Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad Text 1

PART ONE

TEXT 1
ओमित्येतदक्षरमिदँसर्वं तस्योपव्याख्यानभूतं भवद् भविष्यदिति सर्वमोङ्कार एव।
यच्चान्यत् त्रिकालातीतं तदप्योङ्कार एव ॥ १ ॥

oṁ ity-etad akṣaram idaṁ sarvaṁ tasyopavyākhyānaṁ
bhūtaṁ bhavad bhaviṣyad iti sarvam oṁkāra eva
yacchānyat tri-kālātītaṁ tadapy-oṁkāra eva

Oṁ – this imperishable syllable is the sum of all things. The explanation is this – all that was, all that is, and all that will be in totality, is oṁ. Anything beyond the three phases of time is also oṁ.

Commentary

The Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad is a treatise explaining the nature of the mystic monosyllable oṁ (or praṇava as it also known) and its relation to the entirety of creation. Oṁ is probably the most famous of all mantras and is chanted by Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Śaktas, Śaivites and Vaiṣṇavas. Indeed, much has been written on the meaning of oṁ by various scholars and swamis, and yet many explanations are imbued with abstract ideas and philosophical conjecture. In particular, monist commentators on the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad have chosen to interpret oṁ as denoting an impersonal Absolute, devoid of all form, qualities and potencies. In the words of Swami Bhakti Gaurava Narasiṅgha Mahārāja:

Oṁ is never impersonal at any time – all that can be impersonal about oṁ is the misconception that one chooses to attach to it.

As we will see throughout this commentary, oṁ is in fact the seed of the highest theistic conception known to mankind.

In the first verse of the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad, oṁ is described as akṣara which is generally translated in English to mean ‘syllable’. However, akṣara literally means ‘imperishable’ (na kṣaratīti akṣaraḥ) and all syllables found in Sanskrit are known as akṣaras because they are generated from oṁ, the original akṣara. As such, oṁ is the adyākṣara, or primordial sound vibration from where all other sounds originate. Oṁ is described as imperishable because it is non-different from the Supreme Lord. The great Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava philosopher, Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī has explained this in his Bhagavat Sandarbha:

avatārāntaravat parameśvarasyaiva varṇa-rūpeṇāvatāro’yam iti asminn arthe tenaiva śruti-balenāṅgīkṛte tad-abhedena tat-sambhavāt tasmān nāma-nāminor abheda eva

Like other avatāras, oṁ is an avatāra of the Supreme in the form of syllables. It must be accepted on the strength of the śruti that it is non-different from Him. The name and the named are non-different. (Bhagavat-sandarbha 35)

This is also substantiated by Śrī Prabodhānanda Sarasvatī, another great philosopher in the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava sampradāya, who states in his commentary to the Gopāla Tāpanī Upaniṣad that, ‘praṇava should be considered to be an avatāra of the Lord. Thus, the śruti and smṛti-śāstras state:

oṁ ity etad brahmaṇo nediṣtaṁ nāma

Oṁ is another name of the Supreme. (Ṛg Veda)

tad etad akṣaram brahma

That syllable is the Supreme (Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 2.2)

etad dhyevākṣaraṁ brahma etad dhyevākṣaraṁ param
etad dhyevākṣaraṁ jñātvā yo yadichhati tasya tat

This is the imperishable Absolute Truth. This is the supreme syllable. By knowing this syllable, one attains whatever one desires. (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.16)

oṁ iti brahma

Oṁ is the Supreme. (Taittirīya Upaniṣad 1.8.1)

oṁ ity ekākṣaraṁ brahma

The imperishable monosyllable oṁ is the Supreme. (Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad 33.1, Amṛta-nāda Upaniṣad 21 and Bhagavad-gīta 8.13)

akṣaro’ham oṁkaro’ham ajaro’maro’bhayo’mṛto
brahmabhayam hi vai sa mukto’ham asmi akṣaro ’ham asmi

I am imperishable. I am that oṁ that never grows old, dies, or knows fear. I am eternal. I am that fearless Supreme. Thus, I am liberated and indestructible. (Gopāla Tāpanī Upaniṣad 52)

brahma puruṣaṁ praṇava svarūpam

Oṁ is the form of the Supreme Person. (Nārāyaṇa Upaniṣad 4)

praṇavaḥ sarva vedeṣu

I am oṁ within all the Vedas. (Bhagavad-gītā 7.8)

girām asmy ekam akṣaram

Of sound vibrations, I am oṁ. (Bhagavad-gītā 10.25)

hiraṇyagarbho vedānāṁ mantrāṇāṁ praṇavas tri-vṛt

Of teachers of the Vedas, I am Hiraṇyagarbha, and of mantras I am the three-syllabled oṁ. (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.16.12)

Oṁkāra is also referred to as praṇava, which is defined as, prakarṣeṇa nūyate iti praṇavaḥ (‘that which is highly praised’) and praṇān sarvān paramātmani praṇamayati, etasmāt praṇavaḥ (‘It is called praṇava, because it makes all living beings obey and show respect to the Paramātmā’). In his commentary to the Viṣṇu Sahasra-nāma, Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa interprets praṇava in a number of ways – nitya-nutanatvāt praṇavaḥ (‘Praṇava is He who is eternally young’) and praṇamantīha yaṁ vedās tasmāt praṇava ucyate (‘He whom all the Vedas offer respects to is known as praṇava’). Thus, it is firmly established by the Vedas that praṇava/oṁkāra is identical with the Supreme Person.

The first stanza of the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad tells us, oṁ ity-etad akṣaram idaṁ sarvaṁ – all things are found within the imperishable oṁ. The Bhāgavatam states:

sva-dhāmno brāhmaṇaḥ sākṣād vācakaḥ paramātmanaḥ
sa sarva-mantropaniṣad veda-bījaṁ sanātanam

Oṁkāra indicates Brahman, which is its own shelter, and also indicates Paramātmā. Oṁkāra contains all mantras and Upaniṣads and is the eternal cause of the Vedas. (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 12.6.4)

The commentator, Śrī Raṅga-Rāmānuja, explains that oṁkāra includes all moving and non-moving things within the entire universe (cetanācetanātmakamida jagat). The Sanskrit word sarva is used to indicate ‘everything.’ The Nairguṇya Śruti also explains this:

om-ityākriyate yasmād oṁkāro’sarvataḥ paraḥ
sarvatvam iti pūrṇatvaṁ tan nānyasya hareḥ kvacit

Because everything is created through oṁ, and oṁ is superior to all things, the Supreme is known as oṁkāra. Oṁ denotes Hari because He alone is the totality of all things and is fully complete.

The word sarva is defined in the Mahābhārata:

asataś ca sataś caiva sarvasya prabhavāpyayāt
sarvasya ca sadā jñānāt sarvam enam pracakṣate

Kṛṣṇa is the origin and end of all things, both material and spiritual. He has full knowledge of all beings at all times; thus, He is known as Sarva, or everything. (Mahābhārata, Udyoga-parva 68.11)

From these texts, we can conclude that Kṛṣṇa/Viṣṇu and oṁ are non-different, and the Supreme is ultimately a person with transcendental attributes. He pervades all things in His secondary aspects as the impersonal Brahman and as the localised Super Consciousness known as Paramātmā. Thus, akṣaram idaṁ sarvaṁ should be understood to mean that the imperishable syllable oṁ is non-different from Kṛṣṇa, who is the origin of all things and who pervades the entire creation. Kṛṣṇa also confirms this in the Bhagavad-gītā where He tells Arjuna, ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavo – “I am the original cause of all things.” Through the sound vibration of oṁ, the Supreme Lord manifests the entire cosmos.

pūrvaṁ hyekam evādvitīyaṁ brahmāsīt
tasmād avyaktam avyaktam evākṣaraṁ
tasmād akṣarāt mahat tattvaṁ
mahato vai haṁkāras
tasmād evāhaṁkārāt pañca tan-mātrāṇi
tebhyo bhūtāni tair āvṛtam akṣaraṁ bhavati

Initially there was only the Supreme who is one without a second. From that Supreme came the transcendental and imperishable syllable oṁ. From oṁ came the mahat-tattva (the totality of material energy). From the mahat-tattva came the false ego. From the false ego, the five tanmātras (sense-objects) manifested. From the tanmāntras, the material elements arose. Oṁ became concealed by the elements. (Gopāla Tāpanī Upaniṣad 51)

Everything that we perceive in this world, and even everything that we cannot perceive, is a manifestation of the Supreme. That is not to say that ‘everything is one’ as propounded by impersonalists and new age ideologies. The Supreme Person is sarva-śaktimān, the possessor of all potencies through which He creates, maintains and destroys everything. The potent and the potency are like the sun and the sun’s rays which are simultaneously one and different.

Impersonalist philosophers believe that ultimately there is absolute oneness between the Supreme and His energies, including the jīva-śakti (the living entities). In his commentary to the first verse of Maṇḍūkya Upaniṣad, Ādi Śaṅkara gives the example of the rope and the snake (rajju-sarpa-nyāya). He postulates that the difference between the jīva and Brahman is simply a superimposition (adhyāsa), just as one becomes frightened by mistaking a rope to be a snake in the dark, but in the light, one realises his mistake and all fear disappears. However, in this analogy, there are three individual and distinct entities – the snake, the rope and the observer. One who mistakes a rope for a snake must have had prior experience of a real snake. Due to his experience of snakes and an incorrect perception due to the dark, he mentally superimposes the impression of a snake upon the rope. One who has absolutely no experience of snakes can never make such a blunder.

Furthermore, who is the observer? It cannot be Brahman because, according to the Vedas, He is always situated in knowledge (satyaṁ jñānam anantaṁ brahma) and ignorance would be in direct opposition to His omniscient nature. It cannot be the individual jīva, because according to Ādi Śaṅkara, the jīva is non-different from Brahman. If Brahman and the jīva are of one and the same nature, how can one be situated in full knowledge and the other in total ignorance? There can be no existence of an ‘other’ in the monism of Ādi Śaṅkara because the phenomenon of individual observation and experience in itself is an illusion.

According to the Vedas, the relationship between the Lord and the jīvas is called sajātīya-bheda (two things with similarity). For example, a mango tree and an apple tree are different according to the fruit they produce, but both are classified as trees. Similarly, the individual jīvas and the Supreme Lord are comparable in their spiritual nature, but are also intrinsically different. One is anu (possessing finite characteristics) and the other is vibhu (possessing infinite characteristics). Impersonalists try to eliminate sajātīya-bheda, and claim that ultimately, everything is an impersonal homogeneous mass of consciousness with no individual identity. They declare that the jīva is originally Brahman and only thinks himself to be an individual entity due to the influence of māyā (the illusory potency of the Supreme). As soon as the covering of māyā is removed, the jīva understands that he is the Supreme and merges back into Brahman, the impersonal Absolute.

This theory is untenable for a number of reasons. Firstly, the impersonalists claim that Brahman is desireless (nirāśiḥ), immutable (nirvikāra) and inactive (niḥśakti). They then state that māyā covers Brahman who then becomes divided into the unlimited jīvas within this creation – but by whose desire does māyā become active? It cannot be the desire of the impersonal Brahman because according to the impersonalists, Brahman is devoid of desire. Even if it were the desire of Brahman to divide Himself into all the jīvas, then how does He remain untransformed? If, however, it is His māyā potency that possesses desire, then māyā becomes His competitor by placing Him in illusion. In other words, He comes under the control of His own energy and can no longer be considered as Supreme. If māyā becomes a secondary principle to Brahman, the very concept of non-dualism is totally contradicted. Their flawed conception of the Absolute advocates that He is an abstract, static, attributeless void, without any empathy for His creation. In the mind of the impersonalist, such an Absolute cannot be comprehended. However, if the Absolute cannot make Himself known to others, He cannot be Absolute. According to the Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, He can be understood, and He is comprehended in three phases.

vadanti tat tattva-vidas tattvaṁ yaj jñānam advayam
brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate

The seers that know the Absolute Truth call this non-dual substance Brahman, Paramātmā or Bhagavān. (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 1.2.11)

The highest conception of the Absolute Truth is His personal aspect known as Bhagavān, the possessor of all transcendental attributes. Bhagavān is defined thus in the Viṣṇu Purāṇa:

aiśvaryasya samāgrasya vīryasya yaśasaḥ śrīyaḥ
jñāna vairāgyayos caiva ṣannāṁ bhaga itīṅganā

He that possesses the attributes of sovereignty, potency, fame, wealth, knowledge and renunciation in full is known as Bhagavān. (Viṣṇu Purāṇa 6.5.74)

utpattim pralayam caiva bhūtānām āgatiṁ gatim
vetti vidyām avidyāṁ ca sa vācyo bhagavān iti

He that knows the creation and destruction of the universe, the comings and goings of all living beings, and also knowledge and ignorance is known as Bhagavān. (Viṣṇu Purāṇa 6.5.78)

jñāna śakti balāiśvarya vīrya tejasāṁsy-aśeṣataḥ
bhagavāc-cabda vācyāni vinā heyair guṇādibhiḥ

The word Bhagavān denotes one who possesses unlimited knowledge, potency, strength, opulence, heroism and splendour and is devoid of all negative qualities. (Viṣṇu Purāṇa 6.5.79)

The other two phases of the Supreme are Paramātmā and Brahman. Paramātmā is the intermediate aspect of the Supreme who is the sub-atomic Super Consciousness that resides within the hearts of all living beings. Paramātmā is the overseer and the authoriser of all activities performed by the individual jīvas. Brahman, the impersonal aura of Bhagavān, is the most preliminary conception of the Supreme. Brahman is aspired for by the impersonalists who meditate on Him and attempt to lose their individual existence by merging into the light of Brahman.

It is important to note that the word ‘Brahman’ is contextual and does not always denote the impersonal aspect of the Supreme. According to theistic commentators on the Vedas, Vedānta and Upaniṣads, Brahman is also an epithet for Bhagavān. The śruti states:

atha kasmād ucyate brahmeti bṛhanto hyasmin guṇāḥ

Why is He referred to as Brahman? Because infinitely expanding qualities are found within Him.

Madhva writes in his commentary on Vedānta-sūtra, brahma śabdāś ca viṣṇāveva (‘The word ‘brahman’ denotes Viṣṇu’). Śrī Rāmānujācārya also presents the following definition:

brahma-śabdena ca svabhāvato nirasta nikhila-doṣa anavadhi-kātiśaya-asaṅkhyeya-kalyāṇa-guṇa-gaṇaḥ puruṣottamo abhidiyate

The word brahman signifies Puruṣottama, the Supreme Person, who is completely devoid of all imperfections and possesses infinite auspicious qualities of unsurpassable excellence. (Śrī Bhāṣya 1.1.1)

In Sanskrit grammar, brahman is a neuter word and monists seize upon this in an attempt to prove that the Supreme is ultimately impersonal. However, theistic philosophers point out that in order to clarify that the Lord is neither male nor female in the conventional sense of our worldly experience, a neuter term is employed in the Upaniṣads.

sa vai na devāsura-martya-tiryaṅ
na strī na ṣaṇḍho na pumān na jantuḥ

The Supreme is not a demigod, a demon, a human, an animal, female, neuter, male or any other living being. (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 8.3.24)

nainaṁ vācā striyaṁ bruvan nainam astrīpumān bruvan
pumāṁsaṁ na bruvan nenaṁ vadati vadan kaścana

No one can speak of the Supreme as a woman, as a man or neuter. (Aitreya Āraṇyaka 2.3.8)

The Supreme Lord is incomparable to any personality in this world – male, female or otherwise. Thus, He is known as Puruṣottama, the Supreme Personality. Technically speaking however, Kṛṣṇa/Viṣṇu is categorised as puruṣa-tattva, the active transcendental male principle because everything ultimately generates from Him. All other beings are technically female, despite any external signs of masculinity, because they are eternally subservient to the puruṣa-tattva. He is the Predominator and all other creatures are predominated.

sa eva vāsudevo’sau sākṣāt puruṣa ucyate
strī-prāyam itarat sarvaṁ jagat brahma-puras-saram

Vāsudeva alone is spoken of directly as the male principle. All others throughout the entire universe, from Brahmā down, are related to him as the female principle. (Viṣṇu Dharma)

The next line of the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad reads, bhūtaṁ bhavad bhaviṣyad iti sarvam oṁkāra eva yacchānyat tri-kālātītaṁ tadapy-oṁkāra eva – ‘All that was, all that is, and all that will be in totality, is oṁ. Anything beyond the three phases of time is also oṁ.’ Time, which consists of innumerable units, is the operative principle of all material modifications – especially in regards to creation, sustenance and annihilation. However, time is only active within the finite world and effects the conditioned living beings, subjecting them to birth, death, old age and disease. The Supreme Lord transcends all physical laws including the time factor. Raṅga-Rāmānuja explains in his commentary that the Lord is not limited by time:

kāla-traya-paricchinnaṁ kāla-trayāparicchinnam ca sarvam oṁkāra evetyarthaḥ

All things limited and even unlimited by the three stages of time are all oṁkāra.

Because He is the Controller of all living beings in existence, it is naturally concluded that He has always existed in the past, He exists in the present and He will always exist in the future. The Mahābhārata states that He is the Lord of all three states of time:

bhūta bhavya bhavan nāthaḥ keśavaḥ keśi-sūdanaḥ

Keśava (Śrī Kṛṣṇa), the destroyer of the Keśi demon, is the Lord of past, present and future. (Mahābhārata, Sabhā-parva 2.11)

Atheists sometimes ask the question, “If God created the universe, who created God?” Firstly, such an illogical query is self-defeating because it already presupposes the existence of a supreme being – the only real question here is His origin. From the Vedic perspective, any question regarding the origin of the Supreme is redundant because the question of origins only arises when dealing with matter. Since the Supreme is beyond matter, such a question is irrelevant. He is anādi (beginningless) and is described as svīkriyate svodbhavāya kiñcit aparam nimitta kāraṇam anena so anādiḥ (‘He that is self-existent, who needs no other cause for His existence and is therefore referred to as beginningless’). Consequently, not only is He beginningless, but He is also endless (yasya ādi-nidhanam nāsti sa anādi-nidhanaḥ – One for whom there is neither beginning nor end).

Although impersonalists try to equate oṁ, the Supreme and the jīvas as one homogeneity, this first verse clearly states that oṁ (the Supreme Lord) is beyond the three phases of time – a claim that cannot stand in relation to the conditioned living beings of this world, who are constantly assaulted by time. Neither can it refer to those who have already achieved liberation because, prior to their release from this world, they were also under the influence of the time factor.

• 📚 Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad Series
• 📚 Ṭhākura Bhaktivinoda and the Gītā Series
• Bhakti Siddhānta (Devotional Conclusions) by Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura
• Ṭhākura Bhaktivinoda and the Gītā – Part 1 by Śrīla Śrīdhara Mahārāja
• The Secret of the Destruction of Devaki’s Six Unborn Children by Śrīla B.P. Purī Mahārāja
• Kṛṣṇa – The Supreme Vedāntist by Śrīla A.C. Bhaktivedānta Swami Prabhupāda
• Gītā-Govinda of Jayadeva Gosvāmī by Śrīla Bhakti Gaurava Narasiṅgha Mahārāja
• Gīta Govinda Revisited by Śrīla Bhakti Gaurava Narasiṅgha Mahārāja
• The Literalist by Śrīla Bhakti Gaurava Narasiṅgha Mahārāja
• Advaita Prakāśa Reviewed by Swami B.V. Giri
• The Heart-Pursuit and the Head-Pursuit by Gaura Gopāla Dāsa

• An Assembly to Preserve the Bhakti Śāstra by Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura
• Śrī Dayānanda Sarasvatī and the Tantra Śāstra by Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura
• The Essence of the Ten Foundational Principles by Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura
• Śrīmad Bhāgavatam Daśa Mūla by Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura
• Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta Daśa Mūla by Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura
• Āmnāya Daśa Mūla by Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura
• Bhagavad-gītā Daśa Mūla by Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura
• The Secret of the Lord’s Appearance According to the Gītā by Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura
• The Vedānta Philosophy by Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura
• Philosophical Treatise by Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura
• The Bhagavat – It’s Philosophy It’s Ethics and It’s Theology by Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura
• Preface to Śrī Kṛṣṇa Karṇāmṛta by Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura
• Introduction to Śrī Kṛṣṇa Vijaya by Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura
• A Question and Answer Concerning Śrī Kṛṣṇa Saṁhitā by Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura
• Vedānta Śāstra by Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura
• ‘Śrī Muralī Vilāsa’ by Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura
• Samālocana (A Critique) by Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura