Mandukya K2:12 Medley

Generally the theory of Māṇḍūkya-upaniṣad or the thesis developed in the Kārikā is that the seemingly created world is a mere delusion, unreal and illusory in all the three periods of time.

Gauḍapāda has condescended to descend to our level of perception and recognising therein a pluralistic world, has explained to us how it must have risen up from our own delusions.

The answer is whoever is projecting the dream world is the same one that projects the waking world also. The dreamer does not need anything else external to himself other than nidrā-śakti for projecting the dream world.

The dreamer starts his career the moment he forgets himself. This capacity to forget himself and to project outward into a world of experienced objects is not a faculty that has reached him from anywhere else but it is an inherent capacity.

Therefore, ātmā alone projects out of itself the waking world with the help of ātmā itself. Other than māyā-śakti, ātmā does not need anything else for this projection. Where does māyā come from? Gauḍapāda says that it is already there in ātmā similar to the nidrā-śakti.

It is like the imagining of a snake in a rope. It is the Self that imagines both the snake and its perceiver. This Self is the substratum of both knowledge and memory. Therefore the conclusion of Vedanta is quite unlike the view of certain nihilists.

Vedanta is not solipsism. The individual ego does not create the universe. Both come into existence together. The jiva, Isvara, and the world, all conjured up by maya, last as long as maya lasts.

The projection does not amount to duality, because it has no effect on the Self, just as a movie has no impact on the screen. So we say that the Self is an experienceless experiencer, or a non-experiencing witness. 

When the Self-realized Self experiences objects, it knows that the objects are a projection and that the projection depends on it, so it knows that it is only ever experiencing itself, with or without the presence of objects.

Finally, Gaudapada says "this is the conclusion of Vedanta,” meaning it is not his conclusion, although he has fully assimilated Vedanta’s conclusion.

~text from quotes of Chinmayananda, Nikhilananda, Paramarthananda, Swartz (see The Famous MK2.12: Some Translations & Commentaries for each quote's context)

The Famous MK2.12: Some Translations & Commentaries

"This stanza is very famous in our literature and is, therefore, often quoted by authors, orators and philosophers."

kalpayaty-ātmanātmānam-ātmā devaḥ sva-māyayā, sa eva budhyate bhedān-iti vedānta-niścayaḥ. (12)

कल्पयति – imagines, projects; आत्मना – by itself; आत्मानम् – Self in itself; देवः आत्मा – the self-effulgent Self; स्वमायया – through its own delusion (māyā); सः – that (Self); एव – also; बुध्यते – experiences; भेदान् – the objects; इति – thus; वेदान्त-निश्चयः – definite conclusion of Vedānta

12. This is the definite conclusion of the philosophy of Vedānta that the Ᾱtman, the self-luminous, through the power of its own delusion (māyā) imagines in Itself by Itself all the objects, and Its individual experiences both in the world outside and within. It alone is the knower of the objects so created.

Here, In this stanza, for the first time, Gauḍapāda has come down to provide us with at least an explanation for the pluralistic world that we cognise in our waking state. Generally the theory of Māṇḍūkya-upaniṣad or the thesis developed in the Kārikā is that the seemingly created world is a mere delusion, unreal and illusory in all the three periods of time. But at rare moments, even Gauḍapāda has condescended to descend to our level of perception and recognising therein a pluralistic world, has explained to us how it must have risen up from our own delusions.

Translations & commentary: Chinmayananda

12. The self-effulgent Self imagines Itself through Itself by the power of Its own Māyā. The Self Itself cognises the objects. Such is the definite conclusion of Vedānta.

Svamayaya, through Its own Maya; devaḥ ātmā, the self-effulgent Self, Itself; kalpayati, imagines; Its own ātmānam, self; in the Self; as possessed of different forms to be spoken of later, just as snakes etc. are imagined on rope etc. And in the very same way It Itself budhyate, cognises; those bhedan, objects; iti, such; is vedantaniścayaḥ, the definite conclusion of Vedānta. There is nothing else (but the Self) as the support of cognition and memory; nor are cognition and memory without support as is held by the Nihilists. This is the idea.

~Gaudapada with Shankara’s commentary (tr-Gambhirananda)

The self-luminous Atman, by Its own maya, conjures up the imagination of the different objects seen to exist outside in the relative world, and also their cognizer, the individual self. It is like the imagining of a snake in a rope. It Is the Self that imagines both the snake and its perceiver. This Self is the substratum of both knowledge and memory. Therefore the conclusion of Vedanta is quite unlike the view of certain Buddhist nihilists. Again, Vedanta is not solipsism. The individual ego does not create the universe. Both come into existence together. The one cannot be conceived of without the other. Both the ego and the non-ego appear out of the mind of Isvara when the Knowledge of Reality is veiled by ignorance. The jiva, Isvara, and the world, all conjured up by maya, last as long as maya lasts.

~Nikhilananda

The answer is whoever is projecting the dream world is the same one that projects the waking world also. Therefore, ātmā alone projects out of itself the waking world with the help of ātmā itself. Other than māyā-śakti, ātmā does not need anything else for this projection. The dreamer does not need anything else external to himself other than nidrā-śakti for projecting the dream world. In the same way, ātmā does not require anything other than māyā-śakti to project this world. Where does māyā come from? Gauḍapāda says that it is already there in ātmā similar to the nidrā-śakti.

~Paramarthananda

The projection does not amount to duality, because it has no effect on the Self, just as a movie has no impact on the screen. The Self is subtler than Maya, “subtler than the subtlest,” the scripture says. Finally, he [Gaudapada] says “…this is the conclusion of Vedanta,” meaning it is not his conclusion, although he has fully assimilated Vedanta’s conclusion. Because the Self is not an object of experience and words only refer to objects, we are forced to use words with reference to the Self, which need to be contextualized to be understandable. So we say that the Self is an experienceless experiencer, or a non-experiencing witness. The simple logic is: (1) there is only the Self, (2) experience exists, (3) so the only experiencer is the Self. When Maya is operating, it seems as if the Self is modified, but it is unaffected by what it experiences, just as a video camera is unaffected by events it records.

~Swartz

MK2.12 Medley

Generally the theory of Māṇḍūkya-upaniṣad or the thesis developed in the Kārikā is that the seemingly created world is a mere delusion, unreal and illusory in all the three periods of time. ~C

Gauḍapāda has condescended to descend to our level of perception and recognising therein a pluralistic world, has explained to us how it must have risen up from our own delusions. ~C

The answer is whoever is projecting the dream world is the same one that projects the waking world also. The dreamer does not need anything else external to himself other than nidrā-śakti for projecting the dream world. ~P

The dreamer starts his career the moment he forgets himself. This capacity to forget himself and to project outward into a world of experienced objects is not a faculty that has reached him from anywhere else but it is an inherent capacity. ~C

Therefore, ātmā alone projects out of itself the waking world with the help of ātmā itself. Other than māyā-śakti, ātmā does not need anything else for this projection. Where does māyā come from? Gauḍapāda says that it is already there in ātmā similar to the nidrā-śakti. ~P

It is like the imagining of a snake in a rope. It is the Self that imagines both the snake and its perceiver. This Self is the substratum of both knowledge and memory. Therefore the conclusion of Vedanta is quite unlike the view of certain nihilists. ~N

Vedanta is not solipsism. The individual ego does not create the universe. Both come into existence together. The jiva, Isvara, and the world, all conjured up by maya, last as long as maya lasts. ~N

The projection does not amount to duality, because it has no effect on the Self, just as a movie has no impact on the screen. So we say that the Self is an experienceless experiencer, or a non-experiencing witness. ~S

When the Self-realized Self experiences objects, it knows that the objects are a projection and that the projection depends on it, so it knows that it is only ever experiencing itself, with or without the presence of objects. ~S

Finally, Gaudapada says "this is the conclusion of Vedanta,” meaning it is not his conclusion, although he has fully assimilated Vedanta’s conclusion. ~S

Sacred Crossing

1. the current dream

The waking state is just the current dream. Between each dream is a deep sleep.

Every dream thinks it's the current dream within parameters of its dreaming.

All dreams appear in turiya. Before realization, maya. After realization, maya. Chop wood, carry water.

2. follow the consciousness

A dream is an appearance in the mind. The mind is an appearance in consciousness. 

Consciousness is beyond the mind. Thinking otherwise is the definition of infinite regression.

Reflected consciousness consists of space, time, and consciousness. Follow the consciousness.

3. a most sacred math

Consciousness is the middle name of satcitananda. Existence, consciousness, and bliss are nondual.

Ignorance is the key to samsara. All keys are double-edged swords, my brothers and sisters.

I Minus Avidya Is That Minus Maya. This is a most sacred math. Use with caution.

Talks on Mandukya K2.1-6: Dreaming Up a Waking State

In the first chapter of his Karika, Gaudapada reduces the Mandukya’s three states of reflected consciousness into two: sleeping and dreaming. All three states are asleep, and waking is dreaming too. In the beginning of his next Prakarana on unreality, he quickly explains the logic of such a conflation.

First, and most obvious, he lists the reasons why dreams aren’t real, for the sake of pure argument. From the point of view of our waking state in this space-time continuum, there’s not enough of either in the body-mind for elephants and trips around the world. Also sruti says so.

Next, Gaudapada blows our collective minds. Because things are experienced in the waking state as things are experienced in a dream state, the act of experience is not a confirmation of some waking objective reality, as most assume, but proof that the waking state is just another state of dreaming.

Just as the dream world is in and of the mind, the waking world is in and of consciousness. Impermanence too. Just as the individual in the dream is dependent on the body-mind for its existence, the individual mind is dependent on consciousness for its reality. Consciousness is independent existence.

Mandukya K1 TOC

Mandukya 2025 Agama Prakarana Table of Contents

• Talks on Mandukya 2-6
• Mandukya 7 word by word
• 11 Translations of Mandukya 7
• My Mandukya 7
• Talks on Mandukya 7
• Talks on MK1.11-15
• Talking Realization: Transcreating Gaudapada's MK 1.15-18
• My Mandukya Paraverse
• My Favorite Advaitic English Translations of the Mandukya Upanishad with Gaudapada's Karika for 2025
• Mandukya 9-11 Aum Associations Chart
• Mandukya 12 Word-by-word, Translations & Commentaries
• Talks on Mandukya 12
• The Perfect Name: Aum is the Lower and Higher Brahman: Translation and Commentaries on K1.26
• Talks on K1.24-29

Talks on Mandukya K1.24-29

The four quarters of Aum are not to be known as vehicles but the four tenors themselves.

As if the sound of A is the actual waking state; U, the actual dreaming state; M, the actual deep sleep state.

And most notably, the real silence following and swallowing Aum is the witness consciousness, Turiya.

Aum is beginningless and that silence, timeless. Aum is an infinity of sounds appearing in the soundless.

Aum is God. That silence is Parabrahman. The one who knows Aum this way is the real sage.

The Perfect Name: Aum is the Lower and Higher Brahman: Translation and Commentaries on K1.26

Praṇavo - Oṁkāra

hyaparaṁ - indeed

Brahma – lower Brahman

praṇavaś-ca - and Oṁkāra

paraḥ - the higher (Brahman)

smṛtaḥ - is known;

apūrvo - without any cause preceding It

’nantaro - without inside

’bāhyo - without outside

’naparaḥ - without effect

praṇavo – Oṁkāra

’vyayah - without decay

26. Aum is verily the lower Brahman and it is also declared to be supreme Brahman. Praṇava is without any cause preceding it, without subsequent manifestation, without anything inside and outside, unrelated to any effect and changeless.

~Gaudapada (tr-Chinmayananda)

Commentary

Besides Gauḍapāda, Vasiṣṭha and others, the orthodox or the old school of advaitins in Vedānta, there is a modern school which allows for the perceived world a relative Reality. They call the multiple phenomenal world as the lower Brahman, which is the supreme Reality seemingly manifested through properties, actions, qualites and so on. The lower Brahman provides the idol for the worship of the upāsakas in Vedānta; the lower Brahman became saguṇa Brahman in later language of Vedānta. The old school of Vedānta mainly started and led by Gauḍapāda and Vasiṣṭha, does not accept the lower Brahman and insists on saying that the manifestation has never taken place.

On the contrary, the modern school of Vedānta founded by Śaṅkara and his followers, does permit a relative Reality for the manifested world. This is not because Śaṅkara believed that the pluralistic world is, in any sense real. In practice these two schools are not propounding mutually competing theories, but, in fact, they play a complementary role to each other. Śaṅkara’s attempt is to guide the sādhaka in and through the manifested realities to the unmanifest and the eternal Truth.

~Chinmayananda

Lower Brahman—That is, the Brahman which is looked upon as the cause of the universe. The dull and mediocre intellect should meditate upon Aum as described in the first line of Karika. The second line describes the soundless aspect of Aum or the Turiya Atman which can be understood only by one possessing the keenest intellect.

~Nikhilananda

From the 25th kārikā, he replaced the word Oṅkāra by the word praṇava. This word is not used in the Upaniṣad. Praṇava is a synonym for Oṅkāra that is used in the other Upaniṣads. The meaning of praṇava is perfect name, ideal name, or suitable name. For Brahman or God the ideal name is Oṅkāra. That is why Oṅkāra is called praṇava. God is one and OM is one syllable.

The Oṅkāra represents saguṇa Brahman. The silent part represents the nirguṇa Brahman. Nirguṇa Brahman is without a cause and an effect, without any second thing internally or externally, and without degeneration or declension. Oṅkāra can be used for saguṇa or nirguṇa dhyānam.

~Paramarthananda

Consciousness in Triplet

There are three states of everyday consciousness. There are many states of altered consciousness but they're not everyday. Such states of altered consciousness are more like holy days.

Beneath these three states is the ground. This ground is called the fourth from the point of view of the everyday. From the point of view of the Holy Mandukya, that ground is I.

If God is reflected consciouness, Maya is its mirror. Pure consciousness is not a mirror. Witness consciousness is like a movie screen. A mirror is appearing on that silver screen. How marvelous!

Talks on Mandukya 12

The Mandukya Upanishad consists of two parts: an inquiry into Atman (culminating in the magnificent 7th mantra) and an inquiry into Aum, into which the two are merging in its glorious 12th and last mantra.

And this 12th mantra is ending such a revelation with the Sanskrit, atmanatmanam: the Self merging into the Self. Like the water of the waves merging into the water of the sea, there is nothing but the Self.

It’s like the tenors and the mediums of Aum falling into the silence of Turiya. If deep sleep is the relative silence of the absence of duality, Turiya is the causeless silence of the presence of nonduality.

Mandukya 12 Word-by-word, Translations, & Commentaries

Chinmayananda's romanization word-by-word:

amātraś-caturtho-‘vyavahāryaḥ prapañcopaśamaḥ śivo-‘dvaita evam-oṅkāra ātmaiva saṁviśaty-ātmanātmānaṁ ya evaṁ veda.

Amātraś: the partless;

Caturtho: fourth (turīya);

Vyavahāryaḥ: beyond empirical transactions;

Prapañcopaśamaḥ: free from universe;

Śivo-‘dvaita: auspicious non-dual;

Evam-oṅkāra: thus Oṅkāra;

Ātmaiva: Self alone;

Saṁviśaty: enters, merges;

Ātmanātmānaṁ: through (his own) self into (his own supreme) Self;

Ya evaṁ veda: that thus who knows.

Translations:

That which has no parts, the soundless, the cessation of all phenomena, all blissful and non-dual Aum, is the fourth, and verily it is the same as the Ᾱtman. He, who knows this, merges his self in the supreme Self, the individual in the total. 

~Chinmayananda

The Fourth (Turiya) is without parts and without relationship; It is the cessation of phenomena; It is all good and non-dual. This Aum is verily Atman. He who knows this merges his self in Atman—yea, he who knows this.

~Nikhilananda

Turīya is the Silence, which is beyond transactions, free from the world, auspicious, and non-dual. Thus Oṅkāra is the very ātmā. One who knows thus enters the ātmā by himself.

~Paramarthananda

The Self is the Silence beyond transactions, free from the world, auspicious and non-dual. Thus Omkara is the very Self. One who knows this enters the Self by the Self.

~Swartz

That which has no part the partless Om; becomes but the Fourth, Turiya, merely the absolute Self; which is beyond empirical relations, because of the disappearance of names and nameables, that are but forms of speech and mind; the culmination of phenomenal existence; the auspicious; and non-dual. thus; Om, as possessed of the three letters and as applied by it man with the above knowledge, verily identical with the Self possessed of three quarters. he who knows thus; enters; into his own Self; 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).

~Shankara (tr-Gambhirananda)

Commentaries:

When we talk about the equation of silence and Turīyaṃ, the word silence has a special connotation. It is not the conventional silence. Silence here has a special meaning. The conventional silence, absence of sound, should not be taken as Turīyaṃ.

This should not be equated to Turīyaṃ for two reasons. The first reason is that the conventional silence is taken to mean a mere absence of sound or noise and thus it is a negative entity. Absence is not a positive entity. If this negative description is applied to Turīyaṃ, one will end up with the Buddhist śūnyavāda teaching that the ultimate truth is emptiness.

The second reason is that the conventional silence is experienced only when the sound has disappeared. In the arrival of sound, conventional silence goes away and vice-versa. Conventional silence is a relative entity subject to arrival and departure. Comparison with conventional silence will make Turīyaṃ a relative entity.

Thus amātrā, Silence should not be taken as the relative silence. When you experience silence externally, it is the absence of sound and when thoughts and disturbances are absent in the mind, you experience internal silence, blankness. When you experience internal silence and there is internal blankness, is there only blankness?

Other than that blankness, there is something else, because of which you are aware of the blankness. If the silence is experienced and known by me, it means that there is a knowing consciousness principle that pervades the silence.

~Paramarthananda

In this way the mind “merges into” witness consciousness. If reality is non-dual, the “merger” is like the merger of water into water, not the merger of salt into water, meaning liberation is the removal of ignorance of one’s identity, not the gaining of a new identity or the dissolution of an existent identity. A jiva cannot “dissolve” into consciousness, because it is not real in the first place and there is no experiential access to consciousness, insofar as it is non-dual. It cannot exist as something else, because the existence it enjoys is existence itself. 

~Swartz

Just as in the previous mantras we have been given promises of the benefits which the meditator would gain through such meditations on Aum, here also the Guru informs the disciple that on meditating regularly upon the silent aspect of Aum, the individual self, meaning the egoistic idea of separativeness in us, gets merged into the divine experience of the all-soul, the eternal and the immortal.

~Chinmayananda

Those who know Brahman, those who realise the Highest Reality merge into Self, because in their case the notion of the cause which corresponds to the third quarter (of Atman) is destroyed (burnt). They are not born again, because Turlya is not a cause. For, the illusory snake which has merged in the rope on the discrimination of the snake from the rope, does not reappear as before, to those who know the distinction between them, by any effort of the mind (due to the previous impressions). 

~Shankara (tr-Nikhilananda)

It may be contended that like a man coming back to the realm of duality having experienced deep sleep, the knower of Self who has identified himself with Turiva may also come back to the illusory universe, for Prajna and Turiya are identical having a common feature of the perception of non-duality. This contention is without ground, because Turiya is not a cause.. Hence it cannot give rise to the world of illusory experience. Unlike Prajna it is beyond all relations of cause and effect. Therefore one who has identified himself with Turiya can never see the illusion of the manifold.

~Nikhilananda commenting on above