In the five verses 24 to 28,
Gowdapadha Chariya is refuting Buddhist system of philosophy.  The four
systems are:

1. Sowthranthika madham:  This philosopher says that
   there is an external world different from the observer, the subject. 
   The external world is different from the observer and is real; this real
   distinct external world is proved by prathyaksha pramanam; therefore, this
   philosophy presented in a nutshell as bahya prathyaksha vadhinaha
2. Vaibashika madham:  Close to first one and they
   also say there is an external world; it exists separate from the observer;
   the external world is real; This distinct real external world is
   proved by inference or reasoning. bahyana anumana vadhinaha
3. Yogachara madham:  There is no independent real
   external world at all separate from the subject.  Just there is no
   real dream world, separate from the observer, individual.  This philosopher
   can be defined as Bahyartha abava vadhinaha.  External is only an
   appearance
4. Madhyamika madham:  This is similar to the third
   one; they also so there is no external at all; There is no subject
   observer also.  Sarvartha abava vadhinaha.  Soonya vadhinaha.

The first two systems are refuted by
the third system.  The first two systems claim there is a real external
world whereas the third system says there is no external world separate from
consciousness.  This is close to advaidam, in establishing mithyatvam of
the world, and therefore Gowdapadha chariya joined this system to refute the
first two system. The first two systems quote the experiences as proof for
the existence of an external world.  This was refuted in verses 26 to 29
by saying that experience does not prove reality.  The best example being
the dream.  In dream we have clear experiences with corresponding external
objects.  During the dream we are very sure of experiences and
corresponding objects, but when we wake up, we find out there is no external
objects at all separate from the dreamer.  Similarly, there is no external
world separate from the observer.  When we look at the pot, we see a pot
with weight etc.  But up on inquiry you find out there is no substance
called pot, the weight, attributes etc. belong to clay.  When you are
touching a pot, you really are touching clay.  Because of lack of inquiry
it appears as a substance.  Similarly, the whole world looks real. 
In the first stage, we dismiss the object and retain the word.  Once you
dismiss the object, the word should also be dismissed.  Because without an
object there is no validity for the word.  All the padham and padhartham
are resolved into the the ahdishtanam, the chaithanyam.  Similar to
akaram, ukaram, and makaram getting resolved in silence.

Then how will you explain the
erroneous perception.  If you are talking about error, there should be a
right perception.  If you want to talk about wrong perception, there
should be a correct perception.  If there is a correct perception, then
there must be an external object.  Without an external object, the concept
of error can’t be there at all.  There is no right perception at all
because there is no world for perception at all.

Verse 28

First, we will take the second
part.  Because of the reasons given in the previous three verses, the
external world is not at all born and therefore there is no such thing called
external world or an object of an external experience.  If it is unreal
world, why does it feel real?  Feeling is not a valid knowledge – you may
feel like a prime minister, but you are not.  In dream, you feel the dream
world is real, but it is not.

The first part of the sentence is
addressing yogachara.  Common features for both are that there is no
object separate from consciousness.  The difference is in arriving at the
nature of consciousness.  The yogachara philosopher says consciousness is
a fleeting, flickering, temporary, momentary entity.  Therefore, the
meaning of the word I, the subject is this temporary consciousness.  How
am I momentary entity?  I have been continually existing for my
life.  Yogachara will say that you are not one momentary consciousness but
many momentary consciousness.  Momentary consciousness are constantly
replaced by another momentary consciousness.  Because of the continuous
flow, it looks as though there is a permanent atma.  There is no permanent
atma, but only a flow of temporary series of atma.  He gives two examples:

1. Perennial river:  If you look at Ganges, there is
   no permanent Ganges because the river is in constant flow.  You feel
   that the Ganges you saw last year is same the Ganges this year.  The
   water of Ganges you touch this moment is not the same water for the next
   moment.  Ganges is only a flow of temporary flow of water.  Similarly,
   atma.  There is no permanent consciousness at all.
2. Flame:  You feel that there is a permanent flame,
   but on inquiry you will find that the same flame does not continually
   exists.  If the flame exists permanently, the oil will be there permanent,
   but oil is getting depleted.  The flame is constantly getting renewed
   by oil.  The flame of first moment and flame of the second moment are
   not the same; they are only similar.

Permanent river and flame are brama;
Yogachara bowdha says the permanent consciousness and chaithanyam are
brama.  Chaithanyam is born, gone, born, gone; there is a constant flow of
chaithanyam.  Gowdapadha refutes this philosophy in three words. 
Consciousness is not born at all, it is eternal; you can’t talk about temporary
consciousness.  Sankarachariya elaborately argues for this concept:

Sankarachariya asks the question, if
you are talking about the flow of fleeting consciousness and according to you
this is atma.  Consciousness number 1 appears and disappears; then
Consciousness 2 comes and disappears; then 3 comes and disappears and so
on.  Who is talking about this arrival and departure?  Is it the
first one or second one or third one?  Number 1 can never talk about the
arrival of number 2.   Because when number 1 is there number 2 is not
there.  Similarly, number 2 cannot talk about number 1 or number 3.  Therefore,
no single member can talk about the flow of chanika vigyanam, If somebody
has to talk about arrival and departure, there must be somebody other than the
flow who is there permanently.  So, the one who talks about, who is the
witness of, who is aware of arrival and departure must not arrive and
depart.  Yogchara committed the mistake of taking consciousness as the
thoughts of mind.  These arriving and departing thoughts are witnessed by
this nithya chaithanyam and this nithya chaithanyam does not come and go. 
Anithya vigyanam is the reality for yogachara.  Nithhya vigyanam is the
reality for us.  Thoughts arrive and depart, what is permanent is I the
witness principle.  They are seeing the footprints of flying birds in the
sky; they are seeing something that is not there; they are seeing the
origination of consciousness; this is a wrong perception.

The fourth madhyamika says that
there is nothing in creation (soonyavadha); this means you are not there which
means your philosophy is not there also.

Verse 29

For the sake of refutation, we
discussed all other systems.  From verse 29 to 46, Gowdapadha summarizes
the vedanta chidhantha; Consciousness alone is real and eternal; the world
obtained in jagradha avastha and swapna avastha are both mithya; I am not
matter but that eternal consciousness in which the mithya matter appears and
disappears.  Mithya includes body matter, mind matter and world
matter.  Consciousness does not produce a real world.  Other system
claim that eternal Brahman produce the external world.  that assume the
Brahman is subject to change.  To be a karanam or a cause it should be
subject to change – savikaram.  The truth is Brahman is changeless; therefore,
it is not a kranam at all and can’t produce any real creation.  that is
the very nature of Brahman.  Changelessness is the very nature of
Brahman.   This changeless nature of Brahman will ever be the
same.  World was not born; world is not born; world will not be born; What
was, what is and will be is all Brahman.  This nature of Brahman will
never change.  If you accept that a world is born out of Brahman, you will
never get out of samsara.  Acceptance of real world is invitation for
permanent bondage; therefore, you should not accept it if you want moksha.

Suppose I want to become chess
champion in the world, I only have to defeat the number one person. 
Similarly, among various ashtika dharsahanams, which accept creation, the most
prominent one is the Sankya philosophy and by refuting Sankya philosophy, then
we would have refuted all asthika philosophers.

From verse 24 to 28, Gowdapadha
refutes all nasthiaka dharshanam, mainly bowdha madham or Buddhism.

1. Buddhism has four branches. Sowthranthika madham: 
   This philosopher says that there is an external world different from the
   observer, the subject.  The external world is different from the
   observer and is real; this real distinct external world is proved by
   prathyaksha pramanam; therefore, this philosophy presented in a nutshell presented
   as bahya prathyaksha vadhinaha.
2. Vaibashika madham:  Close to first one and they
   also say there is an external world; it exists separate from the observer;
   the external world is real; This distinct real external world is proved by
   inference or reasoning.  This
   philosophy presented in a nutshell presented as bahyana anumana vadhinaha
3. Yogachara madham:  There is no independent real
   external world at all separate from the subject.  Just there is no
   real dream world, separate from the observer, individual.  This philosopher
   can be defined as Bahyartha abava vadhinaha.  External is only an
   appearance
4. Madhyamika madham:  This is similar to the third
   one; they also so there is no external at all; There is no subject
   observer also.  Sarvartha abava vadhinaha.  Soonya vadhinaha.

Of these four, the first two are
refuted by the third one.  The first two accept that there is a real
creation separate from the observer.  Third, yogachara, refutes both of
them and establishes that there is no observed world separate from the
observer.  Since he negates the matter, the external world, and
establishes that the observer consciousness alone is real, yogachara is very
close to advaidham.  With regard to negation of the world, advaidam and
yogachara are same and call the world as mithya.  Both also say
consciousness alone is Sathyam and agree on refuting external world. 
Refuting yogachara comes in verse 28.

24th verse presents the first two
branches of Buddhism and assert that there is an external world. 

First argument is if there is a
variety of experiences, then there must be variety of objects outside. 
Internal variety proves external plurality.  If external plurality is
dismissed, you will not be able to explain the plurality of experiences. 
To explain internal plurality, you must accept external world.  Every
experience must have a corresponding external object.

The second argument is that if there
is a pain feeling there must be an external object which causes the pain; same
thing is true for pleasure also.  This also proves an external
world.  So, one has to accept the existence of an external world accepted
by heenayana madham and all other systems of dwaida philosophies – philosophies
accepting real world.

In the next three verses heenayana
is refuted by yogachara; it should be taken as refutation by Gowdapadha.

Verse 25

Superficially looking, what heenyana
is saying is correct.  Because every cognition, every experience and every
knowledge must have a corresponding object.  But when I look into the
detail, I find the external object disappears.  For example, bangle, chain
and ring.  We have three different words, corresponding to that plurality
of thoughts.  With each word, the understanding of object is
different.  There is plurality of words, cognition and there must be
plurality of object.  There is a bangle, there is a chain and there is a
ring.  There are three different words; three different knowledge and
three different objects.  But those three objects, really speaking, are
non existent.  There is no substance called bangle or chain or ring. 
There is only one substance called gold.  There are no three
substance.  Bangle, chain and ring are three words for which there are no corresponding
substance at all.  There is only one word with a corresponding
substance:  gold.  What is the meaning of using different words when
there is no substance?  When you negate substance, bangle, chain and ring
and then you negate the corresponding words.  Padhams and padhartham are
both mithya. As you keep probing deepder and deeper, all the padhams and all the
padharthas will go away; only adhistanam will remain – the observer, the
consciousness.

If you inquire into reality, is
there a thing called bangle?  The so-called external substance will become
non substantial.  Bangle does not have any weight.  The weight
belongs only to gold.  Bangle is only a word.  Similarly, world is
only a word.  There is no such thing called world other than the observer.

Another example is dream experience.  For every dream experience, the dreamer sees
a corresponding an external object.  After waking up, we find that there
is no external object.  Experience disappears, experienced objects
disappear when you wake up.  Similarly, the corresponding worldly objects
also disappear.

Verse 26

There is no external matter at
all.  There is only consciousness which does not experience any external
objects at all.  Because there is no object for the consciousness to
contact.  The consciousness does not contact any real object because there
are no real objects.  Similar to not contacting an elephant in dream
because there is no elephant.  Can we say that consciousness contacts an
unreal object?  Consciousness does not contact with an unreal object also
because an unreal object does not exist separate from consciousness.  If
there is no unreal object separately, how can it contact?  Contact
requires a separate object.  For example, gold does not contact unreal
bangle because there is no unreal bangle separate from gold.  If gold has
to touch the bangle, there must be two things – gold and bangle.  Gold and
bangle are only two names for only one substance.  Then where is the
question of contacting each other.  Matter is not a substance; it is a
name given to consciousness.  Matter and consciousness are only two names
for one and the same absolute realty.  One who understood gold, calls it
gold; one who misses the gold, calls it bangle.  Two different people call
it by two different names; but the substance is only one.  From wise
person’s angle chaithanyam is called the truth; from an ignorant person it is called
world.  There is no object separate from consciousness; a real object is nonexistent;
an apparent object does not exist separate from consciousness.  There is
no mithya padharthaha separate from sathyam.  Only when there are two independent
things contact is possible.

Verse 27

Consciousness does not come in
contact with any object at all in all the three periods of time – in the past,
present or future.  You do not come in contact with the dream elephant
before dream, after dream or even during dream.  Because there is no
elephant even during dream because the elephant is only in your mind and it is
only a feeling and feelings are not facts.  The question is (this question
is not in the sloka, but the answer is in the sloka) if you don’t accept an
external world, how do you differentiate right knowledge and wrong
knowledge/error.  Normally, we do use the expression right knowledge or
wrong knowledge or error.  Rope knowledge is right knowledge; snake
knowledge is error.  How do you say which is right knowledge and which is
wrong knowledge? You differentiate what is right and what is wrong based on
outside object.  When the object and knowledge is in concurrence, then it
is right knowledge.  When the knowledge I have and the object do not
concur, then it is wrong knowledge or error.  When the perception and
object tally, it is right knowledge.  When they do not, it is wrong
knowledge.  That means you need an external object to tally.  But if
you don’t accept an external object at all, then you can’t explain an
error.  The question is how do you explain an error?  The yogachara
says I do not accept right knowledge or wrong knowledge; there is no right/wrong
division at all.  In dream rope perception or snake perception is
correct?  There is no question of rope perception being correct or snake
perception being correct because they both are projection; there is no snake
outside.  How can you talk about error when there is no object at all
outside?  There is no question of explaining the error.  Since there
is no external object and there is no question of explaining an error.

In these verses, Gowdapadha refutes
dvaida vadhi who is explaining the creation with the law of karma.  He
says karma and sareeram are cause and effect.  Gowdapadha took six
different options and showed that none of them will work.  So, with the
theory of karma, the creation can’t be explained.  In Vedanta we only
accept the law of karma temporarily to explain creation and once the person is
ready to accept higher level, we negate this theory.

Having refuted the six options,
Gowdpadha comes to another topic in 22nd verse where he pointed out, not only
the creation of the whole universe can’t be logically explained, but also any
single object’s creation can’t be explained.  Any ordinary object in the
world, even the creation of that object can’t be explained.  Taking the
pot, you can’t prove the origination of the pot.

1. Pot can’t be created out of pot
2. Pot can’t be created out of non-pot (any other object)
3. Pot can’t be created out of a mixture of pot and non-pot
4. An existent pot can’t originate
5. A nonexistent pot can’t originate
6. A mixture of existent and nonexistent pot can’t
   originate.

Whether you take the macro cosmic
creation or the micro cosmic creation, no creation can be proven.

In the 23rd verse, Gowdapadha
considers three more options:

1. From beginning-less karma, a body can’t be born because
   there is no beginning-less karma
2. From beginning-less body, a karma can’t be born because
   there is no beginning-less sareeram
3. Without a cause, body and karma can’t be born naturally
   born.  That which does not have aadhi does not have aadhi; meaning
   that which does not have karanam does not have origination.

Causeless origination is not
possible.  All the three options are ruled.  Ultimately the
conclusion is you can’t logically establish a creation.  Therefore, there
is no creation; there is no world.  There is only Brahman.  The real
meaning of advaidam is kariya karana vilakshanam.

Verse
24

In previous verses Gowdapadha
refuted the Sankya philosophers and dvaida philosophers; both of the philosophers
are asthika philosophers – accepting veda pramanam.  Until now Gowdapadha
refuted asthika philosophers; from now on he takes on nasthika philosophers;
these philosophers don’t believe veda pramanam; they accept experience.

1. Charuvaka Madham; materialistic
2. Jaina madhama; founded by Rishaba Devaha; later revived
   by Varthamana Mahaveera and others; jinaha meaning conquering sense
   organs. The one who follows this philosophy are called jains
3. A group of four madhams which are budhism or bowdha
   madham originated by Buddha.  Lord Ashoka asked the scholars to
   compile the Buddhist teaching

Here Gowdabdha takes up on refuting
Buddhism from verse 24 to verse 28.  The four branches are:

1. Sowthranthika madham:  This philosopher says that
   there is an external world different from the observer, the subject. 
   The external world is different from the observer and is real; this real
   distinct external world is proved by prathyaksha pramanam; therefore, this
   philosophy presented in a nutshell presented as bahya prathyaksha
   vadhinaha.
2. Vaibashika madham:  Close to first one and they
   also say there is an external world; it exists separate from the observer;
   the external world is real; This distinct real external world is proved by
   inference or reasoning.  This
   philosophy presented in a nutshell presented as bahyana anumana vadhinaha
3. Yogachara madham:  There is no independent real
   external world at all separate from the subject.  Just there is no
   real dream world, separate from the observer, individual.  This philosopher
   can be defined as Bahyartha abava vadhinaha.  External is only an
   appearance
4. Madhyamika madham:  This is similar to the third
   one; they also so there is no external at all; There is no subject
   observer also.  Sarvartha abava vadhinaha.  Soonya vadhinaha.

The first two are called hinayana
bowdha madham and the last two are called mahayana bowdha madham.

Of the four, the third on yogachara
madham is closer to vedanta.  He also says that there is a subject which
is real, the object is unreal.  We also say the subject, the observer is
also real.  This subject is the observer the consciousness principle or
vigyana swaroopam; we advantin also say that the subject, the observer is
consciousness principle.

Similarities between yogachara and vedantins: 
Both say world is mithya; observer alone is sathyam; sathyam the observer is
chaithanyam;

The difference is yogachara syas
that the consciousness is the temporary one having a fleeting existence and
this consciousness comes and goes as a flow.  For him the subject is not a
single eternal consciousness, the subject is a flow of temporary consciousness;
In advaidam there is no flow of consciousness, but it is one and eternal.

Gowdapdha will talk about the
similarities and thereafter he will discuss the differences.  First, he
joins yogachara madham to refute the first two; later on, he refutes yogachara
madham.

The first two, heenayana madham, are
refuted by yogachara madham. 24th verse is the presentation of heenayana madham
which consists of 1 and 2 or sowthranthika and vaibashika madham.

Every experience or knowledge we get,
should have a corresponding external object.  In the absence of external
object, you can’t have variety of experiences.  In dream, you don’t have
varieties of knowledge.  In waking you do have varieties of
knowledge.  Every knowledge, therefore, presupposes an external
world.  Every knowledge proves an existence of external object. 
Every cognition is associated with corresponding, relevant external object. 
Different knowledge is not possible without external objects.  If you
don’t accept plurality of external objects, you can’t explain plurality of our
experiences.

Second reasoning he gives, that we
have varieties of emotions like pleasure, pain etc.  If I should have
these emotions, every one of them must be caused by some external
objects.  If the body feels heat that heat experience must have been
caused by some external cause. Therefore, external world is there, it is
different from me and it is real. 

Beginning from 14 to 21st verse,
Gowdapdha is discussing theory of creation as per dwaidam.  They try to
explain creation with the theory of karma.  In Advaidam also accepts
theory of karma as a temporary steppingstone, but not ultimate truth. 
Once the mind is ready to accept the final teaching, then creation is
negated.  When the creation itself is negated, there is no reason to look
for a cause of creation.  If a philosopher accepts theory of karma as reality,
he is called dvaida philosopher.

Advaida philosopher’s inability to
accept any of the six theories, reflects fundamental fallacy in dvaida system
of philosophy.  Whenever people say I don’t believe in free will
everything is predetermined, we should ask predetermined by whom?  If it
is god predetermining different experiences for different people, then that god
will be a partial god.  If it is world, the inert world can’t predetermine
your experience.  You can’t say, it is random, in a world of fully of
orderliness, there is no scope for accident.  Accident is an incident, whose
cause we are not able to determine.  Predetermined by me with my own
karma.  Then the question comes, what preceded that karma.  There
will be no answer to this.  From this, we can conclude there is no
creation.

Verse 20

Here the dwaidins, may give a suggestion. 
We will try to explain creation with an example.  The creation of the
world has to be explained like the tree creation from the seed.  The
seed-tree example will not solve the problem, because the confusion regarding
world creation is also there with regard to the seed-tree example also. 
The six options elaborated will not work for seed and tree also.  To solve
one problem, you are giving another problem.  This example as confusing as
the original confusion regarding karma sareeram flow.

Verse 21

Whether you take karma-sareeram case
or the seed-tree case, we have the inability and ignorance to comprehend the
order – which one came first?  Tree or seed?  Karma or
Sareeram?  According to vedanta, the very concept cause effect is
ignorance.  You will get freedom only when you transcend the cause effect
idea.  If not, you will be worried about the past (effect) or the future
(cause).  Only when you negate cause effect theory, you will be
free.  Get out of the obsession with cause and effect.  This whole
concept is avidya and moksha is kariya karana vilakshanam.  If you have to
transcend cause and effect, you have to transcend time.  Whether today is
cause or effect is due to time.  Today is the cause of future and the effect
of past.  If you really believe in cause and effect, then what is born? 
If it is the origination, then tell me what is the cause of that origination? 
How is it you are not able to talk about cause which proceeds an effect which
originates according to you.

Verse 22

In this verse, Godwapadha concludes
arguments against dwaidam.  You can’t explain the origination of creation;
within creation, any simple object, you cannot talk about its
origination.  You cannot even prove the origination of a pot.  Here
Gowdapadha suggests six options:

1. If you talk about a birth of a pot, I will ask 3 questions:
   1. What is the cause of the pot?  Is the pot born out of pot?
   2. Do you say that a pot is born out of a cloth (something else)?
   3. Does a pot come out of a mixture of these two – pot and cloth?

Gowdapatha says all three options
are wrong and not possible.

1. A pot cannot be born out of itself
2. A pot cannot be born out of a cloth also.  If
   something cannot be born out of something else.
3. There is no such thing called pot and cloth.

Therefore, you can never prove the
creation of a pot.  How would you prove the creation of the universe?

Pot can be born out of clay. 
Why can’t you accept this origination of pot?  Sankarachariyar answers
this question.  You can never talk about origination of pot out of clay,
because really speaking there is no such thing called pot.  Previously
there was clay, there is clay now.  There is no substance called
pot.  Scientifically, matter cannot be created.  You only introduced the name pot.  Since
there is no substance called pot, there is only one substance called clay, now
there are two words for clay.  But there is only one substance.  When
there is only one substance, how can you talk about kariya karana sambandha? 
The word kariya karana sambandhi or cause effect relationship is delusion; confusion;
When the confusion or delusion is universal, it becomes normal.

No object can be born out of itself
or something else or a mixture of two.

When you talk about a birth of a pot
or desk or anything else, I will ask three question:

1. Is an existent thing born?
2. Is a nonexistent thing born?
3. Or a mixture born?

Gowdapdha says none of the three
will work.

1. An existent thing originates is a logical fallacy because it already exists.
2. A nonexistent thing originates is fallacy because the subject for this sentence is nonexistent thing, which means subject doesn’t exist.  Grammatically it doesn’t hold.
3. A mixture is impossible because opposite things can’t be mixed.  Sat and asat can’t be mixed.  It is like mixing light and darkness.

Based on these six options our conclusion
is there is no creation.

Law of conservation of matter: 
matter can never be created.  Then where is the question of
creation.  With this Gowdapadha concludes the creation based on the theory
of karma,

Verse 23

This verse also is dvaida vada
condemnation.  In this verse, he suggests some more argument and refutes
them.

When we say sareeram is born out of
karma, then the question is where the karma came from.  To avoid this
problem, the options are:

1. Can we take that the sareeram is born out of
   beginning-less karma? From anadhi karma sareeram is born
2. You can say that from anadhi sareeram, karma is born.
3. Both of them are simultaneously born.

Gowdapadha says all these three
options are also illogical.

1. From the beginning-less body, you cannot talk about
   creation of karma.  Karma can’t be born out of beginning less body.
2. Body cannot be born out beginning-less karma
3. Both can’t be together born by themselves without a
   cause.

Every cause is an effect. 
Beginning-less cause is not logical because it says beginning-less cause
produces effect.  For this there is no example or reasoning.  Every
cause itself is an effect.  This, we see in everyday life.  For example, father is the cause of his son,
but father is also effect of his parents.  So, the first two options are negated.

If you say that the sareeram and karma happened without a cause, then
after attaining moksha also you don’t have any guarantee of its
permanence.  With no cause, you may become a samsari.  Then why should I
struggle to attain moksha?

Gowdapadha refuted Sankya theory of
creation from verses 11 to 13.  From 14 to 23rd verse he is refuting the
theory of creation by dwaida philosophers who believe in a real creation. 
They explain the creation with the karma theory.  They explain that karma
is the cause for sareeram (punya pavam palam or dharma adharma palam); sareeram
is responsible for karma.  Gowdapadha suggest six possibilities and
refutes everyone them and concludes that there is no legitimate theory of
creation.

1. Karma as the original fundamental cause of
   creation.  This is not possible because there is no karma without a
   sareeram; Baghawan can’t give karma.
2. Sareeram is the original cause.  A body can’t
   exist without preceding karma.  Bagawan can’t determine the type of
   the body.  Body can’t accidentally
   come.
3. Both karma and sareeram originate simultaneously. 
   This is not possible because they can’t be mutually cause and effect; they
   will require some other cause.
4. Karma and sareeram being mutually cause and
   effect.  Karma produces sareeream; sareeram produces karma; this is
   not possible because cause exist previous to effect; effect has to be
   later.  Later one can never be cause of the previous one.
5. Karma sareeram chain.  Karma producing sareeram;
   sareeram producing karma; karma producing next sareeram; next sareeram
   prodcuing next karma.  This will not solve the problem because which
   one is the first in this link? Karma or sarreram.  Which one came
   first?
6. Karma sareeram chain is anadhi.  There is no first
   one in this beginningless chain.
   1. The adjective qualifies karma or sareeram or the
      chain?  Which one is beginning-less?  Karma can’t be
      beginningless because it starts with sareeram;  Sareeram can’t be
      beginningless because it always start with karma.  You can’t
      attribute the adjective to the chain because chain is a concept and not
      an object.  You can’t call the concept of chain as anadhi. 
      Other than the karma and sareeram, there is no substance.  Chain is not a substance.
   2. If there is a beginning less chain of karma sareeram,
      does that beginning less chain have an end or not?  If there is
      no beginning or end, then there will be no moksha.  Puranabi jananam
      puranabi maranam will endlessly continue and there will be no possibility
      of moksha.
   3. If there is no beginning but there is an end, then the
      end of the chain will be the beginning of moksha.  Whatever has a
      beginning will have an end.  Moksha will be subject to beginning and
      end; moksha will be temporary.

Therefore, the theory of karma
creation can’t be logically explained.  Therefore, there is no
creation.  There was Brahman, there is Brahman and there will be Brahman.

If you say there is no creation at all, then why are you talking about creation in scriptures – tatwa bodha and all the Upanishads?  We don’t accept creation at all, but a student in the beginning is not prepared to absorb the teaching of no creation.  This is temporary acceptance of creation.  Creation is not the real teaching but only a stepping stone.

14th verse considers options 1 and 2.  Karma or sareeram can’t be beginning-less cause.  For those dwaida philosophers, sareeram is born out of karma; karma is the cause of sareeram; they also say  sareeram is the cause of karma; but karma can’t be beginning less cause; sareeram also can’t be beginning less cause; both of them are born out of the other.

Verse 15

This verse considers fourth option
above.  Karma and sareeram are mutually produced.  If cause produces the effect, how can the
effect can produce the cause.  Effect is later; cause is former. 
Later can never produce former.  If karma and sareeram are mutually
produced, then there will be a possibility of a son producing the father.

Verse 16

This verse considers third option
above.  Karma and sareeram originate simultaneously, then they will never
have cause effect relationship.  In an animal when two horns are
simultaneously produced, one horn can’t be the cause of the other.  Similarly,
karma and sareeram can’t be born simultaneously.  They will require some
other cause for their birth.   If you say they were born one after
another, then which one is born first?

Verse 17

This is consolidation arguments for the first four options.  Anadhi karma can’t be cause of creation because any karma has to be produced by a sareeram.  You can’t say Bagawan gave a initial bundle of karma, because if Bagawan gives different bundles of karma, Bagawan will be partial.  If he gives uniform karma, all will be males or females only and there won’t be a next generation.  If he makes some male and some female, then Bagawan is partial.  Bagawan and world can’t give karma.  If Jiva has to produce karma, then sareeram is required.  Karma can’t  be begining-less karma.  If beginning-less karma is not logicaly proved, how can that beginning-less karma produce jiva or the universe?  It is not possible.

Verse 18

Fifth option of cause effect chain
is considered.  Body 1 produces Karma 1; karma 1 produces body 2; body 2
produces karma 2; and so on.  This does not answer the first member of the
chain.  Is it karma or sareeram?  Where does the chain begin?

Gowdapadha does not discuss the
sixth option here (it is discussed in verse 30).  Sankarachariya discusses the sixth
option.  The sixth option is chain is anadhi.

1. There is no question of parambara; it is only a concept;
    beginning less parabamaba does not
   exist.
2. If there is no end for prambara, then there is no
   moksha.
3. If there is an end for parambara, then that will be the
   beginning of moksha which will have an ending
4. If there is moksha with a beginning and an end, how do
   you explain moksha attained through knowledge?  If knowledge gives
   moksha, then moksha has a beginning.  But we do not say gyanam produces
   moksha; moksha is never produced.  Gyanam
   only reveals the fact that I am ever free.  Gyanam removes the
   misconception that I am ever bound.  Gyanam does not produce moksha.

Verse 19

If you say there is a creation, what is the cause?  If you give an answer, that karma or sareeram is karanam, you will not be able to talk about the order of cause and effect.

Moksha is our very nature.  Samsara exist only in the form of
misconception in the mind and has nothing to do with the external world. 
Since the whole problem is in the form of misconception that I am bound, the
freedom is only freedom from this misconception.  Freedom from any
misconception is possible only with the right knowledge.  Vedanta helps us
in dropping the idea that I am bound.  Dropping of the notion is
figuratively presented as attainment of freedom or moksha.  This was summarized in up to the 10^th
verse.

From 11 to 13 verses, Gowdapdha
points out four defects of Sankya philosophy.

1. Prakrithi anithyatha dhosaha
2. Prbanja nithythya dosaha
3. Yukthi virodha dosaha:  Argument against
   reasoning; unreasonable argument.
4. Anavastha Dosaha:  Non finality or infinite
   regress

Verse 11 and 12 describe the first
two dosaha.  In verse number 13, third and fourth dosha are
described.  First line deals with third dosha and the second line deals
with the fourth dosha

Third dosha is that sankya
philosophers point out that prakrithi is the moola karanam or absolute cause of
the universe.  The prakrithi is the cause of everything and that prkirthi
is anadhi or beginning less.  It is not a product or karyam.  It is a causeless cause.  Gowdapadha
says this is illogical.  Because any logical analysis is based on
experiential data; otherwise it will be speculative.  When we look at the
creation the data, we collect is that every cause is effect.  Parents are
cause but they are also effect; they have a beginning and ending; similarly
seed, tree etc. We do not see any karanam without beginning.   Every
karanam is a kariyam with a beginning.  Whatever karanam has a
beginning.  Sankya philosophers say prakrithi is karanam but they also say
it is anadhi – without beginning.  This is illogical.  To prove this,
they must show at least one example which they can’t.

To avoid the problem in the third dosha,
let us say that they accept prakrithi as a product and has a beginning. 
Then if prakrithi has a beginning then what is the cause of the
prakrithi.  If there is a prakrithi before this prakrithi, then what is
the cause of this prakrithi.  This will go on forever, and you will not be
able to arrive at the moola karanam.  You will never be able to explain
the root cause of universe.  If you can’t establish the cause, then you
can’t establish the effect; if you can’t establish the effect, you can’t
establish a product.  If you can’t establish a product, then you can’t
establish creation.  Creation implies cause and product.  If you knock of creation, then it is
vedanta.  There was, is and will be Brahman and that Brahman is you. 
Creation is a notion and a misconception that should be dropped.

Verse 14

From this verse to 23rd verse,
Gowdapadha is refuting all forms of dwaida philosophy, where they accept
creation and take support from Veda.  They are vaidhiga philosopher and
this philosophy is based on the vedas.  They argue that there is a
creation.  Gowdapadha wants to refute and establish there is no creation
at all.  Ignorance solidified is creation.  They depend up on theory of karma
to establish creation.  In Vedanta, law of karma is provisional
answer, temporary concept to satisfy beginning students.  Once the student
reaches maturity, it is replaced by no creation theory.  Dwaida
philosophers offer law of karma as the ultimate answer.  Gowdapadha
suggests of six options for moola karanam for dwaida philosophy and refutes
every one them.  They say because of the karma (punyam and pavam) alone all
living beings are created.  Karma is the reason for all jiva rasi or
sareeram.  For the word karma Gowdapadha uses the word hethuhu and for
sareeram he uses the word palam.  The six options by Gowdapadha are:

1. Let us assume karma is the moola karanam of the universe. 
   If punya pavam is the moola karanam from where did the punyam and pavam
   come?  Punyam and pavam are generated out of karma and karma is generated
   by kartha.  So, option 1 is wrong.
2. Is sareeram is the moola karanam?  Bagawan gives
   bodies to everyone and with the body we produce karma.  But if
   Baghawan to give bodies to all jivas, what type of body would Bagawan
   give?  The type of body should be determined by karma.  If
   Bagawan gives good body to some and bad body to other then, that Bagavan
   is partial.  So sareeram can’t be
   moola karanam.
3. Karma and sareeram are mutually cause and effect. 
   Karma is the cause of sareeram and sareeram is the cause of karma. 
   If two things have mutual cause effect relationship it is illogical
   because if one is the cause it must be earlier in time and if two is the effect,
   then it must be later in time.   If they are mutually cause and
   effect, then one must be earlier and then the other will be later.  
   It is like saying father has produced the son and the son has produced
   father.  This is not possible.
4. Karma and sareeram are simaltaneous products from which
   the whole creation started.  If Karma and sareeram are simultaneous,
   they can’t have cause effect relationship.  For example, twins can’t
   have father son relationship.  You will require some other cause for
   karma and sareeram
5. It is in the form of cause effect chain.  Karma 1
   produces sareeram 1.  Sareeram 1 produces karma 2.  Karma 2
   produces sareeram 2.  Sareeram 2 produces karma 3.  This is like
   previous karma produced this body; and this body does not previous karma
   but produces another set of karma.  But this does not answer which
   one is moola karanam.  Whether the chain begins with karma or the
   chain begins with sareeram.
6. This cause effect chain is anadhi.  Creation is in
   the form of karma sareeram chain, which is anadhi.  There are several
   defects in this theory.
   1. When you say karma sareeram chain is anadhi, you are
      using the adjective anadhi – beginningless.  Now there are three
      words:  karma, sareeram and chain.  When you add the adjective
      beginningless does this adjective qualify karma, sareeram or chain. 
      Which one is beginningless?  Karma, sareeram or chain.  There
      is no answer to that.  Adjective can’t qualify karma because karma
      is produced by sareeram.  Adjective can’t qualify sareeram because
      every sareeram has a beginning.  If you say karma-sareeram chain or
      flow is beginning less, there is no such thing called chain separate from
      the individual.  Other than guru and sishya there is no prambara; it
      is only a concept.  Similar to fruit salad.  If you keep removing
      all the fruits from the fruit salad, there is no such thing called
      salad.  It is a concept, not a thing.  Family is a concept and
      not a thing; there is no society other than indidivual.  Therefore
      the chain does not exist.

In the first five verses, Gowdapadha
offered namaskara to guru and talked about the glory of teaching. The glory
being it is beyond argument or vivaharam.   From the sixth verse to 10th,
Gowdapadha summarizes the vedantic teaching.  The essence being we are
always free, and moksha is not a goal to be achieved.  We are ever free
brahman.  Neither the jivatma nor jagat born out of Brahman.  Therefore,
we need not become free.  Since we are all ever free, what is required is
owning up of this fact.  If it is an event in future, then it will be
temporary because it is in time and space and it will be temporary.  Our
problem is the delusion born out of ignorance.  The freedom we require is
freedom from the delusion.  Because our own conditioning we are away from
our own nature and what is required is deconditioning.

Verse 11

From the 11th verse onwards
Gowdapadha negates other systems of philosophy.

• Asthika, accepting vedas
  • Sankya Dharshanam
  • Gyaya dharshanam
• Nasthika, not accepting vedas

Sankya and Gyaya philosphies propose
different theories of creation; vedanta says there is no creation at all. 
these two philosophies quarrel among themselves and mutually cancel each
other.  Sankya dharshanam is a powerful philosophy and requires
negation.  In the chapter 2 of Baghawad Gita, vedanta is called sankya
philosophy.  This is a philosophy established by Kapila muni (not the one
from Baghawatham).  The verses 11, 12 and 13 negate sankya
philosophy.  Gowdapadha does not negate gyaya philosophy because it is
fundamentally flawed:  A nonexistent thing originated.  This can be
dismissed due to the two defects:

1. Grammatical:  When you say nonexistent thing
   originated, originate is the verb and nonexistent is the subject which
   means there is no subject.  With no subject, it does not
   grammatically correct
2. Fundamental:  Origination of nonexistent thing is
   against the law of conservation which says matter cannot be created or
   destroyed.  Energy also cannot be created or destroyed.  So, a
   fresh thing cannot be created.

Sankya philosophy says a nonexistent
effect can never originate therefore I do not propose a production of pot, tree
etc.  Sankya says no new matter is created when a pot is produced, but
before the production of pot, the pot was not in pot form; it was in some other
form.   Pot before production existed in some other form – in lump
form; curd existed in the form of milk; tree existed in the form of seed; Therefore,
a karanam is that which is kariyam itself in some other form.  When you
want to produce kariyam, the karanam itself is modified into a new shape or
kariyam.  Production is the process of converting something from karana
avastha to kariya avastha.  When you bring about this conversion, certain
faculties which were there in dormant form in karana avastha will become
manifested in kariya avastha.  Every production is a transformation; e.g.
gold into ring; tree from seed; etc.  Sankya philosophers accept karnam
and kariyam are essentially one and the same substance; the difference is only
in the state or avasta or configuration.  Gold and Ring, Milk and curd
contain the same matter the difference is only configuration.  Ice, water
and vapor are all the same H2O.  The difference is the state – solid,
liquid and vapor.  Vedanta agrees with this principle within limited
scope.  This theory will be in trouble when you apply to the cosmos. First
principle is karanam equals kariyam

The next principles is cause of the
universe is called prakrithi or pradhanam.  This karanam is nithyam. 
This karnam, prakrithi (cause) is nithyam

The third principle is the unvierse
is born out of prakrithi and therefore it is called prabajanja is a product or
kairyam.  Therefore the kariyam is prabanja;  Prabanja is anithyam,
subject to beginning and end.  Karanam is prakrithi and kariyam is
prabanja.

Four defects or doshas of sankya
philosophy:

1. Principle number 1 karanam =Kariyam
2. Karanam = prakrith = nithya
3. Kariyam = prabanna = anithyam.

According to principles 2 karanam is
nithyam; according to pricniples 1 karanam = kariyam; therefore, kariyam must
also be nithyam; but the third principles says kariyam is anithyam.  This
is the first defect.

Principle number 1 karnam = 
kariyam; principle 3 says kariyam is anithyam; therefore karnam must also be
anithyam; but principle 2 says karanam is nithyam.  This is the second
defect.   These two fallacies are mentioned in vereses 11 and 12.

Verse 12

Second line of this verse is same as
the verse 11.

If you join principle 1 and 2, it
will contradict third principle.  If you equate prkarthi with prbanja and
say one is nithyam and another is anithyam; either you must say both are
nithyam or both are anithyam.

Verse 13

One more principle of sankya
philosopy:  They arrive at prakrithi and its faculty with the help of
reasoning.  The prakrithi which is pradhanam or moola prakrithi or the
original cause of the unvierse.  That prakrithi is not perceptible. 
I arrived at prakrithi with anumana pramadhanam and the other name is anumanam.

From prakthyasha we experience smoke
and fire and we come to know that wherever there is smoke there is fire, From
that we  got the invariable co-existence of smoke and fire.  If you
see smoke alone in one place, you can conclude there is fire.  This is
inference arrived at by co-existence.  Through inference Sankya philosopher
talks about prakrithi and says prakrithi is the karanam for whole universe and
it is nithyam.  Vedantin says the perceptual data from our experience is
that every cause we always see itself is a product.  Parents are products
of their cause.  Seed is a product, but it is the cause of tree.  Therefore,
it is anithyam.  Whatever is cause is anithyam.  If go by that
reasoning, that all karnams are anithyam, prakrithi is karanam it should be
anithyam.  Proper inference is prakrithi is anithya and karanam. 
Sankya does not have any anumanam to show an eternal karanam.  All data
prove that all karanam are anithyam.  That is why god will become non
eternal if god is a cause.

In the first five verses, Gowdapadha
offered namaskara to guru and talked about the glory of teaching.  From
the sixth verse to 10th, Gowdapadha summarizes the vedantic teaching. 
Verses 6, 7 and 8 are repetition of the third chapter verses 20, 21 and
22.

If the nature of paramatma is not
clearly understood, it will create several misconceptions and the idea of
moksha itself will be long; converting moksha to a future event, which is
logically not possible.  If our sadhana is in proper direction, the nature
of paramatma should be very clear.  People commit two mistakes:

1. First mistake is thinking that Paramatma now has becomes jivatma due to maya or avidya.  One day we will become paramatma.  Parmatma becoming jivatma is samsara and jivatma becoming paramatma is moksha.  However, paramatma can never become jivatma therefore there is no question of jivatma becoming paramatma.  Paramatma is not subject to modification, therefore he can’t become anything.  Paramatma misunderstood is jivatma and jivatma properly understood is paramatma.
2. Second mistake is thinking Jivatma was with parmatma before and that jivatma was separated from paramatma.  Jivatma has to trek and toil and gradually go nearer and nearer to paramatma.  This implies some kind of merger with jivatma and paramatma and that is moksha.  This is blunder number 2 because there is no question of anything coming from paramata because paramatma is all pervading principle.  In the field of two finite things, separation and unit is possible; but in the case of infinite all pervading paramatma there is no separation and unity.  Separation is not a physical event, but a misconception.

First point is there is no question
of becoming paramatma; second point is there is no question of joining
paramatma.

Verse 7

Immortal paramatma can never become mortal jivatma.  Mortal jivatma can never become immortal paramatma.  Finite can’t become infinite through a process; infinite can’t become finite.  When we say I want to become liberated means “become” immortal.  Does immortal want to become mortal or mortal wants to become immortal.  Very attempt for liberation is misconception.  Liberation is from the idea that I need to get liberated.  That idea itself is wrong and understanding that idea is wrong is moksham.  The essential nature of a thing can never undergo a change.  If mortality is my essential nature, I will remain mortal; if immortality is my real nature, I need not work for immortality.

Verse 8

Gowdapdha makes a supposition to
satisfy others:  For the sake of argument, let us assume that paramatma
has become jivatma.  By doing sadhanas, struggling jivatma trying to become
paramatma.  Immortal paramatma has becomes mortal jivatma; If immortal
paramatma can becomes mortal jivatma once, what is the guarantee that the
immortal paramatma will not become mortal jivatma.

The same argument holds true for
merger also; If you join the paramtama by joining, what is guarantee that you
will be with paramatma all the time.  If you separated once, what is the
guaratee you will not be separated again?

There is no question of becoming or
joining paramtams; Moksha is not becoming or joining paramatma.  It is
knowing that I was paramtma, I am paramatma and I will ever be paramatma. 
It is pure ignorance and error.  What we need to do is correct the
error.  Gyanam is the only solution.   Vedanta does not fulfill
your expectation; it says your expectation is wrong.

Verse 9

Here Gowdapadha defines essential
nature.  Paramatma’s essential nature is immortality.  He gives four
examples for essential nature:

1. Extraordinary powers accomplished by sidha purusha,
   which he accomplished through many sadhanas in previous births.  When
   a person practices those sadhanas in the previous jenma, they get
   miraculous powers.  Those powers are his own intrinsic nature.
2. Intrinsic properties of certain materials like heat of
   the fire.  Similarly paramatma’s intrinsic nature is immortaltiy
3. Inborn faculties of certain living being.  Like
   flying capacity of birds; swimming capacity of fish;
4. Certain natural traits of certain objects in the
   creation.  Like water flowing downwards.  These traits will
   never disappear.

Similarly, paramatma’s intrinsic
nature is immortality.

Verse 10

Gowdapadja concludes the summary of
vedanta.  Whatever is natural, I will be comfortable with that.  If anything,
unnatural enters the system, then the system struggles.  Mortality is not
my nature, but immortality is my nature.  But I have conditioned myself to
the thought that I am mortal.  Ignorance is an unique principle which does
not have a beginning but can have an end.  Because of the beginning-less
ignorance, there is the mistake that I am mortal, and you eliminate that
mistake.   Understanding that there is no samsara to remove, is
figuratively called removing samsara.

Advaidam is beyond all
disputes.  In vereses 3, 4 and 5 Gowdapadha shows how advaidam doesn’t
have any disputes with other systems of philosophies.  The difference of
opinions is primarily was the creation.  No system of philosophy is able
to agree with other system and they form rival groups.

The two theories of creation
discussed later are:

1. Sath kariya vadhaha:  This is sankya philosopher
   founded by Kapila Muni.
2. Asath kariya vadhaha:  Founded by gyaya philospher
   or vaisheshka philosper.

They argue whether there is an
existent world originated or nonexistent world originated.  Advaidin can’t
join either one as he will be attacked by the other.  Advaidin do not join
any particular theory of creation.  We don’t hold any theory of creation
at all.  What is the advadic theory of creation?  In advaidam, there
is no theory of creation because there is no creation at all.  If I accept
creation, I have to explain the method of creation.  What is in front of
us is not a world, but Brahman.  What was there was Brahman; and what will
be there is Brahman.  Therefore, there is no creation, no theory of
creation.

Sankya philosophers say an existent
product originated.  Gyaya philosophers say that an existent product need
not originate at all, therefore a non-existent product originates.

Verse 4

Vaisheshka philosopher refutes
sankya philosopher by saying an existent product can never originate because it
is already existent.  Sankya philosophers refute vaisheshaka philosophers
by saying a nonexistent pot can not originate and existent pot need not
originate.  Matter can never be created.  A nonexistent pot
originates, is grammatically wrong.  Action can never exist by
itself.  A grammatical sentence requires a verb and subject.  In this
sentence the verb is originates.  What is the subject of this verb? 
According vaisheshika, the subject is nonexistent pot, which means there is no
subject.  By refuting each other, they indirectly refuting the origination
of the world.  One group refutes the origination of existent pot another
group refutes the origination of nonexistent pot; with the result there is no
question of arrival of pot.  This is biggest confusion of human
intellect.  Pot has not arrived at all because there is no substance
called pot.  The substance is only clay.  Pot is not a substance; it
is a word.  World is not a substance; it is only a word.  There is no
origination of anything other than a new name called world.  Any product
is not a substance, it is a new word initiated by your tongue.  When
jivatma are not born, where is the question of rebirth?  The biggest
samsara is the desire for moksha.  I was the paramatma, I am the pramatma
and I ever will be paramatma.  There is no coming and joining of
jivatma.  It is all confusion and it is Maya.

Verse 5

The non origination of the world is
indirectly supported by both the sankya and gyaya philosphers by refuting each
other.  The refuting of creation is the teaching of vedantic
philosophy.  We acknowledge their contribution to advaidam.  We never
argue with them.  The glory of advaida is it is argument free teaching.

Verse 6

The word avivadhah means the advadic
teaching is beyond dispute.  This was explained in the verses 3, 4 and
5.  From verse 6 to 10, Gowdapadha gives the essence of advaidic perspective. 
Advaidin has freed himself from the basic mistake all the philosophers
commit.  Freedom from this basic mistake is moksha.  Verses 6, 7 and
8 are repetition of the third chapter verses 20, 21 and 22.

The mistake people commit that there
is a paramatma which is the cause of this universe.  Paramatma is the
karanam and the universe is kariyam.  The world has come from god and we
jivas have also come from god.  This jivatma is caught up in the world of
samsara which is full of suffering until the jivatma goes back and merges into
paramatma.  Most of the seekers pray only for that “I have come away
from god, at the time of moksha I go back to him”.  The fundamental
concept is I have to join god.  The day I merge into that Lord, I will be
eternally free or muktha.  All these views are entertained without taking
into account, the nature of paramatma.  “Eternal paramatma is the
cause of the world” is a logical contradiction.  Cause means
modification, eternal means modification free.  If the god is the cause,
he can’t be eternal.  If God is eternal, he can’t be cause.  This is
the fundamental mistake.  Jivatma is not a product of paramatma, but
jivatma is none other than paramatma.  Making paramatma a cause is not a
glorification of god; it is an insult to god because how can the changeless
paramata ever become the changing cause of the universe.

In the first verse of this chapter,
Gowdapadhachariyar is performing namaskara to Lord Narayana.  Lord has all forms of knowledge.  Lord
also has jivatma paramatma aikya gyanam, which alone is the subject matter of
vedantaand that gyanam alone he gives to his students. When we say jivatma
paramatma aikyam, Jivatma is the subject, paramatma is the object and the
knowledge is aikyam.  But for the lord all the three are same.

This knowledge is a unique knowledge
different from all other forms of knowledge.  In all the other forms of
knowledge (para vidya), there are three factors, subject, object and
instrument.  In this para vidya, the subject, object and the instrument
are one and the same.  Paramtma the subject of the knowledge, jivatma the object
of the knowledge and the instrument of knowledge are all one and the same. 
Jivatma, paramatma and instrument are chaithanyam, the nature of
conscience.  Lord has such a unique aikya knowledge.  This
chaithanyam is like all pervading space.  Space like consciousness knows
space like consciousness through space like consciousness.

Verse 2

In the second verse, Gowdapadha
offers namaskara to this gyanam.  He talks about the glory of self
knowledge.

First glory is asparsa yogaha because one gains knowlege of thiriya atma, which is asparsaga.  It is timeless, space less infinite nondual realty.  Asparsagaha means relationless.  The infinite atma does  not have a second thing.  It can’t have relationship with the world and its people because from Thuiryum standpoint, they lower order of realty.  Just like waker can’t have a relationship with a dream individual.  I am the relation less thuriyum is this knowledge.

Second glory is sarva sattva sukaha;
for every human being this atma gives ananda.  Everything in the world
gives ananda, but it also gives dhukkam.  Example:  Rama is the
source of Ananda for Kowsalya, but Rama was also source of dhukkam when he has
to go to forest.  If an object gives ananda now, it will give sorrow when
it goes away.  If an object gives sorrow now, it will give ananda when it
leaves.  Glory of atma is it gives ananda only.

Third glory hithaha;  it is also good for us; it contributes to our well being.  There are many worldly things that gives pleasure for us, but they are not good for us; e.g. liquor, sweets etc.

Fourth glory is avivadhaha; beyond
all arguments.  This will be explained later.  It is beyond arguments
because it is beyond logic.

Fifth glory is aviruddhaha;  it does not contradict any philosophy. 
Every system of philosophy has a particular theory of creation.  Every
theory criticize another theory.  Vedanta doesn’t contradict other
theories of creation because vedanta doesn’t have any theory of creation. 
Because vedanta doesn’t believe in creation.  Brahman is ultimate reality,
where there is no creation; no cause, no result and no time.  It is
timeless realty.  Vedanta accepts any theory of creation only
temporarily;  Every other theory is talk about vyavakarika sathyam;
Vedanta is talking about paramarthika sathyam.

Sixth glory is desitaha:  that this teaching can only be gained from a
guru.  It can’t be independently gathered by self or independent study or
meditation.

Gowdapadha talks about advaidam all
the time, but here he is offering namaskara; who is doing namaskara to
whom?  How is that possible?  He is
talking from vyavakarika dhrishti where there is only dwaidam;

Verse 3

In vereses 3 and 4, Gowdapadhachariyar
explains the word avivadhaha.  Why do we
say vedanta is beyond argument?  I need not argue with any other philosopher
because they all quarrel among themselves and mutually cancel each other; I,
standing as a witness prevail.  When all the theories of creation are
cancelled then what is left is no theory or vedanta.

The two theories of creation
discussed later are:

1. Sath kariya vadhaha:  This is sankya philosophy founded by Kapila Muni.
2. Asath kariya vadhaha:  Founded by gnyaya philosopher or vaisheshka philosopher.

Example:  Creation of a pot out of clay:  out of clay the creator creates pot.  Fundamental question is, now the pot is created, before the creation of the pot, did the pot exist in the clay or not.  Pot is the product or kariayam; clay is the karanam;  Before the creation of kariyam, did the kariyam already exist in the karanam or not.  Does an existent pot originate or does a non existent pot originate?  Sankya philosophers say only an existent pot originate; this is sath kariya vadhaha.  Gnyaya philosophers say, non existent pot originate.  This is asath kairya vadhi.  In realty, there is no creation; the word creation confuses everyone.  According science matter can not be created or destroyed; consciousness can’t be created or destroyed.  Then where is the question of creation.