ajAti vAda

svabhAva - "own-nature". gauDapAda on the other hand points out that the burning
brand is itself the substratum of its momentary spatial positions and the illusion of a
burning circle caused by waving the brand. Hence, according to him, even if the burning
circle is an illusion, its svabhAva is nothing other than that of the burning brand.
Seen in context, the entire discussion in the GK seems to be a continuation of the age-old
svabhAva vs. nihsvabhAvatA and Atman vs. nairAtmya debates between vedAntic and
buddhist schools. According to Sankara's commentary on these kArikAs, gauDapAda
uses buddhist metaphor and buddhist terminology to come to vedAntic conclusions
regarding the ultimate existence of the Atman = brahman as the substratum
(adhishThAna) of all experience. That he speaks the buddhist language does not mean
that he is a buddhist in disguise. Moreover, it is not very surprising that gauDapAda, a
vedAntin, is very familiar with buddhist doctrine. Tradition recounts that the famous
pUrva-mImAm.saka, kumArila bhaTTa, learnt from bauddha and jaina teachers, with a
view to understanding their schools before he wrote his own works on mImAm.sA.
Besides, by its very nature, classical Indian philosophical writing proceeds by means of
demarcating one's own position from that of another's, pointing out where they are
similar and on what issues they differ. An intimate knowledge of the other's
philosophical system is necessary for such refutation to take place.
The contention of some modern scholars that gauDapAda's philosophy is nothing more
than buddhism clothed in vedAntic colors is based on two errors, that do not do justice to
either mahAyAna buddhism or to advaita vedAnta.
• The first and the more serious error lies in interpreting the madhyamaka concept
of SUnyatA as an Absolute, equivalent to the Atman or brahman of vedAnta. A
careful reading of nAgArjuna's mUlamadhyamaka-kArikAs and other works
shows what pains the madhyamaka school takes to avoid the extreme of
absolutism (SAsvata-vAda). While the buddhist ajAtivAda maintains, "There is no
birth," gauDapAda's argument about ajAtivAda says, "There is an Unborn." Thus,
gauDapAda clearly upholds the Atman as the absolute. For nAgArjuna, no view is
correct, because every view ultimately entails some absolutist positon, an extreme
that is avoided by the buddhist middle path. gauDapAda, on the other hand, is
inclusivistic in his scope. He argues that every view entails an absolutist position,
and precisely for this reason, all views are said to be non-conflicting (avirodha)
with the absolutism of advaita.
There are other points of contrast. For nAgArjuna, there is no need to affirm a
substratum (adhishThAna) of phenomena, whereas for gauDapAda, the Atman is
the substratum of all experience. The madhyamaka non-duality is in terms of the
emptiness (SUnyatA) of all phenomena, while in the vedAnta view of non-duality,
phenomena are possible only due to the essential reality of the Atman, which is
pure consciousness. The madhyamaka school does not describe SUnyatA as an
independent absolute entity, whereas the advaita vedAnta emphasizes
brahman/Atman as an Absolute. In the light of these significant differences,
seeing nothing but mahAyAna buddhism in gauDapAda's advaita vedAnta is