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.

Sāṅkhya school accepts two principles: puruṣa and prakṛti i.e. spirit and matter, living and inert, animate and inanimate, conscious and unconscious respectively. Sēṡvara sāṅkhya posits a puruṣa viṡēṣa, a distinctive superior spirit, ever-liberated, i.e. never subject to the clutches of matter.

puruṣa = spirit, self
prakṛti = matter, material nature
prabhu, puruṣōttama = the Spirit, the Self, Supreme Spirit, Supreme Self
jīva = embodied self, bound puruṣa

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.

Verse 1

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!”.

Verse 2

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

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

Nirguṇa in Sāṅkhya means devoid of the three guṇas (constituents) of prakṛti - sattva, rajas, tamas. Nothing more. They are the ingredients which make up all of matter. Guṇa does not mean a quality like compassion or honesty. Unlike its usage in Vedanta, nirguṇa does not mean that one is devoid of all attributes. In Sāṅkhya-Yoga, the Supreme is termed puruṣa-viṡēṣa or saviṡēṣa-puruṣa – It is possessed of characteristics like omnipresence (vibhutva), omniscience (jn̄atva), lordship (īṡatva) and witnesshood (ṡākṣitva). There is no distinction of saguṇa īṡvara and nirguṇa brahman like in Advaita. Nor does it mean that He is “devoid of abominable qualities” and “full of auspicious qualities”, as believed by the Vaiṣṇavas, because it would mean anthropomorphizing without warrant; we’re projecting human standards of morality on the transcendent. The 26^th principle, Parama Puruṣa, is free from the shackles of matter and is eternally-liberated. Even individual self is nirguṇa in essence; all puruṣas are nirguṇa! 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 Supreme Self is entirely untouched by material nature (nirguṇa). Yet, He does not sit in some distant, abstract heaven. He is seated directly in the epicentre of the material entanglement, right in the densest part of the physical and mental machinery (the cave of the guṇas).

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.

About time

Time (kāla) is not an independent reality. Like the Yuktidīpikā and Yōga-bhāṣya argue, kāla is nothing but a sequence of guṇa-transformations — kāla has no ontological status of its own. A sequence of instantaneous moments, each moment being guṇa-transformation, is understood by humans as “time”. Time, just like space, is originated from avyakta (unmanifest prakṛti). A measurable time takes birth at/when mahat-tattva is manifested; only henceforward that past-present-future can be spoken of. When we say that puruṣa and prakṛti are eternal, it means that: (a) puruṣa, being non-physical consciousness does not fall under the purview of a physical “time” (b) prakṛti, through cycles of manifestation and unmanifestation, perpertually shifts through measurable time and immeasurable (abstract, unmanifested) time.

Verse 3

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

He is impossible to see otherwise, being meditated by the young ones upon the mother of transformations, the unconscious, the eight-formed, unborn [and] eternal.

The second line defines Sāṅkhya ontology using highly precise technical adjectives:

• ajñā (non-sentient): this is the core differentiator in Sāṅkhya. The soul (puruṣa/haṃsa) is sentient consciousness (jñā). Prakṛti is strictly insentient, blind matter (ajñā or jaḍa). It acts with apparent intelligence only because it is directed by Paramātman and animated by the proximity of the soul.
• aṣṭarūpām (eight-formed): this directly recalls the aṣṭapādaṃ (eight-footed) nature that entangled the swan in Verse 1. She is comprised of the classic eightfold division: earth, water, fire, air, space, egoity, intellect, pradhāna/avyakta (cf. Gītā 7.4). The former evolves from the latter.
• vikāra-jananī (mother of transformations): pradhāna (mūla-prakṛti) is the root material cause. Vikṛtis are those from which no new evolution happens. There are sixteen vikāras: ten organs, five tanmātras and the mind.
• ajā (unborn): prakṛti has no beginning, just like puruṣa and Puruṣōttama. She was not created at a point in time.
• dhruvām (eternal): prakṛti is endless, co-eternal, just like puruṣa and Puruṣōttama. Even when the universe is dissolved (pralaya), prakṛti does not cease to exist. She simply withdraws her transformations and rests in anunmanifest equilibrium of the three guṇas - this state is called avyakta. Another sense of dhruva is unchanging, constant, fixed. But since prakṛti undergoes transformation, vikāra-jananī, it is inherently changing, moving, active. Therefore, it cannot be “unchaning”; the sense of permanent, eternal is appropriate.

The reference to kumārakas, young boys, harkens back to the time when they were resident students at a gurukula. Without the distractions of family life or the frailties of old age, they are well-positioned to concentrate their human potential in self-realisation. The verse highlights the insurmountable difficulty for even such younsters, who are prone to thinking about physical pleasures, given their age.

Secondly, it conveys the importance of starting spiritual practice early in life, as young as five years; not delegated to reitrement.

Thirdly, the resident students are reminded of their spiritual lineage. The seven mind-born sons of Brahmā - Sanaka, Sanātana, Sanandana, Sanatkumāra, etc. are called kumāras. The Mahābhārata (12.327.64-66) considers them as co-born brothers of Kapila and the foremost acharyas of Yōga and Sāṅkhya-dharma.

Since this verse does not distingush between puruṣa and puruṣa-viṡēṣa, we must understand that saḥ here refers to either of them. The next verse marks their distinction.

Verse 4

dhyāyatē’dhyāsitā tēna tanyatē prēryatē punaḥ /
sūyatē puruṣārthaṃ ca tēnaivādhiṣṭhitā jagat /4/

Being cohabited by Him [Prabhu], she [prakṛti] is thought of, expanded, impelled again. And she – supervised by Him alone – gives birth to the universe for the sake of puruṣa.

This verse answers three important questions:

1. Why is the world created?
2. Who or what creates it?
3. How is it governed?

The universe is created for the sake of the bound puruṣas, who need a field (kṣētra) to play out their beginningless karma. That is why the world is created – for the experience and liberation of jīvas [“saṃyoga eva bhogāpavargārthaṃ sargaṃ karotīti” – Tattvamīmāṃsā]. Not because the Lord is enacting a play or sport – the līlā doctrine of Vēdānta is unnecessary in Sāṅkhya. Creation happens for the sake of puruṣa alone (puruṣārtham).

The Supreme Spirit incites i.e. impels (tēna prēryatē) the unmanifest (avyakta) prakṛti. Once she begins to manifest and expand (tanyatē), i.e. evolve into twenty-three principles, puruṣa enters into the evolutes, occupies and pervades Her (adhyāsitā) completely. This occupation applies to both puruṣas – individual self and the Supreme Self – each of them stretches out (tēna tanyatē) to make Her their body (tanu). This concept of Supreme Lord becoming the antaryāmin of material world is precisely explained in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (3.7 “yasya pṛthivī ṡarīraṃ”, 4.4 “ēvāyam ātmēdaṃ ṡarīraṃ”).

The Lord is the efficient cause for two reaons:

1. Immanence (adhyāsitā): He occupies prakṛti completely as its indweller.
2. Transcendence (adhiṣṭhitā): He governs and supervises prakṛti by presiding over Her.

The choice of verbs is beautiful: seated down upon (adhyāsitā) and stood upon (adhiṣṭhitā), symbolising immanence and transcendence. The root √adhyās also means to occupy, to get into, enter upon, cohabit with (as if husband and wife).

The world is not created by Prabhu ex nihilo. Creation happens just by His mere presence (sāṃnidhya), here refered to as dhyāyatē. He “thinks of” (√dhyai) prakṛti by being near to Her. There is no concept of saṃkalpa (divine will) involved here, because saṃkalpa is a function of manas, a by-product of prakṛti (BṛĀr. 2.4 “sarveṣāṃ saṃkalpānāṃ mana ekāyanam”). Prabhu is untouched by prakṛti. Instead, it should be understood as action-at-a-distance just like “glancing” – tad aikṣata bahu syām prajayēyēti (Ch. 6.2.3) – the Lord sees, thinks of, by being in Her vicinity; seeing and thinking are actions which require material instruments, which no puruṣa has. īkṣaṇa √īkṣ means to look, to see in one’s mind, to think or reflect upon – the same as √dhyai in this verse. His supervision and pervasion themselves act as an impulse for prakṛti in her creative work.

God is not the creator alone. Any puruṣa is akartā (non-doer). Creation is the work of prakṛti herself but governed by Him. Without His supervision, Her dynamism is inactive. The material cause is prakṛti alone, but She is impelled by Him. Thus, both Prakṛti and Puruṣa are the cause of creation.

mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ sūyate (Gītā 9.10) “Supervised by Me, prakṛti brings forth…”

The same verb sūyate is used in this verse also.

The act of entering into (adhyāsitā) by the Lord, and prakṛti giving birth (sūyatē) as the mother is recollected in Gītā 14.3-4:

mama yōnir mahad brahma tasmin garbhaṃ dadhāmy aham …
tāsāṃ brahma mahad yōnir ahaṃ bīja-pradaḥ pitā

The mahat evolution is my womb and in that I create pregnancy. Of all of them the evolving mahat womb, I am the seed-giving father.

The literal meaning of brahman (√bṛh) is growth, development, evolution. The mahat-tattva is the first manifest evolute of avyakta (unmanifest prakṛti) into which the Lord enters and pervades.

It is in this sense that Prabhu is said to cohabit with Her, as if in a conjugal relationship. The word adhyāsitā √adhyās beautifully conveys all these meanings: to occupy, to dwell in, to enter upon, to get into, to cohabit with. It is symbolic of immanence.

The word punaḥ is significant. Why “again”? Because creation is not a one-time event. The cycle of creation-dissolution has happened in the past and repeats again. Why so? Because the puruṣas’ karma is never fully exhausted in a single cosmic cycle. When a universe dissolves, the unfulfilled karma remains latent in Prakṛti, for which Prabhu pervades her and impels her “again” to create a new universe for those dormant selves. And there are infinite selves.

Svēt. Up. 1.12 succintly lays out the three realities:

bhoktā bhogyaṃ preritāraṃ ca matvā sarvaṃ proktaṃ trividhaṃ brahmam etat

The enjoyer (bhoktā, puruṣa), the enjoyed (bhogyaṃ, prakṛti), and the impeller (preritāraṃ, prabhu) having thought of thus, all this is declared as the threefold Brahman.

There is a second layer of intepretation: the bound puruṣa, occupying the body (prakṛti), causes it to expand (grow), impels it into action as directed by his intellect (dhyāyatē buddhyā). The puruṣa acts as the supervisor and it is prakṛti that creates our homes and all the infrastructure of the world.

Verse 5

gaur-anādy-antavatī sā janitrī bhūta-bhāvinī /
sitā’sitā ca raktā ca sarva-kāmadudhā vibhōḥ //

She is the cow, without beginning or end, the mother, the one who brings beings into existence. White, black and red — yielding all desires for the all-pervading one.

The Prakṛti is spoken of as the feminine Mother in this verse.

The tricolored cow (gaur) is a direct parallel to Ṡvētāṡvatara 4.5:

ajām ēkāṃ lōhitaṡukla-kṛṣṇāṃ bahvīḥ prajāḥ sṛjamānāṃ sarūpāḥ /
ajō hy ēkō juṣamāṇō’nuṡētē jahāty ēnāṃ bhuktabhōgāṃ ajō’nyaḥ //

One unborn (prakṛti), red, white, and black, giving birth to many creatures — one unborn (jīva) enjoys her, another unborn (mukta) leaves her.

The three colors = three guṇas: white = sattva, red = rajas, black = tamas.

Note the word vibhōḥ - dative or genitive case of vibhu, the all-pervading. The verse 1 talks about aṇu atomic jīva whereas this verse talks about omnipresent Īṡvara.