Mantrikā upaniṣad - quintessential theistic Sankhya

Nija-Jyaishtha-K04, 5127 K.E.

Mantrika Upanishad is an authentic Upaniṣad, contemporaneous with the composition of Mahabharata’s Ṡānti-Anuṡāsana parvans. It is an excellent minimalistic Upanishad (~20 verses) which synthesises theistic Sāṅkhya, Yoga and Vedānta philosophies. It is considered authentic because verse 5 has been quoted by Bhagavad Ramanuja (11^th c.) in his work on Vedartha Sangraha. There are two recensions of it: one historically ascribed to Atharva Veda (Rāmānuja) and later to Ṡukla Yajurveda in the Muktikā canon.

In my opinion, it is second only to the Ṡvetāṡvatara Upaniṣad, a major Upanishad which is thoroughly theistic Sāṅkhyan in flavour. Another Sankhyan upanishad that I like is Sariraka Upanishad.

There is a commentary by a certain Nārāyana who comments on the Atharvavedic recension, split into five khaṇḍas. A second recension, which is a tampered/interpolated version of Narayana’s is available; it substitutes Ṡaiva terminology intentionally in verse 12. A commentary of the Yajurvedic recension of Upaniṣad-brahma-yogin is also available; it has not been split into any chapters. The recension below follows the one by Uttamur Vīra-rāghavācārya, presumably Atharvavedic, split into two khaṇḍas, but the translation and interpretation is solely mine.

The translation is as minimal and literal as possible. Bracketed insertions are my own aid for better context and readability. I try to avoid interpretation and let the Sanskrit speak for itself.

Khaṇḍa 1

Ṡānti pāṭha (peace chant)

ōṃ bhadraṃ karṇēbhiḥ ṡṛṇuyāma dēvāḥ / bhadraṃ paṡyēmākṣabhir yajatrāḥ /
sthirair aṅgais tuṣṭuvāṃsas tanūbhiḥ / vyaṡēma dēvahitaṃ yad āyuḥ //
svasti na indrō vṛddhaṡravāḥ / svasti naḥ pūṣā viṡvavēdāḥ /
svasti nas tārkṣyō ariṣṭanēmiḥ / svasti nō bṛhaspatir dadhātu //
ōṃ ṡāntiḥ ṡāntiḥ

Om. O gods, may we hear with our ears what is auspicious and uplifting. O reverend ones, may we see with our eyes what is auspicious and pure. With firm limbs and strong bodies, offering praise to you, may we live out the full lifespan that the gods have ordained for us. May Indra, renowned of old, grant us well-being. May Pūṣan, knower of all, grant us well-being. May Tārkṣya (Garuḍa), whose wheel is unbroken, grant us well-being. May Bṛhaspati bestow well-being upon us. Om. Peace, peace, peace.

ōm aṣṭapādaṃ ṡuciṃ haṃsaṃ trisūtram aṇum avyayam
trivartmānaṃ tējasō’haṃ sarvaḥ paṡyan na paṡyati /1/

Om. The pure atomic unchanging swan [self], eight-footed three-threaded three-pathed – “I am of light” – everyone seeing, does not see [it].

Meaning:

The embodied self is entagled in eightfold prakṛti, bound by three guṇas, wanders the three paths, but does not realise that it is pure consciousness (light/illumination), just like the Supreme Self.

• Eight-footed (aṣṭapāda) — the eight-fold prakṛti in Sāṅkhya: earth, water, fire, air, space, mind, egoity and intellect. See Gītā 7.4.
• Three-threaded (trisūtra) - the three constituents of prakṛti: sattva, rajas, tamas
• Three-pathed (trivartmān) - three paths in saṃsāra: sṛṣṭi, sthiti, laya; or heaven, earth, hell.

Notes:

The haṃsa (swan) in the Upanishads primarily refers to the individual spirit (puruṣa/ātman); secondarily to the Supreme Spirit (puruṣottama/paramātman). It never refers to a non-living entity (like Prakṛti, as the commentator Narayana glosses). The white colour of the swan symbolises the unpolluted nature of spirit. That is why it is described here as ṡuci pure. Only the swan is said to separate milk from water. Here haṃsa must necessarily refer to the individual spirit because of the descriptive aṇu atomic. The individual soul is atomic, as concluded in Ṡvet.Up. 5.9 ang Gītā 2.17.

Other commentators struggle with this verse for several reasons:

1. They force-fit aṇu (atomic) to mean its exact opposite, vibhu (all-pervading). Only the Supreme is all-pervading (Gītā 9.4, 10.20, 13.14, 18.61). Others (Uttamur) take aṇu in a secondary sense of being subtle, imperceptible or super-sensory; bypassing its primary meaning.
2. paṡyati (it sees) is in the third person, but the subject tējasaḥ aham (I, of lustre) is in the first person. Therefore, others invoke ārṣa-prayōga (Vedic poetic license) and interpret as paṡyāmi (I see) instead.
3. haṃsa (swan) is a conscious entity, the spiritual essence is pure and unchanging. Interpreting it to mean non-sentient prakṛti (Narayana’s commentary) is stretching beyond the permissible.
4. Some read tejaso’ndham instead of tejaso’ham. This translates to “blinded by the splendour” and perfectly resolves the grammar: “Blinded by the splendour, though seeing everywhere, one does not see”. But splendour should enlighten, not blind!
5. Some manuscripts read sarvataḥ (everywhere) instead of sarvaḥ. But it makes Anuṣṭubh hyper-metric unnecessarily. Plus, loses the subject sarvaḥ masc. sg. ‘everyone’, causing confusion between first person (ahaṃ paṡyan) and third person (paṡyati).

My translation is as literal as possible, and does not suffer from the above drawbacks.

The sō’ham connection from Īṡa Upaniṣad 16 is relevant. There we have:

tējō yat tē rūpaṃ kalyāṇatamaṃ tat tē paṡyāmi | yō’sāv asau puruṣaḥ sō’ham asmi

“The light which is your noblest form, that of yours I see — that Person there, I am He”.

Now in our verse, haṃsam and tējasō’ham sit adjacent in the same clause, and sō’ham is a known Upaniṣadic mantra. Tējasō’ham is a direct echo of the mantra sō’ham; the self’s declaration of identity, embedded as the haṃsa’s own speech. The self is described from the outside in accusatives, then speaks in first person: tējasaḥ aham “of light I am”, before concluding that everyone sees this embodied, entangles haṃsa but does not see what it truly is. (illumined consciousness).

In Upanishadic traditions, the swan (haṃsa) is not just a metaphor; it is a sonic formula. The natural sound of the inward breath is saḥ and the outward breath is ham. Together they form sō’ham (“I am He”). Reversed, they form haṃ-saḥ (the swan). By placing the word haṃsam and the phrase tējasō’ham (tejasaḥ aham) in the exact same clause, the rishi is explicitly spelling out the esoteric equation: The haṃsa is the sō’ham.

This very first verse encapsulates the three tattvas of Sāṅkhya-Yoga: prakṛti, puruṣa and puruṣōttama.

• The self is luminous (consciousness, cit). It is the witness (sākṣin) because it sees (draṣṭā), but does not act (akartā).
• Individual self is essentially atomic, pure, unchanging and conscious too (whiteness of swan = consciousness). It shares the latter three characteristics with the Supreme Self, who is puruṣa too albeit the highest one (puruṣōttama).
• Just like a swan migrates across seasons, individual self too transmigrates across bodies (originate, evolve, dissolve - the three paths - through heaven, earth, hell). [This metaphor doesn’t hold if we associate haṃsa with the Supreme].
• The three constituents of matter (goodness, activeness, dullness) bind and entangle individual self.
• Material nature’s eight primary limbs bind the spirit: five gross elements and three subtle elements.
• The individual self cannot see (witness) as long as it is eight-footed.
• Liberation occurs when the individual self realises its distinction from prakṛti (vivēka-khyāti) as its essential nature (consciousness, tējasō’ham) which it shares with the Supreme Self.

Once the self gets its limbs out of the three cords, its true nature as sākṣin shines forth. The verse highlights the irony - though it is glowing, its presence is not witnessed.

Everyone looks right at the atomic individual self (haṃsa) as it wanders the three paths of existence, encased in the eightfold material nature and bound by the three cords of the guṇas. Because they only see this outward material covering, they remain completely blind to the self’s true, radiant identity – its silent, eternal declaration that “I am luminous!”.

bhūta-sammōhanē kālē bhinnē tamasi vai kharē /
ataḥ paṡyanti sattvasthā nirguṇaṃ guṇagahvarē /2/

At the time the verily harsh darkness bewildering [all] beings is shattered, then those situated in goodness see the guṇa-less [self] in the cave of the guṇas [body/heart].

Nirguṇa in Sāṅkhya means devoid of the three guṇas of prakṛti - sattva, rajas, tamas. Nothing more. Unlike its usage in Vedanta, nirguṇa does not mean that one is devoid of all attributes. In Sāṅkhya-Yoga, the Supreme is termed viṡēṣa-puruṣa or saviṡēṣa-puruṣa – It is possessed of qualities like omnipresence, omniscience, lordship and witnesshood. There is no distinction of saguṇa īṡvara and nirguṇa brahman like in Advaita. The 26^th principle, Parama Puruṣa, is free from the shackles of matter and is ever-liberated. Even individual self is nirguṇa in essence; all puruṣas are nirgiṇa. It is just that the Supreme has been nirguṇa since forever.

The vision happens when the thick covering of tamas (darkness/ignorance) is torn — then those who are sattva-predominant see the nirguṇa one right within the body’s guṇa-complex.

Whether nirguṇa here refers to the Supreme Self or the individual self is not an issue for Sāṅkhya-Yoga. Englightenment means to realise that one’s true nature is different from sattva-rajas-tamas triplet. “Sō’ham” means that I, the individual self, am pure consciousness witness, like the Supreme, wholly distinct from prakṛti.

The cave (guha/gahvara) in Upaniṣadic symbolism

Gahvara means a dense thicket, an inaccessible hiding place, a cave. In verse after verse, the ātman is said to dwell in the cave:

The “cave” in these texts is not a physical heart. Not all living entities, though puruṣas, have a cardiac organ. It refers to the antaḥkaraṇa (the internal organ of consciousness). It is a cave because it is deep, internal, entirely dark to the outside world and acts as the secret chamber where the divine spark resides. It is the innermost space of the being, beyond the reach of the senses. The ātman is not “out there” but hidden within, accessible only to inward vision.

But here the cave is not guhā (heart) but guṇa-gahvara — “the cave of the guṇas”. This is the Sāṃkhya-specific twist:

• The guṇas (sattva, rajas, tamas) are the three constituents of prakṛti that weave the body-mind complex
• This body-mind is the cave — the hiding place where the nirguṇa puruṣa resides
• The cave itself is made of what it conceals: the guṇas both veil the puruṣa and house it

The paradox is sharp: the constituent-less one is seen inside the constituted. The covering is also the dwelling.

The verse gives two conditions for this vision:

1. External: the harsh darkness (tamas) is shattered (bhinne) — the tamas-guṇa, the densest of the three, is broken through.
2. Internal: the seeker is established in sattva (sattvastha) — the sattva-guṇa within predominates.

When the tamas covering is torn, the sattva within the seeker’s own guṇa-composition becomes translucent, and through it the nirguṇa one is seen — still in the guṇa-cave but no longer hidden by it.

The verse thus maps onto the Sāṃkhya process: the guṇas in disequilibrium create the manifest world; when tamas is overcome and sattva predominates, the puruṣa shines through the very cave that ordinarily obscures it.

aṡakyaḥ sō’nyathā draṣṭuṃ dhyāyamānaḥ kumārakaiḥ /
vikāra-jananīm-ajn̄ām-aṣṭarūpām-ajāṃ dhruvām /3/

He cannot be seen otherwise, [even when] being meditated upon by the immature ones — [who meditate upon] the mother of transformations, the unknowing one, eight-formed, unborn, constant.