• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Mandukya Upanishad text

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Since, Mandukya Upanishad is the shortest upanishad and also rated as one that alone can grant liberation, I add its text here. This will also help to refer to this text easily whenever required.

The Mandukya Upanishad

Tr. Swami Prabhavananda and Frederick Manchester
Om.
With our ears may we hear what is good.
With our eyes may we behold thy righteousness.
Tranquil in body, may we who worship thee find rest.
Om. Peace—peace—peace.
The syllable OM, which is the imperishable Brahman, is the universe. Whatsoever has existed, whatsoever exists, whatsoever shall exist hereafter, is OM. And whatsoever transcends past, present, and future, that also is OM.

All this that we see without is Brahman. This Self that is within is Brahman.
This Self, which is one with OM, has three aspects, and beyond these three, different from them and indefinable–The Fourth.

The first aspect of the Self is the universal person, the collective symbol of created beings, in his physical nature—Vaiswanara. Vaiswanara is awake, and is conscious only of external objects. He has seven members. The heavens are his head, the sun his eyes, air his breath, fire his heart, water his belly, earth his feet, and space his body. He has nineteen instruments of knowledge: five organs of sense, five organs of action, five functions of the breath, together with mind, intellect, heart, and ego. He is the enjoyer of the pleasures of sense.

The second aspect of the Self is the universal person in his mental nature–Taijasa. Taijasa has seven members and nineteen instruments of knowledge. He is dreaming, and is conscious only of his dreams. In this state he is the enjoyer of the subtle impressions in his mind of the deeds he has done in the past.

The third aspect of the Self is the universal person in dreamless sleep–Prajna. Prajna dreams not. He is without desire. As the darkness of night covers the day, and the visible world seems to disappear, so in dreamless sleep the veil of unconsciousness envelops his thought and knowledge, and the subtle impressions of his mind apparently vanish. Since he experiences neither strife nor anxiety, he is said to be blissful, and the experiencer of bliss.

Prajna is the lord of all. He knows all things. He is the dweller in the hearts of all. He is the origin of all. He is the end of all.

The Fourth, say the wise, is not subjective experience, nor objective experience, nor experience intermediate between these two, nor is it a negative condition which is neither consciousness nor unconsciousness. It is not the knowledge of the senses, nor is it relative knowledge, nor yet inferential knowledge. Beyond the senses, beyond the understanding, beyond all expression, is The Fourth. It is pure unitary consciousness, wherein awareness of the world and of multiplicity is completely obliterated. It is ineffable peace. It is the supreme good. It is One without a second. It is the Self. Know it alone!

This Self, beyond all words, is the syllable OM. This syllable, though indivisible, consists of three letters—A-U-M.

Vaiswanara, the Self as the universal person in his physical being, corresponds to the first letter–A. Whosoever knows Vaiswanara obtains what he desires, and becomes the first among men.

Taijasa, the Self as the universal person in his mental being, corresponds to the second letter—U. Taijasa and the letter U both stand in dream, between waking and sleeping. Whosoever knows Taijasa grows in wisdom, and is highly honored.

Prajna, the Self as the universal person in dreamless sleep, corresponds to the third letter—M. He is the origin and the end of all. Whosoever knows Prajna knows all things.

The Fourth, the Self, is OM, the indivisible syllable. This syllable is unutterable, and beyond mind. In it the manifold universe disappears. It is the supreme good–One without a second. Whosoever knows OM, the Self, becomes the Self.

...
 

kaisersose

Active Member
The Mandukya is a controversial Upanishad

Advaita - it is part of the Gaudapada Karika. The first part of the karika is called Agama Prakarana and only eight verses from this Prakarana is considered the Mandukya. The rest of the Parakarana is believed to be authored by Gaudapada.

Dvaita and Vishishtadvaita - The Mandukya is the entire Agama Prakarana minus the last two verses which are very advaitic.

The mystery remains - who is correct? Both sides defend their own versions.
 

Satsangi

Active Member
The Mandukya is a controversial Upanishad

Advaita - it is part of the Gaudapada Karika. The first part of the karika is called Agama Prakarana and only eight verses from this Prakarana is considered the Mandukya. The rest of the Parakarana is believed to be authored by Gaudapada.

Dvaita and Vishishtadvaita - The Mandukya is the entire Agama Prakarana minus the last two verses which are very advaitic.

The mystery remains - who is correct? Both sides defend their own versions.

Can you please quote or refer a link about Dvaita and Vishishtadvaita saying the above?

My opinion- I find similar verses like the last two "Advaitic" verses in other Upanishads too and hence believe that the Mandukya Upanishad is just fine as it is now.

Regards,
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
The Mandukya is a controversial Upanishad

Advaita - it is part of the Gaudapada Karika.

Never heard it before. Mandukya Up. is from Atharva Veda. Gaudapada karika is the commentary written on Mandukya Up. by guru of Shankaracharya's guru.

The only difference is that Shri Madhvacharya considers even Gaudapada Karika as shruti. Advaitins consider Gaudapada karika as human interpretation.

...
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Whether we derive any beneficial understanding or not is important, rather than getting lost in who said what.

...
 

Satsangi

Active Member
Whether we derive any beneficial understanding or not is important, rather than getting lost in who said what.

...

Agree 100%, thanks. There are 3 basic states- awake (Jagrat), sleep (shushupti) and dream (swapna) . But, the whole issue is NOT that simple. One state can "co-exist" in another state depending on the gunas that influence the person at that time. For example, susupti and swapna can co-exist or in the Jagrat, Jagrat and swapna can "intrude" the susupti and Jagrat and susupti can "intrude" the swapna state. I will try to elaborate on this concept later.

Regards,
 

Onkara

Well-Known Member
Hi Satsangi
I have encountered that concept elsewhere also. I would be interested if you find a way to elaborate how it could be that wakefulness (Jagrat) exists in the deep sleep (swapna) as that seems to be the hardest part to grasp.
 

kaisersose

Active Member
Can you please quote or refer a link about Dvaita and Vishishtadvaita saying the above?

My opinion- I find similar verses like the last two "Advaitic" verses in other Upanishads too and hence believe that the Mandukya Upanishad is just fine as it is now.

Regards,

I have read this in Dr BNK Sharma's History of the Dvaita Tradition. He has analyzed this issue into considerable depth. I have seen this discussed online on the dvaita list. It is also mentioned on the Advaita site here - The Advaita Vedânta Home Page - Gaudapada.

Quoting from this page -

From the various vedAnta schools comes another kind of controversy. According to the advaita school, all four prakaraNas are writings of a human author named gauDapAda, and are therefore not regarded as Sruti, even though the first prakaraNa is found interspersed with the sentences of the mANDUkya upanishad. According to the dvaita school, however, 27 kArikAs of the first prakaraNa are not compositions of a human author, and are therefore as much Sruti as the prose passages of the mANDUkya upanishad.
 

Satsangi

Active Member
I have read this in Dr BNK Sharma's History of the Dvaita Tradition. He has analyzed this issue into considerable depth. I have seen this discussed online on the dvaita list. It is also mentioned on the Advaita site here - The Advaita Vedânta Home Page - Gaudapada.

Quoting from this page -

From the various vedAnta schools comes another kind of controversy. According to the advaita school, all four prakaraNas are writings of a human author named gauDapAda, and are therefore not regarded as Sruti, even though the first prakaraNa is found interspersed with the sentences of the mANDUkya upanishad. According to the dvaita school, however, 27 kArikAs of the first prakaraNa are not compositions of a human author, and are therefore as much Sruti as the prose passages of the mANDUkya upanishad.

As pointed out before by "Atanu", Mandukya Upanishad is from Atharva Veda originally and not Gaudapa Karika; although he may have quoted the verses- just like "atanu" quoted them on RF. Hence, taken in isolation wihthout the Gaudapapa Karika, it is a Shruti. I don't think that the Advaita schools say that Mandukya Upanishad itself is not a Shruti. AS far as I know, it is in the list of major Upanishads of Adi Shankara.

Regards,
 

Satsangi

Active Member
Hi Satsangi
I have encountered that concept elsewhere also. I would be interested if you find a way to elaborate how it could be that wakefulness (Jagrat) exists in the deep sleep (swapna) as that seems to be the hardest part to grasp.

Hi Onkara,

This concept I have tried to understand from the Vachanamrut (book of discourses) of Lord SwamiNarayan (Sarangpur 6th) and it is complicated, and to me, one has to be familiar with the concept of Creation of the Universe as well as the Yogic terminologies to have SOME understanding of it.

First, the definition of the state (avastha)- Jagrat, swapna and susupti. The state in which the Jivatma is the "enjoyer" of the vishayas is the avastha and the three states respectively are "created" by the Sattva, rajas and tamas guna (which in turn corresponds to the maintainence, creation and dissolution respectively).

When the other gunas intrude into an Avastha, this is the "intrusion" of one state (avastha) in the other.

(1) Jagrat avastha (state)- it is the "maintainence state" of the Virat Purusha, is of Sattva guna and "resides" in the Netra (eyes). The Jiva in this state is called "Vaishva". And when this Jiva labelled "Vishwa", thinking of itself as the GROSS body, enjoys the Vishayas in accordance with the prior karmas, with their meaning as it is, and with FULL wisdom, then it is called sattva ruled Jagrat state.

If in this state, the Jiva if it enjoys the Vishayas not in FULL knowledge of its meaning, then it is the intrusion of the swapna (dream, or rajas guna) in the Jagrat state.

If the Jiva, without WISDOM/ "as it is"knowledge of the vishayas (due to sorrow, grief or labor for example), enjoys the Vishayas, then it is susupti in Jagrat (intrusion of the tamas guna).

(2) Swapna Avastha- is the creation of the Rajas guna and is the Uttapati (Creation) state of the Hiranyagarbha (cosmic creation) and it "resides" in the Kantha (neck). The Jiva is called "Taijas" in this state as it thinks of itself as the "SUBTLE BODY". When the "Taijas" Jiva, thinking of itself as a subtle body, enjoys the Vishayas as per the past karmas (mostly in the subtle body), then it is rajas guna ruled Swapna Avastha.

If in this state, the Jiva sometimes enjoys the Vishayas with "WISDOM" ("as it is" knowledge of the Vishayas) , then it is the intrusion of Jagrat (sattva guna) in the swapna state.

If in this state, the Jiva, inspite of enjoying the Vishayas, displays "ignorance" (tamas guna) of it, then it is called intrusion of susupti in swapna.

(3) Susupti Avastha- it corresponds to the dissolution of the Virat Purusha (Brahmanda dissolution) and is creation of the tamas guna and it "resides" in the Hridaya (heart). When such an avastha comes to a Jiva, then the Vritti of all the Indriyas (five Jnanendriyas and five Karmendriyas) and the Anthakarana (mind, intellect, ego and chitta), and the Vasanas (desires) AS WELL AS the "knower-ness" (of the Vishaya) and "doer- ness" of the Jiva dissolutes in the CAUSAL BODY. The Jiva when it is in this state is called "Prajna". This "Prajna" Jiva, in turn, dissolutes itself in the bliss of the Pradhan-Purusha (the source Ishwara of THIS Brahmanda). SUCH an avastha is called tamas guna ruled Susupti Avastha.

If, due to Karma Samskars, some degree "doer-ness of the karma" crops up in the Jiva in susupti, then it is called intrusion of swapna (rajas guna) in susupti.

If in the bliss of the tamas ruled susupti, there is the "knowledge" of the "inwardly directed doer-ness", then that knowledge is called the intrusion of jagrat (sattva guna) in the susupti.

(4) Turiya- the source through which the Jiva has the knoweledge of the type of Avastha's differences and the one who makes the Jiva enjoy the fruits of its Karmas is called the "Turiyapada" (Mandukya Upanishad) or "Antaryami" (BrihadAranyaka Upanishad 3/7/3 to 23) or "Drashta"(seer) (BrihadAranyaka Upanishad- 3/7/23) or "Brahman" (Kena Upanishad- 1/4 to 8)) or "Para-Brahman (Shvetashvatara Upanishad- 3/7).

I have tried to simplify this, but I do realize that there are some difficult terms and will be glad to explain the terms further if asked.

Regards,
 
Last edited:

kaisersose

Active Member
As pointed out before by "Atanu", Mandukya Upanishad is from Atharva Veda originally and not Gaudapa Karika; although he may have quoted the verses- just like "atanu" quoted them on RF. Hence, taken in isolation wihthout the Gaudapapa Karika, it is a Shruti. I don't think that the Advaita schools say that Mandukya Upanishad itself is not a Shruti. AS far as I know, it is in the list of major Upanishads of Adi Shankara.

Regards,

I was saying Advaita considers the Mandukya to be just 8 verses while other traditions consider the Mandukya to be 28/29 verses. That is the controversy I was talking about.
 

Wannabe Yogi

Well-Known Member
The Mandukya is a controversial Upanishad

Advaita - it is part of the Gaudapada Karika. The first part of the karika is called Agama Prakarana and only eight verses from this Prakarana is considered the Mandukya. The rest of the Parakarana is believed to be authored by Gaudapada.

Dvaita and Vishishtadvaita - The Mandukya is the entire Agama Prakarana minus the last two verses which are very advaitic.

The mystery remains - who is correct? Both sides defend their own versions.

Are you talking about when Shankara wrote his commentary on this Upanishad he merged it with Karika of Gaudapada. I cant see how Dvaita and Vishishtadvaita would even like any thing by Gaudapada because he was more extreme in his Advaitic views then Sankara.
 

kaisersose

Active Member
Are you talking about when Shankara wrote his commentary on this Upanishad he merged it with Karika of Gaudapada. I cant see how Dvaita and Vishishtadvaita would even like any thing by Gaudapada because he was more extreme in his Advaitic views then Sankara.

No. Let me put it differently. The Mandukya per Advaita is only 8 verses. But Dvaita and Vishishtadvaita (not very sure about this) have a 20+ verse version of the Mandukya.

This becomes interesting because all of these 20+ verses are found in Gaudapada's karikas. Obviously, Advaita claims these additional verses (beyond the 8) are not part of the Mandukya, but part of the Karika authored by Gaudapada.

Dr. Sharma wrote papers showing evidence of a 20+ version of Mandukya used by Advaitins and Vishishtadvaitins before the time of Madhva as there appears to have been some criticism that Madhva concocted this bigger version.
 

Satsangi

Active Member
No. Let me put it differently. The Mandukya per Advaita is only 8 verses. But Dvaita and Vishishtadvaita (not very sure about this) have a 20+ verse version of the Mandukya.

This becomes interesting because all of these 20+ verses are found in Gaudapada's karikas. Obviously, Advaita claims these additional verses (beyond the 8) are not part of the Mandukya, but part of the Karika authored by Gaudapada.

Dr. Sharma wrote papers showing evidence of a 20+ version of Mandukya used by Advaitins and Vishishtadvaitins before the time of Madhva as there appears to have been some criticism that Madhva concocted this bigger version.

The below given link is the download link for Madhavacharya's (founder of Dvaita) Bhashya on Mandukya Upanishad. It has TWELVE ORIGINAL VERSES and his commentary.

Upanisad / Mandukya-upanishad

The below given link is from Adi Shankaracharya's commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad and Gaudapada Karika. That also shows the SAME TWELVE ORIGINAL VERSES as the Mandukya Upanishad.

Mandukya Upanishad - Works of Sankaracharya, Advaita Vedanta and Hindu Sacred Scriptures

Hence, we can safely say that that the Mandukya Upanishat has TWELVE verses.

Now, even if you are correct that the Dvaita school considers TWENTY SEVEN (out of 29 verses) verses of GAUDAPADA KARIKA'S AGAMA PRAKARNA (first chapter) as Sruti; but this DOES NOT mean that Mandukya Upanishad has 27 verses in Dvaita school and it CERTAINLY DOES NOT make the Upanishat itself controversial. The last two verses are implying non duality (and hence may not have been selected as a Sruti by Dvaita school).

"Karika" itself means something like a "commentary" implying that it is not a Sruti, but is a commentary.

Regards,
 

kaisersose

Active Member
The Mandukya's status as Sruti or not, has been a point of controversy for a long time. Hajime Nakamura in his History of early Vedanta has devoted several pages to the topic. I do not have this book with me now, but here is a short summary.

1) Shankara and his immediate disciple Sureshvara considered all four sections to be Gaudapada's work. Shankara never quotes a Mandukya Sruti anywhere in his works. He did not write a commentary on it, though he wrote commentaries on other "principal" Upanishads.

2) By the time of Ramanuja/Madhva, the first section was Sruti, but not the others.

3) By the 14th century, all four sections were considered independent Upanishads by some people and were commented upon as Upanishads.

4) The first section contains the prose considered to be Mandukya Upanishad by some, along with 29 verses which are considered Gaudapada's Karikas by some and Shruti by some others. Madhva for instance, commented on these 29 (or 27) verses as part of the Mandukya Upanishad.

Note: The concept of Principal Upanishads, is only known from the time of Shankara. No commentaries on the Upanishads, the Gita, the Brahma Sutras from before his time are in existence. Hence, the speculation by some scholars that some of these concepts (Principal Upanishads, Trayi, etc., may have been his creations). In this context, there is no record of the Mandukya Upanishad's existence before Shankara.
 
Last edited:

atanu

Member
Premium Member
1) Shankara ----. He did not write a commentary on it, though he wrote commentaries on other "principal" Upanishads.

Namaste kaisersose

Shankara wrote a commentary on Mandukya.

Note: The concept of Principal Upanishads, is only known from the time of Shankara. No commentaries on the Upanishads, the Gita, the Brahma Sutras from before his time are in existence. Hence, the speculation by some scholars that some of these concepts (Principal Upanishads, Trayi, etc., may have been his creations). In this context, there is no record of the Mandukya Upanishad's existence before Shankara.

First commentary on Mandukya Up. was written by Gaudapada, much before Shankaracharya.

...
 
Last edited:

atanu

Member
Premium Member
ayamātmā brahma

is one of the five mahavakyas. This mahavakya is from Mandukya Upnaishad and this mahavakya has been quoted extensively in all of Shankara's work.

Shankara has separately written a commentary on Mandukya Up.

I do not understand the point of creating this controversy.

...
 
Last edited:

kaisersose

Active Member
Namaste kaisersose
Shankara wrote a commentary on Mandukya.
He wrote a commentary on Gaudapada's karikas - which he calls the Mandukya Karika. I am not aware of a specific commentary for just a Mandukya Shruti/Upanishad. It is possible that a later Shankara wrote such a commentary.

First commentary on Mandukya Up. was written by Gaudapada, much before Shankaracharya.
Gaudapada does not call it the Mandukya Upanishad or Shruti. Like I said earlier, the major Upanishads do not show up in history until the time of Shankara.

Besides Nakamura and Dr. Sharma, Thomas E Wood has written extensively on the Mandukya controversy as well. He recognizes five different views on the topic, disagrees with all of them and presents a sixth view of what may have happened.
 

kaisersose

Active Member
Btw, can someone please post a reference to where Shankara brings up the concept of Mahavakyas and any justification he provides for calling them that?

Later, rival schools criticized the concept of elevating select statements to a special level by calling them Mahavakyas, arguing that there was no basis for such special categorization.

Thanks,
 
Top