Advaita: Gaudapada's jar space analogy question!

[DanielR]

Hi,

does death lead to breaking a jar in his analogy?

for more information: from wikipedia's Gaudapada article

To this end he gives the analogy of space and jars. Self is like space and the jivas are like space in jars. Just as space is enclosed in a jar, so is the Self manifested as Jivas. When the jar is destroyed the space in the jar merges into space so likewise, are jivas merged into the Self. Spaces in jars may differ in form, function and name, but still there's no difference in space. Likewise though the jivas may differ in form, function and name, still there's no difference in the Self. Just as the space in the jar is neither the transformation nor a modification nor a part of the space, the jiva too is neither the transformation nor a modification nor a part of the Self. Creation from existence (sat) or from non-existence (asat) are both unreasonable positions since, no creation takes place at all, because immortal Self can never become mortal.

haha, sorry for that weird topic, but I'm really unsure about that, I figure there are two interpretations

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Hi,

does death lead to breaking a jar in his analogy?

for more information: from wikipedia's Gaudapada article

To this end he gives the analogy of space and jars. Self is like space and the jivas are like space in jars. Just as space is enclosed in a jar, so is the Self manifested as Jivas. When the jar is destroyed the space in the jar merges into space so likewise, are jivas merged into the Self. Spaces in jars may differ in form, function and name, but still there's no difference in space. Likewise though the jivas may differ in form, function and name, still there's no difference in the Self. Just as the space in the jar is neither the transformation nor a modification nor a part of the space, the jiva too is neither the transformation nor a modification nor a part of the Self. Creation from existence (sat) or from non-existence (asat) are both unreasonable positions since, no creation takes place at all, because immortal Self can never become mortal.

haha, sorry for that weird topic, but I'm really unsure about that, I figure there are two interpretations

This is from the third chapter (Advaita Prakarana) of Gaudapa's Mandukya Karika - specifically verses 3-5.

My opinion - Do not read the Karika in parts. It can be very confusing. It is not a very long text and so I highly recommend reading it in full. Multiple translations are available online for free.

This has been discussed here before. In summary, Gaudapada argues for no birth/no death (Ajativada) - very similar to Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka Buddhism. The final verse in the third chapter is -

No one is born. This is the highest truth. - Mandukya Karika 3.48

and once more in the fourth and final chapter -

Nothing is born nor does anything die. This is the highest truth - Mandukya Karika 4.71

 

[Aupmanyav]

Spaces in jars may differ in form, function and name, but still there's no difference in space.

I would put it in this way to make it clearer:

"The name, function, and form of jars may differ, but still there's no difference in space."

 

[DanielR]

This is from the third chapter (Advaita Prakarana) of Gaudapa's Mandukya Karika - specifically verses 3-5.

My opinion - Do not read the Karika in parts. It can be very confusing. It is not a very long text and so I highly recommend reading it in full. Multiple translations are available online for free.

This has been discussed here before. In summary, Gaudapada argues for no birth/no death (Ajativada) - very similar to Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka Buddhism. The final verse in the third chapter is -

No one is born. This is the highest truth. - Mandukya Karika 3.48

and once more in the fourth and final chapter -

Nothing is born nor does anything die. This is the highest truth - Mandukya Karika 4.71

When Gaudapada says 'highest truth', what about empirical truth? Are there two truths? I know there are different levels of reality, but to me when Gaudapada says 'highest truth', this to me implies that this is IT.

I have to add that I'm not an Neo-Advaitin, just for clarification.

I'm trying to grasp the concept of Ajativada. Should I just accept his words that there is only Brahman and that 'no one is born'?

 

[Acintya_Ash]

I'm trying to grasp the concept of Ajativada.

You've read this? Ramana Maharshi on Creation

 

[shivsomashekhar]

When Gaudapada says 'highest truth', what about empirical truth? Are there two truths? I know there are different levels of reality, but to me when Gaudapada says 'highest truth', this to me implies that this is IT.

This concept of two truths was first clearly laid out by Nagarjuna. Nagarjuna spoke of two truths - Samvriti and Paramartha, which became Vyavaharika and Paramarthika in Advaita.

However, the first truth (Samvriti, Vyavaharika) is not really the truth, as it is only imagined. There is only one truth and that is Paramartha, where all imagined objects (knowledge, memory, space, time, identity) do not exist. Waking objects are just as unreal as dream objects. This is why Gaudapada says nothing is ever born.

In this context, one important thing to be grasped in Advaita is that time is also part of Maya and therefore imaginary. This is what makes Advaita very different from other schools of Vedanta and is also perhaps the most ignored aspect of the doctrine. No time = no past, no future and therefore, no such thing as the present either. This has profound implications.

I'm trying to grasp the concept of Ajativada. Should I just accept his words that there is only Brahman and that 'no one is born'?

But, who is accepting this? The entity that is deciding to accept/reject was never born and therefore does not exist. Hence, these words cannot be accepted. They can only be understood/accepted in the context of the one single truth.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Should I just accept his words that there is only Brahman and that 'no one is born'?

We are not the one's who will suggest anything. Decide on your own. However, I do believe this. Birth and death may be true in 'vyavaharika' but they are not true in 'paramarthika' and surely, that is the highest truth..

From the link: Ramana Maharshi on Creation
It is 'ajatavada' jata = born, ajata = not born, therefore, theory of no birth.
Daniel, you need to correct the spelling.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There is only one truth and that is Paramartha, where all imagined objects (knowledge, memory, space, time, identity) do not exist. Waking objects are just as unreal as dream objects. This is why Gaudapada says nothing is ever born.

In this context, one important thing to be grasped in Advaita is that time is also part of Maya and therefore imaginary.

For Nagarjuna, nothing had 'atta'; for me, Brahman has 'atta'. What constitutes/exists in 'Vyavaharika' has 'atta'. That is why we run when a lion attacks us. The two realities exist in their own planes and none can be denied.

 

[atanu]

Hi,

does death lead to breaking a jar in his analogy?

for more information: from wikipedia's Gaudapada article

To this end he gives the analogy of space and jars. Self is like space and the jivas are like space in jars. Just as space is enclosed in a jar, so is the Self manifested as Jivas. When the jar is destroyed the space in the jar merges into space so likewise, are jivas merged into the Self. Spaces in jars may differ in form, function and name, but still there's no difference in space. Likewise though the jivas may differ in form, function and name, still there's no difference in the Self. Just as the space in the jar is neither the transformation nor a modification nor a part of the space, the jiva too is neither the transformation nor a modification nor a part of the Self. Creation from existence (sat) or from non-existence (asat) are both unreasonable positions since, no creation takes place at all, because immortal Self can never become mortal.

haha, sorry for that weird topic, but I'm really unsure about that, I figure there are two interpretations

I have read through excellent explanations provided in this thread. I think that I can remind about a crucial point.

The so-called jars and their shapes and names are ever changing and so, as per advaita, constitute mithya, neither sat nor asat. Whereas the distiction less jar free space in itself is changeless and therefore is sat - true.

In advaita, the two realms are not of same value. Peace comes upon realisation of the changeless realm that thou art.