A Plain English Translation of the Gaudapada Karikas by Richard H. Jones
Stilling the Wheel of Fire
[1] I bow to the greatest of all men (the Buddha) who, by means of the gnosis that is like (limitless, nondual) space and is non-different from its object of knowledge (i.e., Brahman), fully realized the nature of phenomenal beings, which are also like (empty) space.
[2] I bow to the discipline of no-contact (described above in GK 3.39) that is set forth in the scriptures for the happiness of all beings, that is in fact conducive to the well-being of all, that is free ofdispute (by non-Vedantists), and that is free of self-contradictions.
Dualists, Natures, and the Origin of Objects
[3] In their debates, some disputants argue for the birth of something that already exists. Others, proud of their intelligence, argue for the birth of something that does not already exist. Thus they quarrel with one another. [4] But something existent cannot have an origin (but must be permanent and hence eternal), and something nonexistent does not in any way come into existence (since it does not exist). Thus, by arguing among themselves these disputants actually establish the nondualist doctrine of non-origination (by refuting each other). [5] We approve of the doctrine of non-origination revealed by the disputants. We do not quarrel with them. Now learn the doctrine that is free from dispute.
[6] The disputants affirm the birth of something that is unborn. But how can what is birthless and thus deathless become mortal? [7] The immortal cannot become mortal, and the mortal cannot become immortal. For it is not possible for something ever in any way to change its nature. [8] If one maintains that what is immortal by its nature can be subject to death, how can one maintain that the immortal, after becoming an effect of change (i.e., becoming mortal), retains its changeless nature? [9] The “nature” of something is known as that which, when acquired, becomes permanently established, intrinsic, innate, and not produced by another. Anything with a nature never abandons its self-nature. [10] All things (including phenomenal persons) are by their very self-nature free of old age and death. But individuals think they are subject to old age and death, and by this thought they deviate from their nature (i.e., individuals do not see their true nature as being illusory).
Theories of Causation
[11] A disputant who holds the doctrine “Cause and effect are (materially) identical” must hold that the cause has an origin (since the effect has an origin). But if the cause has an origin, how can it be said to be unborn? If it is subject to change, how can it be changeless (i.e., eternal)? [12] If the cause and effect are non-different, then the effect must be without an origin (since the cause is real and thus permanent and unchanging). On the other hand, how can the cause be eternal (i.e., unchanging and thus does not have an origin) if it is non-different from the effect and the effect has an origin? [13] There is no illustration to support the doctrine that an effect is born from an unborn (and hence eternal and unchanging) cause. On the other hand, the doctrine that the effect is born from a cause that is itself born leads to an infinite regress (of produced causes).
[14] Some hold the doctrine that the cause causes the effect and also that the effect causes the cause. But how then can these persons demonstrate the beginninglessness of both the cause and the effect? [15] Those who hold this doctrine describe origins in the same way as the birth of the father from the son. [16] But to assert causation, the order of succession of the cause before the effect must be ascertained by you. For if cause and effect appear simultaneously, there is no relation between the two, any more than there is relation of the two horns of a bull that appear simultaneously. [17] The cause that you affirm as coming into existence from its effect cannot come into existence (prior to the effect) — how can a cause that has not yet come into existence produce any effect? [18] If a cause is produced from the effect, and, again, the effect is produced from the cause, then which can be born first when its birth depends upon the birth of the other? [19] The inability to answer this question, the ignorance (of dualists) about this matter, and the impossibility of establishing the order of succession if causation is admitted has clearly led the enlightened ones (the Buddhas) to hold the doctrine of non-origination in all ways.
[20] The example of the seed and the sprout is itself something that has yet not be established (under the models of causation offered). If the middle term of a syllogism (i.e., the example) has not yet been established, then it cannot be used to establish the proposition to be proved. [21] (Concerning the seed and sprout example): Ignorance concerning the point of the origin and the end of the cause and effect supremely demonstrates non-origination. If a thing has truly been caused, why is it that its antecedent cause is not grasped?
[22] Nothing whatsoever is born either from itself or from another. Nothing whatsoever that is real, nonexistent, or both real and nonexistent is produced. [23] By their self-nature, cause and effects are beginningless and so are not born. What has no cause also has no birth.
The Question of an Objective Object of Cognition
[24] Objection: Cognition must involve an external object. Otherwise, the duality (of perceiver and perceived object) would be destroyed. In addition, mental impurities depend upon external objects. Thus, the existence of external objects, as held by dualists, must be admitted.
[25] Reply: From the point of view of conventional reason, it is held that a designation has an objective referent. But from the point of view of the true nature of things, it is held that the “objective referent” is not an objective referent. [26] Consciousness does not contact external objects or contact even the appearances of objects. For external objects are in fact nonexistent, and appearances are not separate from consciousness. [27] Consciousness never comes into contact with an objective referent in the past, present, or future. Without an objective referent (as a cause), how can be any misconception of it? [28] Thus, neither consciousness nor the objects perceived by it have any birth. Those who see their birth are seeing foot-prints of a bird in the sky.
Waking and Dream Experiences
[29] What dualists say is born is in fact unborn, for the very nature of the unborn is to be ever unborn. There is never any change in nature whatsoever. [30] If the cycle of death and rebirth is beginningless, then it could have no end (for what is beginningless is real and so cannot change its nature and end). And if liberation has a beginning, it cannot be eternal (since anything with a beginning would be a finite entity and so must end).
[31] What does not exist in the beginning or in the end is also nonexistent in the present (despite appearances to the contrary). Thus, the senseobjects that we perceive are like the illusions we perceive. Nevertheless, they are regarded (by dualists) as real. [32] That objects (are real because they) serve functions in the world is contradicted by dreams (where illusory objects also serve functions within the dream). Thus, because they have a beginning and an end, they most certainly must be regarded as illusory.
[33] All objects seen in dreams are unreal because they are perceived only within the body. How can what is perceived in this limited space be real? [34] It is not reasonable to think that a dreamer perceives objects in the dream by actually going out to them because of the discrepancy of the time involved (in dreaming and in such a journey). In addition, upon awakening, the dreamer does not find himself in the places seen in the dream. [35] Nor upon awakening does the dreamer find those whom he had had conversations with in the dream. Moreover, in the waking state he does not possess what he had acquired in the dream. [36] So too, the body in the dream is insubstantial since another body is seen (sleepingin the bed). And like the dream body, everything cognized (in the waking state) by consciousness is insubstantial. [37] Since the experience of objectsin the dream is the similar to the apprehension of objects in the waking state, some think the waking state is the cause of the dream state. For this reason, the waking state is considered to be real by the dreamer alone.
Denial of Causation
[38] Since birth cannot be established (for what is real and hence eternal), all real things are said to be unborn. And it impossible for what is unreal to be born from the real in any way whatsoever. [39] Having perceived what is not real in the waking state but being deeply impressed by it, one sees it in dreams. Having perceived what is unreal in dreams, he not see it in the waking state. [40] What is unreal cannot have what is unreal as its cause. Nor can what is real be produced by the unreal. What is real cannot cause something else that is real. And how could what is unreal be the product of what is real? [41] Just as through error one may in the waking state grasp objects as real, even though they are in fact inconceivable, so in dreams one sees objects there only because of error.
Teaching Origination
[42] The enlightened teach origination only for the sake of those who, through fear of non-origination, assert the substantiality of objects because of such objects being perceived and because they cling to religious duties. [43] But for those who through fear of non-origination and because of their perception do not accept non-origination, the evil consequences arising from their acceptance of origination does not accrue. The evil effect, if any, will be slight. [44] Just as an elephant conjured by a magician is said to be real because it is perceived and behaves as an elephant should, so things in the external world are said to be real because they are perceived and because we can deal with them.
Everyday Consciousness
[45] What appears to be born, to move, and to take material form is really everyday consciousness. But (changeless) consciousness is in fact unborn, motionless, free of material form, tranquil, and nondual. [46] Thus, consciousness is unborn. All things are known to be unborn. Those who understand thus do not fall into error.
[47] Just as waving a burning stick appears to be a straight line, a crooked line, a circle, and so forth, so does the vibrating everyday consciousness appear to be a perceiver and something perceived. [48] Just as the firebrand when not in motion is free of all appearances (of being a stick, a circle, and so forth) but remains changeless, so is everyday consciousness when not in motion free of all appearances. It remains unborn (i.e., changeless). [49] When the firebrand is in motion, the appearances (of the straight line, and so forth) do not come from somewhere else. When the firebrand is not moving, the appearances do not go somewhere else, nor do they enter the firebrand itself. [50] The appearances do not emerge from the firebrand because they lack the nature of substantiality. So too with everyday consciousness due to the similarity of the appearances created by moving the firebrand. [51] When everyday consciousness is vibrating (in the waking or dream states), the appearances do not come from somewhere else. When everyday consciousness is not vibrating (in deep sleep), the appearances do not go somewhere else, nor do they enter into consciousness itself.
Causation
[52] Appearances do not emerge from everyday consciousness because they lack the nature of substantiality. They remain inconceivable because they lack a relation of cause and effect. [53] A substance may be the cause of another substance, and a non-substance the cause of a non-substance. But things in the phenomena world cannot be shown to have the nature of either substantiality or non-substantiality. (And so there is no causation.) [54] Things are not born from consciousness, or vice versa. Thus, the wise hold the doctrine of the birthlessness of causes and effects.
[55] Just as long as one is attached to the belief in causation, so long will cause-and-effect arise. When the attachment to the belief in causation ceases, there is no cause and effect. [56] Just as long as he is attached to the belief in causation, so long will he have rebirths. When the attachment to the belief in causation ceases, there is no more rebirths.
[57] According to the conventional point of view, everything in the world is born and thus nothing is permanent. But in terms of what is real, everything is unborn and nothing is destroyed. [58] Things are conventionally said to be born, but this is not possible from the point of view of Reality. Their birth is like that of an object produced by Brahman’s power of illusion, and that power is not seen (i.e., does not exist as an independent reality). [59] An illusory sprout comes from an illusory seed. Theillusory sprout is neither permanent nor impermanent. The same applies to all things. [60] The terms “permanent” and “impermanent” (or “born” and “unborn”) cannot apply to things that are not born (since these terms apply only to phenomena within the “dream” world and not to Reality). What cannot be described by words cannot be discriminated (by the mind).
Perception in the Waking and Dream States
[61] In a dream, consciousness vibrates through its illusory power resulting in the image of duality — a perceiver and a perceived object. So too, in the waking state, consciousness vibrates through the illusory power resulting in the image of duality. [62] There is no doubt that in a dream the nondual consciousness appears as a duality. So too, there is no doubt that in the waking state the nondual consciousness appears as a duality.
[63] A dreamer, while wandering in the ten directions in a dream, constantly perceives the entire variety of beings — those born from eggs, moisture, soil, or wombs. [64] These things are perceived by the consciousness of the dreamer and do not exist apart from consciousness. So too, the objects of perception of the dreamer are only the consciousness of the dreamer. [65] While wandering in the waking state, an awake person constantly perceives the same variety of beings. [66] These beings are perceived by the consciousness of the awake person and do not exist apart from consciousness. So too, the objects of perception of that person are only the consciousness of the awake person.
[67] Both (consciousness and its object) are seen in terms of each other. Can one exist independently of the other? The answer of the wise is “No.” Both are empty of any defining marks that would distinguish them (as two separate realities). For each can be cognized only through the other.
[68] Just as a a person in a dream appears and disappears, so also do all phenomenal persons exist and not exist in the waking state. [69] So too, they are like persons conjured by a magician or [70] by supernatural means (e.g., by an incantation).
Reality is Unborn Consciousness
[71] No thing whatsoever is born. Nor is there any cause for such a birth. This supreme truth/reality is that nothing whatsoever is born. [72] The duality of a perceiver and the perceived is nothing but the vibration of consciousness. This consciousness does not contact any object. Thus, it is declared to be permanent and unattached.
[73] What exists due to being conventionally imagined is not real from the highest point of view. So too, what is said to exist based on the doctrines of other philosophical schools is not real from the highest point of view. [74] The Self is said to be born only from being conventionally imagined and from the doctrines of the other schools. But it is not even “unborn” from the highest point of view. [75] People persist in their belief in the reality of the unreal (i.e., a duality of a perceiver and the perceived), but there is no duality (but only the Self). One who realizes the absence of such duality is not reborn because no cause for a rebirth remains. [76] When there is no cause — either superior, inferior, or middling — then consciousness is free of rebirths. How can there be an effect without a cause?
[77] Consciousness is unborn and free of casual relations. Its birthlessness is eternal and absolute. All this phenomenal world is merely an (illusory) object of perception to the unborn consciousness.
Liberation
[78] Having realized the truth/reality of the absence of (real) causation and finding no other cause for rebirth, one realizes the state that is free of grief, desire, and fear.
[79] Attached to unreal objects, the mind pursues those objects. But it turns back from them (and returns to a tranquil state) when it realizes the unreality of objects and becomes free of attachment. [80] When the mind is freed from attachments to objects and is otherwise undistracted, it realizes a state free of movement (i.e., free of activity, agitation, or “vibration”). That indeed is the state of mind of the enlightened: undifferentiated, unborn, and nondual. [81] (The enlightened mind is the Self.) The Self is free of birth, sleep, and dreams. It is self-luminating (and thus reveals itself). For the Self is ever luminous by its very nature. [82] But by the mind’s attachment to even a single object, the Blessed One (i.e., the Self) easily becomes hidden and suffering surfaces. It then is revealed only with great difficulty.
[83] By asserting that the Self “exists,” “does not exist,” “both exists and does not exist, or “neither exists nor does not exist,” the foolish indeed conceals the Self through associating it with ideas of changeability, unchangeability, both changeability and unchangeability, and absolute negation. [84] These are the four options regarding the Self; by the attachment to any of them, the Self always remains hidden.He who has known that the Self is ever-free of contact with these positions indeed sees all (i.e., is omniscient). [85] What else remains to be desired forone who has realized the state of being a knower of Brahman, a state of complete omniscience, nonduality, and without beginning, end, or middle?
[86] This is the humility that knowers of Brahman have by their nature. Their tranquility is also spontaneous. Control of their senses also comes by their nature. Having known thus, the enlightened attain peace.
Threefold Consciousness and Knowledge
[87] Knowers of Brahman recognize the ordinary state of waking in which the worldly duality of objects and the idea of coming into contact with objects is accepted. They also recognize a “purer” worldly state (dreaming) in which the perception is dualistic without the presence of an object. [88] They also recognize a supramundane state without objects and without the idea of coming into contact with objects. So knowers of Brahman have always proclaimed knowledge, the object of knowledge, and what is knowable.
[89] The threefold knowledge and objects of knowledge being known in succession, omniscience arises everywhere of its own accord for the knower endowed with great wisdom here in this very life. [90] Accounting to Mahayana Buddhists, four things are to be known first: what is to be avoided, what is to be realized, what is to be cultivated, and what is to be rendered ineffective. Except for what is to be realized (i.e., Brahman/Self), these exist only as imagination.
The Nature of Entities
[91] All entities by their very nature are known to be beginningless, like space. But there is not the slightest (ontological) diversity whatsoever in them anywhere or in any way. [92] By their very nature, all entities are wellfixed as illumined from the very beginning (i.e., all entities are consciousness). Only one who rests content (without seeking further knowledge than this) is able to attain deathlessness. [93] All entities are tranquil from the very beginning, uncaused, and by nature completely free (of dualities). They are characterized by the sameness (of nature) and non-separation (from each other). They are unborn, identical (with Brahman/Self), and pure. [94] Those who roam in the realm of separateness can never realize the purity (of the Self). Those who sink in the doctrine of separateness (of realities) speak of a diversity (of entities) and thus are said to be of limited understanding. [95] But those who are firmly established in the unborn sameness (of the Self) are alone said to possess the highest knowledge in the world. The common person indeed cannot grasp such knowledge.
[96] The unborn gnosis does not contact the unborn entities. This gnosis is said to be free of attachments since it is not related to any object. [97] If the unwise believe in origination, however slight, of any entity, they can never approach what is free of attachments. How then can there be the destruction of the veil (of illusion covering the Self for such people)?
[98] All phenomenal persons in fact are free from that veil and are pure by nature. They are enlightened as well as liberated (from the cycle of rebirths) from the very beginning. Thus, they are said to be enlightened since they are able to know (the truth/reality). [99] The gnosis of the Buddha, who is all light, does not touch any entity (and so is unrelated to anything). All entities are like gnosis in this regard. Yet this was never stated by the Buddha.
[100] Having realized the state that is hard to perceive, profound, unborn, always the same, all light, and free of diversity, we praise it to the best of our ability.