Summary: 

---

MANDUKYA INVOCATION VERSE

भद्रं कर्णेभिः शृणुयाम देवाः । भद्रं पश्येमाक्षभिर्यजत्राः । स्थिरैरङ्गैस्तुष्टुवांसस्-तनूभिः व्यशेम देवहितं यदायुः ।

bhadraṃ karṇebhiḥ śṛṇuyāma devāḥ | bhadraṃ paśyemākṣabhiryajatrāḥ | sthirairaṅgaistuṣṭuvāṃsas-tanūbhiḥ vyaśema devahitaṃ yadāyuḥ |

स्वस्ति न इन्द्रो वृद्धश्रवाः। स्वस्ति नः पूषा विश्ववेदाः। स्वस्ति नस्तार्क्ष्यो अरिष्टनेमिः । स्वस्ति नो बृहस्पतिर्-दधातु। ओं शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ॥

svasti na indro vṛddhaśravāḥ| svasti naḥ pūṣā viśvavedāḥ| svasti nastārkṣyo ariṣṭanemiḥ | svasti no bṛhaspatir-dadhātu| oṃ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ ||

Devāḥ – Oh Gods; karṇebhiḥ – with our ears; bhadram – auspicious; śṛṇuyāma – may we listen; yajatrāḥ – Oh Yajatras; akṣabhiḥ – with eyes; bhadram – auspicious; paśyema – may we see; sthiraiḥ – with healthy; aṅgaiḥ – organs; tanūbhiḥ – by the bodies; tuṣṭuvāṃsaḥ – praising; yadāyuḥ – the full life given; devahitam – for good of devas; vyaśema – may we engage;

vṛddhaśravāḥ – exalted (famous); indraḥ – God Indra; naḥ – to us; svasti (dadhātu) – may give well being; viśvavedāḥ – the all knowing; pūṣā – sun; naḥ – to us; svasti (dadhātu) – may give well being; ariṣṭanemiḥ – one for whom there are no obstacles in movement; tārkṣyaḥ – Garuḍa; naḥ – to us; svasti (dadhātu) – may give well being; bṛhaspati – Bṛhaspati; naḥ – to us; svasti – well being; dadhātu – may give; oṃ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ – let there be peace, peace, peace.

Oh Gods! May we always hear with our ears what is auspicious. Oh Yajatras! May we always see with our eyes what is auspicious. May we live, with healthy limbs and bodies, our full life span, praising the devatās and doing good to please them. May Indra of great fame, the all-knowing and nourishing Sun, Garuḍa, the one who knows no obstacles in his flight and Bṛhaspati, the protector of our intellect bless us with well-being and auspiciousness. Om Peace Peace Peace.

“May we always hear with our ears what is auspicious” (bhadraṃ karṇebhiḥ śṛṇuyāma devāḥ):

You’ll hear what you hear where chosen to be. And so much time is wasted hearing inconsequential things. Reason why we want to hear others suffering is it gives satisfaction that I’m not the only one. Instead, let me take initiative to listen to wellbeing enhancing perspectives & ideas.

The highest auspicious you can hear is hearing you’re the whole – the truth about yourself, coming out of your small universe.

Additionally, one hearing is not enough – frequent and repeated teaching is necessary. This is not a sign that you are slow. Repeated exposure is what produces a genuinely contemplative mind.

“May we always see with our eyes what is auspicious” (bhadram paśyema akṣabhiḥ yajatrāḥ)

Let me see auspicious things. This isn’t seeing everyone as love. But not adding my colouring onto things.

Two types of coloring:

1) Coloring at the subjective level:

We mistake the rope for a snake. Auspicious vision here means seeing the rope (world) for what it is – not replacing the snake with a golden chain (positive thinking), but actually seeing the rope. Projecting personal stuff onto the world, produces suffering. Suffering the is the distance between what you see, and what an object actually is.

And this suffering is not unique to you. For example, we all mix up who we are (as basic human being) with what we feel, what we look like, what we think. “I am anxious. I am ugly. I am stupid.”

The śāstra says this is not a personal problem – it is the universal human condition, the common disease of all jīvas. The śāstra only treats universal diseases, not personal ones. The fact that your deepest confusion is shared by every single person, means it can be addressed.

If identity issue were purely personal and subjective, no solution would exist – you'd need a separate shastra for each individual. 

2) Coloring at the empirical level:

This colouring isn't done by your mind.

Objectivity that stops at the rope is still limited vision. Once the snake is gone, you are left with rope – but what is rope made of? The highest auspicious vision is seeing that all that is here is OM. This is not poetry. When you say a wave is the ocean, you are not pretending the wave isn't there – you are seeing what it is actually made of (it’s made of the same material cause that makes up the ocean).

Thus seeing all that is here is OM (sarvam brahman) is not reached by erasing what you see, but by seeing it all the way through.

The rope doesn't disappear. You simply stop adding what isn't there – first the snake, then the independent existence of the rope itself.

The śāstra calls this bādhāyāṁ sāmānādhikaraṇyam – identity through understanding, not through denial.

“May we live, with healthy limbs and bodies, our full life span, praising the devatās and doing good to please them” (sthiraiḥ aṅgaiḥ tuṣṭuvāṃsaḥ tanūbhiḥ vi aśema devahitam yat āyuḥ)

Asking for a healthy brain, and limbs. If I keep loading my body, not moving it, it’ll become obstacle to mind.

A long life gives the teaching time to do its work:

You can have the best flour, the best yeast, the right temperature – but if you don't give it enough time, you just have a lump of dough. Nothing has gone wrong. The ingredients are all correct. But the process cannot be rushed.

In the same way, you can have the right teaching, the right teacher, and the right intellect – but if you haven't been in that atmosphere long enough, nothing changes.

The commentary says we are already mukta, already free – but the understanding has to soak in. That takes time, which takes a body, which takes health.

“…praising the devatās and doing good to please them”:

Devatas are the forces that run various aspects within the universe, your body, mind, etc.

Indra in Vedic culture refers to the ruler of the heavens, but in everyday life – Indra refers to your immunity – the force that protects you from within.

Agni in Vedic culture refers to the sacred fire, but in everyday life Agni refers to your digestive fire, the intelligence that converts food into energy.

Vāyu in Vedic culture refers to the wind, but in everyday life Vāyu refers to the breath in your lungs.

Sūrya in Vedic culture refers to the sun, but in everyday life Sūrya refers to the brilliance of the intellect – the capacity to think clearly, to discern, to know.

So when the tradition says “worship Indra,” it means: take care of your immunity, live in a way that strengthens it. The deity and the natural force are the same thing seen at two different levels – to worship is to tend to.

“May Indra of great fame, the all-knowing and nourishing Sun, Garuḍa, the one who knows no obstacles in his flight…” (svasti na indro vṛddhaśravāḥ svasti naḥ pūṣā viśvavedāḥ svasti nastārkṣyo ariṣṭanemiḥ)

“…and Bṛhaspati, the protector of our intellect bless us with well-being and auspiciousness” (svasti no bṛhaspatir-dadhātu)

Be like Garuḍa, the eagle.

The eagle has two gifts. From high above, it takes in the whole landscape at once — it sees how everything fits together, how each thing relates to the rest. But it can also lock onto a single point far below and hold its focus there, zooming in on the smallest detail without losing sharpness.

So be like the eagle: able to see the big picture and able to hone in on the details of the teaching.

And Bṛhaspati is the name for buddhi itself — the discerning intellect that coordinates this big picture and small details process.

So when you pray svasti no bṛhaspatir-dadhātu – “may Bṛhaspati bless us” – you're really asking for your own buddhi to be protected and kept sharp, because that's the instrument that's supposed to figure out the reality and liberate you.

STRUCTURE OF THE VERSES

Because of Mandukya’s profundity in only 12 verses, Gaudapada (teacher of Shankara’s teacher) has written Karika (commentary).

Gaudapada Karika chapters:

• CH1: Expands on 12 Mandukya Upanishad verses.
• CH2: Expands on mithyatvam of jagat.
• CH3: If everything is mithya and it depends on something, what is that something?
• CH4: Both Gaudapada & Shankara look at different philosophies of existence at that time (when 80% of India was Buddhist). EG: If you take X view as true, here’s the fallacies. Validity of ideas isn’t contingent on from who it comes, but how accurately it is keeping with what-is.

MANDUKYA UPANISHAD: VERSE 1-7

Mandukya Upanishad – Verse 1:
Plurality is Nothing But OM

ओं इति एतत् अक्षरम् इदम् सर्वम् तस्य उपव्याख्यानम् । भूतम् भवत् भविष्यत् इति सर्वम् ओंकारः एव । यत् च अन्यत् त्रिकाल-अतीतम् तत् अपि ओंकारः एव ॥ १ ॥
oṃ iti etat akṣaram idam sarvam tasya upavyākhyānam | bhūtam bhavat bhaviṣyat iti sarvam oṃkāraḥ eva | yat ca anyat trikāla-atītam tat api oṃkāraḥ eva || 1 ||
OM, the word, is all this, the whole universe. A clear explanation of this [is started with]: All that is past, present and future is, indeed, OM. And whatever else there is, beyond the threefold periods of time -that also is verily OM.

Why “OM” word?

Together OM represents: Creation, sustenance, dissolution. Wake, dream, sleep. Birth, life, death. Past-present-future (what was, what is, what will be). 

If all this is OM, why do I only see objects?

We'll explain this verse by posing a question-answer…

QUESTION: I only see objects, why don’t I see OM (cause of the universe) – which is all that is here?  

ANSWER: Because your senses are programmed to see a limited specturm. But when inquire into reality, something else emerges. Verse 1 says, since your vision stops at what you see – let’s look at it again with a different lens, using prakriyā called…

Satya-Mithya:

Let’s look a cotton/shirt.

Can’t say they’re synonyms, even though they both one and the same thing. Otherwise, you go to a store and ask for cotton, and they give you a shirt, and vice verse.

Additionally, shirt depends on cotton, while cotton never takes on attributes of shirt in past-present-future.

Thus shirt is mithya (dependent), while cotton is satyam (independent).

However when you analyze the cotton, it too is mithya because it’s dependent on atoms.

So we started with one name, now we added two more names. Yet, all three are speaking of atoms.

Additionally, there’s no distance between the three names. What’s true for sure is they’re mithya within mithya.

Modern science increased our knowledge of this mithya chain of dependency (ie: molecules, atoms, etc) – but point is a bigger/grosser mithya requires a smaller/subtler mithya, while smaller/subtler mithya is free of attributes of bigger/grosser mithya.

For example, atom is smaller then cotton, thus atom doesn’t have cotton attached on it; you won’t find cotton somewhere located in an atom.

When cotton is insulted or praised, one is completely ignoring cotton’s material cause, which are the atoms. All rage, enthrallment and descriptions towards towards types of cotton, best cotton, strongest cotton, most divine cotton… makes one totally miss out on the atoms in that moment.

More Mithya-within-Mithya Examples:

Shirt: You're wearing a shirt. Someone says “nice shirt.” Now you feel good. What was actually complimented? The shirt is cotton. The cotton is molecules. Then you can't find an independent thing called “molecule”, as it's really just an assembly of atoms. Can't find an atom, as it's an assembly of subatomic particles. The subatomic particles are energy. At no point did anyone compliment that. The compliment landed on a name – “shirt” – which cannot stand on its own.

Table: Now look at a table. You bang your fist on it and say “this is solid, this is real.” But the table is wood. The wood is cellulose. The cellulose is carbon chains. The carbon is atoms. The atoms are 99.9999% empty space. So what did your fist actually hit? You're convinced of “table” while the material cause is almost entirely nothing. 

Opinion: “That person is crooked. / I wasted my life.” That opinion depends on selective memory, which depends on attention (what you’re picking from all details you know about other person or yourself). 

Words: Even meaning of word “love” depends on what century/culture you’re born in. In Latin, they don’t use word “love” for anything that is admirable. They had amor for passionate romantic love, dilectio for love when you hold someone in high regard (respectful love), caritas for selfless charitable love (which later became “charity” in English), and pietas for dutiful love (devotion to family, gods, country).

Notice the Pattern:

The grosser mithya is always loud, dramatic, attention-grabbing. Meanwhile the subtler cause – which is actually holding the whole thing up – is silent and free of the drama above it. 

We spend our lives excessively obsessing and defending names, rather then taking moments to consider their connections.

What is the Final Reality Which Has No Further Mithyas Down the Chain?

Vedanta says you’ll never find final satyam as another object you can perceive, because the final satyam is not an object, unlike all preceding mithyas.

The final satyam is OM. But what is “OM” referring to?

It is that which arranges tiniest particles, into atoms, into molecules – where sometimes they becomes moon, galaxy, heart, brain, insect, bacteria, cotton, rose. And that satyam is the organizing intelligence – from which everything else comes about.  It is making your/my body what it is, an oak/apple tree what it is, etc. 

So the final satyam is all-knowledge or Intelligence principle.  (Later on, we'll see even Intelligence is mithya, and final satyam is Consciousness – but we need to build up the teaching).

Nothing is away from OM

Logically my body can’t be away from OM, otherwise OM wouldn’t be “all-knowledge”. OM is present here and now, making everything work – while in your vision, you see mountains, trees – and thus miss out on OM.

All-knowledge isn’t in one particular form, it’s present in all mithya forms. Thus don’t think that first there is shirt, then cotton, then atoms – and somewhere far down the line is intelligence making it all happen. Intelligence is at all levels, making each mithya what it is.

Past-Present-Future Is OM

The organization of Intelligence of the past is no more. The organization of Intelligence in present isn’t the organization of intelligence in the future. So the past-present-future are just names for Intelligence (OM) reorganizing in endless combinations.

As a side note: You only have sense of time because of physical memory (hippocampus), which stiches each moment and creates illusion of continuity. Infants lack sense of yesterday/tomorrow, no sense of “things are unfolding”, because hippocampus isn’t developed, and that’s why also you don’t remember infant years. Otherwise, without memory, it would only be now (OM) endlessly rearranging into now (OM).

So What If Material Cause Of Everything Experienceable Is Made Out Of Knowledge?

While I don’t know objects of the past, nor will I know all objects of present and future – once I know they all depend on the very same all-knowledge principle – which at this very moment is depending on – then it doesn’t matter which next form comes, because it’ll still a putting together of all-knowledge (OM).

Meaning, it’s possible without knowing details of anything, you can know truth of everything – by knowing the one thing that makes up many… like knowing the one clay that makes up countless pottenware.

Thus to know the final cause from which everything comes, you are not required to know the details of all mithya forms.

Relationship Between Satya-Mithya:

There’s no beggar without actor. Actor is independent of the actor. Actor-being is free of beggar.

Or there’s one person who takes on different names depending on which suit is worn. EG: Father, son, worker, husband. All roles (their responsibilities, their colorful expression) depend one person, onto which no role permanently sticks.

OBJECTION: If All Objects Resolve Into OM, Then All-Knowledge Should Be Contaminated By All Our Impurities.

Shirt can’t exist without cotton, while cotton never takes on the ugliness/beauty/lifecycle of shirt. Another example is, suppose the shirt gets burned and insulted. Question is, can you find a “shirt” inside an atom, the very material that makes it up? No. So if atom is free of shirt, then what to say of Intelligence that's free of atoms!

That’s why OM can be pervading everything, while never being touched by what it pervades or makes up.

Another example is physical emotions can’t exist without neurons, while not one neuron  takes on attribute of emotion, because neurons are basically made of proteins, water, sodium, calcium, sugar, salt, lipids (fats).

Analogy Showing How It’s Possible To Pervade All, Yet Remain Unaffected By It:

In your dream, the mind’s knowledge is the sole cause of the entire dream world. You cannot create anything you do not know; every dream object – sun, space, time, people – is your knowledge alone manifest in visible form.

The dream mountain is your knowledge of mountain, the dream lion is your knowledge of lion; there is nothing more than your knowledge there. 

Thus, in the dream, your mind is both the efficient cause (knowledge and skill to produce a thing; nimitta-kāraṇa) and the material cause (the substance from which a thing is made of; upādāna-kāraṇa). 

The Dream-Mountain and the Dream-Lion:

In your dream, you see a mountain – insentient, no prāṇa – and a lion – sentient, with life, movement, and a subtle body. Both are your mind's knowledge made visible. The mountain is mind’s knowledge of “mountain”; the lion is mind’s knowledge of “lion.” Yet your mind does not become a mountain or a lion. It remains the same efficient and material cause – always available to project another form.

The difference between sentient and insentient is within the dream, but the mind that projects them is neither sentient nor insentient (in the sense of being limited to those categories).

The Seed and the Tree:

Your mind in the sleep state is like a seed containing an entire tree in potential form. When the dream begins, that potential differentiates into space, time, sun, the subject (you), objects – all from your saṃskāras (impressions / memories).  When the dream ends, both the subject (the person who you thought you were) and all objects resolves back into the seed of your mind. This shows your mind is never limited by what is manifest or in potential.

The dream-mountain does not permanently make your mind solid; the dream-lion does not permanently make your mind ferocious. Your mind remains the projector, untouched by the very objects it creates.

Similarly OM, always being OM in essence – manifests as all forms to which names are given,

NEXT VERSE: If OM pervades everything, then what is my relationship to OM? Answered next…

—

Recorded 5 Jan, 2026