Gaudapada's Karika

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

> Why is reality equated with changelessness?  Why can't the world be a
> sequence of real but extremely fleeting occasions which follow each other
> in a meaningful way?

Continuity and change is a problem which philosophers of every school have
grappled with for ages. The vijnAnavAda buddhists do say that the world
is a sequence of fleeting momentary perceptions which follow one another
in a flow. However they do not accept that the individual moments are
real.

The problem with the notion of momentariness is this. Let us say a cat is
moving across a room. It takes some time to go from point A to point B.
Now, is the cat seen at point B at time t = t1 the same as the cat seen
at point A at time t = t0? Those who root for an extreme notion for
momentariness say that it is not the same cat. If that is so, the
objectors ask, why cannot the cat seen at point A at time t = t0 manifest
as a dog or a mouse at point B at time t = t1? Those who root for an
extreme notion of changelessness can come up with a variety of arguments,
including ones denying that the cat ever moves, or saying that space is
illusion etc.

There is hardly any logical necessity to deny that it is the same cat or
to deny that the cat ever moves. As far as ordinary transaction
(vyavahAra) is concerned, we can take it that it is the same cat and that
it that moves from A to B over a period of time. However, such a basic
problem with understanding change raises the notion of illusion.

This is where I find the kArikA's analogy striking. In the last chapter,
the metaphor of AlATacakra (the burning firebrand that is waved in a
circle) is invoked. The Vijnanavada Buddhists use this analogy to argue
that the circle of fire that is seen is an illusion, and that the only
things perceived are the momentary positions of the firebrand that is
being waved. So also, says the Buddhist, the entire universe is just a
series of fleeting momentary perceptions, that maintain an illusion of
continuity and changelessness. The advaitin takes this analogy a bit
further. True, the continuous circle of fire is an illusion made up of
momentary positions of the firebrand. But then, he turns around and says
that it is only because there is a firebrand that can be waved in the
first place, that it can take momentary positions and then create the
illusion of continuity. The entire thrust of the kArikA's argument is to
accept in a qualified manner, the argument of the Buddhist that there is
an illusory nature of the perceived universe, and then maintain that there
needs to be a changeless substratum for such an illusion to occur.

The kArikA also maintains that whether one is a dualist/realist who holds
that the world is real, or if one can accept that the perceived universe
has an illusory nature, this conclusion about a changeless substratum
holds true in either case. This is because every human perception and
judgement is ultimately based on an assumption of changelessness. For
example, let us take the simple notion that the sun rises everyday in the
east. Logically speaking, this is based on a faulty inductive argument.
Since the I was born, I have seen the sun rising everyday and everyday it
rises in the east. I see this phenomenon occuring everyday, and so I
boldly make the statement, "the sun rises everyday in the east." The
problem with such an inductive argument is that even if a million
instances are cited for it, one contrary instance is enough to invalidate
the argument. Yet, we all intuitively know that the sun will continue to
rise in the east, and we have to assume/postulate/take it as scripture,
that there is an essential aspect of changelessness that is central to the
perceived universe, without which we can never make a logically valid
argument that the sun will rise tomorrow in the east! Thus, whether one
holds the perceived universe to be real or illusory, the basic axiom of
changelessness has to be there. In this connection, the kArikA says that
there is no virodha (opposition) between the dualist and the non-dualist.

Finally, in either case, since the perceived universe can only make sense
on the substratum that is changeless, the essential, real reality of the
universe can be equated with changelessness.

> If perception and change can be depended on as a proof of the unreality of
> the world, how can we avoid the inference that perception and change
> themselves must be real?  If we do accept the reality of perception and
> change do we therefore become "qualified non-dualists" in the process?

The correct inference is that real reality is changeless. Perception and
change are nothing more than properties of the world that is perceived and
changes, and which is therefore unreal. If now perception and change are
held to be real, you have the absurd situation where an unreal universe
has real properties, like change and perception. Isn't that a faulty
inference then?

Vidyasankar