Ignorance (avidyA) is the misperception of the non-Self (unAtmA) in place of the Self (AtmA). Conversely, true vision born of Self-knowledge (vidyA) is the direct apperception of the all-pervasive AtmA.
The mANDUkya Upanishad provides the precise metaphysical framework for this realization. It teaches us how to deliquesce—or dissolve—the observer and the observed into the single act of observation, thereby resolving the triad into absolute Oneness.
To understand this dissolution, we must examine how language and perception structure our reality. The “seer” or observer is the signifier (vAcaka or abhidAna), while what is seen is the signified (vAcyam or abhideya).
abhidAna means to speak about, to name, or to measure.
abhideya means to be shown, expressed, or to appear.
When an object is perceived by the eye, our vision is actually measuring that object across various dimensions and descriptors, such as color and form. In the language of epistemology, the act of “seeing” is the instrument of knowledge (pramANa), and the object seen is the measurable object of knowledge (prameya).
This relationship can be viewed through two complementary lenses:
| Perspective | The Measurer / Signifier | The Measured / Signified |
| Cosmic / Objective | mAtrA (Phonetic measure / letter) | pAda (Quarters of reality / states) |
| Individual / Epistemic | pramANa / jIva (The individual consciousness) | prameya /jagat
(The objective world) |
When the individual and the world merge, the distinction between the measurer and the measured collapses. Reality is no longer defined by mAtrA or pAda; it becomes amAtra (measureless) and apAda (partless). This is the partless, indivisible absolute (akala or niSkala)—the intrinsic nature of the Self, which is Brahman. As the mANDUkya Upanishad declares in its central mahAvAkya:
अयमात्मा ब्रह्म … … ॥ – mantra 2, mANDUkya
Meaning: This Self is brahman.
This great aphorism connotes that one’s innermost AtmA (the pure, real sense of “I”) is identical to the cosmic brahman, and brahman is none other than one’s own AtmA. The reality you might have expected to be remote or external is revealed to be your immediate presence; it has simply gone unrecognized.
The implication of this mahAvAkya is that the entire perceived universe must be dissolved into the indivisible Oneness of brahman. Until this collapse is achieved, the partless essence of reality cannot be truly grasped. Such an understanding cannot remain merely indirect or inferential (parokSa); it must be immediate and direct (aparokSa). This is vidyA, in the light of which no ignorance can survive.
How, then, did the partless niSkala appear divided? The Upanishad introduces the concept:
अयमात्मा ब्रह्म सोऽयमात्मा चतुष्पात् ॥– mantra 2, mANDUkya
Meaning: This AtmA is brahman. The Self is four-footed (four-parted).
Does the Self genuinely possess parts? No. In our ignorance, our mistaken vision projects division onto the undivided—much like a rope mistakenly perceived as a snake in the dim light.
By virtue of this misperception, the waking state arises. The Supreme Self, viewed through this distorting lens, appears as Viswa in the waking state (jAgarita sthAna). The very same Self appears as taijasa in the second quarter (the dream state), and as prAjna during deep sleep (suSupti).
In absolute terms, these three quarters are unreal. When you reach the fourth quarter (turIya), it is revealed to be the AtmA itself—your own intrinsic, unconditioned nature. As long as we differentiate the Self into these individual quarters, the AtmA appears fragmented. Therefore, the pAda-s exist only within the realm of ignorance and represent unAtmA.
To know the Self, we can approach this dissolution through either the mAtrA-s (letters) or the pAda-s (quarters), using the sacred syllable Om as our contemplative map. *Om* is formed by the blending of three sounds:
A + U + M = Om
When consciousness assumes the viewpoint of Viswa, it corresponds to the letter A, where the “seen” appears as the externalized waking world.
Techniques like mere conceptual meditation or ritualistic worship cannot bridge the gap from avidyA to vidyA. Instead, the seeker must actively dissolve the waking world into the dream world (Viswa into taijasa), the dream world into deep sleep (taijasa into prAjna), and deep sleep into turIya.
Expressed in terms of the mAtrA-s from the vantage point of *Om*:
- The A is merged into U.
- The U is merged into M.
- The M is merged into the ultimate Silence.
This final Silence is brahman. At this precise point, both mAtrA (measure) and pAda (measured) reveal themselves as the identical essence of AtmA.
What does this merging actually mean in practice? How does it happen?
The phonetic structure of *Om* serves as a direct indicator of our existential reality. *Om* can be understood as an atmospheric distillation of the mantra “so ‘ham” (saḥ + aham), meaning “It [brahman] is I [AtmA].” If one utters “so ‘ham” while dropping the sibilant consonants (sa and ha), the remaining vocalized breath naturally resolves into *Om*.
Therefore, one contemplates *Om*. In vocalized chanting, notice how the individual sound of A glides into U, losing their separate identities to sound together as O. As you transition into the nasalized M, the O sound recedes, leaving only the resonance of M. Eventually, even this vibration dies away into absolute silence.
“`
[A] Waking / Viswa
↓
[U] Dream / taijasa
↓
[M] Deep Sleep / prAjna
↓
(Silence) turIya / brahman
“`
Here, M represents the threshold of deep sleep, and the final soundless state (amAtra) is turIya, which is brahman.
Shankara advises that both the cosmic quarters (pAda-s) and the phonetic measures (mAtrA-s) should be merged simultaneously (yugapat). Because both the observer and the observed dissolve in the deep sleep state, no individual thought arises, nor does any external object appear. This complete resolution serves as the doorway to Advaitic samAdhi.
When *Om* is uttered audibly, it is Ahata nAda (struck sound); when it resonates internally without physical friction, it is unAhata nAda (unstruck sound). The ultimate practice is the complete dissolution of this sound into the silent “Me”—the pure Witness-Consciousness. It is the perfect illustration of how shabda-brahman (the absolute manifested as sound) deliquesces into the Supreme Self.
Dear Ramesam,
I find myself in a bit of a quandary here. You know that I really appreciate the writing that you do for Advaita Vision but I also have a responsibility to the readers and cannot let commentary such as this go by without saying something.
When I wrote ‘A-U-M’, I read every book and writing that was then available on the Mandukya and karikas so I feel qualified to remark upon the value and relevance of any writing on these sources. Accordingly I am obliged to respond in a highly negative way to what Y S Rao is saying here, lest readers think that they should be understanding and benefitting from it.
• “The direct perception of AtmA”?? Ātmā cannot be perceived (and who would perceive it?).
• “Deliquescing” the observer and observed into a single act of observation”?? What can this possibly mean?
• Śaṅkara does use the terms ‘abhidAna and abhideya’ in his commentary. But I suggest that, in order to understand the use of the word OM to aid understanding of the nature of reality, considerably more is required in the way of explanation. As it stands, it seems fairly incomprehensible, even to someone familiar with the context.
• “entire perceived universe must be dissolved into the indivisible Oneness of Brahman”? I fear that this ‘mystical’ way of talking about it does nothing at all for me.
• “the seeker must actively dissolve the waking world into the dream world (Viswa into taijasa), the dream world into deep sleep (taijasa into prAjna), and deep sleep into turIya.” Does not make any sense. The following explanation of the sounds helps but there is no need for the dissolving idea.
• “doorway to samādhi”?? Samādhi is not an objective in Advaita.
• ‘struck’ and ‘unstruck’, and more ‘deliquescing’ – incomprehensible!
The Māṇḍūkya and Gauḍapāda’s kārikā-s are one of the most important sources of teaching on Advaita and, it is true, one of the most difficult. But what is needed is to simplify and explain, not complicate and confound. And I fear that Rao seems hell-bent on the latter approach for some reason.
Apologies for the harsh criticism. I appreciate that you are doing your best to make his material comprehensible.
Best wishes,
Dennis
Dear Dennis,
I am glad you could spare some time to look over this post and offer your views.
As you know, I am always open to comments and observations. They are highly valuable—particularly on write-ups dealing with an esoteric subject like Advaita Vedanta—as they not only help clarify the nuances under discussion but also contribute to clearer communication.
Before responding to your specific points, let me share a bit of context regarding the background of my replies.
In spite of my long experience with translating philosophical works, I found this part (and likely the next one as well) to be quite challenging. Leaning too heavily on technical jargon for accuracy makes the text prohibitively long, while over-simplifying risks losing the very spirit of the teaching. Striking the “sweet balance” that optimizes the reading experience for everyone is no easy task. So, I even utilized Gemini to help refine the expression of my draft of this part.
**Regarding: “When I wrote ‘A-U-M’, I … …”**
I am well aware of that context, Dennis.
When you were writing the book, we thought together; worked together, resolved together many differences from the cover page to the back cover blurbs, going together almost every sentence.
As you noted yourself at the time, it felt as if co-written (or some such words). Our marathon email exchanges, the months of intensive days and nights, and our innumerable debates on specific interpretations stand as a testament to that.
With that familiarity, I recall that while you consulted many works on the mANDUkya, your perspective at the time was significantly shaped by one particular teacher. I mention this not to claim credit for past work, but simply to note that I do not necessarily view that specific teacher’s interpretation as the benchmark for these essays.
**Coming to your specific points:**
* **“Perception of Ātmā”:**
— The AI suggested this phrasing, and I let it stand to avoid becoming overly technical too early in the piece. Alternatives like “seeing” or “knowing” carry their own awkwardness in English. I changed it to “apperception” in the text.
* **“Deliquescing the observer and observed into a single act of observation: **
— This is precisely what the Upanishad intends to teach. The sentence is designed as a curtain-raiser to prompt reflection in the mind of the reader.
* **Śaṅkara’s use of *abhidhāna* and *abhidheya*:**
— Śaṅkara does employ these terms in his commentary. However, your point is well-taken; explaining the use of *Om* as an aid to understanding the nature of reality certainly requires a more elaborated explanation. I will endeavor to expand on this in the next part.
* **“Entire perceived universe must be dissolved into the indivisible Oneness of Brahman”:**
— I appreciate that this can sound overly “mystical.” However, Śhaṅkara himself utilizes a similar approach in his commentary at 3.2.21, BSB. My hope is that readers will gradually become acclimatized to the traditional terminology of Advaita.
* **“The seeker must actively dissolve the waking world…”:**
— This concept is akin to our daily transition from one state to another as we fall asleep. The primary point here is that conventional meditation, worship etc. techniques are unsuited for this process; the actual methodology is discussed further down.
* **“Doorway to samādhi”:**
— I agree that *samādhi* is not the ultimate objective in Advaita.
It is for this reason that I specifically prefixed it with the qualifier “Advaitic” to distinguish it from Patanjali’s *Yoga samādhi*. Gauḍapāda himself explicitly employs the term *samādhi* in the *Māṇḍūkya Kārikā* (3.37).
* **“Struck” and “unstruck” (*āhata* and *anāhata*):**
— This refers traditionally to the sound produced when an object strikes another (like a rod hitting a bell).
As Monier-Williams notes, *A-hata* explicitly denotes “struck, beaten, hit.”
Ultimately, my goal with this series is to faithfully present the teachings based on the traditional talks of Shri YSR, rather than to promote any particular contemporary teacher. If you feel that this approach or style does not align with what the readers of AV find beneficial, I am entirely open to withdrawing the Series.
regards,
Dear Ramesam,
I acknowledge that it must be a difficult task translating another author and retaining their ‘views’ and I know that you are very experienced here. I accept your explanations.
As I said, I wanted to raise the points for the benefit of readers who might be perplexed by some of the comments but I do not want to initiate any discussions on the points. Also, I certainly do not want you to withdraw the series. Seekers will inevitably encounter books that disturb their previous understanding and they must learn to cope with that!
Best wishes,
Dennis