Payload Website Template

THE REST OF THE _Māndūkya Upanishad_ is concerned with the correspondence of the sacred monosyllable _Om_ and its elements (_mātrās_) with _Atmā_ and its conditions (_pādas_): it explains on the one hand the symbolical reasons for this correspondence and, on the other hand, the effects of meditation bearing both on the symbol and on what it represents, that is to say on _Om_ and on _Ātmā_, the former playing the part of 'support' for attaining to knowledge of the latter. We will now give the translation of this final portion of the text; but it will not be possible to accompany it with a complete commentary, as that would carry us too far from the subject of the present study:

This _Ātmā_ is represented by the [supreme] syllable _Om_, which is represented in its turn by letters [mātrās], [in such a way that] the conditions [of Ātmā] are the _mātrās_ [of Om], and (conversely) the _mātrās_ [of Om] are the conditions [of Ātmā]: these are A, U, and M.

_Vaishvānara_, whose seat is in the waking state, is [represented by] _A_, the first _mātrā_, because it is the connection [_āpti_, of all sounds, the primordial sound A, uttered by the organs of speech in their normal position, being as it were immanent in all the others, which are varied modifications of it and which are unified in it, just as _Vaishvānara_ is present in all things in the sensible world and establishes their unity], and also because it is the beginning [ādi, both of the alphabet and of the monosyllable Om, as Vaishvānara is the first of the conditions of Ātmā and the basis starting from which metaphysical realization, for the human being, must be accomplished].

He who knows this verily obtains [the realization of] all his desires [since, through his identification with Vaishvānara, all sensible objects become dependent upon him and form an integral part of his own being], and he becomes the first [in the realm of Vaishvānara or of Virāj, of which he makes himself the center by virtue of that very knowledge and by the identification it implies when once it is fully effective].

_Taijasa_, the seat of which is in the dream state, is [represented by] U, the second _mātrā_, because it is the elevation [utkarsha, of sound from its first modality, just as the subtle state is, in formal manifestation, of a more exalted order than the gross state] and also because it participates in both [ubhaya, that is to say, alike by its nature and by its position, it is intermediate between the two extreme elements of the monosyllable Om, just as the dream state is intermediate, sandhyā, between waking and deep sleep]. He who knows this in truth advances along the path of Knowledge [by his identification with Hiranyagarbha], and [being thus illumined] he is in harmony [samāna, with all things, for he beholds the manifested Universe as the product of his own knowledge, which cannot be separated from him], and none of his descendants [in the sense of spiritual posterity]^[1] will be ignorant of _Brahma_.

_Prājña_, the seat of which is in the state of deep sleep, is [represented by] M, the third _mātrā_, because it is the measure [miti, of the two other mātras, as in a mathematical ratio the denominator is the measure of the numerator], as well as because it is the end [of the monosyllable _Om_, considered as containing the synthesis of all sounds, in the same way that the unmanifested contains, synthetically and in principle, the whole of the manifested with its diverse possible modes: the latter can indeed be considered as returning into the unmanifested, from which it was never distinguished save in a contingent and transitory manner: the first cause is at the same time the final cause and the end is necessarily identical with the principle]. ^[2] He who knows this is in truth the measure of this whole [that is to say the aggregate of the 'three worlds' or of the different degrees of universal Existence, of which pure Being is the 'determinant'], ^[3] and he becomes the final term (of all things, by concentration in his own ‘Self' or personality, where all the states of manifestation of his being are rediscovered, 'transformed' into permanent possibilities). ^[4]

The Fourth is ‘non-characterized' [amātra, unconditioned therefore]: it is actionless [avyavahārya], without any trace of the development of manifestation [prapancha-upashama], abounding in Bliss and without duality [Shiva Advaita]: that is _Omkāra_ [the sacred monosyllable considered independently of its Vaishvānaras], that assuredly is _Ātmā_ [in Itself, outside of and independently of any condition or determination whatever, even of the principial determination which is Being itself]. He who knows this enters verily into his own ‘Self' by means of that same 'Self' [without intermediary of any order whatsoever, without the use of any instrument such as a faculty of knowing, which can only attain to a state of the ‘Self' and not to Paramātmā, the supreme and absolute ‘Self']. ^[5]

As for the effects which are to be obtained by means of meditation (_upāsanā_) upon the monosyllable _Om_, in each of its three _Vaishvānaras_ to begin with, and afterward in itself and independently of its _Vaishvānaras_, we will only add that these effects correspond to the realization of different spiritual degrees, which may be described in the following manner: the first is the full development of the corporeal individuality; the second is the integral extension of the human individuality in its extra-corporeal modalities; the third is the attainment of the supra-individual states of being; and finally, the fourth is the realization of the 'Supreme Identity'.

Footnotes

[1]In this sense, the expression has a more particular connection here with the ‘World-Egg' and the cyclic laws, by reason of the identification with _Hiranyagarbha_.

[2]In order to understand the symbolism we have just indicated it must be borne in mind that the sounds _a_ and _u_ are combined in the sound _o_, and that the latter so to speak loses itself in the final nasal sound of _m_, without however being suppressed altogether, but on the contrary prolonging itself indefinitely, even while becoming indistinct and imperceptible. Furthermore, the geometrical figures that correspond respectively to the three _mātras_ are a straight line, a semi-circle (or rather an element of a spiral), and a point; the first symbolizes the complete unfolding of manifestation; the second, a state of envelopment relative to that unfolding, but nevertheless still developed or manifested, the third, the formless state devoid of ‘dimensions' or special limitative conditions, that is to say the unmanifested. It will also be noticed that the point is the primordial principle of all geometrical figures, representing in its own order the true and indivisible unity, in the same way that the unmanifested is the principle of all states of manifestation; this makes of the point a natural symbol of pure Being.

[3]Were it not to involve too lengthy a digression, it would be possible to enter into a number of interesting considerations of a linguistic nature concerning the expression given to Being, conceived as the 'ontological subject' and 'universal determinant'; we will merely remark that in Hebrew the divine name _El_ is related to this symbolism in particular. This aspect of Being is described in the Hindu tradition as _Svayambhū_ or ‘He who subsists by Himself’; in Christian theology it is the Eternal Word considered as the _locus possibilium_; the Far-Eastern symbolism of the Dragon likewise refers to it.

[4]It is only in this state of universalization, and not in the individual state, that it can be said truly that 'man is the measure of all things, of those things which are insofar as they are, and of those things which are not insofar as they are not,' that is to say, metaphysically, of the manifested and the unmanifested; although, strictly speaking, one cannot speak of a ‘measure' of the unmanifested, if by 'measure' is meant a determination by special conditions of existence, like those defining each state of manifestation. On the other hand, it goes without saying that the Greek sophist Protagoras, who is supposed to be the author of the formula we have just quoted (transposing the sense in order to apply it to ‘Universal Man’), was certainly very far from having attained to this conception; for in applying it to the individual human being, he only meant to express by it what the moderns would call a radical 'relativism', whereas, for us, it implies something quite different, as will be readily understood by those who know the relationship existing between ‘Universal Man' and the Divine Word (_cf._ particularly Saint Paul, 1 Cor. 15)

[5]_Māņdūkya Upanishad_ I.8–12. Concerning the meditation on _Om_ and its effects in various orders, relatively to the three worlds, further indications can he found in the _Prashna Upanishad_ v. 1–7. _Cf._ also _Chhāndogya Upanishad_ I.1.4–5.

SYMBOLICAL REPRESENTATION OF ĀTMĀ AND ITS CONDITIONS BY THE SACRED MONOSYLLABLE OM

Footnotes