The Mandukya Upanishad with Gaudapada’s Karika and Shankara’s Commentary
Kārikā, verse 2.15
अव्यक्ता एव येऽन्तस्तु स्फुटा एव च ये बहिः ।
कल्पिता एव ते सर्वे विशेषस्त्विन्द्रियान्तरे ॥ १५ ॥
avyaktā eva ye'ntastu sphuṭā eva ca ye bahiḥ |
kalpitā eva te sarve viśeṣastvindriyāntare || 15 ||
15. Those that exist within the mind (as mere subjective imaginations) and are known as the unmanifested as well as those that exist without in a manifested form (as perceived objects),—all are mere imaginations, the difference lying only in the sense-organs (by means of which the latter are cognized).
Though1 the objects perceived within, as mere mental impressions, are unmanifested, and though2 the objects perceived outside through the sense-organs such as eyes, etc., are known as manifested (gross entities), yet the distinction3 is not due to anything substantial in the nature of the (two kinds of) objects. For, such distinction is seen in dreams as well. What is, then, the cause of this distinction? It4 is only due to the difference in the use of sense-organs (by means of which these objects are perceived). Hence, it is established that the objects perceived in the waking state are as much imagination of the mind as those seen in the dream.
Ānandagiri’s Ṭīkā (glossary):
1 Though, etc—Objects perceived within the mind are mere products of imagination. The characteristic of such objects is their unmanifestedness. Therefore they are known as “ideas”. in contradistinction to “gross” objects perceived outside.
3 The distinction, etc.—This distinction between the gross objects and the subtle ideas is not due to anything substantial or real in the very nature of the objects. They belong to one and the same class, i.e., both these are mere forms of thought or the imagined ideas of the perceiver. Though there is this distinction of manifestedness and unmanifestedness, yet one cannot be less illusory than the other. For, we see the same distinction in dream experiences as well, yet the whole of dream is illusory or imagination of the mind.
4 It is, etc.—This distinction is due to the following reason. Ideas are cognised within the mind. External objects are perceived by sense-organs such as the eyes, etc. The distinction regarding the nature of perceived objects is due to the nature of the organs by means of which they are perceived. In spite of this difference, ideas and physical objects do not admit of any distinction as regards their real nature. In dreams also there are sense-organs of the dream. There is therefore no real difference.