1. Mandukya, Gaudapada Karika Raghunath Damodar Karmarkar BORI

Government Oriental Series-Class B, No. 9.

GAUDAPĀDA-KĀRIKĀ

Edited with a complete translation into English, Notes, Introduction and Appendices

By

Raghunath Damodar Karmarkar Director, Post-Graduate and Research Department, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute ( Ex-Principal, Sir Parashurambhau College, Poona )

Published By Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

POONA

1953

GOVERNMENT ORIENTAL SERIES

CLASS B, No. 9

87.01

COVERNMENT ORIENTAL SERIES

CLASS B, No. 9

PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE PUBLICATION DEPARTMENT OF THE BHANDARKAR ORIENTAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE, POONA

STITUTS INST POONA

FOUNDED 1917

। तेजस्वि नाव धीतमस्यु।

POONA

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

1953

Bovernment Ociental Series-Class B, No. 9.

GAUDAPĀDA-KĀRIKĀ

EDITED

with a complete translation into English,

Notes, Introduction and Appendices

BY

Raghunath Damodar Karmarkar

Director, Post-Graduate and Research Department, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute ( Ex-Principal, Sir Parashurambhau College, Poona )

PUBLISHED BY

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

POONA

1953

Copies can be had direct from 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, अनुक्रमाङ्क: "ब"९

गौडपादकारिका

सरपरशुरामभाऊमहाविद्यालयभूतपूर्वप्राचार्येण

विभागाधिपतिना करमरकरकुलावतंसेन दामोदरसूनुना रघुनाथशर्मणा विरचितैराङ्गभाषानुवाद- टिप्पण्यादिभिः समेता

ी तभस्तु तेजर

पुण्यपत्तनस्थ-

भाण्डारकरप्राच्यविद्यासंशोधनमन्दिराधिकृतैः स्वकीये मुद्रणालये मुद्रयित्वा प्राकाश्यं नीता शाके १८७५ वत्सरे १९५३ खिस्ताब्दे

मूल्यं पञ् रूप्यका:

Dedicated to The Sacred Memory of The Late Mahāmahopādhyāya VASUDEVA SHASTRI ABHYANKAR

[ 1862-1942 ] who did his utmost throughout his life to expound and popularise the Philosophy of Sankarācārya

ЯAMV AYHHA IST2ATC AVHOURAY

PREFACE

Prof. Vidhusekhara Bhattacharya published his edition of Gauda- pādakārikās ( or Agamaśastra ) some years ago. A close perusal of that edition clearly showed that Prof. Bhattacharya had 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 Gaudapadakarika to the M. A. students, I had 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 Gaudapada's philosophy could be taken. The present edition has been brought forth with such a back-ground. Fortunately as regards the text of the Kārikas, 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 Anandaśrama series more than fifty years ago. I also looked into two Mss. specially lent by the Prajnapāthaśāla, Wai.

(t) Ms. No. 172 - (माण्डुक्यकारिका ) 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 कता आगमग्रन्थे उपदेशग्रन्थे वेदान्तमूले चतुर्थ प्रकरणम्।

No .- 9 This also is not a very old Ms. It contains the first Prakarana only, and the commentary of Anandagiti. The colophon reads इति श्रीमत्परमहंसपरिव्राजकाचार्यस्य शङ्करभगवतः कतौ आगमशास्त्रविवरणे माण्डूक्योपनिषद्भाष्ये प्रश्रमं प्रकरणं संपूर्णम्। In the Bhandarkar Oriental Institute Collection, there is a Ms. called aT which contains only the 3rd and the 2nd Prakarana of the Gaudapadakarikas. None of these Mss. show any marked variations of readings. It may therefore be taken for granted that the text of the Kārikas 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 Gaudapāda's Ajātivāda.

Poona, 28 August 1953 5 R. D. Karmarkar

CONTENTS

Introduction Pages I Gaudapada: His Date, Life, Works etc. 1-x II The contents of Gaudapada-Karika x-xxii III Was Gaudapada a Buddhist ? xxii-xxvii IV The Title of the whole work and the several Prakaraņas thereof xxvii-xxviii V The Mandukyopanisad and the twenty-nine Kārikās in the first Prakaraņa xxviii-xxxiii VI Are the four Prakaranas inter-related ? xxxiii-xti VII The Sources of Gaudapāda-Kārikā XLi-xLvii VIII Gaudapada's contribution to Indian Philosophical Thought . xLvii-Lii Text and Translation प्रथमं प्रकरणम् १-९ द्वितीयं प्रकरणम् १०-१९ तृतीयं प्रकरणम् १९-३१ चतुर्थ प्रकरणम् ३१-५६ Notes

Chapter I 57-70 Chapter II 71-88 Chapter III 88-107 Chapter IV 108-146 Appendix I An Alphabetical Index to the Kārikās 147-154 Appendix II Index to Important Words in the Notes 155-157 [ The usual Abbreviations are used in this edition. The Bhāsya on the Kārikās, attributed to Sankarācārya is referred to as K.bhāşya or Sankara-bhāsya. ]

(OMLEWIR

lizz-x

Bizxx-ilivx:

tia tivaz

86-28

86-16 T01-88

023-223

INTRODUCTION Ml gool a gut

Ir ovollod I Gaudapada: His Date, Life, Works etc. .

In the traditional salutation formula repeated daily by the followers of Sankarācārya, Gaudapāda stands as the grand preceptor (paramaguru ) of Sankaracarya. 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 thiw yiimiot - ( 6) व्यास - (7) शुक 1 (8) गोडपढ the great sid os bolnovos

(9) गोविन्द

(10 ) शक्कुर

(11-14) पझपाद, हस्तामलक, त्रोटक, and वार्तिककार (सुरेश्वर).

From Narayana up to Suka, there is the na-ga 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 Mahabharata war. Even if the latest date for the Mahābhārata war, viz. 1000 B. C. is accepted, and if Gaudapada was a direct pupil of Suka as tradition asserts, the date of Gaudapada would be not earlier than 1000 B. C., and then Sankaracārya who was the pupil of the pupil of Gaudapada, would have to be taken as having lived sometime between 2900 B. C. and

ii Gaudapāda-Karikā 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- pada. 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 Šankarācārya. Luckily some fresh evidence 2 has recently come to light in respect of the relation between Gaudapada and Sankara. A work called ‘ Śri Vidyarņava' dealing with the Sākta doctrines by Vidyāraņya (circa 1100 A. D.) says गौडादिशङ्करान्ताश्र्व सहसंख्या समीरिताः।,that is, there are five names of Ācāryas between Gaudapāda and Śankara. The same work says that Sankarācarya's direct pupils were fourteen (शङ्कराचार्यशिष्याश्रव चतुर्दश दृढव्रताः । दिव्यात्मानो दृढात्मानो निग्रहानुग्रहक्षमाः ॥). Of these the names of the four pupils पझपाद, सुरेश्वर, हस्तामलक and त्रोटक have become more well-known (only पझमपाद's 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 Sankarācarya, which is not in con- formity with the generally accepted date 788 A. D. for Sankara. Anandagiri 3 in his commentary on the Gaudapāda-Kārikā- bhasya ( that goes under the name of Sankara ) mentions that Gaudapāda practised penance at Badarikāśrama, and Nārāyaņa revealed to him the Kārikās on the Māņdūkyopanișad. Sankara in his bhāsya on the Švetāśvataropanişad says ar शुकशिष्यो गौडपादा वार्य :. It is true that here Gaudapada is referred to in the singular, but so is Vyāsa himself in the Brahmasūtrabhāsya. 1 The Yogavasistha describes Suka as the greatest of Yogins who enjoyed the Samadhi state for more than ten thousand years ! जगाम शिखरं मेरोः समाध्यर्थमनिन्दितम् ॥ तत्र वर्षसहस्त्राणि निर्विकल्पसमाधिना। दश स्थित्वा शशामासावात्मन्यस्नेहद्दीपवन् ।। ( II. 1-43-44 ). 2 See the article ' A Survey of the Sakta School' ( in Marathi ) by Prof. H. B. Bhide, in Bharata Itihasa Samsodhaka Maņdala Quarterly Vol, XXXIII Nos. 1 & 2, 1953. 3 आचार्यो हि पुरा बदरिकाश्रमे नरनारायणाधिष्ठिते नारायणं भगवन्तमभिप्रेत्य तपो महदतप्यत ततो भगवानतिप्रसन्न्नस्तस्मै विद्या प्रादादिति प्रसिद्धं परमगुरुत्वं परमेश्वरस्येति भाव:। on IV. 1.

Introduction : I Gaudapada : His Date, Life, Works etc. iii

The gods, likewise, are often mentioned in the singular, so the rule about the plural being used honorifically is not without its exceptions. Balakrsnananda ( circa 17th century) in his शारीरकमीमांसाभाष्य- वार्ततिक, describes Gaudapada as गौडजातिश्रेष्ट and as one being in Samadhi right up from the Dvapara yuga. There is no reason to doubt the historicity of Gaudapada, 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 Vedantists and Buddhists :- Śāntirakșita and Bhāvaviveka 4 quote some Kārikās as coming from some Vedāntasāstra. As both the above Buddhist writers were concerned with the doctrines and not the name of the author, the non-mention of Gaudapada need not appear surprising. In fact, Sanskrit writers normally quote passages from other works, without specifying the names of the authors. Sankarācārya quotes the Karika अनादिमायया ... in his sutrabhasya (II. I. 9), with the remark अत्रोक्तं वेदान्तसंप्रदायविद्धिराचार्यः, and Karika III. 15 in the bhasya (I. IV. 14), with the remark तथा च संप्रदायविदो वदन्ति. (The plural used in both the cases is obviously intended to show respect and refers to only one Acarya and not to many ). Śureśvara in his Naiskarmyasiddhi,s quotes two G. Kārikās ( I. II and I5 ), and one from Upadesasāhasrī of Sankara, with the remark एवं गौडैर्द्राविडैर्न: पूज्यैरयमर्थः प्रभाषितः। AS द्राविडै: here refers to Sankara, गौडै: must refer to only one individual viz. गौडपाद Dr. Walleser misunderstands गौडै: and द्राविडै: to mean 'representa- tives of the Gauda and Dravida tradition'. The commentator ज्ञानोत्तम calls the G. Karikas quoted in the नैष्कम्यसिद्धि, गौडपादीयवाक्य. Vidyaranya in his qeaasf refers to Gaudapada's teaching which is characterised as आचार्यसंमति by his commentator. dood The Vedāntasāra of Sadānanda quotes two G. Kārikās ( III. 44, 45 ) as being too well-known, with the remark तदुक्तम्.

About the 5th and 8th centuries A. D. 5. IV. 41, 42.

iv Gaudapāda-Kārikā All this shows that Gaudapada'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 ). Gaudapada seems to be a nickname and not a proper name, qra being used to show respect; and Gauda apparently refers to the Gauda territory where the Karikas were written and where their author became famous. Bhāvaviveka ( 500 A. D. ), in his commentary asearar on his own work मध्यमकहृदयकारिका, quotes four passages which closely resemble G. Kārikās. Sāntiraksita ( 700 A. D. ) in his HETHIg- कारिका quotes about ten G. Karikas in connection with the औपनिषद views, which are called उपनिषटशास्त्र by Kamalasila, disciple of Santirakșita. Gaudapāda in all probability cannot thus be later than 500 A. D. The Kārikas of Gaudapāda show more than a similarity of thought and expression with the Mūlamadhyamakarikas of Nāgārjuna ( whose date is accepted as circa third century A. D. ) and with Catuhsataka of Aryadeva who was the disciple of Nāgārjuna. The Kārikas of Gaudapāda are indebted a lot to the Bhagavad- gita, and if we believe in the genuine nature of the bhāsya by Gaudapāda on the Sānkhyakārikās of Iśvarakrșna (circa 2nd century), it is clear that the date of Gaudapada 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 Samkhya, composed by Kapila, the book of Patañjali, the book Nyāyabhāșā composed by Kapila, ... the book Mimamsa, composed by Jaimini, ... the book Lokāyata, the book Agastyamata composed by Agastya, ... and the book Vişņu- dharma. It is clear that Alberuni mentions Gauda the anchorite as representing the Vedantic doctrine first, because the Vedantic philosophy was held in high estimation. Though we do not know even now anything about Nyāyabhāsā of Kapila or Agastyamata by Agastya, we think there is no reason to doubt the existence of some

Introduction : I 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- pāda-kārikā. The tradition of Gaudapada as being a great Yogin is also corroborated by Alberuni. One Sadasivabrahmendra in his जगद्गुरुरत्नमालास्तव, refers to Gauda- pada as having expounded the bhasya of Patanjali, and as having been the preceptor of Apolonys. The commentator Atmabodhendra says Gaudapāda came into contact with Apalūnya (equated with Apollonius, the Pythagorean philosopher who lived in 100 A. D. ). Even if this tradition is held to be correct, it would only show that some Indian philosopber 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 Kärikas, 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 :- ( 1 ) Bhasya on the Sankhyakarika of Isvarakrsna Some scholars are of opinion that the bhāsya on the Sankhya- kārikās 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 Mātharavrtti ( bhāsya by Mathara on the Sānkhya- karikas, which is certainly not better in any way than Gauda- pāda's bhāsya 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 Gaudapāda have drawn upon a common source which was known to the Chinese in translation6. The bhāsya is a matter-of-fact tame work, but Gaudapāda 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 Matbara and Gaudapada are identical and that the Matharavrtti and Gaudapadabhasya are but two editions of the same work?

vi Gaudapada-Karikā

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 Kārīkā-bhāsya, we read सांख्य कपिलसुनिना प्रोक्तं संसारविमुक्तिकारणं हि। यत्रैताः सप्ततिरार्या भाष्यं चात्र गौडपादकृतम् । The bhāsya designates the Kārikās of Īśvarakrsņa as arruis. It contains the following quotation, ( Kārikā I ) सनकश्व सनन्दश्व तृतीयश्र्व सनातनः । आसुरि: कपिलश्वैव वोदु: पञ्चाशखस्तथा॥ इत्येते ब्रह्मणः पुत्राः सप्त प्रोक्ता ब्रह्मर्षयः॥ where some of the Sankhya philosophers are described as sons of Brahmadeva. पञ्चविशतितत्वज्ञो यत्र तत्राश्मे वसेत्। जटी मुण्डी शिखी वापि सुच्येत नात्र संशयः ॥ This quotation from qeafsna is given twice in the bhāsya ( also under Kārikā 22 ). We give below the passages quoted from other works in the bhasya to give the reader a general idea about the work. ( Kārikā I ) अपाम सोमममृता अभूमागन्म ज्योतिरविदाम देवान्। किं नूनमस्मान् कणवदरातिः किसु धूर्तिरमृतमार्यस्य॥। ( This is from अथर्वशिरस्, Rgveda VIII. 48. 3) तथा चोक्तम् ( Karikā 2 ) षटू शतानि वियुज्यन्ते पशूनां मध्यमेऽहनि। अश्वमेधस्य वचनादूनानि पशुभिस्त्रिभिः ॥ ( Mahidhara quotes this in his bhasya on Yajurveda-Samhitā XXIV ). बहूनीन्द्रसहस्राणि देवानां च युगे युगे। कालेन समतीतानि कालो हि दुरतिक्रमः ॥ अपि चोक्तम्- ( Karikā 4) आगमो ह्याप्तवचनमापं दोषक्षयाद्विदुः । क्षीणदोषोऽनृतं वाक्य न ब्रूयाद्धेत्वसंभवात्।। स्वकर्मण्यभियुक्तो यः सङ्गद्वेषविवर्जितः । पूजितरतद्विधैर्नित्यमाप्ो ज्ञेय: स तादशः ॥

Introduction : I Gaudapada : Iris Date, Life, Works etc. vii

प्रतिभा यथा- दक्षिणेन च विन्ध्यस्य सह्यस्य च यदुत्तरम्। पृथिव्यामासमुद्रायां स प्रदेशो मनोरमः ॥ Doog उक्तं च- ( Kārika 12 ) रजसो मिथुनं सत्वं सत्त्वस्य मिथुनं रजः । उभयो सत्वरजसोर्मिथुनं तम उच्यते ॥ ( This is usually taken to come from देवीभागवत) गणा गुणेषु वर्तन्ते (Gita III. 28 ) इति वचनात् । ( Kārikā 23 ) तत्र यमाश्व नियमाश्व पातञ्जलेऽभिहिताः । अहिंसासत्यास्तेय ब्रह्म चर्यापरिग्रहा यमाः । शोचसन्तोषतपःस्व्राध्यायेश्वरप्रणिधानानि नियमाः ॥ (योगसूत्र 30, 32) ( Rārikā 61 ) अज्ञो जन्तुरनीशोऽयमात्मनः सुखदुःखयोः। ईश्वरप्रेरितो गच्छेत्स्वर्गे नरकमेव वा ॥ (महाभारत III. 30-88) केन शुक्कीकता हंसा मयूरा: केन चित्रिताः ॥ उक्तं च- काल: पचति भूतानि काल: संहरते जगतू । काल: सुप्तेषु जागर्ति कालो हि दुरतिक्रमः ॥ Thus the bhasya quotes from the Mahabharata, Bhagavadgīta, Purana, Yogasutras etc. A study of the Sankhya philosophy which preached that मूलप्रकृति was अविकृति led Gaudapada to declare that there cannot be अन्यथाभाव of the प्रकति, and the doctrine of the Purusa being a mere looker on, coupled with the statement of the Bhagavad- gita that the qualities, सत्व, रजस्ू and तमसू are responsible for the Sarsara ( गणा गुणेषु वर्तन्ते) was utilised by him to enunciate ultimately his doctrine of Ajativada in course of time. There is a strong probability that Gaudapada wrote a com- mentary on the Sankhyakārika and called his own independent work कारिका as well. (2) उत्तरगीता- Gaudapada's commentary on this work is known from the colophons as गौडपादीयव्याख्या on the उत्तरगीता, and commences with अखण्डं सच्विदानन्दमवाङमनसगोघ्रम्। आत्मानमखिलाधार- माश्येऽभष्टिसिद्धये॥ इह खलु, अर्जुनः 'अशोच्यानन्वशोचसत्वम्' इत्यारभ्य भगवदुपदिष्ट- मात्मतत्वोपदेश विषयभोगप्ाबल्येन विस्मृत्य पुनस्तदात्मतत्वं भगवन्तं पृष्छति-, and

viii Gaudapāda- Karika

ends with आत्मयोगमवोचयो भक्तियोगशिरोमणिः। तं वन्दे 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 (I-39; II-30; III-42; IV-37; V-37; VI-56) and the colophon reads इति श्रीमहाभारते भीष्मपर्वणि उत्तरगीतायां योगशास्त्रे ब्रह्मविद्यायां श्रीकष्णार्जुनसंवादे etc. Ms. No. 163 gives a total of 137 verses only, distributed in three chapters ( I-54 ; II-56 ; III-27 ) and the colophon reads

जुनसंवादे etc. इति श्रीमद्भागवते उत्तरगीतासूपनिषत्सु ब्रह्मविद्यायां योगशास्त्रे श्रीरृष्ण-

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 ...... etc. Mss. 165-189 contain the commentary which is called गौडपादीय- दीपिका or उत्तरगीताव्याख्या (गौडपादाचार्यविरचिता) or गौडपादीयव्याख्या. The text is distributed in three chapters, but the number of verses varies ( as 110, 116, 112, 123 ). The name of the commentator however is the same viz. Gaudapada throughout. The unreliability of the colophons to the Uttaragīta is clearly shown from the fact that in no versions of the Mahābhārata is the Uttaragītā found either in the Bhīsmaparvan or the Aśvamedhika parvan. Similarly it is not found in the Bhāgavata.

Introduction : I Gaudapada : His Date, Life, Works etc. ix

This raises the question whether the Uttaragita was written by Gaudapada himself, along with the commentary. It is not unlikely that Gaudapada who seems to be indebted to the Bhagavadgīta for many ideas in his Karikas, may have thought of emphasising the Yoga element in the Gita, by writing a supplement to it. The Uttaragita, besides describing the nature of Brahman, Jīvanmukti etc. gives a detailed description of the Nādīs, Kundalinī etc. (3) सुभगोदयस्तुति- This is a small Tantric or Sakta work of the Stotra ty pe, 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 Saktas and con- demns the कौल in no uncertain terms ( तदेतत्कौलानां प्रतिदिनमनुष्ठेयसुदितं भवत्या वामाख्यं मतमपि परित्याज्यमुभयभ् । ४२; ... अतो बाह्या पूजा भवति भगरूपेण च ततो निषिद्धाचारोऽयं निगमविद्होऽनिन्यचरिते । 43). As can be expected, it refers to the Nadis, पिङ्गला, इडा, चक्र, बिन्दु etc. Verse 31 ककाराकाराभ्यां स्वरगणमवष्टभ्य निखिलं etc. is similar to काकीमुखककारान्त उकारश्वेतनाकृतिः । अकारस्य च लुप्तस्य कोरऽर्थः 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 Sakta work must be some other Gaudapada. 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 Sankhya and Bauddha philosophical works, he could have been equally interested in the Sākta school which attached so much importance to Yoga in its practical aspect. (4) शविद्यारण्यसूत्र is another Tantric work attributed to Gauda- pāda, as also commentaries on ( 5 ) Durgāsapraśatī, ( 6 ) Anugītā and on ( 7 ) Nrsimhottaratāpanīyopanișad. The Mandukyopanisad has much in common with the Nrsimhot- taratāpanīyopanișad, and as Gaudapāda had used the Māņdūkya as a basis for his Karikas, tradition seems to have regarded him as the author of the commentary on the Nrsimha as well, 2

x Gaudapāda- Karıkā

It appears to us that Gaudapada's authorship of the Sankhya- Kārikābbāsya, Uttaragītā and Subhagodayastuti can be reasonably accepted to be correct. Gaudapada appears to have been attracted by the Sankhyakarikas in the beginning, from which he learnt of the Purusa being entirely different from the Prakrti which alone was responsible for the evolved world. Then he was influenced by the Mūlamadhyamakārikā of Nāgārjuna, which advocated the unreality of the world, and this enabled him to advocate his Ajātivada based upon the cardinal doctrine of the Upanisads, the oneness of Brahman, and he wrote his own Karikas to preach his Vedantic doctrine, and especially to controvert the teachings of the Lankavatara where the Buddha teaches a large number of doctrines, but fails to grasp the most important one which fact Gaudapada proclaims by saying नैतद्बुद्धेन भाषितम् in IV-99. II The Contents of Gaudapada-Karika Prakarana I :- There is only one Paramatman 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 Viśva, 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 tbe subtle or non-gross in the dream state. (3) He is known as Prājña, residing in the heart-Ākāśa, and experiences bliss in the state of deep sleep. This all-pervading Paramatman 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, Prajna only by the cause ( Ajñana ) and they function accordingly ; while the Fourth is beyond all this and is but consciousness or Jnana, and is all-seeing and beyond all duality. In the case of both Prajña and Turya, there is no experience of

Introduction : II The Contents of Gaudapada-Kārika xi duality, but the Prajna remains influenced by the basic Avidya or Ajnana 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 Äptakāma ( 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 inftuence of ( Avidyā or ) Māyā is awakened and frees himself from the clutches of Avīdya, Advaita, unoriginated, uncontaminated by the 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 ओडार. Corresponding to the three states (जाग्रत्, स्वम् and सुषुप्ति) we have विश्व, तैजस and प्राज्ञ forms of Atman and these can be taken to resemble or as equated with 3T, and , the three ATEIs of ओङ्कार. For the purposes of उपासना, the symbol ओम is very useful as it enables the #I4# to get a proper idea of the Paramatman easily. Thus- ओद्कार परमात्मन (1 ) Has three HIaTS-3T, (1) Has three पादS-विश्व, तैजस उ, म् and SI5 ( respectively con- cerned with जाग्रत, स्वम and सुषुप्ति States). (2 ) e is the first of the (2) विश्व deals with the gross alphabet, and which is first perceived and thus resembles 3T.

xii Gaudapada-Kārikā

eT is all-pervading विश्व can be equated with eT; as he also experiences all out-side world.

[ So by meditating upon e as resembling faea or as identical with विश्व, the साध secures pre-eminence and all his desires ].

(3) उ represents उत्कष्टता and (3) Similarly तैजस also is उत्कष्ट 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 3 as resembling तैजस or as equated with तैजस, the साधक secures excess and equanimity ].

(4) म represents'measur- (4 ) SIET similarly lays down the ing' and ' merging'. limits of विश्व and तैजस, For, represents the and after सुषुप्ति comes again limit of ओम् and म् merges the जाग्रत state. into a and to give a 10oncomplete idea of ओम् [ By meditating upon a as resembling sIa or as equated with TIST, the HIVE secures omniscience and the idea about merg ing into the highest ]. The meditation on the three wrars of enar as the three quarters of the qrARRa however does not lead to the highest knowledge which is to realise तुर्य or the आत्मन as without any quarters. This would correspond to the ओम known as one unit (the नादब्रह्मात्मक ओम्). The meditation on the Matra-less ओम makes the साधक free from fear, for eirg 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 eną in this way is alone Muni par excellence; other Munis are called gfns by courtesy.

Introduction : 1I The Contents of Gaudapada-Kārikā xiii

Prakarana II

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 asaraaar 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 a 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 bcth in the waking and the dream states are false and can be spoken of as being only imagined. This means that the Paramatman himself by his Maya 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 Cittakala (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 Paramatman 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 Paramatman in various ways. Thus the Atman is taken to be ( 1 ) Prāņa, ( 2 ) Elements, ( 3 ) Guņas, ( 4 ) Tattvas, ( 5 ) Pāda, (6 ) Objects of sense, (7) Worlds, ( 8 ) Gods, (9) Vedas, ( 10) Sacrifices, ( II ) Enjoyer, ( 12) Object of enjoyment,(12) Subtle, (13) Gross, ( 14) Possessed of form, ( 15 ) Form-less, ( 16)

xiv Gaudapāda- Kârıka Time, (16) Quarters, ( 18 ) Topics for discussion, (19) Universe- divisions, (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, ( 29 ) Man and Woman, ( 29) High and Low, ( 30 ) Creation, ( 31 ) Dissolution, ( 32 ) Stability, ( 33 ) All- existing 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 Vedanta 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 Samsara, 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 non- distinct apart from Atman. 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 Samsara. 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 Nisedha 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 Paramatman, all talk about the individual soul or Jiva having recourse to the Upāsana or meditation on the Paramatman is really meaningless. For, the Jīva is Paramatman himself, and it is scant courtesy shown to Jīva if we narrow his functions and powers by calling him inferior to Paramatman. Really the Paramātman is like Ākasa, infinite and subtle and Jivas are like Ghatākāśa, Pațākāśa etc. which are nothing but Ākāśa associated with the Upadhis, Ghata, Pata etc. When the Upadhis vanish away, Ghatākāśa is merged into Ākāśa, similarly the Jivas, with the Upadhis, body etc. gone, are merged into the Paramatman. So long as the Upadhis are there, the Jivas retain

Introduction : 11 The Contents of Gaudapāda-Karikā XV their individualities, names and forms and experience happiness or misery. Akāśa is not changed or divided by Ghațākāśa etc .; similarly the Paramatman undergoes no change on account of the Jīvas. Ghațākāśa is not a part or transformation of Ākāśa, so Jīva likewise is not a part or transformation of the Paramatman who has these Upadhis superimposed upon him by the ignorant. The Taittiriyopanisad clearly points out how Paramātman is the inmost, unchangeable in the five sheaths of the Jiva; similarly in the Madhukanda we are told how the Ātman is one like Ākāśa in the Adhyatma and Adhidaiva pairs. The oneness of Atman and Jīva is always acclaimed and their manifoldness decried by the Śruti. 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 ruti, out of pity for them, speaks in a manner which can be understood by them. Passages speaking of duality are to be under- stood 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 Paramatman, the creation that is experienced can be explained only on the theory that it is due to Maya and not real. A real creation is an impossi- bility. When a thing is produced, that means it was unproduced before, that is, its nature was 'to be unproduced'. Now nothing can ever change its nature. An unproduced thing must ever remain unproduced. There are some Sruti passages that speak of creation from ua, others from अभूत. We shall have to decide the question as to which passages are authoritative by strict logical reasoning, and should not

xvi Gaudapāda-Kārikā accept blindly what Sruti says. 'There is here nothing manifold' ' Indra acts with his Maya powers' - these passages clearly point out that production or creation is due to Māya. Some passages directly condemn 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 Maya, never in reality; if the production were to be real, it would be tantamount to saying that a thing already produced is being produced ! A non-existent thing, it is obvious enough, cannot be produced either in reality or through Maya; the son of a barren woman cannot be there even through Māya ! So, just as the mind vibrates in dream 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 mischief- making 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 aud 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 Kuśa grass blade ). Desire and enjoyment would lead the HIT# 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 Kama ( 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 Gaudapāda-Kārika xvii 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-origina- tion 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 Paramatman, being all-pervading, subtle and incapable of being contaminated like Ākaśa-this is known by Jnana which is also like Ākasa and not different from the Paramatman. 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 Sankhyas ) declare that an existent is produced ; others ( the Vaiśesikas ) 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 अजातिवादिन is thankful to the सत्कार्यवादिन्S (Sankhyas) for showing how futile the arguments of the असत्कार्यवादिन्S (वैशेषिकऽ) are, and to the latter for controverting the former. Both the esr- वादिनूs and असत्कार्यवादिनs forget the basic principle that nothing can change one's own nature. If a thing is erara, it would ever remain araa, it can never be changed into aa 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 कार्य (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 ersr thing can produce any ra ; and there would be the fault of endlessness if it is assumed that a जात मूलकारण produces further जात कार्य: 3

xviii Gaudapāda - Kārikā

The view of the असत्कार्यवादिनूs that असत् ( कारण) produces सत् (कार्य) is untenable 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 aa ! Some try to account for the creation of the world and कार्यकारण- भाव 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 vHiun and this series has no beginning. But this argument cannot stand. For, according to these अनादिवादिनs, both धर्माधर्म and देहादिसंघात are कार्य, and as such both must have another आदि or कारण; the whole प्रपश् 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 :- ( I ) 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 would 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 पूर्तापरभाव, कार्यकारणभाव cannot be proved, for कार्य and कारण cannot be produced simultan e- ously. Taking all these difficulties into consideration, the wise philosophers have decreed that non-origin'ation is the only true doctrine !

Introduction : II The contents of Gaudapāda-Karikā xix

( 4) The maxim of the seed and the sprout ( where mutual कार्यकारणभाव is seen) cannot help the जातिवादिम, for unless you fipst prove the कार्यकारणभाव between बीज and अङ्कर independently, you cannot make use of this illustration. (5 ) The very fact that you are not able to say, which comes first, r or ITOT, proves the non-origination theory; for, if 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 aT(ya, 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 बाह्यार्थवादिनs). To this the reply would be ( in accordance with the views of the विज्ञानवादिन) that reasoning must give way to facts. The existence of external objects is not necessary to produce Prajnpti ( or ज्ञानविशेष), for without them, we get that kind of knowledge in dreams. The Citta ( or mind, Vijñana ) of its own accord, without contacting external objects or appearances ( Arthabhasa ) can produce that knowledge. Arthabhasa and Artha both are really non-existent. Citta knows no independent object at any time. The Vijnanavadi 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 Vijnanavadins ) 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 Cittadrsya is to believe in the change of one's nature; to say that Samsara is beginningless means that Samsara 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 Gaudapāda- Kārikā

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, सत् cannot come from असत्, सत् can not come from सत् and अप्तत् cannot come from aa. 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 Vijñana 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. No 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 Citta, nor is the Citta originated by 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 sanaura continues, there would be no freedom from the results of the causal relation, and from the Samsara; when the obsession ceases, the Samsara also comes to naught. Everything is originated by Māya and that is consequently not permanent; unoriginated aa can have no end. The Dharmas that are spoken of as originated by some, are not really so; their production is due to Maya which has no real existence.

Introduction : Il The Contents of Gaudapada. 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 Citta 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 Citta-drsya 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 Maya. 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 Māyā does not exist in reality ( other schools of philosophy may postulate to the contrary ). A thing imagined as unoriginated by Maya 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 Drsya 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 Brahmanas, non-dual, without beginning, middle or end! This realisation is the goal of the training of the Brahmanas; this is the natural self-control and calm.

xxii Gaudapada-Karika

The wise have described what is Jñana, Jneya and Vijñeya; chis should be properly grasped. In Laukika Jñāna, there is duality where the external objects are believed to exist, along with their perception. In Pure Laukika Jñāna, there are no external objects but their perception is admitted. In Lokottara Jnana, 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 Ākāa ; 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 Jnana by nature; it is not transferred to them, hence Jñāna is said to be contactless. Even if there is the slightest idea of mani- foldness, 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 Jnana 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 Gauda- pada 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 Upanisads tallied with those of Buddha ". Gaudapada assimilated alt the Buddhist Sūnyavāda and Vijnanavāda teachings and thought that these hold good of the ultimate truth preached by the Upanisads. It is immaterial whether he was a Hindu or a Buddhist, so long as

Introduction : III Was Gaudapada a Buddhist ? xxiii

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 Gaudapādakārikās, to prove that Gaudapada was merely reproducing Buddhist philo- sophical ideas in his work and no more. While Prof. Dasgupta does not appear to have made a detailed study of the Kārikas, and so confines himself to a few salient points in his criticism, Prof. Vidhusekhara goes all out to uphold his thesis that Gaudapada was a Buddhist. In our Notes, we have shown in detail how the inter- pretations put on the Kārikās by Prof. Vidhuśekhara, 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 Guruparamparā of Sankarācārya, नारायणं पझमभवं वसिष्ठं शक्ति च तत्पुत्रपराशरं च व्यासं शुकं गौडपदं7 महान्तं गोविन्दयोगीन्द्रमथास्य शिष्यम्। श्रीशङ्कराचार्यमथास्य पद्मपादं च हस्तामलकं च शिष्यं तं तोटके वार्ततिककारमन्यानस्मदगरुन् सन्ततमा न तोडस्म।। Here Gaudapada is mentioned as either the teacher's teacher ( or, at any rate a predecessor ) of Sankaracarya. It is simply unthink- able that, if Gaudapada were a Buddhist, he would have been so solemnly selected every day in the Sankarapīthas 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 ) Śankarācārya in his Sūtrabhāsya, quotes Gaudapādakārika, with the remark अत्रोक्तं वेदान्तार्थसंप्रदायविद्भिराचार्येः 'अनादिमायया सुप्तो etc. ( I. 16 )'. He thus refers to Gaudapada, most respectfully as a great Acarya who knows the traditional Vedanta teachings. Such a reference would be quite out of order, if Gaudapada had been a Buddhist.

7 Same as गौडप।ढ; the use of पद for पाद is perhaps due to the exigence of the metre.

xxiv Gaudapāda-Kārikā

(3) The state of Moksa is called ब्राह्मण्य पद (IV. 85 ) in the Kārikās. Would a genuine Buddhist refer to Moksa in terms of a rival philosophy ? ( 4) The Kārikās have as their basis the Māndūkyopanișad ( in the First Prakarana ), quote Taittirīyopanisad by name, and are indebted to the Brhadāranyaka, Chandogya, the Bhagavadgita, etc. for its doctrines. All these are Vedantic works. No Buddhist would have shown such reverence and preference for non-Buddhist works. ( 5 ) After having enunciated his doctrines, Gaudapāda at the end of his work categorically says that his philosophy has not been taught by Buddha (नैतद्बुद्धेन भाषितम् IV. 99). It is true that attempts have been made to explain away this passage, so as not to be regard- ed as anti-Buddhistic, but these carry no conviction. (6) Gaudapada in II-25, refers to the Bauddhas ( मन इति मनो- विदो बुद्धिरिति च तद्विद: ) for the purpose of combating them. In IV. 54, he comes to the conclusion एवं न चित्तजा धर्माश्वित्तं वापि न धर्मजम्, thus showing that he does not hold the Vijnanavada of the Bauddhas. Similarly the Bahyarthavadins 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 Gaudapada 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 वरम् in IV. I. refers to manaa. We have shown in our Notes on the Karika in question how the Mahabharata uses the expression a number of times and that द्विपदां वरम् was never accepted as a peculiar epithet of Buddha. There is a greater probability of the expression referring to Nārāyaņa or Šuka. (2) There are various terms current in Buddhistic philosophy, used in his Karikas by Gaudapada, such as धर्म, धातु, लोकोत्तर, तायिन, देशित, वैशाश्य्य, संवृति etc. This however might at the most prove that

8 See B. O. R. I. Annals Vol, XXXII pp. 166-173 Dvipadam Varam by R. D. Karmarkar.

Introduction : III Was Gaudapada a Buddbist ?

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, संतृति etc.) in a more or less Vedantic sense. Gaudapada 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. Gaudapāda owes that expression to the Bhagavadgīta which refers to मात्रास्पर्श as दुःखयोनि (मात्रास्पर्शास्तु कोन्तेय शीतोष्णसुख- दुःखदाः । ... II, 14, V. 21) and consequently अस्पर्शयोग is the panacea to end all misery. (4) The simile of the fire-brand ( arta ) is peculiarly Buddhistic.

Gaudapada need not have gone to the Buddhists for the simile. HraTa is found used in Ramayaņa (Kiskindhākāņda)?, Mahābhārata (Karnaparvan)'0 and Yogavasistha". 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 Gaudapādakārīka which seem to be the echoes of the Mūlamadhyamakarikas of Nāgārjuna, such as

भूतं ने जायते किश्चिद भूतं नैव जायते। (IV-4) स्वतो वा परतो वापि न किश्वििद्वस्तु जायते। (IV-22).

9. आदर्शतलसंकाशा ततो वै पृथिवी मया। अलातचक्रप्रतिमा दृष्टा गोष्पद्वत्कता ॥ Kiskindhakanda XLVI. 13. 10 अलातचकरवत्सैन्यं तदा बभ्राम तावकम् । Karnaparvan, 86. 42 11 यथालातपरिस्पन्दादमिचकं प्रदृश्यते। असदेव सदाभासं चित्तस्पन्दात्तथा जगत् ॥ V. 78. 1. मिथ्यैव में विवल्गक्ति नीरूपा नयनादयः । अलातचकप्रतिमा: सर्परजजुध्रमोपमाः ॥ V. 82. 22. 10 The major portion of the Yogavasistha 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. 4

*xvi Gaudapāda-Karikā

There need be no hesitation in admitting that Gaudapada has borrowed several ideas from his predecessors, both Buddhists and Vedantins. Various passages in the Paramarthasara and Yogavasistha can be shown to bear striking similarity with those in Gaudapada's work. (6) The expression बुद्ध 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 is in most cases used by Gaudapada 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 Gaudapada from Samjaya Belattiputta, a pre-Buddhist heretic. Even if Gaudapada is taken to have been a borrower as suggested above, that does not prove anything. (8 ) Agrayaņa in Karika IV-90 means Mahāyana. It may very well mean ' the Pūrvamīmāñsā'.12 İt would thus be seen that the attempt of certain scholars to prove that Gaudapada was a Buddhist and that he preached Buddhistic philosophy or that he incorporated Buddhistic ideas in the Upanisadic philosophy, can not be said to be successful in the least. There is no doubt that Gaudapada studied very carefully the various philosophical systems current in his own time ( such as the Sankhya, Buddhistic, Gita ) in addition to the Upanisads and evolved his famous doctrine of Ajātivāda, which is certainly far removed from the main tenets of Buddhist philosophers, viz. ( 1 ) Momentariness ( kşaņikatva ) and ( 2 ) Dependent origination ( pratītyasamutpāda ) which all schools of Buddhistic philosophy accept. The teachings of Gaudapada can under no circumstances be described as identical with or approximating to those of Sūnyavāda of Nāgārjuna. Gaudapada thus seems to have been neither a Buddhist nor a Buddhist in disguise, but one who had a profound respect for

12 See notês p. 142.

Introduction : I The Title of the whole work etc. xxvii

Vedantic tradition and who evolved his doctrine of non-origination, after having studied the different systems of philosophy current in his time, and having found that they could not stand the test of logical reasoning. He was, in short, a Vedantist, both by tradition and conviction ; hence it was possible for Sankaracarya and other Vedantists 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 Karikas comprising the four Prakaranas, as a whole are described in the Manuscripts variously as गौडपादीयकारिका, or गौडपादकारिका (in the plural or the singular ) or HTATIE. 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 ( erarea ) and the second (वैतथ्याख्य) Prakaranas calls the work उपदेशग्रन्थ. The Buddhist writer amratiera who quotes a number of Karikas, quotes them as from वेदान्तशास्त्र. One commentator on the Pancadasi seems to call Gaudapada's work माण्डक्यवार्त्तिक and Gaudapada as वार्त्तिककार Prof. Vidhusekhara apparently likes to call the work 3ITASTIET. 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 Prakaranas, there is no contro- versy about the names of Prakaranas HI, III and IV which are respec- tively called वैतथ्यप्रकरण, अद्वैतप्रकरण and अलातशान्तिप्रकरण. According

13 The title माण्डक्योपनिषत्कारिका; is also found in some colophons.

xxvili Gaudapāda-Kārika

to K-bhasya,14 the second Prakarana proves logically the aasu of ga (.तस्य द्वैतस्य हेतुतो वैतथ्यप्रतिपादनाय द्वितीयं प्रकरणम्) and hence the name aatO. Perhaps the real reason is that the first Karika in the second Prakarana begins with the word aasa (it would be remembered that the केनोपनिषट 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 (तथाह्वैतस्यापि वैतथ्यप्रसङ्गप्राप्ती युक्तितस्तथात्वदर्शनाय तृतीयं प्रकरणम् ). The fourth Prakarana is obviously called अलातशान्तिप्रकरण on account of the striking simile of the अलात there ( Kārikās 47-50 ). The first Prakarana is variously described in the Manuscripts as आगम, ओङ्कारनिर्णय and ओङ्कारोपासना. In favour of calling the Prakarana THST#UT, the argument is usually advanced that it is based mainly on eTTH or Sruti. The K-bhāsya remarks तत्र तावदोकुारनिर्णयाय प्रथमं प्रकरणमागमप्रधानमात्मतत्त्वप्रतिपत्युपायभूतम् । While it is true that the first Prakarana is mainly based upon the Mandu- kyopanisad, there is nothing specially characteristic about it so as to differentiate it from the other Prakaranas and to name it 3TTH. Besides, the word TH is usually associated with special sectarian doctrines (cf. पाश्वरात्रागम, शैवांगम) and not with the general Upa- nisadic tenets which are referred to in the Karikas. This also will show how the name 3NTARTI does not seem to be appropriate for the Karikas as a whole. The concluding sections of the first Prakarana describe the sacred syllable ar in detail and wind up with the statement that 'he is the real sage who knows the Omkara' (ओङक्कारो विदितो येन स मुनिनेतरो जनः। I-29). The name ओङ्कारनिर्णय or ओङ्कारोपासना or better still ओककार as Anandagiri would have it, would be far more appropriate for the Prakarana.'5 V The Mandukyopanisad and the twenty-nine Karikas in the first Prakarana The Mandukyopanisad contains 12 prose passages or Mantras and commentators on the first Prakaraņa of the Kārikās apparently 14 We have described the bhasya on the Karikas, attributed to Sankara- carya as K. bhasya, as we are of opinion that the bhasya 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 Mss. giving the titles of sections or chapters of a work vary so much that they can be regarded as but noting the individual fancy of the copyist or the commentator. There are more than half a dozen titles found in Mss. for some of the Adbyayas in such a well-known work as the Bhagavadgīta,

Introduction : V The Mandukyopanisad etc. xxix

regard the Karikas as part of the Mandukya and distribute the twenty-nine Karikas as follows, with the introductory expression अत्रैते शलोका भवन्ति- (I) Māņdūkya 1-6 followed by Kārikās I-9 (2) 7 10-18 (3) 50 8-II 19-23 (4) 12 24-29 K-bhasya seems to regard the Mandukyopanisad and the four Prakaranas as one work ( ओमित्येतदक्षरमिदं सर्वे तस्योपव्याख्यानम्। वेदान्तार्थ- सारसंग्रहभूतमिदं प्रकरणचतुष्टयमोमित्येतदक्षरमित्यारभ्यने ।). According to Madhvacarya ( 13th century ) and his followers, both the Mantras and the Karikas were revealed by Narayana to Varuna in the form of a frog ( the Kārikas had been revealed earlier to Brahmadeva ). Madhva quotes passages in this connection from the Padma and Garuda Puranas and also the Harivamsa, but these are not found in any of the editions of those works available so far; Kuranarayana, a follower of the Ramanuja school, says that the Karikas corroborate the sense of the Mantras which, being HrOT, need no corroboration. This raises the questions: (1) Do the Kārikas form part of the Mandukya, and (2) if not, what is the purpose of the Karikas and how do they come to be associated with the Mandukyopanisad ? The answer to the first question can only be an emphatic No, for the following convincing reasons: - (1) In several Mss. of the Mandukyopanisad, only the Mantras ( the prose portion ) are given and there is no indication in the Mss, that the Karikas ever formed part of the Mandukya, as is clear from the Nirnayasagar edition of the Upanisads. (2) It is only the commentators commenting upon the Upanisad and the Karikas together, who seem to regard the two as forming one complete whole. (3) The Upanisads being Sruti are supposed to be apauruseya ( not composed by any human agency ) and it would be going

xxx. Gaudapāda-Kārika

against all tradition to make Gaudapada, who was after all a human being ( even though a great Yogin ), the author of a Śruti work. (4) The Kārikās are undoubtedly Gaudapāda's and Šankarācārya rightly refers to Gaudapada merely as one who knows the Vedanta tradition ( वेदान्तार्थसंप्रदायविद्). (s) It is admitted that sometimes the Kārikās 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 Upanisads being without any known human author, and so Gaudapada could not be regarded as the author of the Mandukyopanisad proper. (6) If the Karikas which are introduced with the words aaa श्लोका भवन्ति are regarded as forming part of the Upanisad, it would mean that Gaudapada lived at least some centuries earlier than the time when the Mandukya was written, so as to be famous enough to have his work quoted in it ! The Mandukya is generally regarded as one of the old Upanisads, 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 Gaudapada 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 Upanisad ! (7) The expression अत्रैते श्लोका भवन्ति with which the Karikas are distributed among the Mantras of the Mandkya, no doubt suggests that the Kārikās existed before the Upanisad; similar expre- ssions occur in the other old Upanisads (and Brahmanas) also. Thus in the Taittiriyopanisad, we have the expression तदप्येब 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 शलोक has the sense of a संग्रहश्लोक. In the Chandogya also, we have तदेष श्लोको or तदेष श्लोको भवति used seyen 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

İntroduction : V The Mandukyopanisad etc. xxxi

Upanisads we have a similar expression अत्रैते श्लोका भवन्ति, ushering about 10 verses in the RETqUf, or as many as 75 verses in the मुक्तिकोपनिषट् etc). Even a superficial scrutiny of the passages in the old Upanisads where the ias 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 अत्रते शलोका भवन्ति with which Gaudapada's Karikas are introduced. (10) Prof. Vidhuśekhara has rightly pointed out how Gauda- pada'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 elaborate attempt to support it. The Kārikās refer to matters not mentioned in the Upanisad, fail to explain important terms therein, enumerate several views about creation which matter is not even hinted at in the Upanisad and so on. Thus the first group of Karikas fails to explain the important words Hrs and एकोनविशतिमुख in the prose portion of the Mantra. The Karikas use the expression वैश्वानर in place of विश्व; जागरितस्थान, स्वप्नस्थान and agfrura in the prose portion are not found in the Karikas and so on. Similarly the prose portion appears to explain some terms in the Karikas. 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 Karikas are a commentary on the Mantra prose portion or vice versa. The proper view is that the Karikas have the Mantra portion as their basis and Gaudapada emphasises only those points which are useful for his own purpose which is to establish the Ajativada. Prof. Vidhusekhara makes use of certain Karikas 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 Kārikās take the Mandukyopanisad as their basis and are mainly concerned with pointing out the importance of the Upasana of the sacred syllable Om, and incidentally refer to the different views of those who believe creation to be real. Karika I.7, स्वप्नमायासरूपेति सृष्टिरन्यैर्विकल्पिता refers to those who believe in a real creation (the Visiștadvaitins and some Buddhists ) and not to the Advaita

xxxii Gaudapāda-Kārikā

Vedantins as is clear from the expression =a :. Similarly Karika I-8, देवस्यैष स्वभावोऽयमाप्तकामस्य का स्पृहा does not contain Gaudapada's view, but has in mind the स्वभाववादिनs, according to whom creation is real and can be attributed to the Lord's nature alone.

The position as regards the Karikas in the first Prakaraņa is therefore as follows :-

(i) The Kārikās do not form part of the Māndūkyopanișad. They are as Anandagiri puts it, तद्( उपनिषद् )विवरणरूप. (ii) Gaudapada could not have written the Upanisad which could not have under any circumstances any human author. (iii) Gaudapada wrote the Karikas; they are आच्चार्यप्रणीत as Anandagiri expressly says.16 (iv) The Kārikās did not exist before the Upanisad, but were written long after. (v) In the case of other Upanisads where similar slokas have been introduced, they are invariably shown as part of the Upanisads in the Mss of those Upanisads, whereas several Mss. of the Māndū- kyopanişad contain only the prose portion.

If the Karikas did not form part of the Upanisad, 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 Karikas, the answer appears to be that the Kārikas on account of their having the Mandukyopanisad as their basis, and their importance as a well-known work on Advaita, came as a rule

no 16 Sankaracarya quotes the Karika (I. 16) अनादिमायया सुप्तो यदा जीव: nea in his bhasya on Brahmasutra II. 1. 9, and the Karika III. 15 मृलोहिरफुलिङ्गाधैः सृष्टिर्या चोदितान्यथा in the bhasya on I. 4. 14. The Karikas are वेदान्तार्थसंप्रदायविदाचार्यप्रणीत according to Sankara. Suresvara, Sankara's pupil, in his Naiskarmyasiddhi ( V. 41-44) quotes two Karikas ( I. 11 and 15) कार्यकारणबट्गो ताविष्येते विश्वतैजसौ etc. and अन्यथा गृह्णतः स्वप्रो निद्रा तत्वमजानतः eto. expressly mentioning that they are Gauda( pada )'s. Similarly in his Brhadvartika, Suresvara quotes some of the Karikas. In the face of this evidence it is idle to deny that the Karikas in the first Prakarana were written by Gaudapada.

Introduction : VI Are the four Prakaranas inter-rela'ed ? xxxiii

to be studied side by side with the Upanisad, and the teacher while explaining the Upanisad introduced the Kārikas to the pupil at suitable stages and the tradition was respected by the commentators and is even now kept up in the Pathasalas. It is therefore unnece- ssary to read any deeper meaning in the expression अत्रते 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 Āgamasāstra. He criticises the arguments of the K-bhasya which shows the inter-connection of different Prakaranas, and comes to the conclusion that K-bhasya 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 :-

( I ) The first Prakarana is mainly based upon the scripture for the purpose of ascertaining the Omkara, 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 Samsara projected by duality is sublated. ( 3 ) Dvaita is false, but the Advaita is not so ; this is logically proved in the third Prakarana. (4) The fourth Prakarana discusses the rival doctrines opposed to Advaita and points out how they are opposed to one another. K-bhäsya, 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 Prakarana on the strength mostly of the Śruti passages. The second Prakarana shows that the non-reality of duality can be proved by reasoning and by suitable analogies, 5

xXxiV Gaudapada-Kārikā

The third Prakarana shows how Advaita can be known, not merely by Śruti 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.17 Prof. Vidhuśekhara objects in toto to the above exposition of the K-bhasya and finds nothing acceptable in it. His objections are :- ( I) The first Prakarana is not आगममात्र, it contains some reasoning or तर्क as well.

We quote here the original Sanskrit comments in full, which olearly show how the author of K-bhasya had a good grasp of the Karikas as a whole. n: तत्र तावदोङ्कारनिर्णयाय प्रथम प्रकरणमागमप्रधानमात्मतत्वप्रतिपत्त्युपायभूतम्। यस्य द्वैतप्रपश्चस्योपशमेऽद्वैतप्रतिपत्तौ रज्ज्वामित सर्पादिविकल्पोपशमे रज्जुतत्त्वप्रतिपत्तिः । तस्य द्वैतस्य हेतुतो वैतथ्यप्रतिपादनाय द्वितीयं प्रकरणम्। तथाद्वैतस्यापि वैतथ्य- प्रसङ्गप्राप्तौ युक्तितस्तथात्वदर्शनाय तृतीयं प्रकरणम्। अद्वैतस्य तथात्वप्रतिपत्तिप्रतिपक्षभूतानि यानि वादन्तराण्यवैदिकानि तेषामन्योन्यविरोधि- त्वादतथार्थत्वेन तदुपपत्तिभिरेव निराकरणाय चतुर्थ प्रकरणम्।

... ... झ्ञाते द्वैतं न विद्यत इत्युक्तम्। एकमेवाद्वितीयमित्यादिश्वुतिभ्यः । आगममात्रं तत् । तत्रोपपत्त्यापि द्वैतस्य वैतथ्यं शक्यतेऽवधारयितुमिति द्वितीयं प्रकरणमारभ्यते। ओङ्कारनिर्णय उक्तः प्रपश्वोपशमः शिवोऽद्वैत आत्मेति प्रतिज्ञामात्रेण। ज्ञाते द्वैतं न विद्यते इति च। तत्र द्वैताभावस्तु वैतथ्यप्रकरणेन स्वप्नमयागन्धर्दनगरादिदृश्न्तैर्दश्यत्वाद्य- न्तवत्वादिहेतुभिस्तर्केण च प्रतिपादितः । अद्वैतं किमागममात्रेण प्रतिपत्तव्यमाहोस्वित्तर्केणा- पीत्यत आह। शक्यते तर्केणापि ज्ञातुम्। तत्कथमित्यद्वैतप्रकरणमारभ्यते। ओङ्कारनिर्णयद्वारेणागमतः प्रतिज्ञातस्याद्वैतस्य बाह्यविषयभेद्वैतथ्याच् सिद्धस्य पुन- रद्वैते शास्त्रयुक्तिभ्यां साक्षान्निनिर्धारितस्यैतदुत्तमं सत्यमित्युपसंहारः रुतः। अन्ते तस्यैतस्या- गमार्थस्याद्वैतदर्शनस्थ प्रतिपक्षभता द्वैतिनो वैनाशिकाश् तेषां चान्योन्यविरोधाद्रागद्वेषादि- केशास्पद दर्शनमिति मिथ्यादर्शनत्वं सूचितम्। केशानास्पद्त्वात्सम्यग्दर्शनमित्यद्वैतदर्शनं स्तूयते। तदिह विस्तरेणान्योन्यविरुद्धतयासम्यदर्शनत्वं प्रदर्श्य तत्प्रतिषेधेनाद्वूतदर्शनसिद्वि-

Introduction : VI Are the four Prakaranas inter-related ? XXXV

This objection simply shows that Prof. Vidhusekhara is hyper- critical, that is all. Surely K-bhasya wants to say that the ifirst Prakarana dealing as it does with the ओङ्करोपासना 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-bhāșya ) 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 if 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 Gita as there are writers on it. And if we apply the above test put forward by Prof. Vidhuśekhara to the Gītā, as regards the inter-connection between the different Adhyayas, the author of the Gita would be cutting a very sorry figure indeed ! Similarly, while studying the interpretations of the Brahmasutras by different Bhasyakaras, how many times in sheer annoyance has one to blurt out 'why does not the Sutrakara 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 गतिश्विन्तनीया. ( 3 ) Prof. Vidhuśekhara 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 Prapaca ; 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. Vidhuśekhara would like to enunciate a general rule that a Prakarana is entitled to be called an independent work if the

Gaudapāda-Karikā

contents in it could be understood without any reference to the earlier Prakaraņa.

This dictum cannot possibly be accepted by any one. In that case, the Bhagavadgita can easily be shown to be comprising at least half a dozen independent Adhyayas. It is no use arguing that it does not matter in the least if we have a dozen Gitas instead of one. For, this is after all a defeatist attitude in a way. There is bound to be a connecting link, in che 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 Gaudapāda repeats certain Kārikās now and then, makes use of four Karikas while describing the similarity between Alata and Vijñana ( IV-49-52 ) in self-same words ( he could have easily said simply that Vijnana acts in the same way as Alata, instead of repeating the idea word for word ) or writes three Karikas in describing the Svapnamaya, Māyāmaya and Nirmitaka Jivas ( IV-68-70 ), when he could have disposed of the topic in one Karika and so on. Such criticism is clearly unhelpful. Broadly speaking therefore, it must be conceded that the first three Prakaranas are written in the same style, giving due importance to both Sruti and Tarka, and discussing the general topic of Advaita, though with a different emphasis and thus are closely related with ohe another. The Fourth Prakarana, unlike the first three Prakaranas, 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-bhasya'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 Vainasikas are discussed in the fourth Prakarana. This is quite an untenable position. Gaudapāda says, भूतस्य जातिमिच्छन्ति वादिनः केचिदेव हि। अभूतस्यापरे धीरा विघदन्त: परस्परम् ॥३॥

Introduction : VI Are the tour Prakaranas inter-related ? xxxvii

भूतं न जायते किश्विदभूतं नैव जायते। विवदन्तोऽ्दया ह्येवमजाति ख्यापयन्ति ते ॥। ४ ॥। ख्याप्यमानामजाति तैरनुमोदामहे वयस। विवदामो न तैः सार्धमविवादं विबोधत॥५॥ Here obviously the Asatkāryavāda 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 बुद्धैरजातिः परिदीपिता (19). When we remember that the Vaibhasika Bauddhas did accept the Satkaryavada, and the Yogacara Bauddhas the Astkaryavada, it is idle to deny that the fourth Prakarana does refer to the Vainasika Bauddhas. Kārikās 25-27- प्रज्ञप्तेः सनिमित्तत्वमिष्यते युक्तिदर्शनात्। निमित्तस्यानिमित्तत्वमिष्यते भूतदर्शनात् ॥२५॥ चित्तं न संस्पृशत्यर्थे नार्थाभासं तथैव च। अभूतो हि यतश्वार्थों नार्थाभासस्ततः पृथक ॥२६॥ निमित्तं न सदा चित्तं संस्पृशत्यध्वसु त्रिषु। अनिमित्तो विपर्यासः कर्थ 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 पशयन्ति ये जाति खे वै पशयन्ति ते पदम् ।। is a hit against the विज्ञानवादिनs themselves. Similarly in

एवं न चित्तजा धर्माश्वित्तं वापि न धर्मजम्। एवं हेतुफलाजाति प्रविशन्ति मनीषिणः ॥४४।। the Vijñanavada is refuted, and in

क्रमते न हि बुद्धस्य ज्ञानं धर्मेषु तायिनः । सर्वे धर्मास्तथा ज्ञानं नैतद्बुद्धेन भाषितम्।।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 Varam' Annals, B. O. R. I. Vol. XXXII, Pp. 166-173.

xxxviii Gaudapada-Karika

Gaudapāda 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-bhāsya 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. Vidhusekhara and others that the fourth Prakarana contains an exposition of Buddhist philoso- phical views and abounds in Buddhist thought and ideas. Various Karikas 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. ( I ) 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. Gaudapada seems to have deliberately put in a Mangalaśloka 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. Nagarjuna, while paying his obeisance to Buddha calls him aaai ar; Gaudapada goes one better and calls his Master faqai ar ( the best of all human beings ). We have already shown elsewhere that rqai ar cannot be regarded as a peculiarly Buddhist expression ; it is found in the Mahabharata, and it probably refers to Śuka, son of Vyāsa, who is traditionally regarded as Gaudapada's teacher, or to Nārāyana himself from whom the Vedantasastra has come forth. Similarly अस्पर्शयोग is not directly referred to in Buddhist literature and Gaudapada is undoubtedly indebted to the Bhagavad- gita (मात्रास्पर्शास्तु कौन्तेय दुःखयोनय एव ते II. 14 and ये हि संस्पर्शजा भोगा .... .. V. 22 तं विद्याद्दुःखसंयोग etc. VI. 23 ) for the term अस्पर्शयोग. ( 2 ) Gaudapada makes use of phraseology strongly reminiscent of Buddhist schools, and has modelled some of his Kārikās on those of Nāgarjuna, Aryadeva, Asanga etc, The main doctrines taught in the fourth Prakarana are the unreality of the world and

Introduction : VI Are the four Prakaranas inter-related ? xxxix

Śunyată respectively held by the Vijñanavādins and the Mādhya- mikas. The three kinds of jñana, the two kinds of Satya etc. are all Buddhist ideas and were borrowed by Gaudapada from the Buddhist writers. The use of a very large number of Buddhist terms, such as अद्य, अध्वन (time), तायिन्, धर्मधातु, नायक, निर्मितक, वैशारद्, संश्लष, सङ्गात, संवृति, the simile of the अलात and मायाहस्तिन्-all this points out how Gaudapada was obsessed by Buddhistic ideas which he has taught in the fourth Prakarana.

We have discussed in the Notes at the proper places, the argu- ments involved in the above contention. Here we shall deal with their general implications. It may be freely admitted that Gauda- pāda 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. Gaudapada, so to speak, attacks the Buddhists on their own ground and using their own phraseology, wants to prove how their teachings are wrong. Gaudapada perhaps feels sorry that the Buddhist philosophers, having come so near the truth of Ajāti or oneness of Atman, by preaching the Vijnanavada or Sūnyavāda were not bold or rationalists enough to understand the Vedantic Nirvana and hence missed their bus. Thus the Mādhyamikas merely content themselves with following a middle path between eternality and annihilation, instead of accepting the Ajātivāda. Gaudapāda had ample material in the Upanisads and the Bhagavadgīta to fall back upon, in order to promulgate his Vedantic theories. The agra simile and Mayahastin illustration need not be regarded as specially Buddhistic, as they had been well-known in pre-Buddhistic litera- ture as well. Gaudapada clearly points out wherein he differs from the Buddhists in Karika IV. 99, by his statement नैतद् बुद्धेन भाषितम् ( Buddha has told many things, but this viz Ajātivāda, he has not told ). As we have pointed out in the Notes, नैतद्बुद्धेन भाषितम् has a direct reference to the passages ... भाषिष्येऽहं तघ, put in the mouth of Buddha a score of times in the Lankāvatāra. Attempts are made by Prof. Vidhusekhara and others to explain away the expression नैतद्बुद्धेन 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

Gaudapāda- Kārikā

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 Tatbagata. Both these explana- tions are, to say the least, quite unconvincing. The Vijnanavadi 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 adhisthana. They later admitted the Alayavijnana ( which is the Buddhist nearest approach to Atman ) which however, being but a continuous series of fleeting ideas, cannot play the role of an Adhisthana. The Sunyavadins by their categorical statement that all is Sünya, made their Sūnyavāda itself Sūnya. Their attempts to make the Sūnyavāda a Madhyama way between two extremes in conformity with the supposed teachings of Buddha, satisfied no one. Sankaracarya attacked this weak spot in the armour of the Sūnya- vadins, and showed how they are beneath contempt. Both the Vijñānavāda and Sūnyavāda can become philosophically sound only if an unchangeable permanent reality is admitted, and Buddha failed to do this according to Gaudapada. The Ajativada of Gaudapada 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 (हेयज्ञेयाव्यपाक्यानि विज्ञेयान्याग्रयाणतः । IV. 90 ) refers to महायान. Gaudapada seems to refer to महायान as well as to the पूर्वमीमांसा here by the deliberately chosen expression TtTOT. 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 Upanisadic expressions found in the fourth Prakarana ( सोsसृतत्वाय कल्पते, IV. 92 ; विद्यते न हि नानात्वम्, 9I ; विद्वान् शमं व्रजेत 86; ब्राह्मण्यं पदम् 85; सकद्विमातो 81 ; अभयं पदमश्नुते 78; असङ्गं तेन कीर्तितम, 72 ... खे वै पश्यन्ति ते पदम्, 28. etc. ). Karikas from the 2nd

Intrcduction : VII The Sources of Gaudapada-Karika -xLi

and the 3rd Prakarana are repeated in the fourth Prakarana where the aim of Gaudapada is obviously to show how the Buddhistic ideas fall short of the Vedantic 3nTH Hy. 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 Upanisadic philosophy. VII The Sources of Gaudapada-Karika

Gaudapada, 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 philosophical works that were current in his own times. It is possible to point out to similarities of thought and expression in Gaudapāda-Kārikā and other works that undoubtedly had 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 Karikas. 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 Karikas and other works, both Vedantic and Buddbistic ( a large portion of the First Prakarana is obviously based on the Māndūkyopanisad and so similarities between the two are not specially pointed out below ).

I Aitareya Brāhmaņa Kārikā I. 25 युञ्जीत प्रणवे चेतः तैभ्योऽभितप्तेभ्यस्त्रयो वर्णा etc. II Brhadāraņyakopanisad Kārikā I. 26 अपूर्वोऽनन्तरोऽबाह्यो etC. अनन्तरोऽबाह्यः ( IV. 4.13) II. 3 अभावश्व रथादीनां श्रूयते स यत्र प्रस्वपिति ... (IV. 3.7) न्यायपूर्वकम्। न तत्र रथान रथयोगा स वा एष एतस्मिन्संप्रसादे रत्वा चरित्वा ...... (IV. 3. I4-18) II. 5 स्वप्टजागरितस्थाने तस्य वा एतस्य पुरुषस्य द्वे एव स्थाने ( IV. 3.9 ) 6

xLii Gaudapāda-Karikā

II. 36 जडवल्लोकमाचरेत् तस्माद्ब्राह्मणः ... बाल्येन तिष्ठासेत् (III. g . I ) III. 12 द्योई्योरमधुज्ञाने परं ब्रह्म मधुविद्या or मधुज्ञानम् (II. 5) प्रतिष्ठितम्। III. 13 जीवात्मनोरनन्यत्वमभेदेन इदं सर्वे यदयमात्मा। (II. 4.6) प्रशस्यते। नानात्वं निन्धते नेह नानास्ति किंचन । (IV. 4.19) III. 15 मृल्लोहविस्फुलिङ्गायैः सृष्टिरया यथा अग्रे:क्षुद्रा विस्फुलिङ्गा (II. 1.20) स यथाद्धा ... (IV. 5.II) III. 24 इन्द्रो मायाभिरित्यपि इन्द्रो मायाभि: 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)

III Chandogya Kārikā II. 20 प्राण इति प्राणविदो प्राणे सर्वे प्रतिष्ठितम् (I.II. 4-5) II. 21 पादा इति पादविदो चतुष्कलः पादो ब्रह्मण: (IV. 4-8) II. 22 भोज्यमिति च तद्विद: अन्नं हीदं सर्व" स्थितम् ( I. 3.6) III. 7 नाकाशस्य घटाकाशो वान्चारम्भणं विकार: (VI. I.4 ) III. 13 जीवात्मनोरनन्यत्वं etc. ऐतदात्म्यमिदं (VI.8.7) III. 15 मृललोहविस्फुलिङ्गायैः etc. यथा सोम्यैकेन मृतूपिण्डेन (VI. 13.4-6) III. 23 भूततोऽभूतती वापि सदेव सोम्येदमग्र आसीत (VI. 2.1) III. 34 निगृहीतस्य मनसो etc. यत्रैतत्पुरुषः स्वपिति (V1. 8.1 )

IV Gītā Kārikā I. 3 I. आनन्दभुक्तथा प्राज्ञ ... ये हि संस्पर्शजा भोगा: (V. 22) 5 ... स भुआ्जानो न लिप्यते सर्वभूतात्मभूतात्मा कुर्वन्नपि न लिप्यते। लिप्यते न स पापेन ... (V. 7, 10) I. 6 ... चतोंशून्पुरुष: पृथक ममैवांशो जीघलोके जीवभूतः सनातनः । ( XV.7 ) I. 19 विश्वस्यात्वविवक्षायामादि- अक्षराणामकारोडस्मि ( X. 33) सामान्यमुत्कटम् । I. 23 अकारो नयते विश्वम् यो यच्छद्ध: स एव सः (XVII. 3)

Introduction : VII The Sources of Gaudapāda-Karikā xLiii

I, 25 युख्जीत प्रणवे चेतः प्रणवो ॐ तत्सदिति निर्देशो ब्रह्मणस्त्रिविध: ब्रह्म निर्भयम् ! I. 28 प्रणवं हीश्वरं विद्यात् सर्वस्य स्मृतः । ... ( XVII. 23-24 ) ईश्वरः सर्वभूतानां हृद्देशे्ऽर्जुन हृदि संस्थितम्। तिष्ठति। (XVIII. 6I)

II. 20 भूतानीति च तद्विद: ज्ञानं ज्ञेय ज्ञानगम्प ... (XIII. 17)

II. 20 छणा इति गणविदस्तत्वानीति भूतानि यान्ति भूतेज्या: (IX. 25) ( Adhyayas XVI, XVII ) च तद्विदः । II. 2I देवा इति च तद्विद: यान्ति देवव्रता देवान् (IX. 25 ) II. 22 यज्ञा इति च तद्विद: यज्ञशिष्टामृतभुजो ... ( IV. 31; IV. 23-24 ) II. 22 भोक्तेति च भोक्तृविदो अहं हि सर्वयज्ञानां भोक्ता च प्रभुरेव च। ( IX. 24 )

II. 23 मूर्त इति मूर्तविदो उपद्रष्टानुमन्ता च ... (XIII. 22) प्रकृति स्वामधिष्ठाय ... (IV. 6 ) ... संभवामि युने युगे ( IV. 8) I1. 24 काल इति कालविदो कालोडस्मि लोकक्षयकत्प्रवृद्धो ... ( XI. 32 )

II. 29 यं भावं दर्शयेद्यस्य ... । 21 मृत्यु: सर्वहरश्वाहम्। (X. 34 )

... तद्ग्रहः सम्ुपैति तम् ॥ यो यच्छद्धः स एव सः (XVII. 3)

II. 35 वीतरागभयक्रोधैः वीतरागभयक्रोध :... ( II. 56)

III. J3 जीवात्मनोरन्यत्वम् वीतरागभयक्रोधा: etc. (IV. 10)

III. 16 आश्रमास्त्रिविधा हीनमध्यमो वासुदेवः सर्वमिति ... (VIII. 19) ऊर्ध्व गच्छन्ति सत्वस्था मध्ये त्कष्टदृष्टयः । तिष्ठन्ति राजसा: etc. (XIV. 18, XVII. 2) III. 21 न भवत्यसृतं मर्त्ये जातस्य हि ध्ुवा मृत्य: (II. 27 ) III. 2I प्रकृतेशन्यथाभावो न कथं- मिथ्यैष व्यवसायस्ते प्रकृतिरत्वा चिदृभवष्यति। नियोक्ष्यत। ( XVIII. 59 ) III. 34 निगृहीतस्य मनसो शनैः शनैरुपरमेद् बुद्धया धृति- निर्विकल्पस्य धीमतः। III. 38 आत्मसंस्थं तदा ज्ञानं गृहीतया। ( VI. 25 ) आत्मसंस्थं मनः कृत्वा ... (VI.25) III. 39 अस्पर्शयोगो तं विद्याद्दुःखसंयोगवियोगं (VI.23) मात्रास्पर्शास्तु कौन्तेय (II. 14) III. स निश्वयेन योक्तव्यो योगोऽनिर्विण्ण- परिखेदतः । चेतसा। ( VI. 23) III. 42 उपायेन निगृह्लीयाद्विक्षिप्तं अभ्यासेन तु कान्तेय वैराग्येण च कामभोगयोः । गृह्यते ... ... ( VI. 35-36)

xLiv Gaudapada-Karika:

III. 44 लये संबोधयेच्चित्तं विक्षप्ं संकल्पप्रभवान्कामांस््यक्वा सर्वा- शमयेत्पुनः । सकषायं विजा- नशेषतः । मनसैवेन्द्रियग्रामं विनि- नीयात्समप्राप्तं न चालयेत्।। यम्य समन्ततः॥etc. (VI. 24-28) III. 46 यदा न लीयते चित्ं ... यथा दीपो निवातस्थो नेङ्गते सोपमा अनिङ्गनमनाभासं निष्पन्नं स्मृता। ( VI. 19 ) ब्रह्म तत्तदा ॥ III. 47 स्वस्थं शान्तं सनिर्वाणमकथ्यं सुखमुत्तमम् etc. रेव यः।स योगी ब्रह्मनिर्वाण ब्रह्म- भूतोधिगच्छति etc. (V.24-26; also VI. 27-28 ; II. 71-72 ) IV. 10 जरामरणमिच्छन्तश्र्वचवन्ते यं यं वापि स्मरन्भावं ... (VIII. 6) IV. 43 अजातेस्त्रसतां तेषामुपलम्भात् साधुरेव स मन्तव्य: ... (]X. 30 ) न हि कल्याणऊुत्कश्वित् ... (VI.40) IV. 80 निवृत्तस्याप्रवृत्तस्य निश्वला श्रुतिविप्रतिपन्ना ते यदा स्थास्यति हि तदा स्थितिः । निश्वला l etc. (II. 53 also II. 61,65,68) IV. 81 अजमनिद्रमस्वप्नं प्रभातं भवति स्वयम्। न तन्भासयते सूर्यो ... (XV. 6 )

IV. 85 प्रा्य सवज्ञतां कत्सां य स्त्वात्मरतिरव स्यात् (III. 17-18) IV. 86 विप्राणं विनयो ह्वेष योगारूढस्य तस्यैव शमः (VI. 3) शम: etc. IV. 88 ज्ञानं ज्ञेयं च विज्ञेयं ( XIII. 7-17) IV: 89 सर्वज्ञता हि सर्वत्र भवतीह यो मामेवमसंमूढो (XV. 19 ) . महाधियः । IV. 94 भेदनिम्नाः पृथग्वादाः। कार्पण्यदोषोपहतस्वभावः (II.7) V Īśa Kārikā III. 25 संभूतेरपवादाञ्च संभवः प्रति- अन्धं तमः प्रविशम्ति येSसंभूति षिध्यते। हपासते। (I2)

VI Katha Kārikā 1. 26 प्रणवो ह्यपरं ब्रह्म प्रणवश्व (22:11 महतः परमव्यक्तमव्यक्तात्पुरुष: परः। परः स्मृतः । ( I. 3. II ) 1. 28 प्रणवं हीश्वरं विद्याव सर्वस्य अङ्गष्टमात्रः पुरुषान्तरात्मा सदा

III हृदि संस्थितम्। 24 नेह नानेति चाम्नायात जनानां हृदये संनिविष्टः।(II. I.I2)

I1I. 38 ग्रहो न तत्र नोत्सर्गः नेह नानास्ति किंचन ( II. I. I I ) यदा पश्चावतिष्ठन्ते (II. 3. 10 )

Introduction : VII The Sources of Gaudapada-Kārikā XLV

VII Kausītakī Kārikā I. 6 सर्वे जनयति प्राणः अथ खलु प्राण एव प्रज्ञात्मा III. 15 मृल्लोहविस्फुलिङ्रायै: यथाग्रेज्वलतो विस्फुलिङ्गा etc. (III.3) VIII Kena Kārikā III. I उपासनाश्रितो धर्मो जाते तदेव ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि नेदं यदिदसुपा- ब्रह्मणि वर्तते ... तेनासौ कपणः सते (I. 8) स्मृतः॥ IX Lankāvatāra Kārikā UI I. 7 स्वप्नमायासरूपति etc. मायोपमा: सर्वधर्मा: etc. (13) मायास्वप्नोपमं दृश्यं विज्ञप्त्या न विकल्पयेव (II) मायोपमं समाधि च (16) स्वप्नविभ्रममायाख्यं (66) (also-144, 291, 561,582, 875) II. 32 न निरोधो च चोत्पत्ति: नात्र कश्विन्महामते बध्यते न च

III. 46 यदा न लीयते चित्तं ... अनिङ्ग- मुच्यते (79) तदा योगी ह्यनाभासं प्रज्ञया पशयते नमनाभासं निष्पन्नं ब्रह्म जगद्। (94) तत्तदा । IV. 83-84 अस्ति नास्त्यस्ति नास्त्यस्तीति कारणैः प्रत्ययैश्र्वापि येषां लोकः प्रव- etc. कोट्यश्वतस्र एतास्तु etc. तते etc. (III. 20, 21) also

IV. 87-88 सवस्तु सोपलम्भं च etc. ( pages 96, 171, 188 ) लौकिक ज्ञानं ... लोकोत्तरं ज्ञानं ... लोकोत्तरत्तमं ज्ञानं ... ( p. 157) IV. 96 अजेष्वजमनाक्रान्तं ... यतो न क्रमते ज्ञानमसङ्ग ( pages 157-158 )

तेन कीर्तितम्।।

X Manusmrti Kārikā I. 25 युञ्जीत प्रणवे चेतः etc. ब्रह्मण: प्रणवं कुर्यादादावन्ते च सर्वदा। ( II. 74, 76-78)

xLvİ odın d-ahnge Gaudapāda-Karika

Xl Mundaka Kārikā I. 6 सर्वे जनयति प्राणश्वेतोंश- यथा सुदीप्तात् पावकात् ... न्पुरुष: पृथक। तथाक्षराद्विविधा: सोम्य प्रजायन्ते ( II. I.I) II. 27 ... परा परमथापरे भिद्यते हृदयग्रन्थि: ( II. 2.8 ) III. 13 जीवात्मनोरनन्यत्वम् ब्रह्मैवेदं सर्वम् ( II. 2.11 ) XII Praśna Kārikā I. 26 अपूर्वोनन्तरोऽबाह्योऽनपर: एतद्वै सत्यकाम पर चापर च ब्रह्म प्रणवोऽव्ययः । यदोड्कार ... ( V. 2) II. 27 परापरमथापरे एतद्वै सत्यकाम ( V. 2 ) III. 24 नेह नानेति चाम्नायात् ... प्रजापतिशर्वरति गर्भे ... (III. I. 7) XIII Śvetāśvatara Kārikā I. 8 कालात्प्रसूति भूतानां मन्यन्ते काल: स्व्भावो नियतिर्यदृच्छा कालचिन्तकाः । भूतानि योनिः पुरुष इति चिन्त्यम । (I. 2) XIV Taittiriya Kārikā II. 22 वेदा इति वेदविदो प्राणो वा अन्नभ् etc. (III. 7.9 ) III. II. रसदियो हि ये कोशा: etc. Adhyāya II. III. 23 भूततोऽभूततो वापि सृज्यमाने असद्वा इदमग्र आसीत (1I. 7.I) समा श्रुति:। etc, IV. 43 अजातेस्त्रसतां तेषां .. ... उदरमन्तरं कुरुते। अथ तस्य भर्यं oels भवति। ( II. 7. 13 )

(881 XV Yogavāsistha Kārikā I. 18 उपदेशादय वादो ज्ञाते द्वैतं न अविबोधादयं वादो ज्ञाते द्वैतं न विद्यते। विद्यते। ( III. 84.25 ) उपदेशादयं वादो ज्ञाते द्वैतं न विद्यते। ( III. 84.27) 1I. 3 वैतथ्यं तैन वै प्राप्तं स्वप्न आहुः यादृगर्थ जगद्रूवं etc. (III. 19. प्रकाशितम्। II. 32 ... न बद्धो न च साधक: । वस्तुतस्तु न बद्धोऽस्ति न मोक्षोडस्ति

III. 31 मनसो ह्यमनीभावे द्वैतं नैवो- महामते।

(8r-3 पलम्यते।

Introduction : VIII Gaudapada's Contribution etc. xLvii

We see from the above, that of the Vedic works proper, Gauda- pāda makes most use of the Mandukya, Brhadāranyaka and Chandogya Upanisads, and in a lesser measure of Iśa, Kațha, Mundaka, Praśna and the Svetāśvatara. Of the Smrti works, Bhagavad- gītā has influenced Gaudapada most, giving him the idea of Asparśayoga, Māya and so forth. It would be possible to point out scores of similarities in the Yogavasistha, but as that work ( at any rate a very large portion of it ) is generally taken to be later than Gaudapada, we have not taken much note of it. The same can be said to be the case with Paramarthasara of Sesa. Of the non-Vedic works, the Lankāvatāra and the Mūlamadhyamakārikās have undoubtedly influenced Gaudapada a good deal. He seems to have thoroughly mastered the Mahayana Buddhist philosophy, but mainly for the purpose of showing where his doctrine of non- origination differed from that of the Buddhists, In short, Gaudapada, after having studied the current philoso- phical thoughts of his time, was willing to borrow from earlier works whatever would strengthen his Ajativada against rival doctrines, whether Vedic or non-Vedic. VIII Gaudapada's Contribution to Indian Philosophical Thought Gaudapāda can claim to be the first systematic exponent of the Advaita doctrine, and especially of Ajātivāda. Šankarācārya describes him as one who knew well the traditional Vedanta doctrines. Gaudapada'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 Mahāmahopādhyāya Vāsudeva Shastri Abhyankar ( in the introduction to his edition of Siddhantabindu ) makes the follow- ing observations in this connection, which clearly bring out the significance and importance of the contribution of both Gaudapada and Sankarācārya. कारिकास्वासु यदू गौडपादाचार्याणामभिप्रेतं तच्छङ्कराचार्यैः ध्वनितम्। यद् गौडपादाचायैं: ध्वनितं तच्छङ्कराचार्यैः प्रतिषादितम्। यद् गौडपादाचार्यैः प्रतिपादितं तन्छङ्कराचार्यैः साधितम। यदू गौडपादाचयैंः साधितं तच्छङ्कराचार्यै: सिद्धान्ततया प्रतिष्ठापितम्।

xL viii Gaudapāda-Kārikā

तथैव यद् गौडपादाचार्ये: तुच्छमिति ध्वनितं तच्छङ्कराचार्यैः प्रणिन्दितम्। यदू गौडपादाचार्यः निन्दितं तच्छङ्कराचारयः साक्रोशमधिक्षिप्तम्। यद् गौडपादाचायैंः साक्रोशमधिक्षित्तं तच्छङ्कराच्ारयैरनभिमतमिति परित्यक्तम् यट् गौडपादाचार्येरनभिमतमिति परित्यक्तं तच्छङ्कराचायैरवस्कन्दितम। यट् गौडपादाचार्यैरवस्कन्दितं तच्छङ्कराचार्येनिर्मूलसुन्मथितम्। संक्षेपत इत्थं प्रतिपादनीयं भवति-गौडपादानां परम्परया शिष्यभूता: शङ्कराचार्या गुरूणां गुरुतमैगौडपादाचार्य: प्रवर्तितं मायावाद न केवलं प्रतिपादयामासुः किन्तु स्वमतिविभवेन बुद्धिप्रभावेणातुलप्रतिपादनशैल्याप्रविहततर्कशक्त्या व्याख्यापयामामुः साधयामासु: प्रस्थापयामासुश्व। [ "Whatever Gaudapada intended to say in his Kārikās, Śankarācārya has hinted in his Bhāșya. Whatever Gaudapāda merely hinted, Sankarācārya propounded. Whatever Gaudapada propounded, Sankaracarya 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. brushed aside, S. threw overboard mercilessly. Whatever G. threw overboard, S. destroyed, lock, stock and barrel, In short, Sankarācārya, the spiritual successor of Gaudapāda, not only propounded the Mayavada 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". ] Gaudapāda'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 Kārikās. (1) प्रकृतेरन्यथाभावो न कथंचिद्द्विष्यति।(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 Gaudapada's Contribution etc. xLix

While writing his bhāsya upon Iśvarakrsņa's Sānkhyakārikās, Gaudapada must have been struck by the discrepancy between the Sankhya tenets मूलप्रकृतिरविकृति: and महदाद्याः प्रकृतिविकृतयः सप्त. How can the प्रकृति which has no विकति by nature, give rise to विकारs? In the course of his bhasya on the Sankhyakarikas, he quotes UT गणेषु वर्तन्ते ( from the Bhagavadgita ) twice, which points a way out of the difficulty, by declaring that the विकृति concerns only the गंणs .: This would naturally lead to the acceptance of the theory of an unreal or illusory production. (2) सर्वे सन्भरावेनाजम् :- 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 साम्य 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 Naiyayikas admit that only number I really exists, other numbers 2, 3 etc. are produced by अपेक्षाबुद्धि with respect to number I. This being so, the ultimate cause can be described in the Upanisadic language as एकमेवादितीयम्. 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- कार्यकारणभाव implies that (I) कारण and कार्य are different, (2) that कारण must have existed before कार्य, that is, कार्य must have been araa 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 सत, (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

L Gaudapāda-Karikā

(4)n Hra can not be proved by resorting to the maxim of the seed and the sprout' wherein there is mutual inter- dependence leading to the establishment of the fact that the series is aarf 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. (s) 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 Maya 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 Upanisads. 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 mani- festly 'imagined' and are useful for a time till the realisation of the Highest Reality as unoriginated. Gaudapada 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 con- clusions supported by reasoning19. 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 fool2c. 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 यत्तदवति नेनरत् । III. 23 20 न हि पूर्वजो मूढ आसीदित्यात्मनापि मूढेन भवितव्यमिति किंचिदस्ति प्रमाणम्। Bhasya on II. 1. 11 ( Brahmasutra )

Introduction : VIII Gaudapada's Contribution etc. Li

origination is illusion or appearance. It was left for Sankaracarya to make this more explicit. Sankara, on his part, gives more thought to the establishment of the Avidya or Maya doctrine. In fact, it may be said that Ajativada and Mayavada are but two sides of the same shield Advaita. Sankara declared Avidya to beaeara. लंक्षणा and hence अनिर्वचनीया and Sankara's successors used all their- ingenuity to explain the real nature of Avidya, by resorting to one or other of the theories of Avaccheda, Pratibimba, Abhasa ete. 2

Gaudapada was the first to make the 'fullest use of the doctrine of the three states, waking, dream and deep sleep, described in the Brhadāranyaka and the Chändogya, 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 encumbrances only in the Susupti 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 states; 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 Gaudapada to declare that the highest reality can only be the 'Fourth' or Turya, beyond the three states, unoriginated, same and uncontaminated. The nature of this Turya, as the Saksin or Witness of all experiences in the three states, was further dilated upon by Sankaracarya and his successors.

Lii Gaudapāda- Kārikā Gaudapada had studied the Buddhist philosophical works and he agrees with the Vijnanavadins that external objects are illusory and the Vijnana alone matters for producing our experiences, but there he parts company with them. According to the Bauddhas ( the Sunyavadins included ) everything is momentary, while Gaudapada declares that the highest is eternal and unoriginated. The Sonyavädins by declaring that the highest is Sunya, lend them- selves 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 Adhișthāna or other.

-0329 lo csoriug od

toitnome rounoig novig ! edlt an noilst od Mirode gaidew odt nI .owtt.

श्रीः। I F1 9 गौडपादीयकारिकाः। अथ माण्डूक्योपनिषत्। हरिः ॐँ । ओमित्येदक्षरमिदं"सर्व तस्योपव्याख्यानं भूतं भवद्दविष्यदिति सर्वमोक्कार एव। यच्चान्यत् त्रिकालातीतं तदप्योङ्कार एव ॥ १ ॥ सर्व ह्येतङ्रह्मायमात्मा ब्रह्म सोडयमात्मा चतुष्पात् ॥२।। जागरितस्थानो बहिष्प्रज्ञः सप्ताङ्ग एकोनविंशतिमुखः स्थूलभुग्वैश्वानरः प्रथम: पादः ॥३॥ स्वप्नस्थानोऽन्तःप्रज्ञः सप्ताङ्ग एकोनविशतिमुखः प्रविविक्तभुक् तैजसो द्वितीय: पादः ॥४॥ यत्र सुप्तो न कंचन कामं कामयते न कंचन स्वमं पश्यति तत्सुषुप्तम्।। सुषुप्तस्थान एकीभूतः प्रज्ञानघन एवानन्दमयो ह्यानन्दभुक् चेतोमुखः प्राज्ञ- स्तृतीयः पादः ॥५॥ एष सर्वेश्वर एष सर्वज्ञ एोऽन्तर्याम्येष योनिः सर्वस्य प्रभवाप्ययौ हि भूतानाम् । ६ ॥] (अत्रैते श्लोका भवन्ति) प्रथमं प्रकरणम् ।. बहिष्प्रज्ञो विभुर्विश्वो ह्यन्तःप्रज्ञस्तु तैजसः। घनप्रज्ञस्तथा प्राज्ञ एक एव त्रिधा स्मृतः ॥१॥ (१) अन्वय :- एक: एव विभुः बहिष्प्रज्ञः हि विश्वः, अन्तःप्रज्ञः तु तैजसः, तथा घनप्रज्ञः प्राज्ञः (इति) त्रिधा स्मृतः । Śri Gaudapāda-Kārikā FIRST CHAPTER ( I ) One and the same All-pervading is traditionally known [ lit. remembered ] [ as being ] three-fold- ( 1 ) Viśva, cogniser of outside, ( 2 ) Taijasa again, cogniser of inside, [ and ] ( 3 ) Prājña, likewise, cognition massed.

२ गौडपादीयकारिकाः ।

दक्षिणाक्षिमुखे विश्वो मनस्यन्तस्तु तैजसः। आकाशे च हृदि प्राज्ञस्त्रिधा देहे व्यवस्थितः ॥२ ॥ (२) अन्वय :- ( एक: एव विभुः) विश्वः दक्षिणाक्षिमुखे, तैजसः तु मनसि अन्तः, प्राज्ञः च दृदि आकाशे (इति) देहे त्रिधा व्यवस्थितः । विश्वो हि स्थूलभुङ्नित्यं तैजसः प्रविविक्तभुक्। आनन्दभुक्तथा प्राज्ञस्त्रिधा भोगं निबोधत ॥ ३ ॥ (३) अन्वय :- नित्यं विश्वः हि स्थूलभुक, तैजसः प्रविविक्तभुक, तथा प्राज्ञः आनन्दभुक् (इति) त्रिधा भोगं निबोधत। स्थूलं तर्पयते विश्वं प्रविविक्तं तु तैजसम्। आनन्दश्च तथा प्राजं त्रिधा तृप्तिं निबोधत॥ ४ ॥ (४) अन्वय :- स्थूलं विश्वं तर्पयते, त्रविविक्तं तु तैजसं (तर्पयते), तथा आनन्दः प्राज्ञं (तर्पयते), (इति) त्रिधा तृ्तिं निबोधत। त्रिषु धामसु यद्भोज्यं भोक्ता यश्च प्रकीर्तितः । वेदैतदुभयं यस्तु स भुञ्जानो न लिप्यते ॥५॥ (५) अन्वय :- त्रिषु धामसु यद् भोज्यं (प्रकीर्तितम् ), य: च भोक्ता प्रकीर्तित :- 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-Visva in the front of the right eye, Taijasa again, inside in the mind, and Prajna in the Akasa [ void, sky ] in the heart. ( 3) For ( hi ), always, Viśva [ is ] the enjoyer of the gross, Taijasa [ is ] the enjoyer of the rarified, Prajna likewise [ is ] the enjoyer of bliss-know the enjoyment [ thus to be ] three-fold. ( 4 ) The gross gratifies Viśva; the rarified again, Taijasa; and bliss likewise, Prajña- 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

प्रभवः सर्वभावानां सतामिति विनिश्चयः। सर्व जनयति प्राणश्रेतोंशून्पुरुषः पृथक् ॥६॥ (६) अन्वय :- सतां सर्वभावानां प्रभवः इति विनिश्चयः; प्राण: सर्व जनयति; पुरुषः पृथक् चेतोंशून् (जनयति)। विभूति प्रसर्व त्वन्ये मन्यन्ते सृष्टिचिन्तकाः । स्वन्नमायासरूपेति सृष्टिरन्यैर्विकल्पिता ॥ ७॥ ( ७) अन्वय :- अन्ये सृष्टिचिन्तकाः तु प्रसव विभूति मन्यन्ते; अन्यैः सृष्टिः स्वममायासरूपा इति विकल्पिता। इच्छामात्रं प्रभो: सृष्टिरिति सृष्टौ विनिशश्चिताः । कालात्प्रसूति भूतानां मन्यन्ते कालचिन्तका। ॥ ८ ॥ (८) अन्वयः-सृष्टिः प्रभोः इच्छामात्रम् इति अन्ये सृष्टौ विनिश्चिताः ( or, इति सृष्टौ विनिश्चिताः अन्ये मन्यन्ते ); कालचिन्तकांः भूतानां कालात प्रसूति मन्यन्ते। भोगार्थ सृष्टिरित्यन्ये क्रीडार्थमिति चापरे। देवस्यैष स्वभावोऽयमाप्तकामस्य का स्पृहा ॥ ९॥ (९) अन्वय :- सृष्टिः भोगार्थम् इति अन्ये, क्रीडार्थम् इति च अपरे (मन्यन्ते ); एषः अयं देवस्य स्वभावः (इति अन्ये मन्यन्ते), आप्तकामस्य 1

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 ( tu ), consider creation [ 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 ] still others. This again [ is ] the [ very ] nature of God [ the shining one ]- [ so say others, arguing ]' What [ possible ] desire [ can there be in the case ] of [ the Lord ] whose cravings are [ already ] fulfilled ?'

गौडपादीयकारिकाः ।

[मान्तःप्रज्ञं न बहिष्प्रजञं नोभयतःप्रज्ञं न प्रज्ञानघनं न प्रज्ञं नाप्रज्ञम्।। प्रपञ्चोपशमं शान्तं शिवमद्वैतं चतुर्थ मन्यन्ते स आत्मा स विज्ञेय: ॥७॥] (अ्रैते ्लोका भवन्ति ) निवृत्तेः सर्वदुःखानामीशानः प्रसुरव्ययः। अद्वैतः सर्वभावानां देवस्तुर्यो विभुः स्मृतः ॥१०॥ ( १०) अन्वय :- सर्वदुःखानां निवृत्तेः ईशानः, प्रभुः, अव्ययः, सर्वभावानाम् अद्वैतः देवः विभुः तुर्यः स्मृतः । कार्यकारणवद्धौ ताविष्येते विश्वतैजसौ। प्राज्ञ: कारणवद्धस्तु द्वौ तौ तुर्ये न सिध्यतः ॥११ ।। (११ ) अन्वयः-तौ विश्वतैजसौ कार्यकारणबद्धौ इष्येते; प्राज्ञः तु कारणबद्धः (इष्यते); तौ द्वौ तुर्ये न सिध्यतः । नात्मानं न परांश्रैव न सत्यं नापि चानृतम्। प्राज्ञः किंच न संवेत्ति तुर्य तत्सर्वदक्सदा। १२ ॥ (१२) अन्वय :- प्राज्ञ:, आत्मानं न, परान् च एव न, सत्यं न, अनृत च अपि न, किंच न संवेत्ति; तत् तुर्य 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. ( 1I ) Those two [ well-known ] Viśva and Taijasa are taken [ lit. desired ] to be conditioned by cause and effect ; Prajña, on the other hand, [ is ] 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 Prajna comprehend. That Turya however [ is ] always all-seeing.

प्रथम प्रकरणम् ।

द्वैतस्याग्रहणं तुल्यमुभयो: प्राज्ञतुर्ययोः। बीजनिद्रायुतः प्राज्ञः सा च तुर्ये न विद्यते॥ १३ ॥ ( १३ ) अन्वयः -- द्वैतस्य अग्रहणम् उभयो: प्राज्ञतुर्ययोः तुल्यम्; प्राज्ञ: बीजनिद्रायुतः; सा (बीजनिद्रा) च तुर्ये न विद्यते। स्वमनिद्रायुतावाद्यौ प्राज्ञस्त्वस्वम्ननिद्रया। न निद्रां नैव च स्वमं तुर्ये पश्यन्ति निश्चिताः ॥ १४॥ ( १४ ) अन्वय :- आद्यौ (विश्वतैजसौ) स्वमनिद्रायुतौ; प्राज्ञः तु अस्वम्निद्रया (युतः); निश्चिताः तुर्ये निद्रां न, स्वमं च न एव पश्यन्ति। अन्यथा गृह्तः स्वनो निद्रा तत्वमजानतः । विपर्यासे तयो क्षीणे तुरीयं पदमश्नुते ॥ १५॥ (१५) अन्वय :- तत्त्वम् अन्यथा गृह्नतः (पुरुषस्य) स्वप्र:, तत्त्वम् अजानतः (पुरुषस्य ) निद्रा; तयोः (स्वमनिद्रयोः) विपर्यासे क्षीणे (सति पुरुषः ) तुरीयं पदम् अश्नुते। अनादिमायया सुप्तो यदा जीवः प्रबुध्यते। अजमनिद्रमस्वप्रमद्वैतं वुध्यते तदा ॥ १६ ॥ (१६) अन्वय :- यदा अनादिमायया सुप्तः जीवः प्रबुध्यते, तदा अजम् अनिद्रम् अस्वप्म् अद्वैतं बुध्यते। ( 13) The non-perception of duality [ is ] common to both Prajna and Turya. Prajna [ is ] stuck up with the causal sleep, while it does not exist in Turya. ( 14) The first two [ that is, Viśva and Taijasa are ] stuck up with dream and sleep, Prajña, on the 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 Maya is awakened, he then realises the unborn, sleepless, dreamless non-duality.

६ गौडपादीयकारिकाः ।

प्रपञ्चो यदि विद्येत निवर्तेत न संशयः । मायामात्रमिदं द्वैतमद्वैतं परमार्थतः ॥ १७॥ (१७) अन्वय :-- यदि प्रपञ्चः विद्येत (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; अय (विकल्प-) वादः उपदेशात्; ( परमार्थतत्वे ) ज्ञाते द्वैतं न विद्यते। [ सोडयमात्माध्यक्षरमोक्कारोऽघिमात्रं पादा मात्रा मात्राश्च पादा अकार उकारो मकार इति ॥ ८॥ जागरितस्थानो वैश्वानरोऽकारः प्रथमा मात्राप्तेरादिमत्वाद्वा। आमोति ह वै सर्वान्कामानादिश्व भवति य एवं वेद । ९ ॥ स्वप्स्थानस्तैजस उकारो द्वितीया मात्रोत्कर्षादुभयत्वाद्वा। उत्कर्षति ह वै ज्ञानसन्तति समानश्च भवति नास्याब्रह्मवित्कुले भवति य एवं वेद ॥। १० ॥ सुषुप्तस्थानः प्राज्ञो मकारतृस्तीया मात्रा मितेरपीतेर्वा । मिनोति ह वा इद सर्वमपीतिश्व भवति य एवं वेद ॥ ११ ॥ ] (अत्रैते श्लोका भवन्ति )

( 17) If the projected creation ( prapañca ) were [ really ] existing, it would continue to be, no doubt. [ But ] this duality is just Māya [ illusion, appearance ]; [ 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।

विश्वस्यात्वविवक्षायामादिसामान्यमुत्कटम्। मात्रासंग्रतिपत्तौ स्यादाप्तिसामान्यमेव च ॥। १९॥ ( १९) अन्वय :- विश्वस्य अत्वविवक्षायाम् आदिसामान्यम् उत्कट स्यात्, मात्रासंप्रतिपत्तौ आप्तिसामान्यम् एव च (उत्कटं स्यात्)। तैजस्योत्वविज्ञान उत्कर्षो दृश्यते स्फुटम्। मात्रासंप्रतिपत्तौ स्यादुभयत्वं तथाविधम् ॥ २०॥ (२०) अन्वय :- तैजसस्य उत्वविज्ञाने उत्कर्षः स्फुट दृश्यते, मात्रा- संप्रतिपत्तौ उभयत्वं तथाविधं स्यात्। मकारभावे प्राज्ञस्य मानसामान्यमुत्कटम्। मात्रासंप्रतिपत्तौ तु लयसामान्यमेव च ॥२१॥ ४(२१) अन्वयः-प्राज्ञस्य मकारभावे मानसामान्यम् उत्कटम्, मात्रा- संप्रतिपत्तौ तु लयसामान्यम् एव च (उत्कटम्)। त्रिषु धामसु यत्तुल्यं सामान्यं वेत्ति निश्चितः। स पूज्यः सर्वभूतानां वन्दश्चैव महामुनिः ॥२२ ॥ (२२ ) अन्वय :- निश्चित: (य:) त्रिषु धामसु यत् तुल्यं सामान्यं वेत्ति सः महामुनिः सर्वभूतानां पूज्यः वन्धः 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 ). ( 21 ) As regards Prājña possessing the state of M, the common quality, the measure [ by which the remaining two are measured is ] prominent; for the equating of [ Prajña 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 विश्वमुकारश्वापि तैजसम्। मकारश्र पुनः प्राजञं नामात्रे विद्यते गतिः ॥ २३ ॥ (२३ ) अन्वय :- अकारः विश्वं नयते, उकारः च अपि तैजसं (नयते), मकारः च पुनः प्राज्ञं (नयते ); अमात्रे गतिः न विद्यते। [अमात्रश्चतुर्थोऽव्यवहार्यः प्रपश्चोपशमः 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) अन्वय :- ओंकारं पादशः विद्यात् , पादाः मात्रा: [ सन्ति, अत्र] न संशयः; ओंकारं पादशः ज्ञात्वा किंचित् अपि न चिन्तयेत्। युञ्जीत प्रणवे चेतः प्रणवो ब्रह्म निर्भयम्। ग्रणवे नित्ययुक्तस्य न भयं विद्यते क्वचित् ॥ २५ ॥ (२५) अन्वय :- प्रणवे चेतः युञ्जीत; प्रणवः निर्भयं ब्रह्म; प्रणवे नित्ययुक्तस्य क्चित् 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 Prajña. 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 Omkara, quarter by quarter, one should meditate upon nothing [ else ] whatever. ( 25 ) One should fix the mind upon Pranava [ the syllable Om ]; Pranava [ is ] Brahman void of fear; for him ever fixed upon Praņava, there is no fear anywhere,

प्रथमं प्रकरणम्।

प्रणवो ह्यपरं ब्रह्म प्रणवश्च पर: स्मृतः । अपूर्वोऽनन्तरोऽबाह्योऽनपरः प्रणवोऽव्ययः ॥ २६॥ (२६ ) अन्वय :-- प्रणवः हि अपरं ब्रह्म, प्रणवः च परः स्मृतः; प्रणवः अपूर्वः अनन्तरः अबाह्यः अनपरः अव्ययः। सर्वस्य प्रणवो ह्यादिर्मध्यमन्तस्तथैव च। एवं हि ग्रणवं ज्ञात्वा व्यश्षुते तदनन्तरम् ॥ २७ ॥ (२७) अन्वय :-- प्रणवः हि सर्वस्य आदिः मध्यं तथा एव च अन्तः; एवं हि प्रणवं ज्ञात्वा अनन्तरं तत् [ or, तदनन्तरं प्रणवं ] व्यक्षते। प्रणवं हीश्वरं विद्यात्सर्वस्य हृदि संस्थितम् । सर्वव्यापिनमोंकारं मत्वा धीरो न शोचति ॥ २८ ॥ (२८) अन्वय :-- प्रणवं हि सर्वस्य हृदि संस्थितम् ईश्वरं विद्यात् ; धीर: सर्वव्यापिनम् ओंकारं मत्वा न शोचति। अमात्रोऽनन्तमात्रश्च द्वैतस्योपशमः शिवः। ओंकारो विदितो येन स मुनिर्नेतरो जन: ॥ २९ ॥ (२९ ) अन्वय :-- येन अमात्रः, अनन्तमात्रः च, द्वैतस्य उपशम: , शिव: ओंकारः विदितः सः मुनिः, इतरः जनः न (मुनिः)। इति गौडपादीयकारिकायां प्रथमं प्रकरणम् ।

( 26 ) Pranava 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 ] Pranava. ( 27 ) Pranava indeed [ is ] the beginning, middle and like- wise the end itself of everything. Having indeed known Pranava

afterwards ]. thus, one attains to it [ Brahman ] immediately [or, attains to Praņava

( 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, not any other. Here ends the First Chapter in the Gaudapada-kārika 2

१० गौडपादीयकारिका !

द्वितीयं प्रकरणम्।ण वैतथ्यं सर्वभावानां स्वम्न आहुर्मनीषिणः। अन्त:स्थानात्तु भावानां संवृतत्वेन हेतुना ॥ १ ॥ ( १ ) अन्वय :- मनीषिणः स्वमे तु संवृतत्वेन हेतुना भावानाम् अन्तःस्थानात् सर्वभावानां वैतथ्यम् आहुः । अदीर्घत्वाच्च कालस्य गत्वा देशान्न पश्यति। प्रतिबुद्धश्च वै सर्वस्तस्मिन्देशे न विद्यते ॥ २ ॥ (२) अन्वय :- (पुरुष: ) कालस्य अदीर्धत्वात् च देशान् गत्वा न पश्यति; सर्वः वै प्रतिबुद्धः च तस्मिन् देशे न विधते। अभावश्च रथादीनां श्रूयते न्यायपूर्वकम् । I S5 वैतथ्यं तेन वै ्ाप्तं स्वभ आहुः प्रकाशितम् ॥ ३ ॥ (३) अन्वय :- रथादीनाम् अभावः च न्यायपूर्वकं श्रयते, तेन वै प्राप्तं वैतथ्यं स्वमे प्रकाशितम् आहुः (ब्रह्मविदः)। अन्तःस्थानात्तु भेदानां तस्माज्जागरिते स्मृतम् । यथा तत्र तथा स्वमे संवृतत्वेन भिद्यते ॥४ ॥ (४) अन्वय :- तस्मात् भेदानाम् अन्तःस्थानात् तु जागरिते (वैतथ्यं) स्मृतम् ; यथा तत्र (जागरिते भेदानाम् अन्तःस्थानं ) तथा स्वमे; संवृतत्वेन (स्वप्नः जागरितात्) भिद्यते। SECOND CHAPTER ( I ) 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 ] gone over to [ different ] regions, and further, [ when ] awakened, every one is not 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 Śruti 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. [ But 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

स्वप्रजागरितस्थाने ह्येकमाहुर्मनीषिणः। भेदानां हि समत्वेन प्रसिद्धेनैव हेतुना ॥ ५ ॥ (५ ) अन्वय :-- मनीषिणः हि प्रसिद्देन एव हेतुना भेदानां हि समत्वेन, स्वम्नजागरितस्थाने एकम् आहुः । आदावन्ते च यन्नास्ति वर्तमानेऽपि तत्तथा। वितथैः सदृशाः सन्तोऽवितथा इव लक्षिताः ॥ ६॥ (६) अन्वय :- यत् आदौ अन्ते च न अस्ति, वर्तमाने अपि तत् तथा (न अस्ति); वितथैः सदशाः सन्तः (भेदाः) अवितथाः इव लक्षिताः। सप्रयोजनता तेषां रवमे विप्रतिपद्यते। तस्मादाद्यन्तवच्वेन मिथ्यैव खलु ते स्मृताःः ।।७॥ (७) अन्वय :- तेषां (भेदानां) सप्रयोजनता रवने विप्रतिपद्यते, तस्मात् खलु ते आधन्तवत्वेन मिथ्याः एव स्मृताः । अपूर्व स्थानिधर्मो हि यथा स्वर्गनिवासिनाम्। तानयं प्रेक्षते गत्वा यथैवेह सुशिक्षितः ॥ ८॥ (८) अन्वय :- यथा स्वर्गनिवासिनां (तथा) स्थानिधर्मः-(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। बहिश्रेतोगृहीतं सद् दृष्ट वैतथ्यमेतयोः ॥ ९॥ (९) अन्वय :- स्वप्नवृत्तौ अपि तु चेतसा अन्तःकल्पितं तु असत्, बहिः चेतोगृहीतं सत् ; एतयो: वैतथ्यं दृष्टम्। जाग्रद्वृत्तावपि त्वन्तश्रेतसा कल्पितं त्वसत्। बहिश्चेतोगृहीतं सद्युक्त वैतथ्यमेतयोः ॥ १० ॥ (१०) अन्वय :-- जाग्रद्वृत्तौ अपि तु चेतसा अन्तःकल्पित तु असत्, बहिः चेतोगृहीतं सत्; एतयोः वैतथ्यं युक्तम्। उभयोरपि वैतथ्यं भेदानां स्थानयोर्यदि। क एतान्बुध्यते भेदान्को वै तेषां विकल्पकः ॥ ११ ॥ (११) अन्वय :- यदि भेदानाम् उभयोः स्थानयोः अपि वैतथ्यम्-, कः एतान् भेदान् बुध्यते, कः वै तेषां विकल्पकः । कल्पयत्यात्मनात्मानमात्मा देवः स्वमायया। स एव बुध्यते भेदानिति वेदान्तनिश्वयः ॥ १२।। (१२) अन्वय :-- देव: 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. ( 1t ) 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 Māya; [ it is ] he alone [ that ] cognises the entities-this [ is ] the conclusion of the Vedanta [ Upanisads ].

द्वितीयं प्रकरणम्। १३

विकरोत्यपरान्भावानन्तक्चित्ते व्यवस्थितान्। नियतांश्र बहिश्चित्त एवं कल्पयते प्रभु: ॥१३ ॥ (१३ ) अन्वय :- ( आत्मा) बहिश्चित्तः (सन् ) अन्तश्चित्ते व्यव- स्थितान् नियतान् च अपरान् भावान् विकरोति-एवं प्रभुः कल्पयते । चित्तकाला हि येऽन्तस्तु द्वयकालाश्च ये बहि:। कल्पिता एव ते सर्वे विशेषो नान्यहेतुकः ॥ १४ ॥ (१४ ) अन्वय :- ये हि तु अन्तः चित्तकालाः, ये च बहिः दयकालाः, ते सर्वे कल्पिताः एव; अन्यहेतुकः विशेषः न। अव्यक्ता एव येऽन्तस्तु स्फुटा एव च ये बहिः। कल्पिता एव ते सर्वे विशेषस्त्विन्द्रियान्तरे ॥ १५॥ (१५) अन्वय :-- ये तु अन्तः अव्यक्ताः एव, ये च बहिः स्फुटाः एव, ते सर्वे कल्पिता: एब; विशेषः तु इन्द्रियान्तरे। जीवं कल्पयते पूर्व ततो भावान्पृथग्विधान्। बाह्यानाध्यात्मिकांश्रैव यथाविद्यस्तथास्मृतिः ॥ १६ ॥ (१६) अन्वय :- (प्रभुः) पूर्व जीवं कल्पयते, ततः बाह्यान् आध्यात्मिकान् च एव पृथग्विधान् भावान् (कल्पयते); यथाविद्यः तथास्मृतिः (जीवः ) । ( 13 ) [ The Ätman ], outward-minded, diversifies 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 grāhya-grāhaka 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 [ lit. 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.

१४ गौडपादीयकारिका ।

अनिश्चिता यथा रज्जुरन्धकारे विकल्पिता। सर्पधारादिभिर्भावैस्तद्वदात्मा विकल्पितः ॥१७।। ( १७) अन्वयः- यथा अन्धकारे अनिश्चिता रज्जुः सर्पधारादिभिः भावैः विकल्पिता तद्वत् आत्मा विकल्पितः । निश्चितायां यथा रजवां विकल्पो विनिवर्तते। रज्जुरेवेति चाद्वैतं तद्वदात्मविनिश्चयः॥ १८।। (१८) अन्वय :- यथा निश्चितायां रज्ज्वां विकल्पः विनिवर्तते, रज्जुः एव इति अद्वैतं (निष्पद्यते), तद्वत् आत्मविनिश्चयः। प्राणादिभिरनन्तैश्च भावैरेतैर्विकल्पितः । मायैषा तस्य देवस्य यया संमोहितः स्वयम् ॥१९ ॥ (१९) अन्वय :- (आत्मा ) प्राणादिभि: 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) अन्वय :- (आत्मा ) प्राण: इति प्राणविदः (विकल्पन्ते ), भूतानि इति च तद्विदः, गुणाः इति गुणविदः, तत्वानि 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 e:c; so likewise [ is ] Ätman 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 Ātman. (19 ) [ Ātman ] is imagined to be Praņa [ life ] etc. and these innumerable entities. This [ is ] the Maya of that shining one [ Atman ] by which [ he ] himself has been deluded. ( 20) As Prana, the Prana-knowers [ imagine Ätman ]; and as Bhūtas [ elements ], Knowers of them [ the Bhūtas ]; as Gunas, the Guna-knowers; and as Tattvas, the Knowers of them [ the Tattvas ];

द्वितीयं प्रकरणम्। १५

पादा इति पादविदो विषया इति तद्विदः। लोका इति लोकविदो देवा इति च तद्विदः ॥ २१॥ (२१ ) अन्वय :- 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) अन्वय :- 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 ) अन्वय :- सूक्ष्मः इति सूक्ष्मविदः, स्थूलः इति च तद्विदः, मूर्त: इति मूर्तविदः, अमूर्तः इति च तद्विदः। काल इति कालविदो दिश इति च तद्विदः । वादा इति वादविदो भुवनानीति तद्विदः ॥ २४ ॥ (२४ ) अन्वय :- काल: इति कालविदः, दिशः इति च तद्विदः, वादा: 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 [ Sthūla ]; as the Murta [ possessed of form ], the Murta-knowers; and as the Form-less, the Knowers of it [ Amūrta ]; ( 24 ) as Kāla [ time ], the Kāla-knowers; and as the Quarters, the Knowers of them [ Diśah ]; as Vādas [ discussions, theories ], the Vada-knowers; as Worlds, the Knowers of them [ Bhuvanas ];

१६ गौडपादीयकारिका।

मन इति मनोविदो बुद्धिरिति च तद्विदः । चित्तमिति चित्तविदो धर्माधर्मो 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 ) अन्वय :-- पञ्चविंशकः इति एके, षड्विंशः इति च अपरे, एकत्रिंशक: इति (अपरे) आहुः, अनन्तः इति च अपरे। .

लोकाँल्ोकविदः प्राहुराश्रमा इति तद्विदः। स्त्रीपुंनपुंसकं लैङ्गा: परापरमथापरे ॥ २७ ॥ (२७) अन्वय :- लोकविदः लोकान्, तद्विदः आश्रमाः इति, ैद्गा: स्त्नीपुंनपुंसकं, 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 [ Ätman ] as People [ Lokas ]; as Āśramas, the Knowers of them [ Āśramas, 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 Ātman ].

द्वितीयं प्रकरणम् । १७

यं भावं दर्शयेद्यस्य तं भावं स तु पश्यति। तं चावति स भूत्वासौ तद्ग्रहः समुपैति तम् ॥ २९ ॥ (२९) अन्वय :- यस्य यं भावं दर्शयेत् सः तु तं भावं पश्यति; असौ भूत्ा सः च तम् अवति, तद्ग्रहः तं समुपैति। एतैरेषोऽपृथग्भावैः पृथगेवेति लक्षितः। एवं यो वेद तच्ेन कल्पयेत्सोऽविशङ्कितः ॥ ३० ॥ (३०) अन्वय :- एषः (आत्मा ) एतैः अपृथग्भावैः पृथक् एव इति लक्षितः; यः एवं त्त्वेन वेद सः अविशङ्कितः (सन्) कल्पयेत्। स्वममाये यथा दृष्टे गन्धर्वनगरं यथा। तथा विश्वमिदं दृष्ट वेदान्तेषु विचक्षणैः ॥ ३१ ॥ (३१) अन्वय :- यथा स्वप्माये दृष्टे, यथा गन्धर्वनगरं (दृष्टं), तथा वेदान्तेषु विचक्षणः इदं विश्वं दृष्टम्। न निरोधो न चोत्पत्तिर्न बद्धो न च साधकः । न मुमुक्षुर्न वै मुक्त इत्येषा परमार्थता॥ ३२ ॥ (३२ ) अन्वय :- निरोध: न, उत्पत्तिः च न ; बद्ध: न, साधकः च न; मुमुक्षु: न, मुक्तः वे 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. ( 30) This [ Ätman ] 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 [ Ätman to be any thing ] with- out hesitation. ( 31 ) As are seen dream and Māyā [ 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, 3

१८ गौडपादीयकारिका।

आवैरसद्धिरेवायमदयेन च कल्पितः। मावा अप्यद्वयेनैव तस्मादद्वयता शिवा॥ ३३ ॥ (३३ ) अन्वय :- असद्भि: भावैः एव अयं च अद्येन कल्पितः; भावाः अपि अद्वयेन एव (कल्पिताः); तस्मात् अद्वयता शिवा। नात्मभावेन नानेदं न स्वेनापि कथंचन । न पृथङ् नापृथक्किंचिदिति तत्वविदो विदुः ॥ ३४॥ (३४ ) अन्वय :- आत्मभावेन इदं नाना न, कथचन खेन अपि (नाना न); किंचित् पृथक् न, (किंचित्) अपृथक् न; इति त्त्त्वविदः विदुः। वीतरागभयक्रोधैर्मुनिभिर्वेदपारगैः। निर्विकल्पो ह्ययं हष्टः ग्रपश्चोपशमोऽ्दयः ॥ ३५॥ (३५) अन्वय :- वीतरागभयक्रोधैः वेदपारगैः मुनिभिः हि अयं निर्विकल्पः प्रपञ्चोपशम अद्वय: दृष्टः । तस्मादेवं विदित्वैनमद्वैते योजयेत्स्मृतिम्। अद्वैतं समनुप्राप्य जडवल्लोकमाचरेत् ॥ ३६ ॥ (३६ ) अन्वय :-- तस्मात् एवं एनं विदित्वा स्मृतिम् अद्वैते योजयेत् ; अद्वैतं समनुप्राप्य जडवत् लोकम् आचरेत्। ( 33 ) This [ Ätman ] 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 ] memory on non-duality; having secured [ or, realised ] non-duality, one should carry on the worldly activities like an insensate one.

तृतीयं प्रकरणम् । १९

निःस्तुतिर्निर्नमस्कारो निःस्वधाकार एव च। चलाचलनिकेतश्र यतिर्यादृच्छिको भवेत् ॥ ३७॥ (३७ ) अन्वय :- नि:स्तुतिः निर्नमस्कारः निःस्वधाकारः एव च, चलाचलनिकेतः च यतिः यादच्छिकः भवेत्। तच्वमाध्यात्मिक दृष्टा तत्वं दृष्ट्रा तु बाह्यतः। तत्वीभूतस्तदारामस्तत्वादप्रच्युतो भवेत् ॥ ३८ ॥। (३८) अन्वय :-- आध्यात्मिकं तत्त्वं दृष्ट्रा, बाह्यतः तु तत्त्वं दृष्टा तत्त्वीभूतः तदारामः तत्त्वात् अप्रच्युतः भवेत्। इति गौडपादीयकारिकायां द्वितीयं प्रकरणम्। तृतीयं प्रकरणम्। उपासनाश्रितो धर्मो जाते ब्रह्माण वर्तते। प्रागुत्पत्तेरजं सर्वं तेनासौ कृपण: स्मृतः ॥ १ ॥ ( १ ) अन्वय :- ब्रह्मणि जाते उपासनाश्रितः धर्मः वर्तते; सर्वे उत्पत्तेः प्राक् अजम् ; तेन असौ (धर्मः) कृपणः स्मृतः ।

( 37 ) Disassociated with praise, disassociated with salutation and quite disassociated with the utterance of Svadha [ that is, per- formance of Sraddha rites in honour of Pitrs ], 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 outside [ 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 Gaudapāda-kārikā THIRD CHAPTER ( I ) Dharma [ Jiva ] associated with devotion arises when Brahman is [ regarded as having been ] born. Prior to birth, all [ is ] unborn; therefore he [ Dharma, Jīva is ] traditionally known as pitiable.

२० गौडपादीयकारिका।

अतो वक्ष्याम्यकार्पण्यमजाति समतां गतम्। यथा न जायते किंचिञ्जायमानं समन्ततः ॥ २॥ (२) अन्वय :- अतः अकार्पण्यम् अजाति समतां गतं्ा विकष्ाम यथा समन्ततः जायमानं किंचित् न जायते। आत्मा ह्याकाशत्ज्ीवैर्घटाकाशैरिवोदितः । घटादिवच्च संघातैर्जातावेतन्निदर्शनम् ॥ ३ ॥ (३ ) अन्वय :- आत्मा हि आकाशवत् जीवैः घटाकाशौ : इव उदित ः , घटादिवत् च संघातैः (उदितः); जातौ एतत् निदर्शनम्। घटादिषु अलीनेषु घटाकाशादयो यथा। आकाशे संप्रलीयन्ते तद्वञ्जीवा इहात्मनि ॥४॥ (४) अन्वय :- यथा घटादिषु प्रलीनेषु घटाकाशादयः आकाशे संपलीयन्ते, तद्वत् जीवाः इह आत्मनि (संप्रलीयन्ते)। यथैकस्मिन्घटाकाशे रजोधूमादिभिर्युते। न सर्वे संप्रयुज्यन्ते तद्वज्जीवा: सुखादिभिः॥५॥ (५ ) अन्वय :-- यथा रजोधूमादिभि: 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 ) Ātman like the Ākāśa rises up indeed in [ the form of ] Jīvas [ individual souls ] like Ghațāķāśas [ 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, Ghatākāśa etc. are dissolved in the Akaśa, so [ are dissolved ] the individual souls here in Atman. ( 5 ) As when one Ghatakāśa is connected with dust, smoke etc , not all [ Ghațākāśas ] are associated [ with them ], so [ are ] the individual souls with happiness etc.

तृतीयं प्रकरणम् । २१

रूपकार्यसमाख्या् भिद्यन्ते तत्र तत्र वै। आकाशस्य न भेदोऽस्ति तद्वज्जीवेषु निर्णयः ॥ ६ ॥ ( ६ ) अन्वय :-- तत्र तत्र वै रूपकार्यसमार्याः च भिधन्ते; आकाशस्य भेद: न अस्ति; तद्वत् जीवेषु निर्णयः । नाकाशस्य घटाकाशो विकारावयवौ यथा। नैवात्मनः सदा जीवो विकारावयवौं तथा ।।७॥ (७) अन्वय :-- यथा आकाशस्य घटाकाशः विकारावयवौ न, तथा आत्मनः सदा जीवः विकारावयवौ न एव। यथा भवति वालानां गगनं मलिनं मलैः। तथा भवत्यवुद्धानामात्मापि मलिनो मलैः ॥८॥ (८) अन्वय :- यथा बालानां गगनं मलैः मलिनं भवति तथा अबुद्धानाम् आत्मा अपि मलैः मलिनो भवति। मरणे संभवे चैव गत्यागमनयोरपि। स्थितौ सर्वशरीरेषु आकाशेनाविलक्षणः ।। ९।। (९) अन्वय :- मरणे संभवे च एव, गत्यागमनयोः अपि, स्थितौ, सर्वशरीरेषु आकाशेन अविलक्षणः (आत्मा ) ।

(6 ) In the various cases [ lit. there and there ] indeed, form, function and name [ do ] differ, [ but ] there is no splitting up of the Akaśa; so the upshot in [ respect of ] the individual souls. ( 7 ) As the Ghațākāśa [is] no transformation or portion of the Äkāśa, 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, [ Atman is ] not dissimilar to the Akāśa.

२२ गौडपादीयकारिका।

संघाता: स्वन्नवत्सर्व आत्ममायाविसर्जिताः। आधिक्ये सर्वसाम्ये वा नोपपत्तिर्हि विद्यते॥ १० ॥ (१०) अन्वयः- सर्वे संघाताः स्वमवत् आत्ममायाविसर्जिताः, आधिक्ये सर्वसाम्ये वा उपपत्तिः हि न विद्यते । रसादयो हि ये कोशा व्याख्यातास्तैत्तिरीयके। तेषामात्मा परो जीवः खं यथा संप्रकाशितः ॥ ११॥। (११ ) अन्वयः- ये हि रसादयः कोशाः तैत्तिरीयके व्याख्याताः तेषाम् आत्मा परः जीवः यथा खं संप्रकाशितः । द्वयोई्योर्मधुज्ञाने परं ब्रह्म प्रकाशितम्। प्रथिव्यामुदरे चैव यथाकाशः प्रकाशितः ॥ १२ ।। ( १२ ) अन्वय :-- मधुज्ञाने द्वयो: द्वयोः परं ब्रह्म प्रकाशितम्; यथा पृथिव्याम् उदरे च एव आकाशः प्रकाशितः । जीवात्मनोरनन्यत्वमभेदेन प्रशस्यते। नानात्वं निन्धते यच्च तदेवं हि समञ्जसम् ॥ १३ ॥ (१३) अन्वय :- यत् जीवात्मनो: अनन्यत्वम् अभेदेन प्रशस्यते, नानात्वं च निन्धते, तत् हि एवं समञ्जसम् ।

( 10 ) All aggregates are set forth by the Maya 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 ]. ( 1I ) The sheaths, essence etc. that are indeed expounded in the Taittirīyaka [ upanișad ] -- of them, the supreme Jīva is clearly shown up as Atman, like Ākāśa. ( 12 ) In the Madhu-jñāna [ that is, Madhuvidyā chapter in the Brhadaranyakopanisad ], in the various [ or, in each of the ] pairs [ described as Adhidaiva and Adhyatma ] is shown up the Highest Brahman, as Akaśa 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 Jīva is the creation of Māyā ].

तृतीयं प्रकरणम्। २३

जीवात्मनोः पृथक्त्वं यत्प्रागुत्पत्तेः प्रकर्तितम्। भविष्यद्वृच्या गौणं तन्मुख्यत्वं हि न युज्यते ॥ १४॥ (१४) अन्वयः- उत्पत्ते: प्राक् यत् जीवात्मनोः पृथक्त्वं प्रकीर्तितम् तत् भविष्यद्वृत्या गौणम् ; मुख्यत्वं हि न युज्यते। मृल्लोहविस्फुलिङ्गादैः सृष्टिर्या चोदितान्यथा। उपायः सोऽवताराय नास्ति भेद: कथंचन ॥ १५ ॥ ( १५) अन्वय :-- या मृल्लोहविस्फुलिङ्गाद्यैः अन्यथा सृष्टिः चोदिता, सः अवताराय उपायः; भेदः कथंचन न अस्ति । आश्रमास्त्रिविधा हीनमध्यमोत्कृष्टदृष्टयः । उपासनोपदिष्टेयं तदर्थमनुकम्पया॥ १६॥ (१६) अन्वय :- हीनमध्यमोर्कृष्टदृष्टयः त्रिविधाः आश्रमाः; इयम् उपासना तदर्थम् अनुकम्पया उपदिष्टा। स्वसिद्धान्तव्यवस्थासु द्वैतिनो निश्चिता दृढम्। परस्परं विरुध्यन्ते तैरयं न विरुध्यते ॥ १७॥ (१७) अन्वय :-- द्वैतिनः स्वस्तिद्धान्तव्यवस्थासु दृढं निश्चिताः; (द्वैतिनः) परस्परं विरुध्यन्ते; तैः अयम् (आत्मैकत्वदर्शनपक्षः) न विरुध्यते।

( 14) What separateness of Jiva and Ātman 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 ] earth, iron, sparks etc, that [ is ] a device for the grasping [ of the true position ]; no difference what- soever [ between Jiva and Ātman ] 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।

अद्वैत परमार्थो हि द्वैतं तद्भेद उच्यते। तेषामुभयथा द्वैत तेनायं न विरुध्यते॥ १८ ॥ ( १८) अन्वय :-- अद्वैतं हि परमार्थः, द्वैतं तद्वेदः उच्यते; तेषां (द्वैतिनाम्) उभयथा द्वैतम् ; तेन अयं न विरुध्यते । मायया भिद्यते ह्येतन्नान्यथाजं कथंचन। तच्वतो भिद्यमाने हि मर्त्यताममृतं व्रजेत् ॥ १९ ॥ (१९) अन्वय :- एतत् हि अजम् (अद्ैतं) मायया भिद्यते, अन्यथा कथंचन न; तत्त्वतः हि भिद्यमाने अमृतं मर्त्यतां ब्रजेत्। अजातस्थैव भावस्य जातिमिच्छन्ति वादिनः । अजातो ह्यमृतो भावो मर्त्यतां कथमेष्यति ॥ २० ॥ (२० ) अन्वय :-- वादिनः अजातस्य एव भावस्य जातिम् इच्छन्ति; अजातः अमृतः भावः हि कथं मर्त्यताम् एष्यति। न भवत्यमृतं मर्त्य न मर्त्यममृतं तथा। प्रकृतेरन्यथाभावो न कथंचिद्द्विष्यति ॥ २१ ।। (२१ ) अन्वय :- अमृतं मत्य न भवति, तथा मर्त्यम् अमृतं (न भवति); प्रकृतेः अन्यथाभावः कर्थंचित् 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 Maya, not otherwise under any circumstances. If indeed it were 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) अन्वय :- यस्य स्वभावेन अमृतः भावः मर्त्यतां गच्छति तस्य कृतकेन अमृतः कथ निश्चलः स्थास्यति । भूततोऽभूततो वापि सृज्यमाने समा श्रुतिः। निश्चितं युक्तियुक्तं च यत्तद्भ्वति नेतरत् ॥ २३ । (२३ ) अन्वय :- भूततः वा अभूततः अपि सृज्यमाने श्रुतिः समा; यत् युक्तियुक्त निश्चितं च तत् भवति इतरत् न (भवति)। नेह नानेति चाम्नायादिन्द्रो मायाभिरित्यपि। अजायमानो बहुधा मायया जायते तु सः ॥ २४ ॥ (२४ ) अन्वय :- न इह नाना इति च, इन्द्रः सायाभि: इति अपि, अजायमानः सः तु मायया बहुधा जायते इति आम्नायात्। संभूतेरपवादाच्च संभवः प्रतिषिध्यते। को न्वेनं जनयेदिति कारणं प्रतिषिध्यते ॥२५॥ (२५ ) अन्वय :- संभूते: अपवादात् च संभवः प्रतिषिध्यते, कः नु एनं 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 Sruti text ' No multiple here, ' [ from the Śruti text ] Indra by means of Maya powers' as well, [ from the Sruti text |'He being unborn is however born in various ways through Māya ', ( 25 ) and from the denial of origination [ in the Īśāvāsyopa- nisad ], origination is barred out. By [ the Sruti ] ' Who possibly ( nu ) would produce this [ Atman ]?' the cause [ of origination ] is barred out. 4

२६ गौडपादीयकारिका।

स एष नेति नेतीति व्याख्यातं निहुते यतः। सर्वमग्राह्यभावेन हेतुनाजं प्रकाशते ॥ २६ ॥ (२६ ) अन्वय :- यतः सः एषः न इति न इति व्याख्यातम् अग्राह्यभावेन हेतुना सर्व निहुते, अजं प्रकाशते। सतो हि सायया जन्म युज्यते न तु तच्वतः । तच्चतो जायते यस्य जातं तस्य हि जायते॥ २७ ॥ (२७) अन्वयः- सतः जन्म मायया हि युज्यते, न तु तत्वतः; यस्य तत्त्वतः जायते तस्य हि जातं जायते। असतो मायया जन्म तच्वतो नैव युज्यते। वन्ध्यापुत्रो न तच्वेन मायया वापि जायते ॥ २८॥ (२८) अन्वयः- असतः मायया, तत्त्वतः जन्म न एव युज्यते; वन्ध्यापुत्रः तत्त्वेन मायया वा अपि न जायते। यथा रवने द्याभासं स्पन्दते मायया मनः। तथा जाग्रद्द्वयाभासं स्पन्दते मायया मनः ॥२९ ॥ (२९) अन्वय :- यथा मायया मनः स्वने दयाभासं स्पन्दते तथा मायया मनः जाग्रत् द्याभासं 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 Māyā, 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 Māyā [ or ] in reality is assuredly not reasonable; the son of a barren woman is not born either in reality or through Māya even. ( 29 ) As through Māya the mind in dream vibrates into the appearance of two [ grāhya and grāhaka ], so through Māyā the mind in the waking state vibrates into the appearance of two [ grāhya and grāhaka ].

तृतीयं प्रकरणम्। २७

अद्वयं च द्याभासं मनः रवन्े न संशयः। अद्यं च द्याभासं तथा जाग्रन्न संशयः ॥ ३० ॥ (३०) अन्वय :- सवमे च अद्वयं मनः द्वयाभासं, न संशयः; तथा जाग्रत् च अद्वयं (मनः) द्वयाभासं, न संशयः। मनोदृश्यमिदं द्वैतं यत्किंचित्सचराचरम्। मनसो ह्यमनीभावे द्वैतं नैवोपलस्यते॥ ३१ ॥ (३१ ) अन्वयः- इदं यत्किंचित् सचराचरं द्वैत मनोदृश्यम् ; मनसः अमनीभावे हि द्वैत न एव उपलभ्यते। आत्मसत्यानुबोधेन न संकल्पयते यदा। अमनस्तां तदा याति ग्राह्याभावे तदग्रहम् ॥ ३२ ॥ (३२) अन्वय :- यदा आत्मसत्यानुबोधेन (मनः) न संकल्पयते तदा अमनस्तां याति, ग्राह्याभावे तत् अग्रहम्। अकल्पकमजं ज्ञानं ज्ेयाभिन्नं प्रचक्षते। ब्रह्म ज्ञेयमजं नित्यमजेनाजं विधुध्यते ॥। ३३॥। (३३) अन्वय :- अकल्पकम् अजं ज्ञानं ज्ञेयाभिन्नं 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. ( 31 ) [ 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 jñana 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 ॥ ipb: (३४) अन्वयः- निगृहीतस्य निर्विकल्पस्य धीमतः मनसः सः प्रचारः तु विज्ञेयः; सुषुप्ते अन्यः (प्रचारः), तत्समः न। लीयते हि सुपुप्े तन्निगृहीतं न लीयते। तदेव निर्भयं ब्रह्म ज्ञानालोकं समन्ततः ।। ३५।। (३५) अन्वयः- सुषुप्ते हि तत् (मनः) लीयते, निगृहीत (तत्) न लोयते, तत् एव निर्भयं समन्ततः ज्ञानालोकं ब्रह्म । अजमनिद्रमस्वप्मनामकमरूपकमू। सकृद्विभातं सर्वजञं नोपचारः कथंचन ॥ ३६ ॥ (३६ ) अन्वय :-- (ब्रह्म ) अजम् , अनिद्रम्, अस्वप्रम्, अनामकम्, अरूपकं, सकृद्विभातं, सर्वज्ञम् ; कथंचन न उपचारः। सर्वाभिलापविगतः सर्वचिन्तासमुत्थितः। सुप्रशान्तः सकृज्ज्योतिः समाधिरचलोऽभयः ॥३७॥ (३७) अन्वयः- सर्वाभिलापविगतः 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 7 in deep sleep [ is ] different, not like that [ of the Nigrhīta 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 jnana 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 । २९

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 विभ्यति ह्यस्मादभये भयदर्शिनः ॥ ३९ ॥ (३९) अन्वय :- सर्वयोगिभि: दुर्दर्श: अस्पर्शयोग: वै नाम; अभये भयदर्शिन: 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 उद्धेर्यद्वत्कुशाग्रेणैकबिन्दुना।

(४१) अन्वयः- यद्वत् कुशाग्रेण एकबिन्दुना उदघे: 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 jñana well set in itself [ or, in the Ātman ], [ 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 ] Kuśa grass, so would be the control of the mind without all out toiling.

३ ० गौडपादीयकारिका ।

उपायेन निगृह्लीयाद्विक्षिसं कामभोगयोः। सुप्रसन्नं लये चैव यथा कामो लयस्तथा ॥ ४२ ॥ (४२) अन्वय :- कामभोगयोः विक्षिप्तं लये च एव सुप्रसन्नं (मनः) उपायेन निगृह्लीयात् ; यथा कामः तथा लयः (अनर्थहेतुः)। दुःखं सर्वमनुस्मृत्य कामभोगान्निवर्तयेत्। अजं सर्वमनुस्मृत्य जातं नैव तु पश्यति ॥ ४३॥ (४३) अन्वय :- सर्व दुःखम् अनुस्मृत्य कामभोगान् निवर्तयेत् ; सर्व अजम् अनुस्मृत्य जातं तु न एव पश्यति । लये संबोधयेचित्तं विक्षित्ं 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 भवेत। निश्चलं निश्चरचित्तमेकीकुर्यात्प्रयत्नतः ॥४५।। (४५) अन्वय :- तत्र सुखं न आस्वादयेत्, प्रज्ञया निःसंगः भवेत्, प्रयत्नतः निश्चलं निश्चरत् 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 matier of that ( tu ). ( 44 ) One should fully awaken the mind [ when ] in the lying low [ state ], should pacify [ it ] again [ when ] tossed about; should know [ it ] particularly [ to be ] with passion, [ and ] should not shake [ it ] up [ 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 अनिङ्नम् अनाभासं (सत्) ब्रह्म निष्पन्नम् । स्वस्थं शान्तं सनिर्वाणमकथ्यं सुखमुत्तमम् । अजमजेन ज्ञेयेन सर्वजं परिचक्षते ॥ ४७ ॥ (४७) अन्वयः- स्वस्थं शान्तं सनिर्वाणम् अकथ्यम् उत्तमं सुखम् ज्ञेयेन अजेन अजं परिचक्षते। न कथिजायते जीवः संभवोऽस्य न विद्यते। एततदुत्तमं सत्यं यत्र किंचिन्न जायते ॥ ४८ ॥ (४८) अन्वय :- कश्चित् जीवः न जायते, अस्य संभवः न विद्यते; एतत् तत् उत्तमं सत्यं यत्र किंचित् न जायते। इति गौडपादीयकारिकायां तृतीयं प्रकरणम्। चतुर्थ प्रकरणम्। ज्ञानेनाकाशकल्पेन धर्मान्यो गगनोपमान्। ज्ञेयाभिन्नेन संबुद्धस्तं वन्दे द्विपदां वरम् ॥ १ ॥ (१) अन्वय :- यः आकाशकल्पेन ज्ञेयामिन्नेन 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 Nirvāna, 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 jñana almost like the sky [ and ] not different from the knowable, fully realised the entities [ or, jīvas, individual souls ] comparable to the sky.

३२ गौडपादीयकारिका।

अस्पर्शयोगो वै नाम सर्वसच्वसुखो हितः ॥ अविवादोऽविरुद्धश्च देशितस्तं नमाम्यहम् ॥ २ ॥ (२) अन्वय :- (येन ) सर्वसत्त्त्रसुखः हितः अविवाद: अविरुद्धः च अस्पर्शयोग: वै नाम देशितः तम् अहं नमामि। भूतस्य जातिमिच्छन्ति वादिन: केचिदेव हि। अभूतस्यापरे धीरा विवदन्त: परस्परम् ॥ ३ ॥ ( ३ ) अन्वय :-- केचित् एव वादिनः हि भूतस्य जातिम् इच्छन्ति, अपरे धीराः अभूतस्य (जातिम् इच्छन्ति), परस्परं विवदन्तः (एवम् एते)। भूतं न जायते किंचिदभूतं नैव जायते। विवदन्तो द्या ह्ेवमजातिं ख्यापयन्ति ते ।। ४ ॥। (४) अन्वय :- भूत किंचित् न जायते, अभूतं (किंचित्) न एव जायते; एवं विवदन्तः ते द्वयाः हि अजाति ख्यापयन्ति। ख्याप्यमानामजाति तैरनुमोदामहे वयम् । विवदामो न तैः सार्धमविवादं निबोधत ॥ ५॥ (५ ) अन्वय :- वयं तैः ख्याप्यमानाम् अजातिम् अनुमोदामहे; तैः सार्ध न विवदाम :; (अजातिम्) अविवादं 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 non-origination proclaimed by them; we dispute not with them. Know [ how the ajativada is ] free from dispute.

चतुर्थ प्रकरणम्। ३३

अजातस्यैव धर्मस्य जातिमिच्छन्ति वादिनः । अजातो ह्यमृतो धर्मो मर्त्यतां कथमेष्यति ॥६ ॥ ( ६ ) अन्वय :- वादिन: अजातस्य एव धर्मस्य जातिम् इच्छन्ति ; अजातः हि अमृतः धर्मः, (सः) कथं मर्त्यताम् एष्यति ? न भवत्यमृतं मर्त्य न मर्त्यममृतं तथा। प्रकृतेरन्यथाभावो न कथचिद्धविष्यति ॥७॥ (७) अन्वय :- अमृतं मर्त्य न भवति, तथा मर्त्यम् अमृतं न (भवति); प्रकृते अन्यथाभावः कथंचित् न भविष्यति। स्वभावेनामृतो यस्य धर्मो गच्छति मर्त्यतास्। कृतकेनामृतस्तस्य क्थं स्थास्यति निश्चलः ॥८ ॥ (८) अन्वय :- यस्य स्वभावेन अमृतः धर्मः मर्त्यतां गच्छति तस्य कृतकेन अमृत: कथं निश्चलः स्थास्यति ? सांसिद्धिकी स्वाभाविकी सहजा अकृता च या। प्रकृतिः सेति विज्ञेया स्वभावं न जहाति या ॥ ९॥ (९) अन्वय :- या सांसिद्धिकी स्वाभाविकी सहजा अकृता च, या स्वभाव 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 etfort ], remain changeless [ or, unmoving ] ? (9 ) That should be well known as nature whieh [ is ] fully established, natural, inborn and not made [ artificially ], [and] which does not abandon [ its ] own nature. 5

३४ गौडपादीयकारिका।

जरामरणनिर्मुक्ता: सर्वे धर्मा: स्वभावतः । जरामरणमिच्छन्तशच्यवन्ते तन्मनीषया ॥ १० ॥ (१०) अन्वय :- सर्वे धर्माः स्वभावतः जरामरणनिर्मुक्ता: ; जरा- मरणम् इच्छन्तः (ते) तन्मनीषया च्यवन्ते। कारणं यस्य वै कार्य कारणं तस्य जायते। जायमानं कथमजं भिन्नं नित्यं कथं च तत् ॥ ११ ॥। (११ ) अन्वय :- यस्य वै कारणं कार्य तस्य कारणं जायते; जायमानं कथम् अजम्? भिन्नं च तत् कथं नित्यम्? कारणाद्यद्यनन्यत्वमतः कार्यमजं यदि। जायमानाद्ि वै कार्यात्कारणं ते कथं ध्रुवम् ॥ १२ ॥ ( १२ ) अन्वय :-- यदि कारणात् अनन्यत्वम्, अतः यदि कार्यम् अजम्, (तर्हि) ते जायमानात् वै कार्यात् हि (अनन्यं) कारणं कर्थ ध्रुवम्? अजाद्वै जायते यस्य दृष्टान्तस्तस्य नास्ति वै। जाताच्च जायमानस्य नव्यवस्था प्रसज्यते ॥ १३ ॥ (१३) अन्वय :- 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. ( 1I ) 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 [ 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 unoriginated [ 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

हेतोरादि: फलं येषामादिर्हेतुः फलस्य च। हेतोः फलस्य चानादि: कथं तैरुपवर्ण्यते ॥ १४॥

(१४) अन्वय :- येषां हेतो: आदि: फलम्, हेतु: च फलस्य आदिः, तैः कथं हेतोः फलस्य च अनादि: उपवर्ण्यते ?

हेतोरादि: फलं येषामादिर्हेतुः फलस्य च। तथा जन्म भवेत्तेषां पुत्राज्न्म पितुर्यथा॥ १५॥

(१५ ) अन्वय :- येषां हेतो: आदि: फलम्, हेतुः च फलस्य आदिः, यथा पुत्रात् पितुः जन्म तथा तेषां जन्म भवेत् ।

संभवे हेतुफलयेरेषितव्यः क्रमस्त्वया। युगपत्संभवे यस्मादसंबन्धो विषाणवत् ॥ १६ ॥

(१६ ) अन्वय :- हेतुफलयो: संभवे त्वया क्रम: 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 ( yasmat ) 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 ].

३६ गौडपादीयकारिका ।

फलादुत्पद्यमानः सन्न ते हेतुः प्रसिध्यति। अप्रसिद्धः क्थं हेतुः फलसुत्पादयिष्यति॥१७॥ ( १७) अन्वय :- फलात् उत्पद्यमानः सन् ते हेतुः न प्रसिध्यति; कथम् अप्रसिद्धः हेतुः फलम् उत्पादयिष्यति ? यदि हेतोः फलात्सिद्धिः फलसिद्धिश्च हेतुतः । कतरत्पूर्वनिष्पन्नं यस्य सिद्धिरपेक्षया ॥ १८॥ ( १८) अन्वय :- यदि फलात् हेतो: सिद्धिः, हेतुतः च फलसिद्धिः, (तर्हि) यस्य अपेक्षया सिद्धिः (तत्) कतरत् पूर्वनिष्पन्नम् ? अशक्तिरपरिज्ञानं क्रमकोपोऽथ वा पुनः। एवं हि सर्वथा वुद्धैरजातिः परिदीपिता ॥ १९॥ (१९) अन्धय :- अशक्तिः, अपरिज्ञानम्, अथ वा पुनः क्रमकोप :; एवं हि बुद्धैः सर्वथा अजातिः परिदीपिता। बीजाङ्कुराख्यो द्ष्टान्तः सदा साध्यसमो हिसः। न हि साध्यसमो हेतुः सिद्धौ साध्यस्य युज्यते ॥ २० ॥ (२०) अन्वय :- सः बीजाङ्कुराख्यः दृष्टान्तः हि सदा साध्यसमः; साध्यसम: 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. (20) 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' is employed for the establishment of a thing to be proved.

चतुर्थ प्रकरणम् । ३७

पूर्वापरापरिज्ञानमजातेः परिदीपकम्। जायमानाद्ि वै धर्मात्कथं पूर्व न गृह्यते ॥ २१॥ (२१ ) अन्वय :- पूर्वापरापरिज्ञानम् अजातेः परिदीपकम् ; कथं हि जायमानात् धर्मात् पूर्व न गृह्यते? स्वतो वा परतो वापि न किंचिद्वस्तु जायते। सदसत्सदसद्वापि न किंचिद्वस्तु जायते ॥ २२ ॥ (२२) अन्वय :- 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 ) अन्वय :- स्वभावतः अनादे: हेतुः न जायते, फलं च अपि (न जायते); यस्य आदिः न विद्यते तस्य हि आदिः न विद्यते। प्ज्ञप्तेः सनिमित्तत्वमन्यथा दयनाशतः। संक्केशस्योपलब्घेश्च परतन्त्रास्तिता मता ॥ २४ ॥ (२४ ) अन्वय :- प्रज्ञप्तेः सनिमित्तत्वम् ; अन्यथा द्वयनाशतः संक्वेशस्य उपलब्धे: 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 prajñpti 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 ].

३८ गौडपादीयकारिका।

प्रज्ञप्तेः सनिमित्तत्वमिष्यते युक्तिदर्शनात्। निमित्तस्यानिमित्तत्वमिष्यते भूतदर्शनात् ॥२५॥ (२५ ) अन्वय :- युक्तिदर्शनात् प्रज्ञप्तेः सनिमित्तत्वम् इष्यते; भूत- दर्शनात् निमित्तस्य अनिमित्तत्वम् इष्यते । चित्तं न संस्पृशत्यर्थ नार्थाभासं तथैव च। अभूतो हि यतश्चार्थो नार्थाभासस्ततः पृथक् ॥ २६ ॥ (२६ ) अन्वय :- 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) अन्वय :- सदा त्रिषु अध्वसु चित्त निमित्तं न संस्पृशति; कथं तस्य अनिमित्तः विपर्यासः भविष्यति ? तस्मान्न जायते चित्तं चित्तदृश्यं न जायते। तस्य पश्ञयन्ति ये जाति खे वै पश्यन्ति ते पदम् ॥ २८ ॥ (२८ ) अन्वय :- तस्मात् चित्तं न जायते, चित्तदृश्यं न जायते; ये तस्य जाति 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। ३९

अजातं जायते यस्मादजाति: प्रकृतिस्ततः । प्रकृतेरन्यथाभावो न कथंचिद्भविष्यति ॥ २९ ॥ (२९ ) अन्वय :- यस्मात् अजातं जायते ततः प्रकृतिः अजाति :; प्रकृतेः अन्यथाभावः कर्थचित् न भविष्यति । अनादेरन्तवत्वं च संसारस्य न सेत्स्यति । अनन्तता चादिमतो मोक्षस्य न भविष्यति ॥ ३०॥ (३० ) अन्वय :- अनादेः संसारस्य अन्तव्त्वं च न सेत्स्यति, आदिमतः मोक्षस्य अनन्तता च न सविष्यति । आदावन्ते च यन्नास्ति वर्तमानेऽपि तत्तथा। वितथैः सदशाः सन्तोऽवितथा इव लक्षिताः ॥३१॥ (३१ ) अन्वय :- यत् आदौ अन्ते च न अस्ति, वर्तमाने अपि तत् तथा ( न अस्ति ); वितथैः सदृशाः सन्तः (भेदाः) अवितथाः इव लक्षिताः। सप्रयोजनता तेषां स्वमे विप्रतिपद्यते। तस्मादाद्यन्तवच्वेन मिथ्यैव खलु ते स्मृताः ॥ ३२ ॥ (३२ ) अन्वय :-- तेषां ( भेदानां ) सप्रयोजनता रवमे 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 [or, 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.

गौडपादीयकारिका।

सर्वे धर्मा मृषा सवन्ने कायस्यान्तर्निदर्शनात्। संवृतेऽस्मिन्प्रदेशे वै भूतानां दर्शनं कुतः ॥३३ ॥ (३३) अन्वय :- सर्वे धर्मा: रवमे कायस्य अन्तः निदर्शनात् मृषा; कुतः अस्मिन् संवृते प्रदेशे भूतानां दर्शनं वै ? न युक्तं दर्शन गत्वा कालस्यानियमाद्गतौ। प्रतिबुद्धश्च वै सर्वस्तस्मिन्देशे न विद्यते ॥ ३४ ॥ (३४ ) अन्वय :- गतौ कालस्य अनियमात् गत्वा दर्शनं न युक्तम्; सर्व: वै प्रतिबुद्धः च तस्मिन् देशे न विद्यते। मित्रादयैः सह संमन्त्र्य संबुद्धो न प्रपद्यते। गृहीतं चापि यत्किंचित्प्रतिवुद्धो न पश्यति ॥ ३५॥ (३५ ) अन्वय :- मित्राद्यैः सह संमन्त्रय संबुद्ध: न प्रपद्यते; प्रतिवुद्ध: गृहीतं च अपि यत् किंचित् न पश्यति। स्वने चावस्तुकः कायः पृथगन्यस्य दर्शनात्। यथा कायस्तथा सर्वं चित्तदृश्यमवस्तुकम् ॥ ३६ ॥ (३६ ) अन्वय :- स्वमे च अन्यस्य (कायस्य) पृथक् दर्शनात् कायः अवस्तुकः; यथा 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 unsubstantial owing to the perception of another [ body as ] distinct [ from it ]; as the body, so all mind-perceivable [ is ] unsubstantial.

चतुर्थ प्रकरणम्। ४ १

ग्रहणाज्जागरितवत् तद्धेतुः स्वन्न इष्यते। तद्धेतुत्वात्तु तस्यैव सज्जागरितमिष्यते ॥ ३७॥ कPE (३७) अन्वयः- जागरितवत् ग्रहणात् स्वप्ः तद्वेतुः इष्यते; तद्धेतुत्वात् तु तस्य (स्वम्दृशः) 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 दृष्ट्रा स्वमे पश्यति तन्मयः। असत्स्वभेऽपि दृष्ट्रा च प्रतिबुद्धो न पश्यति ॥ ३९॥ ip6 (३९) अन्वयः- जागरिते असत् दृष्टा तन्मयः स्वमे पश्यति, सवमे अपि च असत् दृष्टा प्रतिबुद्धः न पश्यति।

॥ 88 सच्च सद्धेतुकं नास्ति सद्धेतुकमसत्कुतः ॥ ४० ॥ (४०) अन्वयः -- असत् असद्धेतुकं न अस्ति, तथा सत् असद्वेतुकं ( न अस्ति), सत् च सद्वेतुकं न अस्ति, असत् सद्वेतुकं 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 जाग्रदचिन्त्यान्भूतवत्स्पृशेत। ॥ तथा रवने विपर्यासाद्वर्मांस्तत्रैव पश्यति ॥४१॥ (४१) अन्वय :- यथा जाग्रत् विपर्यासात् अचिन्त्यान् भूतवत् स्पृशेत्, तथा रवने विपर्यासात् तत्र एव धर्मान् पश्यति । B EPIETS उपलम्भात्समाचारादस्तिवस्तुत्ववादिनाम् । जातिस्तु देशिता वुद्धैरजातेस्त्रसतां सदा ॥ ४२ ॥ ( ४२ ) अन्वयः- बुद्धैः तु उपलम्भात्, समाचारात्, अजातेः सदा त्रसताम् अस्तिवस्तुत्ववादिनाम् जाति: देशिता। अजातेस्त्रसतां तेषामुपलम्भाद्वियन्ति ये। जातिदोषा न सेत्स्यन्ति दोषोऽप्यल्पो भविष्यति ॥४३।। (४३) अन्वय :- ये उपलम्भात् वियन्ति, अजातेः त्रसतां तेषां जातिदोषाः न सेत्स्यन्ति, दोषः अपि अल्पः भविष्यति । उपलम्भात्समाचारान्मायाहस्ती यथोच्यते। उपलम्भात्समाचारादस्तिवस्तु तथोच्यते ॥ ४४ ॥ (४४) अन्वय :-- यथा उपलम्भात 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 of 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। ४३

जात्याभासं चलाभासं वस्त्वाभासं तथैव च। ॥ 8 ॥ अजाचलवस्तुत्वं विज्ञानं शान्तमद्यम् ॥४५॥ (४५) अन्वयः-जात्याभास चलाभासं तथा एव च वस्त्वाभासं विज्ञानम् अजाचलम् अवस्तुत्वं शान्तम् अद्वयम् । एवं न जायते चित्तमेवं धर्मा अजा: स्मृताः । एवमेव विजानन्तो न पतन्ति विपर्यये॥ ४६॥ ( ४६ ) अन्वय :- एवं चित्तं न जायते, एवं धर्माः अजाः स्मृताः, एवम् एव विजानन्तः विपर्यये न पतन्ति। ऋजुवक्रादिकाभासमलातस्पन्दितं यथा। ग्रहणग्राहकाभासं विज्ञानस्पन्दितं तथा॥ ४७ ॥ (४७) अन्वय :- यथा अलातस्पन्दितम् ऋजुवक्रादिकाभासं तथा विज्ञानस्पन्दितं ग्रहणग्राहकाभासम् । अस्पन्दमानमलातमनाभासमज 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 vijñana [ is with ] the appearance of perception and perceiver. ( 48 ) As the fire-brand not shaking, presenting no appearance [ is ] unoriginated, so [ is ] the vijñāna not shaking, presenting no appearance, unoriginated.

88 गौडपादीयकारिका।

अलाते स्पन्दमाने वै नाभासा अन्यतोभुवः । न ततोऽन्यत्र निस्पन्दान्नालातं प्रविशन्ति ते ॥। ४९ ॥ (४९) अन्वय :- स्पन्दमाने अलाते वै आभासाः अन्यतोभुवः न, निस्पन्दात् ततः अन्यत्र न; ते अलातं न प्रविशन्ति । न निर्गता अलातात्ते द्रव्यत्वाभावयोगतः। विज्ञानेऽपि तथैव स्युराभासस्याविशेषतः॥५०॥ (५० ) अन्वय :- द्रव्यत्वाभावयोगतः ते अलातात् न निर्गताः; आभासस्य अविशेषतः विज्ञाने अपि तथा एव स्युः । विज्ञाने स्पन्दमाने वै नाभासा अन्यतोभुवः। न ततोऽन्यत्र निस्पन्दान्न विज्ञानं विशन्ति ते ॥५१॥ (५१ ) अन्वय :- स्पन्दमाने विज्ञाने वै आभासाः अन्यतोभुवः न, निस्पन्दात् ततः अन्यत्र न; ते विज्ञानं न विशन्ति । न निर्गतास्ते विज्ञानाद्द्रव्यत्वाभावयोगतः। कार्यकारणताभावाद्यतोऽचिन्त्या: 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 vijñana also, on account of the non- difference in appearance [ that is, appearances as such are the same by nature ]. ( 51 ) When the vijñana 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 vijnana, 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 incom- prehensible.

चतुर्थ प्रकरणम्। ४५

द्रव्यं द्रव्यस्य हेतु: स्यादन्यदन्यस्य चैव हि। ॥e द्रव्यत्वमन्यभावो वा धर्माणां नोपपद्यते ॥५३॥ pl (५३) अन्वयः- द्रव्यं द्रव्यस्य, अन्यत् अन्यस्य च एव हि हेतुः स्यात ; धर्माणां द्रव्यत्वम् अन्यभावः वा न उपपद्यते । एवं न चित्तजा धर्माश्चित्तं वापि न धर्मजम्। एवं हेतुफलाजाति प्रविशन्ति मनीषिणः ॥५४॥ न)(५४) अन्वयः- एवं धर्माः चित्तजाः न, चित्तं वा अपि धर्मज न; एवं मनीषिणः हेतुफलाजाति प्रविशन्ति ।

क्षीणे हेतुफलावेशे नास्ति हेतुफलोन्भवः ॥५५॥ (५५ ) अन्वय :- यावत् हेतुफलावेशः तावत् हेतुफलोद्रव :; हेतुफलावेशे क्षीणे (सति) हेतुफलोद्गवः न अस्ति । यावद्वेतुफलावेशः संसारस्तावदायतः। क्षीणे हेतुफलावेशे संसारं न प्रपद्यते ॥५६॥ (५६ ) अन्वय :- यावत् हेतुफलावेशः तावत् संसारः आयतः; हेतुफलावेशे क्षीणे ( सति) (पुरुषः ) संसारं न प्रपद्ते ।

(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 ] not 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 worldly existence [ 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 सर्वस्ुच्छेदस्तेन 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 तच्चतः। जन्म मायोपमं तेषां सा च माया न विद्यते ॥ ५८॥ (५८) अन्वय :-- ये धर्माः जायन्ते इति ते तत्त्वतः न जायन्ते; तेषां जन्म मायोपमम्, सा माया च न विद्यते। यथा मायामयाद्वीजाज्जायते तन्मयोडडुरः। नासौ नित्यो न चोच्छेदी तद्वद्धर्मेषु योजना ॥५९॥ (५९ ) अन्वय :-- यथा मायामयात् बीजात् तन्मयः अङ्करः जायते; असौ नित्यः न उच्छेदी च न, तद्वत् धर्मेषु योजना। नाजेषु सर्वधर्मेषु शाश्वताशाश्वताभिधा। यत्र वर्णा न वर्तन्ते विवेकस्तत्र नोच्यते॥ ६० ॥ (६०) अन्वयः- सर्वधर्मेषु अजेषु (सत्सु ) शाश्वताशाश्वताभिधा न; यत्र वर्णाः न वर्तन्ते तत्र विवेकः न उच्यते। ( 57 ) Everything is originated on account of empirical experi- 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। ४७

यथा रवने द्वयाभासं चित्तं चलति मायया। तथा जाग्रद्द्वयाभासं चित्तं चलति मायया ॥ ६१ ॥ (६१) अन्वय :- यथा स्वने चित्तं मायया द्वयाभासं चंलति, तथा जाग्रत चित्तं मायया द्वयाभासं चलति। अद्वयं च द्वयाभासं चित्तं रवने न संशयः। अद्वयं च द्वयाभासं तथा जाग्रन्न संशयः ॥ ६२॥ (६२ ) अन्वय :- स्वमे अद्वयं च चित्तं द्वयाभासम्, न संशयः; तथा जाग्रत् अद्वयं च द्वयाभासम्, न संशयः । स्वप्द्दक्प्रचरन्स्वमे दिक्षु वै दशसु स्थितान्। अण्डजान्स्वेदजान्वापि जीवान्पश्यति यान्सदा ॥६३ ॥ (६३) अन्वय :-- रवमे प्रचरन् स्वप्नद्टक् वै दशसु दिक्षु स्थितान् यान् अण्डजान् सवेदजान् वा अपि जीवान् सदा पश्यति, स्वप्रदृक्चित्तदृश्यास्ते न विद्यन्ते ततः पृथक। तथा तद्दृश्यमेवेदं स्वप्दृक्चित्तमिष्यते ॥ ६४॥ (६४) अन्वय :- ते स्वप्दृक्चित्तदृश्याः, ततः पृथक् न विद्यन्ते; तथा तद्दृश्यम् एव इदं स्वमदक्चित्तम् इष्यते।

(61 ) As in dream, the mind through māyā moves, having [ or, presenting ] the appearance of the dual [ grāhya and grāhaka ], so in the waking state, the mind through maya 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 [ to be ] the mind of the dream-beholder.

गौडपादीयकारिका।

चरञ्जागरिते जाग्रद्िक्षु वै दशसु स्थितान्। अण्डजान्स्वेदजान्वापि जीवान्पश्यति यान्सदा ॥ ६५॥ (६५) अन्वय :- जागरिते चरन् जाग्रत् वै दशसु दिक्षु स्थितान् यान् अण्डजान् स्वेदजान् वा अपि जीवान् सदा पश्यति, जाग्रचित्तेक्षणीयास्ते न विद्यन्ते ततः पृथक्। तथा तद्दृश्यमेवेदं जाग्रतश्चित्तमिष्यते ॥६६ ॥ (६६ ) अन्वय :- ते जाग्रचित्तेक्षणीयाः, ततः पृथक् न विद्यन्ते; तथा तद्दृश्यम् इदं जागतः चित्तम् इष्यते। उभे ह्यन्योन्यदृश्ये ते किं तदस्तीति नोच्यते। लक्षणाशून्यमुभयं तन्मतेनैव गृह्यते ॥ ६७॥ (६७) अन्वय :- ते उभे हि अन्योन्यदृश्ये, तत् किम् अस्ति ? न इति उच्यते; उभयं लक्षणाशून्यम् तन्मतेन एव गृह्यते। यथा स्वप्नमयो जीवो जायते त्रियतेऽपि 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 or 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। ४९

यथा मायामयो जीवो जायते म्रियतेऽपि च । F तथा जीवा अमी सर्वे भवन्ति न भवन्ति च ॥ ६९ ॥ (६९ ) अन्वय :- 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) अन्वय :-- यथा निर्मितकः जीवः जायते अपि वा म्रियते, तथा अमी सर्वे जीवाः भवन्ति न भवन्ति च । न कथ्चिजायते जीवः संभवोऽस्य म विद्यते। एतत्तदुत्तमं सत्यं यत्र किंचिन्न जायते । ७१ ॥ (७१) अन्वय :- कक्वित् जीवः न जायते, अस्य संभवः न विद्यते; एतत् तत् उत्तमं सत्यं यत्र किंचित न जायते। चित्तस्पन्दितमेवेदं ग्राह्यग्राहकवद्द्वयम् । चित्तं निर्विषयं नित्यमसंगं तेन कीर्तितम्॥ ७२॥ (७२) अन्वयः- इदं ग्राह्यग्राहकवत् द्वयं चित्तस्पन्दितम् एव; 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.

५० गौडपादीयकारिका।

योऽस्ति कल्पतसंवृत्या परमार्थेन नास्त्यसौ। परतन्त्राभिसंवृत्या स्यान्नास्ति परमार्थतः ॥७३॥ (७३) अन्वय :- यः कल्पितसंवृत्या अस्ति असौ परमार्थेन न अस्ति; परतन्त्राभिसंवृत्या स्यात्, परमार्थतः न अस्ति । अजः कल्पितसंवृत्या परमार्थेन नाप्यजः । परतन्त्राभिनिष्पत्या 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 वुद्ध्वैव निर्निमित्तो न जायते ॥ ७५ ॥ (७५) अन्वय :- (यत्र ) अभूताभिनिवेश: 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 reality. ( 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। ५१

अजातस्यैव सर्वस्य चित्तदृश्यं हि तद्यतः । ॥ अनिमित्तस्य चित्तस्य यानुत्पत्तिः समादया ॥७७॥ (७७) अन्वय :- यतः हि तत् (चित्तं) चित्तदृश्यं (ततः ) अनिमित्तस्य चित्तस्य-अजातस्य सर्वस्य एव-या अनुत्पत्तिः (सा) समा, अद्वया (च ) । बुद्ध्वानिमित्ततां सत्यां हेतुं पृथगनासुवन्। वीतशोकं तथाकाममभयं पदमश्नुते ॥७८ ॥ (७८) अन्वय :- सत्याम् अनिमित्ततां बुद्ध्वा हेतुं पृथक् अनामुवन् वीतशोकं तथा अकामम् अभयं पदम् अश्रुते। अभृताभिनिवेशाद्धि सदशे तत्प्रवर्तते। वस्त्वभावं स बुद्ध्वैव निःसंगं विनिवर्तते ॥ ७९॥ (७९) अन्वय :- अभूताभिनिवेशात् हि तत् सदृशे प्रवर्तते; सः वस्त्वभावं बुद्ध्वा एव निःसंग विनिवर्तते। निवृत्तस्याप्रवृत्तस्य निश्चला हि तदा स्थितिः । 19 विषय स हि बुद्धानां तत्साम्यमजमद्यम् ॥ 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 unoriginated as well, [ there is, it is the ] same, free from the dual. ( 78 ) Having [ thus ] understood the true causelessness, not finding out [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।

अजमनिद्रमस्वमं प्रभातं भवति स्वयम् । I e/v सकृद्विभातो ह्येवैष धर्मो धातुस्वभावतः । ८१ ।। (:b (८१) अन्वयः- अजम् अनिद्रम् अस्वमं स्वयं प्रभातं भवति; एषः हि धर्मः धातुस्वभावतः एव सकृद्विभातः । सुखमात्रियते नित्यं दुःखं वित्रियते सदा। यस्य कस्य च धर्मस्य ग्रहेण भगवानसौ ॥ ८२ ॥ ( ८२) अन्वय :- यस्य कस्य च धर्मस्य ग्रहेण असौ भगवान् नित्यं सुखम् आव्रियते, सदा दुःखं विव्रियते। अस्ति नास्त्यस्ति नास्तीति नास्ति नास्तीति वा पुनः । चलस्थिरोभयाभावैरावृणोत्येव बालिशः॥ ८३।। (८३ ) अन्वय :- अस्ति, न अस्ति, अस्ति न अस्ति इति, न अस्ति न अस्ति इति वा पुनः बालिशः चलस्थिरोभयाभावैः (भगवन्तम्) आवृणोति एव। । कोट्यश्रतस्त्र एतास्तु ग्रहैर्यासां सदावृतः। ॥ c भगवानाभिरस्पृष्टो येन दृष्टः स सर्वदक् ॥८४ ॥ (८४) अन्वयः- एताः चतस्रः कोट्यः, यासां ग्रहैः तु सदा आवृतः भगवान् आभिः अस्पृष्टः येन दृष्टः सः सर्वदक् । ( 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 ( balisa ) 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। ५३

प्राप्य सर्वज्ञतां कृत्स्ां ब्राह्मण्यं पदमद्वयम्। अनापन्नादिमध्यान्तं किमतः परमीहते ॥८५॥ (८५) अन्वय :- कृत्स्नां सर्वज्ञतां अनापन्नादिमध्यान्तम् अद्वयं ब्राह्मण्यं पदं प्राप्य अतः परं किम् ईहते ? विप्राणां विनयो ह्येष शमः प्राकृत उच्यते। दमः प्रकृतिदान्तत्वादेवं विद्वाञ्शमं व्रजेत् ॥ ८६ ॥ (८६ ) अन्वय :- एषः विप्राणां विनयः हि प्राकृतः शमः, प्रकृति- दान्तत्वात् दमः उच्यते; एवं विद्वान् शमं व्रजेत्। 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) अन्वयः- अवस्तु अनुपलम्भं च लोकोत्तरम् इति स्मृतम् ; बुद्धैः सदा ज्ञानं ज्ञेयं विज्ञेयं च प्रकीर्तितम्।

( 85 ) Having attained to complete omniscience, the state beneficial to a Brahmana, non-dual, not amenable to any beginning, middle and end, what more than this does one yearn for ? ( 86 ) This discipline of the Brahmanas 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 महाधिय: ॥८९॥ ( ८९) अन्वयः- ज्ञाने त्रिविधे ज्ञेये च क्रमेण विदिते (सति) महाधियः हि स्वयं सर्वत्र सर्वज्ञता भवति। हेयज्ञेयाप्यपाक्यानि विज्ञेयान्यग्रयाणतः । तेषामन्यत्र विज्ञेयादुपलम्भस्त्रिषु स्मृतः ॥ ९० ॥ (९० ) अन्वय :- अग्रयाणतः हेयज्ञेयाप्यपाक्यानि विज्ञेयानि तेषां विज्ञेयात् अन्यत्र त्रिषु उपलम्भ: स्मृतः । प्रकृत्याकाशवजज्ञेयाः 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। आदिवुद्धाः प्रकृत्यैव सर्वे धर्माः सुनिश्चिताः। यस्यैवं भवति क्षान्तिः सोऽमृतत्वाय कल्पते ॥ ९२ ॥ (९२ ) अन्वय :- प्रकृत्या एव सर्वे धर्मा: आदिबुद्धाः सुनिश्चिता :: 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 Agrayana. 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 beginningless like the sky. In their case, no multiplicity indeed of any kind any- where exists. ( 92 ) All entities by nature itself are well ascertained as Ādi- buddhas [ enlightened from the very beginning ]; one who has self-sufficiency in this way, is capable of [ securing ] immortality.

चतुर्थ प्रकरणम्। ५५

आदिशान्ता ह्यनुत्पन्नाः प्रकृत्यैव सुनिर्वृताः । सर्वे धर्माः समाभिन्ना अजं साम्यं विशारदम् ॥ ९३ ॥ (९३) अन्वय :- सर्वे धर्माः हि आदिशान्ताः अनुत्पन्नाः प्रकृत्या एव सुनिर्वृताः समाभिन्नाः; अज साम्यं विशारदम्। वैशारद्यं तुवै नास्ति भेदे विचरतां सदा। भेदनिम्ना: पृथग्वादास्तस्मात्ते कृपणाः स्मृताः ॥ ९४॥ ( ९४ ) अन्वय :- सदा भेदे विचरतां तु वैशारदं वै नास्ति; पृथग्वादाः भेदनिम्नाः, तस्मात् ते कृपणाः स्मृताः । अजे साम्ये तु ये केचिद्धविष्यन्ति सुनिश्चिताः । ते हि लोके महाज्ञानास्तच् लोको न गाहते ॥ ९५॥ (९५ ) अन्वय :- 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 ) अन्वय :- अजेषु धर्मेषु अजं ज्ञानम् असंक्रान्तम् इष्यते ; यतः ज्ञानं न क्मते तेन असंग कीर्तितम् । ( 93 ) All entities indeed [ are ] calm from the very beginning, unoriginated, quite happy [ in nīrvana ] 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. Therefore 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 unoriginated [entities]; as the knowledge does not cross over, it is therefore proclaimed [ to be ] without attachment.

५६ गौडपादीयकारिका ।

अणुमात्रेऽपि वैधम्ये. जायमानेऽविपश्चितः । असंगता सदा नास्ति किमुतावरणच्युतिः॥ ९७॥ (९७) अन्वय :- अणुमात्रे अपि वैधर्म्ये जायमाने अविपश्चितः सदा असंगता न अस्ति; आवरणच्युतिः किम् उत ? अलब्धावरणा: सर्वे धर्माः प्रकृतिनिर्मलाः। आदौ बुद्धास्तथा मुक्ता वुध्यन्त इति नायकाः ॥ ९८॥ (९८) अन्वयः- सर्वे धर्माः अलब्धावरणाः प्रकृतिनिर्मलाः आदौ बुद्धा: तथा मुक्ताः इति नायकाः बुध्यन्ते। क्रमते न हि बुद्धस्य ज्ञानं धर्मेषु तायिनः । सर्वे धर्मास्तथा ज्ञानं नैतद् बुद्धेन भाषितम् ॥ ९९॥ (९९ ) अन्वय :- तायिनः बुद्धस्य ज्ञानं हि धर्मेषु न क्र्मते, सर्वे धर्मा: तथा ज्ञानं (न क्रमन्ते)-बुद्धेन एतत् न भाषितम् । दुर्दशमतिगम्मीरमजं साम्यं विशारदम् । बुद्ध्वा पदमनानात्वं नमस्कुर्मो यथावलम् ॥ १०० ॥ (१००) अन्वय :- दुर्दर्शम् अतिगम्भीरम् अज साम्यं विशारदम् अनानात्वं पदं बुद््वा यथाबलं नमस्कुर्मः । इति गौडपादीयकारिकायां चतुर्थ अ्रकरणम्।

( 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-kārika.

NOTES

The first Prakarana contains twenty-nine Kārikas or verses. Verses 1-9, 10-18, 19-23, and 24-29 are usually inserted in the Mandukyopanisad with the expression अत्रते श्लोका भवन्ति after paragraphs 1-6, 7, 8-I0, and 11 respectively and the whole is taken to be the text of the Māndūkyopanisad by Kūranārāyana of the Ramanuja school and Madhva. Colophons in manuscripts name the first Prakarana variously as आगमप्रकरण, ओङ्कारनिर्णय etc. (see Introduction for a detailed consideration of all these topics ). Gaudapada has obviously planned his first Prakarana on the basis of the Mandukyopanisad. He only refers to such points therein as are pertinent to his own thesis, ignores several details given in the Māndūkya, 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 Upāsana of Omkara which he identifies with the Turya or the Highest. ( I ) The fay ( All-pervading ) is here described as assuming three forms corresponding to the three states rera ( waking ), स्वम्न (dream) and सुषुप्ति (deep sleep). विश्व is बहिष्प्रज्ञ, because in the waking state, the sfra perceives by means of the sense-organs which are turned outward ( पशाश्चि खानि व्यतृणत् स्वयंभूस्तसमात् पराक् पद्यति नान्तरात्मन् । Katla). The outward universe is called विश्व, SO the soul is also called faaa, as he perceives the outward universe in the जाग्रत् state. The Mandukya calls the बहिष्प्रज्ञ, वैश्वानर. Gaudapada changed वैश्वानर into विश्व, probably because वैश्वानर in Brahmasutra I.2.24 is taken to mean Brahman. aaarar is thus explained by Kūra- narayana, विश्यते गम्यते स्वैज्ञायत इति ... । विश्वं सवैर्ज्ञेयं स्थूलं वस्तूच्यते। भोक्तृतया तत्सम्बम्धी विश्वः। न रीयते क्षीयत इति नरः। विश्वश्वासी नरश्र्वेति। Śankara, on the other hand, explains the term as follows :- faaaqi नराणामनेकधा नयनाद्विश्वानरः । यदा विश्वश्वासौ नरश्र्वेति विश्वानरो, विश्वानर एव वैश्वानरः। Yaska derives as under :- वैश्वानरः कस्माद्विश्वान्नरान्नयति। विश्व एनं नरा नयन्तीति वा। अपि वा विश्वानर एव स्यात प्रतयृतः सर्वाणि भूतानि तस्व वैश्वानरः । 8

58 Notes on Gaudapada-Kārıkā

In the dream state, the विभु is called तजस, because the perception is there due to the soul's own light, without the intervention of the sense-organs. He is ea:a, because he perceives everything then within the body itself ( इन्द्रियापेक्षयाऽन्तःस्थत्वान्मनस्तद्वासनारूपा च रवने प्रज्ञा यस्येत्यन्तःप्रज्ञः विषयशून्यायां प्रज्ञायां केवलप्रकाशस्वरूपायां विषयित्वेन भवतीति तैजसः । Sankara ) In the state of deep sleep, the soul is घनप्रज्ञ (same as the प्रज्ञानघन of the Mandukya; प्रज्ञानघन इत्यस्य घनप्रज्ञान 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 STIET, because he is capable of knowing everything, being consciousness and nothing else ( भृतभविष्यज्ज्ञातृत्वं सर्विषयज्ञातृत्वमस्यैवेति प्राज्ञः ... अथवा प्रज्ञत्तिमात्रमस्यैवासाधारणं रूपमिति प्राज्ञः । Sankara). Kuranarayana explains प्राज्ञ as'one not throwing light on बाह्य or स्वाप् things' (प्रकर्षेण न ज्ञापयतीति प्राज्ञः । जीवस्वरूपकालाज्ञानातिरिक्त्तं बाह्यं स्वाप् ाकिि ्ञतीत प्राज्ञनामक इत्यर्थः ।). स्मृतः is explained by Kuranarayana as मन्त्रद्रष्टा ब्रह्मणा भगवद्रूपाणामेतेषामेकत्वं स्मृतमित्यर्थः । He regards the Karikas as Mantras, and so brings in Brahman to account for the FFTTOT ! (2) The location of the three विश्व, तैजस and प्राज्ञ in the body is given here. As the eye is the most important organ of perception, the चिश्व is located there (cf. रूपोपलब्धिसाधनसिन्द्रियं चक्षः रष्णताराग्रवरति । Tarkabhasa ). Sankara refers here to the श्रुति, इन्धो ह वै नामैष योऽयं दक्षिणेऽक्षन्पुरुष: ( Brhadaranyakopanisad II. I. 17). But that passage mentions the name as gau and gaa apparently means the reflection of a man in the eye of the person sitting opposite to him. This is surely not meant here. Other Upanisadic passages referring to the Purusa 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 हार्दाकाश or the दहराकाश which is so often referred to in the Upanisads. Śankara remarks दक्षिणाक्षिगतो रूपं टष्ट्ा निमीलिताक्षस्तदेव स्मरन्मनस्पन्तः स्वप्न इव तदेय वासनारूपा- भिव्यक्तं पश्यति। यथाऽत तथा रवम्े। अतो मनस्यन्तस्तु तैजसोऽपि विश्व एव। Sankara thus says that तजस is विश्व himself. This also does not appear to be the view of Gaudapada. It is one thing to say that विश्व, तैजस and प्राज्ञ are the three forms of विभु, and another that तेजस and विश्व should be regarded as one, when they are deliberately described as different.

Chapter I 59

( 3 ) As a corollary to what is stated in the second Kārikā, the objects of enjoyment for the three विश्व, तैजस, and प्राज्ञ are respectively, gross, subtle and आनन्द. In the स्वप 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 दुःखाभाव; दुःख is caused by the contact with विषय and वासना ( cf. ये हि संस्पर्शजा भोगा दुःखयोनय एव ते । B.G. II. 22); both विपय and वासना being absent in सुपुत्ि, the पराज्ञ enjoys only दुःखाभाव or आनन्द. (4) विश्व, तैजस and प्राज्ञ are satisfied with their lot in being able to enjoy स्थूल, प्रविवित्त and आनन्द respectively, and so तृत्ति is also of three kinds. Kuranarayana reads विजानथ (for निबोधत) and remarks विजानथ विजानीथ विकरणव्यत्ययात, आनन्दमानन्दो लिङ्गव्पत्ययात्. The Mandukya mentions two more characteristics aar and एकोनविशतिमुस्त for both विश्व (वैश्वानर) and तैजन, and एकीभूत and आनन्दमय for प्राज्ञ Gaudapada ignores them, because they are un- necessary for his main purpose which is ultimately to establish the अजातिवाद. Read the following from the Bhasya by Sankara for the terms सप्ताङ् and एकोनविशतिमुख-तथा सप्ाङ्गान्यस्य तस्य ह वा एतस्यात्मनो वैश्वानरस्य मूर्धेव सुतेजाश्वक्षुविश्वरूप प्राणः पृथग्व्त्मात्मा संदेहो बहुलो बस्तिरेव रयिः पृथिध्येव पादो इत्यप्निहोत्र रपनाशेषत्वेनाहवनीयोडगनिरस्य सुखत्वेनोक्त इत्येवं सप्ताङ्गानि यस्य स सप्ताङ्ग:। तथकोनविशतिर्मुखान्यस्य वृद्धीन्द्रियाणि कर्मेन्द्रियाणि च दश वायवश्व प्राणादय: पश्च मनो बुद्धिर्हंकारश्वित्तमिति सुखानीव मुखानि तान्युपलब्धिद्वाराणत्यर्थः। Kuranarayana gives the following fantastic explanation, चत्वारो हस्ता द्वौ पादौ गजमुखत्वाद्गजहस्त इति सप्ताङ्गः । एकोनविशतिहखः। मध्यममुखं गजमुखाकारं पार्श्वद्वये तु नव नव सुखानि पुरुषमुखाकाराणीति विवेकः। (5) One who knows that विश्व, तैजस and प्राज्ञ are really just the forms of one and the same विभु, and the three-fold भोज्य is likewise concerned only with the three forms, knows that the भोक्तृ is really the one Atman and hence he is not contaminated in any way by the empirical experience. यो वेदैतदुभयं भोज्यभोक्तृतयानेकधा भिन्नं स भुज्जानो न लिप्यते। भोज्यश्य सर्वस्यैकस्य भोक्तुर्भोज्यत्वात्।न हि यस्य यो विषयः स तेन हीयते वर्धते वा। न ह्यग्नि: स्व्रविषये दग्ध्वा काष्ठादि तद्वत्। (Sankara); Kuranarayana says, तत्ततस्थानेषु तत्तत्फलभोजयिता स्वस्य स्व्रेतरस्य च जीवस्य कर्मफलप्रदः सर्वेश्वर एव न ममात्र भोग इतरजीवानां वा स्वातन्त्रपमिति मत्वा न विकरोतीति भावः। The same idea is contained in सर्वभूतात्मभूतात्मा कुर्वस्नपि न लिप्यते॥। Gita V. 7, नैव किंचित् करोमीति युक्तो मन्येत त्ववित्। ... इन्द्रियाणीन्द्रियार्थेबु वर्तन्त इति धारयन्। ... लिप्यते न स पापेन । ibid V. 8-10.

60 Notes on Gaudapada-Karika

(6) Prof. Vidhuśekhara takes #ai to mean ' of sages'. This is impossible, when we remember that Gaudapāda holds the 3aa- ara. There is no doubt that verses 6-9 describe the views of Gaudapada's opponents. All of them take it as axiomatic truth that ' Whatever exists must have a source', and base their various theories on it. Kārikās 6-10 seem to have for their basis in the Māņdukya the sixth paragraph, where the STIT is described as सर्वेश्वर, सर्वज्ञ, अन्तर्यामिन, सर्वस्य योनि, and भूतानां प्रभवाप्ययौ. The theories about creation referred to by Gaudapāda in Kārikās 6-9, appear to us to be of the nature of उपदेशादयं वाद:, to quote Gauda- pada's own words. Gaudapada's own view is न कश्विज्जायते जीव: संभवोऽस्य न विद्यते। एतत्तदुत्तमं सत्यं यत्र किचिन्न जायते ( III. 48; IV. 71). Gaudapada 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 wya 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 Kārikās 6-9, there are nine different theories of creation referred to by Gaudapāda. [ I]The first theory is that of पाणवादिन्s; their view is सर्व जनयति प्राण :. This is also the popular view. A thing without प्राण is dead ; with STIOT, it is full of life. So STOT can be regarded as putting life into objects. Passages like अथ खलु प्राण एव प्रज्ञात्मेदं शरीरं परिगृह्योत्यापयति, स एष प्राण एव प्रज्ञात्मानन्दोऽजरोऽमृतः (Kausitaki Upanisad) may be cited in support of this theory ( Sankara in his Bhāsya on Brahmasūtra I. I. 28, shows that sror means Brahman ). [ 2 ] The पुरुषवादिनs believe in a personal God and describe पुरुष as creating जीवs as different bits of नैतन्य, as portions of him- self. They take their stand upon passages like पुरुष एवेदं सर्वे यन्द्ूतं यच्च भव्यम, (Purusasukta, R.X. 90), ममैवांशो जीवलोके जीवभूतः सनातनः । (Gita XV. 7), यथा सुदीप्तात्पावकाह्विस्फुलिङ्गा: सहस्त्रशः प्रभवन्ते सरूपाः। तथाक्षराद्विविधाः सोम्य प्रजायन्ते तत्र चैवापि यन्ति॥ (Mundaka II. I). चेतोंशून- rays or bits of चैतन्य. The पुरुष is a store-house of चैतन्य, from which afas can be said to have taken the necessary portion for themselves. Vidhusekhara thinks that the aaiara refers to the

Chapter I 61

चित्तस्पन्दित mentioned in IV. 72. This is very unlikely. Kurana- rayana says सर्वस्य प्रणेतृत्वहेतुना प्राणनामा सर्वे जनयतीत्युक्त्वा न विवर्तरूपसुपा- दानत्वं सर्वप्रभवत्वमित्युक्त सवति। पुरुपः पूरणषड्णत्वादिना पुरुषनामा प्रागुक्तनामा चतूरूपात्मा हरिः। चेतोंशञ्ज्ञानाख्यरश्मियुक्ताऔ्ीवानिति यावत्। पृथग्देवदानव- मानवादिभेदेन जनयति। He thus takes both प्राण and पुरुष to refer to हरि. (7) [ 3 ] The विभूतिवादिनs, apparently taking their stand upon the विभूतिs of the Lord described in the Gita and Puranas, 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 परिणामवादिनS (सांख्यs and others ) may also come under this category. [ 4 ] The स्वप्नमायावादिनs are undoubtedly the Mahayana Buddhists who deny the existence of बाह्यार्थ. They are referred to in Brahmasutra ( II. 2. 29, वैधम्याञ्च न स्व्रप्नादिवत्) where Sankara refutes their view. Prof. Vidhuśekhara strangely enough remarks 'This view is held by some of the Vedantists including our teacher' ( that is, Gaudapāda ). Could Gaudapāda have referred to himself as अन्यैः सृष्टिर्विकल्पिता We think that Gaudapada has in his mind here passages from the Lankavatarasutra, like मायाम्वप्रोपमं दृश्यं विज्ञप्त्या न विकल्पयेत् ॥११॥ मायोपमाः सर्वधर्माश्वित्तविज्ञानवर्ज्िताः ॥१३॥ मायोपमं समाधि च दशभूमिविनिर्गतम् ॥१६ ॥ स्वन्नविभ्रममायाख्य शून्यं वै कल्पितं जगत् ॥६६ ॥ अनुत्पन्ना ह्यमी धर्मा न चैवैते न सन्ति च । गन्धर्वनगरस्वप्नमायानिर्माण- सदशाः ॥१४४॥ गन्धर्वस्वप्नमाया या सृगतृष्णा ह्यमौतिका॥२९१॥ मायास्वप्रो- पम लोकं हेतुप्रत्ययवर्जितम्॥५६१॥ गन्धर्वस्व्रप्नमायाख्या भावा विद्यनतयहेतुकाः ॥५८२॥ मायास्वप्ननिभा भावा ... ॥। ८७५ll where माया and स्वम are used together in one and the same passage. Those who believe f to be like स्वम्न or माया, do believe in the reality of the creation-process, while Ramanuja goes to the extent of saying that the creation in dream is real enough. Kuranarayana remarks, सृष्टिचिन्तका इत्यनेन यथावदूब्रह्म- स्वरूपानभिज्ञा इति सूचितम्। (8) [5] इच्छावादिनS; 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 सोडकामयत बहु स्यां प्रजायेय. Kuranarayana takes this as the opinion of the औपनिषदs (those who advocate the philosophy of the Upanisads) and hence the Siddhanta view. According to Kūranārāyaņa, the second half of the Karika again refers to aTs. He seems to have been misled by the expression विनिश्विता: which does not necessarily refer to the Siddhanta view. It is unnatural to expect the Siddhanta view to be sandwiched between the Harats. Kūra- nārāyana sees the above difficulty, but tries to meet it, lamely enough, by remarking कालचिन्तका :... उपलक्षणमेतत् । यद्ृच्छानियति- स्वभावादीनां तेषां निरासः पुरुषप्रभुपदाभ्यामेव ज्ञेयः । अत एवेच्छामात्रस्य पक्षस्य मध्ये निवेशः ।

[6] कालवादिनs advocate that काल or Time is the great dis- penser. The शवताश्वतरोपनिषद् refers to काल ( कालः स्त्रभावो नियति- यदृच्छा भुतानि योनिः पुरुष इति चिन्त्यम् । I.1). Atharvaveda and the Maha- bharata 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 enjoy- ment by the जीव (cf. रङस्य दर्शयित्वा निवर्तते नर्तकी यथा नृत्यात्। पुरुषस्य तथात्मानं प्रकाश्य विनिवर्तते प्रकतिः ॥ सांख्यकारिका, 59 ).

[8 ] क्रीडावादिनs say that the creation is just for the sport of the Lord.

[9] स्व्रभाववादिनs argue that the Lord being आप्तकाम cannot possibly have any desire or purpose in creation which is just his लीला ( cf. लोकवतु लीलाकैवल्यम्, Brahmasutra II. :. 33). The proper explanation is, therefore, that it is the aIa of the Lord to create. Kuranarayana thinks देवस्यैष स्वभाव: etc. is the सिद्धान्त view (स्व्रमतमाह श्रुतिः देवस्येति। देवस्य क्रीडाशैलस्यैप लीलारूपोऽयं सृट्यादिविषयः स्वभाव एव नान्यत्प्रयोजनमिति भाव: ।). He seems also to combine क्रीडा and स्वभाव into one प्रयोजन. Sankara says भोयार्थ क्रीडार्थमिति चान्ये सृटिं मन्यन्ते। अनयोः पक्षयोर्द्ूषणं देवस्यैष स्वभावोऽ्यमिति। According to Sankara, स्व्रभाव means here अविद्या. We have already stated above that the अजातिवाद has no scope for a creation even by means of अविद्या.

Chapter I 63

( 10) Having mentioned the various theories about creation, Gaudapada 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. निवृत्ते: goes with ईशान :. Kura- narayana says, सर्वदुःखानां निृत्तेः कारणमिति शेष :. The reading निवृत्ति: would mean that the au is the negation of all misery. (II) In the जाग्रत् and स्वम् states, the द्वैतबुद्धि in the form of विषयविषयिभाव, ग्राह्मग्राहकभाव, ज्ञातृज्ञेयभाव, कार्यकारणभाव etc. persists. In the सुषुप्ति state, there is no विषय, no ग्राह्य, no ज्ञय etc., but the प्राज्ञ is still in the clutches of अविद्याकारण and अहंभाव ; the तुर्य on the other hand is pure consciousness and light, free from ail द्वेत. कारय ... फलभावः कारणं ... बीजभावः, तत्त्वाग्रहणान्यथाग्रहणास्यां बीजफलाभावाभ्यां तौ यथोक्तौ विश्वतैजसौ बद्धौ ... प्राज्ञस्तु बीजभावेनैव बद्धः। तत्त्वाप्रतिबोधमात्रमेव हि बीज प्राज्ञत्वे निमित्तम्। (Sankara) ; अज्ञानकार्यभूतोऽहंममतादिभ्रमस्तद्रूपकार्यवन्धः। तत्कारणावविद्याबन्धः कारणबन्धः । ( Kuranarayana).

(12) In the सुषुप्ति state, the ज्ञान of the प्राज्ञ takes the form of न किंचिद्वेदिषम, as there is no विषय to be cognised. तुरीय on the other hand is all light and consciousness, hence सर्वद्क though there too no द्वैत exists. सर्व च तत् दकच is the explanation of सर्वटक according to Sankara who remarks अथवा जाग्रत्स्वप्नयोः सर्वभुतावस्थः सर्ववस्तुढ्टगाभास्तुरीय एवेति सर्वढ्टक्सदा। (सर्व दर्शयतीति Kuranarayana). (13) Both प्राज्ञ and तुर्य do not cognise द्वैत, but they are as poles asunder. प्राज्ञ still remains wedded to the मूलाविद्या which can only vanish when the highest truth is realised. निद्वा is explained as तत्वाग्रहण in Karika I5 below.

(14) विश्व and तैजस are always encumbered with स्वप्न (अन्यथा ग्रहणम् ) and निद्रा (तत्त्वाप्रतिबोधः); प्राज्ञ with तत्व्ाप्रतिबोध only, there being no अन्यथाग्रहण in सुषुप्ति. तुर्य is completely unencumbered, there being neither अन्यथाग्रहण nor तत्त्वाप्रतिबोध. अस्वप्ननिद्रया is explained by Sankara as स्वप्नवर्जितकेवलयव निद्रया, by Kuranarayana as द्विषिधभ्रमं विनाकृतकेवलाविद्यया. It will be seen that निद्रा is common to all the three, विश्व, तैजस and प्राज्ञ. जाग्रत is not specifically mentioned, for Gaudapada regards जाग्रत् and स्वन् 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- Karikā

( 15 ) A person in dream ( and in ana state, as well ) sees things as they are not. Hence अन्यथाग्रहण is the sine qua non of स्वप्न (as well as जाग्रत्) ; in sleep a person knows nothing, here the विपर्यास is अज्ञानरूप. When अन्यथाग्रहण and तत्त्वाज्ञान vanish, one secures the ज्ञान of तुर्य and becomes तुर्य. (16) अनादिमायया is taken by Kuranarayana with both सुप्तः (अनादेर्विष्णोरनादिमायया कर्मरूपाविद्यया) and प्रबुध्यते (भगवदिच्छया भगवत्प्- सादेन). अनिद्रमस्वप्नम्- In अद्वैत there cannot be any अन्यथाग्रहण or ततत्वाप्रतिबोध. This Karika is quoted by Sankara in Brahmasutra- bhasya II. I. 9. with the remark मायामात्रं ह्येतदत्परमात्मनोऽवस्थात्रयात्मना- वभासनं रज्ज्वा इव सर्पादिभावेनेति। (17) An objection is raised to the statement अद्वैतं बुध्यते तदा in the last Karika. If अद्वैत is realised, what happens to the प्रपश्च which we all experience? The answer is: प्रपश् is just मायामात्र, mere illusion which disappears immediately अद्वैतज्ञान is secured. The question raised by the opponent could be taken seriously if sqea were real; even in that case sqea would have to go in the face of aga ; but we would have been required to search for some effective means to get rid of it. But the problem does not arise, as sqea is just illusion. Or, we might take अद्वैतं as the subject of निवर्तेत ; if प्रपश् did exist, then अद्दैत would have to retire from the field, for both eraa and sqea could not stay together. But the question does not arise, as अद्वैत is the only reality and द्वैत is but मायामात्र like the creation in स्त्रप् (the expression मायामात्र is found in Brahmasutra III. 2-3, मायामात्रं तु कान्स्न्येनानभिव्यक्तस्वरूपत्वात). This, however, does not seem to be intended. Gaudapada perhaps uses निवर्तेत in the sense 'would definitely continue to exist' (निवर्तत = नितरां वर्तेत as opposed to विनिवर्तेत 'would turn away' in the next Karika ). If sqea 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 sqea 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 arga all at once. Kūra- narayana reads न निवर्तेत (for विनिवर्तेत), and explains it as उपदेशा- न्महतासुपदेशबलान्न निवर्तेतापि तु निवर्तेतैव। With the reading न विवर्तेत, the idea would be as follows :- If the srqea were to exist in reality, it

Chapter 1 65

would never disappear, for a thing can never change its nature as is stated in III. 2i below. But if प्रपe is merely कल्पित, surely it must disappear; for a कल्पना is unreal. ज्ञाते, supply अद्वते. The second line is found in Yogavasistha ( III. 84. 27 ) विवदन्ते ह्यसंबुद्धाः स्व्रतिकल्प- विजुम्भितैः। उपदेशादयं वादो etc. and in III. 84.25, 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 Matras of Omkara, and the au to the Mātrā-less. ओम् has three portions, अ, 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 states, eT is the first of the Matras ; so when we want to say विश्व has the nature of अ ( This would be the निदर्शना figure of speech, अभवन्त्रस्तुसंबन्ध 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 qHr ), 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 3 of this एकत्वोपासना iS आप्नोति ह वै सर्वान् कामानादि: प्रथमश्व भवति महताम्। (Sankara on Māņdūkya 9 ). (20) तैजस (in the second state) is like उ, because तैजस is more cxalted than विश्व, being more subtle, and उ has greater उत्कष, because it follows like a king coming after the servant! Or, we might take उत्ष to mean just 'coming after'. उ follows अ, तजस follows विश्व (as स्व् is dependent upon the जाग्रत state). तैजस can be identified with 3, because तैजस is midway between (and so connected with both ) विश्व and प्राज्ञ, and उ is midway between ( and so connected with both ) अ and म् ! The फल of this एकत्वो- पासना is उत्कर्षति ह वै ज्ञानसंततिम । विज्ञानसंतति वर्धयतीयर्त्थः । समानस्तुल्यश्र्व मित्रपक्षस्येव शत्रुपक्षाणामप्यद्वेष्यो भवति । अब्रह्मविदस्य कुले न भवति । ( Sankara on Māņdūkya 10 ). (21) प्राज्ञ is like म, because प्राज्ञ acts as a limit (मानम्), being the last, and म also acts as a limit, being the last syllable of ओम्. 9

66 Notes on Gaudapāda-Kārıkā

प्राज्ञ can be identified with म, because विश्व and तैजस merge into प्राज्ञ in the सुपुप्ति state, and अ and g merge into म् ( like वर्णs in the स्फोट शब्द) after being uttered. मितेर्मितिर्मानं मीयेते इव हि विश्वतैजसौ प्राज्ञेन प्रलयोत्पच्योः प्रवेशनिर्गमाभ्यां प्रस्थेनेव यवाः । तथोंकारसमाप्तौ पुनः प्रयोगे च प्रविशय निर्गच्छत इवाकारोकारौ मकारे। (Sankara). The फल of this एकत्वोपासना is मिनोति ह वा इदं सर्वें जगद्याथात्म्यं जानातीत्यर्थः । अपीतिश्र्व जगत्कारणात्मा भवतीत्यर्थः । ( Sankara on Mandukya II ). (22) तुल्यं सामान्यम, the common ground between each of the three pairs. महामुनिः = ब्रह्मवित् (Sanlara).

(23) The उपासक of विश्व ( as identified with अकार) secures his goal viz. विश्व ; that of तैजस ( as identified with उकार) तैजस ; that of प्राज्ञ (as identified with मकार) the प्राज्ञ, in accordance with the doctrine, यो यच्छ्द्धः स ए सः (Gita XVII. 3). But the wor- shipper of Matraless portion of amET has not to go anywhere to secure his goal. He realises himself as Brahman. The उपासक of विश्व, तैजस 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 ओडर as अमात्र etc. is called only a gfa. This is strange. Kārikā 22 appears to be a suspicious one. (24) Karikas 24-29 glorify the उपासना and the उपासक of ओक्कार as a whole, and especially its अमात्र aspect. One who knows ओङ्कार as अमात्र, अनन्तमात्र, द्वैतस्योपशमः etc. is the real Muni. ओडर is also known as पणव. To know efsIT as a whole, one must know its parts or Mātrās equated with the aaqias. There is no necessity of meditating upon anything else.

(25) प्रणव Or ओङकार is ब्रह्मन which is described in the Upa- nisads 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 ओम्. Read the following from Manu- smrti, ब्रह्मणः प्रणवं कुर्यादादावन्ते च सर्वदा । स्रवत्यनोङ्कृतं पूर्व पुरस्ताञ्च विनश्यति ॥ ... अकार चाप्युकारं च मकारं च प्रजापतिः । वेदत्रयान्निरदुहद् भूर्भुवः स्वरितीति च॥ एतदक्षरमेतां च जपन्व्याहृतिपूर्विकाम्। संध्ययोर्वेदविदू विप्रो वेदपुण्येन युज्यते ॥ II. 74, 76, 78. The Aitareyabrahmana says तेभ्योSभितप्भ्यस्त्रयो वर्णा अजायन्ताकार उकारो मकार इति ताननेकधा समभरत्तदेतदोरैमिति। तस्मादो-

Chapter I 67

मिति प्रणौत्योमिति वै स्वर्गो लोक ओमित्यसौ योऽसौ तपति। In later litera- ture ओम is said to refer to the Trinity, Brahmadeva, Visnu and Mahesa, अकारो विष्णुरुहिट उकारस्तु महेश्वरः। मकारेणोच्यते ब्रह्मा प्रणवस्तु त्रयो मताः । The Gita (XVII. 23-24) also says, ॐ तत्सदिति निर्दिशो ब्रह्मणस्त्रिविध: स्मृतः। ब्राह्मणास्तेन वेदाश्व यज्ञाश्व विहिताः पुरा ॥ तस्मादोमित्युदाहृत्य यज्ञदानतपःक्रियाः । प्रवर्तन्ते विधानोक्ताः सततं ब्रह्मवादिनाम् ॥ (26) Vidhusekhara reads पर स्मृतम् for परः स्मृत: 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 अपरं ब्रह्म. पर: is the परः आत्मा or परः पुरुष: referred to in the Kathopanisad (महतः परमत्यक्तमव्यक्तात्पुरुषः परः। पुरुषान्न परं किचित्सा काष्ठा सा परा गतिः॥ III. II). अपरं ब्रह्म-the lower Brahman associated with उपाधिऽ. There is no point in describing प्रणव as अपरं ब्रह्म, when प्रणव is to be immediately shown as पर: आत्मा. Kuranarayana boldly explains अपरं as अपरः पूर्वतनो मूलरूपपूर्वावतारात्मा प्रणवो हरि :... , and परः as पश्वात्तनो विश्वादवताररूपः प्रणवो हरि: पूर्वावतारे पश्विमावतारे च पूर्णतैव न क्वचिदपि न्यूनतेति भाव:। Could it be that the original reading was प्रणवो हि परं ब्रह्म, so that प्रणत is described as परं ब्रह्म and परः आत्मा, thus equat- ing ब्रह्मन् and आत्मन at the same time? On the other hand, in Prasna V. 2, we read एतद्वै सत्यकाम परं चापरं च ब्रह्म यदोंकारस्तस्माद्विद्वानैतेनैवा- यतनेनैकतरमन्वेति ।. अनन्तरोऽबाह्य :- This expression is found in Brhada- ranyaka IV. 5. 12. अपूर्वः, न विद्यते पूर्वे कारणं यस्य सोऽपूर्वः प्रणवः कारणहीनः । ( Kūranārāyaņa ). (27) तद्नन्तरम्-प्रारब्धभोगानन्तरं ( Kuranarayana), तदात्मभेव ( Sankara ). aa apparently refers to Brahman in Kārikā 26. (28) Compare for the first line, ईश्वर सर्वभूतानां हददशेडर्जुन तिष्ठति। (Gita XVIII. 6I ), also ज्ञानं ज्ञेयं ज्ञानगम्य हृदि सर्वस्य विष्वितम्। (XIII. 17), अङ्ष्ठमात्र: पुरुषोऽन्तरात्मा सदा जनानां हृदये संनिविष्टः।(Kathopa- nisad ( II. 217). न शोचति, तरति शोकमात्मवित् इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः। ( Śańkara ). (29) द्वैतस्योपशम :-- There being only अद्वैत, all duality ceases. इतरो जन, शास्त्रविदृपि (Sankara). People well-versed only in the Śastras cannot be called gfas, if they do not know the Omkāra. Of the older Upanişads, besides the Māndūkya, Katha, Praśna, Muņdaka, Taittirīya, Chāndogya and Maitri refer to Omkāra Pranava, describe its identification with Brahman, glorify the various

68 Notes on Gaudapada-Kārikā

uses for meditation and fruit of ओंकारोपासना The following extracts will be found interesting in this connection. Kațhopanişad :- सर्वे वेदा यत्पदमामनन्ति तपांसि सर्वाणि च यद्ददन्ति। यदिच्छन्तो ब्रह्मचर्ये चरन्ति तत्ते पदं संग्रहेण त्रवीमि॥ ओमित्येतत् ॥। I.215 एतद्देवाक्षरं ब्रह्म ह्येतदेवाक्षरं परम्। एतद्धेवाक्षरं ज्ञात्वा यो यदिच्छति तस्य तत् ।। I.12.16 एतदालम्बनं श्रेष्टमेतदालम्बनं परम्। एतदालम्बनं ज्ञासा ब्रह्मलोके महीयते॥ I.I2.17 Praśnopanişad :- एतद्व सत्यकाम परं चापरं च ब्रह्म यदोङ्कारस्तस्माद्विद्वानेतेनैवायतनेनैकतर- मन्वेति॥ V. 2 स यद्येकमात्रमभिध्यायीत स तेनैव संवेदितस्तूर्णमेव जगत्यामाभिसंपद्यते। तमृचो लोकमुपनयन्ते स तत्र तपसा ब्रह्मचर्येण श्रद्धया संपन्नो महिमानमनुभवति।V.3 अथ यदि द्विमात्रेण मनसि संपद्यते सोऽन्तरिक्षे यजुर्भिरुन्नीयते स सोमलोकं स सोमलोके विभूतिमनुभूय पुनरावर्तते ॥ V. 4 यः पुनरेतत्रिमात्रेणोमित्येतेनैवाक्षरेण परं पुरुषमभिध््यायीत स तेजसि सूर्ये संपन्नः । यथा पादोदरस्त्वचा विनिर्मुच्येत एवं ह वै स पाप्मना विनिर्मुक्त: स सामभिरुन्नीयते ब्रह्मलोकें स एतरमाीवघनात्परात्परं पुरिशयं पुरुषमीक्षते॥ तदेतौ श्लोको भवतः।V.5 तिस्रो मात्रा मृत्युमत्यः प्रयुक्ता अन्योन्यसक्ता अनुविप्रयुक्ताः। क्रियासु बाह्याभ्यन्तरमध्यमासु सम्यक्प्रयुक्तासु न कम्पते ज्ञः ॥ V.6 ऋग्भिरेतं यजुर्भिरन्तरिक्षं ससामभिर्यत्तत्कवयो वेदयन्ते। तमोङ्करेणैवायतनेनान्वेति विद्वान्यत्तच्छान्तमजरममृतमभयं परं चेति॥ V.7 Muņdaka : - प्रणवो धनुः शरो ह्यात्मा ब्रह्म तल्क्ष्यमुच्यते। अप्रमत्तेन वेदूधव्यं शरवत्तन्मयो भवेत् ॥। II.2.4 Taittirīya :- ओमिति ब्रह्म॥ ओमितीदसर्वभ्। ओमित्येतदनुरतिर्ह स्म त्रा अप्यों आवयेत्या श्रवियन्ति ॥ ओमिति सामानि गायन्ति।ओ शामिति शस्त्राणि शसन्ति ।ओमि- स्य४व्र्युः प्रतिगरं प्रतिगृणाति। ओमिति ब्रह्मा प्रस्तौति। ओमित्यग्निहोत्रमनुजानाति। ओमिति ब्राह्मण: प्रवक्ष्यन्नाह ब्रह्मोपाप्नवानीति॥ ब्रहैवोपाप्नोति।.8

Chapter I 69

Chāndogya :-

वागेवर्क प्राणः सामोमित्येतदक्षरमुद्रीथस्तदा एतन्मिथुनं यद्वार्क च प्राणश्वर्कच । साम च। तदेतन्मिथुनमोमित्यस्मिन्नक्षरे स५सृज्यते ... I.1.5.6 तेनेयं त्रयी विद्या वर्तते ओमित्याश्रावयत्योमिति शसत्योमित्युद्वायत्येतस्यैवाक्षरस्या- पचित्यै महिम्रा रसेन। I.1.8 यदा वा कचमाप्नोत्योमित्येवातिस्व्ररत्येवसामैव यजुरेष उ स्वरो यदेतदक्षरमेतदसृत- मभयं तत्प्रविश््य देवा अमृता अभवन् । I.4.4 अथ खल य उद्गीथः स प्रणवो यः प्रणवः स उद्गीथ इत्यसौ वा आदित्य उद्गीथ एव प्रणव ओमिति ह्वेष स्वरन्नेति। I.5.I

तप्ताया एतान्यक्षराणि संप्रास्त्रवन्त भूर्भुवःस्वरिति। II.13.2 तान्यभ्यतपत्तेभ्योऽभितप्तेस्य ॐकारः संप्रास्त्रवत्तयथा। शङकता सर्वाणि पर्णानि संतृण्णान्येव्रमोङ्कारेण सर्ा वाकू संतृण्णोङ्कार एवेदथसर्वमोङ्कर एवेद५सर्वम् ॥ I.I3.3 अर्वाग्विचरत एतौ प्राणादित्या एता उपासीतोमित्यक्षरेण व्याहृतिभिः सावित्रया चेति। VI.2 Maitri :-

द्वे वाव ब्रह्मणो रूपे मूर्ते चामूते चाथ यन्मूर्त तदसत्यं यदमूर्ते तत्सत्यं तद्ब्रह तज्ज्योतिर्यज्ज्योतिः स आदित्यः स वा एष ओमित्येतदात्माभवत्स त्रेधात्मानं व्यकुरुतौ- मिति तिस्रो मात्रा एताभि: सर्वमिदमोतं प्रोतं चैवास्मीत्येवं ह्याहैतद्वा आदित्य ओमित्थं ध्यायतात्मानं युख्जीतेति । VI.3 अथ ख़लु य उद्गीथः स प्रणवोयः प्रणवः स उद्गाथः। इत्यसौ वा आदित्य उद्गीथ एष प्रणब इत्येवं ह्याहोद्गीथं प्रणवाख्यं प्रशेतारं भारूपं विगतनिंद्र विजर विसृत्युं त्रिपदं कयक्षरं पुनः पश्चधा ज्ञेयं निहितं एहायामित्येवं ह्याह। ... ओमित्येतदक्षरस्य चैतत् तस्मादो- मित्यनेनैतदुपासीताजस्रमिति। ... एतदेवाक्षरं पुण्यमेतदेवाक्षरं परम्। एतदेवाक्षरं ज्ञात्वा यो यदिच्छति तस्य तत्। VI.4 अथान्यत्राप्युक्तं स्वनवत्येषास्य तनूः। ओमिति स्त्रीपुंनपुंसकेति लिङ्गवत्येषा अथ अग्निर्वायुरादित्य इति भास्वत्येषा अथ ब्रह्म रुद्रो विष्णुरिति अधिपतिवत्येषा अथ कक्यजुःसामेति विज्ञानवत्येषा

70 Notes on Gaudapada-Karika

अथ भुर्भूवः स्वरिति लोकवत्येषा अथ भूतं भव्यं भविष्दिति कालवत्येषा अथ प्राणोडगनि: सूर्य इति प्रतापवत्येषा अथ अन्नमापश्वन्द्रमा इति अप्यायनवत्येषा अ्रथ बुद्धिर्मनोऽहंकार इति चेतनवत्येषा अथ प्राणोऽपानो व्यान इति प्राणवत्येषा इत्यत ओमित्युक्तेनता: प्रस्तुता अर्चिता अर्पिता भवन्तीत्येवं ह्याहैतद्वै सत्यकाम परं चापरं च ब्रह्म यदोमित्येतदक्षरमिति। VI.5 अन्नं वा अस्य सर्वस्य योनिः कालश्वान्नस्य सूर्यो योनिः कालस्य ... यावत्यो वै कालस्य कलास्तावतीषु चरत्यसौ यः कालं ब्रह्मेत्युपासीत कालस्तस्यातिदूरमपसरतीत्येवं ह्याह। कालात्स्रवन्ति भूतानि कालाद्वृद्धिं प्रयान्ति च। काले चास्तं नियच्छन्ति कालो मूर्तिरमूर्तिमान्॥VI.I4 अथ यथोर्णनाभिस्तन्तुनोर्ध्वसुत्क्रान्तोऽवकाशं लभतीत्येवं वाव खल्वसवभिध्यातोमि- त्यनेनोर्ध्वमुत्क्रान्तः स्वातन्त्र्यं लभते। ... VI.22 धनुःशरीरमोमित्येतच्छरः शिखास्य मनस्तमोलक्षणं भिच्वा तमोऽतमाविष्टमागच्छ- त्यथाविष्टं भिच्वा अलातचक्रमिव स्फुरन्तमादित्यवर्णमूर्जस्वन्तं ब्रह्मतमसः पर्य- मश्यत्। VI.24 निद्रोवान्तर्हितेन्द्रियः शुद्धितमया धिया स्वप्न इव यः पशयतीन्द्रियबिलेऽविवशः प्रणवाख्यं प्रणेतारं भारूपं विगतनिंद्रं विजर विमृत्युं विशोकं च सोउपि प्रणवाख्यः प्रणेता भारूपो विगतनिद्रो विजरो विसृत्युर्विशोको भवति । VI.25 Kuranārāyana tries his best to show that Hari with his four forms is the object of Upasana described in the first Prakaraņa. Madhva also follows the same line. It is unnecessary to take the interpretations of Kūranārayana and Madhva seriously. In the eyes of both of them, Gaudapādīyakārikās in the first Prakaraņa form a part of the Mandūkyopanisad. They do not seem to be aware of the other three Prakaraņas of the Gaudapādīyakārikās. The colophons in the Manuscripts at the end of this Prakaraņa vary considerably, such as इति माण्डक्योपनिषव समात्ा, प्रथमं प्रकरणम् (without any specific name) ... ओङ्कारनिर्णयः प्रथमं प्रकरणम्, ओङ्काराख्यं प्रथम प्रकरणम्, ... आगमशास्त्रविवरणे प्रथमपकरणे माण्डूकव्याख्यानं 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 Karikas and is usually called agu, presumably because the first word of the first Kārika in this Praka- raņa is aaeT. Gaudapāda tries to prove here that there is no difference between the जाग्रत् and स्वम् states, and परमार्थता consists in the belief that there is neither निरेध nor उत्पत्ति, neither बद्ध nor साधक etc.

( I ) 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 dreamer does not go out to see them. ( 3 ) The following passage from the Brhadaranyaka 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 सर्वावतो मात्रामुपादाय स्वयं विहत्य स्वयं निर्माय स्व्रेन भासा स्वेन ज्योतिषा पित्यन्नायं पुरुष: स्वयंज्योतिर्भवति। न तत्र रथा न रथयोगा न पन्थानो भवन्त्यथ रथान् रथयोगान्पथः सृजते न तत्रानन्दा सुदः प्रमुदो भवन्त्यथानन्दान् मुदः प्रसुद: सृजते न तत्र वेशान्ताः पुष्करिण्यः स्रवन्त्यो भवन्त्यथ वेशान्तान् पुष्करिणी: स्त्रवन्तीः सृजते स हि कर्ता (IV. 3. [0). The expression न्यायपूर्वकम् is usually understood to mean, 'with the logical reasoning therefore'. युक्तितः (Sankara). But there is no युक्ति as such in the above passages from the Brhadaranyaka, which are undoubtedly what Gaudapada is referring to here. वैतथ्यं श्रुत्या रवन्ने स्वयंज्योतिष्टप्रतिपादन- परया प्रकाशितमाहुर्बह्मविद: says Sankara; but स्वयंज्योतिः would simply

72 Notes on Gaudapāda- Karikā

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 रथ- TTT etc. Some sort of reasoning is to be found in Yogavasistha III. 19, यादृगर्थ जगद्रूप तत्रै वोदेति तत्क्षणात् ।न देशकालदीर्घत्वं न वैचित्नयं पदार्थजम्॥१९॥ बाह्यमाभ्यन्तरं भाति स्वप्नार्थोत निदर्शनम्। यदन्तः स्वप्नसंकल्पपुरं च कंचनं चितेः॥२०॥ तदेतद्वाह्यनाम्नैव स्वाभ्यासात्सस्फुटं स्थितम्। ... ॥२१॥ सद्रपा एव चैतस्य स्वप्नसंकल्पसैन्यवत्। अविसंवादि सर्वार्थरूपं यदनुभूयते ॥२३ ॥ तस्य तावद्वद कथ कीदृशी वापि सत्यता । अथवोत्तरकाले तु भङ्गरत्वादवस्तु तत ॥२४॥। ईटृक्च सर्वमेवेदं तत्र का नारितताधिका। रवप्ने जाग्रदसदूपा स्वन्नो 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 जाग्रत state or that स्वप्न is but जागरितदेश, as in dream one sees just what one had seen in the जाग्रत state (अथो खल्वाहुर्जागरितदेश एवास्यैष इति यानि ह्वेव जागत्प्रश्यति तानि सुत इति IV.3.14) and therefore the mere statement about the absence of T&T 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 Gaudapāda: -

स वा एष एतस्मिसंप्रसादे रत्वा चरित्वा दृष्ट्ैव पुण्यं च पापं च पुनः प्रतिन्यायं प्रतियोन्याद्रवति स्वप्नायैव स यत्तत्र किंचित्पशयत्यन्वागतस्तेन भवत्यसङ्गोडयं पुरुष इति .. IV. 3.14, स वा एष एनस्मिन्सवन्ने रत्वा ... प्रतिन्यायं प्रतियोन्याद्रवति बुद्धान्तायैव स ... पुरुषं इति IV.3.15, स वा एष एतस्मिन्बुद्धान्ते रत्वा ... प्रतिन्यायं प्रतियोन्या- द्रवति स्वप्नान्तायैव IV.3.17, तथथा महामत्स्य उभे कूलेऽनुसंचरति पूर्व चापरं चैवमेवायं पुरुष एतावुभावन्तावनुसंचरति स्वप्नान्तं च बुद्धान्तं च।। IV.3.18.

(4) भेद and भाव are synonymous terms, meaning 'thing' 'object '. There is वैतथय in सa, because the objects experienced there, are seen within the body; there is वैतथ्प in जाग्रत also, because the so-called arar objects cannot be perceived unless the perceiver's बुद्धि (which is within the body) becomes तत्तद्वाह्यवस्त्वाकारा (The विज्ञानवादिनs rherefore argue that बाह्यवस्तु does not exist all, because for perception only the अन्तःस्थबुद्धि helps). So that what obtains in

Chapter 1I 73

the arera state, obtains in the a as well. But this must not lead us to conclude that there is only one state and not two. There is some difference; srra state is different from a on the score of संवृतत्व ( being enclosed ) which is a characteristic of स्तरम 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 भिद्ते 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 संवृतत्वेन भिद्यते as संतृतत्वरे न (वैतथ्यं) fhrua is equally unnecessary. Sankara tries to evolve a regular syllogism out of this Kārikā, जाग्रदूद्टश्यानां भावानां वैतथ्यम् (प्रतिज्ञा) दृश्यत्वात (हेतुः) यत् दृश्यं तत् वितथम, स्वप्नदृश्यभावत्रत्. All this is cumbrous and confusing. (5) For all practical purposes, स्व्रप् and जागरित स्थानs are there- fore understood by the wise to be one and the same, because both are वितथ and अन्तःस्थान. स्वम्र is also called सन्ध्यं तृतीयं स्थानं (तस्य वा एतस्य पुरुषस्य द्वे एव स्थाने भवत इदं च परलोकस्थानं च सन्ध् तृतीयं स्वप्नस्थानं ... Brha. IV. 39 ). प्रसिद्धेनैत्र भेदानां ग्राह्यग्राहकत्वेन हेतुना समत्वेन ( Sankara). ( 6 ) This Kārika is repeated in the fourth Prakaraņa (IV.31). Things in स्वप and जागरित states are वितथ also on the general princi- ple 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 ( सृगतृष्णिका) is not there before, is not going to be after, so it is unreal when it appears. Things in स्वम and जागरित are really possessed of the same characteristics ( सहशा) as those of वितथ entities, but they are taken to be araau by the ignorant, (7 ) One may readily grant the faaera of objects in dream, but some may not be so sure about the जागरितमाव being वितथ. Gauda- 10

74 Notes on Gaudapada-Kārika

pada therefore explains the point further. Why do we regard the objects in dream as वितथ ? Because, their सप्रयोजनता (the capacity of serving some purpose ) is contradicted in another state. A real object can never change its characteristics or zia. The hearty meal that a person takes in the dream, is of no avail in the arra state where he has to satisfy his hunger by having another meal. Now exactly the same is the situation about the objects in the a state. The सप्रयोजनता of a meal in the जाग्रत 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 जाग्रत state). So, जाग्रत objects stand on the same level as the wag objects in that each is contradict- ed in the other state. So arera objects also, being of a changeful nature, with their प्रकृति securing अन्यथाभाव in a different state, must be regarded as fasur like the Fa objects. Prof. Vidhusekhara reads स्वपऽवि प्रतिपद्यते for स्त्र मे विप्रतिपयते, and translates the first line as 'that the things have some purpose also in dream is known'. We fail to see what the स्वमे सप्रयोजनता of objects has to do with the matter in question. Gaudapada wants to prove that objects in the arra state are fमoयr and he gives the reason that their सतयोजनता is contradicted in dreams. Whether objects in a dream have a saraa or not is beside the point.

(8) Prof. Vidhusekhara wants to emend अपूवे स्थानिधर्म: into अपुर्ा: स्थानिधर्मा:, and confesses that the Karika is not quite clear to him. There is no doubt that अपुर् स्थानिधर्म: is the genuine reading, if not for any other reason, merely on account of the fact that no one is likely to change अपूर्ताः स्थानिधर्माः into अपुर्वे स्थानिधर्म: Gauda- pada'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 Kārikā, presumably because he has failed to grasp the meaning of the last Kārikā.

The idea in the Kârikā is as follows :- The objector says that it may be granted that the सप्रयोजनता of objects in the srrara state ( referred to as aqi in the last Kārikā ) 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 araa

Chapler 1I 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 arra 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 aasr of objects in the waking state from what we see in the dream.

The Siddhantin's answer is as follows: - We agree that au is an aga thing. But that does not mean that the dreamer is a different soul; it is just a case of स्थानमाहात्म्य. The अपुतंत्व 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 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 aasT 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 arga in the dream is the धर्म of the dreamer, that is all. यथा स्थानिधर्माणां रज्जुसर्पसृ वतृष्णिका- दीनामसत्वं तथा स्वप्नटश्यानामपूर्वाणां स्थानिधर्मत्वमेवेत्यसत्वम्। (Sankara). ( 9 and 10 ) Things, both in the जाग्रत and स्वम् states, are चेतः- कल्पित and so मिथ्या

जाग्रत state स्तम state ( I ) Whatever is imagined by the mind is popularly regard- ( I ) Even in the ag, the dreamer imagines certain things ed as असत in the mind and considers them ( 2 ) Whatever is cognised as असत by the sense-organs outside, is ( 2 ) Even in the ₹a, the regarded as सत dreamer considers things cognised outside as सत् This shows that the so-called सदसद्विभाग in the जाग्रत state obtains in the स्वप state as well. जाग्रत state is therefore on par with the स्वप्

76 Notes on Gaudapada-Karika

state, and is वितथ like the स्वम, on account of the अन्तःस्थानत्व of things as has been explained below. 3(11) If both the जाग्रत् and स्वम् objects are वितथ and चेतःकल्पित, "What is real ? Who imagines these vas-' these questions require to be answered. स्मृतिज्ञानयोः कः आलम्बनमित्यभिप्रायः (Sankara). ( 12 ) Atman' is the answer to the questions raised in the last Karika. Atman is all light ( देव), अज, अद्वैत etc, hence he ima- gines all this within himself by his Maya ( which also is not differ- sent from him). Here Gaudapada parts company with the Bauddhas (Vijnanavadins). Sankara aptly remarks, न च निरास्पदे एव ज्ञानस्मृती वैनाशिकीनामिवत्यभिप्रायः। According to the Bauddhas विज्ञान is also "क्षणक'. It cannot be आलम्चन for any thing. ( 13 ) This Karika shows how the powerful ( y: ) 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. Vidhuśekhara wants to read अध्यवस्थितान् for व्यवस्थितान, because the objects in a dream are not fixed, and fauara in the second line is intended to be contrasted with अव्यवस्थितान्. He also wants to read बहिश्वित्ते so as to correspond with erafaa. We differ from Prof. Vidhusckhara. Things within are अध्यक्त according to Gaudapada ( Karika 15), अव्यक्त is not अध्यव- स्थित. As dreams go, they are as good as नियत. The author seems to emphasise here that objects are first thought out and then pro- jected for practical purposes. The expression बहिश्वित्ते would mean ' outside in the mind' which is a contradiction in terms. That is why aigfsan: 'minded out-ward' seems to have been preferred by Gaudapāda. (14) Objects within are चित्तकाल (staying as long as the thought lasts ), objects without are चित्त हाल and इन्द्रियकाल चित्तकालS are cognised by the mind; ड्यकालs, in addition by इन्द्रियs, as they are व्यवहारदशापन्न दय is referred to by Gaudapada himself in IV. 72 as ग्राह्यग्राहकवत; but the द्वय in द्यकाल here does not mean ग्राह्यग्राहकवश्व, for that characteristic belongs surely to चित्तकाल as well (for चित्त would be the ग्राहक and the things imagined would be ग्राह्म). Read the following from Sankara's Bhyasya, चित्तकालाः ... चित्तपरिच्छेद्याः। कल्पनाकाल एतोपलभ्यन्त इत्यर्थः। द्वयकालाश्व भेदकाला अन्योन्यपरिच्छेद्याः। (यथा

slinhK-Chapter 1 77

आगोदोहनमास्ते यावदास्ते ताबद्रां दोगधि यावद्ां दोग्धि तावदास्त इति) परस्परपरि- च्छेद्यपरिच्छेदकत्वं बाह्यानां भेदानां ते दयकालाः। बाह्य objects thus are चित्तकाल and also dependent upon or correiated to other objects for their existence. Hence they are द्यकाल. Whatever that be, all objects, whether within or without, are but imagined objects. The विशेष pointed out, viz. some are चित्तकाल and others are दयकाल, is due, not to any other cause, but कल्पितत्व itself. ( 15 ) It is true that objects within are not distinctly experienc- ed while those without are grz, 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 Naiyayikas, there is इन्द्रिय in between मनसू and objects. इन्द्रियान्तर may mean other इन्द्रियऽ (बाह्य as opposed to मनस् which is an अन्तरिन्द्रिय) or the difference or distance due to the intervention of gfeaqs between मनसू and the objects of perception. ( 16 ) This Karika indicates the process by which arar and आध्यात्मिक objects come into existence. The Advaita Atman first imagines ( by his Maya ) the individual soul and then the different objects चित्तकाल and दयकाल. It appears that the individual souls thus imagined, imagine for themselves different objects according to their experiences also imagined. Gaudapada does not dilate upon this topic any further, as he is mainly interested in the अजातिवाद The Yogavasistha carries this theory to its logical conclusion and speaks of countless myriads of worlds within worlds created by imagination by the individual souls. यथाविद्यः तथास्मृति: is unexcep- tional enough. But whence does the first विद्या or विज्ञान come? Why should there be the difference in the powers of imagination of indi- vidual souls to start with ? - to this and similar queries, Gauda- pada has only one answer, they are all unreal and only the Advaita Atman is the परमार्थता ! Sankara says, योऽसी स्वयं काल्पतो जीवः सर्वकल्पना- यामधिकृतः स यथाविद्यो यादशी विद्या विज्ञानमस्पेति यथाविद्यस्तथाविधैव स्सृतिस्तस्येति तथास्सृतिर्भवति स इति। अतो हेतुकल्पनाविज्ञानातफलविज्ञानं ततो हेतुफलस्सृतिस्ततस्त- द्विज्ञान तदर्थ क्रियाकारकतत्फलमेदविज्ञानानि तेभ्यस्तत्स्मृतिस्तत्स्मृतेश् पुनस्तद्विज्ञानानी-

78 Notes on Gaudapāda-Karıka

(17) सर्पधारादिभ :- 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.

(13) When the रजजु is realised in its true nature, the विकल्पS vanish away; similarly when आत्मन् is realised as अद्वत, the different विकल्पs about आत्मन disappear.

(19) It is due to the Maya of Atman that so many विकल्पS, प्राण etc. are superimposed on him. It is strange, but true that Atman himself stands deluded by this Maya of his and gives rise to such विकल्पs ! Sankara hastens to explain, स्वयमपि मोहित इत मोहितो भवति।

(20) Verses 20-28 describe the various चिकल्पs (35 of them) fathered upon Atman. They represent the ideas about the Highest or the goal to be achieved, entertained by philosophers and lay men. It is possible to point out some prima facie bases for these faoqs in the Upanisads and older works. Atman is imagined to be [ I] प्राण by some प्राणबादिनS, Vedantins who take their stand upon passages like प्राण सर्वे प्रतिष्टतम् (Chandogya I. 1I.4-5 ) and others quoted in notes on I.6 above. Ānandagiri says that Vaiseșikas and worshippers of Hiranyagarbha are meant ( प्राणो हिरण्यगर्भस्तटस्थश्वरी वा स जगतो हतुरिति प्राणविदो हैरण्यगर्भाद्या वशेषिकादयश्र्व कल्पयन्ति). [2] भूतानि by भूतविदs who take their stand upon passages that support the त्रितृकरण (Chandogya VI.2.3-4) or the पश्ीकरण process for the creation of the world. पृथ्वी, आए, तेजस are the three भूतs, or five, with वायु and आकाश added to the list. The popular or the Carvaka view that the body is पाश्भौतिक is also well-known. The Gita also refers to these philosophers in भूतानि या्ति भूतेज्या: (IX. 25). वृथिध्यप्तेजोवायवस्त््वानि तानि च चत्वारि भूतानि जगत्कार्णानीति लोकायतिका: ( Anandagiri, according to whom only four elements are meant here ).

[3] सणs by some of the Sankhyas who postulate सच्त, रजम and aRH as the three constituents out of which every thing is constituted. The Gitā ( XVI and XVII Adhyāyas ) elaborates this aspect in various detail). सच्वरजस्तमांसि त्रयो गणाः साम्येनावस्थिता जगतो महदादिलक्षणस्य कारणमिति सांख्या: ( Anandagiri).

Chapter II 79

[4] तच्वानि by the Saivas ( according to Anandagiri ) who say that आत्मन, अविद्या and शव are the three तeas which create the world. One would naturally expect the सांख्यतत्त्वs to follow the सांख्यगुणs in the last Karika, but as the सiख्यतनवs are obviously referred to in Kārika 26 below, Anandagiri's interpretation is reasonable.

(21 ) [s ] qras by some Vedantins who take their stand upon Chandogya ( III. 5.5-8 ) where सत्यकाम is instructed by the ऋपभ in the पादs of Brahman, called प्रकाशवान्, अनन्तवान्, ज्योतिष्मान् and आयतनवान constituted of four कलाs each, as follows-प्राची दिक्कला प्रतीची दिक्कला दक्षिणा दिक्कलादीची दिक्कलैप वै सोभ्य चतुष्कल: पादो ब्रह्मणः प्रकाशवान्नाम ... पृथिवी कला अन्तरिक्षं कला यौ: कला समुद्रः कलेष वै सोम्य चलुष्कलः पादो ब्रह्मणोऽनन्तवान्नाम ... अग्नि: कला सूर्यः कला चन्द्रः कला विद्युत् कलैष वे सोम्य चतुष्कलः पादो व्रह्मणो ज्योतिष्मान्नाम ... प्राणः कला चक्षुः कला श्रत्र कला मनः कलैप वै सोम्प चतुष्कलः पादो ब्रह्मण आयतनवान्राम। Anandagiri thinks that the four पादs are विश्व, तेजस, प्राज्ञ and तुर्य (the Mandukya says सव ह्वेतद्ब्रह्मायमात्मा ब्रह्म सोऽ्यमात्मा चतुष्पात् ). This is not likely as Gaudapada 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 पादतिटूs. [6 ] विषयs by the विषयविदs who consider enjoyment of the objects of sense as the highest goal, sensualists like वात्स्यायन the author of Kamasutra ( वात्स्यायनप्रभृतीनां कल्पनां कथयति-शब्दादयो विषयाः भूयो भूयो भुज्यमानास्तत्त्वमिति विभ्रममात्रम् । विषस्य विषयाणां च दूरमत्यन्तमन्तरम्। उपभुक्तं विषं हन्ति विषया: स्मरणादपि॥ इति विषयानुसंधानस्य निन्दितत्वात् ... Anandagiri ) and चार्वाकs whose motto is यावज्जीवं सुखं जीवेत। [7] लोकs by the लोकविद्s who think highly of देवलोक, वरुणलोक, प्रजापतिलोक etc. and aspire to secure residence in them; भूर्भुवः स्वरिति त्रयो लोका वस्तुभूताः सन्तीति पौराणिका: ( Anandagiri). It is better to understand by लोकs, the various abodes on the देवयान path, rather than भूः, भुव: and सवः as stated by Anandagiri. Very few would choose भू: and भुवः for their goal. [ 8 ] देवs by देवविहूs or देवव्रतs who are enamoured of the hier- archy of the gods and worship their favourite gods to secure their worlds; यान्ति देवव्रता देवान (Gita IX. 25). अग्नीन्द्रादयो देवास्तत्तत्फल- छातारो नेश्वरस्तथेति देवताकाण्डीया: (worshippers of the देवताs mentioned in the देवताकाण्ड in Yaska's Nirukta ), says Anandagiri.

80 Notes on Gaudapada- Karika

(22) [9] वेदs by वेदविs who swear by the aqs which they regard as अपौरुषेय and निःश्वसित or directly revealed word of the High- est. ऋग्वेदाइयो वेदाश्वत्वारस्तत्वानीति पाठका वदन्ति (Anandagiri ).

[ I0 ] यज्ञs by the यज्ञविदूs or याज्ञिकs who take their stand upon passages from the Gita, यज्ञक्रिष्टाशिनः सन्तो मुच्यन्ते सर्वकिल्विपैः । (Gita III. 13), यज्ञशिष्टासृतसुजो यान्ति ब्रह्म सनातनम् (IV.31), यज्ञायाचरतः कर्म समग्रं प्रविलीयते (IV. 23), ब्रह्मार्पणं ब्रह्म हविरब्रह्माग्नौ ब्रह्मणा हुतम्। ब्रह्मैव तेन गन्तव्यं ब्रह्मकर्मसमाधिना ॥(IV. 24). Anandagiri remarks, ज्योतिष्टोमादयो यज्ञा वस्तुभूता भवन्तीति बौधायनप्रभृतयो याज्ञिका मन्यन्ते।

[ II ] भोक्तृ by the भोक्तृविद्s who believe in the Highest being the भोक्तृ (अहं हि सर्वयज्ञानां भोक्ता च प्रभुरव च। Gita IX.24, उपद्रष्टानुमन्ता च भर्ता भोक्ता महश्वरः । परत्मात्मेति चाप्युक्तो देहेऽस्मिन पुरुषः परः ॥ XIII.22), भोक्तेवात्मा न कर्तेति सांख्याः ।( Anandagiri).

[12) भोज्यम् by the भोज्यविs who take their stand on passages like प्राणो वा अन्षम् ॥ शरीरमन्नादम् ॥ प्राणे शरीरं प्रतिष्ठितम् शरीरे प्राणः प्रतिष्ठितः । तदेतदन्नमन्ने प्रतिष्ठितम् ॥ ... भावो वा अन्नम् ॥ ज्योतिरन्नादम्। अप्सु ज्योतिः प्रति- ष्वितम्। ज्योतिष्वापः प्रतिष्ठिताः ॥ तदेतदन्नमन्ने प्रतिष्ठितम् ॥ पृथिवी वा अन्नम्॥ आकाशोऽन्नादः॥ पृथिव्यामाकाशः प्रतिष्टितः॥ आकाशे पृथिवी प्रतिष्ठिता॥ तदेत- दन्नमन्ने प्रतिष्ठितम्॥ (Taittiriya III.7-9) अन्नं ब्रह्मेति व्यजानात् (II.I) अन्नाद्वै प्रजाःप्रजायन्ते (II.I.2) अन्नं हीदं सर्वस्थितम् (Chandogya I. 3. 6). Anandagiri displays a sense of humour rare in a Sanskrit commenta- ry in saying सूपकारा: (cooks) भोज्यं वसत्विति प्रतिजानते. We do not think Gaudapada wishes to include cooks in the category of philoso- phers, 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 सूक्ष्मवि्s. They are the atomists, Vaise sikas who regard अuुs as the जगत्कारण. Anandagiri says, आत्मा सुक्ष्मोऽणु- परिमाण: स्यादिति केचित्। Vidhusekhara says 'they would refer to all the Vaişnava teachers, such as Rāmānuja, Nimbārka, Madhva and Vallabha '. This is quite improbable, for these Vaisnava teachers regard the individual as atomic, not the परमात्मन. Here the question is about the ideas about the Highest or the जगत्कारण and not about the individual soul.

Chapter II

[ 14 ] स्थूल by the स्थूलविदूs ; they are the चार्वाकs according to whom the gross body is the Highest, or the Jainas who regard the Atman as शरीरपरिणाम. स्थूलो देहोऽहंप्रत्ययादात्मेति लोकायतभेद: (Anandagiri). [ [5] मूर्त by the मूर्तचिद्s; they are the आगमिकs, followers of the Pancaratra or Saiva TTHS. They believe that God descends down to the earth in various forms. They take their stand upon passages like प्रकृति स्त्रामधिष्ठाय संभव,म्यात्ममायया ... संभवामि युगे युगे ( Gita IV.6,8). मूर्तस्त्रिशूलादिधारी महेश्वरश्वक्रादिधारी वा परमार्थो भवतीत्यागमिका: । (Ananda- giri). मूर्त is explained as तदेतन्मूर्ते यदन्यद्वायोश्वान्तरिक्षाञ्च ... इदमेव मू्ते यदन्यत्प्राणाञ्च यश््वायमन्तरात्मन्नाकाश: in Brhadaranyaka II. 3. 2-3. 7 [ I6] अमूर्त by the अमूर्तविद्s. The Brh. passage quoted above explains अमूर्त as अथामूत वायुश्वान्तरिक्ष च ... प्राणश्व यश्वायमन्तरात्मन्नाकाशः etc. अमूर्त: सर्वाकारशून्यो निःस्वभावः परमार्थ इति शून्यवादिनः (Anandagiri). It is more likely that the अमूर्नविद्s are some theorists who deny the existence of a personal god in a concrete form. arna cannot mean शून्य• (24) [ 17 ] काल by the कालविदूs; these take their stand upon passages like कालोडस्मि लोकक्षयकत् प्रवृद्धो (Gita XI.32), सृत्युः सर्वहरश्र्वाहम् (X. 34) and Atharvaveda XIX. 53, 54, etc. काल: परमार्थ इति ज्योतिर्विद: (astronomers) says Anandagiri. The वैशेषिकs also regard काल aS नित्य. [ 18] दिशः by the दिग्बिदs; 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 स्वरोदयविद: is usually explained as 'those who know how to foretell events by reading the voices of birds etc.' Perhaps it means 'Yogins who can hear the music of the spheres. ' [19 ] वादा: by the वादविदूs; these are, according to Anandagiri, those who are conversant with alchemy, mantras or charms etc. (धातुवादो मन्त्रवादृश्वेत्यादयो वादा वस्तुभूता भवन्तीति केचित्।). Perhaps the तार्ककिकs who believe in the dictum बादे वादे जायते तत्त्वचोध: are meant here. They think that right knowledge could be had by discussion and argumentation. वाद is defined as तत्तचुभुत्सोः कथा वादः। [20] भुवनानि by the भुवनविद्; these are the geographers who claim to know the whole universe consisting of fourteen yaas (seven 11

82 Notes on Gaudapāda-Kārikā

higher, भूः, भुघः, स्व्र, मह, जनः, तयः and सत्यम्, and seven lower, अतल, वितल, सुतल, रसातल, तलातल, महातल and पाताल). भुबनानि चतुर्दश वस्तूनीति भुवनकोशविदः । ( Anandagiri). D (25) [2I] मनसू by the मनोवि्s; these take their stand on passages like मनो ब्रह्मेत्युपासीन, मन एव मनुष्याणां कारणं बन्धमोक्षयोः । मन एवात्मेति लोकायतभे :: ( Anandagiri ). [22 ] बुद्धि: by the बुद्धिविटृs; these are evidently the Bauddhas (बुद्धिरेवात्मेति बौद्धा:, Anandagiri ). [23 ] चित्तम् by the चित्तविह; these are evidently the Vijnana- vadins, Bauddhas ( चित्तमेव बाह्याकारशून्यं विज्ञानम्। तदेवात्मत्यपरे+ Ananda- giri ).

The Bauddhas use मनम्, बुद्धि and चित्त as synonymous terms very often. It is quite clear that Gaudapada, 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 धर्माधर्मचिदs; these are the Mimansakas; they do not almit any ईश्वर, but say that धर्म and अधर्म (पाप and पुण्य) of the individual soul determine his future and hence they are the जगत्कारण (धर्माधर्मी विधिनिषेधचोदनागम्यौ परमार्थाविति मीमांसकाः । Ānandagiri ). (26) [25] पश्विशक (constituted of twenty-five principles or elements ) by the Sankhyas ( मूलप्रकतिरविकतिः महदाद्याः प्रकुतिविकतयः सप्त। पोडशकश््व विकार: न प्रकृतिर्न विकतिः पुरुषः ॥l ). Thus-

मूलप्ररति: - I प्रकतिविक्वतय :- महत् (बुद्धि), अहंकार, पश्च तन्मात्राणि- 7 प्रकतिविकार :- पश्च बुद्धीन्द्रिषाणि (घ्राणं, रसनं, चक्षु, त्वक and श्रत्रम्) पञ्च कर्मेन्द्रियाणि (वाक्पाणिपादपायुपस्थाः) मन: पञ्च महाभूनानि (पृथिव्यन्तजोघायुराकाशाः) 16 पुरुष :- I

25 [26 ] बड्विंश (constituted of twenty-six principles ) by the Patanjalas, followers of the system of Yoga propounded by Patanjali.

Chapter 11 83

They accept the twenty-five aras of the Sankhya system, and add only one more तच्व, viz. ईश्वर (hence, they are also called सेश्वर सांख्यऽ). [27 ] एकत्रिशक ( constituted of thirty-one principles) by some. They, according to Anandagiri, are Pasupatas ( worshippers of Pasupati, Siva ). They accept the twenty-five तras of the सांख्यs, and add six more, (1) रागः (2) अविद्या (3) नियतिः (4) काल: (5) कला and (6) माया. Others add to this list five more, शितः, शक्तिः, सदाशिवः, ईश्वर: and विद्या, making the total 36. Prof. Vidhusekhara says that out of these thirty-six, राग, अविद्या, नियतिः, काल:, and कला are regarded as मायाविभूतिs, so the thirty-six atas 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 Gita ( XIII. 5-6) महाभूतान्यहंकारो बुद्धिशव्यक्तमेव च । इन्द्रियाणि दशैकं च पञ्च चेन्द्रियगोचराः॥ इच्छा द्वेषः सुखं दुःखं संघातश्वेतना धृतिः । एतत्क्षेत्रं समासेन सत्रिकारमुदाहतम् ॥ The total 31 is thus made up,

महाभूतS- अहंकार, बुद्धि and अव्यक्त- 3 इन्द्रियS ( 5 कर्मेन्द्रियऽ, 5 ज्ञानेन्ड्रियs and मनसू)- इन्द्रियगोचरऽ (रूप, रस, गन्ध, स्पर्श and शब्द) -- S इच्छा, द्वेष, सुख, दुःख, संघात, चेतना and धृति- 7. 31 [ 28 ] HRFa by some who hold that it is futile to limit the number of aas. They presumably take their stand upon passages like नान्तोडस्ति मम दिव्यानां विभूतीनां परंतप। ... यद्द्विभूतिमत् सत्त्वं श्रीमदू- जितमेव वा। तत्तदेवावगच्छ त्वं मम तेजोंशसंभवम् ॥(Gita X. 40-4I). (27) [29] लोका: by the लोकविटूs; 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 लोकविदूs are different from the लोकविदूs in II. 21 above. [ 30 ] आश्रमाः by the आश्रमविदूs; these want to follow the directions given in the Smrti works about the different modes of life ( ब्रह्मचर्ष, गृहस्थ, वानप्रस्थ and संन्यास): the proper obserrance of the Smrti rules in this behalf conduces to the well-being of society

8.4 Notes on Gaudapada-Rarika

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 eTTOTHS in society accord- ing to some Puranas ). The TaTHS mentioned in III. 16 below are not to be confused with the eTTaTHS referred to here. [3I] स्त्रीपुंनपुंसकम् by the लैङ्s; 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 स्त्रीपुंनपुंसकं शब्दजातं तत्त्वमिति वर्णयन्ति), followers of पाणिनि- asfa. Perhaps the remote ancestors of modern Freudists are meant here ; those who regard the highest ara as nothing but sex- urge which animates the world. These can take their stand upon passages like असत्यमप्रतिष्टं ते जगदाहुरनीश्वरम् । अपरस्परसंभूतं किमन्यत्काम- T ll Gita XVI.8, by interpreting the same to suit their own views. [32] परापरम् by some; द्वे ब्रह्मणी वेदितव्ये परं चापरं चेति केचित ( Anandagiri ). Perhaps, we should read qrIa7H here, and the reference might be to the passage, भिद्यते हृदयग्रन्थिश्छिद्यन्ते सर्वसंशयाः। क्षीयन्ते चास्य कर्माणि तस्मिन्टष्टे परावरे॥ Mundaka II. 2-8. परं and अपरं ब्रह्म are mentioned in the Prasnopanisad V.2, एतद्वै सत्यकाम परं चापरं च ब्रह्म ... (28) [33] सृष्टिः by the सृ्टिविs in whose eyes the problem of creation looms large ; these are presumably the worshippers of Brahmadeva, the creator. [ 34 ] लयः by the लयविहूs, the worshippers of महेश, the destroyer of the world. [35] स्थितिः by the स्थितिविदs, the worshippers of Visnu who looks to the maintenance of the world. सृष्टिवा लयो वा स्थितिर्वा तत्त्वमिति पौराणिका: (Anandagiri). These thirty-five faaqs and similar others are always being continuously associated with the Highest by ignorant and semi- ignorant thinkers. ( 29 ) Gaudapada here points out that in accordance with the dictum यो यच्छद्ध: 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 1I 83

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 Visnu and advises Devadatta to regard Visnu as the Highest reality. Devadatta whole-heartedly and jealously sticks to Visnu at all costs, and this obsession for Visnu, having taken root, ultimately becomes united with Visņu यं (विष्णुरूपं) भावं (यज्ञदत्तः) दर्शयेत् यस्य (देवदत्तस्य ) तं (विष्णुरुपं ) भावं सः (देवदत्तः ) तु पश्यति। तं (विष्णुरूपं भावं) च अवति सः (देवदत्तः), असौ (देवदत्तः) तद्ग्रहः (तस्मिन् विष्णुरूपे भावे ग्रहः यस्य सः) भूत्वा समुपैति तं (विष्णुरूपं भावम्). Sankara explains differently, तं च (द्रटारं) स (भावः) अवति (यो दर्शितो भावः) असी भूत्वा (रक्षति) स्वेनात्मना सर्वतः निरुणद्ध (that is, the Atman, assuming the form of the विकल्प, protects the द्रष्ट) तस्मिन् ग्रहस्तद्रहस्तदभिनिवेशः । इदमेव च तत्वमिति स तं ग्रहीतारसुपैति तस्यात्मभावं निगच्छतीत्यर्थः । ( that is, the obsession, viz. that विकल्प is the आत्मन, takes hold of him ). Thus -- first means द्रष्टार (according to भावं ( according to our Sankara ), interpretation ) सः " आत्मा ( ) साधकः ) 1' ( असौ "' दर्शितो भाव: ( ) ( same as सः in the first half ) साधक: )

तदूग्रहः, तत्पुरुष compound ( ) बहुव्रीहि ( )

second तं means ग्रहीतारम् ( भावं ( )

Looking to the wording in the Karika त भावं स तु पशयति तं चावति सः, where the use of च shows that the subject of अवति and पशयति is the same, we think that #: should refer to the Hree, and as a corollary, a should refer to ma. According to Sankara the Atman protects the ru#, and agg 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 Kārika is more in con- formity with the grammatical requirements.

86 Notes on Gaudapada-Karika

( 30 ) Those who indulge in the various fagags about Atman, regard Atman as different; these fawaqs actually are not different from Auman. No wonder that they fail to know the real truth about Atman. On the other hand, those who have realised that Atman is the only reality, do not take these faTs at their face value and are not contaminated by the #Ang which might have other- wise accrued to them. न ह्यनध्यात्मविद्वेदाऊज्ञातुं शक्कोति तत्वतः ।न ह्यनध्यात्म- वि-कश्विव क्रियाफलमुपाश्नत इति हि मानवं वचनम् ॥ ( Anandagiri). (3I) स्वप्न, माया, गन्धर्वनगर etc. are known to be असदूप; the universe is likewise असदरूप. वेदान्तेपु-नेह नानास्ति किंचन, इन्द्रो मायाभिः, आत्मवेदमग्र आसीत, ... यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मेवाभूत-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, मुमृक्षु, मुक्त-these terms can have any meaning only if there is द्वैत. Only अद्वैत आत्मन 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 बन्धोऽसि्त न मोक्षोडसि्ति महामते ॥ ( Yogavasistha III. IOI). नात्र कश्विन्महामते बध्यते न च सुच्यते। ( Lankavatarasutra 79 )- (33) The अद्दय आत्मन 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 निरास्पदा काचित्कल्पनोपलभ्यते Anandagiri ). All कल्पनाs are अशिव; the अद्वय alone is शिव. (34) The objector says that he admits that the जगत् is just त्िकल्प foisted on the Atman; would not that mean that जगत् is नाना from the point of view of armia ? The answer is no. Can one say that the imagined serpent is ar from the point of view. of ? The imagined serpent simply does not exist; no question of rarea can therefore arise. In the same way there cannot be any स्व-भाव, पृथक्त्व or अपृथकतव for an imagined or असत् thing. Prof. Vidhusekhara wants to read नान्यभावेन for नात्मभावेन so as to have a contrast between अन्यभाव and स्व-भाब; 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 जगन् as conceived as a विकल्प on आत्मन'. Again,

Chapter II

it is absurd to talk about a thing having the nature of another ( except in Alamkarasastra ). 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.I0). प्रपश्चोपशमः - प्रपश्चो द्वैतभेदविस्तारस्तस्यो- पशमोडभावो यत्मिन्स आत्मा (Sanikara). निर्विकल्पक :- Void of कल्पना. The Yogavasistha has the fifth Prakarana called 345TH of which the author apparently thinks very highly as he calls it निर्वाणकारि, and उत्तमसिद्धान्तसुन्दरम् .. (36) जडवत्-अप्रख्यापयन्नात्मानमहमेवंविध इत्यिप्रायः । (Sankara). It is only bogus gfas who advertise themselves and their so-called mira- culous powers, cf. तस्माद्ब्राह्मणः पाण्डित्यं निर्विध बाल्येन तिष्ठासेत (Brha. III. 5. t ). Sankara in his Bhasya on अनाविष्कुर्तन्नन्वयात् ( Brahmasutra III. 4.50) says तथा चोक्त स्सृतिकारैः, यं न सन्त न चासन्तं नाश्रुतं न बहुश्रुतम्। न सुतृत्त न दुर्वत्तं वेद कश्वित्स ब्राम्मणः ॥ गूठधर्माधितो विद्वानज्ञानचरितं चरेत्। अन्घवज्जडवच्चापि मूकतच्च मही चरेत्।। अध्यक्त्तलिङऽयक्ताचार, इति चैवमादि। (37) The परमहंससंन्यासिन is beyond all obligations. He has no use for praise or salutation for deities; he need not perform the Śraddha rites for the Pitrs («aur, 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 निषेधs 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 eic. चलं चाचलं च चलाचले ते निकेतो यश्याश्रयः स तथेति यावत्। (Anandagiri). Sankara curiously enough says, चलं शरीरं प्रतिक्षणमन्ययाभावात्।अचल- मात्मतत्तम् । यदा कदाचिद्गोजना दिव्य व हा र न्ति मि त्त मा कश लं ्रुपमत्मत्व मात्मनो निकेतमाश्रयमात्मस्थिति विस्मृत्याहमिति मन्यते यदा तदा चलो देहो निकेतो यस्त सोऽयमेवं चलाचलनिकेतो विद्वान्न पुनर्बाह्यविपयाश्रयः। All this is unsatis- factory. Prof. Vidhusekhara rightly explains 7 as ' absolutely not fixed'. यादृच्छिक :- यदृच्छाप्राप्तकौपीनाच्छादनग्रासमात्रदेहस्थितिरित्यर्थः । ( 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 Gaudapada-Kārika

(38) ra :- Referring to the external world, the five Mahabhutas, आध्यात्मिक- Connected with the body. The तत्व is, आत्मा च सबाह्याभ्यन्तरो ह्यजोऽपुर्वोडनन्तरोडबाह्यः कत्स आकाशवत्सर्वेगतः सूक्ष्मोऽ- चलो निर्सणो निष्कलो निष्क्रिय: ( Sankara). Having known this तच्त्र, the afa should ever be on his guard not to deviate from it.

CHAPTER III

This Prakarana usually called अद्वैतप्रकरण contains 48 Karikas. The first Prakarana mainly dealt with ओंकारोपासना and the second with 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 Sruti passages dealing with the उत्पत्ति of Jivas and the world? How does the उपास्योपासकभाव come into existence ? What is exactly meant by birth or ana ? All such topics are discussed here, and the last Karika gives the considered opinion of the author as follows: - न कश्विज्जायते जीवः संभवोऽस्य न विद्यते। एतत्तदुत्तमं सत्यं यत्र किचिन्न जायते ।। This is the famous अजातिवाद or non-origination doctrine which was first systematically pro- pounded by Gaudapāda. (I) Sankara thus introduces the third Prakarana-ओङ्करनिर्णय उक्त: प्रपश्चोपशमः शिवोउद्वैत आत्मेतिप्रतिज्ञामात्रेण। ज्ञाते हैतं न विद्यत इति च। तत्र

स्तर्केण च प्रतिपादितः । अद्वैतं किमागममात्रेण प्रतिपत्तव्यमाहोस्वित्तर्केणापीत्यत आह शक्पते तर्केणापि ज्ञाठुम्। तत्कथमित्य द्वैत प्रकरणमारभ्यते। धर्म :- साधक: (जीवः ), Sankara. Prof. Vidhusekhara takes धर्म: to mean ' duty'. As the last Kārikā ( III. 48 ) uses the expression जीव, the meaning given by Sankara is a better one. Brahman is अज and अद्वैत; the existence of जीव and the उपास्योपासकभाव are possible only when aa is produced. So first, Brahman has to be born ( what exactly is meant by the Grfa of Brahman is made clear in the text itself later ), and then Jiva's ETEFra can function. The existence of जीव thus depends upon something else. जीव is therefore called a qUT, 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

Chapter III 89

to be pitied. He is a क्षुद्रब्रहमवित् 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 कपण. ( 2) Jiva is रुपण, who is अरपण then ?- this natural query is answered in this Karika. Brahman is called अकार्पण्यं ( not अकपण, because that expression implies the possibility of Brahman being possessed of some धर्म). तद्धि कार्पण्यास्पदम 'यत्रान्योऽन्यत्पशयत्यन्यच्छृणो त्यन्यद्विजानाति तदल्प मर्त्यमसत्' ... तद्विपरीतं सबाह्याभ्यन्तरमजमकार्पण्यं भूमाख्यं ब्रह्म (Sankara). समतां गतम् (same as साम्य 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 वस्तुतश््व (Anandagiri ). ( 3) Gaudapada shows by using the famous घटाकाश illustra- tion what is the real meaning of जाति or origination. The relation between 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 seems to give rise to घटाकाश, पटाकाश etc. Similarly आत्मन् जीवड

[3] 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 संघातऽ. But in no case is there any trace of real production. The so-called जाति is due to the उपाधिs. Sankara understands उदित: to mean (1) उक्त: or (2) उत्पन्नः (आत्मा परो हि यस्मादाकाशवत्सूक्ष्मो निरवयवः सर्वगत आकाशवदुक्तो जीवैः क्षेत्रज्ञैर्घटाकाशैरिव घटाकाशतुल्य उदित उक्त: । स एवाकाशसमः पर आत्मा। अथ वा घटाकाशैयथा- काश उदित उत्पन्नस्तथा परो जीवात्मभिरुत्पन्नो जीवात्मनां परस्मादात्मन उत्पत्तिर्या श्रूयते वेदान्तेषु सा महाकाशाद् घटाकाशोत्पत्तिसमा न परमार्थत इत्यभिप्रायः । तस्मा- देवाकाशाद्घटादय: संघाता यथोत्पद्यन्त एवमाकाशस्थानीयात्परमात्मनः पृथिव्यादि- भूत संघाता आध्यात्मिकाशर्व कार्यकारणलक्षणा रज्जुसर्पवद्विकल्पिता 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 Gaudapāda- Karikā

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 Yajnadatta do not suffer alike? If Devadatta dies, Yajnadatta 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 3qrfa ), similarly the सुख; दुःख etc. of one जीव do not affect other जीवs, यथा त्वाकाशस्या-

दुःखादिदोषवत्वे बन्धमोक्षादयो व्यावहारिका नं विरुध्यन्ते। ... तस्मादात्मभेदपरि- कल्पना वृथैव तार्किकै: 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 जीवड become different on account of the देहोपाधिs (7) The भेदऽ, 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 विकार of मृत्तिका; फेन, बुद्बुद etc. are विकार of water) or an अवयव (कपाल 1s 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 विकार:, says the Chandogya ( VI. 3-5). विकार is explained as सतच्त्रतोऽन्यथा प्रथा विकार इत्युदीरितः । ( Vedantasara). (8) बाल-Child, an ignorant person. Sankara in his Bhasya on Brahmasutra I. I-I says अप्रत्यक्षेपि ह्याकाशे वालास्तलमलिनताद्यव्यस्यन्ति, which appears to be an echo of the first half of this Karika. अबुद्धानां is equal to बालानाम्. बुद्धानां at any rate here, cannot refer to the Bauddhas as they do not believe in आत्मन्. The मलिनत्व etc. is really superimposed on the TTra by the ignorant who do not realise its real nature; similarly all विकारs associated with Atman by the ignorant are merely अध्यसित and have no real existence. देहोपाधिजीव- भेदकृतो जन्ममरणादिव्यवहारः ... न ह्यषरदेशस्तृङ्रवत्प्राण्यध्यारोपितोदकफेनतरङ्गादि मांस्तिथा नात्माबुधारोपितक्केशादिमलैर्मलिनो भवतीत्यर्थ: (Sankara).

Chapter 111 91

(9 ) The various fagrs 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 अविलक्षण (undergoing no change, remaining the same always ) like आकाश. For स्थितौ, Prof. Vidhusekhara would like to read स्थितः. स्थिता however fulfils the आकाङ्ा raised by गत्यागमन, aS स्थिति is usually found mentioned along with गति and आगति.

(I0) संघाता :- देहादि:, 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 HH. Both these views cannot be justified; it is futile 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 Hrar- विसर्जित. उपपत्तिः, reasonable explanation. Sankara takes the expression to mean संभव: (and also adds) सद्भावप्रतिपादको हेतु :. ( 1I ) In Kārikā II. 9, Gaudapāda declared that aTną was आकाशेनाविलक्षण. In this Karika and the next he refers to passages from the Taittiriyaka (by name ) and the Brhadaranyaka which corroborate his statement. In the Taittirīyopanişad ( Adhyāya II, ब्रह्मानन्दवली) the five sheaths are described, and Brahman सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं is spoken of as the ultimate प्रतिष्ठा.

अन्रमय: (3)

प्राणमयः (२)

मनोमय: (3)

विज्ञानमय: (४) आनन्दमय: (५)

92 Notes on Gaudapada-Kārikā

dhiw All these five कोशs are stated to be पुरुषविध; and ब्रह्मन, the ulti- mate प्रतिष्ठा, is by implication अपुरुषविध and so like आकाश. Sankara comments at length on the Taittiriya passage referred to in the आनन्दमयाधिकरण ( Brahmasutra I. I-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 परः जीवः (सर्वेषां जीवननिमित्तत्वाज्जीवः) of all the कोशs (तेषां), not merely of the first four. रसादय :- ( रस stands for अन्न) अन्नमय, प्राणमय, मनोमय, विज्ञानमय and आनन्दमय. According to Gau dapada, these कोशs are आत्ममायाविसर्जित. Prof. Vidhusekhara wants to read स यथा (for खं पथा) संप्रकाशित: which he explains as 'as it is made clear there.' The expression स यथा as used in passages like स यथा दुन्दुभेरहन्य- मानस्य ... , स यथा शङ्गस्य ... , स यथा वीणायै ... (Brhadaranyaka IV. 5) in a similar case, is always followed by a specific ur-a. Here there is no such दृष्टानत; besides खं यथा corresponds to यथाकाशः in the next Karika. Prof. Vidhusekhara's preference for स यथा is hardly reasonable.

( 12 ) This Kārika refers to Brhadāranyaka II. 5 which con- tains the famous मधुविद्या ( or मधुज्ञान). (1) पृथिवी सर्वेषां भूतानां मधु, अस्यै पृथिव्यै सर्वाणि भूतानि मधु (2) आप: आसामपां (3) अग्ि: (4) वायु: अस्य अग्रे: " अस्य वायो: (5) आदित्यः (6) दिशः अस्य आदित्यस्य

(7) चन्द्रः आसां दिशां अश्य चन्द्रस्य : 1 (8) विद्युत् (9) अस्ये विद्युतः स्तनायत्नुः (10) आकाश: अस्य स्तनयित्नो: अस्य आकाशस्य (I1) धर्मः "' अस्य धर्मस्य (12) सत्यं अस्य सत्यस्य (13 ) मानुषं अस्य मानुषस्य (14) आत्मा "' " अस्य आत्मन: In the case of each of the above fourteen pairs, occurs the following passage mutatis mutandis यश््वायम (अस्यां पृथिव्यां) तेजोमयोऽमृत-

Chapter 111 93

मयः पुरुषो यश्वायमध्यात्मं (शारीरः) तेजोमयोऽमृतमयः पुरुषोऽयमेव स योऽय मात्मेदममृतमिदं ब्रह्मेदं सर्वम्। The pairs referred to by द्वयो: are the अधिदेव (पृथिवी, आपः etc.) and the अध्यात्म (शारीर, रेतम, 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 परब्रह्मन, so here also ब्रह्मातमैक्य is declared in the refrain. Brahman is everywhere both outside and inside, just as there is the same 3TTTET, outside on the earth etc., and inside in the belly etc. The section describing every thing as मधु is called मधुब्राह्मण (ब्रह्मविद्याख्यं मध्चसृतममृतत्वं मोदन- हेतुत्वाद्विज्ञायते यस्मिन्निति मधुज्ञानं मधुब्राह्मणं तस्मिन्नित्यर्थः (Sankara). प्रकाशितः - अनुमानेन लोके ( Sankara ). (13) The identity of ब्रह्मन् and आत्मन् is praised and emphasis- ed by the Sruti and any idea of difference between the two is deprecated strongly. Thus both positively and negatively ब्रह्मात्म्यैक्य is rightly brought home to the #I4F. The identity passages are ( as quoted by Sankara in his Bhasya on Brahmasutra II. I-14) ऐतदात्म्य- मिदं सर्वे तत्सत्यं स आत्मा तत्वमसि (Chandogya VI. 8-7), आत्मैवेदं सर्वम् (VII. 25-2), इदं सर्व यदयमात्मा (Brha II. 4-6 ), नेह नानास्ति किंचन (IV.4-19); ब्रह्मैवेदं सर्वम (Mundaka II. 2-11) and the censure passages ( as quoted in the Bhasya on Gaudapadakarika ) are न तु तद्- द्वितीयमस्ति, द्वितीयाद्वै भयं भवति, ... उदरमन्तरं कुरुते। अथ तस्य भयं भवति, मृत्योः स मृत्युमाप्नोति य इह नानेव पशयति । (Sankara). प्रशस्यते-स्तूपते शास्त्रेण व्यासा- दिभिश्र्व ( Sankara). Anandagiri quotes in this connection, वासुदेव: सर्वमितिःस महात्मा सुदुर्लभः। (Gita) अहं हरि: 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 संघातs are just created by Maya. But this goes against some Sruti passages which say that before creation, sfia was there along with Atman ( we can understand the presence of =fia after creation, as being due to Maya ). How are such passages to be explained ? The Siddhantin's reply is as follows :-- The passage relied upon is सेयं देवतैक्षत हन्ताहमिमास्तिस्रो देवता अनेन जीवेनात्मनानुप्रविश्य नामरूपे व्याकरवाणीति। ... अनेनैव जीवेनात्मनानप्रविश्य नामरूपे व्याकरोत्। (Chandogya VI. 3-2-3), which shows that the जीव आत्मन was already in existence

94 Notes on Gaudapada-Kārika

along with the देवता ( Brahman) before creation (Sankara in his Bhasya on Brahmasutra II. r-36 remarks श्षुतौ तावत् अनेन जीवेनात्मना इति सर्गप्रमुखे शारीरमात्मानं जीवशव्देन प्राणधारणनिमित्तेनाभिलपन्ननादि: संसार इति दर्शयति। आदिमच्तरे तु प्रागनवधारितप्राणः सन् कथं प्राणधारणनिमित्तेन जीव- शव्देन सर्गप्रमुखेडभिलप्येत।न च धारयिष्यतीत्यतोऽभिलप्येत। अनागताद्धि संबन्धा- दतीतः संवन्धो वलवान्भवति। अभिनिष्यन्नत्वात।). The passage must not be interpreted literally, for we have seen that its literal interpreta- tion is impossible in the face of आत्मैकत्व. So here the पृथक्त्व of जीव and HT should be understood figuratively as referring to a future state of things obtaining when the creation by Māya comes into existence, It is an illustration of the use of the Bhavika figure of speech (प्रत्यक्षा इव यद्भावा क्रियन्ते भूतभाविनः । तन्भ्राविकम् Kavyaprakasa). The popular expressions ओदनं पचति ( one really cooks the rice- grain, not the cooked rice which is really the meaning of ओदन), सदृशीं भार्यामुपेयात् ( the lady is entitled to be called a भार्या only after marriage ) refer to the भविष्यद्वृत्ति 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 Karika, the passage referred to in the first haif, being the Chandogya अनेन जीवेनात्मना etc. But the Sankarabhasya on the Karika ( entirely in opposition to what the Sānkarabhāsya on Brahmasūtra II. I-36 says ) takes प्रागत्पत्ते: पूर्वम to mean कर्मकाण्डे, refers to मन्त्रवर्ण, स दाधार पृथिवीं द्याम्, RV. X. 12t-r, sees here विरोध between कर्मकाण्ड and ज्ञानकाण्ड, and remarks यतो वा इमानि भूतानि जायन्ते ... इत्यायुत्पतत्यर्थोप- निषद्वाक्येभ्यः प्राक्पृथकत्वं कर्मकाण्डे प्रकीर्तितं तन्न परमार्थम् । कि तर्हि गौणम्। महाकाशघटाकाशादिभेदवत् । यथौदनं पचतीति भविष्यदवृत्त्या तद्वत्। ... उपनिषत्स्वेकत्वं श्रुत्या प्रतिपिपादयिषितं भविष्यतीति भाविनीमेकवृत्तिमाश्रित्य लोके भददृष्चनुवादो गौण एवेत्यभिप्रायः । This means that the Karikabhasya takes भविष्यदूवृत्ति to refer to the आत्मैकन्व to be ultimately established. An alternative interpretation is offered by the same, अथ वा तदैक्षत, तत्तेजोऽसृजत इत्यायुत्पत्तेः प्राकू एकमेवाद्वितीयम् इत्येकत्वं प्रकीर्तितम्। तदेव च तत्सत्यं स आत्मा तत्वमसि इत्येकत्वं भविष्यतीति तां भविष्यद्ृत्तित्वमपेक्ष्य यज्जीवात्मनोः पृथकत्वं यत्र क्वचिद्वाक्ये गम्यमानं तद्गौणम् । This makes matters still worse; the subject of प्रकीर्तितम् is not पृथकत्वं but एकत्वं understood ! and the geaea is to be referred to some unspecified passage. It is clear that the Kārikābhāsya 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 11I 95 sūtrabhāșya ( II. I-36 ), it is possible to argue that the Bhāsya on the Kārikās attributed to Sankara, could not have been a work of Ādiśańkara. It would be seen that Gaudapada boldly distinguishes between मुख्यश्रुतिs and गौणश्रुतिs, and Sankara does not lag behind him in this respect. The expression प्रागृत्पत्तेः occurs in Karika I in this Prakarana, where the Karikabhasya understands it in its natural sense. The meaning कर्मकाण्डे given here is not therefore acceptable. (15) The objector says :- The पृथक्त्व of जीव and आत्मन् before creation may be admitted as गाण, 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 आत्मकत्व as the highest reality ? The Siddhantin'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 साधकS 5 to grasp the profound truth viz. आत्मकत्व, in accordance with the अरुन्धतीदर्शनन्याय. The मृतु and लोह दृष्टानतs are found in Chandogya VI. 3.4-5, यथा सोम्पैकेन मृत्पिण्डेन सर्वे मृन्मयं विज्ञातं स्याद्ाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं सृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम्। यथा सोम्यैकेन 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 3e ). The विस्फुिङ्ग दृष्टान्त is found in Brhadaranyaka II. I. 20, यथा अग्नेः क्षुद्रा विस्फुलिङ्गा व्युच्चरन्त्येवमेवास्मादात्मनः सर्वे प्राणाः सर्वे लोकाः सर्वे देवा: सर्वाणि भूतानि व्युञ्चरन्ति । also in Kausitaki III.3, यथा अग्नेज्वलतो विस्फुलिङ्गा विप्रतिष्ठेसन्नेवमेवैतस्मादात्मनः प्राणा यथायतनं विप्रतिष्ठन्ते प्राणेभ्यो देवा देवेभ्यो लोकाः। The आदि refers to passages like स यथार्रेधाग्नेरभ्याहितस्य पृथग्धूमा विनिश्वरन्त्येवं वा ओऽस्य महतो भूतस्य निःश्वसितमेतद् ... सर्वाणि च भूतान्यस्यैवैतानि सर्वाणि निःश्वसितानि (Brha. IV. 5.II) and to ऊर्णनाभि in II. I. 20 etc. eraarr-lit. coming down; reaching the level of the dull-witted. जी वपरमात्मैकत्वबुद्ध्यवताराय (K. bhasya). Read also the following from K. bhasya, कल्पसर्गभेदात्सवादश्रुतीनामुत्पत्तिश्रुतीनां च प्रतिसर्गमन्यथात्व-

96 Notes on Gaudapāda-Kārıkā

संवादोत्पत्तिश्रुतीनां शक्यं कल्पयितुम्। तथात्वप्रतिपत्तये ध्यानार्थमिति चेन्न।कलहात्पीत्त- प्रलयानां प्रतिपत्तेरनिष्ठत्वात्। तस्मादुत्पत्यादिमतय आत्मैकत्वबुद्ध्यवतारायैव नान्यार्था: कल्पयितु युक्ता: । (I6) आश्रमाः- आश्रमिणोऽधिकताः, वर्णिनश् मार्गगः । (K.bhasya), used here in the sense of ' types of men'; the usual sense of the four आश्रम (ब्रह्मचर्य etc.) would not do, as the आश्रमs are said to be त्रिविध here. Anandagiri remarks, आश्रमिणो वर्णिनश्र्व कार्यब्रह्मोपासका हीनदृष्टयः । कारणब्रह्मोपासका मध्यमदृष्टयः । अद्वितीयत्रह्मदर्शनशीलास्तूत्तमदष्टयः । We think that the reference here is to ऊध्वे गच्छन्ति सत्वस्था मध्ये तिष्ठन्ति राजसाः। जघन्यगणवृत्तस्था अधो गच्छन्ति तामसाः ॥ (Gita XIV.18), त्रिविधा भवति श्रद्धा देहिनां सा स्वभावजा। सान्विकी राजसी चैव तामसी चेति तां गृण॥ ( Gita XVII. 2) so that सत्वस्थ, राजस and तामस types of people are alluded to. Sankara in his Sutrabhasya ( कांश्विृत्यन्तसुखभाजः करोति देवादीन् कांश्विदृत्यन्तदुःखभाज: पश्वादीन् कांश्विन्मध्यमभोगभाजो मनुष्यादीन् II.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 ( केषांचित्किल विनेयानां बाह्ये वस्तुन्यभिनिवेश- मालक्ष्य तदनुरोधेन बाह्यार्थवादप्रक्रियेयं विरचिता। नासौ सुगताभिप्रायः। तस्य तु विज्ञानैकर्कन्धवाद एवाभिप्रेतः । Sutrabhasya II. 2-23 ), and enunciating three different doctrines ( बाह्यार्थविज्ञानशून्यवादत्रयमितरेतरविरुद्धमुपदिशता सुगतेन स्पष्टीऊतमात्मनोSसंबद्धप्रलापित्वं, प्रद्वेषो वा प्रजासु विरुद्वार्थप्रतिपत्या विमुह्ेयु- रिमा: प्रजा इति। II.2-32). This Karika explains the expression अवताराय used in the last one. (17) द्वैतिनs- Followers of सांख्य, वैशेषिक, मीमांसा etc. अद्वैत, being one, does not admit of any differences; while aa 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 कदाचिदाच्चरितेऽपि द्वेषो न जायते। परबुद्ध्यभावात्तथा द्वैताभिमानिभिरुपद्रवे क्षुद्रे कृतेऽपि नाद्वैतदर्शिनस्तेषु द्वेषो जायते। सर्वानन्यत्वात्परबुद्ध्यभावादित्यर्थः । says Anandagiri. Advaita is all pervad- ing 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 is made clear in the next Kārikā ), hence there cannot be any fary

Chapter 1I1 97

between अद्वैत and द्वैत. The Advaitins admit द्वैत, but as merely having existence in appearance only; while the द्वैतिनूs being भ्रान्त, regard द्वैत as real both परमार्थतः and अपरमार्थतः. The ब्रह्मवित् is the आत्मन् of the द्वैतिनूs, so he pities them for being भ्रान्त (यथा मनतगजारूढ उन्मत्तं भूमिष्ट प्रति गजारूढोऽहं वाहय मां प्रतीति ब्रुवाणसपि तं प्रति न वाहयत्यविरोध- बुद्ध्या तद्दत ( K. bhasya. 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 -a, 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 भेद 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. यत्परमार्थसदह्वैतं मायया भिद्यते ह्येतत् ... न परमार्थतः निरवयवत्वादात्मनः । सावयवरं ह्यवयवान्यथात्वेन भिद्यते । यथा मृद्घटादिमेदैः। तत्वती भिद्यमाने ह्यमृतमज- मद्यं स्व्रभावतः सन्मत्यतां व्रजेत। यथाग्निः शीतताम्। तञ्चानिष्टं स्वभाववैपरीत्यगमनम्। ( K. bhāsya ). ( 20 ) Some arfaas are very illogical in their statements. They regard their Highest as immortal and at the same time say that he is born as well! Now every one must admit that a thing that is born, must be mortal (जातस्य हि ध्रुवो सृत्यु: Gita II. 27); only an unproduced ( or unborn ) object can be immortal. How possibly can an object having an immortal nature become mortal? These वादिनs, according to K. bhasya are केचिदुपनिषद्व्याख्यातारो ब्रह्मवादिनो araFr:, perhaps the Krsna-worshippers, Rama-worshippers etc. are referred to ; for these while regarding Rāma, Krsna 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. thāsya was written by Sankara who hardly ever refers to commentators on उपनिषद्ड. ( 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. fRsaq व्यवसायस्ते प्रकृतिसत्वां नियोक्ष्यति। (Gita XVIII. 59). ( 22 ) These giaas do not see the absurdity in their reason- ing. They say 13

98 Notes on Gaudapada-Kārika

[ I]that their Highest is naturally अमृत, [ z ] that he is born and so becomes मर्त्य; [3 ] though become a mao in this way, he still can be made अमृत and निश्वल. It is wrong to say that a naturally असृत thing can become मर्त्य ( for no one can change one's nature ); assuming that it does be- come aa, why should it again change its nature ? If it again be- comes aga, what guarantee is there that it would not change its nature again ? Who would care for a nrar that is always changing and not permanent? Read the following acute observations of Sankara, यस्य तूत्पायो मोक्षस्तस्य मानसं वाचिकं कायिकं वा कार्यमपेक्षत इति युक्तम्। तथा विकार्यतवे च तयोः पक्षयोरमोंक्षस्य धुनमनित्यत्वम्। न हि दध्यादि विकार्यम् उत्पादं वा घटादि नित्य हट्ट लोके। न चाप्यत्वेनापि कार्यापेक्षा स्वात्मस्वरूपत्वे सत्यनाप्यत्वात्। स्वरूप्यतिरिक्तत्वेपि ब्रह्मणो नाप्यत्वं सर्वगतत्वेन नित्याप्तस्वरूपत्वात्सर्वेण ब्रह्मणः आकाशस्येव। नापि संस्कार्यो मोक्ष: येन व्यापारमपेक्षेत। संस्कारो हि नाम संस्कार्यस्य एणधानेन वा स्यादोषापनयनेन वा।न तावद्ुणाधानेन संभवति, अनाधेयातिशयब्रह्म- स्व रूपत्वान्मोक्षस्य। नापि दोषापनयनेन नित्यशुद्धब्रह्मस्वरूपत्वान्मोक्षस्य। स्वात्मधर्म एव संस्तिरोभूतो मोक्ष: क्रिययात्मनि संस्क्रियमाणेडमित्यज्यते यथादर्शे निघर्षणक्रियया संस्क्रियमाणे भास्वरत्वं धर्म इति चेन्न। क्रियाशयत्वानुपपत्तेरत्मनः । यदाश्रया तम- विकर्वती नैवात्मान लभते। यद्यात्मा क्रियया विक्रियेतानित्यत्वमात्मनः प्रसज्येत। Sūtrabhāşya I. 1-4 ). ( 23 ) There are Śruti passages which speak of a real ( gaa:, 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 Sruti is, and by logical reasoning weed out certain passages as being गौण. भूततः means परमार्थतः. Passages like एतस्माद्वा आत्मनः आकाशः संभूत: etc, speak of a real crea. tion; passages mentioned in the next Karika speak of मायासृष्टि To bring about a समन्त्रय of these two types of passages, we have no alternative but to regard the परमार्थसृट्टि passages as गाण; if they are regarded as मुख्य, the मायासृष्टि passages would have no scope. Prof. Vidhuśekhara takes aa: to mean 'from the existent' ( referring t0 सदेव सोम्पेदमग्र आसीत-Chandogya VI. 2-I) and अभूततः 'from the non-existent' (असद्वा इदमग्र आसीत ततो वै सदजायत Taittiriya II. 7-1 ), and remarks'accorling to Sankara भूततः is परमार्थतः and अभूततः सायया. But in IV. 3 he explains the same words saying

Chapter II1 99

भूतस्य विद्यमानस्य, अभूतस्य अविद्यमानस्य.'० It seems that Prof. Vidhusekhara has not understood the real purport of the present Karika. Gaudapada is concerned here with pointing out the real nature of the process of creation, and not the creation of any thing. In IV. 3, the expression used is भूतस्य जातिम, which is entirely different from भूततः सृज्यमाने here. The Karikabhasya is perfectly justified in interpreting 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. I1 ) 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. मायाभि: is explained as इन्द्रियप्रज्ञाभि- रविद्यारूपाभि: in K. bhasya. 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 gtfa passage, probably referring to प्रजापतिश्वरति गर्भेअन्तरजायमानो बहुधा विजायते । तस्य योनि परिपशयन्ति धीरास्तस्मिन् ह तस्थुर्भुवनानि विश्वा ॥ (Taittiri- yaranyaka, III. 13-1 ). As there are only two gias in the Karika, only two passages are intended; in that case, the second line may be explained as the conclusion drawn from the first line, ' the Purusa or Ätman is born in various ways due to Maya, although really not being born.'

( 25 ) Gaudapāda further fortifies his contention by referring to the passage, अन्धं तमः प्रविशन्ति येऽसंभूतिमुपासते। ततो भूय इव ते तमो य उ संभूत्यां रताः ।( Isopanisad 12). Those who belive in the संभववाद, the doctrine of a real creation, enter into deep pitchy darkness. This shows that the Isopanisad condemns the creation as futile or unreal. Anandagiri says सम्यग्भूतिरश्वर्य यस्याः सा संभूतिर्देवता हिरण्यगर्भाख्या। तस्याश्र कार्यमध्ये भेष्ठाया निन्दितत्वात प्रधानमल्लनिवर्हणन्यायेन संभवशन्दितं कार्यमेव निषिध्यते । तथा च सिद्धं तस्यावस्तुत्वमित्यर्थः । K. bhasya also says संभूतेरपास्य- त्वापवादात्संभवः प्रतिषिध्यते। ... संभूतेरपवादात्संभूतेरापेक्षिकमेव सच्मिति। परमार्थ- सदात्मकत्वमपेक्ष्यासृताख्य: संभवः प्रतिषिध्यते। All this seems to be quite far-fetched. Gaudapada apparently understands संभति and संभव to be just synonyms in the sense of 'creation','origination'. को न्वेनं जनयेत refers to the Brha. passage जात एव न जायते को न्वेनं जनयेत्पुनः (III. 28). In the first line, wa was condemned, but that leaves room for believ- ing in the संभवकारण lying in a dormant condition, and suspending

100 Notes on Gaudapada-Kārika

its activities of na for the time being. The second line says that no संभवकारण also exists. There is only आत्मन् and nothing else, no संभव, no संभवकारण either. (26) The passages from the Brhadaranyaka अथात आदेशो नेति नेति। (II. 3-6), स एष नेति नेत्यात्मागृह्यो न हि गृह्यते। (III. 9-26, IV. 2-4, 22 etc. ) make it clear that whatever other Upanisadic 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 very reason the reality can only be e7 or unorigimated; only the originated द्वैत can be ग्राह and have a ग्राहक. ( 27 ) Having shown that the Śruti passages favour engaa: सृज्यमानत्व, Gaudapada now turns to pointing out that युक्ति also favours the same view ( in Kārikā 23, it was declared that what is युक्तियुक्त can alone be निश्वित ). A thing which is सत, and has सत्ता for its लक्षण, cannot have any जन्म or origination in reality (for this FH 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 a can have a=a 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? aa: may be taken as abl. sing. also. A thing can come into existence from the wa only through माया. सतो मायाविनः मायया जन्मकार्यम् .. सतो हि विद्यमानात्कारण- न्मायानिर्मितस्य हस्त्यादिकार्यस्येव जगज्जन्म युज्यते नासतः कारणात्। ... अथवा सतो विद्यमानस्य वस्तुनो रज्ज्वादे: सर्पादिवन्मायया जन्म युज्यते न तु तच्वतो यथा तथाग्राह्य- स्यापि सत एवात्मनो रज्जुसर्पवज्जगद्रपेण मायया जन्म युज्यते। न तु तच्वत एवाजस्या- ह्मनो जन्म। (K. bhasya). Once you admit that a जात thing can be originated, there would be no finality for this process and a?er- दोष would be the result. ( 28 ) The last Kārika had in mind opponents who were ready to admit that the highest is wa, this one refers to those who rely on the Sruti passage असदेव सोम्येदमग्र आसीत, and say that the जगत् comes out of असत्. The असद्वादिनs are really beneath contempt. There can be no question of any Ha whether real or illusory with reference to a non-existent thing. What is the use of inquiring

Chapter 11I

whether the a-earga was married in accordance with Vedic rites or under the Civil Marriages Act ? ( 29 ) It has been proved so far that = can only be due to Māya. This Karika tells us how that happens. Gaudapada turns to his favourite view that the जाग्रत state and स्वम् state are identical in their working. In dream, the mind creates different objects with the ग्राह्मग्राहकभाब; the same thing happens in the जाग्रत state also. The जगत् is मनोदृश्य in the जाग्रत् state as in the स्वप् state. ( 30) The मनस is really अनूय, 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 मनसू; the same state of things obtains in the arara state as well. (31) All द्वत is just the creation of the mind. When मनस् 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 द्वत; 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, मनसू ceases to have any विकल्पs. There being no ग्राह्, मनसू has no work to do. The अमनीभाव referred to here is named कवलीभाव in Yogavasistha, यद्द्रषुरस्याद्रष्टरतवं द्ृश्याभावे भवेद्धलात् ! तद्विद्धि केवलीभावं तत एवासतः सतः ॥ तत्तामुपगते भावे रागद्वेषादिवासनाः। शाम्यन्त्यस्पन्दिते वाते स्पन्दनक्षुब्धता यथा ॥ असंभवति सर्वस्मिन्दिग्भूम्याकाशरूपिणि। प्रकाइये यादृशं रूप प्रकाशस्यामलं भवेत्॥ त्रिजगत्वमहं चेति दृइये Sसत्तामुपागते। द्रषुः कृयात्केवलीभावस्तादृशो विमलात्मनः ॥ ( III. 4.53-56). (33) The मनसू which has ceased to be मनसू (and so has caused the absence of all द्वत ) is thus merely ज्ञान, unoriginated and void of all illusory contacts and so is not different from the u which is Brahman. The मनसू (which is Brahman) thus realises itself as Brahman, unoriginated and eternal. K. bhasya takes ब्रह्म ज्ञेयं to mean ब्रह्म ज्ञेयं यस्य स्वस्य तदिदं ब्रह्मज्ञेयभ्. This is unnecessarily clumsy. The first line says ज्ञान is ज्ञेयाभिन्न, naturally the आकाङ्गा is what is this ज्ञेय ? This आकाङ is satisfied by the statement ज्ञेय is ब्रह्म, अजं नित्यम्. विज्ञानमानन्द ब्रह्म, सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म etc. show that ज्ञान is Brahman.

I02 Notes on Gaudapada-Karika

( 34 ) Gaudapāda in this and the following Kārikās points out that the अमनीभाव due to आत्मभाव is entirely different from the daily merging into the aa, which occurs when a man is in deep sleep. The Chandogya passage (VI.8-I) says, यत्रतत्पुरुषः स्वपिति नाम सता सोम्य तदा संपन्नो भवति स्वमपीतो भतति तस्मादेनं स्वपितीत्याचक्षते स्व्रं ह्यपीतो भवति। But this merging is merely temporary; in fact, the mind is in a state of coma or aa in deep sleep, with its mischicf- making powers intact, but lying dormant. The mind does not know that it had been merged into the aa. The result is that when the deep sleep is over, the mind goes on its travels again, and is again envelop- ed by the illusory विकल्प (says the Chandogya ... एवमेव खलु सोम्येमाः सर्वाः प्रनाः सति संपद्य न विदुः सति संपद्यामह इति। ... सत आगत्य न विदुः सत आगच्छामह इति त इह व्याघ्रो वा सिंहो वा टको वा वराहो वा कीटो वा पतङ़गे वा दंशो वा मशको वा यद्यन्भवन्ति तदा भवन्ति । V1. 9-10-2). In both सुषुत्ति and आत्मबोध, the mind ceases to act, and merges into Atman; but in सुपुति the mind is still possessed of the वासनाबीजs, and hence this merging is temporary. In आत्मबोध, on the other hand, the वासना- वीजs are completely destroyed and the mind is आत्मन himself, having realised its true nature. In short, the अमनीभाव in सुपुप्ति is pseudo- अमनीभाव and should be carefully distinguished from that caused by आत्मबोध which makes the mind free from िकल्पs, steady and pro- perly regulated. धीमतः, विवेकवतः (K. bhasya), of the wise man ( Prof. Vidhuśekhara ). The context seems to show that vina: is an adjectival expression going with mind, cf. शनः शनरुपरमेदबुद्धया धृतिगृहीतया। Gita VI. 25. प्रचार :- movements, working. यस्मात्सुषुप्तेऽन्य:

बोधहुताशविप्लुष्टाविद्यानर्थप्रवृत्तिबीजस्य निरुद्धस्यान्य एव प्रशान्तसर्वक्केशरजसः स्वतन्त्रः प्रचारः । अतो न तत्समः । ( K. bhasya). (35) In सुबुत्ति, the मनस् is benumbed; in आत्मबोध on the other hand, it being thoroughly controlled and kept away from all 3TTaT, 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 प्राप्तोडसि (Brha. IV.2-4), विद्वान्न विभेति कदाचन. Brahman is अभय, because all भय arises from द्वैत and द्वैत does not exist in Brahman. ज्ञानमालोक: प्रकाशो यस्य तद्ब्रह्म ज्ञानालोकं विज्ञानैकरसघनमित्बर्थः । समन्ततः समन्तात्सर्वतो व्योमवन्नैरन्तर्येण व्यापकमित्यर्थः ।(K. bhasya). ( 36 ) As Ha thus is Brahman, it can be rightly spoken of in terms associated with it, अजम्, अनिद्रम्, अस्बप्रम्, etc. There being no

Chapter III 103

अविया or माया influencing such मनस, it is without birth, sleep, dream etc. It has no name and form, being intangible, यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते says the Sruti. 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 inherently, retain- ing its splendour for ever. नोपचार: कथंचन - Gaudapada says that in describing मनसू with the अमनीभाव, as अजम्, अनिद्रम् etc. he is not using figurative language. The expressions etc. fit in with the मनस, in their literal meaning. Prof. Vidhusekhara takes TIT to mean 'access-concentration' (one of the two kinds or stages of Samadhi, उपचार समाधि and अर्पणा, 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 Gaudapada has this meaning in mind, in using the expression उपचार. K. bhasya takes उपचार: to mean उपचरणम् (नेह ब्रह्मण्येवंविध उपचरणसुपचारः कर्तव्यः। यथान्येषामात्मस्वरूपत्यतिरेकेण समा- धानायुपचार: ।). Anandagiri also remarks उपचारः समाध्यादिः। निरुपाधिके ब्रह्मणि विदुषो न कर्तव्यशेषः । (37) The मनस with the अमनीभाव is समाधि itself, not some- thing to be achieved by समाधि. Prof. Vidhusekhara points out that is a particular Samadhi in Buddhism, which is hardly intended by Gaudapada. समाधि: समाधिनिमित्तप्रज्ञावयम्यत्वात्।समाधीयतेडस्मि- न्निति वा समाधिः। (K. bhasya). The Yogasutras call this the निर्विकल्प समाधधि. (38) ग्रह and उत्सर्ग are out of question, when there is only one thing which is निरवयत and अविक्रिय; as the मनसू ceases to func- tion, 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 Gaudapada had promised to explain in Karika 2. Cf. आत्मसंस्थ मनः कृत्वा न किचिदृपि चिन्तयेत् ॥ Gita VI. 25, यदा पञ्चावतिष्ठन्ते ज्ञानानि मनसा सह। बुद्धिश्र्व न विचेष्टति तामाहु: परमां गतिम् ॥ तां योगमिति मन्यन्ते स्थिरामिन्द्रिय- धारणाम्। ... Katha I. 6-I0-II. (39) The समाधि in Karika 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 Gaudapāda- Karikā

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 विद्याददुःख- संयोगवियोगं योगसंज्ञितम् । which is necessarily void of मात्रास्पर्शs that are the main obstacle to the realisation of the highest bliss ( मात्रास्पर्शास्तु कौन्तेय शीतोष्णसुखदुःखदाः । आगमापायिनोSनित्यास्तांस्तितिक्षस्व भारत ॥।II. 14). Gaudapada appears to be indebted to the Gita for the detailed descrip- tion of the अस्पर्शयोग given in Karikas, 40-47. (40) अभय, दुःखक्षय, प्रबोध and eternal शान्ति, all depend upon the निग्रह of the mind. K. bhasya says that those who have realised the real nature of मनसू (viz. that it is कल्पित), secure this अभय etc. naturally, without auy further effort ( येषां पुनर्त्रह्मस्वरूप- व्यतिरेकेण रज्जुसर्पवरत् कल्पितमेव मन इन्द्रियादि च न परमार्थतो विद्यते तेषां ब्रह्मस्वरूपा- णामभयं मोक्षाख्या चाक्षया शान्तिः स्वभावत एव सिद्धा नान्यायत्ता नोपचार: कथंचने- त्यवोचाम। ये त्वतोऽन्ये योगिनो मार्गगा हीनमध्यमटृष्यो मनोऽन्यदात्मव्यतिरिक्तमात्म- संबन्धि पशयन्ति तेषामात्मसत्यानुवोधरहितानां मनसो निग्रहायत्तमभयं सर्वेषां योगि- ). This does not appear to be warranted by the text. The Hres however must not be down-hearted, but must continue his 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 Kuśa grass ) for a person who allows his mind to be associated with dis- tracting experiences. This Kārikā is quoted in Pañcadaśī. Cf. « निश्वयेन योक्तव्यो योगोऽनिर्विण्णचेतसा (Gita VI. 23). Madhusudana Sarasvati, in his comment on the above Gita passage says अनिर्विण्ण- चेतसा, एतावतापि कालेन योगो न सिद्धः किमतः पर कष्टमित्यनुतापो निर्वेदस्तद्रहितेन चेतसा, इह जन्मनि जन्मान्तरे वा सेत्स्यति कि त्वरयेत्येवं धैर्ययुक्त्ेन मनसेत्यर्थः। तदेतद्रौड पाढा उदाजहुः। 'उत्सेक उदधे ... परिखेदतः ।' Madhusudana then refers to टिट्टिभोपाख्यान in the Hitopadesa to illustrate his point, अत्र संप्रदायविद आख्यायिकामाचक्षते । कस्यचित्किल पक्षिणोऽण्डानि तीरस्थानि तरङ्गवेगेन समुद्रोऽज- हार। स न समुद्र शोषयिष्यास्पेति प्रवृत्तः स्त्रमुख्रेैैं जबिन्दुसुपर प्रचिक्षेप। तदा च बहुभि: पक्षिभिर्वन्धुनगैरवार्यमाणोऽपि नैवोपरराम। यहच्छया च तत्रागतेन नारदेन निवारितोऽ्यस्मिन् जन्मनि जन्मान्तरे वा येन केनाप्युपायेन समुद्रं शोषयाम्येवेति प्रति-

Chapter 11I I05

जज्ञे। ततश दैवानुकूल्पात् ऊपालुर्नारदो गरुडं तत्साहाय्याय प्रेषयामास समुद्रसत्वज्ज्ञाति- द्रोहेण त्वामवमन्यत इति वचनेन । ततो गरुडपक्षवातेन शुष्यन्समुद्रो भीतस्तान्यण्ड।नि तस्मे पक्षिणे प्रददाविति। एवमखेदेन मनोनिरोधे परमधर्मे प्रवर्तमानं योगिनमीश्वरोऽनु- गृह्णाति ततश्व पक्षिण इव तस्याभिमतं सिध्यतीति भावः । अपररिखेदत: in the text corresponds to अनिरविण्ण चेतसा in the Gita passage. The Gita (VI.34) compares मनोनिग्रह to वायुनिग्रह, both are सुदुष्कर. (42 ) Gaudapada says that मनोनिग्रह is very difficult no doubt (cf. चश्लं हि मनः कष्ण प्रमाथि बलवद्दृढम्। तस्याहं निग्रहं मन्ये वायोरिव सुदुष्करम् ॥ श्रीभगवानुवाच। असंशयं महावाहो मनो दुर्निग्रहं चलम्। अभ्यासेन तु कौन्तेय वैराग्येण च ग्रृह्यते ॥ असंयतात्मना योगो दुष्प्राप इति मे मतिः। वश्यात्मना तु यतता शक्योऽवाप्तुमुपायतः ॥ Gita VI. 34-56 ), but there are उपायs, a resort to which enables the साधक to achieve his goal. These उपायड are described in Kārikās 42-45. First, the ru should be on constant vigil against काम and भोग 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 रजोगणसमुद्भवः । महाशनो महापाप्मा विद्ध्येनमिह वैरिणम्। ... आवृतं ज्ञानमेतेन ज्ञानिनो नित्यचैरिणा। कामरूपेण कौन्तेय दुष्पूरेणानलेन च।। ( III. 36, 38-39 ). Then he should always beware of the pseudo- pleasurable sensations in सुषुप्ति, and control his mind against harbouring them. काम and भोग can easily be recognised as one's enemies, but au 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 प्रमाणविपर्ययविकल्प- स्मृतीनामन्यतमया वापि वृत्त्या परिणतं ... कामभोगयोरिति चिन्त्यमानावस्था भुज्यमाना- वस्थाभेदेन द्विवचनम्। ... सुप्रसन्नम् आयासवर्जितं ... यथा कामो विषयगोचरप्रमाणादि- वृश्युत्पादनेन समाधिविरोधी तथा लयोऽपि निद्राख्यवृत्त्युत्पादनेन समाधिविरोधी। Madhusudana Sarasvatī on Gītā VI. 26, where the next four Gaudapada Karikas are also commented upon by him ). ( 43) To keep off काम and भोग, one should never forget that they would but lead to gir; by always remembering the teaching of Vedanta that all is 3TT or Brahman, one would get out of the clut- ches of द्वैत. सर्वे दुःखम is the most important basic tenet of Buddhism. Gaudapada however adds that अजं (ब्रह्म ) सर्व also must not be lost sight of at the same time. The remembrance of अजं सर्व nips in the 14

106 Notes on Gaudapāda-Kārikā

bud all द्वैत idea (सर्वे ह्वैतमविद्याविजृम्भितमल्पं दुःखमेवेत्यनुसृत्य "यो वै भूमा तत्सुख नाल्पे सुखमस्ति अथ यदल्पं तम्मत्ये तद् दुःखम्" इति श्रुत्यर्थ सरूपदेशादनु पश्वात् पर्यालोच्य कामान् चित्यमानावस्थान विषयान्भोगान् भुज्यमानावस्थांश्र्व विषयान् निवर्तयेत् मनसः सकाशादित्यर्थः । कामश्व भोगश्व कामभोगं तस्मान्मनो निवर्तयेदिति वा । Madhusudana). कामभोगान accusative plural or कामभोगात 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 experi- enced in sleep, there is no विक्षेप in that state; there is silence but that is the silence of the grave, not enlightened silence. So the Hru4 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 iqs. Once the mind has become averse to fayas and steadied, care should be taken to see that it is not again attracted by the विषयs. Cf. संकल्पप्रभवान् कामांस्त्यकत्वा सर्वानशेषतः । मनसैवेन्द्रियग्रामं विनियम्य समन्ततः ॥ शनैःशनैरुपरमेद- बुद्ध्या धतिगृहीतया। ... ॥ यतो यतो निश्वरति मनश्वश्वलमस्थिरम्। ततस्ततो नियम्यै- तदात्मन्येव वशं नयेत्॥। (Gita VI. 24-26). सकषायं सरागं बीजसंयुक्तं ( K. bhasya), स्तब्धीभूतं सकषायं रागद्वेपादिप्बलयासनावशेन स्तब्धीभावाख्येन कषायेण दोषेण युक्तम् (Madhusudana). कपाय is the same as the कल्पष in the Gita ( VI. 27-28 ) or the केशs (राग, द्वेष and मोह) of the Yogasutras. समप्राप्ं (साम्यापन्नं K. bhasya), समं ब्रम्म ( Madhusudana). Prof. Vidhusekhara reads शमप्रामं for समप्रातम्. This Karika is quoted in the Vedantasara. On लये संबोधयेत, Madhusudana comments as follows, निद्राशेषाजीर्णबहवशनश्रमाणां लयकारणानां निरोधेन चित्तं सम्यक् प्रबोधयेदुन्थानप्रयतनेन. He appears to take aa to refer not to the state of deep sleep or सुपुप्ति, but to pseudo-sleep caused by indigestion, over-eating, fatigue etc.

(45 ) The Hr 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 निःसङ्ग: भवेत् is explained by Madhu- sudana in two ways :- (i) प्रज्ञया यदुपलक्ष्यते सुखं तदप्यविद्यापरिकल्पितं सृषवेत्येवंभावनया निःसङ्गो निस्पृहः सर्वसुखेषु भवेत्। (ii) अथवा प्रज्ञया सविकल्प- सुखाकारवृत्तिरुपया सह सङ्ग परित्यजेत् न तु स्वरूपसखमपि निर्दत्तिकेन चित्तेन नानुभवेत्

Chapter III I07

स्वभावप्राप्तस्य तस्य वारयितुमशक्यत्वात्. एकीकुर्यात् प्रयत्नतः-आत्मन्येवैकीकुर्यात ... चित्स्व रूपसत्तामान्रमेवापादयेदित्यर्थः (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 दोqs could be taken to have been referred to. अनिङ्गनं-इङ्गनं चलनं तद्रहितं निवातप्रदीपकल्पम् (Madhu- sudana), अचलं (K. bhasya); cf. यथा दीपो निवातस्थो नेङ्गते सोपमा स्मृता । योगिनो यतचित्तस्य युञ्तो योगमात्मनः । Gita VI. 19. अनाभासं-न केनचिद्विषया- कारेणाभासत इत्येतत् कषायसुखारवादयोरुभयान्तर्भाव उक्त एवं । (Madhusudana), न केनचित्कल्पितेन विषयभावेनावभासत इति। (K. bhasya). Cf. तदा योगी ह्यनाभासं प्रज्ञया पशयते जगत । Lankavatara X. 94. The expression निराभास also is used to express the same thing by the Lankavatāra. (47) निर्वाणं-कैवल्यं; अकथ्यं, न शक्यते कथयितुम। अत्यन्तासाधारण- विषयत्वात् (K.bhasya), क्षीरयडादिमाघुर्यभेदस्येव स्वानुभवमात्राधिगम्यत्वाद- वाच्यत्वम् (Anandagiri). Cf. योऽन्तःसुखोऽन्तरारामस्तथान्तज्योतिरेव यः। स योगी ब्रह्मनिर्वाणं ब्रह्मभूतोऽधिगच्छति ॥ ... लभन्ते ब्रह्मनिर्वाणसृषयः क्षीणकल्मषाः ।छिन्न- द्वैधा यतात्मानः सर्वभूतहिते रताः ॥ कामक्रोधवियुक्तानां यतीनां यतचेतसाम्। अभितो ब्रह्मनिर्वाणं वर्तते विदितात्मनाम ॥ ( Gita V. 24-26), also प्रशान्तमनसं ह्ेन योगिनं सुखमुत्तमम् । उपैति शान्तरजस ब्रह्मभूतमकल्मषम् ॥ युअ्जन्नेवं सदात्मानं योगी विगतकल्मषः। सुखेन ब्रह्मसंस्पर्शमत्यन्तं सुखमश्चुते॥ (VI. 27-28), विहाय कामान्यः सर्वान्पुमांश्वरति निःस्पृहः । निर्ममो निरहंकारः स शान्तिमधिगच्छति ॥ एषा ब्राह्मी स्थितिः पार्थ नैनां प्राप्य विमुह्यति॥ स्थित्वास्यामन्तकालेऽपि अ्रह्मनिर्वाण- मृच्छति ॥ (II. 71-72). The अत्यन्तसुख is not different from the सर्वज्ञ ब्रह्मनू· ( 48 ) Brahman or the highest bliss is nothing but Haa with the अमनीभाव. The whole द्वैत is the विकल्प of the mind. It follows therefore that the अज आत्मन् 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 Ta ( fire-brand ) used in the text ( 47-50 ). It contains one hundred Kārikas, and may be said to give the quintessence of Gaudapada'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 ), many a Buddhistic philosophic term and a reasoned exposition of Ajātivāda ( see Introduction for a detailed exposition of these topics ). K. bhasya thus introduces this Prakarana :- ओङ्कारनिर्णयद्वारेणागमतः प्रतिज्ञातस्थाद्वतस्य बाह्यविषयभेदवैतथ्याञ्च सिद्धस्य पुनरद्वैते शास्त्रयुक्तिभ्यां निर्धारितस्यै- तदुत्तमं सत्यमित्युपसंहारः कृतः । अन्ते तस्यैतस्यागमार्थस्याद्वैतदर्शनस्य प्रतिपक्षभुता द्वैतिनो वैनाशिकाश्व तेषां चान्योन्यविरोधाद्रागद्वेषादिक्केशास्पद दर्शनमिति मिथ्यादर्शनत्वं सचितम्। क्वेशानास्पदत्वात्सम्यग्दर्शनमित्यद्वैतदर्शनं स्तूयते । तदिह विस्तरेणान्योन्य-

नेत्यलातशान्तिरारभ्यते । धर्मान्-आत्मन: ( K. bhasya,); objects, elements of existence ( Prof. Vidhusekhara ). It does not matter what mean- ing is assigned to धर्म, for धर्म and धर्मिन are one and the same, according to Advaita view. Both ज्ञान and धर्म are like आकाश, the common property being जरामरणनिर्मुक्तत्व referred to in Karika I0 below), अमलिनत्व (implied in III. 8 above), अभिन्नत्व ( referred to in III. 6 above ), अनादित्व ( referred to in Karika 91 below). ज्ञया- भिन्नेन 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, that is, Brah- man'. In III. 33, ज्ञेय is already declared to be ब्रह्मन्. Gaudapada salutes in this Karika the द्विपदां वर ( best amongst men or bipeds) who realised by his आकाश-like ज्ञान, the आकाश-like धर्मs 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. द्विपदां 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 द्विपदां वर to refer to नैषध, धृतराष्ट्र and नारायण. द्विपदां वर can not claim exclusive association with g in any case. Ānandagiri says that नारायण is meant here (आचार्यो हि पुरा बदरिकाश्रमे नरनारायणा- धिष्टिते नारायणं भगवन्तमभिप्रेत्य तपो महदतप्यत। ततो भगवानतिप्रसन्नस्तस्मै विर्द्या

Chapter IV 109 प्रादादिति प्रसिद्धं परमगरुत्वं परमेश्वरस्येति भाव: ।) Aquestion has been.raised as to why Gaudapada has no मङ्गलश्लोक at the beginning of the Fiist Prakarana. Are we to conclude that the Fourth Prakarana alone is the work of Gaudapada? ( See Introduction) ... अयमेवेश्वरो योनारायणाख्यस्तं वन्देभिवादये छिपदां वर हविपदोपलक्षितानां पुरुषाणां वरं प्रधानं पुरुषोत्तममित्यभिप्रायः। उपदेष्टनमस्कारसुखेन ज्ञानज्ञेय ज्ञातृभेदरहितं परमार्तत्वदर्शन- मिह प्रकरणे प्रतिपिपाद्यिषितं प्रतिपक्षप्रतिषेधद्वारेण प्रतिज्ञातं भवति (K. bhasya). (2) तं-अस्परशयोगम 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 dhyanas 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 ). Gaudapada need not have gone to any non-Vedic work for the term अस्पशयोग 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 is परमार्थ and द्वैत is an off-shoot (due to माया) thereof. Hence there can be no विरोध between द्वैत and अद्वैत. The अद्वैतिन certainly accepts द्वैत, but only as having an empirical reality. The gfaas have every reason to quarrel with one another but not with the सर्वसंग्राहक अद्वैत. अविरुद्ध-not containing contradictory statements. Prof. Vidhusekhara on the strength of the expression अविवाद and अविरुद्ध, comes to the amazing and unwarranted conclusion 'that the asparsayoga was not originally taught in the Brahmanic system of yoga ... in acceptance of the asparsayoga 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 अविरुद्ध, only Prof. Vidhu- śekhara knows ( see Introduction ).

(3) In order to establish bis अजातिवाद, Gaudapada shows first how कार्यकारणवाद held by the सांख्य, वैशेषिकs etc. cannot possibly exist. Those who believe in real origination have naturally to

Notes on Gaudapada-Kārikā

believe in the relation of cause and effect. In Karika III. 23 above, भूततोऽभूततो वापि सृज्यमाने, the point under discussion was whether the creation was real or unreal ( hence waa: was taken there to mean परमार्थतः ), here भूतस्य means 'of the existent', because here the point is how the origination (which is taken to be self-evident) comes into effect. (I) भूतस्य जातिमिच्छन्ति- These are the सांख्यs, सत्कार्यवादिन्s or परिणामवादिन्S, वैभाषिकs among the Buddhists). Their view is that the कार्य is सत् (in the कारण) prior to origination. Thus घ is not something new produced from the मृत्तिका, घट already exists (सत्) in the मृत्तिका; when we say घट is produced, what happens is सृत्तिका घटरूपेण परिणमते ( घट however is not a वाचारम्भणं विकारः, but a real transformation ). अभूतस्यापरे जातिमिच्छन्ति-These are the वैशेषिकS, सौत्रान्तिकS (among the Buddhists); असत्कार्यवादिनS. Their view is that घट is a new (असत) 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 सत्कार्यवादिनs deny production of an असत्object, and the असत्कार्यवादिन्S ,, a सत् objeot. As there can be only two sets of objects सल and असत, it follows that like सुन्द and उपसुन्द, the सत्कार्यवादिनs and the असत्कार्यवादिनs destroy each other's जातिवाद and enable the अजातिवाद to hold up its head triumphantly. ( 4 ) If a thing is wa, it cannot be originated, for it is already originated. You cannot surely die twice. Similarly if a thing is असत्, असत् will it remain for ever, for instance the बन्ध्यापुत्र. No one can change his स्वभाव under any circumstances. विवदन्तो दया :- The द्वैतिनS, सांख्यs and वैशेषिकs contradicting each other, simply help the establishment of the doctrine of non-origination. Prof. Vidhu- śekhara says that in Kārikā 4, "the Ācārya now proceeds to mention the doctrine of the Buddhists who subscribe to neither of these two views asserting absolute non-becoming ( ajati ) of things ". He also takes विवदन्ताछया aS विवदन्त: अदया: and explains अदय as अद्यवादिन् ( Buddhists who do not subscribe to any extreme views, but take a

Chapter 1V III

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 Karika are different from those in Karika 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 ( ajatim khyapayanti te ). We have stated Prof. Vidhusekhara's views as given on pp. 102-104, in his edition of Gaudapādakārikas in his own words. We have no hesitation in saying that Prof. Vidhusekhara has com- pletely gone astray in his exposition of Karika 4. The expression faaara: ( which is also found in Karika 3 ) clearly shows that Gaudapada regards बादिन:, अपरे (in Karika 3) and द्वया: (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. Vidhusekhara does not desire the Hays also disputing about something amongst themselves. The correct reading is दया: and it undoubtedly refers to the सांख्यs and वैशेषिकs in the last Karika. विवदन्तोऽद्रया: may aiso mean 'the dis- putants thus actually come to be अद्वैतिनs supporting the अजातिवाद'. Again, the HETs propounding the middle path cannot be regarded as holding any definite view like the अजातिवाद. The first half of the Karika 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 किंचित (a thing to be produced is necessarily an अभूत one). The वैशोषकs say that there is अभूतस्य जातिः, The सांख्यs reply अभूतं नैव जायते (for, origination is buta transformation of a ga 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 सांरयs 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 Gaudapada-Karikā

opponents who have made his work easier, and proceeds to further expound how the अजातिवाद transcends all विवाद. ( 6-8 ) These three Kārikās 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 ao and 20-22). K. bhasya says सदसद्वादिन: सर्वेऽपीति। पुरस्ता- त्कृतभाष्य: श्लोक: (Karika 6) and उक्तार्थानां श्लोकानामिहोपन्यासः परवादि- पक्षाणामन्योन्यविरोधख्यापितानुमोदनप्रदर्शनार्थः । Gaudapada before subjecting the views of the सांखयs 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 ara occurring in the Karikas in the third Prakarana. It is difficult to say whether Gaudapada himself is responsible for this change or some copyist did it. Actually, no hiatus would be felt even if these Karikas 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). प्रकति 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. (सम्यक्र सिद्धिः संसिद्धिः तत्र भवा सांसिद्धिकी यथा योगिनां सिद्धानामणिमायैश्वर्यप्राप्तिः प्रकृतिः सा भूतभविष्यत्कालयोरपि योगिनां न विपर्येति। K. bhasya)

[2] स्व्राभाविकी-द्रव्यस्व्रभावत एव यथाग्न्यादीनामुष्णप्रकाशादिलक्षण सापि न कालान्तरे व्यभिचरति देशान्तरे च। (K. bhasya) [3] सहजा-आत्मना सहैव जाता यथा पक्ष्यादीनामाकाशगमनादिलक्षणा। ( K. bhāsya )

[ 4 ] अकृता- अन्यापि या काचिदकता केनचिन्न कृता यथापां निम्नदेशादि- गमनलक्षणा । ( K. bhasya). K. bhasya also adds मिथ्याकल्पितेषु लौकिकेष्वपि वस्तुषु प्रकतिर्नान्यथा भवति किमुतजस्व्रभावेषु परमार्थवस्तुष्वमृतत्वलक्षणा प्ररुतिर्नान्यथा भवतीत्यभिप्रायः । सांसिद्धिक is the same as नैसर्गिक according to वैशेषिकs, here it is used in the sense ' acquired, but become second nature'.

MdivAX-obs Chapter IV

(10) Here perhaps धर्मा: should mean जीवs (or आत्मान: as the K. bhasya says). The जीवs imagine (इच्छन्त इवेच्छन्तो रज्ज्वामिव सर्पमात्मनि कल्पयन्त: K. bhasya) that they are subject to old age and death, and experience accordingly ( cf. यं यं वापि स्मरन्भावं त्यजन्त्यन्ते कलेवरम्। तं तमवैति कौन्तेय सदा तन्ज्ावभावितः ॥ Gita VIII. 6). (II ) Gaudapada now shows how the कार्यकारणभाव admitted by the सांख्यs and वैशेषिकs cannot be valid. According to the सांख्यs who are सत्कार्यवादिनS, प्रकृति (or प्रधान) is the मूलकारण and is also अज. The creation of the world means that प्रधान is transformed into महत, etc. 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 विदीर्ण स्फुटितमेकदेशेन सत्कथं नित्यं भवेदित्यर्थः । न हि सावयवं घटादि, एकदेशस्फुटनधर्मि नित्यं दष्ट लोक इत्यर्थः । विदीण च स्यादेकदेशेनाज चेति, एतद्विप्रतिषिद्धं तैरभिधीयत इत्यभिप्रायः ।( K. bhasya). (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 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. bhasya ). 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 urea to corroborate this statement ? Our experi- ences in this world are concerned only with siar things producing any कार्य. -non n DaA 15

114 Notes on Gaudapada-Kārika

If it is argued that we might accept the proposition that only an उत्पन्न thing produces a कार्य, then there would be the fault of endless- ness ( न व्यवस्था=अनवस्था ) thus :- B is produced by A ( which must itself be i 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 agra which shows that an अनादि 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 धर्माधर्म (कारण) produces the फल or कार्य (देहादिसंघात) and देहादिसंघात (कारण),, " (धर्माधर्म) Here the कारण and कार्य are interdependent and अनादि. So this garFa should meet all your objections. The Siddhantin's answer is :- It is a contradiction in terms to speak of अनादित्व and हेतुफलभाववतत्व. 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 फल or कार्य produces the EITOT 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 कार्यकारणभाव between them ! Sankara uses the चिषाण simile in his Vedantasutrabhasya on II. 2-17, अथावृथक्वालमयुतसिद्धत्व- सुच्येत सव्यदक्षिणयोरपि गोविषाणयोरयुतसिद्धत्वं प्रसज्येत ।

(17) Further, the #IT0r which depends for its production upon its (which is =u ), cannot possibly be proved to exist ! And a non-existent कारण, it is needless to add, like शशविषाण, can

Chapter IV IİS

not produce any thing! (न हीतरेतरापेक्षसिद्ध्योः शशविषाणकल्पयोः कार्य- कारणभावेन संबन्ध क्वचिद्द्टट्टः, अन्यथा वेत्यभिप्रायः ।(K. bhasya). ( 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 :- [ I ] The cause produces the effect. [ 2 ] The effect produces the cause. This is denounced as absurd in Karikas 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 qraiqd is essential and implicit ( Karikas 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 is a mere विवर्त. Gaudapada emphasises No. 5 and is mainly concerned with establishing the अजातिवाद. Sankaracarya, ou 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. I of the above alternatives has not been discussed so far. Prof. Vidhusekhara says ' it appears that a Karika dealing with the first proposition is now lost between Karikas 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 pro- 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 Gaudapada-Kārika

Gaudapada does not ignore proposition No. I, but discusses it, being fully aware of its importance, in the first half of Karika 19.

nThose who believe that कारण produces the कार्य, tacitly admit [ I]कारण and कार्य are two entirely different things. There is कार्याभाव first before कार्य is produced. [2 ] कारण and कार्य are however intimately connected with each other by the समवाय relation. [ 3 ] This समवाय relation ensures that only a particular कारण (सृत्तिका) 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. [ s ] If कारण and कार्य are अनन्य, उत्पत्ति: would be निरर्रिका etc. Gaudapada now attacks these tenets of the असत्कार्यवादि वैशेषिकS. [ 1 ]Gaudapada points out that the existence of शक्रि 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 Sankarabhasya on II. I-13, युक्ते: शव्दान्तराज्च, प्रायत्पत्तेः कार्यस्य सत्वमनन्यत्वं च कारणादवगम्यते ... दधिघटरुचकाय्- र्थिभि: प्रतिनियतानि क्षीरमृत्तिकासुवर्णादीन्युपादीयमानानि लोके दृश्न्ते। न हि दध्यर्थि- भिमृत्तिकोपादीयते न घटार्थिभि: क्षीरम। तदसत्कार्ये नोपपदते । अविशिष्टे हि प्रायत्पत्तेः सर्वस्य सर्वत्रासत्वे कस्मात् क्षीरादेव दध्युत्पद्यते न मृत्तिकाया, सृत्तिकाया एव च घट उत्पद्यते न क्षीरात्। अथाविशिष्टेऽपि प्रागसत्वे क्षीर एव दन्नः कश्विदतिशयो न मृत्तिका- यामित्युच्येत, तर्हयतिशयवत्वात् प्रागवस्थाया असत्कार्यवादहानिः सत्कार्यवादसिद्धिश्र्व । शक्तिश्व कारणस्य कार्यनियमार्था कल्प्यमाना नान्यासती वा कार्ये नियच्छेत्। असच्वा- विशेषादन्यत्वाविशेषाञ्च । तस्मात् कारणस्यात्मभूता शक्ति: शक्तेश्वात्मभूतं कार्यम्।). अशक्ति: thus means 'the absence of any power in the कारण to produce the particular कार्य'. K. bhasya seems to connect अशक्ति: With कतरत्पूर्वनिष्पन्नं यस्य सिद्धिरपेक्षया in the last Karika, saying अथैतन्न शक्यते वक्तुमिति मन्यसे सेयमशक्तिः, 50 that अशक्ति is taken to mean 'the

Chapter 1V wo anloM 117

inability to answer the query.' Prof. Vidhusekhara thinks that अशक्ति refers to IV. 3 where two classes of teachers are mentioned, one holding satkāryavāda and the other asatkāryavāda. ao[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 कार्य can reside in the कारण. There can be no rela- tion between कारण which already exists and कार्य which is going to come into existence later. A संबन्ध is possible only between two existing things (अपि च कार्यकारणयोर्द्रव्यखणादीनां चाश्वमहिषवल्भेदबुद्ध्यभावात् तादात्म्य- मभ्युपगन्तव्यम्। समवायकल्पनायामपि समवायस्य समवािभिः संबन्धेऽभ्युपगम्यमाने तस्य तस्यान्योन्यः संबन्धः कल्पयितव्य इत्यनवस्थाप्रसङ्गः । अनभ्युपगम्यमाने च विच्छेद- प्रसङ्ग:। ... तादात्म्यप्रतीतेश्व द्रव्यगणादीनां समवायकल्पनानर्थक्यम्। कथ च कार्य- मवयविद्रव्यं कारणेष्ववयवद्रव्येषु वर्तमानं वर्तते-किं समस्तेष्ववयवेषु वर्तेत उत प्रत्यव- यवम्। यदि तावत समस्तेषु वर्तेत ततोऽवयव्यनुपलब्धि: प्रसज्येत समस्तावयवसनिकर्षस्या- शक्यत्वात। ... अथावयवशः समस्तेषु वर्तेत तदाप्यारम्भकावयवव्यतिरेकेणावयविनोऽ वयवा: कल्प्येरन् यैरारम्भकेष्ववयवेष्ववयवशोऽवयवी वर्तेत। ... अनवस्था चैवं प्रसज्येत तेषु तेष्ववयवेषु वर्तचितुमन्येषामवयवानां कल्पनीयत्वात्। अथ प्रत्यवयवं वर्तेत तदैकत्र व्यापारेऽन्यत्राव्यापारः स्यात्।न हि देवदत्तः स्तुन्ने संनिधीयमानस्तदहरेव पाटलिपुत्रेऽपि संनिधीयेत । युगपदनेकत्र वृत्तावनेकत्वप्रसङ्ग: स्यात् ... गोत्वादिवत् प्रत्येक परिसमाप्तेर्न दोष इति चेत् न तथा प्रतीत्यभावात्। ... प्रत्येकपरिसमाप्ती चावयविनः कार्येणाधिकारात तस्य चैकत्वात् शृङ्गेणापि स्तनकार्य कुर्यादुरसा च पृष्ठकार्यम्। न चैवं दृशयते! ... यस्य पुनः प्रागत्पत्तेरसत् कार्य तस्य निर्विषयः कारकव्यापारः स्यात, अभावस्य विषयत्वानुपपत्ते- रकाशहननप्रयोजनखङ्गाद्यनेकायुधप्रयुक्तिवत्। ... समवायिकारणविषयः कारकव्यापार: स्यादिति चेत, न । अन्यविषयेण कारकव्यापारेणान्यनिष्पत्तेरतिप्रसङ्गात्। तस्मात् क्षीरादीन्येव द्रव्याणि दध्यादिभावेनावतिष्टमानानि कार्याख्यां लभन्त इति न कारणादन्यत् कार्य वर्षशतेनापि शक्य निश्र्वेतुम! तथा मूलकारणमेवान्त्यात् कार्यात तेन तेन कार्याकारेण नटवत् सर्वत्यवहारास्पदत्वं प्रतिपद्यते । Sankarabhasya on Brahmasutra II. I-18 ).

अपरिज्ञान is explained by K. bhasya as तत्व्राविवेको मूढतेत्यर्थः। It may mean पूर्वापरापरिज्ञानम् in Karika 21 below, in which case, the expre- ssion refers to No. 3 of the alternatives mentioned above. Prof. Vidhusekhara suggests that अपरिज्ञान is the पूर्वापरकोटि-अपरिज्ञान which is described in पूवापरकोटिपरीक्षा ( Chapter XI) of the Mula- madhyamakārikā of Nāgārjuna.

क्रमकोप :- No 4 alternative, viz. कार्य and कारण arising simulta- neously, is objected to, on the ground of the 'violation of the order'.

1İ8 Notes on Gaudapāda-Karika

The accepted order between कार्य and कारण is that कारण comes first and ara afterwards. Kārika 16 above also refers to this.

Gaudapapa 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 अशक्ति of the कारण, 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. Vidhusekhara says that by T:, we should understand 'the Buddhists'. The expression seems to have been used in the sense of तच्वदर्शिभि: ( see Introduction). In IV. 42, we have जातिस्तु देशिता बुद्धैः and in IV. 54, एवं हेतुफलाजाति प्रविशन्ति मनीषिण:। s0 that by मनीषिण:, बुद्धा:, Gaudapada 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 ( Karika 15 ) ; the matter should not be treated in that light-hearted manner. The बीजाङ्करन्याय correctly represents his position ( बीज produces अङ्कर and अङ्कर pro- duces बीज). Why should mutual कार्यकारणभाव be objected to? Every body accepts the बीनाङ्करन्याय as authoritative.

Gaudapada says in reply :-- We अजातिवादिनs can not accept the बीजाङ्कुर दृट्टन्त. You have yet to prove to us how the कार्यकारणभाव exists between बीज and अङ्कर. The दृष्टान्त 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 1V 1I9

बीज - अङ्कर - बीज - अङ्कर and so on-this series shows mutual (I) (1) कार्यकारणभाव, but surely the बीज I produced from अङ्कर is different from बीज; and अङ्कर I produced from बीज 1, is different from अङ्कर. Here are therefore different कार्यकारणभावs between different sets of objects! साध्यसम is a हेत्वाभास mentioned by Gautama; it is the same as असिद्ध of other तार्किकS. On हेतुः, K. bhasya remarks, हेतुरिति दृष्टान्तोऽञ्राभिप्रेतो गमकत्वात्। प्रकृतो हि दष्टान्तो न हेतुरिति । But Gaudapada may be taken here to enunciate 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 ITOT ( 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 ग्रह्यते कथं तस्मातपूर्व कारणं न गृह्यते । अवश्यं हि जायमानस्य ग्रहीत्रा तज्जनकं ग्रहीतव्यम् । जन्यजनकयोः संबन्धस्यावपेतत्वात् । K. bhasya). ( 22) The upshot of all this discussion is that the view of the ( सत्कार्यवादिनS) सांख्यs that वस्तु स्त्रतः जायते is untenable ( घट can- not be produced from itself); that of the ( असत्कार्यवादिन्S) वैशेषिकs that वस्तु परतः जायते ( घट cannot be produced from an entirely different thing, say qz) is equally untenable. A thing obviously can- not be produced स्वतः and परतः. When we say 'a thing is produced', we are using mere words (शब्दप्रत्ययविषयं वस्तु घटपुत्रादिलक्षणं शब्दमात्रमेव तत्। वाचारम्भणम् इति श्रुतेः K.bhasya). Similarly, a सत् or असत thing can not be produced (otherwise there would be अन्यथाभाव of their प्रकति), सदसत् cannot likewise be produced (विरुद्धस्यैकस्यासंभवात् K. bhasya which adds येषां पुनर्जनिरेव जायते इति क्रियाकारकफलैकत्वमभ्युपगम्यते क्षणिकत्वं च वस्तुनः, ते (बौद्धाः) दूरत एव न्यायापेताः । इदमित्थमित्यवधारणक्षणान्तरानव- सथानादननुभूतस्य स्सृत्यनुपपत्तेश्र्व।)

120 Notes on Gaudapāda-Kārıkā

n( 23) Those who speak of #Tfa, basing their arguments on the अनादि धर्माधर्म and देहादिसंघात mutually giving rise to अनादि संसार, are contradicting themselves. अनादे: फलाव 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?) Similarlv फल cannot be produced from अनादिहेतु. Prof. Vidhusekhara against all manuscript authority wishes to read अनादि: for अनादे: ( this would make the sense more clear ) and जाति: for ह्यादि: (this is quite unnecessary). It is quite clear that anfe: is used twice deliberately ( in two different senses ) to give an enigmatical touch to the line. आदि: means (1) cause (2) beginning. A thing for which no cause can be found, cannot have any beginning, that is, cannot be produced ( कारणवत एव ह्यादिरभ्युपगम्यते नाकारणवतः K. bhasya). (24) Having disposed of the सांख्यs, वैशषिकs etc. (whom Gaudapada could have called अस्मदीया: ), Gaudapada now turns to the Bauddhas. परतन्त्र means 'another शास्त्र, another school of philosophy ( परेषां तन्त्रं परतन्त्रमित्यन्यशास्त्रं K. bhasya; cf. समानतन्त्रसिद्धः परतन्त्रासिद्धः प्रतितन्त्रसिद्धान्त: Nyayasutra I. I-29 ). The बाह्यार्थवादि बौद्धs are referred to here. The बाह्यार्थवादिनS 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 प्रत्ययवैचित्य and the experi- ence of pain etc. प्रज्ञप्ति-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 (दय); secondly, we actually experience pain etc., this cannot be denied. This संक्केशोपलब्धि 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. संक्केशः- संक्लेशन दुःखमित्यर्थः (K. bhasya). संक्केs according to the Buddhists arise from स्करन्ध (रूप, वेदना, संज्ञा, संस्कार and विज्ञान), आयतन ( 5 कर्मेंन्द्रियs and mind, and their objects, in all 12), and धातु ( 6 organs of sense, six objects and six kinds of consciousness ).

Chapter IV I21

(25) This Karika refutes the बाह्यार्थवादिन's view. The बाह्यार्थ- वादिन takes his stand upon युक्ति (inference, as implied in the last Karika ), but युक्ति is inferior and must give way to भूतदर्शन, the real state of things ( परमार्थदर्शनादित्येतत्। न हि घटो यथाभूतसृद्रपदर्शने सति तद्व्यतिरेकेणास्ति। यथाश्वान्महिषः पटो वा तन्तुव्यतिरेकेण। तन्तवश्वांशुव्यतिरेकेणे- स्येवसुत्तरोत्तरभूतदर्शन आशन्दप्रत्ययनिरोधान्नैव निमित्तमुपलभामह इत्यर्थः । अथवा भूतदर्शनाद्वाह्यार्थस्यानिमित्तत्वमिष्यते । रज्ज्वादाविव सर्पादेरित्यर्थः । आ्रन्तिदर्शन- विषयत्वाञ्च निमित्तस्यानिमित्तत्वं भवेत् । तदभावेऽभावात्। न हि सुषुप्तसमा हितसुक्तानां भ्रान्तिदर्शनाभाव आत्मव्यतिरिक्तो बाह्योऽर् उपलभ्यते। न हयुन्मत्तावगतं वस्त्वनुन्मत्तैरपि तथाभूतं गम्यते K. bhasya). भूतदर्शन tells us that nothing is ever produced, all so-called production is शब्दमात्र (26) प्रज्ञप्ति has no निमित्त, as no बाह्यार्थ can exist. The चित्त (or विज्ञान) alone exists and appears as बाह्यार्थ. Thus चित्त has no contact with अर्थ ( because it does nor exist ) or अर्थाभास (without अर्थ, अर्थाभास cannot exist). अभूत :- Not existent. (जागरितेऽपि स्वप्नार्थवदेव K. bhasya). (27) त्रिष्तध्वसु-In the three paths or periods of time, अतीताना- गतवर्तेमानाध्वसु, चित्त never gets into contact with any external object, The objector points out that if the चित्त can have घटायाभासता in the absence of घट etc., there is the chance of चित्त presenting a wrong picture of घट etc. The answer is that if घट were to exist, we would be in a position to say if the presentation by fan conforms to the घट or not. But with घट not in existence, घटविपर्यास is out of question (अयमेव हि स्वभावश्वित्तस्य यदुतासति निमित्ते घटादौ तद्ददवभासनम् । K. bhasya). (28) K. bhasya says :- प्रज्ञप्तेः सनिमित्तत्व(Karika 25)मित्याद्येतदन्तं (Karika 27) विज्ञानवादिनो बौद्धस्य वचनं बाह्यार्थवादिपक्षप्रतिषेधपरमाचार्येणानु- मोदितम्। तदेव हेतुं कत्वा 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 बाह्यार्थ admitted by the बाह्यार्थवादिनS. In this Karika he turns the tables on the विज्ञानवादिनS. 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 विज्ञानवादिनs holding the view that चित्त Or चित्तदृशय 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

I22 Notes on Gaudapada-Kārikā

the sky ( Sankara uses the simile in his Brhadāranyakabhāsya V. 4-6, त उत्सहन्ते खेऽपि शाकुनं पदं द्रटटुम). दृशय implies the pre- sence of a द्रष्; when there is no दृश्य, द2 also does not exist. So the विज्ञानवादिनS who admit that both चित्त (which is क्षणिक) and चित्तदृश्य (which is produced by चित्त ) undergo production are wrong (तस्य चित्तस्य ये जाति पश्यन्ति विज्ञानवादिनः क्षणिकत्वदुःखित्वशून्यत्वा- नात्मत्वादि च तेनैव चित्तेन चित्तस्वरूपं द्रष्टुमशक्यं पशयन्तः खे वै पशयन्ति ते पदं पक्ष्यादीनाम् । अत इतरेभ्योऽपि द्वैतिभ्योऽ्त्यन्तसाहसिका: । K. bhasya). The शून्यवादिन्s deserve only to be treated with contempt, says the K. bhasya ( ये डपि शून्यवादिनः पश्यन्त एव सर्वशून्यतां खदर्शनस्यापि शून्यतां प्रति जानते ते ततोऽपि साहसिकतरा: खं सु्टिनापि जिघृक्ष्ति ।.). (29) The विज्ञानवादिन argues that चित्त or विज्ञान is also अज, according to him ( for the चित्तसंतति is continuous even if चित्त is क्षणिक) and why should not an अज thing give rise to विकारs etc. ? The answer is, when you say a thing is born, you imply that the thing was unborn before, that is, अजातत्व was its प्रकृति. If so, the अजात thing would never get rid of its प्रकृति viz. अजातत्व. Hence अजातस्य जाति: is impossible. ( 30) The जातिवादिन्s who believe that संसार is अनादि (in accordance with the बीजाङ्करन्याय ) and मोक्ष is a thing to be secured by उपासना etc. are criticised in this Karika. If संसार is अनादि, it would ever remain अनादि ; if मोक्ष is a product and so has a begin- ning, it would also have an end (whatever has a beginning must also have an end, is a thesis accepted by all ). Who would care for such a temporary मोक्ष ? मोक्ष surely must be eternal. The जातिवादिनs have therefore no case. ( 31 ) It may be argued that if nothing is born, how is it that we perceive so many things, and are affected by them? It is impossible to deny that they exist. The answer is, they are really illusory and only appear as real. For, no one can question the truth of the thesis that whatever was not existing before ( that is, which has a beginning ), and does not necessarily exist in the end ( be- cause whatever is born must have an end ), must also not be exist- ing in the present. Its प्रकृति is 'not to exist' and प्रकृति cannot change. So all the things that we perceive must not be really in existence, they are false. ( 32 ) The things in the waking state are contradicted in the dream-state ( A dreamer sleeping in a house dreams that he is out in nt ebiid 2o 5p

Chapter IV 123

the open, getting all wet in the rain ; the सप्रयोजनता of the house is thus set at naught in the dream ). Kārikas 31 and 32 are the same as II. 6-7 which were introduced in Prakarana II, to prove that जागरितदृश््य is as असत् as स्वप्नदृश्य. Here they are quoted in connection with the eternity of संसार and negation of मोक्ष, if अजातिवाद is not accepted. (33) Only the अज ब्रह्मन् (Or विज्ञान) is real. The जाग्रद्दृश्य is as false as the स्वप्दृश्य. This is elaborated in this Karika and the next four. The dreamer sees within the body all sorts of things, mountains, rivers etc. which are obviously unreal; for, how can such real things be seen in a small enclosed space ? ua means here ' existing thing '. ( 34 ) This Karikā is the same as II. 2, except that the first line is read as न युक्तं दर्शनं गत्वा कालस्यानियमाद्ृतौ ( there is no change in the meaning. Why the Karika should appear in this changed form is not clear ). No one can dispute the fact that the dreamer has no time enough at his disposal to actually go to the places he sees in dream, neither does he find himself in those places when he awakes. This shows that स्वप्दृशय is false.i/loin ( 35 ) The dreamer may have conversed with his friends, but remembers not what it was all about, when he is awake; he may have been given some gifts in the dream, which he fails to find with him when awake. All this points out that स्वप्नटृश्य is मिथ्या. ( 36 ) Actually, the dreamer goes on with his work in the dream, assuming an entirely different and unreal body ( his real body is lying on his bed all the time ) ! So, as his body assumed in the dream is false, so also is the स्वप्नदृश्य. Now in the waking state also, everything is frnasq as in the dream-state ( unless the चित्त becomes घटाकार, you cannot cognise the घट). The चित्तदृश्य in the dream is false; the चित्तदृश्य in the waking state must also be false. (37) तत (जागरितं) हेतु: अस्य सः तद्धेतु :. As a rule, one sees in dteams things exactly as in the waking state. The waking state is the cause of the dream-state and for this reason, the FTRa state is real only to the particular dreamer and not to others. er FA: स्वप्नद्दश एवं सन्साधारणविद्यमानवस्तुवदवभासते तथा तत्कारणत्वात्साधारणविद्यमान वस्तुवदवभासमानं न तु साधारणं विद्यमानवस्तु स्वप्नवदेवेत्यभिप्रायः । K. bhasya.

124 Notes on Gaudapada-Karika

(38) Actually it is wrong to say that जागरित produces स्वम्न 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 giqra, 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 सर्वमुदाहृतम् 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 स्वम only from the point of view of व्यवहार, but the जागरित is also equally unreal. The propriety of च is given by K. bhasya as च श्दात्तथा जागरितेऽपि दंष्टा रवपे न पश्यति कदाचिदित्यर्थः । तस्माज्जागरितं स्वप्नहेतुरुच्यते न तु परमार्थसदिति कत्वा. The स्वप्रदृश्य is unreal and has जागरितदृशय for its cause; this shows that जागरितदृशय 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 no ara- कारणभाव is possible. Thus

[ r ] असत् खकुसुम cannot have असत् शशविषाण for its catise. [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, सत्व ) [4] असत् cannot have सत् for its cause. ( for, they are as two poles asunder ). (41) The objector says that if both जाग्रत् and स्वम experiences are unreal, how can there be any कार्यकारणभाव between them ? The answer is that it is not our statement the ramuns are produced by the guns. 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. qaaa-As a fact, as real. In both states, there is विपर्यास, that is all.

( 42) If the अजातिवाद is the highest philosophical truth, why have Sastras taught different kinds of Upasanas, वर्णाश्रमधमs etc.

Chapter 117 12

which presuppose that creation is reai 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 ga: here also, the Buddhists. But surely, the Buddha never preached the उत्पत्तिवाद or अजातिवाद either ! (43) वियन्ति- विरुद्धं यन्ति, द्वैतं प्रतिपद्यन्त इत्यर्थः (K. bhasya). The objector says: The श्रुति ( ... उदरमन्तरं कुरुते । अथ तस्य भयं भवति। Taittirīyopanisad II. 7-1 ) warns the HT4 against the danger of believing in aa. Would not those people who follow the Sastric 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 सः । Gita IX. 30 ). They are not नास्तिकs like the Carvakas or Buddhists, and with luck, they can ultimately see their way to believing in the अजातिवाद (न हि कल्याणकत्कश््विद्दुर्गति तात गच्छति। Gītā XI. 40 ). ( 44 ) Gaudapada says howsoever he might sympathise with the असितिवस्तुत्ववादिनs referred to in Karikas 42, 43, he has to point out that their argument viz. there is वस्तुभाव on account of उपलम्भ and HHIIT 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 चित्ते, मनसू) that is, ज्ञानरूप ब्रह्मन, 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 द्य (ग्राह्यग्राहकभाव). This description of विज्ञान by Gaudapada 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-Kārikā

nor अवस्तु. Gaudapada accepts the arguments of the विज्ञानवादिनूS against the बाह्यार्थवादिनs, 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 जात्यादिरहितमदयमात्मतत्त्वं विजानन्तस्त्यक्तवाह्यैषणा: पुनर्न पतन्त्यविद्याध्वान्तसागरे विपर्यये। 'तत्र को मोहः कः शोक एकत्वमनुपश्यतः' इत्यादि मन्त्रवर्णात्। (K. bhasya). It is unusual to speak of an Upanisadic passage as a H=aa0f as is done here by the K. bhāsya. ( 47-52 ) Kārikās 47-52 introduce the famous argra simile after which the present Prakarana is named. If the faarra is one and eGT, how do we experience the various yrfs? 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 जात्याद्याभासS are all असत् and जात्यादिबुद्धि is मृषा.

अलातम् विज्ञानम् (1) When the fire-brand is When the विज्ञान vibrates, there whirled about, there is the is the appearance of mar and appearance of straight and crook- ग्राहक ( the vibration of the विज्ञान ed lines. is of course due to अविद्या, it is

(2) When the अलात is at rest, not real ). When the विज्ञान does not there arises no appearance, vibrate,it is without any ग्राह्मग्राहक- there is no change in the अलात; it is अज. भाव and is अज.

(3) When the अलात is whirled about, the ऋजुवक्रादि appearances When the विज्ञान vibrates, the

do not come in from a place out- ग्राह्यग्राहकभाव appearances do not

side it. come in from a place outside it.

(4) When the अलात is at rest, the appearances do not go out When the विज्ञान is at rest, the

elsewhere, nor do they enter the appearances do not go out else- where, nor do they enter the अलात. (s) The appearances can not विज्ञान. The be going out, as they are not gaus; appearances involving

only a द्रवय is capable of move- ग्राह्यग्राहकभाव cannot be going out as they are not द्रaus. Only a द्रव्य ment. is capable of movement.

Chapter IV I27

Whether it is the ऋजुवक्रादि or ग्राह्मग्राहकभाव आभास, the आभासत्व is the same and their behaviour is exactly alike. There is no r- कारणभाव between the आभासs and अलात Or विज्ञान. Hence they must be pronounced to be not capable of being considered or in plain

दिषु विज्ञानमात्रे जात्यादिबुद्धिर्मृषैवेति समुदायार्थः। K. bhasya which also hastens to add अलातेन समानं सर्वे विज्ञानस्य। सदाचलत्वं तु विज्ञानस्य विशेषः। ( 53 ) In the last Karikā, it was stated that in the case of विज्ञान which is one, अज etc., no कार्यकारणभाव was possible, This Karika explains why it is so. कार्यकारणभाव implies that there must be two द्रव्यs, so that one दe 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 णs (घट and घटरूप can have a कार्यकारणभाव). Though there is the कार्यकारणभाव between पटरूप and तन्तुरूप (which are अद्रव्य, being गणs) it is obvious that रूप 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 हेतुफलभ।व between them. Here Gaudapada uses the expression मनीषिण :. It is more probable there- fore, that the expression a: in IV. 19 and IV. 42 does not refer to the Buddhists, especially because the विज्ञान of Gaudapada is different from the विज्ञान of the Buddhists, and the Buddhists who are really अद्यवादिनs could not have preached the अजातिवाद प्रबिशन्ति-अध्यवस्यन्ति (K. bhasya). (55) आचेशः, 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 द्वेत also disappears. यदा पुनर्मन्त्रौषधिवीर्येणेव

I28 Notes on Gaudapāda-Kārika

ग्रहावेशो यथोक्ताद्वैतदर्शनेनाविद्योद्भूतहेतुफलावेशोऽपनीतो भवति तदा तस्मिन्क्षीि नास्ति हेतुफलोन्ड्वः । ( K. bhasya).

(56) With the disappearance of हेतुफलावेश, and consequently that of द्वैत, there can be no Samsara.

(57) संवृति is explained by K. bhasya as संवरणम अविद्याविषयो लौकिकव्यवहार :; 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 संतृत्या does not fit in well with the meaning ' empirical truth'). Prof. Vidhuśekhara thinks that in this Kārikā the Saśvatavāda and the Ucchedavāda are attacked. He also likes to read स्वभावेन for सद्भ्ावेन. We are of opinion that Gaudapada here answers the objector who, being told that there is no संसार in the last Karika, argues that the #ar is actually experienced, and that it is अनादि (we may not be able to say whether the बीज comes first or the अङ्कर comes first, but we must admit that the बीजाङ्कर series is अनादि). In fact, the प्रतीत्यसमुत्पाद of the Buddhists admits this kind of causality. Gaudapada's answer is that the संसार is an illusion due to Maya, and when the संसार really does not exist, any talk of its coming to an end is futile. Every thing that exists is T ( and Brahman alone exists ), on account of the fact that it is सत्. The reading स्वभावेन proposed by Vidhusekhara (against all Mss authority ) appears simpler, but after all the raura is the same as सन्ाव in the case of an अज object.

(58) The धर्मs may refer to the 75 divisions of Reality admitted by the Sarvastivadi Bauddhas ( 72 संस्कृतधर्मS- II रूपधर्मs, (5 इन्द्रियायतनऽ + 5 विषयायतनS +I अविज्ञप्ति) +I चित्तधर्म+46 चैत्तधर्मS + 14 चित्तविप्रयुक्तधर्म) and 3 असंस्कृतधर्मs (आकाश, प्रतिसंख्यानिरोध and अप्रतिसख्यानिरोध). They are popularly said to be born. Gaudapada says that really they aie not born. They can be compared to Maya which is also really non-existent.

(59 ) This Karika explains the statement in the last Kārikā viz. the जन्म of the धर्मs is मायोपम. A मायाङ्कर coming from मायाबीज, cannot be called नित्य or विनाश, because it really does not exist. Similar is the case with the धर्मs, न तु परमार्थतो धर्माणां जन्म नाशो वा युज्यत इत्यर्थ: ( K. bhasya).

Chapter IV I29

(60) The Buddhists speak of 72 संस्कृतधर्मs and 3 असंस्कृतधर्म ( see note on Karika 58 above ), the former being अशाश्वत and the latter शाश्वत. Gaudapada says that in the अजातिवाद which holds that everything is अज, the nomenclature शाश्वत and अशाश्वत iS meaningless. The highest can not be described in words ( यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते Taittiriyopanisad 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 धर्मऽ. (6I-62) विवेक has scope only in the illusory origination. All धर्मs, whether in the जाग्रत state or the स्व state, are due to the चित्तस्पन्दन caused by Maya; the चित्त though really void of ग्राह्यग्राहक- भाव, appears to have that द्वय in the two states. Karika 61 is the same as III. 29, with the difference that चित्त चलति मायया is substitut- ed for स्पन्दन्ते मायया मनः; Karika 62 is also the same as III. 30, only substituting चित्तं for मनः. ( 63-64 ) Whatever the dreamer sees in the dream, is gaq to the चित्त of the dreamer and is not different from the चित्त; this चित्त again is दृशय only to the dreamer himself. Thus स्वप्नहक्, स्वप्न- दक्चित्त, and स्त्रप्नचित्तदृइय are one and the same. अण्डज and स्व्रेदज ( there are four kinds of जीवs, जरायुज and उद्भिज being the remaining two ) refer to all the four kinds of जीवs. दिक्षु TU-the four main quarters, the four by-quarters, the upper and the lower are the ten quarters. (65-66) The situation in the जाग्रत state is exactly the same as in the dream state. (67) चित्त and चैत्य are thus दृशय only to each other, and depend upon each other for their existence. चित्तदृशय without the चित्त, and the चित्त without the चित्तदृशय are unthinkable. Both have no characteristic features peculiar to them. They are cognised only as thought of by the चित्त itself. प्रमाणशून्यसुभयं चित्तं चैत्यं इय यतस्तन्मते- नैव तच्चित्ततयैव तद गृह्यते। न हि घटमति प्रत्याख्याय घटो गृह्यते नापि घट प्रत्याख्याय घटमतिः।न हि तत्र प्रमाणप्रमेयभदः शक्यते कल्पयितुमित्यभिप्रायः।(K. bhasya). लक्ष्णा is used here in the sense of लक्षण characteristic, लक्ष्पतेऽनयेति लक्षणा प्रमाणम् (K. bhasya). कि तदस्तीति नोच्यते-Prof. Vidhusekhara reads किं तदस्तीति चोच्यते but curiously enough translates the same as ' but you do not say what remains there'. The objector asks; - If 17

130 Notes on Gaudapāda-Kārika both चित्त and चैत्य have no independent existence, then what exists? The answer is nothing dependent exists. Gaudapada holds the view that the चित्त which sees the चत्य is not the highest reality. The विज्ञानवादिनs as Gaudapada understands them, seem to regard चित्त as capable of producing the fanauAs, endowing them with some sort of reality. ( 68-70 ) The objector remains still unconvinced. He says :- How can the चित्तदशय be unreal and दृशय 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 चित्तदृश्य comes into being and dies. निर्मितक :- मन्त्रौषध्यादिभिर्निष्वादितः, Gaudapada is a believer in the yogic powers, perhaps being a great Yogin himself. ( 7' ) This Kārikā is the same as III. 48. Gaudapāda repeats his thesis that the अजातिवाद is the only true doctrine enunciating 'Nothing is ever produced or born' and not चित्तजाः धर्मा: and धर्मज चितं as held by the Buddhists. उत्तमं सत्यम्-This is a hit against the Buddhists who admit aa4 to be of two kinds ( see notes on Kārikā 73 below ). (72) The द्वय consisting of ग्राह्य and ग्राहक, object and subject, is nothing but the vibration of the faa which is fafaqa and therefore rightly called असङ्ग ('असङ्गो ह्यय पुरुषः' इति श्रुतेः। सविषयस्य हि विषये सङ्ग:। निर्विषयत्वाञ्चित्तमसङ्गमित्यर्थः ( K. bhasya). (73) K. bhasya says ननु निर्विषयत्वेन चेदसङ्ग्त्वं चित्तस्य न निःसङ्गता भवति यस्माच्छास्ता शास्त्रं शिष्यश्रेत्येवमादेविषयस्य विद्यमानत्वात, s0 that accord- ing to it the meaning would be ' the distinction about the teacher, pupil etc. which is inevitable in studying the Vedāntaśāstra itself would have no scope, if the चित्त is निःसङ्ड. The answer is, the dis- tinction is due to Avidya and is intended only as a step to know the reality. A thing existing by परशास्त्रव्यवहार (K. bhasya explains परतन्त्रा- भिसवृत्या as परशास्त्रव्यवहारेण ) does not really exist'. Prof. Vidhusekhara says by way of introduction to this Karika 'the author says that the existence of the duality consisting of the subject and the object is only in empirical ( samtrti ) and not in absolute ( paramartha )

Chapter IV I31

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 परतन्त्राभिसंतृत्या into परतन्त्रोऽभिमंवृत्त्या on the ground that the sense requires it and it is supported by Buddhist works. He says r- संतृत्या is the same as अभिनिष्पत्या संवृत्या which he explains as संवृति 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 Sanikara ) and परमार्थसत्य (परमार्थनय of the Jainas, पारमार्थिक सत्य of Sankara) ( द्वे सत्ये समुपाश्रित्य बुद्धानां धर्मदेशना। लोकसंवृतिसत्यं च सत्यं च परमार्थतः । येऽनयोर्न विजानन्ति विभागं सत्ययोईयोः। ते तत्व न विजानन्ति गम्भीरं बुद्धशासने ॥ Madhyamakarika IV. 8-9). संतृति 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 योगनिर्मित elephant depending for its existence upon the cause योग ) and परिनिष्पन्न Or निष्पन्न, perfect (the non-existence of the elephant ). The परिकल्ित corresponds to the प्रातिभासिक सत्य of the Vedāntins. We differ from Prof. Vidhusekhara regarding the interpretation of this Karika. qraFa means here undoubtedly other schools of philosophy', the Buddhistic school ( cf. समानतन्त्रसिद्धः परतन्त्रासिद्धः प्रतितन्त्रसिद्धान्तः ( Nyayasutra I. I-29). The Buddhists regard संवृति or लोकसंवृति as सत्य ( which is really a contradiction in terms, for संतृति means आवरण ), while Gaudapada regards it as असत्य. It is wrong to say that Sankara admits any व्यावहारिक सत्य. In the begin- ning of the Vedantasutiabhasya, he defines his position quite clearly ... मिथ्याज्ञाननिमित्तः सत्यानृते मिथुनीकृत्य, अहमिदं ममेदमिति नैसर्गिको लोकव्यवहारः. He talks of व्यवहारावस्था, but not of व्यवहारसत्य. Like Gaudapada, he understands a4 to be one, indivisible and with- out any gradations. संवृति must therefore be always असत्य. Gauda- pada recognised only कल्पित संवृति. The objector says :- You said in the last two Karikas that चित्त was असङ्ग and जीव is not born. But in Karika 57, you also said संवृत्या जायते सर्वम्. How can you reconcile this ?

I32 Notes on Gaudapada-Karıkā

The answer is :- Karika 58 makes it quite clear that the FH is मायोपम, S0 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 युक्तं वक्तुम् 'तत्व्रमसि' इति ब्रह्मात्मभावस्यानवस्थाविशेषनिबन्धनत्वात्। तस्करदृष्टान्तेन चानृताभि- संधस्य बन्धनं सत्याभिसंधस्य च मोक्षं दर्शयन्नेकत्वमेवैकं पारमार्थिकं दर्शयति। मिश्या- ज्ञानतिजृम्भितं च नानात्वम्। उभयसत्यतायां हि कथ व्यवहारगोचरोऽपि जन्तुरनृताभिसंध इत्युच्येत । Sankarabhasya on Vedantasutra II. 1-I4 ). The objector says :- The Buddhists admit संतृति a5 सत्य; s0 what is accepted by संृति 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 #gfa cannot be real. ( cf. Mammata silencing an objector who complains that परमाण etc. are regarded by the वैशेषिकs as सणs, while Mammata would class them as जाति, परमाण्वादीनां एणमध्यपाठात् पारिभाषिकं एणत्वम । Kavya- prakāśa II ). अभिसंवृति seems to mean अभिमता or अभिनिष्पत्रा (evolved, per- fected) संृति. K. bhasya's explanation of परतन्त्र ... aS मोक्षशास्त्रव्यवहारेण is far- fetched. (74) The objector says that it is not fair to condemn संतृति outright. If संवृति says जीव: अजः, are we going to discard that teach- ing simply because संवृति is कल्पित ? The answer is :- 'Certainly' ( this is made clear in the next Karika ). We stick to our proposition that the कल्पितसंतृति cannot be associated with any reality. Again, संवृति which bears the Buddhist brand does admit even an thing or the idea about it as being born. परतन्त्रात् अभिनिष्पत्तिः यस्या: तया, that is, how we take the expression परतन्त्राभिनिष्पच्या (K. bhasya says, परशास्त्रसद्धिमपेक्ष्य योऽज इत्युक्त:, that is, आत्मन् is called अज -really we cannot call the आत्मन् or जीव even अज, as he is निर्विशेष-only with a view to give validity to the मोक्षशास्त्र etc. prior to आत्मबोध; this is obviously far- 6

fetched ). Gaudapada 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 aafa blunders into the right,

Chopter IV I33

that cannot be accepted as truth, because it is based on wrong premises. To hold that लोकसंतृति is सत्य is pure eye-wash and self- deception. (75) The reason why संतृति cannot tell us any truth, is that there is अभिनिवेश for an असत् (अभूत= not existing, unreal) viz. the कार्यकारणभाव which means belief in देत. 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 कार्यकारण- भाव has no scope. K. bhasya takes सः to mean यः द्वयाभावं बुद्ध्वा निर्निमित्तो निवृत्तमिश्याद्याभिनिवेश:, s0 that it supplies य: to make the construction less involved. We might take अभूताभिनिवेश: as the subject of न जायते, but then द्वयाभावं बुदूध्वा would go with अभिनिवेश and it might be objected that अभिनिवेश cannot be said to cognise anything. स बुद्ध्वैत has the sense of a nominative absolute, and the subject of न जायते may be different from सः, or सः refers to अज: in Karika 74, or जीव: in Karika 71. (76) The उत्तमाधममध्यम हेतुs correspond to the three आश्रमS mentioned in III. 16 ( हीनमध्यमोत्कष्टद्ृट्य आश्रमाः), धर्मा देवत्वादिप्राप्ति- हेतव उत्तमाः। ... अधर्मव्यामिश्रा मनुष्यत्वादिप्रापत्यर्था मध्यमाः। तिर्यगादिपाप्ति- निमित्ता अधर्मलक्षणा: प्रवृत्तिविशेषाश्वाधमाः (K. bhasya). When the चित्त does not concern itself with these हेतुs, it becomes निर्निमित्त and is not originated. (77) When the चित्त has become निर्निमित्त, the अनुत्त्ति state of the चित्त remains the same immutable for ever. That अनुत्पत्ति is the nYQT itself. Prof. Vidhusekhara admits himself baffled over this Kārikā, leaves the second half of the Kārika untranslated, and considers the explanation given in the K. bhasya ( निरस्तधर्माधर्माख्योत्पत्तिनिमित्त- स्यानिमित्तस्य चित्तस्पेति या मोक्षाख्यानुत्पत्तिः सा सर्वदा सर्वावस्थासु समा निर्विशेषा- इया च । पूर्वमप्यजातस्यैवानुत्पन्नस्य चित्तस्य सर्वस्याद्वयस्येत्यर्थः। यस्मात्प्रागपि विज्ञाना- च्चित्तदृश््यं तद्द्वयं जन्म च तस्मादजातस्य सर्वस्य सर्वदा चित्तस्य समाद्यैवानुत्पत्तिः ... सर्वदैकरूपैवेत्यर्थः ) as unsatisfactory. His objections are: (1) There is nothing corresponding to ar in the first line and the sentence is incomplete, and (2) there is no antecedent to aa in the second line. It must be admitted that the construction is an involved one ( but this is not uncommon with Gaudapada ), but we can easily supply सा to correspond with या, and take तत् as referring to चित्त. Because चित्त is nothing but चित्तदृशय, and therefore as explained before, अजात

I34 Notes on Gaudapāda- Karikā

and अनिमित्त, its real state is just अनुत्पत्ति and it perseveres without any change. K. bhasya rightly calls this अनुत्पत्ति state as the मोक्ष, or we might take तत् as referring to फल in हेत्वभावे फलं कुतः in the last Karika. The फल also is चित्तदृश्य and cannot really exist.

(78) सत्याम्-परमार्थरूपाम. The अनिमित्तता of the चित्त is the same as the अमनीभाव. Frof. Vidhusekhara reads अनापुवत् so that it might agree with fan which is regarded by him as the subject of अश्रुते. The expressions वीतशोक, पदमश्नुते however agree better with the person ( rather than faa ) who secures the right knowledge. As Prof. Vidhuśekhara has pointed out the change over from fa to a person is abrupt. On the other hand, it might be argued that the आकाङ् 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. सः=जीव :. (79) As long as the अभूताभिनिवेश involving the belief in द्वन्द्व persists, the चित्त is tossed about from one असत thing to another. But when it is realised that there cannot be any दय or वस्तु, the चित्त becomes असङ्ध and turns away from the द्य. The subject of विनिवर्तते may be तत् (चित्तं) in the first half, in which case स बुद्ध्वैव is a kind of absolute construction, or सः is the subject of विनिवतते, 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 a4; naturally only the enlightened ones are lucky to realise this. TaIa- Prof. Vidhusekhara thinks that this expression refers to the Buddhas. It rather refers to the स्थितप्रज्ञs of the Gita (cf. श्रुति- विप्रतिपन्ना ते यदा स्थास्यति निश्चला। समाधावचला बुद्धिस्तदा योगमवाप्स्यसि ॥ II. 53, ... बशे हि यस्पेन्द्रियाणि तस्य प्रज्ञा प्रतिष्ठिता ॥ II. 61, प्रसन्नचेतसो ह्याशु बुद्धि: पर्यवतिष्ठते॥। II. 65, तस्माद्यस्य महाबाहो निगृहीतानि सर्वशः। इन्द्रियाणी- न्द्रियार्थभ्यस्तस्य प्रज्ञा प्रतिष्ठिता ॥ II. 68). विषयः- गोचरः, something to be realised by. (8I) धर्म :- आत्माख्यः, धातुस्वभावतः- वस्तुस्व्भावतः ( K. bhasya). Prof. Vidhusekhara wishes to take unf in the special Buddhistic sense, सर्वबीजक आलयविज्ञान or आश्रयपरावृत्ति. He also reads धर्मो धातुः स्वभावतः, but wishes to emend it into धर्मधातु: स्वभावतः (धर्मधातुः mean-

Chapter 1V 135

ing ' the essence of reality. ' The reading as it is gives a satisfactory sense. It is however likely that Gaudapada may have deliberately used here the Buddhistic expression धर्मधातुः. कल्पितस्य सर्वस्य धारणाद् धर्मो ... धीयते निधीयते सर्वे निक्षिप्यते सुषुप्तादावस्मिन्निति धातुरात्मोच्यते। (Anandagiri). स्वयं प्रभातं भवति (cf. न तद् भासयते सूर्यो न शशाङ्के न पावकः। Gita XV-6 ) which is self-illuminating and does not depend upon others for its light. The expression सकृद्विभातः occurs in Chandogya VII. 4-2, सरुद्विभातो ह्यवेष ब्रह्मलोक :.

(82) सुखं and दुःखं are used adverbially. Prof. Vidhusekhara translates सुखम् आत्रियते नित्यं and दुःखं वित्रियते 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 to split the Karika in this way. K. bhasya rightly remarks एवमुच्यमानमपि परमार्थतत्वं कस्माल्ौकिकैन ग्रह्यत इत्युच्यते। यस्माद्यस्य कस्यचिद् द्वयवस्तुनो धर्मस्य ग्रहेण ग्रहणावेशेन मिथ्याभिनिविष्टतया सखमात्रियतेSनायासेनाच्छाद्यत इत्यर्थः ... दुःखं च वित्रियते प्रकटीक्रियते ! परमार्थज्ञानस्य दुर्लभत्वात्। भगवानसौ glorifies the निश्वला स्थिति: which is the same as अमनीभाव or आत्मन्. Prof. Vidhusekhara says that the expression fits in better with धर्मधातु.

(83) Gaudapada points out in this Karika how the भगवान् (आत्मन) is obscured by the ignorant who associate him with different धर्मs, by resorting to the four कोटिs ( modes) of looking at reality. The four कोटिs are :-

[ I ]अस्ति- अस्त्यात्मेति वाद्ी कश्वित्प्रतिपद्यते। (K. bhasya) प्रमाता देहादिव्यतिरिक्तोऽस्तीत्यादो वैशेषिकादिपक्षः। ( Ānandagiri )

[2] नास्ति-नास्तीत्यपरो वैनाशिक: । (K. bhasya) देहादिव्यतिरिक्तोऽपि नासौ बुद्धेर्व्यतिरिच्यते। क्षणिकस्य विज्ञान स्यैवात्मत्वादिति द्वितीयो विज्ञानवादिपक्षः । (Anandagiri)

[3] अस्ति नास्ति- अस्ति नास्तीत्यपरोऽर्धवैनाशिकः सदसद्वादी दिग्वासाः। (K. bhasya), तृतीयो दिगम्बरपक्षः। ( Anandagiri) [4] नास्ति नास्ति-नास्ति नास्तीत्यत्यन्तशून्यवादी। (K. bhasya) चतुर्थे तु शून्यवादिपक्षे शून्यस्यात्यन्तिकत्वद्योतनार्था वीप्सा। ( Anandagiri )

136 Notes on Gaudapada-Kārika

According to the K. bhasya and Anandagiri नास्ति (2 ) and नारित नास्ति (4) refer to the विज्ञानवादिनूs and the शून्यवादिनs respectively; while No. 3 अस्ति नास्ति is taken by K. bhasya to refer to the वैशेषिकS 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; Ānandagiri refers it to the वैशेषिकS.

Prof. Vidhusekhara sees here no reference to the विज्ञानवादिन्S and माध्यमिकs, but is prepared to reter No.I to the Vedantins who believe in the existence of Atman ( अस्तीति ब्रुवतोऽन्यत्र कथं तदुपलभ्यते अस्तीत्येवोपलब्धव्यस्तत्त्वभावेन चोभयोः । अस्तीत्येवोपलब्धस्य तत्त्वभावः प्रसीदति॥ Katha VI. 12-13, ) and whom Gaudapada dubs here as वालिश! It is unthinkable that the Vedantins 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 नारित, and नारित नास्ति, but) as referring to नास्ति, अस्ति, etc.), that is, अस्ति refers to स्थिर and चल t0 नास्ति. Gaudapada obviously understands by अस्ति, a phase involving production ( one of the six भावविकारS, जायते, अस्ति, विपरिणमते, वर्धते, अपचीयते, विनश्यति), so that those only who believe that Atman undergoes any change are condemned here as बालिश (तत्रास्तिभावश्वलः घटाद्यनित्यविलक्षणत्वात् । नास्तिभावः स्थिरः सदाविशेषत्वात् । K. bhasya). 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 प्रत्ययश्वापि येषां लोकः प्रवर्तते । चातुष्कोटिकया युक्ता न ते मन्नयकोषिदाः॥ असन्न जायते लोको न सन्न सदसन्क्वचित्। प्रत्ययैः कारणैश्वापि यथा बालैर्विकल्प्यते ॥ Lankavatara III. 20-21; बालपृथग्जना ... न स्वसिद्धान्तनयं चातुष्कोटिकनयविशुद्धं प्रतिविभावयन्ति । P. 171) चतुष्टयविनिर्मुक्ता तथागतानां धर्मदेशना यदुतैकत्वान्यत्वोभयानुभयपक्षवर्जिता नास्यस्तिसमारोपापवादविनिर्मुक्ता etc. P. 96, चातुष्कोटिकं च महामते लोकव्यवहारः। यञ्च चातुष्कोठिकबाह्यं तद्वाङ्मान्रं 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 सर्चज्ञ means securing the ब्राह्मण्य पद. ब्राह्मण्यम्- Befitting a Brähmana ( one who knows Brahman ) who deserves the highest पद as mentioned in एष नित्यो महिमा ब्राह्मणस्य (Brha. IV. 4-23) That Gaudapada calls the highest end in life as a ब्राह्मण्य पद is convin- cing proof that he could not be preaching Buddhism ( Prof. Vidhusekhara points out that in Buddhist literature a Brāhmana is held in as much respect as a Sramana 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 यस्याद्वयस्य पदस्य न विद्यन्ते तदनापन्नादिमध्यान्तं ब्राह्मण्यं पदम्। (K. bhasya). किप्रतः परमीहते। - Cf. ... यसत्वात्मरंतिरेव स्यादात्मतृप्तश्व मानवः। आत्मन्येव च संतुष्टस्तस्य कार्य न विद्यते। नैव तस्य कतेनारथों नाऊतेनेह कश्वन। नं चास्य सर्वभूतेषु कश्विदर्थ- व्यपाश्रयः ॥ Gita III. 17-18. (86) The ब्राह्मण्य पद secured by those who know Brahman or the true आत्मस्वरूप is not something to be secured anew, but is the natural state for them. विनय:, education, from e=out, duco=Ilead, is the exact English equivalent for विनयः, वि= विशेषेण and नी to carry. प्राकृत :- स्वाभाविक :. 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 विनयपेटक is not the true विनय. (87 ) In the remaining portion of this Prakaraņa, 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 Karika and the next, he describes the three kinds of ras ( which are dealt with in detail in the Lankā- vatāra ). [ 1 ] लौकिक- This is जागरितज्ञान, where both the object and its perception are experienced. .non लौकिक ज्ञानं सदसत्पक्षाभिनिविष्टानां सर्वतीर्थकरबाल- पृथग्जनानां च ( Lankavatara P. 157). [2] शुद्धलौकिक- This is स्वप्नज्ञान, where the object is absent, but the perception exists. It is called a, because it is free from contact with the ara. According to the Lankāvatāra this would be 18

I38 Notes on Gaudapada-Kārika

लोकोत्तर. K. bhasya by way of introduction remarks here, एवमन्योन्यविरुद्धत्वात्संसारकारणानि रागद्वेषदोषास्पदानि प्रावादुकानां दर्शनानि। अतो मिथ्या- दर्शनानि तानीति तद्युक्तिभिरेव दर्शयित्वा चतुष्कोटिवर्जित- त्वाद्रागादिदोषानास्पदं स्वभावशान्तमद्वैतदर्शनमेव सम्य- गदर्शनमित्युपसंहृतम्। अथेदानी स्वप्रक्रियाप्रदर्शनार्थ आरम्भ :- Similarly,Anandagiri, परमतनिराकरण- सुखेनात्मतस्व्रमवधारितम्। अधुना स्त्रप्रक्रिययावस्थात्रयोप- न्यासमुखेनापि तद्वधारयितुमवस्थाद्वयमुपन्यस्यति।

(88) [3] लोकोत्तरम्- This is the सुषुप्तम, where there is neither वस्तु nor उपलम्भ.

The लङ्डवतार explains as follows :- लोकोत्तरं ज्ञानं सर्वश्रावकप्रत्येक- बुद्धानां च स्व्रसामान्यलक्षणपतिताशयाभिनिविष्टानाम,and mentions also लोकोत्तर- तमं ज्ञानं, बुद्धबोधिसत्वानां निराभासधर्मप्रविचवादनिरोधानुत्पाददर्शनात् सदसत्पक्षविगतं तथागतभूमिनैरात्म्याधिगमात्प्रवर्तते। (P. 157). The लौकिक, लोकोत्तर, and लोकोत्तरतम of the Lankavatara, corres- ponds, as Prof. Vidhusekhara points out, respectively to लोकिक, शुद्धलोकिक and लोकोत्तर in the text. We however do not agree with Prof. Vidhuśekhara when he says that ' the difference is only in nomenclature and as such is not important'. Gaudapāda seems to show by his scheme that the लोकोत्तरतमज्ञान of the Bauddhas could not be the उत्तमज्ञान which according to him is किचिन्न जायते ( III. 48, IV. 71 ).

Generally only two categories लौकिक and लोकोत्तर (मार्ग 4 + मागफलS 4+ निर्वाण= 9 लोकोत्तर, and all the other mental states are लौकिक) are referred to in Buddhist works. The Lankavatara gives three categories which Gaudapada cleverly equates with the three states जाग्रत, स्वप्न and सुषुप्त).

In the second line Gaudapada refers to what is regarded by the wise philosophers to be fit to be comprehended to secure salvation. Different interpretations are proposed as follows :-

[ I ]K. bhasya :- लौकिकं शुद्धलौकिकं लोकोत्तरं क्रमेण येन ज्ञानेन ज्ञायते तज्ज्ञानं ज्ञेयम् एतान्येघ त्रीणि, एतट्र्व्यतिरेकेण ज्ञेयानुपपत्तेः ... विज्ञेयं परमार्थ- सत्यं तुर्याख्यमद्यमजमात्मतत्वमित्यर्थः। सदा सर्वदैतल्लौकिकादिविज्ञेयान्तं बुद्धैः परमार्थ- दार्शमिर्त्रह्मविद्धिः 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 jnana and jneya. Or it may mean that whatever we may know by the terms jnana and jneya is only the three things mentioned in the Kārikā'. Prof. Vidhusekhara's interpretation is hardly convincing. We need not understand that Buddhas are meant by the expression e:, again u ( which elsewhere is taken to be Brahman by Gaudapada III. 33 ब्रह्म ज्ञेयं) can not refer to the object of the three-fold ज्ञान just described. The next Karika tells us that when aa is known, the person becomes सर्वज्ञ, S0 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- [ I] ज्ञानं, ज्ञेयं and विज्ञेयं, these three, ot [2] ज्ञानं विज्ञेयं and ज्ञेयं विज्ञेयं; ज्ञानं and ज्ञेयं-these two, that is, is विज्ञेय to be taken as a predicative ? Though Gaudapada has said before that ज्ञेय is Brahman, it appears that K. bhasya is right in taking विज्ञेय to be the तुर्य, and there is also no इति which would be necessary if only ज्ञान and ज्ञेय are intended ( Gaudapada, however, as has been already remarked, is careless in his constructions ). The second query would be : what is the exact meaning of ra and ज्ञेय ? Does ज्ञान refer to the three-fold division लौकिक, शुद्धलौकिक and लोकोत्तर ? The expression त्रिविधे ज्ञाने in the next Karika strongly favours this interpretation, but the next Kārika refers only to ra and ज्ञेय and not to विज्ञेय (unless we hold that सर्वज्ञता हि सर्वत्र refers to faaa ), 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, Gaudapada possibly refers to the Gita in this connection, ज्ञानं तेऽहं सविज्ञानमिदं वक्ष्याम्यशेषतः । यज्ज्ञात्वा नेह भूयोऽन्यज्ज्ञातव्यमवशिष्यते॥ etc. VII. 2; अमानित्वमदम्भित्वमहिंसा क्षान्तिरार्जवम्। आचार्योपासनं शौचं स्थैर्य- मात्मविनिग्रहः॥ इन्द्रियार्थेषु वैराग्यमनहंकार एव च। जन्ममृत्युजराव्याधिदुःखदोषानु- दर्शनम्॥ असक्तिरनभिष्ङ्गः पुत्रदारगृहादिषु। नित्यं च समचत्तत्वमिष्टानिष्टोपपतिषु॥

140 Notes on Gaudapada-Kārikā

मयि चानन्ययोगेन भक्तिश्व्यभिचारिणी। विविक्तदेशसेवित्वमरतिर्जनसंसदि ॥ अध्यात्म- ज्ञाननित्यत्वं तत्वज्ञानार्थदर्शनम्। एतज्ज्ञानमिति प्रोक्तमज्ञानं यदतोऽन्यथा॥ XIII. 7-II; ज्ञेयं यत् तत् प्रवक्ष्यामि यज्ज्ञात्वासृतमश्चुते । अनादिमतपरं ब्रह्म न सत् तन्नासदुच्यते ।। सर्वतः पाणिपादं तत् सर्वतोऽक्षिशिरोमुखम् । सर्वतः श्रुतिमल्लोके सर्वमातृत्य तिष्ठति। सर्वेन्द्रियगणाभासं सर्वेन्द्रियविव्जितम्। असक्तं सर्वभृच्चैव निर्णं गणभोक्तृ च ॥ बहिरन्तशर्व भूतानामचरं चरमेव च। सूक्ष्मत्वात् तदविज्ञेयं दूरस्थं चान्तिके च तत् ॥ अविभक्तं च भूतेषु विभक्तमिव च स्थितम्। भूतभर्तृ च तज्ज्ञेयं ग्रसिष्ण प्रभविष्णु च। ज्योतिषामपि तज्ज्योतिस्तमसः परमुच्यते। ज्ञानं ज्ञेयं ज्ञानगम्यं हदि सर्वस्य धिष्टितम् ॥ XIII. 12-17 ( The expression ज्ञानं ज्ञेयं च विज्ञेयं seems to bc an echo of ज्ञानं ज्ञेयं ज्ञानगम्य above).

(89) K. bhasya takes ज्ेये to mean लौकिकादौ त्रिविधे and ज्ञाने as लौकिकादिविषये। त्रिविधे refers only to ज्ञाने, if ज्ञेय means अनादिमत् परं ब्रह्म as explained in the Gīta ( XIII. 12). One who knows Brahman, automatically becomes सर्वज्ञ for all time. K. bhasya says, आत्मस्व्ररूपमेव सर्वज्ञता सर्वश्र्वासौ ज्ञश्व सर्वज्ञस्तन्भ्ावः सर्वज्ञता ... न हि परमार्थविदो ज्ञानोन्भवाभिभवौ स्तो यथान्येषां प्रावादुकानाम् । which is far-fetched. The idea of a ब्रह्मवित् being सर्वज्ञ is quite common, cf. यो मामेवमसंमूढो जानाति पुरुषोत्तमम्। स सर्वविद्भजत मां सर्वभावेन भारत । Gita XV. 19.

(90) K.bhasya says by way of introduction, लौकिकादीना क्रमेण ज्ञेयतवेन निर्देशादस्तित्वाशङक परमार्थतो मा भूदित्याह and explains अग्रयाणतः as प्रथमत :. Prof. Vidhusekhara takes अग्रयाण as referring to Maha- yana, There is no doubt that the explanation oHa: is unsatis- factory. According to Prof. Vidhusekhara, the first line means 'हेयज्ञेयाप्यपाकयs should be understood from the Mahayana'. Even if अग्रहाण means महायान, Gaudapada's reference to हेयज्ञयाप्यपाक्यS aS विज्ञयानि (In Karika 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 विज्ञेय in its proper sense and brushes aside the विज्ञयs in the first line uncere- moniously ). The words in the Karika are variously interpreted :-.

हयानि - लौकिकादीनि तीणि जागरितस्वप्नसुषुप्तान्यात्मन्यसर्वेन रज्ज्वा सर्प- वद्धातव्यानि। ( K. bhasya).

Asanga ). परतन्त्रस्वभाव (Prof. Vidhusekhara, in conformity with

stithAChopter IV 141

doidyz ज्ञेयम् - चतुष्कोटिवर्जित परमार्थतत्म्। (K. bhasya; while the same authority explained ज्ञेय as लौकिकादीनि त्रीणि, in the comment on Karika 88). परिकल्पितस्वभाव ( Vidhusekhara). आप्यानि-आप्तव्यानि त्यक्तवाह्यैपणात्रयेण भिक्षुणा पाण्डित्यबाल्यमौनाख्यानि साधनानि । ( K. bhasya). Attainable, धर्मधातु which is परिनिष्पन्न (Vidhusekhara). पाक्यानि-रागद्वेषमोहादयो दोषा: कषायाख्यानि पक्तव्यानि। सर्वाण्येतानि हेय- ज्ञेयाप्यपाक्यानि विज्ञेयानि भिक्षुणोपायत्वेनेव्यर्थः । (K. bhasya; but how could the चतुष्कोटिवर्जित परमार्थतत्त्र 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 ( Vidhuśekhara ). तषां etc .- तेषां हेयादीनामन्यत्र विज्ञेयात्परमार्थसत्यं विज्ञेयं बह्मैक वर्जयित्वा, उपलम्भनसुपलम्भोतिद्याकल्पनामात्रम् ( K. bhasya so far seems to take तषां as referring to all the four हेय, ज्ञय, आप्य, and पाक्प, and calls the four अविद्याकल्पना, and makes a distinction between ज्ञेय in the first line and विज्ञेय in the second line) हेयाप्यपाक्येषु तिष्वपि स्मृतो ब्रह्मविद्धिर्न परमार्थसत्यता त्रयाणामित्यर्थः (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 jneya or vijneya. 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. " Vidhuśekhara thus, like K. bhāsya, takes fag to refer 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. bhāsya in the interpretation of this Karika. We are of opinion that avi refers to

I42 Notes on Gaudapada-Kārika

all the four, हय, ज्ञय, 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 thiee-fold Tr 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, प्रत्यक्षादिविषयत्वात्परि- निष्ठितवस्तुनः । तत्प्रतिपादने च हेयोपदेयरहिते पुरुषार्थाभावात्, ... न च परिनिष्ठिते वस्तुस्वरूपे विधि: संभवति, क्रियाविषयत्वात विधेः । Sankarabhasya on Vedanta- sutra I. I-4 ). According to the पूर्वमीमांसा, हेय is to be known from the निषेधवाक्यS; ज्ञेप, 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 पाकयs are the various sacrifices. The कर्मकाण्ड thus preaches what is dependent upon aa, 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. erOT is undoubtedly a strange expression, but that it should refer to महायान is not likely. (91) Anandagiri thus introduces the Karika, यदुक्तं ज्ञेयं चतुष्कोटिवर्जित 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 urs are really unoriginated and incapable of being contaminated, like आकाश. The expression धर्मा: does not mean that there is real नानात्व. कल्पितभेदनिबन्धनं बहुवचनमित्यर्थः- क्वचनेति देशकालावस्थाग्रहणम्, (किंचन किचिदणमात्रमपि K.bhasya) अणुमात्रमपीति कार्यकारणभावस्यांशांशि- भावस्य चोपादानम् । Anandagiri. (92) The expression धर्माः ज्ञेया: in the last Karika may be misunderstood by some to mean that the ज्ञेयत्व of the धर्मs is some- thing to be acquired anew. Gaudapäda says that all rs ( which are really Brahman ) are already बुद्ध. आदिबुद्धा :- नित्यबोधस्वरूपा :. Prof. Vidhusekhara takes बुद्ध to mean बोध or तथागत. It appears to us that Gaudapada is here objecting to the Buddhistic view that there

Chapter IV 143

are some who are आदिबुद्धs (or आदिशान्तs, who are born बुद्धs), some who acquire बुद्धhood (बोधिसत्त्वs) etc. क्षान्ति :- Persistent or enduring belief, बोधकर्तव्यतानिरपेक्षता (K. bhasya). (93) Gaudapada points out that शान्ति, निर्शाण etc. which are but different names for HiaT or salvation is not something to be acquired. All are मुक्त Or निर्वृत by nature, only they do not know it. If मोक्ष were to be कृतक (artificially made), it would be अनित्य (संसारदु:खोपशमनं सुखं जन्म वा यदि क्रियेत तदा कृतकस्यानित्यत्वमवश्यंभावीत्यर्थः। (Anandagiri). समाश्व अभिन्नाश्व समाभिन्नाः, always the same, without any change or variety. The highest is thus अज, साम्य ( always the same ) and विशारद (opposite of कपण). The धर्मs are all अध्यस्त. सुनिर्वता :- सुध्टूपरतस्वभावाः (K. bhasya ) or grounded in निर्वाण. (94) वैशास्यम is the oppositeof कार्पण्यम्. K. bhasya takes it to mean विशुद्धि विशारद generally means 'proficient'lever'. According to Gaudapada, a q0r 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 वैशारय् is four-fold, in respect of ( I ) 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. Gaudapada may be referring to this Buddhistic idea in this Kārika, but the reference to the रपणs (as contrasted with विशारदs) as भेदनिमs and पृथग्वादS shows that वैशारद् mainly points out to the bold belief in अद्वैत. The Bhagavadgita uses the expression कार्पण्यदोषोपहतस्वभाव: (II.7) with reference to Arjuna who had become धर्मसंमूढ चेताः Gaudapada is indebted perhaps to the Gita for the expression कपण. (95) The द्वैतिनs are कपण; those who are firmly grounded in अद्वैत alone can be called महाज्ञानs. In the Lankavatara, one महामति is described as propounding Buddhistic views. One is tempted to think that Gaudapada hints in this Karika, that the महामति of the Lankavatara is really no महामति at all! तञ्व लोको न गाहते-तत् ... परमार्थतत्वरं सामान्यबुद्धिरन्यो लोको न गाहते नावतरति न विषयीकरोतीत्यर्थः। 'सर्व- भूतात्मभूतस्य सर्वभूतहितस्य च । देवा अपि मार्गे मुह्यन्त्यपदस्य पदैषिणः। शकुनीना- मिवाकाशे गतिनैवोपलभ्यते ॥ इत्यादि स्मरणात्। ( K. bhasya). (96) When it is said that a महाज्ञान is one who has the knowledge of the अद्वैत Brahman, it should not be understood that

I44 Notes on Gaudapāda- Karikā

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 द्वैतिनूs speak of ज्ञान being related to the objects ( the Buddhists also in a sense regard ज्ञान to be related to the ासना). ज्ञान is really असङ्ग and आकाशकल्प and नित्यविज्ञप्तिरूप. Read the following comment of Anandagiri, अजं साम्यमित्युक्तं प्रमेयम्। तद्विषयनिश्वयवान्प्रमाता। प्रमाणं तथाविधनिश्व्वयज्ञानमिति। वस्तुपरिच्छेदे कथं महाज्ञानत्वमित्याशङ्क्याह अजेष्विति । अजा धर्माश्वित्प्रतिबिम्बा जीवा विवक्ष्यन्ते। तेष्वजं ज्ञानं कूटस्थदृष्टि रूपं बिम्चकल्पं ब्रह्माचलमात्मभूतमभ्युपगम्यते। तथा च मानमेयादिभावस्य कल्पितत्वेउपि वस्तुतो वस्तुपररिच्छेदाभावादुपपन्नं तज्ज्ञानवतां महाज्ञानत्वमित्यर्थः । कि चास्मन्मते ज्ञानस्य यदसङ्गतवमङ्गीकृतं तदपि विषयाभावादेव सिध्यति। ततश्व मुक्त्यै निर्विषयं मन इति यदुच्यते तदप्यविरुद्धमित्याह यतो नेति। The Lankavatara also describes ज्ञान to be असङ् and contrasts it with विज्ञान, तत्रोत्पन्नप्रध्वसि विज्ञानम् अनुत्पन्नप्रध्वंसि ज्ञानम्। ... निमित्तानिमित्तपतितं विज्ञानं नास्त्यरितिवचित्रयलक्षणहेतुकं च, निमित्तानिमित्तव्यतिक्रान्तलक्षणं ज्ञानम्। ... उपचयलक्षणं विज्ञानम्, अपचयलक्षणं ज्ञानम्। ... असङ्गलक्षणं ज्ञानं विषयवैचित्रय- सङ्गलक्षणं च विज्ञानम्। ... त्रिसङ्गतिक्षयोत्पादयोगलक्षणं विज्ञानम, असङ्गस्वभावलक्षणं ज्ञानम् ... अप्राप्तिलक्षणं ज्ञानं स्वप्रत्यात्मार्यज्ञानगतिगोचरमप्रवेशानिर्गमत्वादुकचन्द्रवज्जले। ( Pp. 157-158 ). Ānandagiri says. The ज्ञान is असङ्ग, for there is no विपय, as

(97) Anandagiri thus comments upon this Karika :- कूटस्थं ब्रह्मैव तत्वमिति स्वमते ज्ञानमसङ्ग सिध्यतीत्युक्तम् । मतान्तरे पुनः सविषयत्वाज्ज्ञानस्या- सङ्गत्वमसंगतं प्रसज्येतेत्याह अणुमात्रेऽपीति। अविद्वद्दृटया कस्यचिदपि पदार्थस्य जन्माङ्गीकारे ज्ञानस्य तदनुषङ्गितवेनासङ्गत्वायोगे बन्धध्वंसलक्षणं प्रयोजनं दूरापास्तं भवतीत्याह किसुतेति। If once we admit that Brahman is capable of even the slightest change, ज्ञान would cease to be असङ्ग and आवरण- च्युति would become a कार्य and so अनित्य. It has been already stated that मोक्ष can never be a कार्य in any sense. आवरण is the conceal- ment of the true nature of Brahman, due to माया, अविदा, मिश्या- ज्ञान etc. (98) All ध्मs 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 नायका: to mean स्वरामिनः समर्था बोदधुं बोधशक्तिमत्स्वभावाः, and adds यथा नित्यप्रकाशस्वरूपोपि सविता प्रकाशत इत्युच्यते यथा वा नित्य- निवृत्तगतयोऽपि नित्यमेव शैलास्तिष्ठन्तीत्युच्यते तह्वत वुध्यन्त इत्युच्यते। Though the ध्मs are always बुद्ध, they are metaphorically said to be 'knowers',

Chapter 1V 145

which expression implies knowing to be something different from the knower. We have to regard gfa to be misplaced according to this nterpretation. The natural way would be to take इति with नायका: Prof. Vidhuśekhara rightly explains 141: to mean Buddhas. K. bhasya seems to understand the Karika to mean that all uns are प्रकृतिनिर्मल, आदिबुद्ध, आदिमुक्त and नायक and they are spoken of as बुध्यन्ते 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 नायकs say' and what they say is to be found in the rest of the Kārika ( and not इति नायका: बुध्यन्ते as Prof. Vidhusekhara 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, Gaudapada in the second half of this Karika and the next one, points out how the Bauddha view differs from his. Buddhas (=[r: ) say that the आदिबुद्धs and the आदिमुक्तs have knowledge of the धर्मs (and the बोधिसनवs 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.). Gaudapada argues that this view of the Bauddhas is wrong. For this involves aura which is a great obstacle in the way of आवरणच्युति. When all धर्मs are प्रकृतिनिर्मल, the distinction that some धर्मs are आदिबुद्ध or आदिमुक्त or अ.दिशान्त is meaningless. ( 99 ) Gaudapāda shows here how it is not possible for a Ja to have the knowledge of the yAs. In order that there may be ज्ञान of the धर्म, ज्ञान must relate itself to the objects; but according to the अजातिवाद there is no उत्पाद of the धर्मs themselves. ज्ञान cannot therefore be said to be going over to the uAs. The uns too, being प्रकृतिनिर्मल like आकाश, cannot relate themselves to ज्ञान either, for ज्ञान is also आकाशकल्प; thus- ज्ञानं धर्मेषु न क्रमते, and सर्वे धर्माः ज्ञानं न क्रमन्ते (one would have expected here ज्ञाने to keep the symmetry); or सर्वे धर्मास्तथा ज्ञानं (तायिनः or तापिनः is explained in K. bhasya, as संतानवतो निरन्तरस्याकाशकल्पस्येत्यर्थः । पूजावतो वा प्रज्ञावतो वा। arfaa is variously explained in Buddhist literature as ' permanent' 'instructed') might be taken to mean as the K.bhasya does, सर्वे धर्मा: क्कचिदप्यर्थान्तरे न क्रमन्ते तथा ज्ञानं क्वचिदप्यर्थान्तरे न क्रमते. In any case, 19

146 Notes on Gaudapāda-Kārikā

धर्माः ज्ञानं न क्रमन्ते, and ज्ञानं धर्मेषु न क्रमते are respectively used to mean न चित्तजा धर्मा: and चित्तं न धर्मजम् (Karika 54, above). What Gauda- pada means to say is that Gautama Buddha told many things ( The Lankavatara contains the expression भाषिष्येऽहं तव repeated many times and put in the mouth of Buddha who is made to dis- course on various topics there ), but he could not grasp the Ajativada which is the only proper solution of the problem about Samsara. Buddha no doubt denied the existence of ararrer, 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 Karika. Prof. Vidhusekhara on the other hand sees in the expression नैतद्बुद्धेन भाषितम्, a reference to अवचनं बुद्धवचनम् which 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 'Dvipadam 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 नैतद्बुद्धेन भाषितम, इदं तु परमार्थतत्त्रमद्वैतं वेदान्तेप्वेव विज्ञेयमित्यर्थः । All agree that the expression बुद्धेन refers to Gautama Buddha. (100) Gaudapada had saluted द्विपदां वर in Karika I, and अस्पर्श- TT in Karika 2; he concludes this Prakarana and the whole work by saluting the qa or highest state. Prof. Vidhuśekhara takes qą to mean निर्वाण and thinks that the epithets दुर्ईश (in Pali सुदुर्दर्श means निर्वाण) and अतिगम्भीर support the meaning निर्वाण. It is quite unneces- sary to take पद to mean निर्ाण. The expression, usually परम पद, iS used often in philosophical literature to mean nIaT. K. bhāsya remarks, दुःखेन दर्शनमस्पेति दुर्दर्शम्। अस्ति नास्तीति चतुष्कोटिवर्जितत्वाद्दुर्विज्ञेय- मित्यर्थः। यथाबलम्- Prof. Vidhusekhara says श्रद्धा, वीर्य, स्मृति, समाधि and Sar which constitute a in Buddhism are meant here.

APPENDIX I

An Alphabetical Index to the Karikas

Kārikā Prakaraņa No. of Kārikā Page

अकल्पकमज ज्ञानम् 3 33 27 अकारो नयते विश्वम् I 23 8

अजः कल्पितसंवृत्त्या 4 74

अजमनिद्रमस्वप्रम् 36 28 27 3 G अजमनिद्रमस्वप्रम् 4 8I 52 अजातं जायते यस्मात् 4 29 39 अजातस्यैव धर्मस्य 4 6 33 अजातस्यैव भावस्य 3 20 24 अजातस्यैव सर्वस्य 4 77 SI

अजातेस्त्रसतां तेषाम् 4 43 42 अजाद्वै जायते यस्य 4 I3 34 अजेष्वजमसंक्रान्तम् 4 96 55 अजे साम्ये तु ये केचित 4 95 55 अणुमात्रेऽपि वैधर्म्ये 4 97 अतो वक्ष्याम्यकार्पण्यम् 3 2 20

अद्ीर्धत्वाञ्च कालस्य 2 2 IO

अद्वयं च द्दयाभासम् 3 30 27 अद्वयं च द्याभासम् 4 62 47 अद्वैतं परमार्थो हि 3 18 24 अनादिमायया सुप्तः I 16 S अनादेरन्तवत्त्वं च 4 30 39 अनिश्विता यथा रज्ज: 2 I7 14 अन्तःस्थानानु मेदानाम 2 4 IO

अन्यथा गृहतः स्वप्न: I I5

148 Gaudapada- Karika

Kārikā Prakaraņa No. of Kārikā Page

अपूर्वे स्थानिधर्मो हि 2 8 II

अभावश्व रथादीनाम् 2 3 IO

अभूताभिनिवेशाद्धि 4 79 5I

अभूताभिनिवेशोऽस्ति 4 75 50

अमात्रोऽनन्तमात्रश्व I 29 9

अलब्धावरणा: सर्वे 4 98 56

अलाते स्पन्दमाने वै 4 49 44

अवस्त्वनुपलम्भ च 4 88 53

अव्यक्ता एव येऽन्तस्तु 2 15 I3

अशक्तिर परिज्ञानम् 4 19 36

असज्जागरिते दधूवा 4 39 41

असतो मायया जन्म 3 28 26

अस्ति नास्त्यस्ति नास्तीति 4 83 52

अस्पन्दमानमलातम् 4 48 43 अस्पर्शयोगो वै नाम 3 39 29 अस्पर्शयोगो वै नाम 4 2 32

आत्मसत्यानुबोधेन 3 32 27

आत्मा ह्याकाशवज्जीवैः 3 3 20

आदावन्ते च यन्नास्ति 2 6 II

आदावन्ते च यन्नास्ति 4 31 39 आदिबुद्धा: प्रकत्यैव 4 92 S4

आदिशान्ता ह्यनुत्पन्नाः 4 93 SS

आश्रमास्त्रिविधा हीन ... 3 16 23

इच्छामात्रं प्रभो: सृष्टिः I 8 3

उत्पादस्याप्रसिद्धत्वात् 4 38 4I

उन्सेक उदधेर्यद्वत 3 4I 29

उपलम्भात्समाचाराव 4 42 42

उपलम्भात्समाचारात् 4 44 42

Appendix 1 149

Kārikā Prakaraņa No. of Kārikā Page

उपायेन निगृह्लीयात् 3 42 30 उपासनाश्रितो धर्मः 3 I 19 उभयोरपि वैतथ्यम 2 I2 उभे ह्यन्योन्यद्इये ते 4 67 48 ऋजुवक्रादिकाभासम् 4 47 43 एतैरेषोऽपृथग्भावैः 2 30 17 एवं न चित्तजा धर्मा: 4 54 45 एवं न जायते चित्तम् 4 46 43 ओङ्कारं पादशो विद्याव I 24 8

कल्पयत्यात्मनात्मानम् 2 I2 I2 कारणं यस्य वै कार्यम् 4 II 34 कारणाददयनन्यत्वम् 4 I2 34 कार्यकारणबद्धौ तौ I II 4 काल इति कालविद: 2 24 कोट्यश्वतस्र एतास्तु 4 84 52 क्रमते न हि बुद्धस्य 4 99 56 ख्याप्यमानामजाति तैः 4 32 ग्रहणाज्जागरितवत् 4 37 4I ग्रहो न तत्र नोत्सर्गः 3 38 29 घटादिषु प्रलीनेषु 3 4 20 चरआ्नागररिते जाग्रत 4 65 48 चित्तं न संस्पृशत्यर्थम् 4 26 38 चित्तकाला हि येडन्तस्तु 2 I4 I3 चित्तस्पन्दितमेवेदम् 4 72 49 जरामरणनिमुक्ता: 4 IO 34 जाग्रच्ित्तेक्षणीयास्ते 4 66 48 जाग्रद्वृत्तावपि त्वन्तः 2 I0 12

जात्याभास चलाभासम् 4 45 43

Gaudapada-Karika

Kārikā Prakaraņa No. of Karikā Page

जीवं कल्पयते पूर्वम् 2 16 13

जीवात्मनोः पृथक्त्वं यत् 3 I4 23

जीवात्मनोरनन्यत्वम् 3 13 22

ज्ञाने च त्रिविधे ज्ञेये 4 89 54

ज्ञानेनाकाशकल्पेन 4 I 31 तत्त्वमाध्यात्मिकं टृष्टा 2 38 19 तस्मादेवं विदित्वैनम् 2 36 18

तस्मान्न जायते चित्तम् 4 28 38

तेजसस्योत्वविज्ञाने I 20 7

त्रिषु धामसु यत्तुल्यम् 22 7

त्रिषु धामसु यद्द्ोज्यम I 5 2

दक्षिणाक्षिमुखे विश्वः 2 2

दुःखं सर्वमनुस्सृत्य 3 43 30

दुर्दशमतिगम्भीरम् 4 I00 56

द्रव्यं द्रव्यस्य हेतु: स्यात 4 53 45

3 I2 22

द्वैतस्याग्रहणं तुल्यभ् I3 5 धर्मा य इति जायन्ते 4 46

न कश्विज्जायते जीव: 3 48 3I न कश्विज्जायते जीव: 4 7I 49 4 न निरोधो न चोत्पत्ति 2 32 I7

न निर्गता अलातात्ते 4 SO 44 न निर्गतास्ते विज्ञानात् 4 52 44

न भवत्यसृतं मर्त्यम् 3 21 24

न भवत्यसृतं मर्त्यम् 4 7 33 न युक्तं दर्शनं गत्वा 4 34 40 नाकाशस्य घटाकाशः 3 7 2I

नाजेषु सर्वधर्मेषु 20 4 60 16

Appendix 1 ISI

Kārikā Prakaraņa No. of Kārikā Page नात्मभावेन नानेदम 2 34 18

4 नात्मानं न परांश्र्वैव I I2

नास्त्य सद्धेतुकमसत 4 40 नास्वाद्येत्सुखं तत्र 3 45 30 निःस्तुतिर्निर्नमस्कार: 2 37 19 निगृहीतस्य मनसः 3 T 34 निमितं न सदा चित्तम् 4 27 38

निवृत्तस्याप्रवृत्तस्य 4 80 SI निवृत्ते: सर्वदुःखानाम् I IO 4 निश्वितायां यथा रज्जवाम् 2 18 $4 नेह नानेति चाम्नायात् 3 24 25 पञ्चविशक इत्येके 2 26 16 पादा इति पादविदो 2 2I 1S पूर्वापरापरिज्ञानम् 4 2I 37

4 91 54 प्रज्ञप्ते: सनिमित्तत्वम् 4 24 37 प्रज्ञप्तेः सनिमित्तत्वम् 4 25 38 प्रणवं हीश्वरं विद्यात् I 28 9 प्रणवो ह्यपरं ब्रह्म I 26 9 प्रपश्चो यदि विद्येत I I7 6 प्रभवः सर्वभावानाम् I 6 3 प्राण इति प्राणविदो 2 20 14 प्राणादिभिरनन्तैश्र्व 2 I9 I4 प्राप्य सर्वज्ञतां कृत्स्नाम् 4 85 53 फलादुत्पद्यमान: सन् 4 I7 36 बहिष्प्रज्ञो विभुर्विश्वः I बीजाङ्कुराख्यो द्ृष्टान्तः 4 20 36 बुद्ध्वानिमित्ततां सत्याम् 4 78 SI

I52 Gaudapada-Karika

Kārikā Prakaraņa No. of Kārikā Page

2 33 18

भूतं न जायते किश्चित् 4 4 32

भूततोऽभूततो वापि 3 23 25

भूतस्य जातिमिच्छन्ति 4 3 32 भोगार्थ सृष्टिरित्यन्ये I 9 3

मकारभावे प्राज्ञस्य I 2I 7 मन इति मनोविदो 2 25 16

मनसो निग्रहायत्तम 3 40 29 मनोदृश्यमिदं द्वैतम् 3 3I 27 मरणे संभवे चव 3 9 2I

मायया भिद्यते ह्येतत् 3 19 24 मित्रादै: सह संमन्त्रय 4 35 40 मृल्लोहविस्फुलिङ्गादै: 3 I5 23 यं भावं दर्शयेदस्य 2 29 I7 यथा निर्मितको जीव: 4 70 49 यथा भवति बालानाम् 3 8 2I

यथा मायामयाद्वीजात् 4 59 46

यथा मायामयो जीव: 4 69 49 यथा स्वप्नमयो जीव: 4 68 48 यथा स्वप्ने दयाभासम् 3 29 26 यथा रवप्ने द्याभासम् 4 6I 47 यथैकस्मिन्घटाकाशे 3 5 20 यदा न लभते हेतून् 4 76 50 यदा न लीयते चित्तम् 3 46 31 यदि हेतो: फलात्सिद्धि: 4 I8 36 यावद्धेतुफलावेशः 4 55 45 यात्रद्धेतुफलावेशः 4 56 45 युञ्जीत प्रणवे चेतः I 25 8

Appendix 1 153

Kārikā Praķaraņa No. of Kārilā Page

योऽस्ति कल्पितसंवृत्त्या 4. 73 5o रसादयो हि ये कोशा: 3 II 22

रूप कार्यसमा ख्याश्व 3 6 2I

लये संबोधयेच्चित्तम 3 44 30

लीयते हि सुषुप्ते तत 3 35 28

लोकाँलोकविद: प्राहुः 2 27 16

विकरोत्यपरान्भावान् 2 I3 I3

विकल्पो विनिवर्तेत T 18 6

विज्ञाने स्पन्दमाने वै 4 5I 44 विपर्यासादथा जाग्रत् 4 4I 42 विप्राणां विनयो ह्वेष: 4 86 S 3 विभूति प्रसवं त्वन्ये I 7 3 विश्वस्यात्वविवक्षायाम् I I9 7 बिश्वो हि स्थूलभूङनित्यम् 3 2

वीतरागभयक्रोधै: 2 53 18

वेदा इति वेदविदो 2 22 15

वैतथ्यं सर्वभावानाम् 2 I IO

वैशारदं तु वै नास्ति 4 94 स एष नेति नेतीति 3 26 26

संधाता: स्व्प्नवत्सवें 3 10 22

संभवे हेतुफलयो: 4 16 35

3 25 25 संवृच्या जायते सर्वम् 4 57 46 सतोे हि मायया जन्म 3 27 26 सप्रयोजनता तेषाम् 2 7 II सप्रयोजनता तेषाम् 4 32 39 सर्वस्य प्रणवो ह्यादि: 27 9 सर्वाभिलापविगतः 3 37 28 सर्वे धर्मा भृषा रवप्े 4 33 40 सवस्तु सोपलम्भख् 4 87 53 20

1$4 Gaudapada-Karika

Kārikā Prakaraņa No. of Kārikā Page

सांसिद्धिकी स्व्राभाविकी 4 9 33 सुखमात्रियते नित्यम् 4 82 52 सूक्ष्म इति सूक्ष्मविदः 2 23 15 सृष्टिरिति सृष्टिविद: 2 28 16

स्थूलं तर्पयते विश्वम् 1 4 2 स्वतो वा परतो वापि 4 22 37

= स्त्रप्नजागरितस्थाने 2 5

स्वप्नदक्चित्तदश््यास्ते 4 64 47 स्वप्नटक्प्रचरनस्वप्ने 4 63 47

I 14 स्वप्नमाये यथा दृष्टे 2 31 17 स्वप्नवृत्तावपि त्वन्तः 2 9 12

स्व्प्ने चावस्तुक: काय: 4 36 40

स्वभावेनामृतो यस्य 3 22 25 स्त्रभावेनामृतो यस्य 4 8 33 स्व्रसिद्धान्तव्यवस्थासु 3 17 23 स्वस्थं शान्तं सनिर्वाणम् 3 47 हेतोरादि: फलं येषाम् 4 14 35 हेतोरादि: फलं येषाम् 4 IS S5 हेतुर्न जायतेऽनादे: 4 23 37 हेयज्ञेयाप्यपाक्यानि 4 90 54

021

APPENDIX II

Index to important Words in the Notes

Word Page No. Word Page No.

अकार्पण्यम् 89 इन्द्रियकाल 76

अकृता II2 उत्तमाधममध्यमहेतु I33

अग्रयाण 140, 142 उत्सर्ग 103

अचल IO3 उदित: 89

अज 97 उपचार 103

अनन्त 83 एकत्रिशक 83

अनादिमायया 64 ओङ्कार 66

अनाभासम् I07 ओम 65 अनिङ्गनम् 107 कषाय 106 अनिमित्तता 134 कपण 88

अनुतपत्ति I33 कार्य 90 अपरिज्ञानम् II7 कामभोगान 106 अभिसंवृति I32 काल 62,81 अभूततः 98 कोश 92 अमनीभाव I01 क्रमकोप 1I7 अमूर्त 8I क्षान्ति I43

अलात I26 ग्रह I03 95 गण अवतार 78

अविरुद्ध 109 चलाचल 87

अविलक्षण 91 घनप्रज्ञ

अविवाद 109 चित्त 82, 129 अशक्ति 116 चित्तकाल 76 अस्पर्शयोग 103, 109 चित्तदृश्य I29 आद़ि: I20 चेतोंशून् 60 आदिबुद्धा: I42 जडवत् 87 आध्यात्मिक 88 जाग्रत् 63 14:, 142 ज्ञेयम् आप्य I41

आवेश I27 तच्व 79,88 83,96 तद्ेत: आश्रमा: I23

156 Gaudapāda-Kārika

Word Page No. Word Page No.

ताषिन् 145 बुद्धानाम् 90, 134 तुर्य 63 षुद्धि 82 तैजस 58, 59, 63, 65 बुद्धैः 118, 125 त्रिष्यधवसु I21 त्राह्मण्यम् 137 दिशः 8I भुवनानि देव 79 भूततः 98 द्दय J30 भूतदर्शन I21 द्यकाल 76 भूतवत् I24 द्विपदां वर 108 भृतानि 78 द्वैतिन: 96 भोक्तृ 80 धर्म 88, 108, 128, 134 भोज्य 80 धर्माधमौं 82 मधुज्ञानं 92,93 निद्रा 63 मनस 82 निर्मितक: 130 मनोनिग्रह 104, 105 निर्वाण 107 मायामात्र 64 न्यायपूर्वकम् 71,72 मूर्त 81 पञ्चविंशक 82 यज्ञ 80 पद 146 यथाबलम् ¥46 परतन्त्र 120, 13I याद्टच्छिक 87 परतन्त्रास्तिता I20 रसाद्य: 92 परापर 84 रूप 90 पाक्य 141, 142 लक्षणा 129 पाद 79 लय 84, I0f, 107 पुरुष 60 लोक 79, 83 पृथक्त्व 94 लोकोत्तर 138 प्रकति II2 लौकिक 137 प्रविशन्ति I27 वादा: 8I प्रज्ञपति: I20 चिक्षेप 106, 107 प्राकृत 137 विनय: I37 प्रागृत्पत्तेः 94,95 विभु 57 प्राण 60, 78 वियन्ति I25 प्राज्ञ 58, 59. 63, 65 विश्व 63 बाल 90 विश्व 57, 58, 59, 65 ब्राह्यत: 88 विषय 79

Appendix 11 I57

Word Page No. Word Page No.

वेद 80 सुख 106 वैतथ्य 71,72 सुनिर्वृता: 143 वैशारद I43 सुषुप्ति boiongi at onil no 63 वैश्वानर 57 सूक्ष्म 80 शुद्धलौकिक I37 सृष्टि 84 षड्विंश 82 सृष्टिचिन्तक 6I संवृति 128, 131 स्त्रीपुंनपुंसकम् 84 संक्लेश 120 स्थानिधर्म 74 संघात 91 स्थिति 84 संभूति 99 स्यूल 8 1 सद्भाव J28 स्वधा 87 सप्रयोजनता 74 स्वप्न 63 समाख्या 90 स्वभाव 62 सांसिद्धिकी II2 स्वाभाषिकी FI2 साध्यसम II9 हैयानि 140

71

ERRATA do1 [ The list is not exhaustive. In counting the lines, the heading or top line is ignored ] o8 Page For Read

18 59 II. 22 V. 22 ( line 7 ) V. 8-10 V. 7-10 1.8 ( last line )

6I १३ ३ ( line 24 ) 63 बीजफलाभावास्यां बीजफलभावाभ्यां ( line 13 ) X. 32 X. 33 ( line 20 ) 67 II. 217 II. 3. 17 ( line 29 ) 73 IV. 39 IV. 3. 9 ( line 24 )

95 VI. 3. 4-5 VI. 1. 4-6

( line 20 ) 98 यदाश्रया तम- यदाश्रया क्रिया तम- ( line 19 ) II3 त्यजन्त्यन्ते त्थजत्यन्ते ( line 4 ) 116 तदसत्कार्य तदसत्कार्यवादे ( line 24 ) I21 nor not

( line 14 )

131 ने सर्गि को नैसर्मिकोडयं

( line 31 )