Chapter 1
12 verses
Section 112 verses
1हरिः । ओमित्येतदक्षरमिद्ँ सर्वं तस्योपव्याख्यानं भूतं भवद्भविष्यदिति सर्वमोङ्कार एव। यच्चान्यत्त्रिकालातीतं तदप्योङ्कार एवAs all these objects that are indicated by names are non-different from the names, and as names are non-different from Om, so Om is verily all this. And as the supreme Brahman is known through the relationship subsisting between name and its object, It, too, is but Om. Tasya, of that, of this letter, viz Om, that is the same as the supreme as well as the infeior Brahman; upavyakhyanam, a clear exposition, showing its proximity to Brahman by virtue of its being a means for the attainment of Brahman; the expression, 'is to be understood as started with', has to be supplied after 'clear exposition' to complete the sentence. Bhutam, the past; bhavat, the present; bhavisyat, the future; iti, these, that is to say, whatever is curcumscribed by the three periods of time; (sarvam) onkarah eva, (all this) is but Om, in accordance with the reasons already advanced. Ca yat trikalatitam, and whatever else there is that is beyond the three periods of time, that is inferable from its effects but is not circumscribed by time, e.g. the Unmanifested and the rest; tat api, that, too; is omkarah eva, verily Om.
Though a word and the thing signified are the same, still the presentation in the text, 'This letter that is Om is all this' etc. was made by giving greater prominence to the word. The very same thing that was presented through an emphasis on the word is being indicated over again with a stress on the thing signified, so that the unity of the name and the nameable may be comprehended. For otherwise, the nameable having been grasped as dependent on the name, the doubt may crop up that the identity of the nameable with the name is to be taken is a secondary sense. And the necessity of understanding their identity arises from the fact that (Once this identity is establihsed), one can by a single effort eliminate both the name and the nameable to realize Brahman that is different from both. And this is what the Upanisad will say in, 'The arters are the letters of Om, and the letters are the arters' (8). The Upanisad adverts to the topic in, 'All this is surely Brahman' etc.
2सर्व्ँह्येतद्ब्रह्मायमात्मा ब्रह्म सोऽयमात्मा चतुष्पात्Sarvam etat, all this, all this that was spoken of as but Om; is brahma, Brahman. And that Brahman that was indirectly spoken of is being directly and specifically pointed out as, 'Ayam atma brahma, this Self is Brahman.' In the text, 'This Self is Brahman', the very Self that will be presented as divided into four parts is being pointed out as one's innermost Self by the word 'ayam, this', (accompanied) with a gesture of hand. [By placing the hand on the heart.] Sah ayam atma, that Self that is such, that is signified by Om and exists as the higher and lower Brahman; is catuspat, possessed of four arters, like a (karsapana) coin, but not like a cow. [The word pada may mean either foot or arter. The second meaning applies here. A karsapana is divisible into sixteen smaller units. Four of these form a arter. The smaller units lose their individuality in the bigger ones, as it were. So Visva merges in Taijasa, Taijasa in Prajna, and Prajna in Turiya. The word 'arter' is not used in any physical sense.] As the Fourth (Turiya) is realized by succesively merging the earlier three, starting from Visva, the word pada (in the cases of Visva, Taijasa and Prajna) is derived in the instrumental sense of that by which something is attained, whereas in the case of the Turiya the word pada is derived in the objective sense of that which is achieved.
The Upanisad shows how the Self can be possessed of four arters:
3जागरितस्थानो बहिष्प्रज्ञः सप्ताङ्ग एकोनविंशतिमुखः स्थूलभुग्वैश्वानरः प्रथमः पादःHe (Vaisvanara) who has the jagarita, waking state, as His sthana, sphere of actvity, is jagaritasthanah. He who has His prajna, awareness, bahih, ouside, directed to things other than Himself, is bahisprajnah. The idea is that Consciousness appears as though related to outer objects, owing to ignorance. Similarly, He has seven limbs. For completing the imagery of Agnihotra sacrifice contained in, 'Heaven is verily the head of that Vaisvanara-Self who is such; the sun is the eye, air is the vital force, space is the middle part, water, is the bladder, and the earth indeed in the two feet' (Ch. V. xviii. 2), the Ahavaniya fire has been imagined as His mouth (ibid). He that is possessed of these seven limbs is saptangah. Similarly, He is ekonavimsatimukhah, possessed of nineteen mouths-the (five) senses of perception and the (five) organs of action make up ten, the vital forces-Prana and the rest-make up five, and (there are) mind (the thinking faculty), intellect, ego, and mind-stuff. These are mouths, since they are comparable to mouths; that is to say, they are the gates of experiences. Since through these aforesaid entrances Vaisvanara, thus constituted, enjoys gross objects-viz sound and the rest-therefore He is sthulabhuk, an enjoyer of the gross. He is called vaisvanarah because He leads in diverse ways all (visva) beings (nara) (to their enjoyment). Or Vaisvanara is the same as Visvanara; He is called Vaisvanara (all beings) since. He encompasses all beings by virtue of His being non-different (in reality) from the Self (i.e. Virat) comprising all the gross bodies. He is the prathamah padah, the first arter. [The first step to the knowledge of Brahman.] He gets this precedence, because the knowledge of the succeeding arters is contingent on His knowledge.
Objection: The topic under discussion being the possession of four arters by the indwelling Self referred to in the text, 'This Self is Brahman' etc., how is it that heaven and the rest are presented as the head etc.,
Answer: That is nothing incongruous, inasmuch as the intentention is to show that the entire phenomenal universe and the world of gods, in the form of this (gross cosmic) Self, contribute to the constitution of the four parts. [The gross cosmic 'world, as constituting Virat, is the first arter. The subtle cosmic world, as constituting Hiranyagarbha, is the second arter. The cosmic world in its causal, state (of ignorance) as constituting the Unmanifested, is the third arter. That, again, when it is freed from all states of cause and effect and exists merely as the substratum of all, as Existence-Knowledge-Bliss, is the fourth arter.] If the presentation is made in this way, nonduality stands established on the removal of the entire phenomenal world, and the Self existing in all beings is realized as one, and all beings are seen as existing in the Self. [Cf: ºÉ´ÉǦÉÚiɺlɨÉÉi¨ÉÉxÉÆ ºÉ´ÉǦÉúiÉÉÊxÉ SÉÉi¨ÉÊxÉ* ºÉÆ{ɪÉzÉÉi¨ÉªÉÉVÉÒ ´Éè º´ÉÉ®úÉVªÉ¨ÉÊvÉMÉSUôÊiÉ** (M. XII. 91)]. And thus alone will stand affirmed the meaning of the Vedic text: He who sees all beings in the Self Itself, and the Self in all beings৷৷৷৷' (Is. 6). Otherwise, the indwelling Self, as circumscribed by one's own body, will alone be perceived, as It is by the Samkhyas and others; and in that case the specific statement made by the Upanisads that It is non-dual (Ma. I. 7; Ch. VI. ii. 1) will remain unestablished for there will be no difference from the philosophies of the Samkhyas and others. But as a matter of fact, it is desirable to find all the Upanisads propounding the unity of all the selves. Therefore it is but reasonable that, havng in view the identity of this embodied Self (as Visva) in the individual physical context with the Self as Virat (i.e. Vaisvanara) in the divine context, the former should be mentioned as possessed of seven limbs comprising such physical constituents as heaven etc. And this is confirmed by the logical grounds (for enferring unity) that is implied in, 'Your head would have dropped off if you had not come to me' [Six Brahmanas, who approached Asvapati, used to worship particular limbs of Vaisvanara as Vaisvanara Himself. Asvapati pointed out their mistakes and said that unless they had come to him for rectification, their head, eye, life, etc. would have been destroyed. But if the individual and Virat are not the same, it is unreasonable to say, for instance, that from the mistaken worship of heaven (that is only the head of Virat) as Virat Himself, one's own head should drop off. The statement becomes reasonable only if the individual and Virat are the same, so that the head of the one can be the head of the other.] (Ch. V. xii. 2).
This identity (of Visva) with Virat is suggestive of the unity (of Taijasa and Prajna) with Hiranyagarbha and the Unmanifested (respectively) as well. And this has been stated in the Madhu-brahmana (of the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad): '(The same with) the shinning immortal being who is in this earth, and the (shining immortal) corporeal being (in the body). (These four are but this Self)' etc. (II. v. 1). As for the unity of the Self in sleep (Prajna) and the Unmanifested, it is a patent fact because of the absence of distinctions. [The individual sleeps by withdrawing all distinctions into himself, and in dissolution the Unmanifested, too, withdraws everything into itself. The 'Unmanifested' means here the 'inner Director' (Ma. 6) conditioned by Maya, ruling from inside all.] Such being the case, it will become proved that nonduality follows on the dissipation of all duality.
4स्वप्नस्थानोऽन्तःप्रज्ञः सप्ताङ्ग एकोनविंशतिमुखः प्रविविक्तभुक्तैजसो द्वितीयः पादःTaijasa that has the dream state as his sphere of activity is svapnasthanah. The consciousness of the waking state, though it is only a state of mental vibration, is associated with many means, and it appears to be engrossed in external objects, and thus it leaves in the mind the corresponding impressions. Under the impulsion of ignorance, desire, and (past) action, that mind, thus possessed of the impressions like a piece of painted canvas, makes its appearance (in the dream state) just as in the waking state, but without any external means. In line with this is the statement, '(When he dreams), he takes away a little of (the impressions of) this all-embracing world (the waking state)' (Br. IV. iii. 9). Similarly, in the Upanisad of the Atharva-Veda, after introducing (the subject) with '(All the senses) become one in the highest deity, the mind', it is said, 'In this dream state, this deity, (the mind) experiences greatness' (Pr.IV.5). The mind is antah, internal in relation to the senses. And he whose prajna, awareness in dream, takes the forms of the impressions in that (antah, internal) mind, is antahprajnah, aware of itnernal objects. He is called Taijasa (luminous), since he becomes the witness of the (modes of) cognition that is bereft of objects and appears only as a luminous thing. As Visva is dependent on objects, he experiences the (modes of) gross cognition, whereas the awareness that is experienced here consists of mere impressions; and hence the injoyment is subtle. The rest is common (with the earlier paragraph). Taijasa is the second arter.
5यत्र सुप्तो न कंचन कामं कामयते न कंचन स्वप्नं पश्यति तत्सुषुप्तम्। सुषुप्तस्थान एकीभूतः प्रज्ञानघन एवानन्दमयो ह्यानन्दभुक्चेतोमुखः प्राज्ञस्तृतीयः पादःSince sleep, consisting in the unawareness of Reality, is a common feature of the two states (of waking and dream) where there are the presence and absence (respectively, of perceptible gross objects), therefore the adverbial clause, 'Where the sleeper' etc., [That is to say, the portion 'does nto desire any enjoyable thing' etc. occuring in the clause, 'Where the sleeper' etc.; for the portion 'deos not' etc. distinguishes deep sleep from the other two states which have the common feature of unawareness.] is used in order to keep in view the state of deep sleep. Or since sleep, consisting in the unawareness of Reality, is eal present in all the three states, deep sleep is being distinguished (by that clause) from the earlier two states. [Since by the use of the portion, 'does not see any dream', that is to say, 'does not have any false perception of Reality', the other two states of dream and waking can be eliminated, the addition of the portion, 'does not desire any enjoyable thing', may seem to be redundant if we follow the first interpretation. To abviate this diffuculty the second explanation is introduced. Non-perception of Reality being a common factor of the three states, deep sleep can be distinguished by the absence of desire.] Yatra, is which place, or at which time; suptah, the sleeping man; na pasyati, does not see; kancana svapnam, any dream; na kamayate, does not desire. kancana kamam, any enjoyable thing-for in deep sleep there does not exist, as in the two earlier stats, either dream, consisting in the perception of things otherwise than what they are, or any desire. [Thus either of the adverbial portions-viz absence of false perception, and freedom from desire-can be used for excluding the earlier two states]-this is tat susuptam, that state of deep sleep. He who has got this state of deep sleep as his sphere is susuptasthanah. He is said to be ekibhutah, undifferentiated, since the whole host of duality, that are diversified as the two states (of waking and dream) and are but modifications of the mind, become non-discernible (in that state) without losing their aforesaid characteristics, just as the day together with the phenomenal world becomes non-discernible under the cover of nocturnal darkness. As such, conscious experiences, that are but vibrations of the mind in the waking and dream states, becme solidified, as it were. This state is called prajnanaghanah, a mass of consciousness, since it is characterized by the absence of discrimination. It is a mass of mere consciousness like everything appearing as a mass by becoming indistinguishable under nocturnal darkness. Form the use of the word eva, merely, it follows that there is nothing of a separate class other than consciousness. And he is anandamayah, full of joy, his abundance of joy being caused by the absence of the misery involved in the effort of the mind vibrating as the objects and their experiencer; but he is not Bliss itself, since the joy is not absolute. Just as in common parlance, one remaining free from effort is said to be happy or anandabhuk, an experiencer of joy, so this one, too, is called anandabhuk, for by him is injoyed this state that consists in extreme freedom from effort, in accordance with the Vidic text, 'this is its supreme bliss' (Br. IV. iii. 32). He is cetomukhah, since he is the doorway to the consciousness of the experiences in the dream and waking states. Or he is called cetomukhah, because consciousness, appearing as empirical experience, is his doorway or entrance leading to the states of dream and waking. He is called prajnah, Prajna, conscious par excellence, since in him alone is there the knowledge of the past and the future and of all things. Even though lying in deep sleep he is called Prajna (conscious) because of his having been so earlier (in the two former states of dream and waking); or he is called conscious, since he alone is possessed of the peculiar characteristics of mere (undiversified) consciousness, whereas the other two have diversified knowledge as well. This Prajna, as described, is the third arter.
6एष सर्वेश्वर एष सर्वज्ञ एषोऽन्तर्याम्येष योनिः सर्वस्य प्रभवाप्ययौ हि भूतानाम्Esah, this one (this Prajna), when in his natural state; is surely sarvesvarah, the Lord of all, of all diversity inclusive of the heavenly world; and contrary to what others believe in, He (the Lord of all) is not something intrinsically different from this one (that is Prajna), as is borne out by the Veidc text, 'O goodlooking one, (the individual soul conditioned by) the mind is tethered to (that is to say, has for its goal) the Vital Force (which is Brahman)' (Ch. VI. viii. 2). This one, again, in his (state of) immanence in all diversity, is the knower of all; hence esah sarvajnah, this one is Omniscient. Esah, this one, is; antaryami, the inner Controller; this one, indeed, becomes also the Director of all beings by entering inside (antar). For the same reason [Since Prajna is the Lord, Omniscient, and inner Director (in his identity with Brahman.] he gives birth to the universe together with its diversities, as described before; and hence esah yonih, this one is the Source; sarvasya, of all. And since this is so, therefore this very one, is hi, certainly; prabhava-apyayau, the place of origin and dissolution; bhutanam, of all beings.
The fourth arter which follows in order has to be stated; hence this is presented (by the Upanisad) in 'nantah-prajnam, not conscious of internal world' etc. Since It (i.e. Turiya) is devoid of every characteristic that can make the use of words possible, It is not describable through words; and hence the (Upanisad) seeks to indicate Turiya merely through the negation of attributes.
Objection: It that case is It a mere avoid,
Answer: No, for an unreal illusion cannot exist without a substratum; for the illusion of silver, snake, human being, mirage, etc. cannot be imagined to exist apart from the (corresponding) substrata of the mother of pearl, rope, stump of a tree, desert, etc. [Since an illusion is perceived as soaked in the idea of existence, it cannot have non-existence as its basis.]
Objection: In that case, just as a pot etc. that hold water etc. are denoted by words, so also Turiya should be specified by (positive) words, and not by negations, for It is the substrataum of all such illusion as Prana etc.
Answer: Not so, because the illusion of Prana and the rest is unreal just as silver and the rest are on the mother of pearl etc. For a relation between the real and the unreal does not lend itself to verbal representation, since the relation itself is unsubstantial. Unlike a cow, for instance, the Self, in Its own reality, is not an object of any other means of knowledge; for the Self is free from all adventitious attributes. Nor like a cow etc. does It belong to any class; because, by virtue of Its being one without a second, It is free from generic and specific attributes. Nor is It possessed of activity like a cook for istance, since It is devoid of all action. Nor is It possessed of alities like blueness etc., It being free from alities. Therefore It baffles all verbal description.
Objection: It will, in that case, serve no useful purpose, like the horn of a hare and such other things.
Answer: Not so; for when Turiya is realized as the Self, it leads to the cessation of craving for the nonSelf, just as the hankering for silver cease on recognizing the nacre. Indeed, there can be no possibility of such defects as ignorance, desire, and the like, after the realization of Turiya as one's Self. Nor is there any reason why Turiya should not be realized as identical with one's Self, inasmuch as all the Upanisad aim at this conclusion, as is evidence by the texts, 'Thou art That' (Ch. VI. viii-xvi), 'This Self is Brahman' (Br. II. vi. 19), 'That which is the Self is Truth' (Ch. VI. viii. 7), 'The Brahman that is immediate and direct' (Br. III. iv. 1), 'Since He is coextensive with all that is external and internal and since He is birthless৷৷৷৷.' (Mu. II. i. 2), 'The Self indeed is all this' (Ch. VII. xxv. 2), and so on.
This very Self, that is the supreme Reality but has false appearances, has been spoken of as possessed of four arters. Its unreal form has been dealt with, which is a creation of ignorance and which is analogous to a snake superimposed on a rope, and consists of the three arters that are related (mutually) like the seed and its sprout. [By way of cause and effect.] Now, in the text beginning with, 'nantahprajnam, not conscious of the internal world', the Upanisad speaks of the non-causal, supremely real state, comparable to a rope etc., by way of eliminating the aforesaid three states, comparable to the snake etc. (superimposed on the rope etc.).
7नान्तःप्रज्ञं न बहिष्प्रज्ञं नोभयतःप्रज्ञं न प्रज्ञानघनं न प्रज्ञं नाप्रज्ञम्। अदृष्टमव्यवहार्यमग्राह्यमलक्षणमचिन्त्यमव्यपदेश्यमेकात्मप्रत्ययसारं प्रपञ्चोपशमं शान्तं शिवमद्वैतं चतुर्थं मन्यन्ते स आत्मा स विज्ञेयःObjection: The start was made with the premise that the Self is possessed of four arters. Then, after the presentation of the three arters, it has become evident that the fourth is different from those three that are conscious of the internal world, and so on; and hence the negation through 'not conscious of the internal world' etc. becomes futile.
Answer: Not so; for as the true nature of the rope is realized through the negation of the illusions of a snake etc., so the very Self, subsisting usually in the three states, is sought to be established as Turiya in the same way as is doen in the case of the text, 'That thou art' [This positive statement is interpreted not literally, but figuratively to mean that 'Thou', which is the individual soul, is identical with 'That', which is God, when both are bereft of conditioning factors.] (Ch. VI. viii). For if Turiya, whose characteristics are dissimilar to those of the Self in the three states, be really different (from the Self), then owing to the absence of any means for realizing Turiya the scriptural instruction would be useless or Turiya will be reduced to a non-entity. On the view, however, that like the rope, imagined variously as a snake etc., the Self, too, though one, is imagined in the three states to be possessed of such attributes as consciousness of the internal world etc., there follows in the Self the cessation of the phenomenal world of misery simultaneously with the valid knowledge arising from the negation of such attributes as being conscious of the internal world; and therefore there remains no need to search for any other means of knowledge or any other discipline (like constant thinking) for the realization of Turiya). This is similar to what happens in the case of the knowledge of the rope where the elimination of the snake from the rope occurs simultaneously with the discrimination between the rope and the snake. [Since along with the discriminating knowledge in the form, This is a rope and not a snake', the cessation of the snake comes simultaneously, one need not search for a separate result to issue out of the direct perception of the rope, or for any other means of its knowledge, or any other aid to it.] On the contrary, by those who hold the view that in the act of knowing a pot, for instance, an instrument of knowledge engages is some other activity in addition to the removal of darkness (from the pot etc.), it may as well be held that in the matter of splitting wood, the act of splitting engages in doing something to one of the two parts in addition to removing the adhesion of the two members. [The objection was: 'The result of applying an instrument of knowledge to any object is the revelation of the object and not the mere removal of any illusion created by darkness or ignorance'. The answer is: 'An instrument of knowledge fufils its purpose by removing the darkness of ignorance from its object. The revelation comes pari passu, as a matter of course. If the instrument of knowledge is supposed to server the additional purpose of adding a fresh feature, like revelation, to its object, then one may as well argue that the cutting of wood aims not only at removing the adhesion of the two parts, but also at adding something to either of the two parts.'] On the other hand, if it is true that the means of knowledge, engaged in distinguishing a jar from the darkness (covering it), fulfils its goal by merely removing the unwanted darkness, just as the act of cutting, aimed at tearing apart the adhesion of the parts of the wood to be split, fully serves its purpose by separating the parts, then the knowledge of the jar emerges immediately; and it is not achieved by any instrument of knowledge. Just as it is here, so in the case of Turiya the instrument of knowledge-which is nothing but a valid knowledge arising from negation and intended to separate such ideas as being 'conscious of the internal world' that are superimposed on the Self-has no other action on Turiya, apart from eliminating the unwanted attributes like being 'conscious of the internal world'; [Turiya is self-effulgent and does not reire to be illumined by any instrument of knowledge.] for simultaneously with the cessation of such attributes as being 'conscious of the internal world.', there comes about the eradication of such distinctions as the knower, (the known, and the knowledge). So also, it will be said, 'Duality ceases to exist after realization' (Karika, I. 18), for knowledge (as a mental state) does not continue for a second moment following that of the cessation of duality. Should it, however, continue, it will lead to infinite regress resulting in non-cessation of duality. [If the knowledge calculated to eliminate duality persists after serving its purpose, some other knowledge will be needed to eliminate it. That other knowledge will again reire a third for a similar purpose, and so on. To avoid this contingency, the final knowledge must be assumed to be self-immolating.] Therefore the conclusion arrived at is that all evils, such as being 'conscious of the internal world', superimposed on the Self, cease simultaneously with the application (i.e. birth) of the instrument (of illumination) which is nothing but a valid knowledge arising from negation (of duality).
By the phrase, 'nantah-prajnam, not conscious of the internal world', is eliminated Taijasa. By 'na bahisprajnam, not conscious of the outside world', is eliminated Visva. By 'na ubhayatah-prajnam, not conscious of either' is ruled out the intermediate state between dream and waking. By 'na prajnanaghanam, not a mass of consciousness' is denied the state of deep sleep, for this consists in a state of latency where everything becomes indistinguishable. By,na prajnam, nor conscious' is denied being aware of all objects simultaneously (by a single act of consciousness). By 'na aprajnam, nor unconscious' is negated insentience.
Objection: Since attributes like being 'conscious of the internal world' are perceived as inhering in the Self, how, again, can they be understood to become non-existent, like the snake etc. in the rope etc., by a mere negation,
The answer is: Since like the imaginary diversities -such as a snake, a like of water etc., superimposed on the rope-the above states (appearing on the Self) mutually rule out each other, though they are in essence one with the witnessing Consciousness, and since the witnessing Consciousness in Its essence is unchanging in all the states, it follows that the witness is ture.
Objection: It changes (i.e. disappears) in deep sleep.
Answer: Not so, for one in deep sleep is cognized (as soaked in Consciousness); [One rising from deep sleep says, 'I slept soundly, and I was not aware of anything'. This memory would not have been possible unless the state was witnessed with the help of Consciousness so as to produce the necessary impressions.] and this is borne out by the Vedic text, 'for the knower's function of knowing can never be lost' (Br. IV. iii. 30).
Hence, It is adrstam, unseen. [Not the object of any sense of knowledge.] Since It is unseen (i.e. uperceived), therefore It is avyavaharyam, beyond empirical dealings; agrahyam, beyond the grasp, of the organs of action; alaksanam, without any logical ground of inference, that is to say, uninferable. Therefore It is acintyam, unthinkable. Hence It is avyapadesyam, indescribable, by words. It is eka-atma-praiyayasaram, to be spotted by the unchanging belief that It is the same Self that subsists in the states of waking and so on. Or, the Turiya that has for Its sara, valid proof, eka atmapratyaya, the single belief in the Self, is the eka-atmapratyaya-sara. And this is in accord with the Vedic text: 'The Self alone is to be meditated upon' (Br. I. iv. 1.1.7।।).
The attributes, such as being 'conscious of the internal world', belonging to the possessors of the states (viz Visva, Taijasa, and Prajna), Tailasa, and Prajna), have been negated. In 'prapancopasamam, the one in whom all phenomena have ceased', etc. are being denied the attributes of the states of waking etc. Hence It is santam, unchanging; [free from love, hatred, etc.] sivam, auspicious. [Absolutely pure; supreme Bliss and Consciousness in essence.] Since It is advaitam, non-dual, free from illusory ideas of difference; therefore, manyante, (they) consider It to be; the Turiya, caturtham, the Fourth, being distinct from the three arters that are mere appearances. 'Sah atma, That is the Self; sah vijneyah, That is to be known'-ths is said to imply that just as the rope is known to be different from the snake, the crack on the ground, or the stick, superimposed on it, similarly, that Self is to be known (as different from the superimposed states)-the Self that is presented in the sentence 'That thou art' (Ch. VI. viii-xvi), and that has been spoken of by such texts as 'He is never seen, but is the witness' (Br. III. vii. 23), 'for the vision of the witness can never be lost' (Br. IV. iii. 23), etc. 'That is to be known'-this is spoken of from the standpoint of the previous state of ignorance, [The Self, defying all description, cannot be known objectively. But since in the state of ignorance one understands knowledge as having objective reference, the text follows that trend of thought here as well.] for on the dawn of knowledge, no duality is left.
8सोऽयमात्माऽध्यक्षरमोंकारोऽधिमात्रं पादा मात्रा मात्राश्च पादा अकार उकारो मकार इतिSah ayam atma, that very Self, which was eated with Om in, 'This Self is possessed of four arters' (Ma. 2), by giving predominance to the object denoted (by Om)-that very Self; adhyaksaram, from the standpoint of the syllable, (is Om) when explained with emphasis on the syllable. Which again is that syllable, That is being stated: Onkarah, it is the syllable Om. That syllable Om, while being divided into arters, is adhimatram, exists on letters as its basis. How, Those which constitute the arters of the Self are the letters of Om. Which are they, They are the letters, a, u, and m.
9जागरितस्थानो वैश्वानरोऽकारः प्रथमा मात्राऽऽप्तेरादिमत्त्वाद्वाऽऽप्नोति ह वै सर्वान्कामानादिश्च भवति य एवं वेदWith regard to these, specific relations are being established. He who is vaisvanarah, Vaisvanara (Virat); jagaritasthanah, with his sphere (of activity) as the waking state; [The Self in the gross individual context (viz Visva) is identical with the Self in the gross cosmic context (viz Vaisvanara or Virat). Similarly, it is to be understood that Taijasa is identical with Hiranyagarbha, and Prajna with the Unmanifested, the difference lying only in the sphere of manifestation. This identity is suggested by the indiscriminate use of these terms in the present and following texts.] is akarah, a; prathama matra, the first letter, of Om. Because of what similarity, That is being said: Apteh, because of pervasiveness. Apti means pervasiveness. By the sound a is pervaded all speech, according to the Vedic text, 'The sound a is indeed all speech' (Ai. A. II. iii. 7: 13). Similarly, by Vaisvanara is pervaded the whole universe, according to the Vedic text, 'Of that very Vaisvanara-Self who is such, heaven indeed is the head' (Ch. V. xviii. 2). And we said that the word and the thing denoted by the word are the same. That which has adi, precedence, is said to be adimat, first. Just as the letter caled a is the first, so also is Vaisvanara. Because of this very similarity Vaisvanara is identified with a. The fruit attained by a knower of this identity is stated: Apnoti ha vai sarvan kaman, he surely attains all desirable things; ca bhavati adih, and he becomes the foremost, among the great; yah evam veda, who knows thus, i.e. knows the identity as stated.
10स्वप्नस्थानस्तैजस उकारो द्वितीया मात्रोत्कर्षादुभयत्वाद्वोत्कर्षति ह वै ज्ञानसंततिं समानश्च भवति नास्याब्रह्मवित्कुले भवति य एवं वेदHe who is taijasah; svapnasthanah, with the state of dream as his sphere; is the dvitya matra, second letter; ukarah, u, of Om. Because of what similarity, That is being said: Utkarsat, because of excellence. The letter u is, as it were, better than the letter a; so also is Taijasa better than Visva. Ubhayatvat va, or (this is so) because of intermediate position. The letter u occurs between the letters a and m; and so also is Taijasa intermediate between Visva and Prajna. (Taijasa is u) because of this similarity of being related to both. The result attained by the knower is being stated: Utkarsati ha vai jnanasantatim, he heightens, that is to say, increases, the current of knowledge; ca bhavati samanah, and he becomes eal-he does not become an object of envy to his enemies, as he is not to his firends. Asya kule, in the line of this one; yah evam veda, who knows thus; na bhavati abrahmavit, none is born who is not a knower of Brahman.
11सुषुप्तस्थानः प्राज्ञो मकारस्तृतीया मात्रा मितेरपीतेर्वा मिनोति ह वा इद्ँ सर्वमपीतिश्च भवति य एवं वेदHe that is prajnah, Prajna; susuptasthanah, with the state of sleep as his sphere; is makarah, the letter m; which is trtiya matra, the third letter, of the syllable Om. By that analogy, That is being said: This is the analogy here-miteh, because of measuring. Miti means to measure. As barely is measured by the vessel called Prastha, so are Visva and Taijasa measured, as it were, because of their entry into and coming out of Prajna during dissolution and orgination. Similarly, too, at the end of the pronunciation of the syllable Om and at the time of its fresh pronunciation, the letters a and u seem to enter into the last letter m, to come out again from it. Va apiteh, or because of absorption. Apiti means getting merged or united in. At the time of the pronunciation of Om, a and u verily seem to get merged into the last letter m. Similarly, Visva and Taijasa merge into Prajna at the time of sleep. Because of this analogy also there is the identity of Prajna and the letter m. The result attained by the man of knowledge is stated: Minoti ha vai idam sarvam, he measures all this, that is to say, he knows the reality of the Universe; ca bhavati apitih, and he becomes the place of absorption, that is to say, the Self in Its state as the cause of the world. The mention of subsidiary result here is by way of praising the primary means.
12अमात्रश्चतुर्थोऽव्यवहार्यः प्रपञ्चोपशमः शिवोऽद्वैत एवमोंकार आत्मैव संविशत्यात्मनाऽऽत्मानं य एवं वेद ।। इति माण्डूक्योपनिषत्संपूर्णा ।।Amatrah, that which has no matra, part-the partless Om; becomes but the caturthah, Fourth, Turiya, merely the absolute Self; which is avyavaharyah, beyond empirical relations, because of the disappearance of names and nameables, that are but forms of speech and mind; prapancopasamah, the culmination of phenomenal existence; [The ultimate limit of the negation of the world.] sivah, the auspicious; and advaitah, non-dual. Evam, thus; Om, as possessed of the three letters and as applied by a man with the above knowledge, is atma eva, verily identical with the Self possessed of three arters. Yah evam veda, he who knows thus; samvisati, enters; atmanam, into (his own supreme) Self; atmana, through (his own) self. The knower of Brahman, who has realized the highest Truth, has entered into the Self by burning away the third state of latency; and hence he is not born again, since Turiya has no latency (of creation). For when a snake superimposed on a rope has merged in the rope on the discrimination of the rope and the snake, it does not appear again to those discriminating poeple, just as before, from the impressions (of the past persisting) in the intellect. To those men of renunciation, however, who are possessed of dull or average intellect, who still consider themselves aspirants, who tread the virtuous path, and who know the common features of the letters and the arters (of Om and the Self) as presented before, (to them) the syllable Om, when meditated on in the proper way, becomes helpful for the realization of Brahman. In support of this it will be said, 'There are three stages of life-inferior,' etc. (Karika, III. 16).