The positive philosophical core of the Kārikā. Having established that waking and dream are equally appearances within consciousness, Gauḍapāda now argues for the nature of that consciousness: non-dual, unborn, unchanging. The chapter where Advaita is argued, not just asserted.
48 verses · Engages Yogācāra Buddhism directly · Key verses: 3.15, 3.17–19, 3.28
The first two chapters cleared the ground. Chapter 3 makes the positive claim: consciousness is non-dual. Not many consciousnesses. Not consciousness plus matter. Not a consciousness that has things happen to it. One, unchanging, unborn awareness — within which the appearance of multiplicity arises without that multiplicity being real.
The chapter's central metaphor is space. Consider the space inside a pot and the space inside a room. They seem different — bounded by different containers, at different locations. But the space itself is not divided. The container creates the appearance of division; remove the container and the distinction disappears. There was never actually separate pot-space and room-space — just space, appearing as if divided by the limitations of its containers.
Individual consciousness is like pot-space. The body-mind complex is the container. The consciousness inside the container seems separate from the consciousness outside — seems individual, limited, mortal. But the consciousness is not divided. Remove the container (through recognition, through knowledge of Brahman-Ātman identity) and the apparent individuality dissolves back into the undivided ground. It was never actually separate. There was never actually separate jīva-consciousness and Brahman-consciousness — just consciousness, appearing as if divided by the limiting adjunct of the body-mind.
The space analogy (ākāśa-dṛṣṭāntaḥ) in verses 3.3–7 is Gauḍapāda's primary instrument for establishing non-duality. The key properties of space that make it apt: it is one and undivided; it appears divided by containers without actually being divided; containers arise within it without modifying it; the space that seems bounded by the container and the space outside are not numerically two spaces. Applied to consciousness: Brahman-consciousness is one and undivided; individual consciousnesses appear as if separate without the underlying consciousness being divided; bodies and minds arise within consciousness without modifying it.
Verse 3.15 is pivotal: na nirodho na cotpattir na baddho na ca sādhakaḥ / na mumukṣur na vai mukta ity eṣā paramārthatā — 'There is no dissolution, no origination, none who is bound, none who is a spiritual aspirant, none who is seeking liberation, and none who is liberated — this is the ultimate truth.' This is Gauḍapāda's most radical statement. At the ultimate level, liberation is not an event because bondage is not a fact. Both are appearances within the non-dual consciousness that was never bound.
The controversy around Chapter 3 centres on its engagement with Yogācāra Buddhism. Verses 3.17–19 use the term agrahaṇa (non-apprehension) in ways directly parallel to Dharmakīrti's epistemology, and verse 3.28's asparśayoga (the yoga of non-contact) is unique to Gauḍapāda's vocabulary and has no clear Upanishadic antecedent.
The scholarly question is whether this represents borrowing from Buddhism or convergent development. Nakamura argues for substantial Yogācāra influence; Dasgupta argues for an independent Vedantic development that happens to use similar tools. The distinction matters philosophically: if Gauḍapāda borrowed Buddhist arguments, the question arises whether those arguments are compatible with Upanishadic premises — particularly the premise that consciousness (Brahman) is real rather than empty (śūnya).
Gauḍapāda's own position is clear: he explicitly rejects Buddhist śūnyatā at 3.28 and argues that his asparśayoga differs from Buddhist emptiness because the ground is not empty but full — it is pure consciousness (vijñāna in his usage, Brahman in Upanishadic usage). Whether this constitutes a genuine philosophical distinction from Yogācāra or a rhetorical one remains debated.