Gaudapada’s work is divided into four chapters: (1) Agama (scripture), (2) Vaitathya (unreality), (3) Advaita (unity), (4) Alatashanti (the extinction of the burning coal). The first chapter is more in the way of explaining the Mandukya Upanishad by virtue of which the entire work is known as Mandukyakarika. The second, third, and fourth chapters are the constructive parts of Gaudapada’s work, not particularly connected with the Mandukya Upanishad.

In the first chapter Gaudapada begins with the three apparent manifestations of the self: (1) as the experiencer of the external world while we are awake (vishva or vaishvanara atma), (2) as the experiencer in the dream state (taijasa atma), (3) as the experiencer in deep sleep (sushupti), called the prajna when there is no determinate knowledge, but pure consciousness and pure bliss (ananda). He who knows these three as one is never attached to his experiences. Gaudapada then enumerates some theories of creation: some think that the world has proceeded as a creation from the prana (vital activity), others consider creation as an expansion (vibhuti) of that cause from which it has proceeded; others imagine that creation is like dream (svapna) and magic (maya); others, that creation proceeds simply by the will of the Lord; others that it proceeds from time; others that it is for the enjoyment of the Lord (bhogartham) or for his play only (kridartham), for such is the nature (svabhava) of the Lord, that he creates, but he cannot have any longing, as all his desires are in a state of fulfilment.

Gaudapada does not indicate his preference one way or the other, but describes the fourth state of the self as unseen (adrishta), unrelationable (avyavaharyam), ungraspable (agrahyam), indefinable (alakshana), unthinkable (acintyam), unspeakable (avyapadeshya), the essence as oneness with the self (ekatmapratyayasara), as the extinction of the appearance (prapancopashama), the quiescent (shantam), the good (shivam), the one (advaita) (1). The world-appearance (prapanca) would have ceased if it had existed, but all this duality is mere maya (magic or illusion), the one is the ultimately real (paramarthatah). In the second chapter Gaudapada says that what is meant by calling the world a dream is that all existence is unreal. That which neither exists in the beginning nor in the end cannot be said to exist in the present. Being like unreal it appears as real. The appearance has a beginning and an end and is therefore false. In dreams things are imagined internally, and in the experience that we have when we are awake things are imagined as if existing outside, but both of them are but illusory creations of the self. What is perceived in the mind is perceived as existing at the moment of perception only; external objects are supposed to have two moments of existence (namely before they are perceived, and when they begin to be perceived), but this is all mere imagination. That which is unmanifested in the mind and that which appears as distinct and manifest outside are all imaginary productions in association with the sense faculties.

There is first the imagination of a perceiver or soul (jiva) and then along with it the imaginary creations of diverse inner states and the external world. Just as in darkness the rope is imagined to be a snake, so the self is also imagined by its own illusion in diverse forms. There is neither any production nor any destruction (na nirodho, na cotpattih), there is no one who is enchained, no one who is striving, no one who wants to be released (2). Imagination finds itself realized in the non-existent existents and also in the sense of unity; all imagination either as the many or the one (advaya) is false; it is only the oneness (advayata) that is good. There is no many, nor are things different or non-different (na nanedam …na prithag naprithak) (3). The sages who have transcended attachment, fear, and anger and have gone beyond the depths of the Vedas have perceived it as the imaginationless cessation of all appearance (nirvikalpah prapancopashamah), the one (4).

In the third chapter Gaudapada says that truth is like the void(akasha) which is falsely concieved as taking part in birth and death, coming and going and as existing in all bodies; but howsoever it be conceived, it is all the while not different from akasha. All things that appear as compounded are but dreams (svapna) and maya (magic). Duality is a distinction imposed upon the one (advaita) by maya. The truth is immortal, it cannot therefore by its own nature suffer change. It has no birth. All birth and death, all this manifold is but the result of an imposition of maya upon it (5). One mind appears as many in the dream, as also in the waking state one appears as many, but when the mind activity of the Togins (sages) is stopped arises this fearless state, the extinction of all sorrow, final ceasation. Thinking everything to be misery (duhkham sarvam anusmritya) one should stop all desires and enjoyments, and thinking that nothing has any birth he should not see any production at all. He should awaken the mind (citta) into its final dissolution (laya) and pacify it when distracted; he should not move it towards diverse objects when it stops. He should not taste any pleasure (sukham) and by wisdom remain unattached, by strong effort making it motionless and still. When he neither passes into dissolution nor into distraction; when there is no sign, no appearance that is the perfect Brahman. When there is no object of knowledge to come into being, the unproduced is then called the omniscent (sarvajna).

In the fourth chapter, called the Alatshanti, Gaudapada further describes this final state (6). All the dharmas (appearances) are without death or decay (7). Gaudapada then follows a dialectical form of argument which reminds us of Nagarjuna. Gaudapada continues thus: Those who regard karana (cause) as the karyya (effect in a potential form) cannot consider the cause as truly unproduced (aja), for it suffers production; how can it be called eternal and yet changing? If it is said that things come into being from that which has no production, there is no example with which such a case may be illustrated. Nor can we consider that anything is born from that which has itself suffered production. How again can one come to a right conclusion about the regressus ad infinitum of cause and effect (hetu and phala)? Without reference to the effect there is no cause, and without reference to cause there is no effect. Nothing is born either by itself or through others; call it either being, non-being, or being-non-being, nothing suffers any birth, neither the cause nor the effect is produced out of its own nature (svabhavatah), and thus that which has no beginning anywhere cannot be said to have a production. All experience (prajnapti) is dependent on reasons, for otherwise both would vanish, and there would be none of the afflictions (samklesha) that we suffer. When we look at all things in a connected manner they seem to be dependent, but when we look at them from the point of view of reality or truth the reasons cease to be reasons. The mind (citta) does not come in touch with objects and thereby manifest them, for since things do not exist they are not different from their manifestations in knowledge. It is not in any particular case that the mind produces the manifestations of objects while they do not exist so that it could be said to be an error, for in present, past, and future the mind never comes in touch with objects which only appear by reason of their diverse manifestations. Therefore neither the mind nor the objects seen by it are ever produced. Those who perceive them to suffer production are really traversing the reason of vacuity (khe), for all production is but false imposition on the vacuity. Since the unborn is perceived as being born, the essence then is the absence of production, for it being of the nature of absence of production it could never change its nature. Everything has a beginning and an end and is therefore false. The existence of all things is like a magical or illusory elephant (mayahasti) and exists only as far as it merely appears or is related to experience.

There is thus the appearance of production, movement and things, but the one knowledge (vijnana) is the unborn, unmoved, the unthingness (avastutva), the cessation (shantam). As the movement of burning charcoal is perceived as straight or curved, so it is the movement (spandita) of consciousness that appears as the perceiving and the perceived. All the attributes (e.g. straight or curved) are imposed upon the charcoal fire, though in reality it does not possess them; so also all the appearances are imposed upon consciousness, though in reality they do not possess them. We could never indicate any kind of causal relation between the consciousness and its appearance, which are therefore to be demonstrated as unthinkable (acintya). A thing (dravya) is the cause of a thing (dravya), and that which is not a thing may be the cause of that which is not a thing, but all the appearances are neither things nor those which are not things, so neither are appearances produced from the mind (citta) nor is the mind produced by appearances. So long as one thinks of cause and effect he has to suffer the cycle of existence (samsara), but when that notion ceases there is no samsara. All things are regarded as being produced from a relative point of view only (samvriti), there is therefore nothing permanent (shashvata).

Again, no existent things are produced, hence there cannot be any destruction (uccheda). Appearances (dharma) are produced only apparently, not in reality; their coming into being is like maya, and that maya again does not exist. All appearances are like shoots of magic coming out of seeds of magic and are not therefore neither eternal nor destructible. As in dreams, or in magic, men are born and die, so are all appearances. That which appears as existing from an imaginary relative point of view (kalpita samvriti) is not so in reality (para-martha), for the existence depending on others, as shown in all relative appearance, is after all not a real existence. That things exist, do not exist, do exist and not exist, and neither exist nor not exist; that they are moving or steady, or none of those, are but thoughts with which fools are deluded.

It is so obvious that these doctrines are borrowed from the Madhyamika doctrines, as found in the Nagarjuna’s karikas and the Vijnanavada doctrines, as found in Lankavatara, that it is needless to attempt to prove it, Gaudapada assimilated all the Buddhist Shunyavada and Vijnanavada teachings, and thought that these held good of the ultimate truth preached by the Upanishads. It is immaterial whether he was a Hindu or a Buddhist, so long as we are sure that he had the highest respect for the Buddha and for the teachings which he believed to be his. Gaudapada took the smallest Upanishads to comment upon, probably because he wished to give his opinions unrestricted by the textual limitations of the bigger ones. His main emphasis is on the truth that he realized to be perfect. He only incidentally suggested that the great Buddhist truth of indefinable and unspeakable vijnana or vacuity would hold good of the highest atman of the Upanishads, and thus laid the foundation of a revival of the Upanishad studies on Buddhist lines. How far the Upanishads guaranteed in detail the truth of Gaudapada’s views it was left for his disciple, the great Shankara, to examine and explain.

1. Compare in Nagarjuna’s first karika the idea of prapancopashamam shivam. Anirodhamanutpadamanucchedamashashvatam anekarthamananarthamanagamamanirgamam yah pratityasamutpadam prapancopashamam shivam deshayamava sambuddhastam vande vadatamvaram. Compare also Nagarjuna’s Chapter on Nirvanapariksha, Purvopalambhopashamah prapancopashamah shivah na kvacit kasyacit kashcit dharmmo buddhenadeshitah. So far as I know the Buddhists were the first to use the words prapancopashaman shivam.
2. Compare Nagarjuna’s k@arika, “anirodhamanutpadam” in Madhyamikavritti, B.T.S., p. 3.
3. Compare Madhyamikakarika, B.T.S., p.3 anekartham ananartham, etc.
4. Compare Lankavatarasutra, p.78, Advayasamsaraparinirvanvatsarvadharmah tasmat tarhi mahamate Shunyatanutpadadvayani@hsvabhavalakshane yogah karaniyah; also 8,46, Yaduta svacittavishayavikalpadrishtyanavabodhanat vijnananam svacittadrishtyamatranavatarena mahamate valaprthagjanah bhavabhavasvabhavaparamarthadrishtidvayvadino bhavanti.
5. Compare Nagarjuna’s karika, B.T.S. p. 196, Akasham shashashringanca bandhyayah putra eva ca asantashcabhivyajyante tathabhavena kalpana, with Gaudapada’s karika, III. 28, Asato
mayaya janma tatvato naiva jayate bandhyaputro na tattvena mayaya vapi jayate.
6. The very name Alatashanti is absolutely Buddhistic. Compare Nagarjuna’s karika, B.T.S., p. 206, where he quotes a verse from the Shataka.
7. The use of the word dharma in the sense of appearance or entity is peculiarly Buddhistic. The Hindu sense is that given by Jaimini, “Codanalakshanah arthah, dharmah.” Dharma is determined by the injunctions of the Vedas.

advaita, ananda, atma, deep sleep, dream state, extinction, mandukya upanishad, oneness, prana, shivam, theories of creation