदसद्रूपा स्वप्नो जाग्रत्यसन्मयः ॥ २५।। We however think that न्यायपूर्वकम् does not refer to logical reasoning at all. It might be argued that the soul in the dream might be different from the soul in संप्रसाद or जाग्रत् state or that स्वप्न is but जागरितदेश, as in dream one sees just what one had seen in the जाग्रत state (अथो खल्वाहर्जा गरितदेश एवास्यैव इति यानि ह्येव जागत्प्रश्यति तानि सुप्त इति IV.3.14) and therefore the rnere statement about the absence of my etc. in dream, without the corresponding statement about the same soul persisting in the three states is futile, The Brhadaranyaka to meet this argument says in IV.3.15-17, that the soul enters from one state into another and returns the same way (यथान्यायं means the same way by which one had gone, न्याय-the way of going, entering); and it is this न्याय in यथान्याय used in the following passages, that is referred to by Gauda pada: --- ___ स वा एष एतस्मिसंप्रसादे रत्वा चरित्या दृष्ट्वैव पुण्यं च पापं च पुनः प्रतिन्यायं प्रतियोन्याद्रवति स्वप्नायैव स यत्तत्र किंचित्पश्यत्यन्वागतस्तेन भवत्यसङ्गोऽयं पुरुष इति ... IV. 3.14 स वा एष एनस्मिन्स्वप्ने रत्वा .., प्रतिन्यायं प्रतियोन्याद्रवति बुद्धान्तायैव स... पुरुषं इति IV.3.15, स वा एष एतस्मिन्मुद्धान्ते रत्वा ... प्रतिन्यायं प्रतियोन्याद्रवति स्वमान्तायैव IV.3.17 तथा महामत्स्य उभे कूलेऽनुसंचरति पूर्व चापरं चैवमेवायं पुरुष एतानुभावन्तावनुसंचरति स्वप्नान्तं च बुद्धान्तं च | IV.3.18. (4) भेद and भाव are synonymous terms, meaning — thing' 'object'. There is वैतथ्य in स्वप्न, because the objects experienced there, are seen within the body; there is वैतथ्य in जाग्रत् also, because the so-called बाह्य objects cannot be perceived unless the perceiver's बुद्धि (which is within the body) becomes तत्तद्वाह्यवस्त्वाकारा ( The विज्ञानवादिs therefore argue that बाह्यवस्तु does not exist all, because for perception only the अन्तःस्थबुद्धि helps ). So that what obtains in ________________

Chapter II the जाग्रत् state, obtains in the स्वप्न as well. But this must not lead us to conclude that there is only one stare and not two. There is some difference; जाग्रत् state is different from स्वप्न the score of संवृतत्व ( being enclosed ) which is a characteristic of स्वप्न only where all objects are enclosed within the body of the dreamer. But this is not a material difference. Devadatta sitting in the open cannot surely be regarded as different from Devadatta sitting in a closed room on a rainy day! Prof. Vidhusekhara unnecessarily wants to emend संवृतत्वेन भिद्यते into संवृतत्वं न भिद्यते which he explains to mean that the state of being enclosed does not differ in waking and dream. There is no manuscript authority for such an emendation. Again, as we have shown above, the reading संवृतत्वेन भिद्यते does give a satisfactory meaning. To take part संवृतत्वेन भिद्यते as a संवृतत्वे न (वैतथ्यं) भिद्यते is equally unnecessary. Sankara tries to evolve a regular syllogism out of this Karikā, जाग्रदृश्यानां भावानां बैतथ्यम् (प्रतिज्ञा) दृश्यत्वात् (हेतु) यत् दृश्यं तत् वितथम, स्वप्नदृश्यभाववत् All this is cumbrous and confusing. (5) For all practical purposes, स्वप्न and जागरितस्थान are therefore understood by the wise to be one and the same, because both are वितथ and अन्तःस्थान. स्वप्न is also called सन्ध्यं तृतियं स्थानं (तस्य वा एतस्य पुरुषस्य द्वे एवं स्थाने भवत इद च परलोकस्थानं च सन्धयं तृतीयं स्वप्नस्थानं... Bșha. IV. 39). प्रसिद्धेनैव भेदानां ग्राह्यग्राहकत्वेन हेतुना समत्वेन (Sankara ). (6) This Kärika is repeated in the fourth Prakarana (IV.31). Things in स्वप्नand जागरित states are वितथ also on the general principle that whatever is not there from the very beginning (that is, whatever is produced or born) and is going to have an end that is, can be destroyed ) must also have the same characteristic, viz. being unreal, even in the present. The mirage ( मृगतृष्णिका) is not there before, is not going to be after, so it is unreal when it appears. Things in स्वप्न and जागरित are really possessed of the same characteristics (सदृशा) as those of वितथ entities, but they are taken to be अवितथ by the ignorant. (7) One may readily grant the वितथत्व of objects in dream, but some may not be so sure about the जागरितभाव being वितथ. Gauda. 10 ________________

Notes on Gaudapada-Karika pada therefore explains the point further. Why do we regard the objects in dream as 7? Because, their risaar (the capacity of serving some purpose ) is contradicted in another state. A real object can never change its characteristics or ta. The hearty meal that a person takes in the dream, is of no avail in the sia siate where he has to satis'y his hunger by having another meal. Now exactly the same is the situation about the objects in the ha state. The Twaar of a meal in the arra state is contradicted in the a state the dreamer goes on eating in a dream as though he had never tasted any meal in the una state ). So, a objects stand on the same level as the objects in that each is contradicted in the other state. So na objects also, being of a changeful Dature, with their sta securing 3799TUTin a different state, must be regarded as facer like the ag objects. Prof, Vidhusekhara reads स्वप्नऽपि प्रतिपद्यने for a विप्र तग्यते, and translates the first line as that the things have some purpose also in dream is known'. We fail to see what the F FTOHaar of objects has to do with the matter in question, Gaudapāda wants to prove that objects in the sta state are racor and he gives the reason that their maar is contradicted in dreams. Whether objects in a dream have a garaa or not is beside the point. (8) Prof. Vidhusekhara wants to cmend mgf FUAVA: into Srgai: A:, and confesses that the Kärika is not quite clear to him. There is no doubt that her FOTITA: is the genuine reading, if not for any other reason, merely on account of the fact that no one is likely to change अपूर्वाः स्थानिधर्माः into अपूर्व स्थानिधर्म:. Gaudapada's style is sometimes very terse and we have to fill in gaps to make the meaning clear, but that hardly justifies us in changing his words at will. Prof Vidhusekhara is unable to understand the Kariki, presumably because he has failed to grasp the meaning of the last Karika, The idea in the Karika is as follows:--- The objector says that it may be granted that the F a t of objects in the nga state (referred to as an in the last Kárika ) is contradicted in the dream-state if the same are seen there. But many a time the dreamer sees in a dream quite abnormal, fantastic and unprecedented objects which he has never seen in the we Chapter 11 75 state. The सप्रयोजनता argument therefore has no scope here. Are we not therefore justified in saying that the dream is an entirely unique state having no correspondence to the जाग्रत् state, and that the dreamer is also a different soul who creates those abnormal things in such an easy manner? No conclusion can therefore be drawn about the act of objects in the waking state from what we see in the dream. The Siddhantin's answer is as follows: We agree that स्वप्नदृश्य is an अपूर्व thing. But that does not mean that the dreamer is a different soul; it is just a case of स्वप्नमाहात्म्य. The अपूर्वत्व is but a characteristic of the dream-state. Is not the देवलोक associated with all kinds of unbelievable objects ? An ordinary person when anointed as king, does become possessed of extraordinary powers. Similarly the dream is a privileged place. To us in the waking a state the things seen or done in a dream may appear impossible or abnormal, but the dreamer considers them as just ordinary routine and they are real to the dreamer only. Even in the waking state an untrained man would think it abnormal or impossible that one could fly in the air in a big Constellation aeroplane at the rate of 300 miles an hour, but a trained air-pilot does that with the greatest ease. So the वैतथ्य of things does not depend upon whether the things are normal or abnormal, but upon whether they are capable of being belied in another state. The अपूर्व in the dream is the धर्म of the dreamer, that is all. यथा स्थानिधर्माणां रज्जुसर्पमृगतृष्णिका- दीनामसत्त्वं तथा स्वप्नदृश्यानामपूर्वाणां स्थानिधर्मत्वमेवेत्यसत्वम् । ( Sankara). (9 and 10 ) Things, both in the जाग्रत् and स्वप्न states, are चेतः- कल्पित and so मिथ्या. जाग्रत state स्वप्न state ( 1 ) Whatever is imagined ( ! ) Even in the स्वप्न by the mind is popularly regard dreamer imagines certain things ed as असत् in the mind and considers them ( 2 ) Whatever is cognised as असत by the sense-organs outside, is ( 2 ) Even in the स्वप्न, the regarded as सत् dreamer considers things cognised outside as सत् This shows that the so-called सदसद्विभाग in the जाग्रत् state obtains in the state as well. जाग्रत् state is therefore on par with the स्वप्न ________________

76 Notes on Gaudamada-Karika state, and is day like the 78, on account of the Farfare of things as has been explained below. (11) I both the जाग्रत 2nd स्वप्न objects are धितथ and खेत कल्पित, What is real? Who imagines these was- ' these questions require to be answered. Fílar: #: argrafiorita: Sankara ). (12) Arman'is the answer to the questions raised in the last Kärika. Atman is all light (a), 131, 1 etc, hence he imagines all this within himself by his Māyā (which also is not different from him). Here Gaudapăda parts company with the Bauddhas (Vijñāpavadins ). Sankara aptly remarks, #TATUS * Harga ATSTETTAVAASIT: 1 According to the Bauddhas T is also STTTT!. It cannot be s ig for any thing. :. (13) This Kārika shows how the powerful ( 7 ) Atman effects the creation. He first thinks of the objects to be created in his mind and then becomes out-ward-minded and fixes them up outside, just as a speaker first thinks about what he is going to speak and then speaks out. Prof. Vidbusekhara wants to read Tanga for avaifuata, because the objects in a dream are not fixed, and intaia in the second line is intended to be contrasted with araw. He also wants to read it so as to correspond with raidat. We differ from Prof. Vidhuśckhara. Things within are 51977 according to Gauda pāda Kārikā 15 ), 39-47 is not g*riga. As dreanis go, they are as good as Aga. The author seems to emphasise here that objects are first thought out and then projected for practical purposes. The expression are set would mean' outside in the mind' which is a contradiction in terms. That is why #11947: minded out-ward' seems to have been preferred by Gausapada. (141) Objects within are a staying as long as the thought lasts ), objects without are f ety and 93. fafigS are cognised by the mind; as, in addition by cas, as they are STUETTESTITS is referred to by Gaudapada himself in IV. 72 as शाह्यग्राहकवत्; but the द्वय in द्वयकाल here does not mean ग्राह्यग्राहकवत्त्व, for that characteristic belongs surely to fames as well ( for at would be the page and the things imagined would be yra). Read the following from Sankara's Bhyāşya, f erat: ... fara !... कल्पनाकाल एवोपलभ्यन्त इत्यर्थः द्वयकालाश्च भेदकाला अन्योन्यपरिच्छेद्याः। (यथा ________________

Chapter 11 77 आगोदोहनमास्ते यावदास्ते तावद्गां दोग्धि यावद्गां दोग्धि तावदास्त इति) परस्परपरिच्छेद्यपरिच्छेदकत्वं बाह्यानां भेदानां ते द्वयकालाः। बाह्य objects thus areचित्तकाल and also dependent upon or correlated to other objects for their existence. Hence they are द्वयकाल. Whatever that be, all objects, whether within or without, are but imagined objects. The विशेष pointed out, viz, some are चित्तकाल and others are द्वयकाल, is due, not to any other cause, but कल्पितत्व itself, (15) It is true that objects within are not distinctly experienced while those without are स्फुट, but this distinction between the two is caused merely by the difference in the means for their cognition. It is not that objects within are कल्पित while those without are real. All are कल्पित, but objects within are cognised by the mind, while objects without require in addition the help of इन्द्रियs or sense-organs for their cognition; आत्मा मनसा संयुज्यते मन इन्द्रियेण, इन्द्रियम् अर्थेन - according to this theory of the Naiyāyikas, there is इन्द्रिय in between मनस् and objects. इन्द्रियान्तर may mean other इन्द्रिय (बाह्य as opposed to मनस् which is an अन्तरिन्द्रिय) or the difference or distance due to the intervention of इन्द्रियs between मनस् and the objects of perception, (16) This Kärikā indicates the process by which बाह्य and आध्यात्मिक objects come into existence. The Advaita Atman first imagines (by his Māyā) the individual soul and then the different objects चित्तकाल and द्वयकाल. It appears that the individual souls thus imagined, imagine for themselves different objects according to their experiences also imagined. Gaudapăda does not dilate upon this topic any further, as he is mainly interested in the अजातिवाद. The Yogavāsiştha carries this theory to its logical conclusion and speaks of countless myriads of worlds within worlds created by imagination by the individual souls. यथाविध: तथास्मृति: is unexceptional enough. But whence does the first विद्या or विज्ञान come? Why should there be the difference in the powers of imagination of individual souls to start with ? - to this and similar queries, Gaudapada has only one answer, they are all unreal and only the Advaita Atman is the परमार्थता ! Sankara says, योडसौस्वयं कल्पितो जीव : सर्वकल्पनायामधिकृतः स यथाविद्यो यादृशी विद्या विज्ञानमस्येति यथाविद्यस्तथाविधैव स्मृतिस्तस्यति तथास्मृतिर्भवति स इति । अतो हेतुकल्पनाविज्ञानात्फलविज्ञानं ततो हेतुफलस्मृतिस्ततस्तविज्ञानं तदर्थं क्रियाकारकतारफलभेदविज्ञानानि तेभ्यस्तस्मृतिस्तत्स्मृतेश्च पुनस्तविज्ञानानीत्येवं बाह्यानाध्यात्मिकांश्चेतरेतरनिमित्तनैमित्तिकभावेनानेकधा कल्पयते । 78 Notes on Gandapada-Karika (17) सर्पधारादिभिः- The rope in darkness is mistaken for a stream of water ( उदकधारा ), serpent ( सर्प ), stick etc. Similarly Atman is mistaken for all sorts of things by different people accord ing to their powers of imagination. (18) When the रज्जु is realised in its true nature, the विकल्पs vanish away; similarly when आत्मन् is realised as अद्वत, the different विकल्पs about आत्मन् disappear. (19) It is due to the Māya of Atman that so many विकल्पs, प्राण etc. are superimposed on him. It is strange, but true that Atman himself stands deluded by this Māyă of his and gives rise to such विकल्पs ! Sankara hastens to explain, स्वयमपि मोहित इव मोहितो भवति । ( 20 ) Verses 20-28 describe the various विकल्पs ( 35 of them) fathered upon Atman They represent the ideas about the Highest or the goal to be achieved, entertained by philosophers and laymen. It is possible to point out some prima facie bases for these विकल्पs in the Upanişads and older works. Atman is imagined to be [ 1 ] प्राण by some प्राणवादिन्s, Vedantins who take their stand upon passages like प्राणे सर्वं प्रतिष्ठितम् ( Chandogya 1.11.4-5 ) and others quoted in potes on 1.6 above. Anandagiri says that Vaišeşikas and worshippers of Hiranyagarbha are meant ( प्राणो हिरण्यगर्भस्तटस्थेश्वरो वा स जगतो हेतुरिति प्राणविदो हिरण्यगर्भाधा वैशेषिकादयश्च कल्पयन्ति ). [ 2 ] भूतानि by भूतविदs who take their stand upon passages that support the त्रिवृत्करण ( Chāndogya VI.2.3-4 ) or the पञ्चीकरण process for the creation of the world. पृथ्वी, आप, तेजस् are the three भूतs, or five, with वायु and आकाश added to the list. The popular or the Carvāka view that the body is पाञ्चभौतिक is also well-known. The Gita also refers to these philosophers in भूतानि यान्ति भूतेज्याः ( IX. 25), पृथिव्यप्तेजोवायवस्तत्त्वानि तानि च चत्वारि भूतानि जगत्कारणानीति लोकायतिका: ( Anandagiri, according to whom only four elements are meant here ). ment. 13] गुणs by some of the Sankhyas who postulate सत्व, रजस् and तमस् as the three constituents out of which every thing is constituted. The Gitā ( XVI and XVII Adhyayas ) elaborates this aspect in various detail), सत्वरजस्तमांसि यो गुणाः साम्येभावस्थिता जगतो महदादिलक्षणस्य कारणमिति सांख्याः ( Anandagiri). ________________

Chapter 11 79 [4] तत्त्वानि by the Saivas ( according to Anandagiri) who say that आत्मन्, अविद्या and शिव are the three तत्त्व which create the world. One would naturally expect the सांख्यतत्त्वs to follow the सांख्यगुणs in the last Karikā, but as the सांख्यतत्त्वs are obviously referred to in Karika 26 below, Anandagiri's interpretation is reasonable, (21)[5] पादs by some Vedantins who take their stand upon Chandogya ( III.5 5-8) where सत्यकाम is instructed by the ऋषभ in the पादs of Brahman, called प्रकाशवान्, अनन्तवान्, ज्योतिष्मान् and आयतनवान् constituted of four कलाs each, as follows--प्राची दिक्कला प्रतीची दिक्कला दक्षिणा दिक्कलादीची दिक्कलैष वै सोम्य चतुष्कलः पादो ब्रह्मणः प्रकाशवान्नाम ... पृथिवी कला अन्तरिक्षं कला यौः कला समुद्रः कलैष वै सोम्य चतुष्कलः पादो ब्रह्मणोऽनन्तवान्नाम ... अग्निः कला सूर्यः कला चन्द्रः कला विद्युत् कलैष वै सोम्य चतुष्कलः पादो ब्रह्मणो ज्योतिष्मान्नाम ... प्राणः कला चक्षुः कला श्रोत्र कला मनः कलैष वै सोम्य चतुष्कलः पादो ब्रह्मण आयतनवान्नाम | Anandagiri thinks that the four पादs are विश्व, तेजस, प्राज्ञ and तुर्य (the Mandukya says सर्व ह्येतद्ब्रह्मायमात्मा ब्रह्म सोऽयमात्मा चतुष्पात् ). This is not likely as Gaudapāda himself has dilated upon them in Prakarana I (though with the ultimate object of establishing अद्वैत) and would not of his own accord include himself among the पादविद्s. (6) विषयs by the विषयविद्s who consider enjoyment of the objects of sense as the highest goal, sensualists like वात्स्यायन the author of Kamasutra (वात्स्यायनप्रभृतीनां कल्पनां कथयति शब्दादयो विषया: भूयो भूयो भुज्यमानास्तत्वमिति विभ्रममात्रम् | विषस्य विषयाणां च दूरमन्यन्तमन्तरम् । उपभुक्त विषं हन्ति विषयाः स्मरणादपि ।। इति विषयानुसंधानस्य निन्दितत्वात् ... Anandagiri) and चार्वाकs whose motto is यावज्जीवं सुरवं जीवेत् । (7) लोकs by the लोकविदs who think highly of देवलोक, वरुणलोक, प्रजापतिलोक etc. and aspire to secure residence in them; भूर्भुवः स्वरिति त्रयो लोका वस्तुभूताः सन्तीति पौराणिकाः (Anandagiri ). It is better to understand by लोक, the various abodes on the देवयान path, rather than भू:,भुवः and स्व: as stated by Anandagiri. Very few would choose भू: and भुवः for their goal. [8] देवs by देवविदs or देवव्रतs who are enamoured of the hierarchy of the gods and worship their favourite gods to secure their worlds; यान्ति देवव्रता देवान् (Gita IX. 25). अग्नीन्द्रादयो देवास्तत्तत्फलदातारो नेश्वरस्तथेति देवताकाण्डीयाः (worshippers of the देवताs mentioned in the देवताकाण्ड in Yaska's Nirukta ), says Anandagiri. ________________

Notes on Gaudapada-Karika (22) 19] वेदs by वेदविद्s who swear by the वेदs which they regard as अपौरुषेय and नि:श्वसित or directly revealed word of the Highest. ऋग्वेदादयो वेदाश्चत्वारस्तत्त्वानीति पाठका वदन्ति ( Anandagiri ). [10] यज्ञs by the यज्ञविदs or याज्ञिकs who take their stand upon passages from the Gita, यज्ञशिष्टाशिन- सन्तो मुच्यन्ते सर्वकिल्बिषैः । ( Gita III. 13), यज्ञशिष्टामृतभुजो यान्ति ब्रह्म सनातनम् (I.31), यज्ञायाचरतः कर्म समग्रं प्रविलीयते ( IV. 23), ब्रह्मार्पणं ब्रह्म हविर्ब्रह्माग्नौ ब्रह्मणा हुतम् । ब्रह्मैव तेन गन्तव्यं ब्रह्मकर्मसमाधिना ।। (1V. 24). Anandagiri remarks, ज्योतिष्टोमादयो यज्ञा वस्तुभूता भवन्तीति बौधायनप्रभृतयो याज्ञिका मन्यन्ते । [11] भोक्तृ by the भोक्तृविद्s who believe in the Highest being the भोक्तृ (अहं हि सर्वयज्ञानां भोक्ता च प्रभुरेव च । Gita IX.24, उपद्रष्टानुमन्ता च भर्ता भोक्ता महेश्वरः । परमात्मेति चाप्युक्तो देऽस्मिन् पुरुषः परः ॥ XIII.22), भोक्तैवात्मा न कर्तेति सांख्या: । ( Anandagiri ). | 12, भोज्यम् by the भोज्य विद्s who take their stand on passages like प्राणो वा अन्नम् ।। शरीरमन्नादम् । प्राणे शरीरं प्रतिष्ठितम् शरीरे प्राणः प्रतिष्ठितः । तदेतदन्नमन्ने प्रतिष्टितम् ॥ ... भावो वा अन्नम् 11 ज्योतिरन्नादम् । अप्सु ज्योतिः प्रतिष्ठितम् । ज्योतिष्वापः प्रतिष्ठिताः ॥ तदेतदन्नमन्ने प्रतिष्ठितम् । पृथिवी वा अन्नम् ।। आकाशोऽन्नादः || पृथिव्यामाकाशः प्रतिष्टितः ।। आकाशे पृथिवी प्रतिष्ठिता ।। तदेतदन्तमन्ने प्रतिष्ठितम् ।। ( Taittiriya III.7-9) अन्नं ब्रह्मेति व्यजानात् (II. ) अन्नाद्वै प्रजा प्रजायन्ते ( II.1.2 ) अन्नं हीदं सर्वँस्थितम् ( Chandogya I. 3.6). Anandagiri displays a sense of humour rare in a Sanskrit commentary in saying सूपकाराः (cooks ) भोज्यं बस्विति प्रतिजानते. We do not think Gaudapada wishes to include cooks in the category of philosophers, in spite of the fact that the problem of food is universally admitted to be the most important one and the validity of the Napoleanic dictum that an army marches on its stomach, is self-evident. (23) [13] सूक्ष्म by the सूक्ष्मवित्s. They are the atomists, Vaisesikas who regard अणुs as the जगत्कारण. Anandagiri says, आत्मा सूक्ष्मोऽणुपरिमाणः स्यादिति केचित् । Vidhusekhara says they would refer to all the Vaişnava teachers, such as Ramānuja, Nimbarka, Madhva and Vallabha'. This is quite improbable, for these Vaişnava teachers regard the individual as atomic, not the परमात्मन्. Here the question is about the ideas about the Highest or the terror and not about the individual soul. Chapter 11 81 + [14] स्थूल by the स्थूलविदs ; they are the चार्वाकs according to whom the gross body is the Highest, or the Jainas who regard the Atman as शरीरपरिणाम स्थूलो देहोऽहंप्रत्ययादात्मेति लोकायतभेदः (Anandagiri). [15] मूर्त by the मूर्तविद; they are the आगमिकs, followers of the Pancarātra or Saiva आगमs. They believe that God descends down to the earth in various forms. They take their stand upon passages like प्रकृतिं स्वामधिष्टाय संभवम्यात्ममायया... संभवामि युगे युगे ( Gita. IV.6,8). मूर्तस्त्रिशूलादिधारी महेश्वरश्वक्रादिधारी वा परमार्थो भवतीत्यागमिकाः । ( Ananda- giri), मूर्त is explained as तदेतन्मूर्ते वदन्यद्वायोश्चान्तरिक्षाच्च ... इदमेव मूर्तं यदन्यत्प्राणाश्च यश्चायमन्तरात्मन्नाकाश: in Brhadaranyaka II. 3. 2-3. [16] अमूर्त by the अमूर्तविदs. The Brh. passage quoted above explains अमूर्त as अथामूर्ते वायुश्चान्तरिक्षं च ... प्राणश्च यश्वायमन्तरात्मन्नाकाशः etc. अमूर्तः सर्वाकारशून्यो निःस्वभावः परमार्थ इति शून्यवादिनः ( Anandagiri ). It is more likely that the अमूर्तविदs are some theorists who deny the existence of a personal god in a concrete form. अमूर्त cannot mean शून्य. ( 24 ) [17] काल by the कालविद्; these take their stand upon passages like कालोऽस्मि लोकक्षयकृत् प्रवृद्धो ( Gita XI.32), मृत्युः सर्वहरश्चाहम् (X. 34 ) and Atharvaveda XIX. 53, 54, etc. काल: परमार्थ इति ज्योतिर्वेिद: ( astronomers) says Anandagiri. The वैशेषिकs also regard काल as नित्य [18] दिशः by the दिग्विद् ; these are probably the वैशेषिकs who [ regard space as eternal; everything that exists exists in space; so space is the मूलकारण. Anandagiri says स्वरोदयविदस्तु दिशः परमार्था इत्याहु:. The expression स्वरोदयविदः is ustrally explained as those who know how to foretell events by reading the voices of birds etc.' Perhaps it means 'Yogiis who hear the music of the spheres.' [ 19 ] वादा: by the वादविद्s; these are, according to Anandagiri, those who are conversant with alchemy, mantras or charms etc. (धातुवादो मन्त्रवादश्चेत्यादयो वादा वस्तुभूता भवन्तीति केचित् । ). Perhaps the तार्किकs who believe in the dicturn वादे वादे जायते तत्वबोधः are meant here. They think that right knowledge could be had by discussion and argumentation. वाद is defined as तत्वबुभुत्सोः कथा वादः । [20] भुवनानि by the भुवनविद् ; these are the geographers who claim to know the whole universe consisting of fourteen भुवनs (seven 11 can ________________

82 Notes on Gaudapada-Karika higher, भूः, भुत्रः, स्वः,महः जनः, तप: and सत्यम्, and seven lower, अतल, वितल, सुतल, रसातल, तलातल, महातल and पाताल ). भुवनानि चतुर्दश वस्तुनीति भुवनकोशविदः । (Anandagiri ). (25) [217 मनस् by the मनोविद; these take their stand on passages like मनो ब्रह्मेत्युपासीत, मन एवं मनुष्याणां कारणं बन्धमोक्षयोः । मन एवात्मेति लोकायतभेदः ( Anandagiri ). [ 22 ] बुद्धि: by the बुद्धिविद्; these are evidently the Bauddhas (शुद्धिरेवात्मेति बौद्धाः, Anandagiri ). [23] चित्तम्- by the चित्तविद्ध; these are evidently the Vijnanavadins, Bauddhas (चित्तमेव बाह्याकारशून्य विज्ञानम् । तदेवारमत्यपरे। Anandan giri). The Bauddhas use मनस्, बुद्धि and चित्त as synonymous terms very often. It is quite clear that Gaudapăda, who condemns all these theorists, could not have been himself a Buddhist. It is significant that Prof. Vidhusekhara has no remarks to offer on this point. [24] धर्माधर्मों by the धर्माधर्मविद् ; these are the Mimansakas; they do nor admit any ईश्वर, but say that धर्म and अधर्म (पाप and पुण्य) of the individual soul determine his future and hence they are the जगत्कारण (धर्माधमौ विधिनिषेधचोदनागम्यौ परमार्थाविति मीमांसकाः ! Anandagiri ). (26) 237 पञ्चविंशक ( constituted of twenty-five principles or elements ) by the Sankhyas (मूलप्रकृतिविकृतिः महदाद्या: प्रतिविकृत्तयः सप्त । षोडशकश्च विकारःन प्रकृतिर्न विकृतिः पुरुषः ॥ ). Thus-- मूलप्रकृतिः --- प्रकृतिविकृतयः --महत् ( बुद्धि), अहंकार, पञ्च तन्मात्राणि--- प्रकृतिविकार - पञ्च बुद्धीन्द्रियाणि (घ्राणं, रसनं, चक्षुः, त्वक् and श्रोत्रम् ) पञ्च कर्मेन्द्रियाणि (वाक्पाणिपादपायुपस्था) मन पञ्चमहाभूतानि (पृथिव्यपश्तेजोवायुराकाशाः) 16 पुरुष 25 [26] षड्विंश (constituted of twenty-six principles) by the Patañjalas, followers of the system of Yoga propounded by Patañjali, ________________

Chapter 11 They accept the twenty-five तत्त्वाs of the Sankhya system, and add only one more तत्त्व, viz. ईश्वर ( hence, they are also called सेश्वर सांख्यs). [27] एकत्रिंशक (constituted of thirty-one principles ) by some. They, according to Anandagiri, are Pasupatas (worshippers of Pasupali, Siva ). They accept the twenty-five तत्त्व of the सांख्याs, and add six more, (I) रागः (2) अविद्या (3) नियतिः (4) काल: (5) कला and (6) माया. Others add to this list five more, शिवः, शक्तिः , सदाशिवः, ईश्वर. and विद्या, making the total 36. Prof. Vidhusekhara says that out of these thirty-six, रागः, अविद्या, नियतिः, काल:, and कला are regarded as मायाविभूतिs, so the thirty-six has can be reduced to thirty-one. We think that all the above views are wrong and that Gaudapada is here merely referring to the passage in the Gitā (XIII. 5-6) महाभूतान्यहंकारो बुद्धिरव्यक्तमेव च । इन्द्रियाणि दशैकं च पञ्च चेन्द्रियगोचराः ।। इच्छा द्वेष सुखं दुःखं संघातश्चेतना धृतिः । एतत्क्षेत्र समासेन सविकारमुदाहृतम् ।। The total 31 is thus made up, महाभूत-- अहंकार, बुद्धि and अव्यक्तइन्द्रिय (5 कर्मेन्द्रिय, ज्ञानेन्द्रियSAnd मनस् )--- इन्द्रियगोचरs ( रूप, रस, गन्ध, स्पर्श and शब्द )-- इच्छा , द्वेष, सुख, दुःख, संघात, चेतना and धृति-- 28 1 अनन्त by some who hold that-it is futile to limit the number of तत्त्वs. They presumably take their stand upon passages like नान्तोऽस्ति मम दिन्यानां विभूतीनां परंतप ! ... यद्यद्विभूतिमत् सत्वं श्रीमदjdजितमेव वा तत्तदेवावगच्छ त्वं मम तेजोंशसंभवम् ।। ( Gita X. 40-41 ). (27) 24] लोका: by the लोकविद्s; these are the democrats who look at the world from a practical point of view, and are not interested in metaphysics. The greatest good of the greatest number' is their motto, and लोकसंग्रह their forte. These लोकविदs are different from the लोकविदs in II. 21 above. [30] आश्रमाः by the आश्रमविदs; these want to follow the directions given in the Smrti works about the different inodes of life (ब्रह्मचर्य, गृहस्थ, वानप्रस्थ and संन्यास); the proper observance of the Smrti rules in this behalf conduces to the well-being of society 84 Notes on Gandapada-Karika as a whole, and ensures salvation for the individual as well (दक्षप्रभृतयस्त्वाश्रमाः परमार्था इति समर्थयन्ते । Anandagiri. दक्ष was the first great patriarch to introduce the system of आश्रमs in society accord- ing to some Puráņas ). The आश्रमs mentioned in III. 10 below are not to be confused with the आश्रमs referred to here. [ 31 ] स्त्रीपुंनपुंसकम् by the लैङगs : these are the grammarians, according to Anandagiri, who say that everything in this world can be classified into one of the three classes, male, female and neuter ( वैयाकरणास्तु स्त्रीनपुंसकं शब्दजातं तत्वमिति वर्णयन्ति ), followers of पाणिनि- a. Perhaps the remote ancestors of modern Freudists are meant here ; those who regard the highest तत्त्व as nothing but sex- urge which animates the world. These can take their stand upon passages like असत्यमप्रतिष्ठं ते जगदाहुरनीश्वरम् । अपरस्परसंभूतं किमन्यत्काम- हेतुकम्| Gità XVI.8, by interpreting the same to suit their own views. [32] परापरम् by some ; द्वे ब्रह्मणी वेदितव्ये परं चापरं चेति केचित् ( Anandagiri ). Perhaps, we should read परापरं here, and the reference might be to the passage, भिद्यते हृदयग्रन्थिश्छिद्यन्ते सर्वसंशया क्षीयन्ते चास्य कर्माणि तस्मिन्दृष्टे परावरे || Mundaka II. 2-8. पर and अपर ब्रह्म are mentioned in the Prasnopanisad V. 2, एतद्वै सत्यकाम परं चापरं च ब्रह्म... ( 28 ) [33 ) सृष्टि : by the सृष्टिविद् in whose eyes the problem of creation looms large ; these are presumably the worshippers of Brahmadeva, the creator. P4 : लयः by the लयविद्s, the worshippers of महेश, the destroyer of the world. (35] स्थिति: by the स्थितिविद्, the worshippers of Vişnu who looks to the maintenance of the world. सृष्टिर्वा लयो वा स्थितिर्वातत्त्वमिति पौराणिका: ( Anandagiri ). These thirty-five विकल्पs and similar others are always being continuously associated with the Highest by ignorant and semi- ignorant thinkers. ( 29 ) Gaudapāda here points out that in accordance with the dictum यो यच्छूद्धः स एव सः ( Gita XVI. 3), persons entertaining any विकल्प about the Atman, secure that विकल्प as their goal, and fail to reach the highest reality, The Karika ( especially the second half ________________

Chapter II is very confusing, with the promiscuous use of स, तं, यं, असौ etc. making it very difficult to understand its import. The idea is as follows:- Let us suppose that Devadatta is a. simple-minded seeker after truth. Yajnadatta, his friend in whom he has implicit faith, is a votary of Vişıru and advises Devadarta to regard Vişnu as the Highest reality. Devadatta whole-heartedly and jealously sticks to Vişnu at all costs, and this obsession for Vişnu, having taken root, ultimately becomes united with Visnu यं (विरूपं ) भावं ( यज्ञदत्तः) दर्शयेत् यस्य ( देवदत्तस्य) तं (विष्णु रूपं ) भावं सः ( देवदत्त') तु पश्यति । तं (विष्णुरूप भावं) च अप्रति सः (देवदत्तः), असौ ( देवदत्तः) तद्ग्रहः (तस्मिन् विष्णु रूपे भावे ग्रहः यस्य सः) भूत्वा समुपैति तं (विष्णुरूपं भावम् ). Sankara explains differently, तं च (द्रष्टारं स ( भावः) अवति (यो दर्शितो भावः) असो भूत्वा (रक्षति) स्वेनात्मना सर्वतः निरुणाद्धि (that is, the Atman, assuming the form of the विकल्प, protects the द्रष्ट्र) तस्मिन् ग्रहस्त वाहस्तदभिनिवेशः । इदमेव च तत्वमिति स तं ग्रहीतारमुपैति तस्यात्मभावं निगच्छत्तीत्यर्थः। ( that is, the obsession, viz, that विकल्प is the आत्मन्, takes hold of him ). Thus-. first तं means द्रष्टारं (according to भावं (according to our Sankara), ___ interpretation) सः । आत्मा ( ) साधकः ( , असौ, दर्शितो भावः ( )(same as स: in the first half) साधकः ( , ) तदग्रहः, तत्पुरुष compound ( ग ) बहुव्रीहि ( , ) second तं means ग्रहीतारम् ( , ) भावं ( ) Looking to the wording in the Karika तं भावं स तु पश्यति तं चावति सः, where the use of च shows that the subject of अवति and पश्यति is the same, we think that स: should refer to the साधक, and as a corollary,तं should refer to भाव. According to Sankara the Atman protects the साधक, and atतद्वह takes possession of him; according to our interpretation the साधक guards the adopted भाव, and obsessed by it reaches it. The meaning is ultimately the same it is just a case of Mahomed going to the mountain or the mountain going to Mahomed ), but our way of construing the Kärikä is more in conformity with the grammatical requirements. 86 Notes on Gandapada-Karika ( 30 ) Those who indulge in the various विकल्पs about Atman, regard Atman as different, these funds actually are not defferent from Atman. No wonder that they fail to know real truth about Ätman. On the other hand, those who have realised that Atman is the only reality, do not take these विकल्प at their face value and are not contaminated by the कर्मफल which might have other - wise accrued to them. न ह्यनध्यात्मविद्वेदाञ्ज्ञातुं शक्नोति तत्वतः ! न ह्यनध्यात्म- विन्कश्चित क्रियाफलमुपाश्नुत इति हि मानवं वचनम् 1! ( Anandagiri ). ( 31 ) स्वप्न, माया, गन्धर्वनगर etc. are known to be असद्रूप; the universe is likewise असद्रूप, वेदान्तेषु- नेह नानास्ति किंचन, इन्द्रो मायाभिः, आत्मैवेदमग्र आसीत, ... यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मावाभूत्-इत्यादिषु ( Anandagiri ). (32) Having shown thus far how the views of other thinkers cannot stand, Gaudapada enunciates his view about परमार्थता, निरोध, उत्पत्ति, बद्ध, साधक, मुमुक्षु, मुक्त-these terms can have any meaning only if there is द्वैत. Only अद्वैत आत्मन् is the reality. An अद्वैत can not have any उत्पत्ति, प्रलय etc. it is futile also to talk of निरोध etc. in connection with imagined things Cf. ... वस्तुतस्तु न बन्धोऽस्ति न मोक्षोऽस्ति महामते ।। ( Yogavāsistha III. 101 ). नात्र कश्चिन्महामते बध्यते न च मुच्यते ! ( Lankavatarasātra 79). ( 33 ) The अद्वय आत्मन् is responsible for imagining himself to be all sorts of things that are really non-existent, and likewise for the imagined things themselves. Atman is always the same, un- changeable and serves as the अधिष्ठान for all कल्पनाs ( न हि निरास्पदः काचित्कल्पनोपलभ्यते Anandagiri ). All कल्पनाs are अशिव ; the अद्वय alone is शिव. ( 34 ) The objector says that he admits that the जगत् is just विकल्प foisted on the Atman; would not that mean that जगत् नाना from the point of view of आत्मभाव? The answer is no. Can one say that the imagined serpent is नाना from the point of view of रज्जु? The imagined serpent simply does not exist; no question of नानात्व can therefore arise, In the same way there cannot be any स्व-भाव, पृथक्व or अपृथक्त्व for an imagined or असत् thing. Prof. Vidhuśekhara wants to read नान्यभावेन for नात्मभावेन so as to have a contrast between अन्यभाव and स्व-भाव; he thinks that आत्मभाव and स्वभाव mean one and the same thing. We have shown above that आत्मभाव means' not the nature of जगत् ', but the nature of जगत् as conceived as a विकल्प on आत्मन्. Again, ________________

Chapter 11 it is absurd to talk about a thing having the nature of another ( except in Alamkara.sastra ). The suggestion that नान्यभावेन should be read for नात्मभावेन, against all manuscript authority does not merit consideration, (35) The expression वीतरागभयक्रोध is used twice in the Bhagavadgita ( II,56, IV.10). प्रपञ्चोपशमः ---प्रपञ्चो द्वैतभेद विस्तारस्तस्योपशमोऽभावो यस्मिन्स: आत्मा ( Sankara). निर्विकल्पः -- Void of कल्पना. The Yogavāsiştha has the fifth Prakarana called उपशम of which the author apparently thinks very highly as he calls it निर्वाणकारि, and उत्तमसिद्धान्त सुन्दरम्.. (36) जइवत् --अप्रख्यापयन्नात्मानमहमेवंविध इत्यभिप्रायः । (Sarikara). Ir is only bogus मुनिs who advertise themselves and their so-called miraculous powers, cf. तस्मादब्राह्मणः पाण्डित्यं निर्विद्य बाल्येन तिष्टासेत ( Brha. III. S.I), Sankara in his Bhāsya on अनाविष्कुर्वन्नन्वयात् ( Brahmasutra III. 4.50) says तथा चोक्तं स्मृतिकारैः, यं न सन्तं न चासन्तं नाश्रुतं न बहुश्रुतम् । न सुवृत्तं न दुर्वृतं वेद कश्चित्स ब्राह्मणः ।। गूढधर्माश्रितो विद्वानज्ञानचरितं चरेत् । अन्धवज्जडवञ्चापि मूकवच्च महीं चरेत् । अव्यक्तलिङ्गोऽव्यक्ताचारः, इति चैवमादि । (37) The परमहंससंन्यासिन् is beyond all obligations. He has no use for praise or salutation for deities; he need not perform the Sraddha rites for the Pitrs (स्वधा, all oblations to the pitrs are offered with इति (पितृभ्यः ) स्वधा ). As he has secured the right knowledge, there is no possibility of his doing any unmoral or irreligious acts as such, even though he may be technically above all विधिs or निषेध. चलाचल-Constantly changing. A यति should have no fixed abode, he should be constantly changing his place of residence, lest he might fall a prey to तृष्णा , लोभ etc. चलं चाचलं च चलाचले ते निकेतो यस्याश्रयः स तथेति यावत् । (Anandagiri), Sankara curiously enough says, चलं शरीरं प्रतिक्षणमन्यथाभावात् । अचलमात्मतत्त्वम् । यदा कदाचिद्भोजनादिव्यवहारनिमित्तमाकाशवदचलं स्वरूपमात्मतत्त्वमात्मनो निकेतमाश्रयमात्मस्थितिं विस्मृत्याहमिति मन्यते यदा तदा चलो देहो निकेतो यस्य सोऽयमेवं चलाचलनिकेतो विद्धान पुनर्बाह्यविषयाश्रयः | All this is unsatisfactory. Prof. Vithusekhara rightly explains चलाचल as ' absolutely not fixed'. यादृच्छिकः- यदृच्छाप्राप्तकौपीनाच्छादनग्रासमात्र देहस्थितिरित्यर्थः । ( Sankara). A Yati must make use of only what comes to him unsolicited; he must not hanker after anything. Only the bare minimum required to keep body and soul together, should be taken by him. 88 Notes on Gandapada-Kärika (38) बाह्यतः:- Referring to the external world, the five Mahabhūtas, आध्यात्मिकं - Connected with the body. The तत्त्व is, आत्मा च सबाह्याभ्यन्तरो ह्यजोऽपूर्वोऽनन्तोऽबाह्यः कृत्स्न आकाशवत्सर्वगतः सूक्ष्मोड- चलो निर्गुणो निष्कलो निष्क्रियः ( Sankara). Having known this तत्व, the यति should ever be on his guard not to deviate from it. CHAPTER III This Prakaraņa usually called अद्वैतप्रकरण contains 48 Karikas, The first Prakaraña mainly dealt with ओंकारोपासना and the second wih the वैतथ्य of the विश्व. The problem of the individual soul however was not discussed. If there exits only अद्वैत आत्मन् , what are we to understand by the various Stuti passages dealing with the उत्पत्ति of Jivas and the world? How does the उपास्योपासकभाव come into existence? What is exactly meant by birth or जाति? All such topics are discussed here, and the last Kärika gives the considered opinion of the author as follows: ~ न कश्चिज्जायते जीवः संभवोऽस्य न विद्यते । एतत्तदुत्तमं सत्यं यत्र किंचिन्न जायते ॥ This is the famous अजातिवाद or non-origination doctrine which was first systematically pro- pounded by Gaudapāda. (1) Sankara thus introduces the third Prakarana--ओङ्कारनिर्णय उक्तः प्रपञ्चोपशमः शिवोऽद्वैत आत्मेतिप्रतिज्ञामात्रेण | ज्ञाते द्वैतं न विद्यत इति च । तत्र द्वैताभावस्तु वैतथ्यप्रकरणेन स्वप्नमायागन्धर्वनगरादिदृष्टान्त दृश्यन्वाद्यन्तमत्त्वादिहेतुभि- स्तर्केण च प्रतिपादितः । अद्वैतं किमागममात्रेण प्रतिपत्तव्यमाहोस्वित्तर्केणापीत्यत आह शक्यते तर्केणापि ज्ञातुम् । तत्कथमित्यद्वैत प्रकरणमारभ्यते । 27:- धर्म: ( जीव: ), Sankara. Prof. Vidhuśekhara takes धर्मः to mean' duty'. As the last Kärikā ( III. 48 ) uses the expression जीव, the meaning given by Sankara is a better one. Braman is अज and अद्वैत; the existence of जीव and the उरास्योपासकभाव are possible only when द्वैत is produced. So first, Brahman has to be born ( what exactly is meant by the जाति of Brahman is made clear in the text itself later ), and then Jiva's उपासकत्व can function. The existence of जीव thus depends upon something else. जीव is therelore called a कृपण, one who is unable to stand on one's own legs, a parasite. The जीव who believes in उपासना as a means of reaching Brahman (even though he is really Brahman) has surely an intelligence only 89 Chapter III to be pitied. He is a क्षुद्रब्रह्मवित् as Sankara says. The Kenopanisad in a memorable passage repeats five times the refrain तदेव ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि नेदं यदिदमुपासते ( I. 3-8), which shows clearly how the जीव hankering after उपासना is rightly called कृपण. (2) Jiva is कृपण, who is अकृपण then? -- this natural query is answered in this Karika. Brahman is called अकार्पण्यं ( not अकृपण, because that expression implies the possibility of Brahman being possessed of some धर्म ). तद्धि कापण्यास्पदम् ' यान्योऽन्यत्पश्यत्यन्यच्छृणो. त्यन्यद्विजानाति तदल्पं मर्त्यंमसत्' ... तद्विपरीतं सबाह्याभ्यन्तरमजमकार्पण्यं भूमाख्यं ब्रह्म (Sankara). समतां गतम् ( same as साम्यं in IV. 80, 93, 100 etc.), ( being ever the same, unchangeable. Only a thing with parts can be विषम, जायमानं which is popularly regarded as being produced. समन्ततः all around सर्वतो देशतः कालतो वस्तुतश्च ( Anandagiri ). (3) Gaudapāda shows by using the famous घटाकाश illustra- tion what is the real meaning of जाति or origination. The relation berween ब्रह्मन् ( or आत्मन् ) in respect of जीवs and their bodies is like that of आकाश with घटाकाश etc. and घट etc. Thus--- [I] Both आत्मन् (or Brahman ) and आकाश are really अज, सूक्ष्म, निरवयव etc. [2] आकाश Steems to give rise to घटाकाश, पटाकाश etc. Similarly आत्मन जीव E3] घट, पट, etc. seem to give rise to घटाकाश, पटाकाश etc. ( or आकाश seems to produce घट, पट etc.); similarly आत्मन् seems to produce जीवशरीरs or संघातs. But in no case is there any trace of real production. The so-called जाति is due to the उपाधि. Sankara understands उदित: to mean ( 1 ) उक्त:or ( 2 ) उत्पन्न: (आत्मा परो हि यस्मादाकाशवत्सूक्ष्मो निरवयवः सर्वगत आकाशवदुक्तो जीवैः क्षेत्रज्ञैर्घटाकाशेरिव घटाकाशतुल्य उदित उक्तः। स एवाकाशसमः पर आमा । अथ वा घटाकाशैर्यथा- काश उदित उत्पन्नस्तथा परो जीवात्मभिरुत्पन्नो जीवात्मनां परस्मादात्मन उत्पत्तिर्या श्रूयते वेदान्तेषु सा महाकाशाद् घटाकाशोत्पत्तिसमान परमार्थत इत्यभिप्रायः । तस्मा- देवाकाशाद्घटादयः संघाता यथोत्पद्यन्त एवमाकाशस्थानीयात्परमात्मनः पृथिव्यादि- भूतसंधाता आध्यात्मिकाश्च कार्यकारणलक्षणा रज्जुसर्पबद्विकल्पिता जायन्ते । ) (4) उत्पत्ति and प्रलय affect the उपाधिs only. The so-called उत्पत्ति of आकाश is really the उत्पत्ति of घट, पट, etc.; when घट, पट, etc. dis- appear, घटाकाश, पटाकाश etc. disappear. जीवोत्पत्ति similarly is due to the 12 ... 90 Notes on Gaudapäda-Karika उत्पत्ति of देहसंघात; when the देहसंघात disappears, जीव also disappears, being merged in the Atman. (5) The objector says:-- If there is only one Atman, how is it that Devadatta and Yajñadatta do not suffer alike? If Devadatta dies, Yajñadatta also ought to die at the same time! There must be therefore many Jivas, all different from one another. The Siddhantin's answer is:- When there is one घटाकाश full of smoke, we do not find all घटs or घटाकाशs covered with smoke ( because the smoke is concerned with one particular उपाधि ), similarly the सुख, दुःख etc. of one जीव do not affect other जीवs. यथा त्वाकाशस्या- विद्याध्यारोपितरजोधtममलत्यादिदोषवस्त्रं तथात्मनोऽविद्याध्यारोपितबुद्ध्याद्युपाधिकृत सुख- दुःखादिदोषवत्त्वे बन्धमोक्षादयो व्यावहारिका न विरुध्यन्ते ! ... तस्मादात्मभेदपरि- कल्पना तथैव तार्किकैः क्रियत इति । ( Sankara ). (6) Even though आकाश is one, we talk of घटाकाश, पटाकाश, करकाकाश etc. The रूप ( form), कार्य ( purpose served ), समाख्या ( name of the आकाश as covered by घट, पट, करक etc. are different no doubt, but these do not affect the आकाश at all. The आकाशभेद is due to the उपाधिभेद. Similarly the सुख, दुःख etc. of the जीवs become different on account of the देहोपाधिs. (7) The भेदs, घटाकाश, पटाकाश etc. cannot be real. A real भेद is either a विकार ( or परिणाम, the रुचक ornament is a विकार of gold; घट is a बिकार of मृत्तिका; फेन, बुदबुद etc. are विकार of water ) or an अवयव ( कपाल is an अवयव of घट, a शाखा is an अवयव of a tree ). But घटाकाश, पटाकाश have no independent existence as apart from आकाश, and do not affect in any way the आकाश. वाचारम्भणं विकारः , says the Chandogya (VI. 3.5). विकार is explained as. सतत्वतोऽन्यथा प्रथा विकार इत्युदीरितः । ( Vedantasara). (8) बाल-Child, an ignorant person. Sankara in his Bhāsya on Brahmasātra 1. I-1 says अप्रत्यक्षेऽपि ह्याकाशे बालास्तलमलिनतामध्यस्यन्ति, which appears to be an echo of the first half of this Karika. अबुद्धानां is equal to बालानाम् . वृद्धानां at any rate here, cannot refer to the Bauddhas as they do not believe in आत्मन्. The मलिनत्व etc. is really superimposed on the गगन by the ignorant who do not realise its real nature; similarly all विकारs associated with Arman by the ignorant are merely अध्यसित and have no real existence. देहोपाधिजीव- भेदकृतो जन्ममरणादिव्यवहार: ... न ह्यूवरदेशस्तृवत्प्राण्यध्यारोपितोदकफेनतरङ्गादि मांस्तथा नामावधारोपित्तक्लेशादिमलैर्मलिनो भवतीत्यर्थः ( Sankara ). Chapter 111 91 - (9) The various विकारs usually spoken of in connection with Atman owing to his association with bodies, such as birth, death, going and coming, remaining steady etc., do not in the least affect Atman who is अविक्षण (undergoing no change, remaining the same always ) like आकाश. For स्थितौ, Prof. Vidhusekhara would like to read स्थितः. स्थितौ however fulfils the आकाङ्क्षा raised by गत्यागमन, as स्थिति 1s usually found mentioned along with गति and आगति. (10) संघाताः- देहादिः, these are just like objects in a dream. People talk about the difference in the case of bodies of birds, men, gods etc.; some philosophers might argue that the bodies being made of the same constituent elements, can be regarded in essence as being सम. Both these views cannot be justified; it is ſutile to dis- cuss details about a non-existent or illusory object. And the illusion can be satisfactorily explained only on the ground that it is माया- विसर्जित. उपपत्तिः, reasonable explanation. Sankara takes the expression to mean संभवः (and also adds) सद्भावप्रतिपादको हेतु:. (11) In Kärikä II. 9, Gaudahāda declared that आत्मन्was आकाशेनाविलक्षण. In this Karika and the next he refers to passages from the Taittiriyaka í by name ) and the Bșhadāraṇyaka which corroborate his statement. In the Taittiriyopanişad ( Adhyaya II, ब्रह्मानन्दवल्ली) the five sheaths are described, and Brahman सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं is spoken of as the ultimate प्रतिष्ठा. अन्नमयः प्राणमयः (2) मनोमयः विज्ञानमयः (५) आनन्दमय:(५) 92 Notes on Gaudapeda-Karika अन्नमय, यथा All these five कोशs are stated to be पुरुषविध; and ब्रह्मन्, the ulti- mate प्रतिष्टा, is by implication अपुरुषविध and so like आकाश. Sankara comments at length on the Taittiriya passage referred to in the आनन्दमयाधिकरण ( Brahmasutra. I. 1-6) and shows in the second interpretation that आनन्दमय cannot be Brahman, but is just a mere कोश, which seems to be Gaudapada's view. For here, ब्रह्मन् or आत्मन् is said to be पर जीवः ( सर्वेषां जीवननिमित्तत्वाज्जीवः) of all the कोश (तेषां), not merely of the first four. रसादयः- ( रस stands for अन्न प्राणमय, मनोमय, विज्ञानमय and आनन्दमय. According to Gaudapada, these कोशs are आत्ममायाविसर्जित. Prof. Vidhusekhara wants to read स यथा ( for सं प्रथा) संप्रकाशित: which he explains as 'as it is made clear there.' The expression स यथा as used in passages like स यथा दुन्दुभेर्हन्य- मानस्य ... , स यथा शङ्खस्य ... , स यथा वीणायै ... ( Brhadaranyaka iv.s) in a similar case, is always followed by a specific दृष्टान्त. Here there is no such दृष्टान्त; besides खं यथा corresponds to यथाकाशः in the next Karika. Prof. Vidhusekhara's preference for स is hardly reasonable. (12) This Karikā refers to Bhadāranyaka II. 5 which con. tains the famous मधुविद्या (or मधुज्ञान ). (1) पृथिवी सर्वेषां भूतानां मधु, अस्यै पृथिव्यै सर्वाणि भूतानि मधु (2) आपः आसामपां (3) अग्निः अस्य अग्नेः (4) वायुः अस्य वायो (5) आदित्यः अस्य आदित्यस्य (6) दिशा आसां दिशां (7) चन्द्रः अस्य चन्द्रस्य (8) विद्युत् अस्यै विद्युतः (9) स्तनायित्नुः अस्य स्तनयित्नो (10) आकाशः अस्य आकाशस्य (11) धर्म: अस्य धर्मस्य (12) सत्यं अस्य सत्यस्य (13) मानुषं अस्य मानुषस्य (14) आत्मा अस्य आत्मनः In the case of each of the above fourteen pairs, occurs the following passage mutatis mutandis यश्वायम् (अस्यां पृथिव्यां) तेजोमयोऽमृत- -9 " " " " ." ) " , । " } , 2 ." 1 " " > " " " , " " " 7 " } " " " ." 1 . " 3) Ji , " "

17 "" " . " } " ) " . $+ " " " 11 ________________

Chapter 111 मयः पुरुषो यश्चायमध्यात्म (शारीरः) तेजोमयोऽमृतमयः पुरुषोऽयमेव म योऽयमात्मेदममृतमिदं ब्रह्मेदं सर्वम् । The pairs referred to by द्वयो: are the अधिदेव (पृथिवी, आपः etc.) and the अध्यात्म (शारीर, रेतस्, वाक् etc.) and not पृथिवी and सर्वाणि भूतानि as Prof. Vidhusekhara seems to understand. Just as the ultimate purpose of the Taittiriyaka passage describing the कोशs was shown to be the identity of जीव and परब्रह्मन्, so here also ब्रह्मात्मैक्य is declared in the refrain. Brahman is every sphere both outside and inside, just as there is the same आकाश, outside on the earth etc., and inside in the belly etc. The section describing every thing as मधु is called मधुब्राह्मण (ब्रह्मविद्याख्यं मध्वमृतममृतत्वं मोदनहेतुत्यादिज्ञायते यस्मिन्निति मधुज्ञानं मधुब्राह्मणं तस्मिन्नित्यर्थ: ( Sankara). प्रकाशितः - अनुनानेन लोके ( Sankara). (13) The identity o! ब्रह्मन and आत्मन् is praised and emphasiscd by the Sruti and any idea of difference between the two is deprecated strongly. Thus both positively and negatively ब्रह्मात्म्यैक्यं is rightly brought home to the साधक. The ideniity passages are ( as quoted by Sankara in his Bhāşya on Bralımasútra II. 1-14 ) ऐतदात्म्यमिदं सर्वं तत्सत्यं स आत्मा तत्त्वमसि ( Chandogya VI.8-7). आत्मेवेदं सर्वम् (VII. 25-2), इदं सर्वं यदयमात्मा ( Brha II. 4-6), नेह नानास्ति किंचन ( IV. 4-19); ब्रह्मैवेदं सर्वम् ( Mandaka II. 2-1 ) and the censure passages (as quoted in the Bhasya On Gaudapadakārika ) are न तु तद्द्वितीयमस्ति, द्वितीयाद्वै भयं भवति, ... उदरमन्तरं कुरुते । अथ तस्य भयं भवति, मृत्योः स मृत्युमाप्नोति य इह नानेव पश्यति । ( Sankara). प्रशस्यते-स्तूयते शास्त्रेण व्यासादिभिश्च ( Sankara). Anandagiri quotes in this connection, वासुदेवः सर्वमिति स महात्मा सदुर्लभः। (Gita) अहं हरिः सर्वमिदं जनार्दनो नान्यत्ततः कारणकार्यजातम्, अविद्यामोहितात्मानः पुरुषा भिन्नदर्शिनः, कि तेन न कृतं पापं चौरेणात्मापहारिणा (14) The objector says:-- You tell us that there is Brahman only, one without a second, and the जीवs and संधातs are just created by Māyā. But this goes against some Sruti passages which say that before creation, जीव was there along with Atman (we can understand the presence of जीव after creation, as being due to Māya ). How are such passages to be explained ? The Siddhantin's reply is as follows:-- The passage relied upon is सेयं देवतैक्षत हन्ताहमिमास्तिस्रो देवता अनेन जीवेनात्मनानुप्राविश्य नामरूपे व्याकरवाणीति । ... अनेनैव जीवनात्मनानुप्रविश्य नामरूपे व्याकरोत् । (Chandogya VI, 3-2-3), which shows that the जीव आत्मन् was already in existence 94 Notes on Gaudapada-Karika along with the देवता ( Brahman ) before creation ( Sankara in his Bhasya on Brahmasatra II. [-36 remarks श्रुतौ तावत् अनेन जीवेनात्मना इति सर्गप्रमुखे शारीरमात्मानं जीवशब्देन प्राणधारणनिमित्तेनाभिलषन्ननादिः संसार इति दर्शयति । आदिमत्त्वे तु प्रागनवधारितप्राणः सन् कथं प्राणधारणनिमित्तेन जीव- शब्देन सर्गपमुखे ऽभिलष्येत । न च धारयिष्यतीत्यतोऽभिलष्येत । अनागताद्धि संबन्धा- दतीतः संबधो बलवान्भवति । अभिनिष्पन्नत्वात् । ). The passage must not he interpreted literally, for we have seen that its literal interpreta- tion is impossible in the face of आत्मैकत्व. So here the पृथकत्य of जीव and आत्मन् should be understood figuratively as referring to a future state of things obtaining when the creation by Maya comes into existence, It is an illustration of the use of the Bhavika figure of speech (प्रत्यक्षा इव' यद्भावा क्रियन्ते भूतभाविनः । तद्भाविकम् Kavyaprakasa). The popular expressions ओदनं पचति ( one really cooks the rice-- grain, not: the cooked rice which is really the meaning of ओदन ), सदृशी भार्यामुपेयात् ( the lady is entitled to be called a भार्या only after marriage ) refer to the भार्या or future state, the primary sense of ओदन and भार्या not being appropriate. There is no doubt that the above is the correct interpretation of the Karikā, the passage referred to in the first half, being the Chandogya अनेन जीवेनात्ममा etc. But the Sankarabhāsya on the Karika ( entirely in opposition to what the Sankarabhäşya on Brahmasūtra II. I-36 says) takes प्रागुत्पत्तेः पूर्वम् to mean कर्मकाण्डे, refers to मन्त्रवर्ण, स दाधार पृथिवीं द्याम्, RV. X. 121-I, sees here विरोध between कर्मकाण्ड and ज्ञानकाण्ड, and remarks यतो वा इमानि भूतानि जायन्ते ... इत्याद्युत्पत्त्यर्थोप- निषद्वाक्येभ्यः प्राक्पृथक्त्वं कर्मकाण्डे प्रकीर्तितं तन्न परमार्थम् । किं तर्हि गौणम् | महाकाश घटाकाशादिभेदवत् । पथौदनं पचतीति भविष्यवृत्त्या तद्वत् । उपनिषत्स्वेकत्वं श्रुत्या प्रतिपिपादयिषितं भविष्यतीति भाविनीमेकनृत्तिमाश्रित्य लोके भेददृष्टयनुवादो गौण एवेत्यभिप्रायः । This means that the Karikabhāsya takes भविष्यद्वृत्ति to refer to the आत्मैकत्व to be ultimately established. An alternative interpretation is offered by the same, अथ वा तदैक्षत, तत्तेजोऽसृजत इत्याद्युत्पत्तेः प्राक् एकमेवाद्वितीयम् इत्येकत्वं प्रकीर्तितम् । तदेव च तत्सत्वं स आत्मा तत्त्वमसि इत्येकत्वं भविष्यतीति तां भविष्यवृत्तित्वमपेक्ष्य यज्जीवात्मनोः पृथक्त्वं यत्र क्वचिद्वाक्ये गम्यमानं तद्गौणम् । This makes matters still worse; the subject of प्रकीर्तितम् is not पृथक्त्वं but एकत्वं understood ! and the पृथक्त्व is to be referred to some unspecified passage. It is clear that the Karikābhāşya has completely gone wrong in not taking into account the Chandogya passage which is most pertinent here. In view of the fact that Sankara rightly refers to it in his Vedanta________________

Chapter III 95 Sutrabhāsya ( II. I-36), it is possible to argue that the Bhāsya on the Kārikas attributed to Sankara, could not have been a work of Adisatikara. It would be seen that Gaudapăda boldly distinguishes between मुख्यश्रुतिs and गौणश्रुतिs, and Sankara does not lag behind him in this respect. The expression प्रागुत्पत्तेः occurs in Karika 1 in this Prakarana, where the Karikābhäşya understands it in its natural sense. The meaning in given here is not therefore acceptable. (15) The objector says:- The पृथक् of जीव and आत्मन् before creation may be admitted as गौण, but after creation it is मुख्य, and Sruti passages also are found, describing the creation in various ways. How are we to account for this state of things, in face of your insistence upon आत्मैकत्व as the highest reality? The Siddhāntin's answer to the above is given in this Kārikā. The different views about creation in the Sruti are not to be taken literally. They are intended to enable especially the मन्दमति साधक to grasp the profound truth viz. आत्मैकत्व, in accordance with the अरुन्धतीदर्शनन्याय. ___ The मृत् and लोह दृष्टान्तs are found in Chandogya VI. 3.15, यथा सोम्यैकेन मृत्पिण्डेन सर्व मृन्मयं विज्ञातं स्याद्वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं मृत्तिकेत्येक सत्यम् । यथा सोम्यकेन लोहमणिना सर्व लोहमयं विज्ञातं स्याद् ... लोहमित्येव सत्यम् । (The world is the विकार of आत्मन: in other words, the श्रुति can be taken to have preached that the world proceeds from आत्मन् ). The विस्फुलिङ्गा दृष्टान्त is found in Brhadāranyaka II. 1. 20, यथा अग्ने क्षुद्रा विस्फुलिङ्गा व्युचरन्त्येवमेवास्मादात्मनः सर्वे प्राणाः सर्वे लोकाः सर्वे देवाः सर्वाणि भूतानि व्युच्चरन्ति | also in Kausitaki III.3, यथा अग्नेर्ज्वलतो विस्फुलिङ्गा विप्रतिष्टेरन्नेव मेवैतस्मादात्मनः प्राणा यथायतनं विप्रतिष्ठन्ते प्राणेभ्यो देवा देवेभ्यो लोकाः । ___The आदि refers to passages like स यथार्द्रैधानेरभ्याहितस्य पृथग्धूमा विनिश्वरन्त्येवं वा अरेऽस्य महतो भूतस्य निःश्वसितमेतत् ... सर्वाणि च भूतान्यस्यैवैतानि सर्वाणि नि:श्वसितानि ( Brha. IV. 1. 1) and to ऊर्णनाभि in II. I. 20 etc.

अवतार-lit. coming down; reaching the level of the dull-witted. जीवपरमात्मकन्यबुद्ध्यवताराय ( K. bhāsya). Read also the following from K. bhasya, कल्पसर्गभेदात्संवादश्रुतानामुत्पत्तिश्रुतीनां च प्रतिसर्गमन्यथात्वमिति चेन्न । निष्प्रयोजनत्वाद्ययोक्तबुद्ध्यवतारप्रयोजनव्यतिरेकेण । न ह्यन्यप्रयोजनवत्त्वं ________________

96 Notes on Gauda pada-Karika संवादोत्पत्तिश्रुतीनां शक्यं कल्पयितुम् । तथात्वप्रतिपत्तये ध्यानार्थमिति चेत्न । कलहापोतप्रलयानां प्रतिपत्तेरनिष्टत्वात् । तस्मादुत्पत्त्यादिमतय आत्मैकत्वबुध्यवतारायैव नान्यार्थाः कल्पयितुं युक्ताः। (16) आश्रमा:- आश्रमिणोऽधिकृताः, वर्णिनश्च मार्गगाः। ( K.bhasya), used here in the sense of' types of men'; the usual sense of the four आश्रमs (ब्रह्मचर्य etc.) would not do, as the आश्रमs are said be त्रिविध here. Anandagiri remarks, आश्रमिणो वर्णिनश्च कार्यब्रह्मोपासका हीनदृष्टयः । कारणब्रह्मोपासका मध्यमदृष्टयः । अद्वितीयब्रह्मदर्शनशीलास्तूत्तमदृष्टयः । We think that the reference here is to उर्ध्वं गच्छन्ति सत्त्वस्था मध्ये तिष्ठन्ति राजसाः । जघन्यगुणवत्तस्था अधो गच्छन्ति तामसाः ॥ (Gita XIV.18), विविधा भवति श्रद्धा देहिनां सा स्वभावजा । साविकी राजसी चैव तामसी चेति तां शृणु ।। (Gita XVII. 2) so that सत्त्वस्थ, राजस and तामस types of people are allucled to. Sankara in his Sutra bhāsya (कांश्चिदत्यन्त सुखभाजः करोति देवादीन् कांश्चिदत्यन्त दु:खभाजः पश्चादीन् काश्चिन्मध्यमभोगभाजो मनुष्यादीन् IJ, 1-34) refers to देव, मनुष्य and पशु to represent three-fold creation in another context. Sankara also refers to Buddha adjusting his preaching to suit the intellect of his pupils (केेषांचित्किल बिभेयानां बाह्ये वस्तुन्यभिनिवेशमालक्ष्य तदनुरोधेन बाह्यार्थवादप्रक्रियेयं विरचिता । नासौ सुगताभिप्रायः । तस्य तु विज्ञानैक स्कन्धवाद एवाभिप्रेतः । Sutrabhāsya II. 2-28), and enunciating three different doctrines (बाह्यार्थविज्ञानशून्यवादत्रयमितरेतरविरुद्धमुपदिशता सुगतेन स्पष्टीकृतमात्मनोऽसंबद्धमलाषित्वं, प्रद्वेषों का प्रजासु विरुद्धार्थप्रतिपत्त्या विमुह्येयुरिमाः प्रजा इति । II.2-32). This Karika explains the expression अवताराय used in the last one. (17) द्वैतिन्s-- Followers of सांख्य, वैशेषिक, मीमांसा etc. अद्वैत, being one, does not admit of any differences; while द्वैत is capable of infinite varieties. Thus the Dvaitins, each sticking to his own fancied view, are always quarreling amongst themselves; the Advaitin, like a star, standing apart, looks on amusedly, without malice. He has no quarrel with Dvaitins who are concerned with phantoms ! यथा स्वकीयकरचरणादिभिराघाते कदाचिदाचरितेऽपि द्वेषो न जायते । परयुदध्यभावात्तथा द्वैताभिमानिभिरूपद्रवे क्षुद्रे कृतेऽपि नाद्वैतदर्शिनस्तेषु द्वेषो जायते । सर्वानन्यत्वात्परबुद्ध्यभावादित्यर्थः । says Anandagiri. Advaita is all pervading and so includes द्वैत (may be, due to माया) as well. How can one quarrel with something belonging to or included in oneself? (18) The only परमार्थ or reality is अद्वैत; Dvaita can at best, be a variety or effect of it ( what is the exact cause of this भेद is made clear in the next Kārika ), hence there cannot be any विरोध ________________

Chapter III between अद्वेत and द्वैत. The Advaitins admit द्वैत, but as merely having existence in appearance only; while the द्वैतिन्s being भ्रान्त, regard द्वैत as real both परमार्थतः and अपरमार्थतः. The ब्रह्मवित् is the आत्मन् of the द्वैतिन्s, so he pities them for being भ्रान्त (यथा मत्तगजारूढ उन्मत्तं भूमिष्टं प्रति गजारूढोऽहं बाहय मां प्रतीति ब्रुवाणमपि तं प्रति न वाहयत्यविरोधबुद्ध्या तद्वत् (K. bhăşya. A person gone mad standing on the ground says to another mounted on a big elephant 'I am mounted on an elephant, lead on to me. Knowing that the person talking like that is भ्रान्त, the other man takes pity upon him and leaves him alone, Similarly the Advaitin refuses to quarrel with a Dvaitin ). (19) An अज object can have associated with it only through माया. If the भेद is real, the अज object will lose its nature and become मर्त्य! भेद and अजत्व are incompatible with each other. यत्परमार्थसदद्वैतं मायया भियते ह्येतत् ... न परमार्थतः निरवयवत्वादात्मनः । सावयवं ह्यवयवान्यथात्वेन भिद्यते । यथा मृद्घटादिभेदैः। तत्त्वतो भिद्यमाने ह्यन्तमजमद्वयं स्वभावतःसन्मर्त्यतां व्रजेत्। यथाग्निः शीतताम्। तच्चानिष्ठंस्वभाववैपरीत्यगमनम्(K. bhāşya ). (20) Some areas are very illogical in their statements. They regard their Highest as immortal and at the same tine say that he is born as well! Now every one must admit that a thing that is born, must be mortal (जातस्य हि ध्रुवो मृत्यु: Gita II, 27); only an unproduced (or unborn ) object can be immortal. How possibly can an object having an immortal nature become mortal? These वादिन्s, according to K. bhāsya are केचिदुपनिषद्ध्याख्यातारो ब्रह्मवादिनो वावदृक्ताः, perhaps the Krsna-worshippers, Rāma-worshippers etc. are referred to ; for these while regarding Rāma, Krşņa etc. as the Highest, immortal etc., celebrate his birth-day with great pomp etc., believing in his real birth. It is doubtful if the K. bhăşya was written by Sankara who hardly ever refers to commentators onउपनिषदs . (21) If a thing is immortal by nature, it must always remain so; if it is mortal, it must always be mortal. No one can ever change his nature. A leopard can never change his spots. Cf. मिथ्यैष व्यवसायस्ते प्रकृतिस्त्वां नियोक्ष्यति Gita XVIII. 59). (22) These as do not see the absurdity in their reason, ing. They say 18 ________________

Notes on Gaudapada-Karika 98 l that their Highest is naturally असृत, [2] that he is born and so becomes मर्त्य; 3 though become a मर्त्य in this way, he still can be made अमृत and निश्चल. It is wrong to say that a naturally अमृत thing can become मर्त्य ( or no one can change one's nature ); assuming that it does become मर्त्य, why should it again change its nature ? If it again be. comes अमृत, what guarantee is there that it would not change its nature again? Who would care for a मोक्ष that is always changing and not permanent? Read the following acute observations of Sankara, यस्य तुल्यायो मोक्षस्तस्य मानसं वाचिकं कायिकं वा कार्यमपेक्षत इति युक्तम्। तथा विकार्यत्वे च तयोः पक्षयोर्मोक्षस्य ध्रुवमनित्यत्वम् । न हि दध्यादि विकार्यम् उत्पाद्यं वा घटादि नित्यं दृष्ट लोके । न चाप्यत्वेनापि कार्यापेक्षा स्वात्मस्वरूपत्वे सत्यनाप्यत्वात् । स्वरूपव्यतिरिक्तत्वेऽपि ब्रह्मणो नाप्यत्वं सर्वगतत्वेन नित्याप्तस्वरूपत्वात्सर्वेण ब्रह्मणः आकाशस्येव । नापि संस्कार्यो मोक्षः येन व्यापारमपेक्षेत । संस्कारो हि नाम संस्कार्यस्य गुणाधानेन वा स्याहोषापनयनेन वा | न तावद् गुणाधानेन संभवति, अनाधेयातिशय ब्रह्म स्वरूपत्वान्मोक्षस्य ! नापि दोषापनयनेन नित्यशुद्धब्रह्मस्वरूपत्वान्मोक्षस्य | स्वात्मधर्म एव संस्तिरोभूतो मोक्षः क्रिययात्मनि संस्क्रियमाणेऽभिव्यज्यते यथादर्शे निधर्षण क्रियया संस्क्रियमाणे भास्वरत्वं धर्म इति चेन्न । क्रियावायत्वानुपपत्तेरात्मनः । यदाश्रया तमविक्रुर्वती नैवात्मानं लभते । यद्यात्मा क्रियया विक्रितानित्यत्वमात्मनः प्रसज्येत। Suthabhāsya I. 1-4). (23) There are Sruri passages which speak of a real ( भूततः, भूत = सत्य, आर्ये कथयामि ते भूतार्थम् | Sak. I ) creation; there are others which speak of the creation being unreal. The श्रुतिबल is claimed for both views. But we must not take Śruti passages at their face value; we must find out what the real purport of the Śruti is, and by logical reasoning weed out certain passages as being गौण. भूततः means परमार्थतः. Passages like एतस्माद्वा आत्मनः आकाश: संभूतः etc, speak of a real creation; passages mentioned in the next Karika speak of मायासृष्टि. To bring about a समन्वय of these two types of passages, we have no alternative but to regard the परमार्थवृत्ति passages as गौण; if they are regarded as मुख्य, the मायासृष्टि passages would have no scope. Prof. Vidhusekhara takes भूतत: to mean from the existent' (referring to सदेव सोम्येदमग्र आसीत-- Chandogya VI. 2-1 ) and अभूततः 'from the non-existent' ( असद्वा इदमग्र आसीत ततो वै सदजायत Taittiriya II. 7-1), and remarks' according to Sankara भूततः is परमार्थतः and अभूततः मायया. But in IV.3 he explains the same words saying Chapter III 99 seems भूतस्य विद्यमानस्य, अभूतस्य अविद्यमानस्य.' It that Prof. Vidhusekbaia has not understood the real purport of the present Karika. Gaudapadra is concerned here with pointing our the real nature of the process of creation, and not the creation of any thing. In IV. 3, the expression used is भृतस्य जातिम्, which is entirely different from भूततः सृज्यमाने here. The Karikabhasya is perfectly justified in interprering भूतस्य as विद्यमानस्य in the particular context in IV. 3. (24) Gaudapada says that the passage नेह नानास्ति किंचन (Brha. IV. 4-99, also Katha IV. II ) indirectly and इन्द्रो मायाभिः पुरुरूप ईयते ( Rgveda VI. 47-18, and Brha. II. 5-19) directly point out to the creation being due to माया. मायाभिः is explained as इन्द्रियप्रज्ञाभि- रविद्यारूपाभिः in K. bhāsya. Even if माया is taken to mean — wonderful power, ' the meaning of the passage is not affected, ' Indra by his wonderful powers assumes different forms which are illusory or unreal.' K. bhasya apparently takes the second line also as a श्रुति passage, probably referring to प्रजापतिश्च रति गर्भे अन्तरजायमानो बहुधा विज्ञायते । तस्य योनि परिपश्यन्ति धीरास्तस्मिन् ह तस्थुर्भुवनानि विश्वा || ( Taittiri- yåranyaka, III. 13-1 ). As there are only two इतिs in the Karikā, only two passages are intended; in that case, the second line may be explained as the conclusion drawn from the first line,' the Puruşa or Atman is born in various ways due to Maya, although really not being born. (25) Gaudapada further fortifies his contention by referring to the passage, अन्धं तमः प्रविशन्ति येऽसंभूतिमुपासते । ततो भूय इव ते तमो य उ संभूत्या रताः ॥ ( Isopanisad 12). Those who belive in the संभववाद, the doutrine of a real creation, enter into deep pitchy darkness, This shows that the Isopanişad condenms the creation as futile or unreal. Anandagiri says सम्यग्भूतिरैश्वर्यं यस्याः सा संभूतिर्देवता हिरण्यगर्भाख्या । तस्याश्च कार्यमध्ये श्रेष्ठाया निन्दितत्वात् प्रधानमल्लनिबर्हणन्यायेन संभवशाब्दितं कार्यमेव निषिध्यते । तथा च सिद्धं तस्यावस्तुत्वमित्यर्थः । K. bhasya also says संभूतेरपास्य" स्वापवादात्संभवः प्रतिषिध्यते । ... संभूतेरपवादात्संभूतेरापेक्षिकमेव सत्त्वमिति । परमार्थ- सदात्मैकत्वमपेक्ष्याभूताख्यः संभवः प्रतिषिध्यते । All this seems to be quite far-fetched. Gaudapada apparently understands संभूति and संभव to be just synonyms in the sense of 'creation', 'origination'. को न्वेनं जनयेत् refers to the Brha, passage जात एव न जायते को न्येमं जनयेत्पुनः ( IHI. 28). In the first line, संभव was condemned, bur that leaves room for believ- ing in the संभवकारण lying in a dormant condition, and suspending 100 Notes on Gaudapada-Karika its activities of संभव for the time being. The second line says that no संभवकारण also exists. There is only आत्मन् and nothing else, no , no संभवकारण either. (26) The passages from the Brhadaranyaka अथातो आदेशो नेति । ( II. 3-6), स एष नेति नेत्यात्मागृह्यो न हि गृह्यते । ( III. 9-26, IV. 24, 22 etc ) make it clear that whatever other Upanışadic passages state about creation, is to be regarded as secondary and over- powered by the main statement about आत्मैकत्व, which is necessarily not in any way concerned with ग्राह्यग्राहकभाव. And on account of this on very reason the reality can only be अज or unoriginated; only the originated द्वैत can be ग्राह and have a ग्राहक. (27) Having shown that the Šruti passages favour अभूतत: सृज्यमानत्व, Gaudapada now turns to pointing out that युक्ति also favours the same view (in Kärikā 23, it was declared that what is युक्तियुक्त can alone be निश्चित ). A thing which is सत, and has सत्ता for its लक्षण cannot have any जन्म or origination in reality (for this जन्म would change its nature ; no one can change his nature under any circumstances ), it can only be illusory or due to Māyā. To say that a thing which is सत् can have जन्म is as absurd as to say that a thing already originated or existent is being originated ! How can a सिद्ध thing be regarded as साध्य in reality ? जातं implies that the जन्मक्रिया is completed ; जायते implies that the जन्मक्रिया is in process. How can one be compatible with the other ? सत may be taken as abl. sing. also. A thing can come into existence from the सत् only through माया. सतो मायाविनः मायया जन्मकार्यम् । सतो हि विद्यमानाकारणा- न्मायानिर्मितस्य हस्त्यादिकार्यस्येव जगज्जन्म युज्यते नासतः कारणात् । ... अथवा सतो विद्यमानस्य वस्तुनो रज्ज्यादेः सर्पादिवन्मायया जन्म युज्यते न तु तत्त्वतो यथा तथाग्राह्य- स्यापि सत एवात्मनो रज्जुसर्पज्जगद्रूपेण मायया जन्म युज्यते । न तु तत्वत एवाजस्या- त्मनो जन्म (K. bhāşya ). Once you admit that a जात thing can be originated, there would be no finality for this process and अनवस्थादोष would be the result.

( 28 ) The last Kärikä had in mind opponents who were ready to admit that the highest is सत्, this one refers to those who rely on the Sruti passage असदेव सोम्येदमग्र आसीत्, and say that the जगत् comes out of असत्. The असद्वादिन्s are really beneath contempt. There can be no question of any जन्म whether real or illusory with reference to a non-existent thing. What is the use of inquiring Chapter III 101 When ममस् whether the वन्ध्यापुत्र was married in accordance with Vedic rites or under the Civil Marriages Act? ( 29 ) It has been proved so far that if can only be due to Maya. This Kärikä tells us how that happens. Gaudapāda turns to his favourite view that the जाग्रत् state and स्वप्न state are identical in their working. In dream, the mind creates different objects with the ग्राह्यग्राहकभाव ; the same thing happens in the जाग्रत् state also. The जगत् is मनोदृश्य in the जाग्रत् state as in the स्वप्नstate. ( 30 ) The मनस् is really अद्वय, being आत्मरूप, but appears as द्वय. In the dream state, the इन्द्रियs that perceive ( ग्राहक ) and the objects that are perceived ( ग्राह्य ) are not apart from the विज्ञान or मनस् the same state of things obtains in the जाग्रत् state as well. (31) All द्वैत is just the creation of the mind. which is the real culprit in staging this huge illusory show, ceases to play its pranks, being curbed by विवेक and वैराग्य, द्वैत vanishes, as the cause which produces it has disappeared. When a person enjoys deep or dreamless sleep, he experiences the absence of द्वैत, but सुषुप्ति is not the same as आत्मज्ञान ( see Karikas, 34, 35 below ). (32) When the अमनीभाव is caused by the knowledge that Atman is the only reality, मनस् ceases to have any विकल्पs. There beingग्राह्य मनस् has no work to do. The अमनीभाव referred to here is named केवली भाव in Yogavāsistha, यद्रष्टुरस्यादृष्ट्रत्वं दृश्याभावे भवद्धलात् । तद्विद्धिबलीभावं तत एवासतः सतः । तत्तामुपगते भावे रागद्वेषादिवासनाः । शाम्यन्त्यस्पन्दिते वाते स्पन्दनक्षुब्धता यथा ! असंभवति सर्वस्मिन्दिम्भूम्याकाश रूपिणि ! प्रकाश्ये यादृशं रूप प्रकाशस्यामलं भवेत् ।। त्रिजगत्वमहं चेति दृश्येऽसत्तामुपागते ! द्रष्टुः व्यात्केवलीभावस्तादृशो विमलात्मन: !1 ( III. 4.53-56). ( 33 ) The मनस् which has ceased to be मनस् and so has caused the absence of all द्वैत ) is thus merely ज्ञान, unoriginated and void of all illusory contacts and so is not different from the ज्ञेय which is Brahman. The मनस् ( which is Brahman) thus realises itself as Brahman, unoriginated and eternal. K. bhāşya takes a to mean ब्रह्म ज्ञेयं यस्य स्वस्य तदिदं ब्रह्मज्ञेयम्. This is unnecessarily clumsy. The first line says ज्ञान is ज्ञेयाभिन्न, naturally the आकाङ्क्षा is what is this ज्ञेय? This आकाङ्क्षा is satisfied by the statement is ब्रह्म, अजं नित्यम्. विज्ञानमानन्दं ब्रह्म, सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म etc. show that ज्ञान is Brahman. 029183 ________________

102 Notes on Gaudapada-Kärrka ( 34 ) Gaudapāda in this and the following Karikas points out that the अमनीभाव due to आत्मभाव is entirely different from the daily merging into the सत्, which occurs when a man is in deep sleep. The Chandogya passage (VI. 8-1) says, यत्रैतत्पुरुप स्वपिति नाम सता सोम्य तदा सपन्नो भवति स्वमपीतो भवति तस्मादेनं स्वपितीत्या चक्षते स्व ह्यपीतो भवति । But this merging is merely temporary ; in fact, the mind is in a state of coma or मूढ in deep sleep, with its mischiefmaking powers intact, but lying dormant. The mind does not know that it had been merged into the सत् . The result is that when the deep sleep is over, the mind goes on its travels again, and is again enveloped by the illusory विकल्प ( says the Chandogya .., एवमेव खलु सोम्येमाः सर्वाः प्रजाः सति संपद्य न विदुः सति संपद्यामह इति । ... सत आगत्य न विदुः सत आगच्छामह इति त इह व्याघ्रो वा सिंहो वा वृको वा वराहो वा कीटो वा पतङ्गो वा दंशो वा मशको वा यद्यद्भवन्ति तदा भवन्ति । VI. 9-10-2). In both सुषुप्ति and आत्मबोध, the mind ceases to act, and merges into Atnman ; but in सुषुप्ति the mind is still possessed of the वासनाबीजs, and hence this merging is temporary. In आत्मबोध, on the other hand, the वासनाबीजs are completely destroyed and the mind is आत्मन् himself, having realised its true nature. In short, the अमनीभाव in सुषुप्ति is pseudoअमनीभाव and should be carefully distinguished from that caused by आत्मबोध which makes the mind free from विकल्पs, steady and properly regulated. धीमतः, विवेकवतः (K. bhāsya) of the wise man ( Prof. Vidhusekhara). The context seems to show that धीमतः is an adjectival expression going with mind, cf. शनैः शनैरुपरमेदबुद्धया धृतिग्रहीतया । Gita. VI. 25. प्रचार:- movements, working. यस्मात्सुषुप्तेऽन्यः प्रचारोऽविद्यामोहतमोग्रस्तस्यान्तर्लीनाने कानर्थप्रवृत्तिबीजवासनावतो मनस आत्मसत्यानुबोधहुताशविप्लुष्टाविद्यानर्थप्रवृत्तिबीजस्य निरुद्धस्यान्य एवं प्रशान्तसर्वक्लेशरजसः स्वतन्त्रः प्रचारः । अतो न तत्समः । ( K. bhāsya). (35) In सुषुप्ति, the मनस् is benumbed; in आत्मबोध on the other hand. it being thoroughly controlled and kept away from all ग्राह्य, is विज्ञानघन itself. It is, in fact, Brahman, fearless, with the light of ज्ञान beaming in all its splendour all around. अभयं-cf. अभयं वै जनक प्राप्तोऽसि ( Brha. IV.2-4), विद्वान्न बिभेति कदाचन. Brahman is अभय, because all भय arises from द्वैत and द्वात does not exist in Brahman, ज्ञानमालोक: प्रकाशो यस्य तद्ब्रह्म ज्ञानालोकं विज्ञानैकरस घनमित्यर्थः । समन्ततः समन्तात्सर्वतो व्योमवनरन्तर्येण व्यापकमित्यर्थः । (K. bhasya.). (36) As मनस् thus is Brahman, it can be rightly spoken of in terms associated with it, अजम, अनिद्रम्, अस्वप्नम्, etc. There being no Chapter III 103 अविद्या or माया influencing such मनस् , it is without birth, sleep, dream etc. It has no name and form, being intangible, यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते says the Śruti. It is सकृद्विभात shining all the time, or once for all. Other things shine occasionally, because they depend upon the light of something else. Here, the light is always there in inherently, retain- ing its splendour for ever. नोपचारः कथंचन Gauda pada says that in describing मनस् with the अमनीभाव, as अजम्, अनिद्रम् etc. he is not using figurative language. The expressions अजम् etc. fit in with the मनस्, in their literal meaning. Prof. Vidhuśekhara takes उपचार to mean 'access-concentration' (one of the two kinds of stages of Samadhi, उपचार समाधि and अपर्णा, mentioned in Buddhistic philo. sophy). The mind in this Samadhi moves near the object just like a bee sitting gently inside a lotus in search of honey. It is doubtful whether Gaudapāda has this meaning in mind, in using the expression उपचार. K. bhasya takes उपचारः to mean उपचरणम् (नेह ब्रह्मण्येवंविध उपचरणमुपचारः कर्तव्यः । यथान्येषामात्मस्वरूपव्यतिरेकेण समा- धानायुपचारः।), Anandagiri also remarks उपचारः समाध्यादिः । निरुपाधिके ब्रह्मणि विदुषो न कर्तव्यशेषः । (37) The मन with the अमनीभाव is समाघि itself, not some. thing to be achieved by Fair. Prof. Vidhusekhara points out that अचल is a particular Samādhi in Buddhism, which is hardly intended by Gauda pada. समाधिः समाधिनिमित्तप्रज्ञावगम्यत्वात् । समाधीयतेऽस्मि- न्निति वा समाधिः । ( K. bhasya ). The Yogasutras call this the निर्विकल्प समाधि. ( 38 ) ग्रह and उत्सर्ग are out of question, when there is only one thing which is निरवयव and अविक्रिय; as the मनस् ceases to function, there can be no चिन्ता or विकल्प. The ज्ञान is thus resting in itself, unborn and remaining always the same. This is the अकार्पण्य which Gaud. pada had promised to explain in Kātikā 2. CI. आत्मसंस्थं मनः कृत्वा न किंचिदपि चिन्तयेत् || Giti. VI. 25, यदा पश्चावतिष्ठन्ते ज्ञानानि मनसा सह । बुद्धिश्च न विचेष्टति तामाहुः परमां गतिम् ।। तां योगमिति मन्यन्ते स्थिरामिन्द्रिय- धारणाम् । ... Katha I. 6-10-11, ( 39 ) The समाधि in Karikă 37 or the mind with the अमनीभाव is known as अस्पर्शयोग-concentration where there is no contact with another object. Yogins in general are loath to go in for this अस्पर्शयोग, for they think that this is akin to आत्मनाश, and are content with minor successes which are secured by following a less rigorous ________________

104 Notes on Gouda pada-Karika course of Yogic exercises. They are, to be sure, quite wrong for they see fear where there is really total absence of fear. सर्वयोगिन seems to be used not in the sense of ' all Yogins', but : Yogins in general', ' ordinary types of Yogin.' It is only the select few that are able to reach the highest level of अस्पर्शयोग. It appears that the Gita (VI.6-23) calls this same अस्पर्शयोग as merely योग, तं विद्यादुःखसंयोगवियोगं योगसंज्ञितम् । which is necessarily void of मात्रास्पर्शs that are the main obstacle to the realisation of the highest bliss(मात्रास्पर्शास्तु कौन्तेय' शीतोष्ण सुखदुःखदाः । आगमापायिनोऽनित्यास्तांस्तितिक्षस्व भारत || II. 14). Gaudapäda appears to be indebted to the Gitä for the detailed description of the अस्पर्शयोग given in Karikas, 40-47. 140) अभय, दुःखक्षय, प्रबोध and eternal शान्ति, all depend upon the निग्रह of the mind. K, bhäsya says that those who have realised the real nature of मनस् (viz. that it is कल्पित), secure this अभय etc. naturally, without any further effort ( येषां पुनर्ब्रह्मस्वरूप. व्यतिरेण रज्जुसर्पवत् कल्पितमेव मन इन्द्रियादि च न परमार्थतो विद्यते तेषां ब्रह्मस्वरूपाणामभयं मोक्षाख्या चाक्षया शान्तिः स्वभावत एव सिद्धा नान्यायत्ता नोपचारः कथंचनेत्यबोचास। ये त्वतोऽन्ये योगिने मार्गगा हीनमध्यमदृष्टयो मनोऽन्यदात्मव्यतिरिक्तमात्मसंबन्धि पश्यन्ति तेषामात्मसत्यानुबोधरहितानां मनसो निग्रहायत्तमभयं सर्वेषां योगिनाम्). This does not appear to be warrated by the text, "The साधक however must not be down-hearted, but must continue is efforts, may be for several lives till he achieves his goal. (41) It requires persistent long-standing effort to secure मनोनिग्रह. It is not at all an easy job ( it is like trying to empty the ocean by taking out a drop of water by the end of the small Kuša grass ) for a person who allows his mind to be associated with distracting experiences. This Karika is quoted in Pancadasi. Cf.स निश्चयेन योक्तbdयो योगोऽनिर्विणचेतसा (Gita VI, 23). Madhusudana Sarasvati, in his comment on the above Gita passage says अनिर्विणचेतसा, एतावतापि कालेन योगो न सिद्धः किमतः परं कष्टमित्यनुतापो निर्वेदस्तद्रहितेन चेतसा, इह जन्मनि जन्मान्तरे' वा सेत्स्यति किं त्वरयेत्येवं धैर्ययुक्तेन मनसेत्यर्थः । तदेतद्वौड. पादा उदाजहुः । ' उत्सेक उदधे ... परिखेदतः। Madhusudana then refers to टिट्टिभोपाख्यान in the Hitopadesa to illustrate his point, अत्र संप्रदायधिद आख्यायिकामाचक्षते । कस्यचिस्किल पक्षिणोऽण्डानि तीरस्थानि तरङ्गवेगेन समुद्रोऽपजहार । स न समुद्र शोषयिष्याम्येति प्रवृत्तः स्वमुखाग्रेणैकैकं जलबिन्दुमुपरि प्रचिक्षेप । तदा च बहुभिः पक्षिभिर्बन्धुवर्गवार्यमाणोऽपि नैवोपरराम यच्छया च तत्रागतेन नारदेन निवारितोऽप्यस्मिन् जन्मनि जम्मान्तरे वा येन केनाप्युपायेन समुद्रं शोषयाम्येवेति प्रति. ________________

Chapter all ros जज्ञे । ततश्च देवानुकल्पात् कृपालुर्नारदो गरुडं तत्साहाय्याय प्रेषयामास समुद्रस्त्वज्ज्ञातिद्रोहेण त्वामवमन्यत इति वचनेन । ततो गरुडपक्षवातेन शुष्यन्समुद्रो भीतस्तान्यण्डानि तस्मै पक्षिणे प्रददाविति । एवमस्वेदेन मनोनिरोधे परमधर्में प्रवर्तमानं योगिनमीश्वरोऽनुगृह्णाति ततश्व पक्षिण इव तस्याभिमतं सिध्यतीति भावः । अपरिखेदतः in the text corresponds to अनिर्विण चेतसा in the Gita passage. The Gita ( VI.34) compares मनोनिग्रह to वायुनिग्रह, both are सुदुष्कर. (42) Gaudapāda says that मनोनिग्रह is very difficult no doubt (cf. चञ्चलं हि मनः कृष्ण प्रमाथि बलवदृढम् । तस्याहं निग्रहं मन्ये वायोरिव सुदुष्करम् ॥ श्रीभगवानुवाच । असंशयं महाबाहो मनो दुर्निग्रहं चलम् । अभ्यासेन तु कौन्तेय वैराग्येण च गृह्यते ।। असंयतात्मना योगो दुष्पाप इति मे मतिः । वश्यात्मना तु यतता शश्योऽवाप्तुमुपायत | Gita VI. 34-56), but there are उपायs, a resort to which enables the साधक to achieve his goal. These उपायs are described in Karikas 42-45. First, the साधक should be on constant vigil against कामand क्रोध which are continually distracting the mind (The Gita is particularly harsh against काम, अथ केन प्रयुक्तोऽयं पापं चरति पुरुषः । अनिच्छन्नपि वार्ष्णेय बलादिव नियोजितः॥ श्रीभगवानुवाच । काम एष क्रोध एष रजोगुणसमुद्भवः । महाशनो महापाप्मा विध्येनमिह वैरिणम् । ... आवृतं ज्ञानमेतेन ज्ञानिनो नित्यवैरिणा । कामरूपेण कौन्तय दुरुपूरेणानलेन च। ( III. 36, 38-39). Then he should always beware of the pseudopleasurable sensations in सुषुप्ति, and control his mind against harbouring them. काम and क्रोध can easily be recognised as one's enemies, but लय might be regarded by the unwary as an innocent friend. Such is not the case. लय can do as much damage as काम can (यथा कामोऽनर्थहेतुस्तथा लयोऽपि । अतः कामविषयस्य मनसो निग्रहवल्लयादपि निरोद्धव्यमित्यर्थः || K. bhasya ). Both are impediments in the attain ment of समाधि (उपायेन वक्ष्यमाणेन वैराग्याभ्यासेन, विक्षिप्तं प्रमाणविपर्ययविकल्पस्मृतीनामन्यतमया वापि वृत्त्या परिणतं ... कामभोगयोरिति चिन्त्यमानावस्था भुज्यमाना वस्थाभेदेन द्विवचनम् । ... सुप्रसन्नम् आयासवर्जितं ... यथा कामो विषयगोचरप्रमाणादिवृत्त्युत्पादनेन समाधिविरोधी तथा लयोऽपि निद्राख्यवृत्त्युत्पादनेन समाधिविरोधी । Madhusudana Sarasvati on Gitā VI. 26, where the next four Gaudapáda Kārikās are also commented upon by him ). (43) To keep off काम and भोग, one should never forget that they would but lead to दुःख; by always remembering the teaching of Vedānta that all is अज or Brahman, one would get out of the clutches of द्वैत. सर्व दुःखम् is the most important basic tenet of Buddhism. Gaudapada however adds that अजं (ब्रह्म) सर्वं also must not be lost sight of at the same time. The remembrance of अजं सर्वं nips in the ________________

106 Notes on Gaudapada-Karika bud all द्वैत idea (सर्वे द्वैतमविद्याविजृम्भितमरूपं दुःखमेवेत्यनुसृत्य “यो वै भूमा तत्सुखं नाल्पे सुखमस्ति अथ यदल्पं तन्मर्त्यं तद् दुःखम्" इति श्रुत्यर्थ गुरूपदेशादनुपश्चात् पर्यालोच्य कामान् चिन्त्यमानावस्थान् विषयाभोगान् भुज्यमानावस्थांश्च विषयान् निवर्तयेत् मनसः सकाशादित्यर्थः । कामश्च भोगश्च कामभोगं तस्मान्मनो निवर्तयेदिति वा | Madhusudana), कामभोगान् accusative plural or कामभोगात् ablative singular. There should be thus first वैराग्यभावना when there is द्वैतस्मरण; this should be followed by द्वैतविस्मरण. (44) There are four impediments in the way of समप्राप्ति or समाधि (लय, विक्षेप, कषाय and सुख), लय is the daily oblivion experienced in sleep, there is no विक्षेप in that stare; there is silence but that is the silence of the grave, not enlightened silence. So the साधक should hasten to put the mind in the state of awakening from this daily oblivion, and not allow it to be distracted while in the state of awakening, He should also realise that the स्तब्धीभाव of the mind ( where there is no विक्षेप or लय) is also not the goal to be reached, for the mind is still under the influence of दोषाs. Once the mind has become averse to विषयाs and steadied, care should be taken to see that it is not again attracted by the विषयs. CI. संकल्पप्रभवान् कामांस्त्यक्त्वा सर्वामशेषतः । मनसेवेन्द्रियग्रामं विनियम्य समन्ततः ।। शनैःशनेरुपरमेद्बुदध्या धृतिगृहीतया । ... ॥ यतो यतो निश्चरति मनश्चञ्चलमस्थिरम् । ततस्ततो नियम्यसदात्मन्येव वशं नयेत् ॥ (Gita VI. 24-26). सकषायं सरागं बीजसंयुक्तं (K. bhāsya ), स्तब्धीभूतं सकषायं रागद्वेषादिप्रबलवासनावशेन स्तब्धीभावाख्येन कषायेण दोषेण युक्तम् (Madhusudana). कषाय is the same as the 'कल्मष in the Gita (VI. 27-28 ) or the क्लेश (राग, द्वेष and मोह) of the Yogasātras. समप्राप्तं (साम्यापन्नं K. bhāsya.), समं ब्रह्म (Madhusudana ). Prof. Vidhusekhara reads शमप्राप्तं for समप्राप्तं. This Kárikā is quoted in the Vedantasara.On लये संबोधयेत्, Madhusudana. comments as follows, निद्राशेषाजीर्णबहुशनश्रमाणां लयकारणानां निरोधेन चित्तं सम्यम् प्रबोधयेदुत्थानप्रयत्नेन. He appears to take लय to refer not to the state of deep sleep or सुषुप्ति, but to pseudo-sleep caused by indigestion, over-eating, fatigue etc. (as) The Fire should beware of the pleasurable sensation in the practice of समाधि as well, for that smacks of स्पर्शसुख which has no place in अस्पर्शयोग. प्रज्ञया निःसङ्गः भवेत् is explained by Madhusudana in two ways:-~~(i) प्रज्ञया यदुपलभ्यते सुखं तदप्यविद्यापरिकल्पितं मृषेत्रत्येर्थभावनया नि:सङ्गो निस्पृहः सर्वसुखेषु भवेत् ! (ii) अथवा प्रज्ञया सविकल्पसुखाकारवृतिरूपया सह सङ्गं परित्यजेत् न तु स्वरूपसुखमपि निर्वृत्तिकेन चित्तेन नानुभवेत् ________________

Chapter III 107 स्वभावप्राप्तस्य तस्य वारयितुमशक्यत्वात्. एकीकुर्यात् प्रयत्नतः-आत्मन्येवैकीकुर्यात् ... चित्स्वरूपसत्तामात्रमेवापादयेदित्यर्थः (K. bhasya ), निरोधप्रयत्नेन समे ब्रह्मण्यैकतां नयेत् ( Madhusudana), (46) In the first half of the Karika, only लय and विक्षेप are mentioned. Madhusudana says that लय includes स्तब्धीभाव, and विक्षेप, सुखास्वाद as well; so that all the four दोषs could be taken to have been referred to. अनिङ्गनं-इङ्गनं चलनं तद्रहितं निवातप्रदीपकल्पम् (Madhusudana), अचलं (K. bhāsya); cf. यथा दीपो निवातस्थो नेङ्गते सोपमा स्मृता। योगिनो यतचित्तस्य युञ्जतो योगमात्मनः || Gita VI. 19. अनाभासं - केनचिद्विषयाकारेणाभासत इत्येतत् कषायसुखासस्वादयोरुभयान्तर्भाव उक्त एव। ( Madhusudana), न केनचित्कल्पितेन विषयभावेनावभासत इति । (K. bhasya ). Cf. तदा योगी ह्यनाभासं प्रज्ञया पश्यते जगत | Lankavatara X. 94. The expression निराभास also is used to express the same thing by the Lankávatāra. (47) निर्वाणं-कैवल्यं; अकथ्यं, न शक्यते कथयितुम् । अत्यन्तासाधारणविषयत्वात् (K. bhasya), क्षीरगुडादिमाधुर्यभेदस्येव स्वानुभवमानाधिगम्यत्वादवाच्यत्वम् (Anandagiri). Cf. योऽन्तःसुखोऽन्तरारामस्तथान्तज्योतिरेव यः । स योगी ब्रह्मनिर्वाणं ब्रह्मभूतोऽधिगच्छति ।। ... लभन्ते ब्रह्मानिर्वाणमृषयः क्षीणकल्मषाः । छिन्नद्वैधा यतात्मानः सर्वभूतहिते रताः ॥ कामक्रोधवियुक्तानां यतीनां यतचेतसाम् । अभितो ब्रह्मनिर्वाणं वर्तते विदितात्मनाम् || ( Gita V. 24-26), also प्रशान्तमनसं ह्येन योगिनं सुखमुत्तमम् । उपैति शान्तरजसं ब्रह्मभूतमकल्मषम् ।। युञ्जन्नेवं सदात्मानं योगी विगतकल्मषः। सुखेन ब्रह्मसंस्पर्शमत्यन्तं सुखमश्नुते ॥ (VI. 27-28), विहाय कामान्यः सर्वान्पुमांश्चरति निःस्पृहः । निर्ममो निरहंकारः स शान्तिमधिगच्छति । एषा ब्राह्मी स्थितिः पार्थ नैनां प्राप्य विमुह्यति ।। स्थित्वास्यामन्तकालेऽपि ब्रह्मनिर्वाणमृच्छति ॥ (II.71-72). The अत्यन्तसुख is not different from the सर्वज्ञ ब्रह्मन् (48) Brahman or the highest bliss is nothing but मनस् with the अमनीभाव. The whole द्वैत is the विकल्प of the mind. It follows therefore that the अज आत्मन can have no संभव in reality. The best सत्य is that nothing can ever be born, and that अजातिवाद is the only true doctrine. ________________

CHAPTER IV This is called अलातशान्ति, presumably after the simile of the अलात (fire-brand ) used in the text ( 47-50 ). It contains one hundred Karikás, and may be said to give the quintessence of Gaudapāda's teachings. It also contains a मङ्गलाचरण containing a salutation to द्विपदां वर (which expression is generally taken to refer to Nārāyana by some, and to Gautama Buddha by others ), inany a Buddhistic philosophic term and a reasoned exposition of Ajătivāda (see Introduction for a detailed exposition of these topics ). K. bhāşya thus introduces this Prakarana:- ओङ्कारनिर्णयद्वारेणागमत: प्रतिज्ञातस्याद्वैतस्य बाह्मविषय भेदवैतथ्याच्च सिद्धस्य पुनरद्वैते शास्त्रयुक्तिभ्यां निर्धारितस्यैतदुत्तमं सत्यमित्युपसंहारः कृतः । अन्ते तस्यैतस्यागमार्थस्याद्वैतदर्शनस्य प्रतिपक्षमता द्वैतिनो वैनाशिकाश्च तेषां चान्योन्यविरोधात्रागद्वेषादिक्लेशास्पदं दर्शनमिति मिथ्यादर्शनत्वं सूचितम् । क्लेशानास्पदत्वात्सम्यग्दर्शनमित्यद्वैतदर्शनं स्तूयते । तदिह विस्तरेणान्योन्यविरुद्धतयासम्यग्दर्शनत्वं प्रदर्श्य तत्प्रतिषेधेनाद्वैतदर्शनसिद्धिरूपसंहर्तव्याऽऽवीतन्यायेनेत्यलातशान्तिरारभ्यते I धर्मान्-आत्मन: (K. bhäşya, ); objects, elements of existence ( Prof. Vidhuśekhara ). It does not matter what meaning is assigned to धर्म, for धर्म and धर्मिन्are one and the same, according to Advaita view. Both ज्ञान and धर्म are like आकाश; the common property being जरामरणविमुक्ताय referred to in Karikā 10 below), अमलिनत्व implied in III. 8 above ), अभिस्रज्य referred to in III. 6 above ), अनादित्व (referred to in Kärikä 91 below). ज्ञेयाभिन्नेन a is usually taken as going with ज्ञानेन; we think that it should be taken as उपलक्षणे तृतीया, used as a kind of adverbial clause, who realised the धर्मs as being not different from the ज्ञेय, thar is, Brahman'. In III. 33, is already declared to be ब्रह्मन्. Gaudapāda salutes in this Kárikā the द्विपदां वर at (best amongst men or bipeds ) who realised by his आकाश-like ज्ञान, the आकाश-like धर्म as being not different from ब्रह्मन्. Whatever the exact reference to द्विपदां वर, it could not be Gautama Buddha who is meant, for Brahman could not be said to have been realised by Buddha. द्विपरां वर-It is true that this expression is usually associated with Buddha in Buddhistic literature, but so are the epithets, विनायक, गणेश, नारायण, etc. The MBh. uses द्विपदावर to refer to नैषध, धृतराष्ट्र and नारायण. द्विपदां वर can not claim exclusive association with बुद्ध in any case. Anandagiri says that नारायण is meant here (आचार्यों हि पुरा बदरिकाश्रमे नरनारायणाधिष्ठिते नारायणं भगवन्तमभिप्रेत्य तपो महदतप्यत । ततो भगवानतिप्रसन्नस्तस्मै विद्यां ________________

Chapter IV 109 gitara प्रादादिति प्रसिद्धं परमगुरूत्वं परमेश्वरस्येति भाव:1) A question has been raised as to why Gaudapäda has no मङ्गलश्लोक at the beginning of the First Prakarana. Are we to conclude that the Fourth Prakaraña alone is the work of Gauda pada ? ( See Introduction )... अयमेवेश्वरो योनिनारायणाख्यस्तं वन्देऽभिवादये द्विपदां वरं द्विपदोपलक्षितानां पुरुषाणां वरं प्रधानं पुरुषोत्तममित्यभिप्रायः । उपदेष्ट्रनमस्कारमुखेन ज्ञानज्ञेयज्ञातृभेदरहितं परमार्थतत्त्वदर्शनमिह प्रकरणे प्रतिपिपादयिषितं प्रतिपक्ष प्रतिषेधद्वारेण प्रतिज्ञातं भवति। ( K. bhâsya ). (2) तं-अस्पर्शयोगम् or येन देशितस्तम्. Prof. Vidhusekhara in a long note on अस्पर्शयोग, says that the expression अस्पर्शयोग refers to the ninth or the last of the nine dhyānas or meditations called अनुपूर्वविहार or the successive states of dhyana which the Buddha taught and are found frequently in Buddhist texts'. He also tries to show that अस्पर्शयोग is nothing but असुखयोग meaning thereby 'a yoga which is not one that can be attained with ease', on the ground that स्पर्शविहार ( Pali फासुविहार ) is सुखस्थिति and अस्पर्शविहार is its opposite ! All this is sheer special pleading ( see Introduction ). Gauda pada need not have gone to any non-Vedic work for the term अस्पर्शयोग which is certainly not directly traceable to Buddhist literature, nor is there any definite statement about Buddha having taught any yoga as such. अविवाद It has been already stated in III. 18 above that अद्वैत परमार्थ and द्वैत is an off-shoot (due to माया) thereof. Hence there can be no विरोध between द्वैत and अद्वैत. The अद्वैतिन् certainly accepts द्वैत, but only as having an empirical reality. The द्वैतिन्s have every reason to quarrel with one another but not with the सर्वसंग्राहक अद्वैत. अविरुद्ध-not containing contradictory statements. Prof. Vidhuśekhara on the strength of the expression अविवाद and अविरूद्ध, comes to the amazing and unwarranted conclusion that the asparśayoga was not originally taught in the Brahmanic system of yoga ... in acceptance of the asparśayoga by the Vedantists, among whom the author himself is included, there cannot be raised any dispute or opposition, for there is nothing to be opposed even from their own point of view.' How such a conclusion can be drawn from the expressions अविवाद and अविरूद्ध , only Prof. Vidhusekhara knows (see Introduction ). (3) In order to establish his अजातिवाद, Gaudapāda shows first how कार्यकारणवाद held by the सांख्य, वैशेषिकs etc. cannot possibly exist. Those who believe in real origination have naturally to 1IO Notes on Gaudapada-Kärika believe in the relation of cause and effect. In Kārikā III. 23 above, भूततोऽभूततो वापि सृज्यमाने, the point under discussion was whether the creation was real or unreal (henceभूतत : was taken there to mean परमार्थ: ), here are means of the existent', because here the point is how the origination (which is taken to be self-evident) comes into effect. (1) भूतस्य जातिमिच्छन्ति --- These are the सांख्या, सत्कार्यवादिन्s or परिणामवादिन्, वैभाषिकs among the Buddhists). Their view is that the कार्य is सत् ( in the कारण ) prior to origination. Thus घट is not something new produced from the मृत्तिका, घट already exists सत्in the मृत्तिका; when we say धट is produced, what happens is मृत्तिका घटरूपेण परिणमते (घट however is not a वाचारम्भणं विकारः, but a real transformation ). अभूतस्यापरे जातिमिच्छन्ति-These are the वैशेषिक, सौत्रान्तिकs (among the Buddhists); असत्कार्यवादिनs. Their view is that. घट is a new (असत्) object produced from मृत्तिका, but there is समवाय संबन्ध ( intimate relation ) between them ( as there is no समवाय between तन्तु and घट, the असत् घट does not come from तन्तु); कार्य is असत् before its origination. Thus the असत्वादिन्s deny production of an असत् object, and the असत्कार्यवादिन्s a सत् object. As there can be only two sets of objects सत् and असत्, it follows that like सुन्द and उपसुन्द, the सत्कार्यवादिनूs and the असत्कार्यवादिन्s destroy each other's जातिवाद and enable the अजातिवाद to hold up its head triumphantly. (4) If a thing is सत्, it cannot be originated, for it is already originated. You cannot surely die twice. Similarly if a thing is असद्, असत् will it remain for ever, for instance the वन्ध्यापुत्र. No one can change his स्वभाव under any circumstances. विवदन्तो द्वया :-- The द्वतिन्, सांख्यs and वैशेषिकs contradicting each other, simply help the establishment of the doctrine of non-origination. Prof. Vidhu- sekhara says that in Karika 4, "the Acārya now proceeds to mention the doctrine of the Buddhists who subscribe to neither of these two views asserting absolute non-becoming (ajāti ) of things ". He also takes विवदन्तोद्वया as विवदन्तः अद्वयाः and explains अद्वय as अद्वयवादिन् (Buddhists who do not subscribe to any extreme views, but take a " " Chapter 1P LII middle path. The Buddha does not hold that any thing exists, nor does he hold that it does not exist). According to Prof. Vidhusekhara, the teachers alluded to in the present Kärikä are different from those in Kärika 3, as they do not discuss as to whether the origi- nation is of the existent or of the non-existent, but assert that there is no origination ( ajatım khyapayanti te ). We have stated Prof. Vidbušeklara's views as given on PP. 102-104, in his edition of Gaudapādakarikās in his own words, We have no hesitation in saying that Prof. Vidhuśekhara has com. pletely gone astray in his exposition of Kārika 4. The expression ( which is also found in Karikā 3 ) clearly shows that Gaudapada regards वादिनः, अपरे ( in Karika 3 ) and द्वयाः (or अद्वयाः according to Prof. Vidhusekhara ) as philosophers belonging to the opposite school, whose views he does not share, but whose argu- ments are useful to him in establishing the अजातिवाद. विवदन्तः means ' disputing'. Surely Prof, Vidhuśekhara does not desire the अद्वयs also disputing about something amongst themselves. The correct reading is द्वया: and it undoubtedly refers to the सांख्या and वैशेषिकs in the last Karika. विवदन्तोऽद्वयाः may also mean the dis- putants thus actually come to be अद्वैतिन्s supporting the अजातिवाद'. Again, the अद्वयs propounding the middle path cannot be regarded as holding any definite view like the अजातिवाद. The first half of the Kárikā shows how the सांख्यs and वैशेषिकs turn the tables on each other and nullify each other's views. Thus- The सांख्यs say that there is भूतस्य जातिः, The वैशेषिकs reply भूतं न जायते किंचित् ( a thing to be produced is necessarily अभूत one ). The वैशेषिकs say that there is अभूतस्य जातिः, The सांख्या reply अभूतं नैव जायते ( for, origination is but a transformation of a thing ). (5) Gaudapāda displays his sense of humour by asserting that he whole-heartedly backs up his opponents in their arguments against each other. It is not often that your opponents support you, but here the सांख्यs and वैशेषिकs together help in proving that no जाति or origination is at all possible. Under these circumstances, Gaudapāda declares that there is no ground for quarrel with his I12 Notes on Gardapada-Karika opponents who have made his work easier, and proceeds to further expound how the अजातिवाद transcends all विवाद. (6-8) These three Karikas are the same as III. 20-22 except- ing that धर्मस्य and धर्मों (in 6 and 6-8 ) are substituted for भावस्य and भावो ( in 20 and 20-22). K. bhāsya says सदसद्वादिनः सर्वेऽपीति । पुरस्ता. स्कृतभाष्यः श्लोकः ( Karika. 6 ) and उक्तार्थानां श्लोकानामिहोपन्यासः परवादि- पक्षाणामन्योन्यविरोधख्यापितानुमोदनप्रदर्शनार्थः ! Gaudapada before subjecting the views of the सांख्यs and वैशेषिकs to detailed criticism, quotes these Karikas which contain a general idea about what origination really connotes. As the word धर्म is used in Karika I, धर्म seems to have been substituted for भाव occurring in the Karikas in the third Prakaraya. It is difficult to say whether Gaudapáda himself is responsible for this change or some copyist did it. Actually, no hiatus would be felt even if these Karikās are dropped here. (9) As origination necessarily involves some change in the nature of the object concerned, Gaudapada first explains what is meant by प्रकृति ( or nature ), प्रकृति never gives up its own chara. cteristics ( स्वभाव), प्रकृति is of four kinds:-- [1] सांसिद्धिकी - which has become part and parcel of the object due to the acquisition of supernatural power etc. Gaudapāda presumably was possessed of Yogic powers and we have to take this variety of प्रकृति on trust. ( सम्यक् सिद्धिः संसिद्धिः तत्र भवा सांसिद्धिकी यथा योगिनां सिद्धानामणिमाद्यैश्वर्यप्राप्तिः प्रकृतिः सा भूतभविष्यत्कालयोरपि योगिनां न विपर्येति । K. bhāsya) [2] स्वाभाविकी-द्रव्यस्वभावत एव यथाग्न्यादीनामुष्णप्रकाशादिलक्षणा सापि न कालान्तरे व्यभिचरति देशान्तरे च । (K. bhasya) [3] सहजा-- आत्मना सहैव जाता यथा पक्ष्यादीनामाकाशगमनादिलक्षणा । (K. bhasya) [4] अकृता- अन्यापि या काचिदकृता केनचिन्न कृता यथापां निम्नदेशादि- गमनलक्षणा । (K. bhāsya). K. bhāsya also adds मिथ्याकल्पितेषु लौकिकेष्वपि वस्तुषु प्रकृतिर्नान्यथा भवति किमुताजस्वभावेषु परमार्थवस्तुष्वमृतत्वलक्षणा प्रकृतिर्नान्यथा भवतीत्यभिप्रायः । सांसिद्धिक is the same as नैसर्गिक according to वैशेषिकs, here it is used in the sense ' acquired, but become second nature'. Chapter IV 113 etc. (10) Here perhaps धर्माः should mean जीवs (or आत्मान: as the K. bhāşya says ). The जीवs imagine ( इच्छन्त इवेचेछन्तो रज्ज्वामिव सर्पमात्मनि कल्पयन्त: K. bhāşya ) that they are subject to old age and death, and experience accordingly (cf. यं यं वापि स्मरन्भावं त्यजन्त्यन्ते कलेवरम् । तं तमेवैति कौन्तेय सदा तद्भावभावितः !! Gita VIII.6). (11) Gaudapāda now shows how the कार्यकारणभाव admitted by the सांख्यs and वैशेषिकs cannot be valid. According to the सांख्या who are सत्कार्यवादिन, प्रकृति (or प्रधान ) is the मूलकारण and is also अज. The creation of the world means that प्रधान is transformed into महत्, Let us analyse this view of the सांख्यs, that प्रधान ( कारण ) itself becomes महत् (कार्य). In other words, महत् is originated (but महत् and प्रधान are one and the same ). We ought to say that प्रधान is originated (but प्रधान is also said to be अज). But how can an अज ( unoriginated and so immutable) thing undergo origination or change? If it undergoes a change, how can it be नित्य ? ( प्रधानं भिन्नं विदीर्णं स्फुटितमेकदेशेन सत्कथं नित्यं भवेदित्यर्थः । न हि सावययं घटादि, एकदेशस्फुटनधर्मि नित्यं दृष्टं लोक इत्यर्थः । विदीर्ण च स्यादेकदेशेनाज चेति, एतविपतिषिद्धं तैरभिधीयत इत्यभिप्रायः । ( K. bhāsya). (12) The सांख्य might say: "We believe that कारण and कार्य are one, कार्य is अनन्य from कारण. So if कारण is अज, then कार्य is also अज.' To this our answer would be “But this is also for विप्रतिषिद्ध, for your कार्य is जायमान and therefore अनित्य, कार्य is अनन्य from कारण as you say, so the अनित्य कार्य should mean an अनित्य कारण, then what becomes of your theory that the कारण ( मूलप्रकृति ) is अज? Your कार्य ( which is अनन्य from कारण ) cannot be अनित्य only in parts, like the curate's egg bad in parts! ' ( न हि कुक्कुट्या एकदेशः पच्यते एकदेशः प्रसवाय कल्प्यते । K, bhāşya ). The proposed emendation यदनन्यत्वम् for यद्यनन्यत्वम् makes the construction simpler and for that very reason, is not likely to be genuine. (13) If it is argued that an अज thing can produce a कार्य, we ask : is there any दृष्टांत to corroborate this statement? Our experi- ences in this world are concerned only with उत्पन्न things producing any कार्य. 15 114 Notes on Gandapada-Karika " > If it is argued that we might accept the proposition that only an उत्पन्न thing produces a first, then there would be the fault of endless- ness (न व्यवस्था = अनवस्था ) thus:- B is produced by A ( which must itself be उत्पन्न according to the above supposition ), A in turn owes its origination to, say, A', A' to A2, A2 to A3 and so on ad infi- nitum. If the series comes to an end at some point, all the preced- ing links break down and the main proposition falls to the ground. (14) The objector says:-- We can produce a दृष्टांत which slows that an can originate, and which also does not contain the अनवस्थादोष. This संसार is admitted by all to be अनादि, so also are धर्माधर्म and देहादिसंघात. Now धनाधर्म (कारण) produces the फल or कार्य (देहादिसंघात) and देहादिसंघात (कारण), (धर्माधर्म ) Here the कारण and कार्य are interdependent and अनादि. So this दृष्टांत should meet all your objections. The Siddhāntin's answer is:--- It is a contradiction in terms to speak of अनादित्व and हेतुफलभाववत्त्व. How can an अनादि thing have any कारण ? How can an अनादि thing have any फल which is necessarily associated with change in the कारण? (न हि नित्यस्य कूटस्थस्यात्मनो हेतु- फलात्मता संभवति | K. bhasya). ( 15 ) Again, your argument that इल or कार्य produces the कारण is simply astounding ! Can any one in his senses argue that a son begets the father? (16) Again, it is no use saying that कारण and कार्य mutually produce each other. You must be able to state the order in which the things are produced. It cannot be argued that कारण and कार्य may both be produced simultaneously, for, in that case, the left and the right horns of a cow, that spring up simultaneously could be regarded as having कारणकार्यभाव between them! Sankara uses the विषाण simile in his Vedantasutrabhāsya on II. 2-17, अथापृथक्वालमयुतसिद्धत्व. मुच्येत सव्यदक्षिणयोरपि गोविषाणयोरयुतसिद्धत्वं प्रसज्येत । ( (17) Further, the कारण which depends for its production upon its फल ( which is जन्य ), cannot possibly be proved to exist ! And a non-existent कारण, it is needless to add, like शशविषाण, can Chapter IV Its not produce any thing! ( न हीतरेतरापेक्षसिद्ध्योः शशविषाणकल्पयोः कार्य- कारणभावेन संबन्धः क्वचिदृष्टः, अन्यथा वेत्यभिप्रायः । ( K. bhāsya). (18) Further, even if we admit, just to please you, that कार्यकारणभाव can exist mutually between हेतु and फल, and फल and हेतु, it is incumbent upon you to say which comes first, and which second that has to depend upon the establishment of the first. But this you cannot do. ( 19 ) कार्यकारणभाव can have the following alternative theories:- [1] The cause produces the effect. [ 2 ] The effect produces the cause. This is denounced as absurd in Kärikas 15 and 17. [ 3 ] Cause and effect mutually produce each other, This also can be ruled out on the ground that it is impossible to state what comes first, the cause or the effect. In a कार्यकारणभाव; the knowledge of पौर्वापर्य is essential and implicit (Karikās 16 and 18 ) [4] Cause and effect are produced simultaneously. This is obviously absurd. There cannot be कार्यकारणभाव between things which have a simultaneous origin. [5] There is no origination at all. [6] कार्य and कारण are one; कार्य !s a mere विवर्त. Gauda pada emphasises No. 5 and is mainly concerned with establishing the अजातिवाद. Sankarācārya, on the other hand, Emphasises No. 6 and resorts to the मायावाद and व्यावहारिक सत्य to expound his thesis. It would be seen that Numbers 5 and 6 are but different aspects of one and the same proposition. No. 1 of the above alternatives has not been discussed so far. Prof. Vidhusekhara says ' it appears that a Karikā dealing with the first proposition is now lost between Kärikäs 16 and 17. For, as the second and third propositions are discussed (IV. 17-18 ), one may naturally expect to have the discussion also of the first position, but it is not to be found. Can we think that the author himself has omitted it ? Prof. Vidhusekhara's fears are groundless. ________________

116 Notes on Gaudapàda-Karika Gauda pada does not ignore proposition No. 1, but discusses it, being fully aware of its importance, in the first half of Kärikä 19. Those who believe that कार्य produces the कारण, tacitly admit l कारण and कार्य are two entirely different things. There is कार्याभाव first before कार्य is produced. 21 कारण and कार्य are however intimately connected with each other by the समवाय relation. [3] This समवाय relation ensures that only a particular कारण (मृत्तिका) produces a particular कार्य ( घट), otherwise we might get even पट from मृत्तिका. (4] कारण has thus a particular शक्ति to produce the कार्य in question. [5] If कारण and कार्य are अनन्य, उत्पत्तिः would be निरर्थिका etc. Gaudapāda now attacks these tenets of the असत्कार्यवादि वैशेषिकs. Til Gaudapáda points out that the existence of शक्ति in the कारण to produce a particular कार्य cannot be proved. Thus (a) Is this शक्ति different from कारण? Or [2] Is this शक्ति, like कार्याभाव, of a non-existent nature ? In either case, the शक्ति would not help the कारण to produce the कार्य; if the शक्ति is existent and not different from कारण, it is कारण itself (Read the following from Sankarabhāsya. on II. I-13, युक्तेः शब्दान्तराच्च, प्रागुत्पत्तेः कार्यस्य सत्वमनन्यत्वं च कारणादवगम्यते ... दधिधटरुचकाद्यर्थिभिः प्रतिनियतानि क्षीरमृत्तिकासुवर्णादीन्युपादीयमानानि लोके दृश्यन्ते । न हि दध्यार्थिभिर्मृत्तिकोपादीयते न घटार्थिभिः क्षीरम् । तदसत्कार्ये नोपपद्यते । अविशिष्टे हि प्रागुत्पत्तेः सर्वस्य सर्वत्रासत्त्वे कस्मात् क्षीरादेव दध्युत्पद्यते न मृत्तिकायाः, मृत्तिकाया एव च घट उत्पद्यते न क्षीरात् । अथाविशिष्टेऽपि प्रागसत्त्वे क्षीर एव दनः कश्चिदतिशयो न मृत्तिकायामित्युच्येत, तर्ह्यतिशयवत्त्वात् प्रागवस्थाया असत्कार्यवादहानिः सत्कार्यवादसिद्धिश्च । शक्तिश्व कारणस्य कार्यनियमार्था कल्प्यमाना नान्यासती वा कार्यं नियच्छेत् । असत्त्वाविशेषादन्यत्वाविशेषाच्च । तस्मात् कारणस्यात्मभूता शक्तिः शक्तेश्वात्मभूतं कार्यम् ।). अशक्ति: thus means - the absence of any power in the कारण to produce the particular कार्य'. K. bhasya seems to connect अशक्तिः with कतरापूर्वनिष्पन्नं यस्य सिद्धिरपेक्षया in the last Karika, saying अथैतस्न्न शक्यते वक्तुमिति मन्यसे सेयमशक्तिः, so that अशक्ति is taken to mean the ________________

Chapter 1) 117 inability to answer the query.' Prof. Vidbuśekhara thinks that अशक्ति refers to IV. 3 where two classes of teachers are mentioned, one holding satkaryavada and the other asatkäryavada. [2] Another objection to the असत्कार्यवाद is that there is no knowledge of the inter-relation between कार्य and कारण; no intimate relation between two entirely different things can be proved. It can not be known how कार्यcan reside in the कारण. There can be no relation between कारणwhich already exists and कार्यwhich is going to come into existence later. A संबन्ध is possible only between two existing things (अपि च कार्यकारणयोर्द्रव्यगुणादीनां चाश्वमहिषवद्भेदबुध्यभावात् तादात्म्यमभ्युपगन्तव्यम् । समवायकल्पनायामपि समवायस्य सममायिभिः संबन्धेऽभ्युपगम्यमाने तस्य तस्यान्योन्यः संबन्धः कल्पयितव्य इत्यनवस्थाप्रसङ्गः । अनभ्युपगम्यमाने च विच्छेदप्रसङ्गः । ... तादाभ्यप्रतीतेश्च द्रव्यगुणादीनां समवायकल्पनानर्थक्यम् । कथं च कार्यमवयविद्रव्यं कारणेष्ववयवद्रव्येषु वर्तमानं वर्तते-कि समस्तेष्वयवेषु वर्तेत उत प्रत्यययवम् । यदि तावत् समस्तेषु वर्तेत ततोऽवयव्यनुपलब्धिः प्रसज्येत समस्तावयवसंनिकर्षस्याशक्यत्वात । ... अथावयवशः समस्तेषु वर्तेत तदाप्यारम्भकावयवक्ष्यतिरेकेणावयविनोऽवयवाः कल्प्येरन् पैरारम्भकेष्ववयवेष्ववयवशोऽवयवी वर्तेत । ... अनवस्था चैवं प्रसज्येत तेषु तेष्वषयवेषु वर्तयितुमन्येषामवयवानां कल्पनीयत्वात् । अथ प्रत्यवयवं वर्तेत तदैकत्र व्यापारेऽन्यत्राव्यापार: स्यात् । न हि देवदत्तः स्तुघ्ने संनिधीयमानस्तदहरेव पाटलिपुत्रेऽपि संनिधीयेत । युगपदनेकत्र वृत्तावनेकत्वप्रसङ्गः स्यात् ... गोत्वादिवत् प्रत्येकं परिसमाप्तेर्न दोष इति चेत् न तथा प्रतीत्यभावात् । ... प्रत्येकपरिसमाप्तौ चावयविना कार्येणाधिकारात् तस्य चैकत्वात् शृङ्गेणापि स्तनकार्यं कुर्यादुरसा च पृष्ठ कार्यम् । न चैवं दृश्यते। ... यस्य पुनः प्रागुत्पत्तेरसत् कार्यं तस्य निर्विषयः कारकव्यापारः स्यात्, अभावस्य' विषयत्वानुपपत्ते. राकाशहननप्रयोजनखङ्गाद्यनेकायुधप्रयुक्तिवत् । ... समवायिकारणविषयः कारकव्यापार: स्यादिति चेत, न । अन्यविषयेण कारकव्यापारणान्यनिष्पत्तेरातिप्रसङ्गात् । ... तस्मात् क्षीरादीन्येव द्रव्याणि दध्यादिभावनावतिष्टमानानि कार्याख्यां लभन्त इति न कारणादन्यत् कार्यं वर्षशतेनापि शक्यं निश्वेतुम् । तथा मूलकारणमेवान्त्यात् कार्यात् तेन तेन कार्याकारेण नटवत् सर्वव्यवहारास्पदत्वं प्रतिपद्यते । Sankarabhāsya on Brahmasutra II. I-18). अपरिज्ञान is explained by K. bhasya as तत्वाविवेको मूढतेत्यर्थः। It may mean पूर्वापरापरिज्ञानम् in Karika 21 below, in which case, the expression refers to No. 3 of the alternatives mentioned above. Prof. Vidhasekhara suggests that अपरिज्ञान is the पूर्वापरकोटि--अपरिज्ञान which is described in पूर्वापरकोटिपरीक्षा (Chapter XI ) of the Mula madhyamakārikå of Nagarjuna. क्रमकोप:- No 4 alternative, viz. कार्य and कारण arising simultaneously, is objected to, on the ground of the 'violation of the order'. 118 Notes on Gaudapada-Karika The accepted order between कार्य and कारण is that कारण comes first and afterwards. Kārikā 16 above also refers to this. Gaudapāda says that the wise philosophers having considered carefully all the points involved in कार्यकारणभाव, and the various alternative theories adumbrated, have come to the conclusion that No. I is to be rejected on the ground of its of the अशक्ति, and the अपरिज्ञान of any संबन्ध between कार्य and कारण. No. 2 is frivolous and beneath consideration. No. 3 is to be rejected, because there is no ground to ascertain which comes first, of the two कार्य and कारण(and no दृष्टान्त to corroborate it). No. 4 goes against अनुभव. Thus No. 5 which says that there is अजाति, is alone the correct theory. Prof. Vidhuśekhara says that by बुद्धैः, we should understand the Buddhists'. The expression seems to have been used in the sense of तत्त्वदर्शिभिः (see Introduction ). In IV. 42, we have जातिस्तु देशिता बुद्धैः and in IV, 54, एवं हेतुफलाजातिं प्रविशन्ति मनीषिणः। so that by मनीषिण, बुद्धा, Gaudapāda probably refers to 'wise philosophers' in general. ( 20 ) The objector says that it was not fair on the part of Gaudapada to brush aside his theory of mutual कार्यकारणभाव ( कार्य producing कारण and कारण producing कार्य ) as frivolous by asking how a son can beget the father ( Kärikā 15 ); the matter should not be treated in that light-hearted manner. The बीजाङ्कुरन्याय correctly represents his position ( बीज produces अङ्कुर and अङ्कुर pro- duces बीज), Why should mutualकार्यकीरणभाव be objected to ? Every body accepts the बीजाङ्कुरन्याय as authoritative. Gaudapāda says in reply:.- We अजातिवादिन्s can not accept the बीजाङ्कुर दृष्टान्त. You have yet to prove to us how the कार्यकारणभाव exists between बीज and अङ्कुर. The दृष्टांत is not सिद्ध, it is still साध्य. Again, strictly speaking, it is wrong to regard बीजाङ्कुर proving अनादित्व as well. It is generally held that Chapter IV 119 बीज - अङ्कुर बीज अङ्कुर and so on-this series shows mutual (1) कार्यकारणभाव, but surely the बीज I produced from अङ्कुर is different from बीज; and अङ्कुर I produced from बीज 1, is different from अङ्कुर. 1 Here are therefore different कार्यकारणभावs between different sets of objects ! साध्यसम is a हेत्वामास mentioned by Gautama; it is the same as असिद्ध of other तार्किकs. On हेतुः, K. bhāsya remarks, हेतुरिति दृष्टान्तोऽवाभिप्रेतो गमकत्वात् । प्रकृतो हि दृष्टान्तो न हेतुरिति | But Gaudapada may be taken here to equnciate a general proposition, not refer- ring to the particular point under reference. (21) The objector says:- You are making too much of our inability to mention which of the two कार्य and कारण comes first. What does it matter if we do not know this particular? The relationship between the two is clear to the meanest intelligence and that should suffice for our purpose. Gaudapada's reply would be:- If a thing is really being produced, surely a child ought to be able to tell which is the कारण (that is already there ) prior to the thing to be produced. The fact that you are not able to point out the कारण and its relation with the कार्य, shows that your basic principle viz. that there is जाति, is unfounded. If the कार्य can be apprehended, its जनक must be capable of being apprehended too (जायमानो हि च धर्मो गृह्यते कथं तस्मात्पूर्वं कारणं न गृह्यते । अवश्यं हि जायमानस्य ग्रहीत्वा तज्जनकं ग्रहीतव्यम् । अन्यजनकयोः संबन्धस्यावपेतत्वात ! K. bhāsya), ( 22 ) The upshot of all this discussion is that the view of the ( सत्कार्यवादिन्s) सांख्यs that वस्तु स्वतः जायते is untenable (घट can- not be produced from itself ) ; that of the ( असत्कार्यवादिन्s) वैशेषिकाs that वस्तु परतः जायते ( घट cannot be produced from an entirely different thing, say पट) is equally untenable. A thing obviously can- not be produced स्वतः and परत:. When we say a thing is produced', we are using mere words (शब्दप्रत्ययविषयं वस्तु घटपुत्रादिलक्षणं शब्दमात्रमेव तत् । वाचारम्भणम् इति श्रुतेः K.bhāsya). Similarly, a सत् or असत् thing can not be produced (otherwise there would be अन्यथाभाव of their प्रकृति), सदसत् cannot likewise be produced (विरुद्धस्यैकस्यासंभवात् K. bhasya which adds येषां पुनर्जनिरेव जायते इति क्रियाकारकफलैकत्वमभ्युपगम्यते क्षणिकत्वं च वस्तुनः, ते (बौद्धाः) दूरत एव न्यायापेताः । इदमित्थमित्यवधारणक्षणान्तरानव- स्थानादननुभूतस्य स्मृत्यनुपपत्तेश्च ।) ________________

I20 Notes on Gaudapada-Karika GOM MATREE state: for 31T1 s quite unne ( 23 ) Those who speak of आति, basing their arguments on the अनादि धर्माधर्म and देहादिसंघात mutually giving rise to अनादि संसार, are contradicting themselves. अनादे: फलात् हेतुर्न जायते - For, if the फल is अनादि and does produce something, there would be ceaseless production, and an अनादिकारण must produce अनादि कार्य (for कारण and कार्य. must be like in nature ) which is ridiculous how can an अनादि कार्य have a beginning ?) Similarly फल cannot be produced from अनादिहेतु Prof. Vidhusekhara against all manuscript authority wishes to read अनादि: for अनादेः this would make the sense more clear) and जाति: for ह्यादि: (this is quite unnecessary ). It is quite clear that आदि: is used twice deliberately (in two different senses) to give an enigmatical touch to the line. आदिः means (1) cause (2) beginning. A thing for which no cause can be found, caonot have any beginning, that is, cannot be produced (कारणवत एवह्यादिरभ्युपगम्यते नाकारणवतः K, bhașya ). (24) Having disposed of the सांख्याs, वैशेषिकs etc. (whom Gauda pāda could have called "आत्मदीपा: ), Gauda pāda now turns to the Bauddhas. परतन्त्र means ' another शास्त्र, another school of philosophy (परेषां तन्त्रं परतन्त्रमित्यन्यशास्त्रं K. bhasya; cf. समानतन्त्रसिद्धः परतन्त्रासिद्ध प्रतितन्त्रसिद्धांत: Nyāyasūtra I. 1-29). The बाह्यार्थवादि बौद्धs are referred to here. The बाह्यार्थवादिन्s maintain that बाह्यार्थ apart from विज्ञान or बुद्धि must be taken to exist (and therefore there must be जाति for it) to account for the प्रत्ययवैचित्र्य and the experience of pain etc. Objective experience. In order to perceive घट, it is essential that one's बुद्धि must be घटाकारा; if there is no घट, how can the बुद्धि be घटाकारा) and how can घटप्रज्ञप्ति arise? So प्रज्ञप्ति must have a निमित्त; in the absence of this निमित्त, there would be no ग्राह्यग्राहकभाव (द्वय); secondly, we actually experience pain etc., this cannot be denied. This संक्लेशोपलब्धि also must be attributed to some cause. This cause could only be the बाह्यार्थ which is subject to जाति. Prof. Vidhusekhara explains परतन्त्रास्तिता मता as their ) existence is regarded as dependent, which hardly makes things clear. There is no question here about existence being dependent or independent, but about existence of the बाह्यार्थ itself. संक्लेश:-संक्लेशनं दुःखमित्यर्थः (K. bhasya.). संक्लेशs according to the Buddhists arise from स्कन्धs (रूप, वेदना, , संज्ञा संस्कार an विज्ञान), आयतन 5 कर्मेन्द्रियs and mind, and their objects, in all 12 ), and धातु ( 6 organs of sense, six objects and six kinds of consciousness ). ________________

Chapter IV 121 (25) This Karika refutes the बाह्यार्थवादिन's view. The बाह्यार्थवादिन्s takes his stand upon युक्ति ( inference, as implied in the last Karika), bur युक्ति is inferior and must give way to भूतदर्शन, the real state of things (परमार्थदर्शनादित्येतत् । न हि घटो यथाभूतसूद्रूपदर्शने सति तद्व्यतिरेकेणास्ति । यथाश्वान्महिषः पटो वा तन्तुव्यतिरेकेण । तन्तवश्चांव्यतिरेकेणेस्येवमुत्तरोत्तरभूतदर्शन आशब्दप्रत्ययनिरोधान्नैव निमित्तमुपलभामह इत्यर्थः । अथवा भूतदर्शनाद्बाह्यार्थस्यानिमित्तत्वमिष्यते । रज्ज्वादाविव सार्वादेरित्यर्थः । भ्रान्तिदर्शनविषयत्वाञ्च निमित्तस्यानिमित्तत्वं भवेत् । तदभावेऽभावात् । न हि सुषुप्तसमाहितमुक्तानां भ्रान्तिदर्शनाभाय आत्मव्यतिरिक्तो बाह्योऽर्थ उपलभ्यते । न ह्युन्मत्तावगतं वस्त्वनन्मत्तैरपि तथाभूतं गम्यते K. bhāsya). भूतदर्शन tells us that nothing is ever produced, all so-called production is शब्दमात्र (26) प्रज्ञप्ति has no निमित्त, as no बाह्मार्थ can exist. The चित्त ( or विज्ञान) alone exists and appears as बाह्यार्थ. Thus चित्त has no contact with अर्थ ( because it does not exist ) or अर्थाभास (without अर्थ, अर्थाभास cannot exist ). अभूत:- Not existent. (जागरितेऽपि स्वप्रार्थवदेव K. bhāsya). (27) विष्वध्वसु-In the three paths or periods of time, अतीतानागतवर्तमानाध्वसु. चित्त never gets into contact with any external object. The objector points out that if the चित्त can have घटाद्याभासता in the absence ofचित्त etc., there is the chance of चित्त presenting a wrong picture of धट etc. The answer is that if धट were to exist, we would be in a position to say if the presentation by चित्त conforms to the घट or not. But with घट not in existence, घटविपर्यास is out of question (अयमेव हि स्वभावश्चित्तस्य यदुतासति निमित्ते घटादौ तद्वदवभासनम् । K. bhasya). (28) K. bhāsya says:- प्रज्ञः सनिमित्तत्व(Karika 25)मित्यायेतदन्तं ( Karika 27) विज्ञानवादिनो बौद्धस्य वचनं बाह्यार्थवादिपक्षप्रतिषेधपरमाचार्येणानुमोदितम् । तदेव हेतुं कृत्वा तत्पक्षप्रतिषेधाय तदिदमुच्यते तस्मादित्यादि। Just as Gaudapada used the arguments of the वैशेषिकs against the सांख्यs, and vice versa, he uses the arguments advanced by the विज्ञानवादिन्s against the existence of बाह्मार्थ admitted by the बाह्यार्थवादिन्s. In this Karika he turns the tables on the विज्ञाननादिनs. According to the विज्ञानवाद, विज्ञान is associated with क्षणिकत्व, दुःख, शून्यत्व etc., that is, these are विज्ञानज धर्मs. Gaudapada says that neither चित्त nor चित्तदृश्य can be originated ( the origination of चित्त means its association with धर्मs ). The विज्ञानवादिन्s holding the view that चित्त or चित्तदृश्य is originated, see the foot-prints (of birds ) in the sky. It is as absurd to say that चित्तं जायते as to say that one can mark the passage of birds in 16 124 Notes on Gaudapada-Karika (38) Actually it is wrong to say that जागरित produces स्वप्न There can not be संभव of an अभूत (स्वप्न) from the भूत (जागरित). An अभूत, the शशविषाण for instance, can never be produced. There is no उत्पाद, hence the Vedantas have proclaimed that all is Brahman which is अज. We may take अभूत to mean अज and take the second half as corroborating अजं सर्वमुदाह्रतम् in the first line. ( 39 ) The dreamer sees in dream things which he has seen in the waking state as unreal; having seen the unreal things in the dream, he fails to see them in the waking state. So both in the waking state and in the dream-state, one sees things seen in the other state as unreal. जागरित is the cause of स्वप्न only from the point of view of व्यवहार, but the जागरित is also equally unreal. The propriety of च is given by K. bhāsya च शब्दातथा जागरितेऽपि दृष्ट्वा स्वप्ने न पश्यति कदाचिदित्यर्थः । तस्माज्जागरितं स्वप्नहेतुरुच्यते न तु परमार्थसदिति कृत्वा. The स्वप्नदृश्य is unreal and has जागरितदृश्य for its cause; this shows that matku must be unreal. A person thus sees unreal things both in the waking and dream states, but does not realise this in the waking state. (40) From the point of view of the highest reality कार्यकारणभाव is possible. Thus I ] असत् खकुसुम cannot have a असत् शशविषाण for its cause. [2] सत् (घट) cannot have असत् ( शशविषाण) for its cause. [3] सत् (घट ) cannot have सत् (घट, पट ) for its cause, (for, in that case सत् would lose its प्रकृति, सत्त्व ) [4] असत् cannot have सत् for its cause. (for, they are as two poles asunder ). (41) The objector says that if both जाग्रत and स्वप्न experiences are unreal, how can there be any & कार्यकारणभाव between them ? The answer is that it is not our statement the स्वप्नधर्मs are produced by the जाग्रद्धर्मs. Just as in the waking state, a person can have false knowledge of a rope as though it were a real serpent, the same thing happens in the dream-state as well. भूतवत्-As a fact, as real. In both states, there is विपर्याय, that is all. (42) If the अजातिवाद is the highest philosophical truth, why have Šāstras taught different kinds of Upāsanās, वर्णाश्रमधर्मS etc. Chapter II 125 which presuppose that creation is real and duality exists? The answer is that the wise ( buddha) people realise that अजातिवाद is extremely difficult to be grasped by ordinary people who see nothing but आत्मनाश in the अजातिवाद. So, taking compassion on these weak-kneed but well-intentioned people, the wise have preached for them the उत्पत्तिवाद, in the belief that in course of time they would be in a position to understand the higher truth of अजातिवाद ( this is what is meant by उपायः सोऽवताराय in III. I5 Prof. Vidhusekhara understands by बुद्धा) here also, the Buddhists. But surely, the Buddha never preached the उत्पत्तिवाद or अजातिवाद either! (43) वियन्ति- विरुद्धं यन्ति, द्वैतं प्रतिपद्यन्त इत्यर्थः K. bháșya ), The objector says: The श्रुति (... उदरमन्तरं कुरुते । अथ तस्य भयं भवति । Taittiriyopanişad II. 7-1 ) warns the साधक against the danger of believing in द्वैत. Would not those people who follow the Gästric injunctions based upon जातिवाद, because they are terribly afraid of अजातिवाद, come to grief in the end? Have they ever no hope for salvation ? The answer is that these people are after all not bad, but just weak and certainly सम्यग्व्यवसित ( साधुरेव स मन्तव्यः सम्यग्व्यवसितो हि

1. 1 Gita IX. 30 ). They are not नास्तिकs like the Cärvākas or

Buddhists, and with luck, they can ultimately see their way to believing in the अजातिवाद (न हि कल्याणकत्कश्विदुर्गति तात गच्छति । Gitā XI. 40 ). ( 44 ) Gauậapāda says howsoever he might synipathise with the अस्तिवस्तुत्ववादिन्s referred to in Karikās 42, 43, he has to point out that their argument viz. there is वस्तुभाव on account of उपलब्ध and समाचार is entirely wrong. Because an object is perceived and can be put to practical use, it does not mean that it is real. For instance, the magic elephant shown up by a juggler is actually perceived ; people see its movements and so on, but every one knows that the elephant is unreal. ( 45 ) The only real thing is thus विज्ञान(also called it, चित्त, मनस्) that is, ज्ञानरूप ब्रह्मन्, which is अज (but appears to be born ), अचल (but appears to have motion ), अवस्तु (but appears to be a वस्तु ) and is completely unruffled (having no विकार ) and not within the province of the द्वय (ग्राह्यग्राहकभाव ). This description of विज्ञान by Gaudapāda shows that he does not hold the विज्ञानवाद of the Buddhists. The विज्ञान of the Buddhists is neither अज, nor अचल, 126 Notes on Gaudapada-Karika ! nor अवस्तु. Gaudapāda accepts the arguments of the विज्ञानवादिन्s against the बाह्यार्थवादिन्s, but then he parts company with them. (46) विज्ञान or चित्त or ब्रह्मन् is अज, and all so-called धर्मs not being different from ब्रह्मन् are also अज. When this truth is realised there is no संसार trouble. एवमेव यथोक्तं विज्ञानं जात्यादिरहितमद्वयमात्मतत्त्वं विजानन्तस्त्यक्तबाह्यैषणाः पुनर्न पतन्त्यविद्याध्वान्तसागरे विपर्यये । 'तत्र को मोहः क. शोक एकत्वमनुपश्यतः' इत्यादि मन्त्रवर्णात् । ( K. bhāsya). It is unusual to speak of an Upanişadic passage as a मन्त्रवर्ण as is done here by the K. bhäșya. ( 47-52) Karikas 47-52 introduce the famous अलात simile after which the present Prakarana is named. If the विज्ञान is one and अज, how do we experience the various धर्म ? Whence do they come and whither do they go? What is their connection with विज्ञान? Do they arise out of विज्ञान ? The answer is that जात्याद्याभास are all असत् and जात्यादिबुद्धि is मृषा. अलातम् विज्ञानम् (1) When the fire-brand is When the विज्ञानvibrates, there whirled about, there is the is the appearance of बाह्य and appearance of straight and crook- ग्राहक ( the vibration of the विज्ञान ed lines. is of course due to अविद्या, it is not real). (2) When the अलातis at rest, When the विज्ञान does not there arises appearance, vibrate,it is without any 6E- there is no change in the अलाता He and is 3151. it is अज. (3) When the one is whirled When the fata vibrates, the about, the white appearances ITTITEHa appearances do not do not come in from a place out- come in from a place outside it. side it. (4) When the wala is at rest, When the lan is at rest, the the appearances do not go out appearances do not go out else- elsewhere, nor do they enter the where, nor do they enter the अलात. विज्ञान (s) The appearances can not The appearances involving be going out, as they are not 2045; ग्राह्यग्राहकभाव cannot be going our only a ce is capable of move- as they are not us. Only a za is capable of movement, no a ment. Chapter IV 127 Whether it is the ऋजुवक्रादि or ग्राह्यग्राहकभाव आभास, the आभासत्व is the same and their behaviour is exactly alike. There is no कार्य- कारणभाव between the आभासs and अलात or विज्ञान, Hence they must be pronounced to be not capable of being considered or in plain language मृषा, यथासत्स्वाद्याभासेषु, ऋज्वादिबुद्धिर्दृष्टालातमात्रे तथासत्स्वेव जात्या- दिषु विज्ञानमात्रे जात्यादिबुद्धिर्मृषैवेति समुदायार्थः । K. bhasya which also hastens to add अलातेन समानं सर्व विज्ञानस्य । सदाचलत्वं तु विज्ञानस्य विशेषः । (53) În the last Kárikā, it was stated that in the case of विज्ञान which is one, अज etc., no कार्यकारणभाव was possible. This Kárikā explains why it is so. कार्यकारणभाव implies that there must be two द्रव्यs, so that one द्रव्य can be the cause of another द्रव्य. विज्ञान is one, immutable, there is nothing else, so it cannot have any अवयवs ( कपाल and घट have कार्यकारणभाव, because there is अवयावयवि relation between the two ) or गुणs (घट and घटरूप can have a कार्यकारणभाव ). Though there is the कार्यकारणभाव between पटरूप and तन्तुरूप( which are अदृश्य, being गुणs ) it is obvious that to depends upon a द्रव्य ( पट +तन्तु) here also, so that does not vitiate the general statement द्रव्यं द्रव्यस्य कारणम् or अन्यत् अन्यस्य कारणम् (कारण and कार्य must be two separate things ). The धर्मs are not द्रव्यs, nor are they different from विज्ञान, as we have already proved. So no कार्य- कारणभाव is possible. (54) So, we have to fall back upon अजातिवाद as the only Unassailable doctrine. The विज्ञानवादिनs seem to hold that धर्मs are चित्तज; but this is not possible. चित्त is आत्मविज्ञानस्वरूप and धर्मs are विज्ञानस्वरूपाभासमात्र ; there cannot be हेतुफलभाव between them. Here Gauậapada uses the expression मनीषिण:. It is more probable there- fore, that the expression बुद्धै: in IV. 19 and IV. 42 does not refer to the Buddhists, especially because the विज्ञान of Gaudapāda is different from the विज्ञान of the Buddhists, and the Buddhists who are really अद्वयवादिन्s could not have preached the अजातिवाद. प्रविशन्ति-अध्यवस्यन्ति (K. bhasya). (5) आवेश: , usually used in connection with the seizure by ghosts or spirits; hence, strong attachment or adherence. As long as there is the superimposition of धर्मs upon the आत्मन् or विज्ञान, there exists the कार्यकारणभाव based on द्वैत. But when the adherence to causality disappears, the द्वैत also disappears. यदा पुनर्मन्त्रौषधिवीर्येणेव 128 Notes on Gaudapăda-Karika ग्रहावेशो यथोक्ताद्वैतदर्शनेनाविद्योद्भूतहेतुफलावेशोऽपनीतो भवति तदा तस्मिन्क्षीणे नास्ति हेतुफलोद्भवः। ( K. bhasya). (56) With the disappearance of a हेतुफलावेश, and consequently that of द्वैत, there can be no Samsara (37) संवृति is explained by K. bhāsya as संवरणम् अविद्याविषयो लौकिकव्यवहारः; the Buddhists admit of two kinds of सत्य, संवृतिसत्य empirical truth ( व्यावहारिक सत्य of Sankara) and परमार्थसत्य. It appears to us that Gaudapada uses the expression in the sense of माया (the instrumental संवृत्या does not fit in well with the meaning empirical truth'). Prof. Vidhusekhara thinks that in this Karikā the Sasvatavāda and the Ucchedavāda are attacked. He also likes to read स्वभावेन for सद्भावेन. We are of opinion that Gaudapada here answers the objector who, being told that there is no संसार the last Karikā, argues that the संसार is actually experienced, and that it is अनादि (we may not be able to say whether the बीज comes first or the अङ्कुर comes first, but we must admit that the बीजाङ्कुर series is अनादि ). In fact, the प्रतीत्यसमुत्पाद of the Buddhists admits this kind of causality. Gauda päda's answer is that the संसार is an illusion due to Mäyä, and when the संसार really does not exist, any talk of its coming to an end is futile. Every thing that exists is अज(and Brahman alone exists ), on account of the fact that it is सत् The reading स्वभावेन proposed by Vidhuśekhara ( against all Mss authority ) appears simpler, but after all the स्वभाव is the same as सद्भाव in the case of an अज object. (58) The धर्मs may refer to the 75 divisions of Reality admitted by the Sarvāstivadi Bauddhas ( 72 संस्कृतधर्मs--- 11 रूपधर्मs, (5 इन्द्रियायतनs + विषयायतनs + I अविज्ञप्ति ) + चित्तधर्म +46 चैत्तधर्मs + 14 चित्तविप्रयुक्तधर्मs) and 3 असंस्कृतधर्म ( आकाश, प्रतिसंख्यानिरोध and अप्रतिसंख्यानिरोध ). They are popularly said to be born. Gauda pada says that really they are not born. They can be compared to Maya which is also really non-existent, (59) This Kārikä explains the statement in the last Kārika viz. the जन्म of the धर्मS IS मायोपम. A मायाङ्कुर coming from मायाबीज, cannot be called नित्य or विनाशि, because it really does not exist. Similar is the case with the धर्मs, न तु परमार्थतो धर्माणां जन्म नाशो वा युज्यत इत्यर्थः ( K. bhāsya). . Chapter IV 129 ( 60 ) The Buddhists speak of 72 संस्कृतधर्म and 3 असंस्कृतधर्मS (see note on Kärika 58 above ), the former being अशाश्वत and the latter शाश्वत. Gauda pada says that in the अजातिवाद which holds that everything is अज, the nomenclature शाश्वत and aअशाश्वत is meaningless. The highest can not be described in words ( यतो वाचो लिवर्तन्ते Taittiriyopadişad II. 4-5), as it is not possessed of any describable लक्षणs. विवेक consisting of ideas like this is of this nature. this is of that nature ' has no scope in the case of अज धर्मS. (61-62 ) विवेक has scope only in the illusory origination. All धर्मs, whether in the जाग्रत् state or the स्वप्न state, are due to the चित्तस्पन्दन caused by Maya ; the चित though really void of ग्राह्यग्राहक भाव, appears to have द्वय in the two stares. Karikā 61 is the same as III. 29, with the difference that चित्तं चलति मायया is substilut- ed for स्पन्दन्ते मायया मन:; Kāriká 62 is also the same as III, 30, only substituting चितं for मनः. ( 63-67 ) Whatever the dreamer sees in the dream, is दृश्य to the fan of the dreamer and is not different from the चित्त; this चित्त aganl is दृश्य only to the dreamer himself. Thus स्वप्नदृक्, स्वप्न- दृक्चित्त, and स्वप्रचित्तदृश्य are one and the same, अण्डज and स्वेदज ( there are four kinds of जीवs, जरायुज and उद्भिज being the remaining two ) refer to all the four kinds of जीवs. दिक्षु दशसु—the four main quarters, the four by-quarters, the upper and the lower are the ten quarters. (65-66) The situation in the जाग्रत् state is exactly the same as in the dream state. (67) चित्त and चैत्य are thus an only to each other, and depend upon each other for their existence. चित्तदृश्य without the चित्त, and the चित्त without the चित्तदृश्य are unthinkable. Both have no characteristic features peculiar to them. They are cognised only as thought of by the चित्त itself. प्रमाणशून्यसभयं चित्तं चैत्यं द्वयं यतस्तन्मते- नैन तश्चिततयैव तद गृह्यते । न हि घटमतिं प्रत्याख्याय घटो गृह्यते नापि घटं प्रत्याख्याय घटमतिः । न हि तत्र प्रमाणप्रमेयभेदः शक्यते कल्पयितुमित्यभिप्रायः । (K. bhāsya). लक्षणा is used here in the sense of characteristic, लक्ष्यतेडनयेेति लक्षणा प्रमाणम् ( K. bhasya). किं तदस्तीति नोच्यते-Prof. Vidhusekhara reads किं तदस्तीति चोत्यते but curiously enough translates the same as but you do not say what remains there'. The objector asks:- If 17 130 Notes on Gauda pada-Karika both and have no independent existence, then what exists ? The answer is nothing dependent exists. Gaudapāda holds the view that the far which sees the ric is not the highest reality. The faraldas as Gaudapāda understands them, seem to regard fea as capable of producing the Tás, endowing them with some sort of reality. ( 68-70 ) The objector remains still unconvinced. He says:--- How can the f759 be unreal and at the same time? The answer is:--- The object in the dream, the object created by the magician, the object created by a Yogin possessed of supernatural powers--all these are manifestly unreal as the common man under stands the expression, but do these not undergo the process of origination and annihilation before our very eyes? There is there- fore nothing surprising if the unreal su comes into being and dies. निर्मितका- मन्त्रौषध्यादिभिर्निष्पादितः, Gaudapada is a believer in the yogic powers, perhaps being a great Yogin himself. (71) This Karika is the same as III. 48. Gauda pāda repeats his thesis that the paraan is the only true doctrine enunciating 'Nothing is ever produced or born' and not चित्तजाः धर्माः and धर्मज चितं as held by the Buddhists. उत्तम सत्यम्-This is a hit against the Buddhists who admit it to be of two kinds (see notes on Karikā 73 below). (72) The gu consisting of and gray, object and subject, is nothing but the vibration of the feet which is faráca and therefore rightly called असङ्ग ('असङ्गो ह्ययं पुरुषः' इति श्रुतेः । सविषयस्य हि विषये सङ्गः । निर्विषयत्वाश्चित्तमसङ्गमित्यर्थः (K. bhāsya), (73) K. bhasya says ननु निर्विषयत्वेन चेदसङ्गवं चित्तस्य न निःसङ्गता भवति यस्माच्छास्ता शास्त्रं शिष्यश्चेत्येवमादेविषयस्य विद्यमानत्वात्, so that accord- ing to it the meaning would be the distinction about the teacher, pupil etc. which is inevitable in studying the Vedāntaśāstra irself would have no scope, if the fa is fair. The answer is, the dis- tinction is due to Avidyā and is intended only as a step to know the reality. A thing existing by arziaSTEETT (K. bbāşya explains yarat- farar as tariasTan ) does not really exist'. Prof. Vidhuśekhara says by way of introduction to this Kärikā 'the author says that the existence of the duality consisting of the subject and the object is only in empirical ( samurti ) and not in absolute (paramartha ) Chapter IV 131 truth. For a thing which is dependent ( paratantra ) for its existence ) may exist in empirical and not in absolute truth' ( Prof. Vidhu- sekhara here also, as usual agaist Manuscript authority, emends परतन्त्राभिसंवृत्या into परतन्त्रोऽभिर्मवृत्त्या on the ground that the sense requires it and it is supported by Buddhist works. He says अभि संवृत्या is the same as अभिनिष्पत्त्या संवृत्या which he explains as संवृत्ति which is the cause of existence or appearance of things. Not satisfied with all this, the Professor says that we should read परतन्त्रो हि संवृत्या instead of परतन्त्रोऽभिसंवृत्या first proposed by himself !). Prof. Vidhusekhara points out that the Buddhists admit two kinds of सत्य, संवृतिसत्य ( corresponding to व्यवहारनय of the Jainas, and the व्यावहारिक सत्यानृत of Sankara ) and परमार्थसत्य ( परमार्थनय of the Jainas, पारमार्थिक सत्य of Saikara) (द्वे सत्ये समुपाश्रिय बुद्धानां धर्मदेशना । लोकसंवृतिसत्यं च सत्यं च परमार्थतः ।। येऽनयोर्न विजानन्ति विभागं सत्ययोर्द्वयोः। ते तत्त्वं न विजानन्ति गम्भीरं बुद्धशासने || Madhyamakārika IV. 8-9). संवृति is the उपाय and परमार्थ is the उपेय. परतन्त्र is one of the three लक्षणs of a thing, according to the Buddhists, परिकल्पित or कल्पित, imagined (e. g. योगनिर्मित elephant ) परतन्त्र or तन्त्र, dependent ( the form of the योगनिर्मितelephant depending for its existence upon the cause योग) and परिनिष्पन्न or निष्पन्न, perfect (the non-existence of the elephant ). The परिकल्पित corresponds to the प्रातिभासिक सत्य of the Vedāntins. We differ from Prof. Vidhusekhara regarding the interpretation of this Karikā. परतन्त्र means here undoubtedly 'other schools of philosophy', the Buddhistic school (cf. समानतन्त्रसिद्धः परतन्त्रासिद्धः प्रतितन्त्रसिद्धान्तः ( Nyayasutra I. 1-29). The Buddhists regard संवृति or लोकसंवृत्ति as सत्य ( which is really a contradiction in terms, for संवृत्ति means आवरण), while Gaudapāda regards it as अज्ञान. It is wrong to say that Sankara admits any व्यावहारिक सत्य. In the begin- ning of the Vedāntasütrabhäşya, he defines his position quite clearly मिथ्याज्ञाननिमित्तः सत्यानृते मिथुनीकृत्य, अहमिदं ममेदमिति नैसर्गिको लोकव्यवहारः. He talks of व्यवहारावस्था, but not of व्यवहारसत्य. Like Gauda pāda, he understands सत्य to be one, indivisible and with- out any gradations. संवृति must therefore be always असत्य. Gauda- pāda recognised only कल्पितसंवृति. The objector says:– You said in the last two Karikās that चित्त was असंग and जीव is not born. But in Karika 57, you also said संवृत्या जायते सर्वम्. How can you reconcile this ? ________________

132 Notes on Gaudapada-Rorika The answer is: – Karikā 58 makes it quite clear that the # is मायोपम, so जीव is not born and माया does not exist. So whatever is taken to exist on account of the कल्पित अविद्या, does not exist in reality (न चायं व्यवहाराभावोऽवस्थाविशेषनिबद्धोऽभिधीयत इति युक्त वक्तुम् 'तत्त्वमसि' इति ब्रह्मात्मभावस्थानवस्थाविशेषनिबन्धनत्वात् । तस्कर दृष्टान्तेन चानृताभिसंघस्य बन्धनं सत्याभिसंधस्य च मोक्षं दर्शयन्नेकत्वमेकं पारमार्थिकं दर्शयति । मिथ्याज्ञानविजृम्भितं च नानात्वम् | उझ्यसत्यतायां हि कथं व्यवहारगोचरोऽपि जन्तुरन्ताभिसंध इत्युच्येत | Sankarabháşya on Vedantasūtra II, 1-14). The objector says - The Buddhists admit संवृति as सत्य; so what is accepted by संवृति should be true, The answer is:- The Buddhists have their own terminology and may endow their favourite संवृति with any characteristics they like, but in reality the thing admitted in संवृति cannot be real. (cf. Mammata silencing an objector who complains that परमाणु etc, are regarded by the वैशेषिकाs as गुणs, while Mammata would class them as जाति, परमाण्वादिनां गुणमध्यपाठात् पारिभाषिकं गुणत्वम् Kavyaprakasa II ). अभिसंवृति seems to mean अभिमता or अभिनिष्पन्ना ( evolved, perfected ) संवृति. K. bhāşya's explanation of परतन्त्र ... as मोक्षशास्त्रव्यवहारेण is farfetched. (74) The objector says that it is not fair to condemn संवृति outright. If संवृति says जीव: अज्ञ, are we going to discard that teaching simply because संवृति is कल्पित? The answer is:- Certainly' (this is made clear in the next Karika ). We stick to our proposition that the कल्पितसंवृति cannot be associated with any reality. Again, संवृति which bears the Buddhist brand does admit even an अज thing or the idea about it as being born, परतन्त्रात् अभिनिष्पत्ति: यस्या: तया, that is, how we take the expression परतन्त्राभिनिष्पत्त्या (K. bhasya says, परशास्त्रसिद्धिमपेक्ष्य योज्य इत्युक्त :, that is, आत्मन् is called अज-really we cannot call the आत्मन् or जीव even अज, as be is A निर्विशेष--only with a view to give validity to the मोक्षशास्त्र etc, prior to आत्मबोध; this is obviously far. fetched ). Gaudapāda says that ideas about संवृति differ according to different philosophers. But they involve कार्यकारणभाव which has been declared to be baseless. So, even if the संवृति blunders into the right, ________________

Chopter IV 133 that cannot be accepted as truth, because it is based on wrong premises. To hold that staat is Tag is pure cye-wash and selfdeception. (75) The reason why fata cannot tell us any truth, is that there is has for an AT = not existing, unreal ) viz. the ETUFITOHT= which means belief in da. Actually in the case of reality there cannot be any ga. When a person knows that there cannot exist any ग्राह्यग्राहकभाव, the अभूताभिनिवेश caused by कार्यकारणTe has no scope. K. bhāsya takes to mean q: H I RAH MATIETIENT ti, so that it supplies : to make the construction less involved. We might take TINAT: as the subject of न जायते, but then याभावं बुद्ध्या would go with अभिनिवेश and it might be objected that that cannot be said to cognise anything. I has the sense of a nominative absolute, and the subject of a và may be different from , or refers to a: in Kárikā 74, or vita: in Kārikā 71. (76) The ATSAATA gas correspond to the three 3943 mentioned in III. 16 ( AETESTETT STAI: ). A GST at JTAT: 1 ... HIHERIAI HEGaragrau #ETAI: 1 fabrica APATI THOTE: TOTETTISTITAT: (K. bhāşya ). When the does not concern itself with these cas, it becomes afin and is not originated. (77) When the farm has become far , the state of the fat remains the same immutable for ever. That zat is the Hrom itself. Prof. Vidhuśekhara admits himself baffled over this Karika, leaves the second half of the Karikā untranslated, and considers the explanation given in the K. bhāşya (farm e r A7स्यानिमित्तस्य चित्तस्येति या मोक्षाख्यानुत्पत्तिः सा सर्वदा सर्वावस्था समा निर्विशेषा या च । पूर्वमध्यजातस्यैवानुत्पन्नस्य चित्तस्य सर्वस्पायस्येत्यर्थः । यस्मात्प्रागपि विज्ञानाञ्चित्तदृश्यं तदृदयं जन्म च तस्मादजातस्य सर्वस्य सर्वदा चित्तस्य समायवानुत्पत्तिः ... narzek: ) as unsatisfactory. His objections are: (1) There is nothing corresponding to or in the first line and the sentence is incomplete, and (2) there is no antecedent to w in the second line. It must be admitted that the construction is an involved one but this is not uncommon with Gauda pada ), but we can easily supply FT to correspond with gr, and take na as referring to f . Because F is nothing but it, and therefore as explained before, ha 134 Notes on Gaudapada-Karika and अनिमित्त its real state is just अनुपपत्ति and it perseveres without any change. K. bhäşya rightly calls this अनुपपत्ति state as the मोक्ष, or we might take तत् as referring to फल in हेत्वभावे फलं कुत: in the last Kärika. The फल also is चित्तदृश्य and cannot really exist, (78) सत्याम्-परमार्थरूपाम् The अनिमित्तता of the चित्त is the same as the अमनीभाव. Prof. Vidhuseklara reads अनाप्ुवत् so that it might agree with चित्त which is regarded by him as the subject of अश्नुते. The expressions वीतशोकं, पदमश्नुते however agree better with the person (rather than चित्त ) who secures the right knowledge. As Prof. Vidhuśekhara has pointed out the change over from चित्त to a person is abrupt. On the other hand, it might be argued that the आकाङ्क्षा of the reader, after being told about the state of मोक्ष, is to know what happens to a person who realises that state, and that is satisfied by the present Karika.. स: जीवः. ( 79 ) As long as the अभूताभिनिवेश involving the belief in द्वन्द्व persists, the चित्त is tossed about from one असत् thing to another. But when it is realised that there cannot be any द्वय or वस्तु, the चित्त becomes असङ्ग and turns away from the द्वय. The subject of विनिवर्तते may be तत् (चित्तं) in the first half, in which case न बुद्ध्यैव is a kind of absolute construction, or is the subject of विनिवर्तते, the first half being regarded as a parenthetical cause. ( 80 ) When the चित्त is thus fully निवृत्त and remains steady in that state, the person can be said to have realised the Reality which is the same always, unborn and free from द्वय; naturally only the enlightened ones are lucky to realise this. बुद्धानां- Prof. Vidhusekhara thinks that this expression refers to the Buddhas. It rather refers to the स्थितप्रज्ञs of the Gitā (cf. gra- विप्रतिपन्ना ते यदा स्थास्यति निश्चला । समाधावचला बुद्धिस्तदा योगमवाप्स्यसि ।। II.53, ... वशे हि यस्येन्द्रियाणि तस्य प्रज्ञा प्रतिष्ठिता || II. 61, प्रसन्नचेतसो ह्याशु बुद्धिः पर्यवतिष्ठते || HI. 65, तस्माद्यस्य महाबाहो निगृहीतानि सर्वशः । इन्द्रियाणी- न्द्रियार्थभ्यस्तस्य प्रज्ञा प्रतिष्ठिता || II. 68). विषयः-- गोचरः, something to be realised by. (81) धर्म:- आत्माख्यः, धातुस्वभावतः-- वस्तुस्वभावतः ( K. bhāsya ). Prof. Vidhusekhara wishes to take in the special Buddhistic sense, सर्वबीजक आलयविज्ञान or आश्रयपरावृत्ति- He also reads धर्मों धातुः स्वभावतः, but wishes to emend it into धर्मधातुः स्वभावतः (धर्मधातुः mean________________

Chapter 17 135 ing' the essence of reality. The reading as it is gives a satisfactory sense. It is however likely that Gaudapāda may have deliberately used here the Buddhistic expression धर्मधातुः कल्पितस्य सर्वस्य धारणाद् धर्मो ... धीयते निधीयते सर्वं निक्षिप्यते सुषुप्तादावस्मिन्निति धातुरात्मोच्यते । (Anandagiri ). स्वयं प्रभातं भवति (cf. न तद् भासयते सूर्यों न शशाङ्कोन पावकः । Gitä XV-6 ) which is self-illuminating and does not depend upon others for its light. The expression सकृतिभास: occurs in Chandogya VII. 4-2, सद्विभातो ह्येवेष ब्रह्मलोका. (82) सुखं and दुःखं are used adverbially. Prof. Vidhusekhara translates सुखम् आव्रियते नित्यं and दुखं विव्रियते सदा as 'bliss is constantly covered and misery is unfolded'. According to him भगवानसौ is to be construed with अस्ति, नास्ति etc. in the next Karika. We see no reason 10 split the Karika in this way. K. bhāşya rightly remarks एवमुच्यमानमपि परमार्थतत्त्वं कस्माल्लौकिकैर्न गृह्यत इत्युच्यते । यस्माद्यस्य कस्यचिद द्वय वस्तुनो धर्मस्य ग्रहेण ग्रहणावेशेन मिथ्याभिनिविष्टतया सुखमाव्रियतेऽनायासेनाच्छाद्यत इत्यर्थः ... दु:खं च विनियते प्रकटीक्रियते । परमार्थज्ञानस्य दुर्लभत्वात् । भगवानसौ glorifies the निश्चला स्थिति: which is the same as अमनीभाव or आत्मन. Prof. Vidhusekhara says that the expression fits in better with धर्मघातु. (83) Gaudapada points our in this Kārikā how the भगवान् (आत्मन्) is obscured by the ignorant who associate him with different धर्मs, by resorting to the four कोटीs modes) of looking at reality. The four कोटीs are: [1] अस्ति- अस्त्यात्मेति वादी कश्चित्प्रतिपद्यते । ( K. bhasya ) प्रमाता देहादिव्यतिरिक्तोऽस्तीत्याद्यो वैशेषिकादिपक्षः । (Anandagiri) [2] नास्ति- नास्तीन्यपरो वैनाशिकः ! (K. bhasya) देहादिव्यतिरिक्तोऽपि नासौ बुद्धेर्व्यतिरिच्यते । क्षणिकस्य विज्ञान स्यैवात्मत्वादिति द्वितीयो विज्ञानवादिपक्षः । ( Anandagiri) 131 अस्ति नास्ति-अस्ति नास्तीत्यपरोऽर्थवैनाशिक: सदसद्वादी दिग्वासा: (K. bhāsya ), तृतीयो दिगम्बरपक्षः। (Anandagiri) [4] नास्ति नास्ति-नास्ति नास्तीत्यत्यन्तशून्यवादी । (K. bhasya) चतुर्थे तु शून्यवादिपक्षे शून्यस्यात्यन्तिकत्वद्योतनार्था वीप्सा। (Anandagiri) 136 Notes on Gandapada-Kärika According to the K. bhāsya and Anandagiri नास्ति (2) and नास्ति नास्ति (4) refer to the विज्ञानवादिनs and the शून्यवादिनs respectively; while No. 3 अस्ति नास्ति is taken by K. bhāsya to refer to the बैशेषिक and Jainas, Anandagiri refers it only to the Jainas ( actually the Jainas admit the सप्तभङ्गीनय ). No. I is not referred to any particular school of philosophy by K. bhāsya; Anandagiri refers it to the वैशेषिकs Prof. Vidhuselkhara sees here no reference to the विज्ञानवादिन् and माध्यमिकs, but is prepared to refer No. I to the Vedantins who believe in the existence of Atman ( अस्तीति ब्रुवतोऽन्यत्र कथं तदुपलभ्यते । अस्तीत्येवोपलब्धव्यस्तत्वभावेन चोभयो । अस्तीत्येवोपलब्धस्य तत्त्वभाव: प्रसीदति ।। Katha VI. 12-13, ) and whom Gaudapada dubs here as बालिश! It is unthinkable that the Vedāntins could have been referred to here, for being specifically condemned. Prof. Vidhuśekhara to suit his purpose, takes चल, स्थिर, उभय, and अभाव ( not as referring respectively to अस्ति, नास्ति, अस्ति नास्ति, and नास्ति नास्ति, but ) as referring to नास्ति, अस्ति, etc. ), that is, अस्ति refers to स्थिर and चल to नास्ति, Gaudapāda obviously understands by अस्ति, a phase involving production (one of the six भावविकार, जायते, अस्ति, विपरिणामते, वर्धते, अपचीयते, विनश्यति ), so that those only who believe that Atman undergoes any change are condemned here as बालिश (तत्रास्तिभावश्चल: घटायनित्यविलक्षणत्वात् । नास्तिभावः स्थिरः सदाविशेषत्वात् ! K. bhāsya). The belief in the existence of the wrong type of Atman is referred to here. We think that Gaudapada is not thinking of any particular schools of philosophy here. He seems to be indebted to Buddhistic references like कारणैः प्रत्ययैश्चापि येषां लोक प्रवर्तते । चातुष्कोटिकया युक्ता न ते मन्नयकोविदाः । असन्न जायते लोको न सन्न सदसन्क्वचित् । प्रत्ययः कारणेश्चापि यथा बालैर्विकल्प्यते || Lankavarāra III. 20-21; बालपृथग्जना ... न स्वसिद्धान्तनयं चातुष्कोटिकनयविशुद्धं प्रतिविभावयन्ति । P. ITT) चतुष्टयविनिर्मुक्ता तथागतानां धर्मदेशना यदुतैकत्वान्यत्वोभयानुभयपक्षवर्जिता नासत्यस्तिसमारोपापवाद विनिर्मुक्ता etc. P.96, चातुष्कोटिकं च महामते लोकव्यवहारः । यच्च चातुष्कोटिक बाह्यं तद्वाइमात्रं प्रसज्यते वन्ध्यापुत्रवत् । P. 188. (84) When the Atman is realised as being untouched by the चातुष्कोटिकग्रह, one goes beyond लोकव्यवहार and becomes omniscient. Chapter IV 137 (85) Being a सर्वज्ञ means securing the ब्राह्मण्य पद. ब्राह्मण्यम् - Befitting a Brahmana (one who knows Brahnan ) who deserves the highest पद as mentioned in एष नित्यो महिमा ब्राह्मणस्य ( Brha. IV. 4-23) That Gauda pada calls the highest end in life as a ब्राह्मण्य is convin- cing proof that he could not be preaching Buddhism (Prof. Vidhusekhara points out that in Buddhist literature a Brāhmaṇa is held in as much respect as a śramana and a true Brāhmana is some. times identified with a Buddha. But it would be all the same extre- mely unusual for a true Buddhist to speak of the highest reality as ब्राह्मण्य पद). आदिमध्यान्ता उत्पत्तिस्थितिलया अनापन्ना अप्राप्ता यस्यायस्य पदस्य न विद्यन्ते तदनापन्नादिमध्यान्तं ब्राह्मण्यं पदम् । (K. bhasya.). किमतः परमीहते । -- Cf. ... यत्वात्मरतिरेव स्यादात्मतृप्तश्च मानवः । आत्मन्येव च संतुष्टस्तस्य कार्य न विद्यते । नैव तस्य कृतेनार्थो नाकृतेनेह कश्चन । न चास्य सर्वभूतेषु कश्चिदर्थ- व्यपाश्रय: Il Gită III. 17-18. ( 86 ) The ब्राह्मण्यपद a secured by those who know Brahman or the true आत्मस्वरूप is not something to be secured anew, but is the natural state for them. विनयः, education, from e=out, duco = I lead, is the exact English equivalent for विनयः, वि-विशेषेण and नी to carry. प्राकृतः-- स्वाभाविकः. A knower of Brahman is naturally possessed of the right विनय, शम and दम. Cf. योगारूढस्य तस्यैव शमः कारणमुच्यते । ( Gitā VI. 3 ). It is possible that Gaudapāda deliberately uses the expression विनय here to hint that the विनय in the Buddhistic work विनयपिटक is not the true विनय. (87) In the remaining portion of this Prakarana, Gaudapāda shows his acquaintance with Buddhistic thought and works; he how- ever improves upon some of the ideas and points out where he differs from the Buddhists. In this Kārika and the next, he describes the three kinds of ज्ञानs ( which are dealt with in detail in the Lanka- vatāra). [1] लौकिक - This is जागरितज्ञान, where both the object and its perception are experienced. लौकिकं ज्ञानं सदसत्पक्षाभिनिविष्टानां सर्वतीर्थकरबाल- पृथग्जनानां च Lankāvarāra P. 157). [ 2 ] - This is स्वप्नज्ञान, where the object is absent, but the perception exists. It is called शुद्ध, because it is free from contact with the वस्तु. According to the Lankāvatāra this would he 18 ________________

138 Notes on Gaudapada-Karika लोकोत्तर. K. bhasya by way of introduction remarks here, एवमन्योन्यविरुद्धत्वात्संसारकारणानि रागद्वेषदोषास्पदानि प्रावादुकानां दर्शनानि । अतो मिथ्यादर्शनानि तानीति तद्युक्तिभिरेव दर्शयित्वा चतुष्कोटिवर्जितत्वाद्रागादिदोषानास्पदं स्वभावशान्तमद्वैतदर्शनमेव सम्यग्दर्शनमित्युपसंहृतम् । अथेदानीं स्वप्रक्रियाप्रदर्शनार्थं आरम्भ:--- Similarly, Anandagiri, परमतनिराकरणमुखेनात्मतत्वमवधारितम् । अधुना स्वप्रक्रिययावस्थात्रयोप न्यासमुखेनापि तदवधारयितुमवस्थाद्वयमुपन्यस्यति । (88)[ लोकोतरम्-- This is the सुषुप्तम्, where there is neither वस्तु nor उपलम्भ. The लङ्कावतार explains as follows:--लोकोत्तरं ज्ञानं सर्वश्रावकत्येकबुद्धानां च स्वसामान्यलक्षणपतिताशयाभिनिविष्टानाम्, and mentions also लोकोत्तरतमं ज्ञानं, बुद्धबोधिसत्वानां निराभासधर्मप्रविचयादनिरोधानुत्पाददर्शनात् सदसत्पक्षविगतं तथागतभूमिनैरात्म्याधिगमात्प्रवर्तते । (P. 157). The लौकिक लोकोत्तर and लोकोत्तरतम of the Lankavatāra, corresponds, as Prof. Vidhuśekhara points out, respectively to nqkfk, शुद्धलौकिक and लोकोत्तर in the text. We however do not agree with Prof. Vidhusekhara when he says that the difference is only in nomenclature and as such is not important'. Gaudapäda seems to show by his scheme that the लोकोत्तरतमज्ञान of the Bauddhas could not be the उत्तमज्ञान which according to him is किंचिन्न जायते (III. 48, IV.71). ___Generally only two categories लौकिक and लोकोत्तर (मार्गs 4 + मार्गफलs 4 + निर्माण -9 लोकोत्तर, and all the other mental states are लौकिक ) are referred to in Buddhist works. The Lankavarāra gives three categories which Gaudapāda cleverly equates with the three states जाग्रत, स्वप्न and सुषुप्त). In the second line Gaudapāda refers to what is regarded by the wise philosophers to be fit to be comprehended to secure salvation. Different interpretations are proposed as follows:-- [1] K. bhāsya:-- लौकिकं शुद्धलौकिकं लोकोतरं क्रमेण येन ज्ञानेन ज्ञायते तज्ज्ञानं ज्ञेयम् एतान्येष त्रीणि, एवद्यतिरेकेण ज्ञेयानुपपत्तेः ... विज्ञेयं परमार्थसत्यं तुर्याख्यमद्वयमजमात्मतत्त्वमित्यर्थः । सदा सर्वदैतल्लौकिकादिविज्ञेयान्तं बुद्धैः परमार्थदर्शिभिर्ब्रह्मविद्भिः प्रकीर्तितम् । Chapter IV 139 [ 2 ] Prof. Vidhuśekhara:- This is to be understood to be the knowledge and knowable, as is always declared by the Buddhas, We have already ( IV. I ) seen that there is no difference between jñāna and jneya. Or it may mean that whatever we may know by the terms jñana and jñeya is only the three things mentioned in the Karika'. Prof. Vidhuśekhara's interpretation is hardly convincing. We need not understand that Buddhas are meant by the expression get, again to ( which elsewhere is taken to be Brahman by Gaudapäda III. 33 ब्रह्म ज्ञेयं) can not refer to the object of the three-fold ज्ञान just described. The next Kärikā tells us that when ज्ञेय is known, the person becomes सर्वज्ञ, so ज्ञेय cannot mean a mere object of know- ledge in the ordinary sense of the term. The first query about the second half of the Karika would be: How many things are mentioned there- [2] ज्ञान, ज्ञेयं and विज्ञेयं, these three, or [2] ज्ञान विज्ञेयं and ज्ञेयं विज्ञेयं; ज्ञानं and ज्ञेयं-these two, that is, is विज्ञेय to be taken as a predicative ? Though Gaudapāðd has said before that ज्ञेय is Brahman, it appears that K. bháşya is right in taking it to be the तुर्य, and there is also no इति which would be necessary if only ज्ञान and ज्ञेय are intended ( Gaudpāda, however, as has been already remarked, is careless in his constructions ). The second query would be: what is the exact meaning of ज्ञान and ज्ञेय? Does ज्ञान refer to the three-fold division लौकिक, शुद्धलौकिक and लोकोत्तर? The expression विविधे ज्ञाने in the next Karika strongly favours this interpretation, but the next Karikā refers only to ज्ञान and ज्ञेय and not to विज्ञेय ( unless we hold that सर्वज्ञता हि सर्वत्र refers to विज्ञेय ), or is the second line just intended to give some inform- ation in a detached parenthetical way? Just as the three-fold division of ज्ञान is given, the well-known triad ज्ञान; ज्ञेय and विज्ञेय is mentioned for the benefit of the student. If the latter interpretation is favoured, Gaudapāda possibly refers to the Gità in this connection, ज्ञानं तेऽहं सविज्ञानमिदं वक्ष्याम्यशेषतः । यज्ज्ञात्वा नेह भूयोऽन्यज्ज्ञातव्यमवशिष्यते ।। etc. VII. 2; अमानित्वमदम्भित्वमहिंसा शान्तिरार्जवम् । आचार्योपासनं शौचं स्थैर्य- मात्मविनिग्रहः । इन्द्रियार्थेषु वैराग्यमनहंकार एव च । जन्ममृत्युजराव्याधिदुःखदोषानु. दर्शनम् || असक्तिनभिष्वङ्गः पुत्रदार गृहादिषु । नित्यं च समचित्तत्वमिष्टानिष्टोपपत्तिषु ।। ________________

140 Notes on Gandapada-Karika मयि चानन्ययोगेन भक्तिरस्यभिचारिणी । विविक्तदेशसेवित्वमरतिर्जनसंसदि ।। अध्यात्मज्ञाननित्यत्वं तत्वज्ञानार्थदर्शनम् । एतज्ज्ञानमिति प्रोक्तमज्ञानं यदतोऽन्यथा ॥ XIII. 7-11 ज्ञेयं यत् तत् प्रवक्ष्यामि यज्ज्ञात्वामृतमश्नुते । अनादिमत्परं ब्रह्म न सत्' तन्नासदुच्यते ॥ सर्वतः पाणिपादं तत् सर्वतोऽक्षिशिरोमुखम् | सर्वतः श्रुतिमल्लोके सर्वमावृत्य तिष्ठति ।। सर्वेन्द्रियगुणाभासं सर्वेन्द्रियविवर्जितम् । असक्तं सर्वभृञ्चैव निर्सृणं गुणभोक्तृ च || बहिरन्तश्च भूतानामचरं चरमेव च । सूक्ष्मत्वात् तदविज्ञेयं दूरस्थं चान्तिके च तत् ।। अविभक्तं च भूतेषु विभक्तमिव च स्थितम् । भूतभर्तृ च तज्ज्ञेयं ग्रसिष्णु प्रभविष्णु च || ज्योतिषामपि तज्ज्योतिस्तमसः परमुच्यते । ज्ञानं क्षेयं ज्ञानगम्यं ह्रदि सर्वस्य धिष्टितम् | XIII. 12-17 ( The expression ज्ञानं ज्ञेयं विज्ञेयं seems to be an echo of ज्ञानं ज्ञेयं ज्ञानगम्यं above). (89) K. bhasya takes ज्ञेये to mean लौकिकादौ त्रिविधे and जाने as लौकिकादिविषये । त्रिविधे refers only to ज्ञाने, if ज्ञेय means अनादिमत परं ब्रह्म as explained in the Gita (XIII. 89). One who knows Brahman, automatically becomes सर्वज्ञ for all time. K. bhāsya says, आत्मस्वरूपमेव सर्वज्ञता सर्वश्चासौ ज्ञश्च सर्वज्ञस्तद्भावः सर्वज्ञता ...नहि परमार्थविदो ज्ञानोद्भवाभिभवौ स्तो यथान्येषां प्रावादुक्तानाम् | which is far-fetched. The idea of a ब्रह्मवित् being सर्वज्ञ is quite common, cf. यो मामेवमसंमूढो जानाति पुरुषोत्तमम् । स सर्वविद्भजति मां सर्वभावेन भारत II Gita XV. 19. (90) K. bhasya says by way of introduction, लौकिकादीनां क्रमेण ज्ञेयत्वेत निर्देशादस्तित्वाशङ्का परमार्थतो मा भूदित्याह and explains अग्रयाणत: as प्रथमतः. Prof. Vidhusekhara takes अग्रयाण as referring to Mahayana. There is no doubt that the explanation प्रथमतः is unsatisfactory. According to Prof. Vidhuśekhara, the first line means 'हेयज्ञेयायपाक्यs should be understood from the Mahāyāna'. Even if अग्रहाण means महायान, Gaudapada's reference to हेयज्ञेयाप्यपाक्यs as विज्ञयानि ( In Kārika 88, Gaudapada refers to विज्ञेय as the highest truth, he could not possibly admit more than one विज्ञेय ) shows that he does not approve of what the Mahayana says ( This is further corroborated by the second line which uses the word विज्ञेयs in its proper sense and brushes aside the विज्ञेय in the first line unceremoniously ). The words in the Karika are variously interpreted: हेयानि-लौकिकादीनि त्रीणि जागरितस्वप्नासुषुप्तान्यात्मन्यसत्त्वेन रज्ज्वां सर्प. वद्धातव्यानि । ( K. bhāsya). परतन्त्रस्वभाव ( Prof. Vidhusekhara, in conformity with Asanga ), Chopter IV 141 ज्ञेयम् - चतुष्कोटिवर्जितं परमार्थतत्वम् । (K. bhasya; while the same authority explained शेष as लौकिकादीनि त्रीणि, in the comment on Kárikā 88 ). परिकल्पितस्वभाव ( Vidhusek hara ). आप्यानि -आप्तव्यानि त्यक्तबाह्यैषणात्रयेण भिक्षुणा पाण्डित्यबाल्यमौनाख्यानि साधनानि । ( K, bhāsya). Attainable,धर्मधातु which is परिनिष्पन्न (Vidhuśekhara). पाक्यानि- रागद्वेषमोहादयो दोषाः कषायाख्यानि वक्तव्यानि | सर्वाण्येतानि देव- ज्ञेयाप्यपाक्यानि विज्ञेयानि भिक्षुणोपायत्वेनेत्यर्थः 1 (K. bhasya; but how could the चतुष्कोतिवर्जित परमार्थतत्त्व be regarded as an उपाय?). To be matured, the act of maturing by discipline for the attainment of the absolute, not only for others but also for one's own self (Vidhusekhara ). तेषां etc.---तेषां हेयादीनामन्यत्र विज्ञेयात्परमार्थसत्यं विज्ञेयं ब्रह्मैकं वर्जयित्वा, उपलम्मनमुपलम्भोऽविद्याकल्परूपमामात्रम् ( K. bhāsya. so far seems to take तेषां as referring to all the four हेय, ज्ञेय, आप्य, and पाक्य, and calls the four अविद्याकल्पना, and makes a distinction between ज्ञेय in the first line and विज्ञेय in the second line) हेयाप्यपाक्येषु त्रिष्वपि स्मृतो ब्रह्मविद्भिर्न परमार्थसत्यता त्र्याणामित्यर्थः ( here only the three हेय, आप्य and पाक्य are said to be असत्य, in contradiction of what was just said before ). Prof. Vidhuśekhara translates the second line as " It is said that among them there is perception of the three, but not of that which is to be known" and explains the idea as under:- “ only three, i. e. heya, apya and pakya can be perceived but not the jñeya or vijñeya. For it is parikalpita 'imagined and a thing which is only imagined owing to its very nature cannot be perceived, just like mirage, as it has no existence. " Vidhusekhara thus, like K. bhāşya, takes त्रिषु to reſer to हेय, आप्य and पाक्य, and ज्ञेय ( in line 1 ) to be the same as विज्ञेय (in line 2 ). We differ from Prof. Vidhuśekhara and K. bhāşya in the interpretation of this Kärikā. We are of opinion that तेषां refers to 142 Notes on Gaudapada-Kärika all the four, हेय, ज्ञेय, आप्य and पाक्य, and त्रिषु to लौकिक, शुद्धलौकिक and लोकोत्तर. Gaudapada says that हेय, ज्ञेय, आप्य and पाक्य, which are known to be विज्ञेयs from अग्रयाण, are really not fit to be known, as their उपलम्भ is connected with द्वैत and they are apart from Brahman, the real विज्ञेय. They can at best be taken to be concerned with the three-fold a which does not make us know Brahman. अग्रयाण, lit, the first or previous path, means here according to us, the पूर्वमीमांसा which concerns itself with pointing out what is हेय, उपादेय etc. (cf. न हि परिनिष्ठितवस्तुप्रतिपादनं संभवति, प्रत्यक्षादिविषयत्वापारै- निष्ठितवस्तुनः । तत्प्रतिपादने च हेयोपादेयरहिते पुरुषार्थाभावात्, ... न च परिमिष्टिते वस्तुस्वरूपे विधिः संभवति, क्रियाविषयत्वात् विधेः । Sankarabhāsya on Vedanta- sūtra 1. 1-4). According to the पूर्वमीमांसा, हेय is to be known from the निषेधवाक्यs; ज्ञेय, what should be known, can be learnt from the विधिवाक्य (ज्ञेय seems to be used in the sense of उपादेय ) from which one knows what sacrifices should be performed and the routine of the sacrificial procedure etc.; आप्य is the goal, स्वर्गलोक, प्रजापतिलोक etc. which can be secured by the performance of various sacrifices, and पाक्यs are the various sacrifices. The कर्मकांड thus preaches what is dependent upon द्वैत, while in the case of the true विज्ञेय ( Brahman ) there is no scope for द्वैत. The knowledge gained from पूर्वमीमांसा is thus wrong knowledge and we should be on our guard against being influenced by that. अग्रयाण is undoubtedly a strange expression, but that it should refer to महायान is not likely. (91) Anandagiri thus introduces the Karikā, यदुक्तं ज्ञेयं चतुष्कोटिवर्जितं परमार्थतत्त्वमिति तदिदानीं स्फुटयति । Gaudapada says that the popular view about the three-fold ज्ञान and the पूर्वमीमांसा view about ज्ञेय etc, are wrong and द्वैत or नानात्व is to be attributed to अध्यास. All धर्मs are really unoriginated and incapable of being contaminated, like it it. The expression धर्मा: does not mean that there is real नानात्व. कल्पितभेदनिबन्धन बहुवचनमित्यर्थः- क्वचनेति देशकालावस्थाग्रहणम्, (किंचन किंचिदणुमात्रमपि K. bhasya) अणुमात्रमपीति कार्यकारणभावस्यांशांशि. भावस्य चोपादानम् | Anandagiri. (92) The expression धर्मा: ज्ञेयाः: in the last Karikā may be misunderstood by some to mean that the ज्ञेयत्वं of the धर्मs is some- thing to be acquired anew, Gauda pada says that all धर्मs ( which are really Brahman ) are already बुद्ध. आदिबुद्धाः- नित्यबोधस्वरूपाः, Prof. Vidhusekhara takes बुद्ध mean as or आदिबुद्ध. It appears to us that Gaudapāda is here objecting to the Buddhistic view that there Chapter IV 143 I are some who are आदिबुद्धs (or आदिशान्तs, who are born बुद्ध), some who acquire बुद्धhood (बोधिसत्त्व) etc. क्षान्ति:- Persistent or enduring belief, बोधकर्तव्यतानिरपेक्षता ( K. bhāsya ). (93) Gaudapāda points out that शान्ति, etc. which are but different names for मोक्ष or salvation is not something to be acquired. All are मुक्त or निवृत्त by nature, only they do not know it. If he were to be ( artificially made ), it would be अनित्य (संसारदुःखोपशमनं सुखं जन्म वा यदि क्रियेत तदा कृतकस्यानित्यत्वमवश्यंभावीत्यर्थः । (Anandagiri ). समाश्चअभिन्नाश्चसमाभिन्ना:, always the same, without any change or variety. The highest is thus अज, साम्य ( always the same ) and विशारद ( opposite of कृपण ). The धर्मs are all अध्यस्त. सनिर्वृत्ता:- सदपरस्वभाव: ( K, başya ) or grounded in निर्वाण. ( (94) वैशारद्यम् is the opposite:of कार्पण्यम्. K. bhasya takes it to mean विशुद्धि विशारद generally means proficient clever : According to Gaudapāda, a कृपण is one who believes in duality; a विशारद is one who has the right knowledge that the highest is अज and सम. Prof, Vidhusekhara points out that in Buddhism वैशारद्य IS four-fold, in respect of ( 1 ) the highest knowledge of all things, ( 2 ) the knowledge of destroying all the human passions, ( 3 ) the knowledge about destroying impediments, ( 4 ) the knowledge of the rightness of the way leading to salvation. Gaudapāda may be referring to this Buddhistic idea in this Káriká, but the reference to the कृपणs ( as contrasted with विशारदs ) as भेदनिम्नs and पृथग्वादs shows thar वैशारद्य mainly points out to the bold belief in अद्वैत The Bhagavadgita uses the expression कार्पण्यदोषोपहतस्वभावः (II.7) with reference to Arjuna who had become धर्मसंमूढचेताः. Gaudapāda is indebted perhaps to the Gită for the expression कृपण. (95) The द्वैतिन्s are कृपण; those who are firmly grounded in अद्वैत alone can be called महाज्ञान. In the Lankāvatāra, one p is described as propounding Buddhistic views. One is tempted to think that Gaudapăda hints in this Kārika, that the महामति of the Lankavatāra is really no महामति at all ! तच्च लोको न गाहते तत् ... परमार्थतत्त्वं सामान्यबुद्धिरन्यो लोको न गाहते नावतरति न विषयीकरोतीत्यर्थः । सर्व- भूतात्मभूतस्य सर्वभूतहितस्य च | देवा अपि मार्गे मुह्यन्यपदस्य पदैषिणः । शकुनीना- मिवाकाशे गतिर्नैवोपलभ्यते || इत्यादि स्मरणात् । ( K. bhāsya ). (96) When it is said that a महाज्ञान is one who has the knowledge of the अद्वैत Brahman, it should not be understood that ________________

144 Notes on Gandapada-Karika the ज्ञान is different from Brahman. The अज ज्ञान is there in the अज धर्म, as heat and light are in the sun. ज्ञान is the very nature of, and not different from, the अज धर्म. Only the द्वैतिनs speak of ज्ञान being related to the objects (the Buddhists also in a sense regard ज्ञान to be related to the वासना). ज्ञान is really असङ्ग and आकाशकल्प and नित्यविज्ञप्तिरूप. Read the following comment of Anandagiri, अजं साम्यमित्युक्तं प्रमेयम् । तद्विषयनिश्चयवान्प्रमाता । प्रमाणं तथाविधानश्वयज्ञानमिति। वस्तुपरिच्छेदे कथं महाज्ञानत्वमित्याशक्याह अजेष्विति । अजा धर्माश्वित्प्रतिबिम्बा जीवा विवक्ष्यन्ते । तेष्वजं ज्ञानं कूटस्थदृष्टिरूपं बिम्बकल्पं ब्रह्माचलमात्मभूतमभ्युपगम्यते । तथा च मानमेयादिभावस्य कल्पितत्वेऽपि वस्तुतो वस्तुपरिच्छेदाभावादुपपन्नं तज्ज्ञानवतां महाज्ञानत्वमित्यर्थः । किं चास्मन्मते ज्ञानस्य यदसङ्गत्वमङ्गीकृतं तदपि विषयाभावादेव सिध्यति । ततश्च मुक्त्यै निर्विषयं मन इति यदुच्यते तदप्यविरुद्धमित्याह यतो नेति । The Lankāvatāra also describes ज्ञान to be असङ्ग and contrasts it with विज्ञान, तत्रोत्पन्न प्रध्वंसि विज्ञानम् अनुत्पन्नप्रध्वंसि ज्ञानम् । ... निमित्तानिमित्तपतितं विज्ञानं नास्त्यस्तिवैचित्र्यलक्षणहेतुकं च, निमित्तानिमित्तव्यतिक्रान्तलक्षणं ज्ञानम् । ... उपचयलक्षणं विज्ञानम्, अपचयलक्षणं ज्ञानम् । ... असङ्गलक्षणं ज्ञानं विषयवैचित्र्यसङ्गलक्षणं च विज्ञानम् । ... विसङ्गतिक्षयोत्पादयोगलक्षणं विज्ञानम्, असङ्गास्वभावलक्षणं ज्ञानम् ... अप्राप्तिलक्षणं ज्ञानं स्वप्रत्यामार्यज्ञानमतिगोचरमप्रवेशानिर्गमत्वादुकचन्द्रवज्जले। ( Pp. 157-138). The ज्ञान is असङ्ग, for there is no विषय, as Anandagiri says, (97) Anandagiri thus comments upon this Karika: कूटस्थं ब्रह्मैव तत्त्वमिति स्वमते ज्ञानमसङ्गं सिध्यतीत्युक्तम् । मतान्तरे पुनः सविषयत्वाज्ज्ञानस्यासङ्गत्वमसंगतं प्रसज्येतेत्याह अणुमात्रेऽपीति | अविद्वदृष्टया कस्यचिदपि पदार्थस्य जन्माङ्गीकारे ज्ञानस्य तदनुषङ्गित्वेनासङ्गत्वायोगे बन्धध्वंसलक्षणं प्रयोजनं दुरापास्तं भवतीत्याह किमुतेति । If once we admit that Brahman is capable of even the slightest change, ज्ञान would cease to be असङ्ग and आवरणच्युति would become a कार्य and so अनित्य. It has been already stated that मोक्ष can never be a कार्यin any sense. आवरण is the concealment of the true nature of Brahman, due to माया, अविद्या, मिथ्याज्ञान etc. (98) All धर्मs are always without any आवरण in their natural state. It is we who wrongly superimpose upon them all sorts of qualities and forms. They are always बुद्ध and मुक्त. It is wrong to say that they become बुद्ध or मुक्त after undergoing penance etc. K. bhasya takes नायकाः to mean स्वामिनः समर्था बोदधं बोधशक्तिमत्स्वभावाः, and adds यथा नित्यप्रकाशस्वरूपोऽपि सविता प्रकाशत इत्युच्यते यथा वा नित्यनिवृत्तगतयोऽपि नित्यमेष शैलास्तिष्टन्तीत्युच्यते तद्वत् बुध्यन्त इत्युच्यते | Though the धर्मs are always बुद्ध, they are metaphorically said to be knowers', ________________

Chapter IV

45

which expression implies knowing to be something different from the knower. We have to regard इति to be misplaced according to this interpretation. The natural way would be to take इति with नायका), Prof. Vidhusekhara rightly explains नायका: to mean Buddhas. K. bhâsya seems to understand the Karikā to mean that all धर्मs are प्रकृतिनिर्मल, आदिबुद्ध, आदिमुक्त and नायक and they are spoken of as बुध्यते only metaphorically. After इति we have to supply apparently लक्षणयोच्यते. This is obviously an unnatural interpretation. The proper way surely is to take इति नायका: to mean so the नायकाs say and what they say is to be found in the rest of the Kārikā (and not इति नायकाr: बुध्यन्ते as Prof. Vidhuśek hara takes it ). We think that the first half of the Karika is not to be connected with the second half. After having stated his thesis that all धर्मs are अलब्धावरण and प्रकृतिनिर्मल, Gaudapāda in the second half of this Karika and the next one, points out how the Bauddha view differs from his, Buddhas (नायका:) say that the आदिबुद्धाs and the आदिमुक्ताs have knowledge of the धर्मs (and the बोधिसत्त्वs try to secure that knowledge. Some Bauddhas at any rate admit that some are बुद्ध or मुक्त from the very beginning and some attain to Buddhahood by penance etc.). Gaudapāda argues that this view of the Bauddhas is wrong. For this involves वैधर्म्य which is a great obstacle in the way of आवरणच्युति. When all धर्मs are प्रकृतिनिर्मल, the distinction that some धर्मs are आदिबद्ध or आदिमुक्त or 37. aअ दिशान्त is meaningless. 099 ) Gaudapada shows here how it is nor possible for a बुद्ध to have the knowledge of the धर्मs. In order that there may be ज्ञान of the धर्मs, ज्ञान must relate itself to the objects; but according to the अजातिवाद there is no उत्पाद of the धर्मs themselves. ज्ञान canpor therefore be said to be going over to the धर्मs. The धर्मs too, being प्रकृतिनिर्मल like आकाश, cannot relate themselves to ज्ञान either, for ज्ञान is also आकाशकल्प; thus ज्ञानं धर्मेषु न क्रमते, and सर्व धर्माःज्ञानं न क्रमन्ते (one would have expected here ज्ञाने to keep the symmetry); or सर्व धर्मास्तथा ज्ञानं (तायिनः or तापिन: is explained in K. bhāşya, as संतानवतो निरन्तरस्याकाशकल्पस्येत्यर्थ: I पूजावतो वा प्रज्ञावतो वा। तायिन is variously explained in Buddhist literature as permanent' 'instructed' ) might be taken to mean as the K. bhāsya does, सर्वे धर्मा: क्वचितप्यर्थान्तरे न क्रमन्ते तथा ज्ञानं क्वचिदप्यर्थान्तरे न क्रमते। In any case, ________________

146 Notes on Gaudapada-Karika धर्माः ज्ञानं न क्रमन्ते, and ज्ञानं धर्मेषु न क्रमते are respectively used to mean न चित्तजा धर्माः and चित्तं न धरमजम् ( Karikā 54, above ). What Gaudapada means to say is that Gautama Buddha told many things ( The Lankävatāra contains the expression भाषिष्येडहं तव repeated many times and put in the mouth of Buddha who is made to discourse on various topics there ), but he could not grasp the Ajātivada which is the only proper solution of the problem about Samsára. Buddha no doubt denied the existence of बाह्यार्थ, and admitted the विज्ञानवाद, but he somehow or other 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 this Kärikā. Prof. Vidhuśekhara on the other hand sees in the expression a नेतद्बुद्धेन भाषितम्, a reference to अवचनं बुद्धवचनम् wbich is taken to mean that the transcendental truth cannot be attained through instruction from another, and is therefore silence for the noble. All this seems to us to be entirely far-fetched (see the article 'Dvipadām Vara' in the Annals of the B. O. R. I., Vol. XXXII, pp. 166-173 for a detailed discussion about this Karika ). K. bhasya remarks on नैतबुद्धेन भाषितम् इदं तु परमार्थतत्वमद्वैतं वेदान्तेष्वेव विज्ञेयमित्यर्थः। All agree that the expression बुद्धेन refers to Gautama Buddha. ( 100 ) Gauda pāda had saluted द्विपदां वर in Kärikä 1, and अस्पर्शयोग in Kariká 2, he concludes this Prakarana and the whole work by saluting the पद or highest state. Prof. Vidlusekhara takes पद to mean निर्वाण and thinks that the epithets दतुर्दर्श ( in Pali सुदुदर्श means निर्वाण ) and अतिगम्भीर support the meaning निर्वाण. It is quite unnecessary to takeपद to mean निर्वाण. The expression, usually परम पद, is used often in philosophical literature to mean मोक्ष. K. bhāşya remarks, दुःखेन दर्शनमस्येति दुर्दर्शम् । अस्ति नास्तीति चतुष्कोटिवर्जितत्वादुर्विज्ञेयमित्यर्थ: यथाचलन् - Prof. Vidhusekhara says श्रद्धा, वीर्य, स्मृति , समाधि and प्रज्ञा which constitute in Buddhism are meant here.

í s. 241 ________________

APPENDIX I An Alphabetical Index to the Karikās Prakarana No. of Kārikā Karika अकल्पकमजं ज्ञानम् अकारो नयते विश्वम् अजः कल्पितसंवत्त्या अजमनिद्रमस्वप्नम् अजमनिद्रमस्वप्रम् अजातं जायते यस्मात् अजातस्यैव धर्मस्य अजातस्यैव भावस्य अजातस्यैव सर्वस्य अजातेस्रसतां तेषाम् अजाद्वै जायते यस्य अजेष्वजमसंक्रान्तम् अजे साम्ये तु ये केचित् अणुमात्रेऽपि वैधर्म्ये अतो वक्ष्याम्यकार्षण्यम् अदीर्धत्वाञ्च कालस्य अद्वयं च द्वयाभासम् अद्वयं च द्वयाभासम् अद्वैतं परमार्थो हि अनादिमायया सप्तः अनादेरन्तवत्त्वं च अनिश्चिता यथा रज्जुः अन्तःस्थानात भेदानाम् अन्यथा गृह्णतः स्वप्नः ________________

148 Gaudapada-Karika Karika Prakarana No. of Karika अपूर्वे स्थानिधर्मों हि अभावश्च रथादीनाम् अभूताभिनिवेशाद्धि अभूताभिनिवेशोऽस्ति अमात्रोऽनन्तमात्रश्च अलब्धावरणाः सर्वे अलाते स्पन्दमाने वै अवरत्वनुपलम्भं च अव्यक्ता एप येऽन्तस्तु अशक्तिरपरिज्ञानम् असज्जागरिते दृष्टवा असतो मायया जन्म अस्ति नास्त्यस्ति नास्तीति अस्पन्दमानमलातम् अस्पर्शयोगो वै नाम अस्पर्शयोगो वै नाम आत्मसत्यानुबोधेन आत्मा ह्याकाशवज्जीवैः आदावन्ते च यत्रास्ति आदावन्ते च यन्नास्ति आदिबुद्धाः प्रकृत्यैव आदिशान्ता ह्यनुत्पन्नाः आश्रमास्त्रिधिधा हीन. इच्छामात्रं प्रभोः सृष्टिः उत्पादस्याप्रसिद्धत्वातू उत्सेक उदधेर्यद्भुत उपलम्भात्समाचारात उपलम्मात्समाचारात् ________________

Appendix 1 149 Kärikā Prakarana No. of Karika उपायेन निगृह्णीयातू उपासनाश्रितो धर्मः उभयोरपि वैतथ्यम् उभे ह्यन्योन्यदृश्ये ते ऋजुवक्रादिकाभासम् एतैरेषोऽपृथग्भावैः एवं न चित्तजा धर्माः एवं न जायते चित्तम् ओङ्कारं पादशो विद्यात् कल्पयत्यात्मनात्मानम् कारणं यस्य वै कार्यम् कारणाद्यधनन्यत्वम् कार्यकारणबद्धौ तो काल इति कालविदः कोट्यश्चतस्र एतास्तु क्रमते न हि बुद्धस्य ख्याप्यमानामजातिं तैः ग्रहणाज्जागरितवत् ग्रहो न तत्र नोत्सर्गः घटादिषु प्रलीनेषु चरञ्जागरिते जाग्रत् चित्तं न संस्पृशत्यर्थम् चित्तकाला हि येऽन्तस्तु चित्तस्पन्दितमेवेदम् जरामरणनिर्मुक्ताः जाग्रचित्तेक्षणीयास्ते जाग्रवृत्तावपि त्वन्तः जात्यामासं चलाभासम् ________________

Io Gaudapada-Karika Prakarana No. of Kariká H Karika जीव कल्पयते पूर्वम् जीवात्मनोः पृथक्त्वं यत् जीवात्मनोरनन्यत्वम् ज्ञाने च विविधे ज्ञेये ज्ञानेनाकाशकल्पेन तत्त्वमाध्यात्मिकं दृष्ट्या तस्मादेवं विदित्वैनम् तस्मान्न जायते चित्तम् तेजसस्योत्वविज्ञाने त्रिषु धामसु यत्तुल्यम् त्रिषु धामसु यद्भाज्यम् दक्षिणाक्षिमुखे विश्वः दुखं सर्वमनुस्मृत्य दुर्दर्शमतिगम्भीरम् द्रव्यं द्रव्यस्य हेतुः स्यात् द्वयोर्द्वयोर्मधुज्ञाने द्वैतस्थाग्रहणं तुल्यम् धर्मा य इति जायन्ते न कश्चिज्जायते जीवः न कश्चिज्जायते जीव: न निरोधो न चोत्पत्ति न निर्गता अलातात्ते न निर्गतास्ते विज्ञानात् न भवत्यमृतं मर्त्य॑म् न भवत्यमृतं मर्त्य॑म् न युक्तं दर्शन गत्वा नाकाशस्य घटाकाशा नामेषु सर्वधर्मेषु ________________

Appendix / ISH Prakarana No. of Karika Page Karika नात्मभावेन नानेदम् नात्मानं न परांश्चैव नास्त्यसद्धेतुकमसत् नास्वादयेत्सुखं तत्र निःस्तुतिर्निर्नमस्कारः निगृहीतस्य मनसः निमितं न सदा चित्तम् निवृत्तस्याप्रवृत्तस्य निवृत्तेः सर्वदुःखानाम् निश्चितायां यथा रज्ज्वाम् नेह नानेति चाम्नायात् पञ्चविंशक इत्येके पादा इति पादविदो पूर्वापरापरिज्ञानम् प्रकृत्याकाशवजज्ञेयाः प्रज्ञप्तेः सनिमित्तत्वम् प्रज्ञप्तेः सनिमित्तत्वम् प्रणवं हीश्वरं विद्यात् प्रणवो ह्यपरं ब्रह्म प्रपञ्चो यदि विद्येत प्रभवः सर्वभावानाम् प्राण इति प्राणविदो प्राणादिभिरनन्तश्च प्राप्य सर्वज्ञतां कृत्स्नाम् फलादुत्पद्यमानः सन् बाहिष्प्रज्ञो विभुर्विश्व: बीजा राख्यो दृष्टान्तः बुद्ध निमित्ततां सत्याम् wo०७N

1. ________________

152 Gaudapada-Karika Prakarana No. of Kārikā Karika भावैरसद्भिरेवायम् सूतं न जायते किश्चित् भूततोऽभूततो वापि भूतस्य जातिमिच्छन्ति भोगार्थं सृष्टिरित्यन्ये मकारभावे प्राज्ञस्य मन इति मनोविदो मनसो निग्रहायपत्तम मनोदृश्यमिदं द्वैतम् मरणे संभवे चैव मायया मिद्यते ह्येतत् मित्राद्यैः सह समन्त्र्य मृल्लोहविस्फुलिङ्गाद्यैः यं भावं दर्शयेद्यस्य यथा निर्मितको जीवः यथा भवति बालानाम यथा मायामयाद्वीजात् यथा मायामयो जीवः यथा स्वप्नमयो जीवः यथा स्वप्ने द्वयाभासम् यथा स्वप्ने द्वयाभासम् यथैकस्मिन्धटाकाशे यदा न लभते हेतून् यदा नलीयते चित्तम् यदि हेतोः फलासिद्धिः यावद्धेतुफलावेशः यावद्धेतुफलावेशः युञ्जीत प्रणवे चेतः ________________

Appendix 1 153 Prakarapa No. of Kärika Page NN H - N 4 14 - Karikā योऽस्ति कल्पितसंवृत्त्या रसादयो हि ये कोशाः रूपकार्यसमाख्याश्च लये संबोधयेत्तम लीयते हि सुषुप्ते तत् लोकॉल्लोकविदः प्राहुः विकरोत्यपरान्भावान् विकल्पों विनिवर्तत विज्ञाने स्पन्दमाने वै विपर्यासाद्यथा जाग्रत विप्राणां विनयो ह्येषः विभूति प्रसवं त्वन्ये विश्वस्यात्वविवक्षायाम विश्वो हि स्थूलभूङ्नित्यम् बीतरागमक्रोधैः वेदा इति वेदविदो वैतथ्यं सर्वभावानाम् वैशारद्यं तु वै नास्ति स एष नेति नेतीति संघाताः स्वप्नवत्सर्वे संभवे हेतुफलयोः संभूतेरपवादाच्च संवृत्त्या जायते सर्वम् सतो हि मायया जन्म सप्रयोजनता तेषाम् सप्रयोजनता तेषाम् सर्वस्य प्रणवो ह्यादि सर्वामिलापविगतः सर्वे धर्मा मृषा स्वप्ने सवस्तु सोपलम्भश्च ________________

Gandapada-Karika Karika Prakarana No. of Karika सांसिद्धिकी स्वाभाविकी सुखमाव्रियते नित्यम् सूक्ष्म इति सूक्ष्मविदः सृष्टिरिति सृष्टिविदः स्थूलं तर्पयते विश्वम् स्वतो वा परतो वापि स्वप्नजागरितस्थाने स्वपदृक्चित्तदृश्यास्ते स्वप्नदृक्प्रचरन्स्वप्ने स्वप्ननिद्रायुतावाद्यौ स्वप्नमाये यथा दृष्टे स्वप्नवृत्तावपि त्वन्तः स्वप्ने चावस्तुकः काय स्वभावेनामृतो यस्य स्वभावेनामृतो यस्य स्वसिद्धान्तभ्यवस्थासु स्वस्थं शान्तं सनिर्वाणम् हेतोरादिः फलं येषाम् हेतोरादि फलं येषाम् हेतुर्न जायतेऽनादेः हेयज्ञेयाप्यवाक्यानि PM N ON . ________________

APPENDIX II Index to imporiant Words in the Nores Page No. Page No. 89 76 Word अकार्पण्यम् अकृता अग्रयाण अचल 112 140, 142 133 103 89 103 103 64 107 Word इन्द्रियकाल उत्तमाधममध्यमहेतु उत्सर्ग उदित उपचार एकत्रिशक ओङ्कार ओम् कषाय कृपण कार्य कामभोगान् काल कोश क्रमकोप क्षान्ति 107 106 88 134 133 IIM 90 106 62,81 133 98 ror 117 81 143 126 अनन्त अनादिमायया अनामासम् अनिङ्गलम् अनिमित्तता अनुत्पत्ति अपरिज्ञानम् अभिसंवृति अभूततः अमनीभाव अमूर्त अलात अवतार अविरुद्ध अविलक्षण अविवाद अशक्ति अस्पर्शयोग आदि आदिबुद्धाः आध्यात्मिक आप्य आवेश आश्रमा: 95 109 91 109 82, 129 गुण चलाचल घनप्रज्ञ चित्त चित्तकाल चितदृश्य चेतोंशून् जडवत् 116 76 129 103,109 120 142 88 143, 142 127 ज्ञेयम् तत्त्व तद्धतुः 141 79,88 123 83,96 ________________

156 Gaudapada-Karika Word Word ताविन् Page No. 145 बुद्धानाम् वृद्धि तुर्य 63 Page No. 90, 134 82 I18, 125 137 तेजस त्रिष्वध्वसु दिशः 58,59,63,65 121 81 देव 79 ब्राह्मण्यम् भुवनानि भूततः भूतदर्शन भूतवत् भूतानि द्वय द्वयकाल द्विपदां वर 130 76 108 96 भोक्तु धर्म 88, 108, 128, 134 92, 93 धर्माधमौं निद्रा निर्मितकः निर्वाण न्यायपूर्वकम् पञ्चविंशक भोज्य मधुज्ञानं मनस् मनोनिग्रह मायामात्र 130 104, Ios 107 71, 72 82 पद 146 यज्ञ यथावलम् यादृच्छिक रसादयः रूप 120, 13 120 परतन्त्र परतन्त्रास्तिता परापर पाक्य 84 141, 142 लक्षणा 84, TO", 107 79,83 138 00 - 60 94 112 127 120 - 00 पृथक्व प्रकृति प्रविशन्ति प्रज्ञप्तिः प्राकृत प्रागुत्पत्तेः प्राण - 106, I07 137 लोक लोकोत्तर लौकिक बाँदाः विक्षेप विनय विभु वियन्ति विश्व विश्व विषय 137 94,95 60, 78 58,59.63,65 प्राज्ञ No बाल 57,58,59,65 बाह्यतः ________________

Appendix 11 Word Page No. Page No. वेद 80 Word सुख सुनिर्वृताः सुषुप्ति 71,72 143 सूक्ष्म 137 वैतथ्य वैशारद वैश्वानर शुद्धलौकिक षड्विंश संवृति संक्लेश संघात संभूति सद्भाव सप्रयोजनता समाख्या सांसिद्धिकी 82 128, 131 320 91 सृष्टि सृष्टिचिन्तक स्त्रीपुंनपुंसकम् स्थानिधर्म स्थिति स्थूल स्वधा स्वप्न स्वभाव स्वाभाविकी हेयानि 128 74 90 I12 119 साध्यसम ________________

ERRATA | The list is not exhaustive. In counting the lines, the heading or top line is ignored ] Page For Read V. 22 II. 22 ( line 7 ) v. 8-10 ( last line ) V. 7-10 बीजफलभावाभ्यां X.33 II. 3. IT ( line 24) बीजफलाभावाभ्यां ( liner) X.32 (line 20) HI. 217 ( line 29) IV. 39 ( line 24) VI. 3. 4-5 ( line 20) यदाश्रया तम(line 19 ) IV. 3.9 VI. 1.4-6 यदाश्रया क्रिया तम त्यजत्यन्ते ( line4) तदसत्कार्य ( line 24) तदसत्कार्यवादे nor pot ( line 14) नैसर्गिको ( line 1) नैसर्गिकोऽयं