Mandukya Upanishad text

[Satsangi]

I wonder how Dr Sharma , Nakamura and Thomas E Wood came to know "what must have happened"- they must be "Sarvajna." There are many people who can create controversies out of nothing as it is hard to come up with "evidence" that they cannot pick a hole in, as all these was thousands of years ago.

The Gaudapad Karika where the first chapter is "Agama Prakarna" is where the twelve Shrutis of the Mandupkya Upanishad are quoted. Agama is also a Shruti; there was a reason why Gaudapad called it Agama Prakarna.

About the MahaVakyas- as per my knowledge, these were given as intiation to Adi Shankara by His Guru and that brought him enlightenment. These sentences, when meditated on, are enough to give the true Jnana.

Whoever the "rival schools" are, they again wanted to "create a controversy" and hence they criticize- it is their Dharma because they are rival. Just like the opposition party in India opposes everything by default.'

By the way, as mentioned, Sri Gaudapada's work is called "karika" and not a "Shruti". The fact that his work is called Karika indicates that it is a commentary on something that existed BEFORE. That something happens to be the Mandukya Upanishad as his commentary is on those twelve verses very clearly if you read the Karika.

Regards,

 

[kaisersose]

I wonder how Dr Sharma , Nakamura and Thomas E Wood came to know "what must have happened"- they must be "Sarvajna." There are many people who can create controversies out of nothing as it is hard to come up with "evidence" that they cannot pick a hole in, as all these was thousands of years ago.

This is not about what happened thousands of years ago. We are talking about something that happened just 1300 years ago and their research and interest in this matter is because of diferent views reported by different texts of that age. It does not require magical powers to see that there is an inconsistency in what consititutes the Mandukya.

The Gaudapad Karika where the first chapter is "Agama Prakarna" is where the twelve Shrutis of the Mandupkya Upanishad are quoted. Agama is also a Shruti; there was a reason why Gaudapad called it Agama Prakarna.

The same reason has been used by Ramanuja and others to call the entire Chapter as Agama, while many Advaitins chose only the 12.

About the MahaVakyas- as per my knowledge, these were given as intiation to Adi Shankara by His Guru and that brought him enlightenment. These sentences, when meditated on, are enough to give the true Jnana.

Thank you, But I was looking for Shankara's words in his writings. Did Shankara call them Mahavakyas or do we only know this from his biography, written by others? The Mahavakyas are a huge deal in Advaita and if Shankara held this view, he would have surely written about them in the BSB or at least the US.

 

[Satsangi]

The "beauty" is in the eyes of the beholder; in the same way "inconsistency" is also in the eyes of the beholder.

Mandukya Upanishad did not happen 1300 years ago; Gaudapada Karika- may be.

First of all, I see no referrence of Sri Ramanujacharya ever saying that the whole Agama Prakarna of the Gaudapada Karika is a Shruti. Please consider the following link from the Sri Ramanuja page and go to (2) which says that Sri Ramanuja NEVER commented on the Mandukya Upanishad because it is not DIRECTLY discussed in the Brahm Sutras by Sri Badrayana.

http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/jun99/0060.html

Secondly, if the founder of Dvaita Madhavacharya believed the whole Agama Prakarna as a Shruti, why did he comment only on the 12 verses as posted in my prior post?. There is a link to the Bhashya of Madhavacharya on Mandukya Upanishad in my post #15 of this thread.

Thirdly, Advaitins only take the 12 verses as the Shruti as posted by you in post # 22 above (although before you posted in post # 12 that Advaitins take 8 verses as Shruti- I see some inconsistency there, for sure).

Fourthly, even Hajime Nakamura (quoted by you) says that the Mandukya Upanishad existed before Adi Shankara in his book, volume 2, page 270. I DO NOT think you have read this page because it CONTRADICTS what you have posted. It says that Sureshvara the direct disciple of Adi Shankara quotes Mandukya Upanishad and Adi Shankara quotes "Ayam Atma Brahman" (from the Mandukya Upanishad) as a Shruti. Further he cites more evidence that the Upanishad was short, no commentaries on it existed before the Gaudapada Karika and then was incorporated in the first prakarna of the Gaudapada karika which is a commentary. Further, he AGREES that he Mandukya as a Shruti existed before and the Gaudapada Karika is a commentary on it. Further he says that Madhavacharya (as INFERRED from his disciples'- Vyasatirtha and Srinivasa- views) and possibly Ramanujacharya (as INFERRED from his disciples'- Kuranarayana and Doddacarya- views) not only considered the Mandukya Upanishad as a Shruti, but also considered the first prakarna as a Shruti (or "mantra" in case of Ramanuja's disciples). This could mean that may be Shri Gaudapada too had revealations (Shruti) besides the Mandukya Upanishad as per some scholars in Dvaita . But, in NO WAY it makes the MAIN 12 verses of the Mandukya Upanishad by itself controversial - THOSE 12 VERSES ARE ACCEPTED AS THE SHRUTI BY ALL SCHOOLS- ADVAITA, DVAITA AND VISHISHTADVAITA.

I REQUEST all to be VERY CAREFUL in calling the Upanishads or Vedas as "controversial" by itself because it implies they are not true. Such labelling would only provide misguidance to a curious on-looker who does not dive in to find the truth.

The Mahavakyas "coining"- when it was done, I am not sure. But, Adi Shankara for sure has placed a LOT of emphasis on these four Vakyas in his works. The fol

lowing is what I found on the internet:-

Mahavakyas: Bhakti Yoga Dictionary on Mahavakya

Mahavakya - principal statements or utterances of the Upanisads. Pranava (om) is the true mahavakya of the Vedas as established in Chapter Twelve. However, Sri Sankaracarya has widely broadcast four aphorisms as mahavakyas. Therefore, the word mahavakya has come to be associated with these expressions: aham brahmasmi, "I am brahma,” (Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad, 1.4.10) ; tat tvam asi svetaketo, "O Svetaketo, you are that” (Chandogya Upanisad, 6.8.7) ; prajnanam brahma, "The supreme knowledge is brahma,” (Aitareya Upanisad, 1.5.3) ; and sarvam khalv idam brahma, "All the universe is brahma.” (Chandogya Upanisad, 3.14.1.)

Regards,

 

[atanu]

Bhumikas: 7 Stages of Wisdom

Some aspirants confuse between three states of existence/consciousness with 7 stages of development of wisdom.There are three states of existence: Waking, Dreaming, and Sleeping. Beyond is the Fourth state, the fourth -- Turya, which is not a state but the Atman itself. Associated with the three states of consciousness are three bodies. Varaha Upanishad concisely states:

Varaha Upanishad
Translated by K. Narayanasvami Aiyar

CHAPTER - I​

6. The bodies to be three, viz., the gross, the subtle and the Karana or causal; the states of consciousness to be three, viz., the waking, the dreaming and the dreamless sleeping.
​

​

Wisdom, which we differentiate from consciousness (pure pajna) however develops in seven stages to attain the fourth state of consciousness called Turya.​

Varaha Upanishad
CHAPTER - IV
On another occasion Nidagha asked Lord Ribhu to enlighten him as to the characteristics of Jivanmukti. To which Ribhu replied in the affirmative and said the following: “In the seven Bhumikas (or stages of development of wisdom) there are four kinds of Jivanmuktas. Of these the first stage is Subhechcha (good desire); the second is Vicharana (inquiry); the third is Tanumanasi (or pertaining to the thinned mind); the fourth is Sattvapatti (the attainment of Sattva); the fifth is Asamsakti (non-attachment); the sixth is the Padartha-Bhavana (analysis of objects) and the seventh is the Turya (fourth or final stage).
.....
1. Subhechcha is said to be the first Jnana-Bhumi (or stage of wisdom); Vicharana, the second; Tanumanasi, the third;​

2. Sattvapatti, the fourth; then come Asamsakti as the fifth, Padartha-Bhavana as the sixth and Turya as the seventh.​

3. The desire that arise in one through sheer Vairagya (after resolving) ‘Shall I be ignorant ? I will be seen by the Shastras and the wise’ (or ‘I will study the books and be with the wise’) – is termed by the wise as Subhechcha.​

4. The association with the wise and Shastras and the following of the right path preceding the practice of indifference is termed Vicharana.​

5. That stage wherein the hankering after sensual objects is thinned through the first and second stages is said to be Tanumanasi.​

6. That stage wherein having become indifferent to all sensual objects through the exercise in the (above) three stages, the purified Chitta rests on Atman which is of the nature of Sat is called Sattvapatti.​

7. The light (or manifestation) of Sattva-Guna that is firmly rooted (in one) without any desire for the fruits of actions through the practice in the above four stages is termed Asamsakti.​

8-9. That stage wherein through the practice in the (above) five stages one, having found delight in Atman, has no conception of the internals or externals (though before him) and engages in actions only when impelled to do so by others is termed Padartha-Bhavana, the sixth stage.​

10. The stage wherein after exceedingly long practice in the (above) six stages one is (immovably) fixed in the contemplation of Atman alone without the difference (of the universe) is the seventh stage called Turya.​

...​

 

[kaisersose]

Apologies for hijacking Atanu's thread. Starting a new thread on the Mandukya controversy soon.

 

[atanu]

Self as understood through Mandukya Up.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2379761-post13.html

...

 

[atanu]

The Mandukya Upanishad by Swami Krishnananda

Excellent commentary on Mandukya Upanishad by Swami Krishnananda.

 

[atanu]

MAITRÂYANA-BRÂHMANA-UPANISHAD has a very concise note on the Self and it's three states, as extracted below:

MAITRÂYANA-BRÂHMANA-UPANISHAD.
SEVENTH PRAPÂTHAKA

(7) There is the person in the eye, there is he who walks as in sleep, he who is sound asleep, and he who is above the sleeper: these are the four conditions (of the Self), and the fourth is greater than all.

(8) Brahman with one foot moves in the three, and Brahman with three feet is in the last.

It is that both the true (in the fourth condition) and the untrue (in the three conditions) may have their dessert, that the Great Self (seems to) become two, yes, that he (seems to) become two.

 

[Amrut]

Namaste,

I am chiming late.

I am no authority on shastras, but would like to share my opinion.

The most important thing is to meditate and realize. Advaitins meditate in 2 ways

1. OM
2. Neti Neti

Neti Neti e.g. can be found in nirvana shatakam / Atma shatakam. It is only for advanced seekers. Most of advaitins meditate on OM.

Om is one such tatva that can take one above maya into it's source i.e. Brahman / Atman. Before interpreting any shastras, one has to deeply meditate and reach it's destination. Scholarlyness is not of any use, even though it may sound logical. It cannot lift you above maya.

OM is one such tatva from which maya originates. So OM, which represents brahman, can take one above maya. It neutralizes any of the thoughts be it positive or negative. Ofcource one has to completely surrender to God. When we move to a source of mantra, mantra itself silences like the fire after burning a corpse will silence. It will not continue says Sri Ramana Maharshi. The core is meditation and not rational or intellectual analysis.

Mandukya Upanishad explains OM. In fact last verses explain all phases of OM including turiya. Bhagavan in Gita (7:8) says that I am OM. So even God has accepted nirguna brahman. Bhagavad Gita is not the only Gita that sung by Shri Krishna. There is Anu Gita, Uttara Gita and Uddhava Gita

Bhagavan in Uttara Gita explains OM chapter 1:5,17,48,49 and 1:6

The chandra bindu which represents turiya state is also accepted by bhagavan, which is explained in last verses. Hence all twelve verses are a part of mandukya.

Other schools can neglect OM as they do not chant it. Dvait and visistadvaita founders have written commentaries only because they have to defend their faiths against advaita.

Other than that, they do not even refer to other gitas like Uttara Gita, Anu Gita and Uddhava Gita as they talk of either advaita or Yog, both leading to advaita state. They talk about a verse from padma purana, but same padma purana has Shiva Gita in which Shiva shows same Virat svarupa (chapter 7) and pulls all gods within him. Rama is given divine eyes to see this form. Again Shiva talls Rama that he is the lord of universe and Rama says he is both saguna and nirguna. (all in chapter 7). If we take a discource between shiva and parvati as authentic, then Guru Gita talks of Shiva = parvati as own self in different form and that there is no difference between shiva and guru tatva.

Lord DattAtraya is 6th avatar of Lord Vishnu according to bhagavata, vaishnavas do not refer to avadhoot gita and jivan mukta gita. The very first verse is advaitic. Of course I am not mentioning Yog vasistha which is said by Sri Rama's Guru vasistha, forget ashtavakra gita.

The thing is that for vaishnav bhakti, these texts are not required hence not commented Upanishads are considered as an authority and hence to defend their faith and philosophy, vaishavas founders of dvaita and visistadvaita schools hav written commentaries. Same is with brahmasutra.

Infact the advaita in srimad bhagavat is not even discussed. Most of them skip it like 10:14.22 - 10:14.28 (Lord Brahma's Pyayers).

I am not attacking them, my point is that why do we need to discuss about an authority of an upanishad which is not daily inspiration and is not applied practically by dvaita, VA, shuddha advaita and Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and his followers.

Shastras cover every aspect of life. They cover every type of people i.e. people with different prakruti and are at different state of evaluation (mental purity). To those whose consciousness is strongly embedded into physical body to them accepting God as formless is very difficult (BG 12:5 - maybe). To cover these people there is dvaita and DA.

Sri Ramakrishna once said:

Once as person passing by Hanuman asked, Oh brother, what is date today. Shri Hanuman ji replied, arre bhai (oh brother), I do not remember any date, nor I know what is the position of graha and nakshtra (planetary position). I only chant Gods name

This is the mental state of a bhakta.

More to think and give importance or in better words 'tAdAtmya' i.e. attach, cling to or identify ourselves 'I' with sarira bhava, that bhava is more strongly embedded within them. More you think of yourself as jiva, you become jiva (strongly identify yourself as jiva). The more you think of yourself as Atman / Brahman (brahmabhava, more strongly you identify yourself with Brahman


Sri Ramakrishna said,

Once Sri RAma asked hanuman how do you see me

Hanuman replied:

As a body, I am your dAsa (servant) and you are my lord (master, swami)
As a jiva, I am part and you are whole
But from Tatva Jnana, hey Rama, I am you and you are me, are both are same. We are not different.

So let others follow the path and philosophy they like and let advaita calmly practice their path. I do not see any point in comparing or questioning authority of shastras done by extrovert mind (scholars - pothI pandits) nor by people who do not read it or apply it in their daily life.

The accusing part is not done by founders. Even chaitanya mahaprabhu, who transformed 2 sinners, cannot have lower emotions like hatred and accusing. They all have dayA (compassion). They are always post and decent in speech and actions, as they are role models whom people will follow. Instead of fighting and dating shastras which are apaurusheya (unauthored), dating on basis of when they were penned down makes no sense to an advaitin. As an advaitin I would focus more on how can I apply it in daily life. What difference does it make if Gita was written yesterday evening? Gita gives space to interprete in many ways, yoga, advaita, dvaita, visistasvaita, etc. Hence it is most commented. Krishna kept that space so as to cover people of all types of temperaments - karma, bhakti, Jnana, Yog.

Advaita shastras should be discussed for removing doubts by and amongst fellow advaitins. As advaitains we calmly allow others to practice sAkAra bhakti.

Advaita does not reject dvaita. It simply asks one to rise above it. Some statements are given for encouragement, some are said from standpoint of supreme reality, some from jiva bhava, some act as reference. One has to rise from duality and enter advaita sthiti, not necessarily by advaita way. Advait is straight path. On can enter through yoga and even bhakti. Naramsimh Mehta, Swami RAmasukhdAs ji (rAma bhakta)are e.g. of jnani bhakta. It's negation and not rejection.

Always ask the question WHY? Why is is advised to renounce. Why i this world said to be full of sorrow, temporary and illusionary, unsteady. How will this help me to progress in meditation?

Dive deep within, surrender unconditionally and you will find solution.

Coming back to topic. All 12 verses of mandukya are of upanishad and not karika. Forget accusing.

Maudukya upanishad, as said in muktika upanishad alone is enough for salvation. Mandukya explains OM and takes one above duality, triad and maya. As one progress in mediation, peace and bliss (resulting out of vivekyukta vairagya) increases and keeps flowing. Chanting of OM will uproot all thoughts.

OM is imperishable says Krishna

17. The syllable (Aum) with which the Vedas begin, which figures in the middle of the Vedas, and with which the Vedas end, unites Prakrti with its Own Self; but that which is beyond this Prakrti-united-Pranava is Mahesvara.

ARJUNA ASKED:

48. It is evident that the letters are pronounced by means of the teeth, lips, palate, throat, etc.; therefore how can they (letters) be termed indestructible (Nitya), when their destructibility is apparent on their very face?

SRI BHAGAVAN SAID:

49. That letter is called indestructible which is self-pronunciation, i.e., without the effort of any pronunciation, which is neither vowel nor consonant, which is beyond the eight places of pronunciation, which is not subject to long or short accents, and which is thoroughly devoid of the Usma Varnas (i.e, the four letters, S’a, Sa, Sa, Ha, called Usma on account of their pronunciation depending greatly on the help of Vayu or air – meaning, therefore, subject to no air or breath).

Yogis can hear OM. One does not need to chant it. Not by chanting mantra, but by observing mantra one can go into it's source which is brahman like by hearing sound of waves and going in it's direction, one can reach sea shore says Sri Ramakrishna. (going into source is said by Sri Ramana Maharshi).

OM continues by itself, but one needs mental purity and God and Guru's grace to meditate a-japA japa. When one can increase time of meditation and finally experience nirvikalp samadhi.

AUM
Amrut

Hope I have not bored you all with long essay . What can I do, it flows form my heart and I get lost. So there i repetition and typos. More I edit, more I add instead of removing content. So I leave it as it is. I only correct typos if I spot them while skimming.

 

[atanu]

Namaste,
...
Shastras cover every aspect of life. They cover every type of people i.e. people with different prakruti and are at different state of evaluation (mental purity). To those whose consciousness is strongly embedded into physical body to them accepting God as formless is very difficult (BG 12:5 - maybe). To cover these people there is dvaita and DA.
...

I understand similarly.

 

[Stormcry]

Gaudapada's Karika is more mysterious even than Mandukya Upanishada... I just got amazed by reading it.. Such an excellence in knowledge of brahman !

 

[atanu]

Two excellent lectures on Mandukya Upanshad delivered by a swamiji at IIT Kanpur.

 

[ajay0]

Namaste Atanu,

Thank you for this intelligent thread.

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!

...

I would say that this is the defining part of the thread.

The multiplicity ceases to exist, because there is no thought to bring in duality of 'I' and 'that' .

It is the lack of this perception that brings about disharmony and conflict in the world as well.

I had pointed this out in a post of mine.

 

[ajay0]

The Mandukya Upanishad by Swami Krishnananda

Excellent commentary on Mandukya Upanishad by Swami Krishnananda.

I am also glad that you mentioned Swami Krishnananda here, who is probably the greatest scholar moden India has produced in Vedanta.

Swami Sivananda had described him as 'many Shankaras rolled into one. '

Reading his works is a great education in itself.

Here is a great website where one can read his books online.

 

[Aupmanyav]

My homage to Swami Shivananda and Swami Krishnananda.

 

[EsonauticSage]

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.

...

That Upanishad has certainly served me well over the years