Friday, 20 October 2017

Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: Tamil text, transliteration and translation

As I explained at the beginning of my previous article, Upadēśa Undiyār: Tamil text, transliteration and translation, Nāṉ Yār?, Upadēśa Undiyār and Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu are the three texts in which Bhagavan expressed the fundamental principles of his teachings in the most clear, coherent, comprehensive and systematic manner, which is why these are the three texts that I cite most frequently on this blog, and therefore friends often ask me for my complete translation of each of them. My translation of Nāṉ Yār? has been available on my website for many years, and for a long time I have been meaning to post my complete translations of Upadēśa Undiyār and Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu there also, but somehow I did not get round to doing so till recently, when I finally decided that I should put it off no longer. Therefore having posted my translation of Upadēśa Undiyār in my previous article, in this one I give a fresh translation of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, which is a carefully revised and refined version of all my earlier translations of it.

Of all the works of Bhagavan, Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu is arguably the most fundamental and important text, and I think it would be no exaggeration to say that unless one has imbibed to a considerable extent the full import of these forty-two verses (two maṅgalam verses and forty verses of the main text) by carefully studying and reflecting deeply on the meaning of each of them and the close and coherent connections between the ideas expressed in them, and of course by trying as much as possible to follow the simple path of self-investigation that he teaches in them, it is not possible for one to adequately grasp and appreciate the real depth and radical import of his teachings, because many of the key principles of his teachings are expressed nowhere as clearly and coherently as they are in these verses.

For example, in Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu he makes it abundantly clear why self-investigation (ātma-vicāra) is the only means by which we can eradicate our ego (the first person or subject) and hence all its progeny (all second and third persons or objects), because this ego, which he describes in verse 25 as a ‘formless phantom’, is a false self-awareness — an awareness of ourself as a body composed of five sheaths (as he points out in verses 5 and 24), whereas what we actually are is not any such transient phenomenon but just pure, infinite, indivisible, eternal and immutable self-awareness (as he points out in verses 12 and 13) — and it comes into seeming existence and stands only by grasping the form of a body as itself, and it nourishes and sustains itself by grasping other forms (that is, by being aware of anything other than itself), so it will dissolve and disappear only when it tries to grasp itself (that is, only when it investigates itself so keenly that it ceases to be aware of anything else). He also makes it clear (for example, in verses 6, 7, 14, 23 and 26) that everything else seems to exist only when we are aware of ourself as this ego or mind, because all other things (all phenomena) are forms that we perceive only when we perceive ourself as a form (as he says in verses 4 and 5), so when this ego does not exist nothing else exists, and hence investigating what this ego is is giving up everything (as he says in verse 26).

Since we seem to be this ego whenever we are aware of anything other than ourself (that is, any forms or phenomena of any kind whatsoever), we cannot eradicate this ego so long as we cling to awareness of anything else, and hence the only way to eradicate it is to cling to awareness of ourself alone, as he very clearly implies in verse 25. What then remains is only pure self-awareness, which is what we always actually are, and the nature of which is to be aware of nothing other than itself, as he implies, for example, in verses 11, 12, 13 and 31. Therefore since everything else is just an illusory appearance that seems to exist only when we seem to be this ego, and since this ego will cease to exist only when we investigate it, the only truly worthwhile enterprise is for us to investigate who or what we actually are.

What he teaches us in Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu is supplemented and supported by what he teaches us Nāṉ Yār? and Upadēśa Undiyār, and also to a lesser extent in his other writings and in numerous answers that he gave to those who came to him seriously seeking the way to put an end to all suffering, deficiency and dissatisfaction, which have been recorded more or less accurately in various other books, but Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu shines as the core and crest-jewel of his teachings, being the quintessence of all of them (which are in turn the quintessence of all vēdānta philosophy and of all that is metaphysically true in other philosophies, religions or systems of belief).

As in Upadēśa Undiyār, in Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu Bhagavan expressed the fundamental principles of his teachings in the style of sūtras or aphorisms, so though each verse is relatively short, it is packed with deep meaning and is rich in implications, and hence they require explanation in order for us to understand and appreciate them more deeply and completely. However no explanation of them should be considered complete, because no matter how much we may study and reflect on their meaning, we can always find fresh depth of meaning and wealth of implications in them, and consequently our understanding of them can become more clear, as I often find while answering questions or replying to comments on this blog, because when I cite and apply these verses in different contexts my understanding of them is deepened and enriched.

Therefore in this article, for each verse I have given a bare translation, which is as accurate, clear and simple as possible, followed by an explanatory paraphrase in order to make its meaning and most important implications more clear. Then instead of attempting to give any new explanations of these verses, after each one I have given a list of links in reverse chronological order to places in this blog where I have already cited, explained and discussed it. Later I intend to post a copy of this translation on my website, but until I do so I will try to keep the list of links for each verse up to date by adding new links as and when I write any further explanations of any of these verses.
    Pāyiram: introductory verse composed by Sri Muruganar
    Maṅgalam verse 1: what exists is only thought-free awareness, which is called ‘heart’, so being as it is is alone meditating on it
    Maṅgalam verse 2: by surrendering to God, who is devoid of death and birth, the ego, who fears death, will die, and what will remain is deathless
  1. Verse 1: because we see the world, it is best to accept that one fundamental, which is ourself, is what appears as all this multiplicity
  2. Verse 2: instead of the ego arguing whether there is just one fundamental or three fundamentals, standing in the real state of oneself by destroying the ego is best
  3. Verse 3: the state in which the ego has died by investigating itself, leaving aside the world and all differences and disputes, is agreeable to all
  4. Verse 4: if one perceives oneself as a form, one will perceive everything else as forms, but one’s real nature is infinite (hence formless) awareness, so it perceives no forms at all
  5. Verse 5: the body is a form consisting of five sheaths, and without such a body has anyone ever perceived any world?
  6. Verse 6: the world consists of nothing but the five kinds of sense-impressions, and the mind alone perceives it, so is there any world besides the mind?
  7. Verse 7: the world shines only by the mind, but what shines as the space for the appearing and disappearing of the world and mind is the real substance, the infinite whole
  8. Verse 8: worshipping in name and form is the way to see in name and form, but seeing oneself and thereby becoming one with the real substance is true seeing
  9. Verse 9: dyads and triads depend on one thing (the ego), so if one sees within the mind what that one thing is, they will all cease to exist and what is real will be seen
  10. Verse 10: knowledge and ignorance of other things are mutually dependent, but only the awareness that knows the reality of the ego, to whom they appear, is real awareness
  11. Verse 11: knowing anything other than oneself is ignorance, but when one knows the reality of oneself, knowledge and ignorance of everything else will cease
  12. Verse 12: oneself is real awareness, which shines without anything else to know, so it is devoid of both knowledge and ignorance of other things, but it is not void or nothingness
  13. Verse 13: oneself, who is pure awareness, alone is real, so awareness of multiplicity is ignorance and unreal, and hence it does not exist except as oneself
  14. Verse 14: if one investigates the reality of the first person, it will cease to exist along with all second and third persons, and what then shines as one is one’s real nature
  15. Verse 15: past and future depend on the present, the only time that actually exists, so trying to know the past or future without knowing the reality of the present is like trying to calculate without knowing the value of one
  16. Verse 16: if we are a body, we are ensnared in time and place, but if we investigate ourself, there is no time or place but only ourself, who are the same one always and everywhere
  17. Verse 17: for those who do not know themself and for those who do, the body is ‘I’, but for the former ‘I’ is limited to the body, whereas for the latter ‘I’ shines without limit
  18. Verse 18: for those who do not know themself and for those who do, the world is real, but for the former reality is limited to the world, whereas for the latter it pervades without form as the substratum of the world
  19. Verse 19: dispute about fate and free will arises only for those who do not discern the ego as the root of them both, but if one knows the reality of the ego, one will thereby discard them
  20. Verse 20: seeing God without seeing oneself is seeing a mental vision, so only one who has seen oneself, the origin of one’s ego, is one who has seen God, because oneself is not other than God
  21. Verse 21: since oneself is one, how is oneself to see oneself, and how to see God, except by becoming food to him?
  22. Verse 22: how to know God, who shines within the mind illumining it, except by turning the mind back within and thereby immersing it in him?
  23. Verse 23: this body is not aware of itself as ‘I’, and ‘I’ does not cease to exist in sleep, but after something called ‘I’ rises, everything rises, so keenly discern where it rises
  24. Verse 24: the jaḍa body is not aware of itself as ‘I’, and sat-cit does not rise, but in between something called ‘I’ rises as the extent of the body, and this is cit-jaḍa-granthi, the ego, mind and so on
  25. Verse 25: grasping form the formless phantom-ego comes into existence, stands, feeds itself and flourishes, but if it seeks itself, it will take flight
  26. Verse 26: if the ego comes into existence, everything comes into existence, and if it does not exist, nothing exists, so investigating what it is is giving up everything
  27. Verse 27: the state in which the ego does not rise is the state in which we are that, but without investigating the place where it rises, how can one annihilate it and stand as that?
  28. Verse 28: like sinking to find something that has fallen in water, sinking within by a keenly focused mind it is necessary to know oneself, the source where the ego rises
  29. Verse 29: investigating by an inward sinking mind where one rises as ‘I’ alone is the path of jñāna, whereas thinking ‘I am not this, I am that’ is an aid but not vicāra
  30. Verse 30: as soon as the ego dies by inwardly investigating who am I, one thing appears spontaneously as ‘I am I’, which is not the ego but the infinite substance, namely oneself
  31. Verse 31: when the ego is destroyed by tanmayānanda, there is nothing to do, because one is not aware of anything other than oneself, so who can conceive such a state?
  32. Verse 32: when the Vēdas proclaim ‘That is you’, instead of knowing and being oneself by investigating what am I, thinking ‘I am that, not this’ is due to lack of strength
  33. Verse 33: saying ‘I do not know myself’ or ‘I have known myself’ is ridiculous, because there are not two selves for one to know the other as an object
  34. Verse 34: instead of merging the mind within and thereby knowing and standing firmly as the real substance, quarrelling about its existence and nature is mischief born of māyā
  35. Verse 35: knowing and being the ever-accomplished real substance is the real siddhi, whereas all other siddhis are unreal, like siddhis experienced in a dream
  36. Verse 36: if we think that we are a body, thinking ‘No, we are that’ will be just a good aid, but since we are already that, why should we always be thinking ‘We are that’?
  37. Verse 37: even the contention ‘Duality in spiritual practice, non-duality in attainment’ is not true, because even while one is searching for the tenth man, who is one other than him?
  38. Verse 38: if we are the doer of action, we will experience the resulting fruit, but when one knows oneself by investigating who is the doer, actions and their fruits will cease to exist
  39. Verse 39: thoughts of bondage and liberation exist only so long as one seems to be bound, but when one looks at oneself to see who is bound, one will see that one is ever liberated
  40. Verse 40: if it is said that liberation is with form, without form, or either with form or without form, I will reply that only destruction of the ego is liberation
உள்ளது நாற்பது (Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu): Forty Verses on What Is

பாயிரம் (pāyiram): Introductory Verse (composed by Sri Muruganar)

மெய்யி னியல்புமதை மேவுந் திறனுமெமக்
குய்யும் படிமுருக னோதுகெனப் — பொய்யுலகின்
கள்ளமறு மாற்றாற் கனரமணன் கட்டுரைத்தா
னுள்ளது நாற்ப துவந்து.

meyyi ṉiyalbumadai mēvun tiṟaṉumemak
kuyyum paḍimuruga ṉōdukeṉap — poyyulahiṉ
kaḷḷamaṟu māṯṟāṯ gaṉaramaṇaṉ kaṭṭuraittā
ṉuḷḷadu nāṟpa duvandu
.

பதச்சேதம்: மெய்யின் இயல்பும், அதை மேவும் திறனும், எமக்கு உய்யும்படி முருகன் ஓதுக என, பொய் உலகின் கள்ளம் அறும் ஆற்றால் கன ரமணன் கட்டுரைத்தான் உள்ளது நாற்பது உவந்து.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): meyyiṉ iyalbum, adai mēvum tiṟaṉum, emakku uyyumpaḍi murugaṉ ōduka eṉa, poy ulahiṉ kaḷḷam aṟum āṯṟāl gaṉa ramaṇaṉ kaṭṭuraittāṉ uḷḷadu nāṟpadu uvandu.

அன்வயம் (பதம் பிரித்துக் கொண்டு கூட்டல்): முருகன் ‘மெய்யின் இயல்பும், அதை மேவும் திறனும், உய்யும்படி எமக்கு ஓதுக’ என, கன ரமணன் பொய் உலகின் கள்ளம் அறும் ஆற்றால் உவந்து ‘உள்ளது நாற்பது’ கட்டுரைத்தான்.

Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): murugaṉ ‘meyyiṉ iyalbum, adai mēvum tiṟaṉum, uyyumpaḍi emakku ōduka’ eṉa, gaṉa ramaṇaṉ poy ulahiṉ kaḷḷam aṟum āṯṟāl uvandu uḷḷadu nāṟpadu kaṭṭu uraittāṉ.

English translation: When Muruganar asked, ‘So that we may be saved, reveal to us the nature of reality and the means by which to attain [reach or join] it’, the noble Ramana, because he is free from the delusion of the unreal world, joyfully and with certainty composed Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu [Forty Verses on What Exists].

மங்கலம் (maṅgalam): Benedictory Verses

Maṅgalam verse 1:

உள்ளதல துள்ளவுணர் வுள்ளதோ வுள்ளபொரு
ளுள்ளலற வுள்ளத்தே யுள்ளதா — லுள்ளமெனு
முள்ளபொரு ளுள்ளலெவ னுள்ளத்தே யுள்ளபடி
யுள்ளதே யுள்ள லுணர்.

uḷḷadala duḷḷavuṇar vuḷḷadō vuḷḷaporu
ḷuḷḷalaṟa vuḷḷattē yuḷḷadā — luḷḷameṉu
muḷḷaporu ḷuḷḷaleva ṉuḷḷattē yuḷḷapaḍi
yuḷḷadē yuḷḷa luṇar
.

பதச்சேதம்: உள்ளது அலது உள்ள உணர்வு உள்ளதோ? உள்ள பொருள் உள்ளல் அற உள்ளத்தே உள்ளதால், உள்ளம் எனும் உள்ள பொருள் உள்ளல் எவன்? உள்ளத்தே உள்ளபடி உள்ளதே உள்ளல். உணர்.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): uḷḷadu aladu uḷḷa-v-uṇarvu uḷḷadō? uḷḷa-poruḷ uḷḷal-aṟa uḷḷattē uḷḷadāl, uḷḷam eṉum uḷḷa-poruḷ uḷḷal evaṉ? uḷḷattē uḷḷapaḍi uḷḷadē uḷḷal. uṇar.

அன்வயம்: உள்ளது அலது உள்ள உணர்வு உள்ளதோ? உள்ள பொருள் உள்ளல் அற உள்ளத்தே உள்ளதால், உள்ளம் எனும் உள்ள பொருள் எவன் உள்ளல்? உள்ளத்தே உள்ளபடி உள்ளதே உள்ளல்; உணர்.

Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): uḷḷadu aladu uḷḷa-v-uṇarvu uḷḷadō? uḷḷa-poruḷ uḷḷal-aṟa uḷḷattē uḷḷadāl, uḷḷam eṉum uḷḷa-poruḷ evaṉ uḷḷal? uḷḷattē uḷḷapaḍi uḷḷadē uḷḷal; uṇar.

English translation: If what exists did not exist, would existing awareness exist? Since the existing substance exists in the heart without thought, how to think of the existing substance, which is called ‘heart’? Being in the heart as it is alone is thinking. Know.

Explanatory paraphrase: If uḷḷadu [what is or what exists] did not exist, would uḷḷa-v-uṇarvu [existing awareness, actual awareness or awareness of what is] exist? [Or: (1) Except as uḷḷadu, does uḷḷa-v-uṇarvu exist? (2) Other than uḷḷadu, is there awareness to think [of it, meditate on it or investigate it]?] Since uḷḷa-poruḷ [the existing substance] exists in the heart without thought, how to [or who can] think of [meditate on or investigate] uḷḷa-poruḷ, which is called ‘uḷḷam’ [the heart]? Being in the heart as it is [that is, as pure thought-free self-awareness] alone is thinking [of it, meditating on it, contemplating it, investigating it or revering it]. Know [or be aware] [of it as it is].

Explanations and discussions:
2016-02-08: Liberation is gained not by doing anything but only by just being
2015-08-29: What is meditation on the heart?
2014-08-08: We must experience what is, not what merely seems to be
2014-02-24: We should meditate only on ‘I’, not on ideas such as ‘I am brahman
2009-06-14: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: an explanatory paraphrase
2007-08-20: The crest-jewel of Sri Ramana’s teachings

Maṅgalam verse 2:

மரணபய மிக்குளவம் மக்களர ணாக
மரணபவ மில்லா மகேசன் — சரணமே
சார்வர்தஞ் சார்வொடுதாஞ் சாவுற்றார் சாவெண்ணஞ்
சார்வரோ சாவா தவர்.

maraṇabhaya mikkuḷavam makkaḷara ṇāha
maraṇabhava millā mahēśaṉ — caraṇamē
sārvartañ cārvoḍutāñ cāvuṯṟār sāveṇṇañ
cārvarō sāvā davar
.

பதச்சேதம்: மரணபயம் மிக்கு உள அம் மக்கள் அரண் ஆக மரண பவம் இல்லா மகேசன் சரணமே சார்வர். தம் சார்வு ஒடு தாம் சாவு உற்றார். சாவு எண்ணம் சார்வரோ சாவாதவர்?

Padacchēdam (word-separation): maraṇa-bhayam mikku uḷa am makkaḷ araṇ-āha maraṇa-bhavam-illā mahēśaṉ caraṇamē sārvar. tam sārvu oḍu tām sāvu uṯṟār. sāvu eṇṇam sārvarō sāvādavar?

அன்வயம்: மரணபயம் மிக்கு உள அம் மக்கள் அரண் ஆக மரண பவம் இல்லா மகேசன் சரணமே சார்வர். தம் சார்வு ஒடு தாம் சாவு உற்றார். சாவாதவர் சாவு எண்ணம் சார்வரோ?

Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): maraṇa-bhayam mikku uḷa am makkaḷ araṇ-āha maraṇa-bhavam-illā mahēśaṉ caraṇamē sārvar. tam sārvu oḍu tām sāvu uṯṟār. sāvādavar sāvu eṇṇam sārvarō?

English translation: Pure-hearted people who have intense fear of death will take refuge at the feet of God, who is devoid of death and birth, as a fortress. By their refuge, they undergo death. Will those who are deathless be associated with the thought of death?

Explanatory paraphrase: Pure-hearted people who have intense fear of death will take refuge at [or surrender to] the feet of Mahēśaṉ [the Great Lord, Śiva or God], who is devoid of death and birth, [depending upon him] as [their protective] fortress. By their [taking] refuge [or as soon as they take refuge], their ego dies [and what remains is only their real nature, which is immortal awareness]. Will those who are [thereby] deathless be associated [ever again] with the thought of death?

Explanations and discussions:
2009-06-14: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: an explanatory paraphrase
2007-03-16: The state of true immortality
2007-03-15: Taking refuge at the ‘feet’ of God

————————————————

நூல் (nūl): Text

Verse 1:

நாமுலகங் காண்டலா னானாவாஞ் சத்தியுள
வோர்முதலை யொப்ப லொருதலையே — நாமவுருச்
சித்திரமும் பார்ப்பானுஞ் சேர்படமு மாரொளியு
மத்தனையுந் தானா மவன்.

nāmulahaṅ kāṇḍalā ṉāṉāvāñ cattiyuḷa
vōrmudalai yoppa lorutalaiyē — nāmavuruc
cittiramum pārppāṉuñ cērpaḍamu māroḷiyu
mattaṉaiyun tāṉā mavaṉ
.

பதச்சேதம்: நாம் உலகம் காண்டலால், நானா ஆம் சத்தி உள ஓர் முதலை ஒப்பல் ஒருதலையே. நாம உரு சித்திரமும், பார்ப்பானும், சேர்படமும், ஆர் ஒளியும் — அத்தனையும் தான் ஆம் அவன்.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): nām ulaham kāṇḍalāl, nāṉā ām śatti uḷa ōr mudalai oppal orutalaiyē. nāma uru cittiramum, pārppāṉum, sērpaḍamum, ār oḷiyum — attaṉaiyum tāṉ ām avaṉ.

English translation: Because we see the world, accepting one fundamental that has a power that becomes many is certainly the one best option. The picture of names and forms, the one who sees, the cohesive screen, and the pervading light – all these are he, who is oneself.

Explanatory paraphrase: Because we [as the ego] see the world, accepting one mudal [first thing, origin, source, base or fundamental reality] that has a power that becomes many [appearances, namely ourself as the ego, the seer or perceiver, and all the manifold phenomena that constitute this or any other world that we may see or perceive] is certainly the one best option. The picture of names and forms [namely the world and whatever other phenomena appear in the mind], the one who sees [this picture] [namely the ego], the cohesive screen [namely the mind as the background on which it appears], and the pervading light [namely the mind as the reflected light of awareness, which is what illumines its appearance] — all these are he [the one original thing], who is oneself [one’s real nature].

Explanations and discussions:
2017-01-15: Only as this ego, which is not what it actually is, does brahman or ātman see anything other than itself
2016-10-19: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 1: our ego is nothing other than our actual self, but our actual self is not this ego
2009-06-14: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: an explanatory paraphrase

Verse 2:

மும்முதலை யெம்மதமு முற்கொள்ளு மோர்முதலே
மும்முதலாய் நிற்குமென்று மும்முதலு — மும்முதலே
யென்னலகங் கார மிருக்குமட்டே யான்கெட்டுத்
தன்னிலையி னிற்ற றலை.

mummudalai yemmatamu muṟkoḷḷu mōrmudalē
mummudalāy niṟkumeṉḏṟu mummudalu — mummudalē
yeṉṉalahaṅ kāra mirukkumaṭṭē yāṉkeṭṭut
taṉṉilaiyi ṉiṯṟa ṯalai
.

பதச்சேதம்: மும் முதலை எம் மதமும் முன் கொள்ளும். ‘ஓர் முதலே மும் முதலாய் நிற்கும்’, ‘என்றும் மும் முதலும் மும் முதலே’ என்னல் அகங்காரம் இருக்கும் மட்டே. யான் கெட்டு, தன் நிலையில் நிற்றல் தலை.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): mum mudalai e-m-matamum muṉ koḷḷum. ‘ōr mudalē mum mudalāy niṟkum’, ‘eṉḏṟum mum mudalum mum mudalē’ eṉṉal ahaṅkāram irukkum maṭṭē. yāṉ keṭṭu, taṉ nilaiyil niṯṟal talai.

அன்வயம்: எம் மதமும் மும் முதலை முன் கொள்ளும். ‘ஓர் முதலே மும் முதலாய் நிற்கும்’, ‘மும் முதலும் என்றும் மும் முதலே’ என்னல் அகங்காரம் இருக்கும் மட்டே. யான் கெட்டு, தன் நிலையில் நிற்றல் தலை.

Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): e-m-matamum mum mudalai muṉ koḷḷum. ‘ōr mudalē mum mudalāy niṟkum’, ‘eṉḏṟum mum mudalum mum mudalē’ eṉṉal ahaṅkāram irukkum maṭṭē. yāṉ keṭṭu, taṉ nilaiyil niṯṟal talai.

English translation: Each religion initially accepts three fundamentals. Contending ‘Only one fundamental stands as three fundamentals’, ‘Three fundamentals are always actually three fundamentals’, is only so long as the ego exists. Destroying ‘I’, standing in the state of oneself is best.

Explanatory paraphrase: Each religion [or theistic system of belief] initially accepts three fundamentals [namely the soul, world and God]. Contending that only one fundamental stands as [these] three fundamentals or that [these] three fundamentals are always actually three fundamentals is [possible] only so long as the ego exists. [By] destroying ‘I’ [the ego], standing in the [real] state of oneself is best.

Explanations and discussions:
2009-06-14: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: an explanatory paraphrase

Verse 3:

உலகுமெய்பொய்த் தோற்ற முலகறிவா மன்றென்
றுலகுசுக மன்றென் றுரைத்தெ — னுலகுவிட்டுத்
தன்னையோர்ந் தொன்றிரண்டு தானற்று நானற்ற
வந்நிலையெல் லார்க்குமொப் பாம்.

ulahumeypoyt tōṯṟa mulahaṟivā maṉḏṟeṉ
ḏṟulahusukha maṉḏṟeṉ ḏṟuraitte — ṉulahuviṭṭut
taṉṉaiyōrn doṉḏṟiraṇḍu tāṉaṯṟu nāṉaṯṟa
vannilaiyel lārkkumop pām
.

பதச்சேதம்: ‘உலகு மெய்’, ‘பொய் தோற்றம்’, ‘உலகு அறிவு ஆம்’, ‘அன்று’ என்று, ‘உலகு சுகம்’, ‘அன்று’ என்று உரைத்து என்? உலகு விட்டு, தன்னை ஓர்ந்து, ஒன்று இரண்டு தான் அற்று, ‘நான்’ அற்ற அந் நிலை எல்லார்க்கும் ஒப்பு ஆம்.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): ‘ulahu mey’, ‘poy tōṯṟam’, ‘ulahu aṟivu ām’, ‘aṉḏṟu’ eṉḏṟu, ‘ulahu sukham’, ‘aṉḏṟu’ eṉḏṟu uraittu eṉ? ulahu viṭṭu, taṉṉai ōrndu, oṉḏṟu iraṇḍu tāṉ aṯṟu, ‘nāṉ’ aṯṟa a-n-nilai ellārkkum oppu ām.

English translation: What is the use of disputing: ‘The world is real’, ‘An unreal appearance’; ‘The world is sentient’, ‘It is not’; ‘The world is happiness’, ‘It is not’? Leaving the world and investigating oneself, one and two ceasing, that state in which ‘I’ has perished is agreeable to all.

Explanatory paraphrase: What is the use of disputing: ‘The world is real’, ‘[No, it is] an unreal appearance’; ‘The world is sentient’, ‘It is not’; ‘The world is happiness’, ‘It is not’? Leaving [all thought about] the world and investigating [or knowing] oneself, [thereby] putting an end to [all disputes about] one and two [non-duality and duality], that state in which ‘I’ [the ego] has [thereby] perished is agreeable to all.

Explanations and discussions:
2015-02-16: Comment discussing the need to avoid not only disputes about the reality of the world but also cherishing the idea that it is real
2009-06-14: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: an explanatory paraphrase

Verse 4:

உருவந்தா னாயி னுலகுபர மற்றா
முருவந்தா னன்றே லுவற்றி — னுருவத்தைக்
கண்ணுறுதல் யாவனெவன் கண்ணலாற் காட்சியுண்டோ
கண்ணதுதா னந்தமிலாக் கண்.

uruvandā ṉāyi ṉulahupara maṯṟā
muruvandā ṉaṉḏṟē luvaṯṟi — ṉuruvattaik
kaṇṇuṟudal yāvaṉevaṉ kaṇṇalāṯ kāṭciyuṇḍō
kaṇṇadutā ṉantamilāk kaṇ
.

பதச்சேதம்: உருவம் தான் ஆயின், உலகு பரம் அற்று ஆம்; உருவம் தான் அன்றேல், உவற்றின் உருவத்தை கண் உறுதல் யாவன்? எவன்? கண் அலால் காட்சி உண்டோ? கண் அது தான் அந்தம் இலா கண்.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): uruvam tāṉ āyiṉ, ulahu param aṯṟu ām; uruvam tāṉ aṉḏṟēl, uvaṯṟiṉ uruvattai kaṇ uṟudal yāvaṉ? evaṉ? kaṇ alāl kāṭci uṇḍō? kaṇ adu tāṉ antam-ilā kaṇ.

அன்வயம்: தான் உருவம் ஆயின், உலகு பரம் அற்று ஆம்; தான் உருவம் அன்றேல், உவற்றின் உருவத்தை யாவன் கண் உறுதல்? எவன்? கண் அலால் காட்சி உண்டோ? கண் அது தான் அந்தம் இலா கண்.

Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): tāṉ uruvam āyiṉ, ulahu param aṯṟu ām; tāṉ uruvam aṉḏṟēl, uvaṯṟiṉ uruvattai yāvaṉ kaṇ uṟudal? evaṉ? kaṇ alāl kāṭci uṇḍō? kaṇ adu tāṉ antam-ilā kaṇ.

English translation: If oneself is a form, the world and God will be likewise; if oneself is not a form, who can see their forms? How? Can the seen be otherwise than the eye? The eye is oneself, the infinite eye.

Explanatory paraphrase: If oneself is a form, the world and God will be likewise; if oneself is not a form, who can see their forms, and how [to do so]? Can what is seen be otherwise [or of a different nature] than the eye [the awareness that sees or perceives it]? [Therefore forms can be perceived only by an ‘eye’ or awareness that perceives itself as a form, namely the ego or mind, which always perceives itself as the form of a body.] The [real] eye is oneself [one’s real nature, which is pure self-awareness], the infinite [and hence formless] eye [so it can never see any forms or phenomena, which are all finite].

Explanations and discussions:
2017-06-27: Māyā is nothing but our own mind, so it seems to exist only when we seem to be this mind
2017-06-08: The first in a series of two comments written in reply to someone who asked about ‘near death experiences’ and ‘out of body experiences’
2017-01-15: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 4: our actual self is infinite (and hence formless) awareness, so it cannot see any finite forms
2016-10-25: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 4: as we actually are, we are never aware of forms or anything other than ourself
2016-10-19: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 4: we can perceive forms only if we perceive ourself as a form
2015-09-22: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 4: we can experience the world as forms only if we experience ourself as a form
2015-06-18: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 4: we cannot surrender ourself entirely to God so long as we cling to any form of his
2015-05-20: What we really are is not the witness (sākṣin) or seer (dṛś) of anything
2015-02-16: The first in a series of two comments discussing the unreality of the world
2014-05-02: Why Bhagavan praised Arunachala as the form of a hill
2014-04-25: The mind could not cognise physical forms if it did not cognise itself as a physical form
2014-01-25: To experience anything other than ourself, we must first experience ourself as a form, which we do by mistaking ourself to be a physical body
2009-06-14: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: an explanatory paraphrase

Verse 5:

உடல்பஞ்ச கோச வுருவதனா லைந்து
முடலென்னுஞ் சொல்லி லொடுங்கு — முடலன்றி
யுண்டோ வுலக முடல்விட் டுலகத்தைக்
கண்டா ருளரோ கழறு.

uḍalpañca kōśa vuruvadaṉā laindu
muḍaleṉṉuñ colli loḍuṅgu — muḍalaṉḏṟi
yuṇḍō vulaha muḍalviṭ ṭulahattaik
kaṇḍā ruḷarō kaṙaṟu
.

பதச்சேதம்: உடல் பஞ்ச கோச உரு. அதனால், ஐந்தும் ‘உடல்’ என்னும் சொல்லில் ஒடுங்கும். உடல் அன்றி உண்டோ உலகம்? உடல் விட்டு, உலகத்தை கண்டார் உளரோ? கழறு.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): uḍal pañca kōśa uru. adaṉāl, aindum ‘uḍal’ eṉṉum sollil oḍuṅgum. uḍal aṉḏṟi uṇḍō ulaham? uḍal viṭṭu, ulahattai kaṇḍār uḷarō? kaṙaṟu.

அன்வயம்: உடல் பஞ்ச கோச உரு. அதனால், ‘உடல்’ என்னும் சொல்லில் ஐந்தும் ஒடுங்கும். உடல் அன்றி உலகம் உண்டோ? உடல் விட்டு, உலகத்தை கண்டார் உளரோ? கழறு.

Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): uḍal pañca kōśa uru. adaṉāl, ‘uḍal’ eṉṉum sollil aindum oḍuṅgum. uḍal aṉḏṟi ulaham uṇḍō? uḍal viṭṭu, ulahattai kaṇḍār uḷarō? kaṙaṟu.

English translation: The body is a form of five sheaths. Therefore all five are included in the term ‘body’. Without a body, is there a world? Say, leaving the body, is there anyone who has seen a world?

Explanatory paraphrase: The body is pañca-kōśa-uru [a form composed of five sheaths, namely a physical structure, life, mind, intellect and what is described both as the darkness of self-ignorance and as the will, the totality of the ego’s vāsanās (propensities, inclinations or urges), which are the seeds that sprout as its likes, dislikes, desires, fears and so on]. Therefore all five [sheaths] are included in the term ‘body’. Without a body [composed of these five sheaths], is there a world? Say, without [experiencing oneself as such] a body, is there anyone who has seen a world?

Explanations and discussions:
2017-06-20: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 5: the body we grasp as ourself is a form composed of five sheaths
2017-06-08: The second in a series of two comments written in reply to someone who asked about ‘near death experiences’ and ‘out of body experiences’
2017-01-15: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 5: unless we experience ourself as a body, there is no world for us to see
2016-05-05: The person we seem to be is a form composed of five sheaths
2009-06-14: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: an explanatory paraphrase

Verse 6:

உலகைம் புலன்க ளுருவேறன் றவ்வைம்
புலனைம் பொறிக்குப் புலனா — முலகைமன
மொன்றைம் பொறிவாயா லோர்ந்திடுத லான்மனத்தை
யன்றியுல குண்டோ வறை.

ulahaim pulaṉga ḷuruvēṟaṉ ḏṟavvaim
pulaṉaim poṟikkup pulaṉā — mulahaimaṉa
moṉḏṟaim poṟivāyā lōrndiḍuda lāṉmaṉattai
yaṉḏṟiyula kuṇḍō vaṟai
.

பதச்சேதம்: உலகு ஐம் புலன்கள் உரு; வேறு அன்று. அவ் ஐம் புலன் ஐம் பொறிக்கு புலன் ஆம். உலகை மனம் ஒன்று ஐம் பொறிவாயால் ஓர்ந்திடுதலால், மனத்தை அன்றி உலகு உண்டோ? அறை.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): ulahu aim pulaṉgaḷ uru; vēṟu aṉḏṟu. a-vv-aim pulaṉ aim poṟikku pulaṉ ām. ulahai maṉam oṉḏṟu aim poṟi-vāyāl ōrndiḍudalāl, maṉattai aṉḏṟi ulahu uṇḍō? aṟai.

அன்வயம்: உலகு ஐம் புலன்கள் உரு; வேறு அன்று. அவ் ஐம் புலன் ஐம் பொறிக்கு புலன் ஆம். மனம் ஒன்று உலகை ஐம் பொறிவாயால் ஓர்ந்திடுதலால், மனத்தை அன்றி உலகு உண்டோ? அறை.

Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): ulahu aim pulaṉgaḷ uru; vēṟu aṉḏṟu. a-vv-aim pulaṉ aim poṟikku pulaṉ ām. maṉam oṉḏṟu ulahai aim poṟi-vāyāl ōrndiḍudalāl, maṉattai aṉḏṟi ulahu uṇḍō? aṟai.

English translation: The world is a form of five sense-impressions, not anything else. Those five sense-impressions are impressions to the five sense organs. Since the mind alone perceives the world by way of the five sense organs, say, is there a world besides the mind?

Explanatory paraphrase: The world is a form [composed] of five [kinds of] sense-impressions [sights, sounds, tastes, smells and tactile sensations], not anything else. Those five [kinds of] sense-impressions are impressions [respective] to the five sense organs. Since the mind alone [or since one thing, the mind] perceives the world by way of the five sense organs, say, is there [any] world besides [excluding, if not for, apart from, other than or without] the mind?

Explanations and discussions:
2017-07-27: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 6: the cosmos does not exist independent of the mind that perceives it
2017-01-15: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 6: the mind alone perceives the world, so but for the mind there is no world
2016-10-25: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 6: the world is perceived only by our mind, so it does not exist independent of this mind
2014-11-09: Comment explaining that in the absence of the ego or mind nothing else (other than our real self) exists
2009-06-14: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: an explanatory paraphrase

Verse 7:

உலகறிவு மொன்றா யுதித்தொடுங்கு மேனு
முலகறிவு தன்னா லொளிரு — முலகறிவு
தோன்றிமறை தற்கிடனாய்த் தோன்றிமறை யாதொளிரும்
பூன்றமா மஃதே பொருள்.

ulahaṟivu moṉḏṟā yudittoḍuṅgu mēṉu
mulahaṟivu taṉṉā loḷiru — mulahaṟivu
tōṉḏṟimaṟai daṟkiḍaṉāyt tōṉḏṟimaṟai yādoḷirum
pūṉḏṟamā maḵdē poruḷ
.

பதச்சேதம்: உலகு அறிவும் ஒன்றாய் உதித்து ஒடுங்கும் ஏனும், உலகு அறிவு தன்னால் ஒளிரும். உலகு அறிவு தோன்றி மறைதற்கு இடன் ஆய் தோன்றி மறையாது ஒளிரும் பூன்றம் ஆம் அஃதே பொருள்.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): ulahu aṟivum oṉḏṟāy udittu oḍuṅgum ēṉum, ulahu aṟivu-taṉṉāl oḷirum. ulahu aṟivu tōṉḏṟi maṟaidaṟku iḍaṉ-āy tōṉḏṟi maṟaiyādu oḷirum pūṉḏṟam ām aḵdē poruḷ.

அன்வயம்: உலகு அறிவும் ஒன்றாய் உதித்து ஒடுங்கும் ஏனும், உலகு அறிவு தன்னால் ஒளிரும். உலகு அறிவு தோன்றி மறைதற்கு இடன் ஆய் தோன்றி மறையாது ஒளிரும் அஃதே பூன்றம் ஆம் பொருள்.

Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): ulahu aṟivum oṉḏṟāy udittu oḍuṅgum ēṉum, ulahu aṟivu-taṉṉāl oḷirum. ulahu aṟivu tōṉḏṟi maṟaidaṟku iḍaṉ-āy tōṉḏṟi maṟaiyādu oḷirum aḵdē pūṉḏṟam ām poruḷ.

English translation: Though the world and awareness arise and subside simultaneously, the world shines by awareness. Only that which shines without appearing or disappearing as the place for the appearing and disappearing of the world and awareness is the substance, which is the whole.

Explanatory paraphrase: Though the world and awareness [the awareness that perceives the world, namely the ego or mind] arise and subside simultaneously, the world shines by [that rising and subsiding] awareness [the mind]. Only that which shines without appearing or disappearing as the place [space, expanse, location, site or ground] for the appearing and disappearing of the world and [that] awareness is poruḷ [the real substance or vastu], which is pūṉḏṟam [the infinite whole or pūrṇa].

Explanations and discussions:
2017-01-15: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 7: the world is illumined or made perceptible by the mind’s awareness of it
2015-12-10: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 7: the world seems to exist only because it is perceived by our ego
2015-09-22: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 7: the eternal and immutable ground and source of the ego and world is the infinite whole
2015-08-11: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verses 26 and 7: everything else exists and shines by this reflected light
2015-06-18: The poruḷ referred to in verse 8 is the infinite whole, which, being what ‘shines without appearing or disappearing as the base for the appearing and disappearing of the mind and world’, exists independent of the mind or of any form known by it, and is therefore both formless and nameless
2009-06-14: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: an explanatory paraphrase

Verse 8:

எப்பெயரிட் டெவ்வுருவி லேத்தினுமார் பேருருவி
லப்பொருளைக் காண்வழிய தாயினுமம் — மெய்ப்பொருளி
னுண்மையிற்ற னுண்மையினை யோர்ந்தொடுங்கி யொன்றுதலே
யுண்மையிற் காண லுணர்.

eppeyariṭ ṭevvuruvi lēttiṉumār pēruruvi
lapporuḷaik kāṇvaṙiya dāyiṉumam — meypporuḷi
ṉuṇmaiyiṯṟa ṉuṇmaiyiṉai yōrndoḍuṅgi yoṉḏṟudalē
yuṇmaiyiṯ kāṇa luṇar
.

பதச்சேதம்: எப் பெயர் இட்டு எவ் வுருவில் ஏத்தினும் ஆர், பேர் உருவில் அப் பொருளை காண் வழி அது. ஆயினும், அம் மெய்ப் பொருளின் உண்மையில் தன் உண்மையினை ஓர்ந்து, ஒடுங்கி ஒன்றுதலே உண்மையில் காணல். உணர்.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): e-p-peyar iṭṭu e-vv-uruvil ēttiṉum ār, pēr-uruvil a-p-poruḷai kāṇ vaṙi adu. āyiṉum, a-m-mey-p-poruḷiṉ uṇmaiyil taṉ uṇmaiyiṉai ōrndu, oḍuṅgi oṉḏṟudalē uṇmaiyil kāṇal. uṇar.

அன்வயம்: ஆர் எப் பெயர் இட்டு எவ் வுருவில் ஏத்தினும், அது அப் பொருளைப் பேர் உருவில் காண் வழி. ஆயினும், தன் உண்மையினை ஓர்ந்து, அம் மெய்ப் பொருளின் உண்மையில் ஒடுங்கி ஒன்றுதலே உண்மையில் காணல். உணர்.

Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): ār e-p-peyar iṭṭu e-vv-uruvil ēttiṉum, adu a-p-poruḷai pēr-uruvil kāṇ vaṙi. āyiṉum, taṉ uṇmaiyiṉai ōrndu, a-m-mey-p-poruḷiṉ uṇmaiyil oḍuṅgi oṉḏṟudalē uṇmaiyil kāṇal. uṇar.

English translation: Whoever worships in whatever form giving whatever name, that is the way to see that substance in name and form. However, investigating the reality of oneself, dissolving in the reality of that true substance, becoming one alone is seeing in reality. Know.

Explanatory paraphrase: Whoever worships [it] in whatever form giving [it] whatever name, that is the way to see that [nameless and formless] poruḷ [the real substance, brahman, the ultimate reality or God] in name and form. However, [by] investigating [or knowing] the reality of oneself, [and by thereby] dissolving [or subsiding] in the reality of that true poruḷ, becoming one [with it] alone is seeing [it] in reality. Know [or be aware].

Explanations and discussions:
2015-06-18: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 8: worshipping the ultimate reality in name and form is the way to see it in name and form, but seeing the reality of oneself and thereby abiding as the ultimate reality is seeing it in reality
2009-06-14: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: an explanatory paraphrase

Verse 9:

இரட்டைகண் முப்புடிக ளென்றுமொன்று பற்றி
யிருப்பவா மவ்வொன்றே தென்று — கருத்தினுட்
கண்டாற் கழலுமவை கண்டவ ரேயுண்மை
கண்டார் கலங்காரே காண்.

iraṭṭaigaṇ muppuḍiga ḷeṉḏṟumoṉḏṟu paṯṟi
yiruppavā mavvoṉḏṟē teṉḏṟu — karuttiṉuṭ
kaṇḍāṯ kaṙalumavai kaṇḍava rēyuṇmai
kaṇḍār kalaṅgārē kāṇ
.

பதச்சேதம்: இரட்டைகள் முப்புடிகள் என்றும் ஒன்று பற்றி இருப்பவாம். அவ் ஒன்று ஏது என்று கருத்தின் உள் கண்டால், கழலும் அவை. கண்டவரே உண்மை கண்டார்; கலங்காரே. காண்.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): iraṭṭaigaḷ muppuḍigaḷ eṉḏṟum oṉḏṟu paṯṟi iruppavām. a-vv-oṉḏṟu ēdu eṉḏṟu karuttiṉ-uḷ kaṇḍāl, kaṙalum avai. kaṇḍavarē uṇmai kaṇḍār; kalaṅgārē. kāṇ.

அன்வயம்: இரட்டைகள் முப்புடிகள் என்றும் ஒன்று பற்றி இருப்பவாம். அவ் ஒன்று ஏது என்று கருத்தின் உள் கண்டால், அவை கழலும். கண்டவரே உண்மை கண்டார்; கலங்காரே. காண்.

Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): iraṭṭaigaḷ muppuḍigaḷ eṉḏṟum oṉḏṟu paṯṟi iruppavām. a-vv-oṉḏṟu ēdu eṉḏṟu karuttiṉ-uḷ kaṇḍāl, avai kaṙalum. kaṇḍavarē uṇmai kaṇḍār; kalaṅgārē. kāṇ.

English translation: Dyads and triads exist always holding one thing. If one sees within the mind what that one thing is, they will cease to exist. Only those who have seen have seen the reality. See, they will not be confused.

Explanatory paraphrase: Dyads [pairs of opposites] and triads [the three factors of transitive knowledge or awareness, namely the perceiver, the perceived and the perceiving] exist [by] always holding [or depending on] one thing [namely the ego, in whose view alone they seem to exist]. If [by looking keenly at oneself] one sees within the mind what that one thing is, they will cease to exist [because their support and foundation, the ego, will itself cease to exist]. Only those who have seen [this cessation of all dyads and triads along with their root, the ego] have seen the reality. See, they will not be confused.

Explanations and discussions:
2017-01-15: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 9: if we look within to see what this ego is, all dyads and triads will cease to exist
2016-11-21: The seer, the seen and the seeing are all a false appearance
2016-05-08: The ego is the common factor in all tripuṭis and the foundation of each of them
2009-06-14: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: an explanatory paraphrase

Verse 10:

அறியாமை விட்டறிவின் றாமறிவு விட்டவ்
வறியாமை யின்றாகு மந்த — வறிவு
மறியா மையுமார்க்கென் றம்முதலாந் தன்னை
யறியு மறிவே யறிவு.

aṟiyāmai viṭṭaṟiviṉ ḏṟāmaṟivu viṭṭav
vaṟiyāmai yiṉḏṟāhu manda — vaṟivu
maṟiyā maiyumārkkeṉ ḏṟammudalān taṉṉai
yaṟiyu maṟivē yaṟivu
.

பதச்சேதம்: அறியாமை விட்டு, அறிவு இன்று ஆம்; அறிவு விட்டு, அவ் வறியாமை இன்று ஆகும். அந்த அறிவும் அறியாமையும் ஆர்க்கு என்று அம் முதல் ஆம் தன்னை அறியும் அறிவே அறிவு.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): aṟiyāmai viṭṭu, aṟivu iṉḏṟu ām; aṟivu viṭṭu, a-vv-aṟiyāmai iṉḏṟu āhum. anda aṟivum aṟiyāmaiyum ārkku eṉḏṟu a-m-mudal ām taṉṉai aṟiyum aṟivē aṟivu.

English translation: Leaving ignorance, knowledge does not exist; leaving knowledge, that ignorance does not exist. Only the knowledge that knows oneself, who is the first, as to whom are that knowledge and ignorance, is knowledge.

Explanatory paraphrase: Without ignorance [of other things], knowledge [of them] does not exist; without knowledge [of them], that ignorance [of them] does not exist. Only the knowledge [or awareness] that knows [the reality of] oneself [the ego], who is the first [to appear], [by investigating] to whom are that knowledge and ignorance [of other things], is [real] knowledge [or awareness].

Explanations and discussions:
2017-01-15: Knowledge and ignorance appear and disappear together, because as soon as we come to know something, we also come to know that we were previously ignorant of it
2017-09-22: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 10: knowing the non-existence of the ego is true knowledge
2009-06-14: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: an explanatory paraphrase

Verse 11:

அறிவுறுந் தன்னை யறியா தயலை
யறிவ தறியாமை யன்றி — யறிவோ
வறிவயற் காதாரத் தன்னை யறிய
வறிவறி யாமை யறும்.

aṟivuṟun taṉṉai yaṟiyā dayalai
yaṟiva daṟiyāmai yaṉḏṟi — yaṟivō
vaṟivayaṟ kādhārat taṉṉai yaṟiya
vaṟivaṟi yāmai yaṟum
.

பதச்சேதம்: அறிவு உறும் தன்னை அறியாது அயலை அறிவது அறியாமை; அன்றி அறிவோ? அறிவு அயற்கு ஆதார தன்னை அறிய, அறிவு அறியாமை அறும்.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): aṟivu-uṟum taṉṉai aṟiyādu ayalai aṟivadu aṟiyāmai; aṉḏṟi aṟivō? aṟivu ayaṟku ādhāra taṉṉai aṟiya, aṟivu aṟiyāmai aṟum.

English translation: Without knowing oneself, who knows, knowing other things is ignorance; besides, can it be knowledge? When one knows oneself, the support for knowledge and the other, knowledge and ignorance will cease.

Explanatory paraphrase: Without knowing oneself [the ego], who knows [everything else], knowing other things is ignorance; except [that], can it be knowledge? When one knows [the reality of] oneself [the ego], the ādhāra [support, foundation or container] for knowledge and the other [ignorance], knowledge and ignorance [of everything else] will cease [because the reality of the ego is just pure self-awareness, so when one knows oneself as pure self-awareness the ego will no longer seem to exist, and hence all its knowledge and ignorance will cease to exist along with it].

Explanations and discussions:
2017-01-15: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 11: when we know the non-existence of the ego, knowledge and ignorance of everything else will cease
2015-12-10: Being aware of otherness or multiplicity is not real knowledge but only ignorance
2015-09-22: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 11: knowing anything other than oneself is ignorance
2009-06-14: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: an explanatory paraphrase

Verse 12:

அறிவறி யாமையு மற்றதறி வாமே
யறியும துண்மையறி வாகா — தறிதற்
கறிவித்தற் கன்னியமின் றாயவிர்வ தாற்றா
னறிவாகும் பாழன் றறி.

aṟivaṟi yāmaiyu maṯṟadaṟi vāmē
yaṟiyuma duṇmaiyaṟi vāhā — daṟitaṟ
kaṟivittaṟ kaṉṉiyamiṉ ḏṟāyavirva dāṯṟā
ṉaṟivāhum pāṙaṉ ḏṟaṟi
.

பதச்சேதம்: அறிவு அறியாமையும் அற்றது அறிவு ஆமே. அறியும் அது உண்மை அறிவு ஆகாது. அறிதற்கு அறிவித்தற்கு அன்னியம் இன்றாய் அவிர்வதால், தான் அறிவு ஆகும். பாழ் அன்று. அறி.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): aṟivu aṟiyāmaiyum aṯṟadu aṟivu āmē. aṟiyum adu uṇmai aṟivu āhādu. aṟidaṟku aṟivittaṟku aṉṉiyam iṉḏṟāy avirvadāl, tāṉ aṟivu āhum. pāṙ aṉḏṟu. aṟi.

English translation: What is devoid of knowledge and ignorance is actually knowledge. That which knows is not real knowledge. Since one shines without another for knowing or for causing to know, oneself is knowledge. One is not void. Know.

Explanatory paraphrase: What is devoid of knowledge and ignorance [about anything other than itself] is actually aṟivu [knowledge or awareness]. That which knows [or is aware of anything other than itself, namely the ego] is not real aṟivu [knowledge or awareness]. Since one [one’s real nature] shines without another for knowing or for causing to know [or causing to be known], oneself is [real] aṟivu [knowledge or awareness]. One is not void [emptiness, desolation, nothingness or non-existence]. Know [or be aware].

Explanations and discussions:
2017-07-13: Since it shines without any other to know or to cause to be known, what we actually are is real awareness
2017-07-06: Real awareness is not what is aware of anything other than itself but only awareness that is aware of nothing other than itself
2017-03-08: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 12: we are not nothingness but pure awareness
2017-01-28: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 12 and its meaning (this is the first section of an article in which I discuss the meaning of each sentence of this verse in depth: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 12: other than the real awareness that we actually are, there is nothing to know or make known)
2017-01-15: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 12: real awareness is our actual self, which shines without anything else to know or to cause to know
2015-09-22: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 12: we are not a void, though devoid of knowledge and ignorance
2009-06-14: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: an explanatory paraphrase

Verse 13:

ஞானமாந் தானேமெய் நானாவா ஞானமஞ்
ஞானமாம் பொய்யாமஞ் ஞானமுமே — ஞானமாந்
தன்னையன்றி யின்றணிக டாம்பலவும் பொய்மெய்யாம்
பொன்னையன்றி யுண்டோ புகல்.

ñāṉamān tāṉēmey nāṉāvā ñāṉamañ
ñāṉamām poyyāmañ ñāṉamumē — ñāṉamān
taṉṉaiyaṉḏṟi yiṉḏṟaṇika ḍāmpalavum poymeyyām
poṉṉaiyaṉḏṟi yuṇḍō puhal
.

பதச்சேதம்: ஞானம் ஆம் தானே மெய். நானா ஆம் ஞானம் அஞ்ஞானம் ஆம். பொய் ஆம் அஞ்ஞானமுமே ஞானம் ஆம் தன்னை அன்றி இன்று. அணிகள் தாம் பலவும் பொய்; மெய் ஆம் பொன்னை அன்றி உண்டோ? புகல்.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): ñāṉam ām tāṉē mey. nāṉā ām ñāṉam aññāṉam ām. poy ām aññāṉamumē ñāṉam ām taṉṉai aṉḏṟi iṉḏṟu. aṇikaḷ tām palavum poy; mey ām poṉṉai aṉḏṟi uṇḍō? puhal.

English translation: Oneself, who is awareness, alone is real. Awareness that is manifold is ignorance. Even ignorance, which is unreal, does not exist except as oneself, who is awareness. All the many ornaments are unreal; say, do they exist except as gold, which is real?

Explanatory paraphrase: Oneself, who is jñāna [knowledge or awareness], alone is real. Awareness that is manifold [namely the mind, whose root, the ego, is the awareness that sees the one as many] is ajñāna [ignorance]. Even [that] ignorance, which is unreal, does not exist except as [besides, apart from or as other than] oneself, who is [real] awareness. All the many ornaments are unreal; say, do they exist except as gold, which is real? [In other words, though the ego or mind, which is the false awareness that sees itself as numerous phenomena, is ignorance and unreal, the real substance that appears as it is only oneself, who is true knowledge or pure awareness, so what actually exists is not the ego or mind but only oneself.]

Explanations and discussions:
2017-07-27: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 13: awareness of phenomena is not real awareness (jñāna) but only ignorance (ajñāna)
2017-07-25: Oneself, who is jñāna [awareness], alone is real
2017-01-15: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 13: what is aware of multiplicity is not real awareness but only ignorance
2016-03-16: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 13: real awareness is ourself, whereas awareness of other things is ignorance
2015-12-10: Being aware of otherness or multiplicity is not real knowledge but only ignorance
2015-09-22: Upadēśa Taṉippākkaḷ verse 12: being aware of multiplicity is ignorance (verse 12 of Upadēśa Taṉippākkaḷ is the original version of the verse that Bhagavan later modified to form verse 13 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu)
2015-09-22: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 13: since we alone are real, being aware of anything else is ignorance
2014-11-20: The ego and its knowledge of multiplicity are both unreal
2009-06-14: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: an explanatory paraphrase

Verse 14:

தன்மையுண்டேன் முன்னிலைப டர்க்கைக டாமுளவாந்
தன்மையி னுண்மையைத் தானாய்ந்து — தன்மையறின்
முன்னிலைப டர்க்கை முடிவுற்றொன் றாயொளிருந்
தன்மையே தன்னிலைமை தான்.

taṉmaiyuṇḍēṉ muṉṉilaipa ḍarkkaiga ḍāmuḷavān
taṉmaiyi ṉuṇmaiyait tāṉāyndu — taṉmaiyaṟiṉ
muṉṉilaipa ḍarkkai muḍivuṯṟoṉ ḏṟāyoḷirun
taṉmaiyē taṉṉilaimai tāṉ
.

பதச்சேதம்: தன்மை உண்டேல், முன்னிலை படர்க்கைகள் தாம் உள ஆம். தன்மையின் உண்மையை தான் ஆய்ந்து தன்மை அறின், முன்னிலை படர்க்கை முடிவு உற்று, ஒன்றாய் ஒளிரும் தன்மையே தன் நிலைமை தான்.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): taṉmai uṇḍēl, muṉṉilai paḍarkkaigaḷ tām uḷa-v-ām. taṉmaiyiṉ uṇmaiyai tāṉ āyndu taṉmai aṟiṉ, muṉṉilai paḍarkkai muḍivu uṯṟu, oṉḏṟāy oḷirum taṉmaiyē taṉ nilaimai tāṉ.

English translation: If the first person exists, second and third persons will exist. If, oneself investigating the reality of the first person, the first person ceases to exist, second and third persons coming to an end, the nature that shines as one alone is oneself, the state of oneself.

Explanatory paraphrase: If the first person [the ego] exists, second and third persons [everything else] will exist. If the first person ceases to exist [by] oneself investigating the reality of the first person, second and third persons will come to an end, and [what then remains alone, namely] the nature [selfness, essence or reality] that shines as one [undivided by the appearance of these three persons or ‘places’] alone is oneself, the [real] state [or nature] of oneself.

Explanations and discussions:
2017-09-18: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 14: other thoughts are second and third persons, which depend for their seeming existence on the ego, the first person
2017-01-15: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 14: second and third persons do not exist except in the view of the first person, the ‘I’ who is aware of itself as a body
2011-01-10: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 14: the kaliveṇbā version
2009-06-14: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: an explanatory paraphrase

Verse 15:

நிகழ்வினைப் பற்றி யிறப்பெதிர்வு நிற்ப
நிகழ்கா லவையு நிகழ்வே — நிகழ்வொன்றே
யின்றுண்மை தேரா திறப்பெதிர்வு தேரவுன
லொன்றின்றி யெண்ண வுனல்.

nihaṙviṉaip paṯṟi yiṟappedirvu niṟpa
nihaṙkā lavaiyu nihaṙvē — nihaṙvoṉḏṟē
yiṉḏṟuṇmai tērā tiṟappedirvu tēravuṉa
loṉḏṟiṉṟi yeṇṇa vuṉal
.

பதச்சேதம்: நிகழ்வினை பற்றி இறப்பு எதிர்வு நிற்ப. நிகழ்கால் அவையும் நிகழ்வே. நிகழ்வு ஒன்றே. இன்று உண்மை தேராது இறப்பு எதிர்வு தேர உனல் ஒன்று இன்றி எண்ண உனல்.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): nihaṙviṉai paṯṟi iṟappu edirvu niṟpa. nihaṙkāl avaiyum nihaṙvē. nihaṙvu oṉḏṟē. iṉḏṟu uṇmai tērādu, iṟappu edirvu tēra uṉal ‘oṉḏṟu’ iṉḏṟi eṇṇa uṉal.

English translation: Past and future stand holding the present. While occurring, they too are actually the present. The present is the only one. Without knowing the reality of the present, trying to know the past or future is trying to count without one.

Explanatory paraphrase: Past and future stand holding [or depending upon] the present. While occurring, they too are actually the present. [Therefore] the present is the only one [the only time that actually exists] [alternatively this sentence can be interpreted as meaning: the present alone [is all these three times]; the present alone [exists]; or [there is] only the present] [so the implication of all these interpretations is that there are not three times, namely the past, present and future, but only one, namely the present, which alone is what seems to be these three]. [Hence] without knowing the reality of the present, trying to know the past or future is [like] trying to count [calculate or evaluate] without [knowing the value of] one.

Explanations and discussions:
2009-06-14: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: an explanatory paraphrase

Verse 16:

நாமன்றி நாளேது நாடேது நாடுங்கா
னாமுடம்பே னாணாட்டு ணாம்படுவ — நாமுடம்போ
நாமின்றன் றென்றுமொன்று நாடிங்கங் கெங்குமொன்றா
னாமுண்டு நாணாடி னாம்.

nāmaṉḏṟi nāḷēdu nāḍēdu nāḍuṅgā
ṉāmuḍambē ṉāṇāṭṭu ṇāmpaḍuva — nāmuḍambō
nāmiṉḏṟaṉ ḏṟeṉḏṟumoṉḏṟu nāḍiṅgaṅ geṅgumoṉḏṟā
ṉāmuṇḍu nāṇāḍi ṉām
.

பதச்சேதம்: நாம் அன்றி நாள் ஏது, நாடு ஏது, நாடும் கால்? நாம் உடம்பேல், நாள் நாட்டுள் நாம் படுவம். நாம் உடம்போ? நாம் இன்று, அன்று, என்றும் ஒன்று; நாடு இங்கு, அங்கு, எங்கும் ஒன்று; ஆல், நாம் உண்டு. நாள் நாடு இல். நாம்.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): nām aṉḏṟi nāḷ ēdu, nāḍu ēdu, nāḍum kāl? nām uḍambēl, nāḷ nāṭṭuḷ nām paḍuvam. nām uḍambō? nām iṉḏṟu, aṉḏṟu, eṉḏṟum oṉḏṟu; nāḍu iṅgu, aṅgu, eṅgum oṉḏṟu; āl, nām uṇḍu. nāḷ nāḍu il. nām.

அன்வயம்: நாடும் கால், நாம் அன்றி நாள் ஏது, நாடு ஏது? நாம் உடம்பேல், நாம் நாள் நாட்டுள் படுவம். நாம் உடம்போ? இன்று, அன்று, என்றும் நாம் ஒன்று; நாடு இங்கு, அங்கு, எங்கும் [நாம்] ஒன்று; ஆல், [நாள் நாடு இல்] நாம், நாம் உண்டு. நாள் நாடு இல்.

Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): nāḍum kāl, nām aṉḏṟi nāḷ ēdu, nāḍu ēdu? nām uḍambēl, nām nāḷ nāṭṭuḷ paḍuvam. nām uḍambō? iṉḏṟu, aṉḏṟu, eṉḏṟum nām oṉḏṟu; nāḍu iṅgu, aṅgu, eṅgum [nām] oṉḏṟu; āl, [nāḷ nāḍu il] nām, nām uṇḍu. nāḷ nāḍu il.

English translation: When we investigate, except we, where is time, where is place? If we are a body, we will be ensnared in time and place. Are we a body? Since we are the one, now, then and always, the one in place, here, there and everywhere, there is we, we. Time and place do not exist.

Explanatory paraphrase: When we investigate [ourself], except we, where is time and where is place? If we are a body, we will be ensnared in time and place. [But] are we a body? Since we are the [same] one [without any change], now, then and always, the [same] one in [each] place, here, there and everywhere, there is [only] we, [the timeless and placeless] we. Time and place do not exist.

Explanations and discussions:
2015-03-31: Physical space appears only in our mental space, and our mental space appears only in the space of our self-awareness
2014-04-25: If we experience ourself as a body, we are entangled in time, as Bhagavan says in verse 13 of Upadēśa Taṉippākkaḷ (which is the original version of the verse that he later modified to form verse 16 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu)
2014-01-25: By discovering what ‘I’ actually is we will swallow time, as Bhagavan says in verse 13 of Upadēśa Taṉippākkaḷ
2009-06-14: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: an explanatory paraphrase

Verse 17:

உடனானே தன்னை யுணரார்க் குணர்ந்தார்க்
குடலளவே நான்ற னுணரார்க் — குடலுள்ளே
தன்னுணர்ந்தார்க் கெல்லையறத் தானொளிரு நானிதுவே
யின்னவர்தம் பேதமென வெண்.

uḍaṉāṉē taṉṉai yuṇarārk kuṇarndārk
kuḍalaḷavē nāṉṯṟa ṉuṇarārk — kuḍaluḷḷē
taṉṉuṇarndārk kellaiyaṟat tāṉoḷiru nāṉiduvē
yiṉṉavartam bhēdameṉa veṇ
.

பதச்சேதம்: உடல் நானே, தன்னை உணரார்க்கு, உணர்ந்தார்க்கு. உடல் அளவே ‘நான்’ தன் உணரார்க்கு; உடல் உள்ளே தன் உணர்ந்தார்க்கு எல்லை அற தான் ஒளிரும் ‘நான்’. இதுவே இன்னவர் தம் பேதம் என எண்.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): uḍal nāṉē, taṉṉai uṇarārkku, uṇarndārkku. uḍal aḷavē ‘nāṉ’ taṉ[ṉai] uṇarārkku; uḍal uḷḷē taṉ[ṉai] uṇarndārkku ellai aṟa tāṉ oḷirum ‘nāṉ’. iduvē iṉṉavar tam bhēdam eṉa eṇ.

அன்வயம்: தன்னை உணரார்க்கு, உணர்ந்தார்க்கு உடல் நானே. தன் உணரார்க்கு, ‘நான்’ உடல் அளவே; உடல் உள்ளே தன் உணர்ந்தார்க்கு ‘நான்’ தான் எல்லை அற ஒளிரும். இன்னவர் தம் பேதம் இதுவே என எண்.

Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): taṉṉai uṇarārkku, uṇarndārkku uḍal nāṉē. taṉ uṇarārkku ‘nāṉ’ uḍal aḷavē; uḍal uḷḷē taṉ uṇarndārkku ‘nāṉ’ tāṉ ellai aṟa oḷirum. iṉṉavar tam bhēdam iduvē eṉa eṇ.

English translation: For those who do not know themself, for those who have known themself, the body is actually ‘I’. For those who do not know themself, ‘I’ is only the extent of the body; for those who have known themself within the body, oneself, ‘I’, shines without limit. Consider that the difference between them is only this.

Explanatory paraphrase: For those who do not know themself [their real nature] and for those who have known themself, the body is actually ‘I’. For those who do not know themself, ‘I’ is [limited to] only the extent of the body, [whereas] for those who have known themself within the body, oneself [called] ‘I’ shines without limit [boundary or extent] [as the one infinite whole, which alone exists and which is therefore the sole substance that appears as the body and everything else]. Consider that the difference between them is only this.

Explanations and discussions:
2016-10-19: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 17: what seems to the ignorant to be a finite body is actually only the infinite ‘I’
2009-06-14: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: an explanatory paraphrase

Verse 18:

உலகுண்மை யாகு முணர்வில்லார்க் குள்ளார்க்
குலகளவா முண்மை யுணரார்க் — குலகினுக்
காதார மாயுருவற் றாருமுணர்ந் தாருண்மை
யீதாகும் பேதமிவர்க் கெண்.

ulahuṇmai yāhu muṇarvillārk kuḷḷārk
kulahaḷavā muṇmai yuṇarārk — kulahiṉuk
kādhāra māyuruvaṯ ṟārumuṇarn dāruṇmai
yīdāhum bhēdamivark keṇ
.

பதச்சேதம்: உலகு உண்மை ஆகும், உணர்வு இல்லார்க்கு, உள்ளார்க்கு. உலகு அளவு ஆம் உண்மை உணரார்க்கு; உலகினுக்கு ஆதாரமாய் உரு அற்று ஆரும் உணர்ந்தார் உண்மை. ஈது ஆகும் பேதம் இவர்க்கு. எண்.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): ulahu uṇmai āhum, uṇarvu illārkku, uḷḷārkku. ulahu aḷavu ām uṇmai uṇarārkku; ulahiṉukku ādhāram-āy uru aṯṟu ārum uṇarndār uṇmai. īdu āhum bhēdam ivarkku. eṇ.

அன்வயம்: உணர்வு இல்லார்க்கு, உள்ளார்க்கு உலகு உண்மை ஆகும். உணரார்க்கு உண்மை உலகு அளவு ஆம்; உணர்ந்தார் உண்மை உலகினுக்கு ஆதாரமாய் உரு அற்று ஆரும். ஈது இவர்க்கு பேதம் ஆகும். எண்.

Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): uṇarvu illārkku, uḷḷārkku ulahu uṇmai āhum. uṇarārkku uṇmai ulahu aḷavu ām; uṇarndār uṇmai ulahiṉukku ādhāram-āy uru aṯṟu ārum. īdu ivarkku bhēdam āhum. eṇ.

English translation: For those who do not have knowledge, for those who have, the world is real. For those who do not know, reality is the extent of the world; for those who have known, reality pervades devoid of form as the support for the world. This is the difference between them. Consider.

Explanatory paraphrase: For those who do not have knowledge [of their real nature] and for those who have, the world is real. For those who do not know [their real nature], reality is [limited to] the extent of [the forms that constitute] the world, [whereas] for those who have known [their real nature], reality pervades devoid of form as the ādhāra [support, foundation or container] for [the appearance of the forms that constitute] the world. This is the difference between them. Consider.

Explanations and discussions:
2017-01-15: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 18: for the jñāni, what is real is not the world as such but only its formless ādhāra
2016-10-19: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 18: the world is real not as a finite set of forms but only as its formless substratum
2015-09-22: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 18: when we know ourself, we will experience the world only as its formless substratum
2009-06-14: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: an explanatory paraphrase

Verse 19:

விதிமதி மூல விவேக மிலார்க்கே
விதிமதி வெல்லும் விவாதம் — விதிமதிகட்
கோர்முதலாந் தன்னை யுணர்ந்தா ரவைதணந்தார்
சார்வரோ பின்னுமவை சாற்று.

vidhimati mūla vivēka milārkkē
vidhimati vellum vivādam — vidhimatigaṭ
kōrmudalān taṉṉai yuṇarndā ravaitaṇandār
sārvarō piṉṉumavai sāṯṟu
.

பதச்சேதம்: விதி மதி மூல விவேகம் இலார்க்கே விதி மதி வெல்லும் விவாதம். விதிமதிகட்கு ஓர் முதல் ஆம் தன்னை உணர்ந்தார் அவை தணந்தார்; சார்வரோ பின்னும் அவை? சாற்று.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): vidhi mati mūla vivēkam ilārkkē vidhi mati vellum vivādam. vidhi-matigaṭku ōr mudal ām taṉṉai uṇarndār avai taṇandār; sārvarō piṉṉum avai? sāṯṟu.

அன்வயம்: விதி மதி மூல விவேகம் இலார்க்கே விதி மதி வெல்லும் விவாதம். விதிமதிகட்கு ஓர் முதல் ஆம் தன்னை உணர்ந்தார் அவை தணந்தார்; பின்னும் அவை சார்வரோ? சாற்று.

Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): vidhi mati mūla vivēkam ilārkkē vidhi mati vellum vivādam. vidhi-matigaṭku ōr mudal ām taṉṉai uṇarndār avai taṇandār; piṉṉum avai sārvarō? sāṯṟu.

English translation: Only for those who do not have discernment of the root of fate and free will is there dispute about which prevails, fate or free will. Those who have known themself, who is the one origin for fate and free will, have discarded them. Say, will they thereafter be associated with them?

Explanatory paraphrase: Only for those who do not have vidhi-mati-mūla-vivēkam [ability to distinguish or discern the root of fate (vidhi) and free will (mati), namely the ego] is there dispute about which prevails, fate or free will. Those who have known [the reality of] themself [the ego], who is the one origin [cause or foundation] for fate and free will, have [thereby] discarded them [because the ego as such does not actually exist, since its reality is not what it seems to be but just pure self-awareness, so when one knows oneself as pure self-awareness the appearance of the ego will be dissolved forever, and thus one will have discarded not only the ego but also its fate and free will]. Say, will they thereafter be associated with them?

Explanations and discussions:
2017-09-05: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 19: the dispute about which prevails, fate or free will, is only for those who have not seen the non-existence of the ego
2017-06-20: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 19: the ego is the root and foundation of fate and free will, because it alone has free will and experiences fate
2016-02-08: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 19: fate and free will exist only for the ego
2015-01-13: The second in a series of two comments explaining that so long as we mistake ourself to be the ego we not only experience fate but also have limited freedom to will and act
2009-06-14: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: an explanatory paraphrase

Verse 20:

காணுந் தனைவிட்டுத் தான்கடவு ளைக்காணல்
காணு மனோமயமாங் காட்சிதனைக் — காணுமவன்
றான்கடவுள் கண்டானாந் தன்முதலைத் தான்முதல்போய்த்
தான்கடவு ளன்றியில தால்.

kāṇun taṉaiviṭṭut tāṉkaḍavu ḷaikkāṇal
kāṇu maṉōmayamāṅ kāṭcitaṉaik — kāṇumavaṉ
ḏṟāṉkaḍavuḷ kaṇḍāṉān taṉmudalait tāṉmudalpōyt
tāṉkaḍavu ḷaṉḏṟiyila dāl
.

பதச்சேதம்:: காணும் தனை விட்டு, தான் கடவுளை காணல் காணும் மனோமயம் ஆம் காட்சி. தனை காணும் அவன் தான் கடவுள் கண்டான் ஆம், தன் முதலை, தான் முதல் போய், தான் கடவுள் அன்றி இலதால்.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): kāṇum taṉai viṭṭu, tāṉ kaḍavuḷai kāṇal kāṇum maṉōmayam ām kāṭci. taṉai kāṇum avaṉ-tāṉ kaḍavuḷ kaṇḍāṉ ām, taṉ mudalai, tāṉ mudal pōy, tāṉ kaḍavuḷ aṉḏṟi iladāl.

அன்வயம்: காணும் தனை விட்டு, தான் கடவுளை காணல் காணும் மனோமயம் ஆம் காட்சி. தான் முதல் போய், தான் கடவுள் அன்றி இலதால், தன் முதலை, தனை காணும் அவன் தான் கடவுள் கண்டான் ஆம்.

Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): kāṇum taṉai viṭṭu, tāṉ kaḍavuḷai kāṇal kāṇum maṉōmayam ām kāṭci. tāṉ mudal pōy, tāṉ kaḍavuḷ aṉḏṟi iladāl, taṉ mudalai, taṉai kāṇum avaṉ-tāṉ kaḍavuḷ kaṇḍāṉ ām.

English translation: Leaving oneself, who sees, oneself seeing God is seeing a mental vision. Only one who sees oneself, the origin of oneself, is one who has seen God, because the origin, oneself, going, oneself is not other than God.

Explanatory paraphrase: Neglecting [ignoring or not investigating] oneself [the ego], who sees [things other than oneself], oneself seeing God is seeing a mental vision [a mind-constituted image, phenomenon or appearance]. Only one who sees oneself [one’s real nature], the origin [base or foundation] of oneself [one’s ego], is one who has seen God, because oneself [one’s real nature], [which alone is what remains] when oneself [one’s ego], the origin [root or foundation of all other things], goes, is not other than God.

Explanations and discussions:
2015-06-18: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 20: the only way to see God as he really is is by seeing ourself as we really are
2009-06-14: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: an explanatory paraphrase

Verse 21:

தன்னைத்தான் காண றலைவன் றனைக்காண
லென்னும்பன் னூலுண்மை யென்னையெனின் — றன்னைத்தான்
காணலெவன் றானொன்றாற் காணவொணா தேற்றலைவற்
காணலெவ னூணாதல் காண்.

taṉṉaittāṉ kāṇa ṯalaivaṉ ḏṟaṉaikkāṇa
leṉṉumpaṉ ṉūluṇmai yeṉṉaiyeṉiṉ — ḏṟaṉṉaittāṉ
kāṇalevaṉ ḏṟāṉoṉḏṟāṯ kāṇavoṇā dēṯṟalaivaṯ
kāṇaleva ṉūṇādal kāṇ
.

பதச்சேதம்: ‘தன்னை தான் காணல்’, ‘தலைவன் தனை காணல்’ என்னும் பல் நூல் உண்மை என்னை எனின்: தன்னை தான் காணல் எவன், தான் ஒன்றால்? காண ஒணாதேல், தலைவன் காணல் எவன்? ஊண் ஆதல் காண்.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): ‘taṉṉai tāṉ kāṇal’, ‘talaivaṉ taṉai kāṇal’ eṉṉum pal nūl uṇmai eṉṉai eṉiṉ: taṉṉai tāṉ kāṇal evaṉ, tāṉ oṉḏṟāl? kāṇa oṇādēl, talaivaṉ kāṇal evaṉ? ūṇ ādal kāṇ.

அன்வயம்: ‘தன்னை தான் காணல்’, ‘தலைவன் தனை காணல்’ என்னும் பல் நூல் உண்மை என்னை எனின்: தான் ஒன்றால், தன்னை தான் காணல் எவன்? காண ஒணாதேல், தலைவன் காணல் எவன்? ஊண் ஆதல் காண்.

Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): ‘taṉṉai tāṉ kāṇal’, ‘talaivaṉ taṉai kāṇal’ eṉṉum pal nūl uṇmai eṉṉai eṉiṉ: tāṉ oṉḏṟāl, taṉṉai tāṉ kāṇal evaṉ? kāṇa oṇādēl, talaivaṉ kāṇal evaṉ? ūṇ ādal kāṇ.

English translation: If one asks what is the truth of many texts that say ‘oneself seeing oneself’, ‘seeing God’: Since oneself is one, how is oneself to see oneself? If it is not possible to see, how to see God? Becoming food is seeing.

Explanatory paraphrase: If anyone asks what is the truth of many texts that talk of ‘oneself seeing oneself’ and ‘seeing God’ [the reply is]: Since oneself is one, how is oneself to see oneself? If it is not possible [for oneself] to see [oneself], how [is oneself] to see God [who is the real nature of oneself]? Becoming food [to God] is seeing [both oneself and God]. [In other words, the ego being swallowed and consumed entirely by the infinite light of pure self-awareness is alone real seeing.]

Explanations and discussions:
2009-06-14: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: an explanatory paraphrase

Verse 22:

மதிக்கொளி தந்தம் மதிக்கு ளொளிரு
மதியினை யுள்ளே மடக்கிப் — பதியிற்
பதித்திடுத லன்றிப் பதியை மதியான்
மதித்திடுத லெங்ஙன் மதி.

matikkoḷi tandam matikku ḷoḷiru
matiyiṉai yuḷḷē maḍakkip — patiyiṯ
padittiḍuda laṉḏṟip patiyai matiyāṉ
madittiḍuda leṅṅaṉ madi
.

பதச்சேதம்: மதிக்கு ஒளி தந்து, அம் மதிக்குள் ஒளிரும் மதியினை உள்ளே மடக்கி பதியில் பதித்திடுதல் அன்றி, பதியை மதியால் மதித்திடுதல் எங்ஙன்? மதி.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): matikku oḷi tandu, am-matikkuḷ oḷirum matiyiṉai uḷḷē maḍakki patiyil padittiḍudal aṉḏṟi, patiyai matiyāl madittiḍudal eṅṅaṉ? madi.

அன்வயம்: மதிக்கு ஒளி தந்து, அம் மதிக்குள் ஒளிரும் பதியில் மதியினை உள்ளே மடக்கி பதித்திடுதல் அன்றி, பதியை மதியால் மதித்திடுதல் எங்ஙன்? மதி.

Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): matikku oḷi tandu, am-matikkuḷ oḷirum patiyil matiyiṉai uḷḷē maḍakki padittiḍudal aṉḏṟi, patiyai matiyāl madittiḍudal eṅṅaṉ? madi.

English translation: Consider, except by, turning the mind back within, completely immersing it in God, who shines within that mind giving light to the mind, how to fathom God by the mind?

Explanatory paraphrase: Consider, except by turning [bending or folding] mati [the mind or intellect] back within [and thereby] completely immersing [embedding or fixing] it in pati [the Lord or God], who shines [as pure awareness] within that mind giving light [of awareness] to the mind, how to fathom [or investigate and know] God by the mind?

Explanations and discussions:
2017-03-19: The best way to remember the Lord is to turn our mind inwards to look at ourself alone
2017-01-15: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 22 (kaliveṇbā version): our actual self gives light to the mind, which sees everything
2016-10-19: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 22: we cannot fathom God except by turning our mind within and drowning it in him
2016-04-04: Comment explaining verse 22 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
2016-01-06: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 22: unless we turn within to look at ourself, how can we see what we actually are?
2015-10-13: Comment explaining that self-investigation (ātma-vicāra) is the culmination, pinnacle and crowning glory of self-surrender, but that trying to yield our small burden to Bhagavan is a necessary prerequisite to successfully practising self-investigation
2015-08-11: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 22: this reflected light must turn back within and merge in its source
2015-05-28: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verses 22 and 27: except by self-investigation, how can we experience what we really are?
2014-03-20: How to know God, who shines within the mind, except by turning the mind back within and thereby immersing it in him?
2009-06-14: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: an explanatory paraphrase

Verse 23:

நானென்றித் தேக நவிலா துறக்கத்து
நானின்றென் றாரு நவில்வதிலை — நானொன்
றெழுந்தபி னெல்லா மெழுமிந்த நானெங்
கெழுமென்று நுண்மதியா லெண்.

nāṉeṉḏṟid dēha navilā duṟakkattu
nāṉiṉḏṟeṉ ḏṟāru navilvadilai — nāṉoṉ
ḏṟeṙundapi ṉellā meṙuminda nāṉeṅ
geṙumeṉḏṟu nuṇmatiyā leṇ
.

பதச்சேதம்: ‘நான்’ என்று இத் தேகம் நவிலாது. ‘உறக்கத்தும் நான் இன்று’ என்று ஆரும் நவில்வது இலை. ‘நான்’ ஒன்று எழுந்த பின், எல்லாம் எழும். இந்த ‘நான்’ எங்கு எழும் என்று நுண் மதியால் எண்.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): ‘nāṉ’ eṉḏṟu i-d-dēham navilādu. ‘uṟakkattum nāṉ iṉḏṟu’ eṉḏṟu ārum navilvadu ilai. ‘nāṉ’ oṉḏṟu eṙunda piṉ, ellām eṙum. inda ‘nāṉ’ eṅgu eṙum eṉḏṟu nuṇ matiyāl eṇ.

அன்வயம்: இத் தேகம் ‘நான்’ என்று நவிலாது. ‘உறக்கத்தும் நான் இன்று’ என்று ஆரும் நவில்வது இலை. ‘நான்’ ஒன்று எழுந்த பின், எல்லாம் எழும். இந்த ‘நான்’ எங்கு எழும் என்று நுண் மதியால் எண்.

Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): i-d-dēham ‘nāṉ’ eṉḏṟu navilādu. ‘uṟakkattum nāṉ iṉḏṟu’ eṉḏṟu ārum navilvadu ilai. ‘nāṉ’ oṉḏṟu eṙunda piṉ, ellām eṙum. inda ‘nāṉ’ eṅgu eṙum eṉḏṟu nuṇ matiyāl eṇ.

English translation: This body does not say ‘I’. No one says ‘In sleep I do not exist’. After one thing, ‘I’, rises, everything rises. Contemplate by a subtle mind where this ‘I’ rises.

Explanatory paraphrase: This body does not say ‘I’ [that is, it is not aware of itself as ‘I’]. No one says ‘In sleep I do not exist’ [even though one was then not aware of this or any other body]. [Therefore neither this nor any other body can be what I actually am, but in waking and dream an awareness rises as ‘I am this body’.] After one thing [called] ‘I’ [namely the ego, the awareness that rises as ‘I am this body’] rises, everything rises. Contemplate [investigate, discern, determine or ascertain] with nuṇ mati [a subtle, refined, sharp, keen, acute, precise, meticulous and discerning mind or intellect] where this ‘I’ rises.

Explanations and discussions:
2017-09-05: Discussion about the term ‘நுண் மதி’ (nuṇ mati), a ‘subtle mind [or intellect]’ used by Bhagavan in the last sentence of verse 23 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
2017-01-15: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 23: everything else arises only after the ego arises, and if we investigate this ego it will disappear (in which the way in which Bhagavan extended the final sentence of this verse in the kaliveṇbā version is explained)
2016-02-28: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verses 23 and 28: we need a subtle and sharp mind in order to discern what we actually are (in which the way in which Bhagavan extended the final sentence of this verse in the kaliveṇbā version is explained)
2015-05-285: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 23: why is this body not what I actually am? (in which the way in which Bhagavan extended the final sentence of this verse in the kaliveṇbā version is explained and discussed in detail)
2009-06-14: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: an explanatory paraphrase (in which the meaning and implication of the final sentence of this verse as extended in the kaliveṇbā version is discussed)

Verse 24:

சடவுடனா னென்னாது சச்சித் துதியா
துடலளவா நானொன் றுதிக்கு — மிடையிலிது
சிச்சடக்கி ரந்திபந்தஞ் சீவனுட்ப மெய்யகந்தை
யிச்சமு சாரமன மெண்.

jaḍavuḍaṉā ṉeṉṉādu saccit tudiyā
duḍalaḷavā nāṉoṉ ḏṟudikku — miḍaiyilitu
ciccaḍakki ranthibandhañ jīvaṉuṭpa meyyahandai
yiccamu sāramaṉa meṇ
.

பதச்சேதம்: சட உடல் ‘நான்’ என்னாது; சத்சித் உதியாது; உடல் அளவா ‘நான்’ ஒன்று உதிக்கும் இடையில். இது சித்சடக்கிரந்தி, பந்தம், சீவன், நுட்ப மெய், அகந்தை, இச் சமுசாரம், மனம்; எண்.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): jaḍa uḍal ‘nāṉ’ eṉṉādu; sat-cit udiyādu; uḍal aḷavā ‘nāṉ’ oṉḏṟu udikkum iḍaiyil. idu cit-jaḍa-giranthi, bandham, jīvaṉ, nuṭpa mey, ahandai, i-c-samusāram, maṉam; eṇ.

அன்வயம்: சட உடல் ‘நான்’ என்னாது; சத்சித் உதியாது; இடையில் உடல் அளவா ‘நான்’ ஒன்று உதிக்கும். இது சித்சடக்கிரந்தி, பந்தம், சீவன், நுட்ப மெய், அகந்தை, இச் சமுசாரம், மனம்; எண்.

Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): jaḍa uḍal ‘nāṉ’ eṉṉādu; sat-cit udiyādu; iḍaiyil uḍal aḷavā ‘nāṉ’ oṉḏṟu udikkum. idu cit-jaḍa-giranthi, bandham, jīvaṉ, nuṭpa mey, ahandai, i-c-samusāram, maṉam; eṇ.

English translation: The insentient body does not say ‘I’; being-awareness does not rise; in between one thing, ‘I’, rises as the extent of the body. Know that this is the awareness-insentience-knot, bondage, the soul, the subtle body, the ego, this wandering and the mind.

Explanatory paraphrase: The jaḍa [insentient] body does not say ‘I’; sat-cit [being-awareness] does not rise; [but] in between [these two] one thing [called] ‘I’ rises as the extent of the body. Know that this [the spurious adjunct-mixed self-awareness that rises as ‘I am this body’] is cit-jaḍa-granthi [the knot (granthi) formed by the entanglement of awareness (cit) with an insentient (jaḍa) body, binding them together as if they were one], bandha [bondage], jīva [life or soul], the subtle body, ahandai [the ego], this saṁsāra [wandering, revolving, perpetual movement, restless activity, worldly existence or the cycle of birth and death] and manam [the mind].

Explanations and discussions:
2017-08-24: Though the ego seems to be both ourself and a body, it is actually neither of these
2015-05-28: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 24: the ego is cit-jaḍa-granthi
2014-09-26: The mind is essentially just the ego, the false ‘I’ that rises ‘as the extent of the body’ between the non-conscious body and sat-cit (being-consciousness)
2011-10-07: The mind is in essence nothing but the false identification of ourself, which is pure consciousness of being (sat-cit), as a physical body, which is a non-conscious (jaḍa) object
2009-06-14: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: an explanatory paraphrase

Verse 25:

உருப்பற்றி யுண்டா முருப்பற்றி நிற்கு
முருப்பற்றி யுண்டுமிக வோங்கு — முருவிட்
டுருப்பற்றுந் தேடினா லோட்டம் பிடிக்கு
முருவற்ற பேயகந்தை யோர்.

uruppaṯṟi yuṇḍā muruppaṯṟi niṟku
muruppaṯṟi yuṇḍumiha vōṅgu — muruviṭ
ṭuruppaṯṟun tēḍiṉā lōṭṭam piḍikku
muruvaṯṟa pēyahandai yōr
.

பதச்சேதம்: உரு பற்றி உண்டாம்; உரு பற்றி நிற்கும்; உரு பற்றி உண்டு மிக ஓங்கும்; உரு விட்டு, உரு பற்றும்; தேடினால் ஓட்டம் பிடிக்கும், உரு அற்ற பேய் அகந்தை. ஓர்.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): uru paṯṟi uṇḍām; uru paṯṟi niṟkum; uru paṯṟi uṇḍu miha ōṅgum; uru viṭṭu, uru paṯṟum; tēḍiṉāl ōṭṭam piḍikkum, uru aṯṟa pēy ahandai. ōr.

அன்வயம்: உரு அற்ற பேய் அகந்தை உரு பற்றி உண்டாம்; உரு பற்றி நிற்கும்; உரு பற்றி உண்டு மிக ஓங்கும்; உரு விட்டு, உரு பற்றும்; தேடினால் ஓட்டம் பிடிக்கும். ஓர்.

Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): uru aṯṟa pēy ahandai uru paṯṟi uṇḍām; uru paṯṟi niṟkum; uru paṯṟi uṇḍu miha ōṅgum; uru viṭṭu, uru paṯṟum; tēḍiṉāl ōṭṭam piḍikkum. ōr.

English translation: Grasping form the formless phantom-ego comes into existence; grasping form it stands; grasping and feeding on form it grows abundantly; leaving form, it grasps form. If it seeks, it will take flight. Investigate.

Explanatory paraphrase: [By] grasping form [that is, by projecting and perceiving the form of a body (composed of five sheaths) as itself] the formless phantom-ego comes into existence [rises into being or is formed]; [by] grasping form [that is, by holding on to that body as itself] it stands [endures, continues or persists]; [by] grasping and feeding on form [that is, by projecting and perceiving other forms or phenomena] it grows [spreads, expands, increases, ascends, rises high or flourishes] abundantly; leaving [one] form [a body that it had projected and perceived as itself in one state], it grasps [another] form [another body that it projects and perceives as itself in its next state]. If it seeks [examines or investigates] [itself], it will take flight [because it has no form of its own, and hence it cannot seem to exist without grasping the forms of other things as itself and as its food or sustenance]. Investigate [this ego] [or know thus].

Explanations and discussions:
2017-09-24: A series of two comments explaining that the most important of all the fundamental principles of Bhagavan’s teachings is that the ego will cease to exist if and only if we investigate it, and clarifying that though ‘If sought, it will take flight’ is a suitably crisp translation of ‘தேடினால் ஓட்டம் பிடிக்கும்’ (tēḍiṉāl ōṭṭam piḍikkum), a more accurate translation of it would be ‘If one seeks [it], it will take flight’, or better still ‘If it seeks [itself], it will take flight’
2017-08-24: The ego is a spurious entity that seems to exist only so long as we look at other things instead of looking keenly at ourself alone
2017-06-20: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 25: we embark on the path of pravṛtti by rising as an ego, which we do by grasping forms
2017-03-21: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 25: the ego will be eradicated only when it attends to itself alone
2017-03-08: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 25: being aware of anything other than ourself is the food that nourishes and sustains our ego
2017-02-26: The ego comes into existence, stands, feeds itself and flourishes only by projecting and grasping viṣayas
2016-12-14: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 25: attending to any phenomenon is ‘grasping form’ and thereby feeding the ego
2016-11-13: Comment explaining that the ego comes into existence, endures and flourishes by ‘grasping form’ (that is, by attending to any phenomenon — anything other than ourself), and that it will therefore subside back into its source (ourself as we actually are) and dissolve forever only by attending to itself alone
2016-10-19: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 25: we rise as this ego only by grasping a form as ourself
2016-08-01: The precious secret that Bhagavan has revealed to us is that by observing or being aware of anything other than ourself we rise, stand and flourish as this ego, whereas by observing ourself alone we subside and merge back into pure self-awareness, which is what we actually are
2016-05-31: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 25: ‘grasping form’ means being transitively aware
2016-05-17: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 25: this ego will cease to exist only if we attend to it alone
2016-04-08: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 25: the ego seems to exist only by attending to other things
2016-02-08: The ego or mind can come into existence, endure and nourish itself only by clinging or attending to anything other than itself, so it can destroy itself only by attending to itself alone
2016-01-06: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 25: so long as we are aware of anything other than ourself, we seem to be this ego
2015-12-10: We should try to watch the ego, but we will never actually see it, because when we try to see it it will disappear, since it does not actually exist
2015-11-17: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 25: our ego rises and endures by attending to other things, so it will die only by attending to itself
2015-11-11: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verses 25 and 26: our ego and other things cannot exist without each other
2015-08-29: Experiencing or attending to anything other than ourself feeds and nourishes our ego
2015-07-18: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 25: by attending to anything other than ourself we are sustaining our ego
2015-06-25: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 25: if investigated, this phantom ego will vanish
2015-06-18: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 25: to annihilate the ego we must let go of all forms by turning our mind inwards to see ourself alone
2015-05-28: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 25: how does this ‘formless phantom-ego’ seem to exist?
2015-05-11: We cannot choose to be ‘choicelessly aware’ of any phenomena, because being aware of them entails projecting and grasping them in our awareness
2015-04-21: Attachment or grasping is the very nature of the ego, because it comes into existence and endures only by grasping or attaching itself to things other than itself
2015-04-14: We seem to be this ego only when we are experiencing anything other than ourself
2015-03-14: By attending to anything other than ourself alone we are nourishing and sustaining the ego, so the only way to deprive it of the nourishment that it requires to survive is to try to attend to ourself alone
2015-02-09: So long as we are aware of anything other than ourself, we are experiencing ourself as the ego, so in order to experience ourself as we actually are, we must try to be aware of ourself alone
2015-01-11: Our ego comes into existence and is sustained only by pramāda or self-negligence, so it will subside and be kept in check only to the extent that we are self-attentive
2015-01-04: The ego comes into existence and is sustained only by experiencing things other than itself, so if it tries to experience only itself, it will subside and dissolve in its source
2014-12-13: The ego rises and is sustained by attending to anything other than itself, so it will subside and dissolve forever in its source only when it attends to itself alone
2014-09-28: So long as there seems to be a perceiver (the ego), there also seems to be a world that it perceives, so the perceiver and the perceived rise into being simultaneously and subside simultaneously
2014-08-29: The nature of the ego is to rise, endure and be nourished so long as it attends to anything other than itself, and to subside when it tries to attend to itself alone
2014-04-25: The ego has no form of its own, so it depends upon forms for its seeming existence
2014-02-05: The ego depends for its seeming existence upon whatever other thoughts it is currently aware of, so if it ceases being aware of any other thought by attending only to itself, its seemingly separate existence will begin to dissolve and disappear in its source
2014-01-25: Though the ego experiences itself as the form of a body, it has no form of its own, so it depends upon forms for its seeming existence
2014-01-04: The nature of the ego is that it rises and thrives when it attends to anything else, but withers and subsides when it attends only to itself
2011-10-07: Since the ego (or mind) has no form of its own, it seems to exist only by grasping a form as itself, but if it attempts to grasp itself alone, it will find no form to grasp, so it will dissolve and disappear
2009-07-12: In verse 25 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu Bhagavan explains how the ego rises and remains away from its source (our real self), namely by attending to things other than itself, and how it can trace itself back to its source, namely by attending to itself alone
2009-06-14: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: an explanatory paraphrase (in which the key principle pointed out by Bhagavan in this verse is described as the ‘first law of consciousness’ or ‘first law of the science of self-knowledge’)

Verse 26:

அகந்தையுண் டாயி னனைத்துமுண் டாகு
மகந்தையின் றேலின் றனைத்து — மகந்தையே
யாவுமா மாதலால் யாதிதென்று நாடலே
யோவுதல் யாவுமென வோர்.

ahandaiyuṇ ḍāyi ṉaṉaittumuṇ ḍāhu
mahandaiyiṉ ḏṟēliṉ ḏṟaṉaittu — mahandaiyē
yāvumā mādalāl yādideṉḏṟu nādalē
yōvudal yāvumeṉa vōr
.

பதச்சேதம்: அகந்தை உண்டாயின், அனைத்தும் உண்டாகும்; அகந்தை இன்றேல், இன்று அனைத்தும். அகந்தையே யாவும் ஆம். ஆதலால், யாது இது என்று நாடலே ஓவுதல் யாவும் என ஓர்.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): ahandai uṇḍāyiṉ, aṉaittum uṇḍāhum; ahandai iṉḏṟēl, iṉḏṟu aṉaittum. ahandai-y-ē yāvum ām. ādalāl, yādu idu eṉḏṟu nādal-ē ōvudal yāvum eṉa ōr.

அன்வயம்: அகந்தை உண்டாயின், அனைத்தும் உண்டாகும்; அகந்தை இன்றேல், அனைத்தும் இன்று. யாவும் அகந்தையே ஆம். ஆதலால், யாது இது என்று நாடலே யாவும் ஓவுதல் என ஓர்.

Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): ahandai uṇḍāyiṉ, aṉaittum uṇḍāhum; ahandai iṉḏṟēl, aṉaittum iṉḏṟu. yāvum ahandai-y-ē ām. ādalāl, yādu idu eṉḏṟu nādal-ē yāvum ōvudal eṉa ōr.

English translation: If the ego comes into existence, everything comes into existence; if the ego does not exist, everything does not exist. The ego itself is everything. Therefore, know that investigating what this is alone is giving up everything.

Explanatory paraphrase: If the ego comes into existence, everything [all phenomena, everything that appears and disappears, everything other than our pure, fundamental, unchanging and immutable self-awareness] comes into existence; if the ego does not exist, everything does not exist [because nothing other than pure self-awareness actually exists, so everything else seems to exist only in the view of the ego, and hence it cannot seem to exist unless the ego seems to exist]. [Therefore] the ego itself is everything [because it is the original seed or embryo, which alone is what expands as everything else]. Therefore, know that investigating what this [the ego] is alone is giving up everything [because the ego will cease to exist if it investigates itself keenly enough, and when it ceases to exist everything else will cease to exist along with it].

Explanations and discussions:
2017-09-18: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 26: the ego is the first cause, being the sole cause for the appearance of everything else, so if the ego does not exist nothing else exists
2017-09-11: When we rise and stand as this ego (as in waking and dream) countless other phenomena seem to exist, and when we do not rise or stand as this ego (as in sleep) nothing else seems to exist
2017-08-24: Everything else (all objects or phenomena) seems to exist only in the view of this ego, so it all comes into seeming existence along with the ego and ceases to exist along with it
2017-07-27: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 26: if we seem to be the ego, phenomena seem to exist, and if we do not seem to be the ego, no phenomena exist at all
2017-06-27: All forms appear (come into existence) and disappear (cease to exist) along with the ego
2017-05-07: The second in a series of two comments explaining that though the ego will be found to be non-existent if we look at it carefully enough, so long as we look elsewhere we seem to be this ego
2017-03-08: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 26: investigating what this ego is is giving up everything
2017-02-26: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 26: the seeming existence of the ego is the sole cause for the seeming existence of everything else
2017-01-15: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 26: everything seems to exist only in the view of the ego, so for its seeming existence it depends on the seeming existence of the ego
2016-12-23: The ego is the creator of everything, because everything seems to exist only in its view, and hence nothing exists independent of it (as implied in this verse, and as emphasised by the relative clause that Bhagavan added in the kaliveṇbā version of it, in which he used the term ‘கரு’ (karu) to indicate that the ego is the efficient cause (nimitta kāraṇa) of everything)
2016-11-27: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 26: the ego is the sole cause for the seeming existence of everything else (in which it is explained that the relative clause Bhagavan added in the kaliveṇbā version of this verse to describe the ego, namely ‘கருவாம்’ (karu-v-ām), means ‘which is the embryo [womb, efficient cause, inner substance or foundation]’ and therefore implies that the ego is the embryo that develops into everything else, the womb from which everything is born, the efficient cause (nimitta kāraṇa) that creates or produces everything, the inner substance of all phenomena, and the foundation on which they all appear)
2016-10-25: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 26: all phenomena seem to exist only when we rise as this ego, so no phenomenon exists independent of this ego
2016-10-19: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 26: transitive awareness is the nature of our ego, not of our actual self
2016-07-13: Being aware of ourself as anything other than what we actually are is what is called ego, and it is only this ego that is aware of other things
2016-06-22: What experiences all these phenomena is only ourself as this ego, so it is their root and foundation, and hence without it they do not seem to exist
2016-04-18: Comment explaining that it is only when we rise as this ego that we seem to become aware of other things
2016-03-06: Comment explaining that all phenomena are progeny of our ego and seem to exist only in its view, so without it they would not seem to exist at all
2015-12-10: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 26: why does Bhagavan say that if our ego does not exist, nothing else exists?
2015-11-17: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 26: our ego and its thoughts are mutually dependent
2015-11-11: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verses 25 and 26: our ego and other things cannot exist without each other
2015-08-11: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verses 26 and 7: everything else exists and shines by this reflected light
2015-07-18: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 26: we cannot surrender our ego so long as we are aware of anything other than ourself
2015-05-28: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 26: investigating the ego is giving up everything
2015-05-11: All phenomena are just a projection or expansion of our ego
2015-04-28: Everything else seems to exist only in the view of our ego, so when this ego ceases to exist, nothing else will seem to exist
2015-04-21: So long as we experience or ‘witness’ anything other ourself, we are not experiencing ourself as we really are but only as this ego
2015-03-31: When our primary illusion ‘I am this body’ is destroyed, the illusion that we experience anything else will be destroyed along with it
2015-03-06: So long as we experience anything other than ourself, we are experiencing ourself as the ego, because it is only the ego that experiences anything other than itself
2015-02-26: Comment explaining that since everything else seems to exist only when we seem to be this ego, and since the ego will cease to exist if we investigate it, investigating it entails giving up not only the ego but also everything else
2015-01-11: Until we investigate and find out what this ego is that now seems to be masquerading as ourself, we cannot give up everything else
2014-11-20: The appearance of everything is experienced only by the ego, so it depends entirely upon the appearance of the ego
2014-11-09: Comment explaining that in the absence of the ego or mind nothing else (other than our real self) exists
2014-10-19: Everything other than ‘I’ is just a thought or mental phenomenon, and since thoughts are only an expansion of our mind or ego, everything is ultimately just the ego
2014-09-26: When the ego rises into existence, everything rises into existence, and when this ego does not exist, everything does not exist, so the ego alone is everything
2014-04-25: Investigating what is this ego is abandoning everything, because everything seems to exist only when this ego seems to exist, and the ego will cease to exist if we investigate it
2014-01-25: Since everything else that we experience is an illusion based on our primary illusion ‘I am this body’, when this primary illusion is destroyed by clear self-experience the illusion that we experience anything else will also be destroyed
2011-01-10: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 26: the kaliveṇbā version
2009-06-14: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: an explanatory paraphrase

Verse 27:

நானுதியா துள்ளநிலை நாமதுவா யுள்ளநிலை
நானுதிக்குந் தானமதை நாடாம — னானுதியாத்
தன்னிழப்பைச் சார்வதெவன் சாராமற் றானதுவாந்
தன்னிலையி னிற்பதெவன் சாற்று.

nāṉudiyā duḷḷanilai nāmaduvā yuḷḷanilai
nāṉudikkun thāṉamadai nāḍāma — ṉāṉudiyāt
taṉṉiṙappaic cārvadevaṉ sārāmaṯ ṟāṉaduvān
taṉṉilaiyi ṉiṟpadevaṉ sāṯṟu
.

பதச்சேதம்: ‘நான்’ உதியாது உள்ள நிலை நாம் அது ஆய் உள்ள நிலை. ‘நான்’ உதிக்கும் தானம் அதை நாடாமல், ‘நான்’ உதியா தன் இழப்பை சார்வது எவன்? சாராமல், தான் அது ஆம் தன் நிலையில் நிற்பது எவன்? சாற்று.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): ‘nāṉ’ udiyādu uḷḷa nilai nām adu-v-āy uḷḷa nilai. ‘nāṉ’ udikkum thāṉam-adai nāḍāmal, ‘nāṉ’ udiyā taṉ-ṉ-iṙappai sārvadu evaṉ? sārāmal, tāṉ adu ām taṉ nilaiyil niṟpadu evaṉ? sāṯṟu.

English translation: The state in which ‘I’ exists without rising is the state in which we exist as that. Without investigating the place where ‘I’ rises, how to reach the annihilation of oneself, in which ‘I’ does not rise? Without reaching, say, how to stand in the state of oneself, in which oneself is that?

Explanatory paraphrase: The state in which ‘I’ exists without rising [as the ego] is the state in which we exist as that [brahman, the ultimate reality and infinite whole, the nature of which is pure self-awareness, uncontaminated by the appearance of anything else]. Without investigating the place [namely one’s fundamental self-awareness] where [from which or in which] ‘I’ rises, how to reach [achieve or take refuge in] the annihilation of oneself [the ego], [the state] in which ‘I’ does not rise? [In other words, the only way to annihilate the ego is to investigate oneself, the source from which it rises, because only when one investigates oneself will one see oneself as one actually is, and only when one sees oneself as one actually is will one forever cease mistaking oneself to be the ego, the false rising and subsiding ‘I’.] [And] without reaching [or taking refuge in the annihilation of one’s ego], say, how to stand [stop, stay or abide] in the [real] state of oneself, in which oneself is that?

Explanations and discussions:
2015-05-28: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verses 22 and 27: except by self-investigation, how can we experience what we really are?
2015-04-14: What thinks or is aware of any thought is not what we actually are but only our ego, and so long as we are aware of ourself as this thinking ego we are not experiencing ourself as we actually are
2014-04-18: We cannot experience what this ‘I’ actually is by attending to anything other than it, not even by attending to a thought such as ‘I am the self’ or ‘I am brahman
2014-03-20: Self-investigation (ātma-vicāra) is the only means by which we can experience the real non-dual state of ourself, in which we are that (brahman)
2014-02-24: We cannot experience ourself as brahman merely by thinking ‘I am brahman’ but only by investigating what we actually are
2009-06-14: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: an explanatory paraphrase

Verse 28:

எழும்பு மகந்தை யெழுமிடத்தை நீரில்
விழுந்த பொருள்காண வேண்டி — முழுகுதல்போற்
கூர்ந்தமதி யாற்பேச்சு மூச்சடக்கிக் கொண்டுள்ளே
யாழ்ந்தறிய வேண்டு மறி.

eṙumbu mahandai yeṙumiḍattai nīril
viṙunda poruḷkāṇa vēṇḍi — muṙuhudalpōṯ
kūrndamati yāṯpēccu mūccaḍakkik koṇḍuḷḷē
yāṙndaṟiya vēṇḍu maṟi
.

பதச்சேதம்: எழும்பும் அகந்தை எழும் இடத்தை, நீரில் விழுந்த பொருள் காண வேண்டி முழுகுதல் போல், கூர்ந்த மதியால் பேச்சு மூச்சு அடக்கிக் கொண்டு உள்ளே ஆழ்ந்து அறிய வேண்டும். அறி.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): eṙumbum ahandai eṙum iḍattai, nīril viṙunda poruḷ kāṇa vēṇḍi muṙuhudal pōl, kūrnda matiyāl pēccu mūccu aḍakki-k-koṇḍu uḷḷē āṙndu aṟiya vēṇḍum. aṟi.

அன்வயம்: நீரில் விழுந்த பொருள் காண வேண்டி [பேச்சு மூச்சு அடக்கிக் கொண்டு] முழுகுதல் போல், எழும்பும் அகந்தை எழும் இடத்தை கூர்ந்த மதியால் பேச்சு மூச்சு அடக்கிக் கொண்டு உள்ளே ஆழ்ந்து அறிய வேண்டும். அறி.

Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): nīril viṙunda poruḷ kāṇa vēṇḍi [pēccu mūccu aḍakki-k koṇḍu] muṙuhudal pōl, eṙumbum ahandai eṙum iḍattai kūrnda matiyāl pēccu mūccu aḍakki-k-koṇḍu uḷḷē āṙndu aṟiya vēṇḍum. aṟi.

English translation: Like sinking wanting to see something that has fallen in water, sinking within restraining speech and breath by a sharpened mind it is necessary to know the place where the rising ego rises. Know.

Explanatory paraphrase: Like sinking [submerging, immersing or plunging] wanting [needing or in order] to see [find or discover] something that has fallen in water, sinking [submerging, immersing, diving, plunging or piercing] within [oneself] restraining speech and breath by kūrnda mati [a sharpened, pointed, keen, acute, penetrating and discerning mind or intellect] it is necessary to know the place [namely one’s real nature, which is pure self-awareness] where [from which or in which] the rising ego rises. Know [or be aware].

Explanations and discussions:
2016-02-28: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verses 23 and 28: we need a subtle and sharp mind in order to discern what we actually are
2015-06-18: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 28: subsidence of the breath is an effect of self-investigation
2009-06-14: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: an explanatory paraphrase

Verse 29:

நானென்று வாயா னவிலாதுள் ளாழ்மனத்தா
னானென்றெங் குந்துமென நாடுதலே — ஞானநெறி
யாமன்றி யன்றிதுநா னாமதுவென் றுன்னறுணை
யாமதுவி சாரமா மா.

nāṉeṉḏṟu vāyā ṉavilāduḷ ḷāṙmaṉattā
ṉāṉeṉḏṟeṅ gundumeṉa nāḍudalē — ñāṉaneṟi
yāmaṉḏṟi yaṉḏṟidunā ṉāmaduveṉ ḏṟuṉṉaṟuṇai
yāmaduvi cāramā mā
.

பதச்சேதம்: ‘நான்’ என்று வாயால் நவிலாது, உள் ஆழ் மனத்தால் ‘நான்’ என்று எங்கு உந்தும் என நாடுதலே ஞான நெறி ஆம். அன்றி, ‘அன்று இது, நான் ஆம் அது’ என்று உன்னல் துணை ஆம்; அது விசாரம் ஆமா?

Padacchēdam (word-separation): ‘nāṉ’ eṉḏṟu vāyāl navilādu, uḷ āṙ maṉattāl ‘nāṉ’ eṉḏṟu eṅgu undum eṉa nāḍudal-ē ñāṉa-neṟi ām. aṉḏṟi, ‘aṉḏṟu idu, nāṉ ām adu’ eṉḏṟu uṉṉal tuṇai ām; adu vicāram āmā?

அன்வயம்: .‘நான்’ என்று வாயால் நவிலாது, உள் ஆழ் மனத்தால் ‘நான்’ என்று எங்கு உந்தும் என நாடுதலே ஞான நெறி ஆம்; அன்றி, ‘நான் இது அன்று, [நான்] அது ஆம்’ என்று உன்னல் துணை ஆம்; அது விசாரம் ஆமா?

Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): ‘nāṉ’ eṉḏṟu vāyāl navilādu, uḷ āṙ maṉattāl ‘nāṉ’ eṉḏṟu eṅgu undum eṉa nāḍudal-ē ñāṉa neṟi ām; aṉḏṟi, ‘nāṉ idu aṉḏṟu, [nāṉ] adu ām’ eṉḏṟu uṉṉal tuṇai ām; adu vicāram āmā?

English translation: Without saying ‘I’ by mouth, investigating by an inward sinking mind where one rises as ‘I’ alone is the path of knowledge. Instead, thinking ‘not this, I am that’ is an aid; is it investigation?

Explanatory paraphrase: Without saying ‘I’ by mouth, investigating by an inward sinking [submerging, immersing, diving, plunging or piercing] mind where one rises as ‘I’ is alone the path of jñāna [the means to experience jñāna, real knowledge or pure awareness, which is one’s true nature]. Instead, thinking ‘[I am] not this [body or mind], I am that [brahman]’ is an aid, [but] is it vicāra [investigation (in the sense of self-investigation)]?

Explanations and discussions:
2017-09-30: The second in a series of four comments explaining that what we need to meditate upon is only ourself and not any ideas about ourself such as ‘The mind is not me’ or ‘I am the immanent consciousness’
2016-05-17: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 29: thinking ‘I am not this, I am that’ is an aid but not vicāra
2015-04-14: Meditation on the idea ‘I am brahman’ is not ātma-vicāra
2014-02-24: We should meditate only on ‘I’, not on ideas such as ‘I am brahman
2009-06-14: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: an explanatory paraphrase

Verse 30:

நானா ரெனமனமுண் ணாடியுள நண்ணவே
நானா மவன்றலை நாணமுற — நானானாத்
தோன்றுமொன்று தானாகத் தோன்றினுநா னன்றுபொருள்
பூன்றமது தானாம் பொருள்.

nāṉā reṉamaṉamuṇ ṇāḍiyuḷa naṇṇavē
nāṉā mavaṉḏṟalai nāṇamuṟa — nāṉāṉāt
tōṉḏṟumoṉḏṟu tāṉāhat tōṉḏṟiṉunā ṉaṉḏṟuporuḷ
pūṉḏṟamadu tāṉām poruḷ
.

பதச்சேதம்: நான் ஆர் என மனம் உள் நாடி உளம் நண்ணவே, ‘நான்’ ஆம் அவன் தலை நாணம் உற, ‘நான் நான்’ ஆ தோன்றும் ஒன்று தானாக. தோன்றினும், ‘நான்’ அன்று. பொருள் பூன்றம் அது, தான் ஆம் பொருள்.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): nāṉ ār eṉa maṉam uḷ nāḍi uḷam naṇṇavē, ‘nāṉ’ ām avaṉ talai nāṇam uṟa, ‘nāṉ nāṉ’ ā tōṉḏṟum oṉḏṟu tāṉāha. tōṉḏṟiṉum, ‘nāṉ’ aṉḏṟu. poruḷ-pūṉḏṟam adu, tāṉ ām poruḷ.

அன்வயம்: நான் ஆர் என மனம் உள் நாடி உளம் நண்ணவே, ‘நான்’ ஆம் அவன் தலை நாணம் உற, ‘நான் நான்’ ஆ ஒன்று தானாக தோன்றும். தோன்றினும், ‘நான்’ அன்று. அது பூன்றப் பொருள், தான் ஆம் பொருள்.

Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): nāṉ ār eṉa maṉam uḷ nāḍi uḷam naṇṇavē, ‘nāṉ’ ām avaṉ talai nāṇam uṟa, ‘nāṉ nāṉ’ ā oṉḏṟu tāṉāha tōṉḏṟum. tōṉḏṟiṉum, ‘nāṉ’ aṉḏṟu. adu pūṉḏṟa-p-poruḷ, tāṉ ām poruḷ.

English translation: As soon as the mind reaches the heart inwardly investigating who am I, when he who is ‘I’ dies, one thing appears spontaneously as ‘I am I’. Though it appears, it is not ‘I’. It is the entire substance, the substance that is oneself.

Explanatory paraphrase: As soon as the mind reaches the heart [its core and essence, which is pure self-awareness] [by] inwardly investigating who am I, when [thereby] he who is ‘I’ [the ego] dies, one thing [or the one] appears spontaneously [or as oneself] as ‘I am I’. Though it appears, it is not ‘I’ [the ego]. It is poruḷ-pūṉḏṟam [the entire substance, whole reality or pūrṇa-vastu, which is eternal and unchanging], the poruḷ [substance or vastu] that is oneself.

Explanations and discussions:
2017-04-12: The second in a series of two comments explaining that when the ego is eradicated (as it will be when it sees itself as it actually is) what we will experience is not that there is no ‘I’ but that ‘I’ is not what it seemed to be so long as it seemed to be mixed and confused with adjuncts such as ‘this’ or ‘that’, which means that we will cease to be aware of ourself as ‘I am this’ or ‘I am that’ and will instead be aware of ourself only as ‘I am I’
2016-10-02: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 30: though ‘I am I’ appears, it is not the ego
2016-02-08: We cannot be anything that we do not experience permanently, so ‘I am only I’
2015-09-22: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 30: ‘I am I’ means we are only ourself, and since nothing else exists we are the infinite whole
2015-03-16: Comment explaining the distinction between the ego, which is the false self-awareness ‘I am this body’, and our real nature, which is the true self-awareness ‘I am I’
2014-07-08: நான் நான் (nāṉ nāṉ) means ‘I am I’, not ‘I-I’
2014-06-23: A series of three comments discussing the significance of the sentence ‘நான் நான்’ (nāṉ nāṉ) and explaining why the correct translation of it is ‘I am I’ and not ‘I-I’
2009-06-14: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: an explanatory paraphrase

Verse 31:

தன்னை யழித்தெழுந்த தன்மயா னந்தருக்
கென்னை யுளதொன் றியற்றுதற்குத் — தன்னையலா
தன்னிய மொன்று மறியா ரவர்நிலைமை
யின்னதென் றுன்ன லெவன்.

taṉṉai yaṙitteṙunda taṉmayā ṉandaruk
keṉṉai yuḷadoṉ ḏṟiyaṯṟudaṟkut — taṉṉaiyalā
taṉṉiya moṉḏṟu maṟiyā ravarnilaimai
yiṉṉadeṉ ḏṟuṉṉa levaṉ
.

பதச்சேதம்: தன்னை அழித்து எழுந்த தன்மயானந்தருக்கு என்னை உளது ஒன்று இயற்றுதற்கு? தன்னை அலாது அன்னியம் ஒன்றும் அறியார்; அவர் நிலைமை இன்னது என்று உன்னல் எவன்?

Padacchēdam (word-separation): taṉṉai aṙittu eṙunda taṉmaya-āṉandarukku eṉṉai uḷadu oṉḏṟu iyaṯṟudaṟku? taṉṉai alādu aṉṉiyam oṉḏṟum aṟiyār; avar nilaimai iṉṉadu eṉḏṟu uṉṉal evaṉ?

அன்வயம்: தன்னை அழித்து எழுந்த தன்மயானந்தருக்கு இயற்றுதற்கு என்னை ஒன்று உளது? தன்னை அலாது அன்னியம் ஒன்றும் அறியார்; அவர் நிலைமை இன்னது என்று உன்னல் எவன்?

Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): taṉṉai aṙittu eṙunda taṉmaya-āṉandarukku iyaṯṟudaṟku eṉṉai oṉḏṟu uḷadu? taṉṉai alādu aṉṉiyam oṉḏṟum aṟiyār; avar nilaimai iṉṉadu eṉḏṟu uṉṉal evaṉ?

English translation: For those who are happiness composed of that, which rose destroying themself, what one exists for doing? They do not know anything other than themself; who can conceive their state as ‘like this’?

Explanatory paraphrase: For those who are [blissfully immersed in and as] tanmayānanda [happiness composed of that, namely brahman, one’s real nature], which rose [as ‘I am I’] destroying themself [the ego], what one [action] exists for doing? They do not know [or are not aware of] anything other than themself; [so] who can [or how to] conceive their state as ‘[it is] like this’?

Explanations and discussions:
2017-03-24: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 31: egolessness is a state devoid of awareness of anything other than oneself, so how can the mind comprehend it?
2017-03-08: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 31: the jñāni is aware of nothing other than itself, so our mind cannot grasp its perspective
2017-01-15: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 31: when the ego is destroyed by tanmayānanda, what remains is not aware of anything other than itself
2015-09-22: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 31: when our ego is destroyed, we will not know anything other than ourself
2015-04-28: It is wrong to suppose that we could observe or be aware of anything other than ourself when we experience ourself as we actually are
2014-11-20: So long as we experience ourself as a person, we cannot conceive what the state of true self-experience is, because in that state nothing other than ‘I’ exists
2014-04-25: Since it is a state of absolute non-duality, any attempt that is made to express it in words will fail, because words can only describe distinctions, and not a state devoid of all distinctions
2014-04-11: So long as we experience duality, which entails the basic distinction between ‘I’ and other, we cannot adequately understand the experience of a jñāni such as Bhagavan, who experiences nothing other than ‘I’
2011-10-07: In the clear, undefiled experience of a jñāni, nothing exists other than self, so there is no mind, body or world, and therefore nothing to do any action
2009-06-14: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: an explanatory paraphrase

Verse 32:

அதுநீயென் றம்மறைக ளார்த்திடவுந் தன்னை
யெதுவென்று தான்றேர்ந் திராஅ — ததுநா
னிதுவன்றென் றெண்ணலுர னின்மையினா லென்று
மதுவேதா னாயமர்வ தால்.

adunīyeṉ ḏṟammaṟaiga ḷārttiḍavun taṉṉai
yeduveṉḏṟu tāṉḏṟērn dirāa — dadunā
ṉiduvaṉḏṟeṉ ḏṟeṇṇalura ṉiṉmaiyiṉā leṉḏṟu
maduvētā ṉāyamarva dāl
.

பதச்சேதம்: ‘அது நீ’ என்று அம் மறைகள் ஆர்த்திடவும், தன்னை எது என்று தான் தேர்ந்து இராது, ‘அது நான், இது அன்று’ என்று எண்ணல் உரன் இன்மையினால், என்றும் அதுவே தான் ஆய் அமர்வதால்.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): ‘adu nī’ eṉḏṟu a-m-maṟaigaḷ ārttiḍavum, taṉṉai edu eṉḏṟu tāṉ tērndu irādu, ‘adu nāṉ, idu aṉḏṟu’ eṉḏṟu eṇṇal uraṉ iṉmaiyiṉāl, eṉḏṟum aduvē tāṉ-āy amarvadāl.

அன்வயம்: ‘அது நீ’ என்று அம் மறைகள் ஆர்த்திடவும், அதுவே தான் ஆய் என்றும் அமர்வதால், தன்னை எது என்று தான் தேர்ந்து இராது, ‘அது நான், இது அன்று’ என்று எண்ணல் உரன் இன்மையினால்.

Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): ‘adu nī’ eṉḏṟu a-m-maṟaigaḷ ārttiḍavum, adu-v-ē tāṉ-āy eṉḏṟum amarvadāl, taṉṉai edu eṉḏṟu tāṉ tērndu irādu, ‘adu nāṉ, idu aṉḏṟu’ eṉḏṟu eṇṇal uraṉ iṉmaiyiṉāl.

English translation: When the Vēdas proclaim ‘That is you’, instead of oneself knowing oneself as ‘what?’ and being, thinking ‘I am that, not this’ is due to non-existence of strength, because that alone is always seated as oneself.

Explanatory paraphrase: When the Vēdas proclaim ‘That is you’, instead of oneself knowing oneself [by investigating] what [am I] and [thereby] being [as one is], thinking ‘I am that [brahman], not this [body or mind]’ is due to non-existence [destitution or deficiency] of strength [or lack of clarity of understanding], because that [brahman] alone [or that itself] is always seated [calmly] as oneself.

Explanations and discussions:
2017-09-30: The last in a series of four comments explaining that what we need to meditate upon is only ourself and not any ideas about ourself such as ‘The mind is not me’ or ‘I am the immanent consciousness’
2016-05-17: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 32: clinging to such aids (thinking ‘I am not this, I am that’) is due to ‘deficiency of strength’
2015-07-31: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 32: when we are told ‘that is you’ we should investigate ‘what am I?’
2015-04-14: Once we have understood that brahman is what we actually are, we should just investigate what we are and thereby to experience ourself as we actually are, but if we instead merely think repeatedly ‘I am that’, that would show that we have not clearly understood the implication of the teaching ‘You are that’
2014-02-24: We should meditate only on ‘I’, not on ideas such as ‘I am brahman
2009-06-14: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: an explanatory paraphrase

Verse 33:

என்னை யறியேனா னென்னை யறிந்தேனா
னென்ன னகைப்புக் கிடனாகு — மென்னை
தனைவிடய மாக்கவிரு தானுண்டோ வொன்றா
யனைவரனு பூதியுண்மை யால்.

eṉṉai yaṟiyēṉā ṉeṉṉai yaṟindēṉā
ṉeṉṉa ṉahaippuk kiḍaṉāhu — meṉṉai
taṉaiviḍaya mākkaviru tāṉuṇḍō voṉḏṟā
yaṉaivaraṉu bhūtiyuṇmai yāl
.

பதச்சேதம்: ‘என்னை அறியேன் நான்’, ‘என்னை அறிந்தேன் நான்’ என்னல் நகைப்புக்கு இடன் ஆகும். என்னை? தனை விடயம் ஆக்க இரு தான் உண்டோ? ஒன்று ஆய் அனைவர் அனுபூதி உண்மை ஆல்.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): ‘eṉṉai aṟiyēṉ nāṉ’, ‘eṉṉai aṟindēṉ nāṉ’ eṉṉal nahaippukku iḍaṉ āhum. eṉṉai? taṉai viḍayam ākka iru tāṉ uṇḍō? oṉḏṟu āy aṉaivar aṉubhūti uṇmai āl.

அன்வயம்: ‘நான் என்னை அறியேன்’, ‘நான் என்னை அறிந்தேன்’ என்னல் நகைப்புக்கு இடன் ஆகும். என்னை? தனை விடயம் ஆக்க இரு தான் உண்டோ? அனைவர் அனுபூதி உண்மை ஒன்றாய்; ஆல்.

Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): ‘nāṉ eṉṉai aṟiyēṉ’, ‘nāṉ eṉṉai aṟindēṉ’ eṉṉal nahaippukku iḍaṉ āhum. eṉṉai? taṉai viḍayam ākka iru tāṉ uṇḍō? aṉaivar aṉubhūti uṇmai oṉḏṟu āy; āl.

English translation: Saying ‘I do not know myself’, ‘I have known myself’, is ground for ridicule. Why? To make oneself an object, are there two selves? Because being one is the truth, the experience of everyone.

Explanatory paraphrase: Saying [either] ‘I do not know myself’ [or] ‘I have known myself’ is ground for ridicule. Why? To make oneself viṣaya [an object, something known as other than oneself, the knower], are there two selves [a knowing self and a known self]? Because being one is the truth, [as is known by] the experience of everyone. [That is, since we always experience ourself as one, we are never not aware of ourself, so ātma-jñāna (self-knowledge or self-awareness) is not something that we are yet to attain but is our very nature, and hence what is called the attainment of ātma-jñāna is actually not a gain of anything but a loss of everything along with its root, the ego, which is merely a false awareness of ourself (an awareness of ourself as something other than what we actually are), and when the ego is lost there is no one left to say ‘I have known myself’, because what remains is only our real nature, which is pure, infinite, eternal and immutable self-awareness.]

Explanations and discussions:
2017-03-24: After the annihilation of the ego, no ‘I’ can rise to say ‘I have seen’
2017-03-08: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 33: the ‘I’ that rises to say ‘I have seen’ has seen nothing
2016-10-03: Comment explaining that no matter with how much faith and earnest application the ego may follow the path shown by the guru, it can never realise what it actually is, because by trying to know itself it will dissolve back into its source, and what will then remain is only our actual self, which is always perfectly aware of itself and therefore never needs to ‘realise’ itself
2016-01-06: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 33: it is ridiculous to say either ‘I do not know myself’ or ‘I have known myself’
2015-07-31: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 33: we are not two selves, for one to be an object known by the other
2014-11-20: Since there is no personal ‘I’ in that state of ‘self-realisation’, and since the one infinite ‘I’ need not and does not think or say that it has realised itself, there is no one there to think or say ‘I have realised who I am’ or ‘I know myself’
2009-06-14: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: an explanatory paraphrase

Verse 34:

என்று மெவர்க்கு மியல்பா யுளபொருளை
யொன்று முளத்து ளுணர்ந்துநிலை — நின்றிடா
துண்டின் றுருவருவென் றொன்றிரண் டன்றென்றே
சண்டையிடன் மாயைச் சழக்கு.

eṉḏṟu mevarkku miyalbā yuḷaporuḷai
yoṉḏṟu muḷattu ḷuṇarndunilai — niṉḏṟiḍā
duṇḍiṉ ḏṟuruvaruveṉ ḏṟoṉḏṟiraṇ ḍaṉḏṟeṉḏṟē
caṇḍaiyiḍaṉ māyaic caṙakku
.

பதச்சேதம்: என்றும் எவர்க்கும் இயல்பாய் உள பொருளை ஒன்றும் உளத்து உள் உணர்ந்து நிலை நின்றிடாது, ‘உண்டு’, ‘இன்று’, ‘உரு’, ‘அரு’ என்று, ‘ஒன்று’, ‘இரண்டு’, ‘அன்று’ என்றே சண்டையிடல் மாயை சழக்கு.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): eṉḏṟum evarkkum iyalbāy uḷa poruḷai oṉḏṟum uḷattu uḷ uṇarndu nilai niṉḏṟiḍādu, ‘uṇḍu’, ‘iṉḏṟu’, ‘uru’, ‘aru’ eṉḏṟu, ‘oṉḏṟu’, ‘iraṇḍu’, ‘aṉḏṟu’ eṉḏṟē caṇḍai-y-iḍal māyai caṙakku.

அன்வயம்: என்றும் எவர்க்கும் இயல்பாய் உள பொருளை உள் ஒன்றும் உளத்து [அல்லது, ஒன்றும் உளத்துள்] உணர்ந்து நிலை நின்றிடாது, ‘உண்டு’, ‘இன்று’, ‘உரு’, ‘அரு’ என்று, ‘ஒன்று’, ‘இரண்டு’, ‘அன்று’ என்றே சண்டையிடல் மாயை சழக்கு.

Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): eṉḏṟum evarkkum iyalbāy uḷa poruḷai uḷ oṉḏṟum uḷattu [or: oṉḏṟum uḷattuḷ] uṇarndu nilai niṉḏṟiḍādu, ‘uṇḍu’, ‘iṉḏṟu’, ‘uru’, ‘aru’ eṉḏṟu, ‘oṉḏṟu’, ‘iraṇḍu’, ‘aṉḏṟu’ eṉḏṟē caṇḍai-y-iḍal māyai caṙakku.

English translation: Not standing firmly knowing the substance, which always exists for everyone as nature, in the mind that merges within, quarrelling saying ‘It exists’, ‘It does not exist’, ‘Form’, ‘Formless’, ‘One’, ‘Two’, ‘Neither’, is delusion-mischief.

Explanatory paraphrase: Instead of standing firmly [as pure, infinite, eternal and immutable self-awareness] knowing poruḷ [the real substance, namely pure self-awareness], which always exists for everyone as [their real] nature, in the mind that merges within [or in the heart, where it exists as one], quarrelling [fighting or disputing] saying ‘It exists’, ‘It does not exist’, ‘[It is a] form’, ‘[It is] formless’, ‘[It is] one’, ‘[It is] two’, ‘[It is] neither [one nor two]’, is māyā-mischief [mischief, wickedness or defectiveness born of māyā, delusion or self-ignorance].

Explanations and discussions:
2009-06-14: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: an explanatory paraphrase

Verse 35:

சித்தமா யுள்பொருளைத் தேர்ந்திருத்தல் சித்திபிற
சித்தியெலாஞ் சொப்பனமார் சித்திகளே — நித்திரைவிட்
டோர்ந்தா லவைமெய்யோ வுண்மைநிலை நின்றுபொய்ம்மை
தீர்ந்தார் தியங்குவரோ தேர்.

siddhamā yuḷporuḷait tērndiruttal sidddipiṟa
siddhiyelāñ soppaṉamār siddhikaḷē — niddiraiviṭ
ṭōrndā lavaimeyyō vuṇmainilai niṉḏṟupoymmai
tīrndār tiyaṅguvarō tēr
.

பதச்சேதம்: சித்தமாய் உள் பொருளை தேர்ந்து இருத்தல் சித்தி. பிற சித்தி எலாம் சொப்பனம் ஆர் சித்திகளே; நித்திரை விட்டு ஓர்ந்தால், அவை மெய்யோ? உண்மை நிலை நின்று பொய்ம்மை தீர்ந்தார் தியங்குவரோ? தேர்.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): siddhamāy uḷ poruḷai tērndu iruttal siddhi. piṟa siddhi elām soppaṉam ār siddhigaḷ-ē; niddirai viṭṭu ōrndāl, avai meyyō? uṇmai nilai niṉḏṟu poymmai tīrndār tiyaṅguvarō? tēr.

அன்வயம்: சித்தமாய் உள் பொருளை தேர்ந்து இருத்தல் சித்தி. பிற சித்தி எலாம் சொப்பனம் ஆர் சித்திகளே; நித்திரை விட்டு ஓர்ந்தால், அவை மெய்யோ? உண்மை நிலை நின்று பொய்ம்மை தீர்ந்தார் தியங்குவரோ? தேர்.

Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): siddhamāy uḷ poruḷai tērndu iruttal siddhi. piṟa siddhi elām soppaṉam ār siddhigaḷ-ē; niddirai viṭṭu ōrndāl, avai meyyō? uṇmai nilai niṉḏṟu poymmai tīrndār tiyaṅguvarō? tēr.

English translation: Being knowing the substance, which exists as accomplished, is accomplishment. All other accomplishments are just accomplishments achieved in dream; if one wakes up leaving dream, are they real? Will those who, standing in the real state, have left unreality be deluded? Know.

Explanatory paraphrase: Being [as one actually is] knowing poruḷ [the one real substance, which is oneself], which exists as siddham [what is always accomplished], is [real] siddhi [accomplishment]. All other siddhis [such as the aṣṭa-siddhis, eight kinds of paranormal powers that some people try to achieve by meditation or other yōga practices] are just siddhis achieved [or experienced] in dream; if one wakes up leaving dream, are they real? Will those who, standing [firmly] in the real state [of pure self-awareness], have left unreality [or illusion, namely the unreal states of waking and dream] be deluded [by such unreal siddhis]? Know.

Explanations and discussions:
2016-10-25: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 35: spiritual accomplishment is not acquiring supernatural powers but only knowing and being what is real
2009-06-14: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: an explanatory paraphrase

Verse 36:

நாமுடலென் றெண்ணினல நாமதுவென் றெண்ணுமது
நாமதுவா நிற்பதற்கு நற்றுணையே — யாமென்று
நாமதுவென் றெண்ணுவதே னான்மனித னென்றெணுமோ
நாமதுவா நிற்குமத னால்.

nāmuḍaleṉ ḏṟeṇṇiṉala nāmaduveṉ ḏṟeṇṇumadu
nāmaduvā niṟpadaṟku naṯṟuṇaiyē — yāmeṉḏṟu
nāmaduveṉ ḏṟeṇṇuvadē ṉāṉmaṉida ṉeṉḏṟeṇumō
nāmaduvā niṟkumada ṉāl
.

பதச்சேதம்: நாம் உடல் என்று எண்ணின், ‘அலம், நாம் அது’ என்று எண்ணும் அது நாம் அதுவா நிற்பதற்கு நல் துணையே ஆம். என்றும் ‘நாம் அது’ என்று எண்ணுவது ஏன்? ‘நான் மனிதன்’ என்று எணுமோ? நாம் அதுவா நிற்கும் அதனால்.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): nām uḍal eṉḏṟu eṇṇiṉ, ‘alam, nām adu’ eṉḏṟu eṇṇum adu nām adu-v-ā niṟpadaṟku nal tuṇai-y-ē ām. eṉḏṟum ‘nām adu’ eṉḏṟu eṇṇuvadu ēṉ? ‘nāṉ maṉidaṉ’ eṉḏṟu eṇumō? nām adu-v-ā niṟkum adaṉāl.

அன்வயம்: நாம் உடல் என்று எண்ணின், ‘அலம், நாம் அது’ என்று எண்ணும் அது நாம் அதுவா நிற்பதற்கு நல் துணையே ஆம். நாம் அதுவா நிற்கும் அதனால், என்றும் ‘நாம் அது’ என்று எண்ணுவது ஏன்? ‘நான் மனிதன்’ என்று எணுமோ?

Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): nām uḍal eṉḏṟu eṇṇiṉ, ‘alam, nām adu’ eṉḏṟu eṇṇum adu nām adu-v-ā niṟpadaṟku nal tuṇai-y-ē ām. nām adu-v-ā niṟkum adaṉāl, eṉḏṟum ‘nām adu’ eṉḏṟu eṇṇuvadu ēṉ? ‘nāṉ maṉidaṉ’ eṉḏṟu eṇumō?

English translation: If we think that we are a body, thinking ‘No, we are that’ will be just a good aid for us to stand as that. Since we stand as that, why always thinking ‘We are that’? Does one think ‘I am a man’?

Explanatory paraphrase: If we think that we are a body, thinking ‘No [we are not this body], we are that [brahman]’ will be just a good aid for [reminding and encouraging] us to stand [firmly] as that. [However] since we [already] stand [abide or constantly exist] as that, why [should we be] always thinking ‘We are that’? Does one think ‘I am a man’ [that is, does one need to always think ‘I am a man’ in order to be aware of oneself as a man]? [Therefore instead of just thinking ‘I am not this body, I am that’, we should look keenly at ourself to see what we actually are, because only when we see what we actually are will we stand firmly as that.]

Explanations and discussions:
2017-09-30: The third in a series of four comments explaining that what we need to meditate upon is only ourself and not any ideas about ourself such as ‘The mind is not me’ or ‘I am the immanent consciousness’
2016-05-17: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 36: thinking ‘I am not this body but only brahman’ is just a preliminary aid
2015-04-14: Thinking ‘I am brahman’ can help us to some extent to abide as we really are, but we should not carry on thinking this perpetually, because once we have understood that we are that, we should try to remain as that alone by experiencing ourself as we really are
2014-02-24: We should meditate only on ‘I’, not on ideas such as ‘I am brahman
2009-06-14: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: an explanatory paraphrase

Verse 37:

சாதகத்தி லேதுவிதஞ் சாத்தியத்தி லத்துவித
மோதுகின்ற வாதமது முண்மையல — வாதரவாய்த்
தான்றேடுங் காலுந் தனையடைந்த காலத்துந்
தான்றசம னன்றியார் தான்.

sādhakatti lēduvitañ sāddhiyatti ladduvita
mōdugiṉḏṟa vādamadu muṇmaiyala — vādaravāyt
tāṉḏṟēḍuṅ kālun taṉaiyaḍainta kālattun
tāṉḏṟaśama ṉaṉḏṟiyār tāṉ
.

பதச்சேதம்: ‘சாதகத்திலே துவிதம், சாத்தியத்தில் அத்துவிதம்’ ஓதுகின்ற வாதம் அதும் உண்மை அல. ஆதரவாய் தான் தேடும் காலும், தனை அடைந்த காலத்தும், தான் தசமன் அன்றி யார் தான்?

Padacchēdam (word-separation): ‘sādhakattil-ē duvitam, sāddhiyattil adduvitam’ ōdugiṉḏṟa vādam-adum uṇmai ala. ādaravāy tāṉ tēḍum kālum, taṉai aḍainda kālattum, tāṉ daśamaṉ aṉḏṟi yār tāṉ?

English translation: Even the contention that declares, ‘Duality in spiritual practice, non-duality in attainment’, is not true. Both when one is eagerly searching and when one has found oneself, who indeed is one other than the tenth man?

Explanatory paraphrase: Even the contention that declares, ‘Duality [is real] in spiritual practice, [and] non-duality [becomes real only] in attainment’, is not true [because even when one is seeking to know one’s real nature, what actually exists is only oneself and not anything else]. Both when one is eagerly searching [for the missing tenth man] and when one has found oneself [to be him], who indeed is one other than the tenth man? [Here daśamaṉ, ‘the tenth man’, refers to the supposedly missing man in the analogy of the ten foolish men who, after fording a river, each counted the other nine but forgot to count himself, and therefore concluded that one of them was missing. Just as each of them was actually the tenth man even while they were anxiously searching for him, we are never actually anything other than the one reality that we are seeking to know, so just as all that each of the ten men needed was to count himself, all that we need is to look keenly at ourself, because when we look at ourself keenly enough we will see that we alone exist and are therefore eternally non-dual.]

Explanations and discussions:
2015-07-31: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 37: even when we experience ourself as this ego, we are actually what we always really are
2009-06-14: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: an explanatory paraphrase

Verse 38:

வினைமுதனா மாயின் விளைபயன் றுய்ப்போம்
வினைமுதலா ரென்று வினவித் — தனையறியக்
கர்த்தத் துவம்போய்க் கருமமூன் றுங்கழலு
நித்தமா முத்தி நிலை.

viṉaimudaṉā māyiṉ viḷaipayaṉ ḏṟuyppōm
viṉaimudalā reṉḏṟu viṉavit — taṉaiyaṟiyak
karttat tuvampōyk karumamūṉ ḏṟuṅkaṙalu
nittamā mutti nilai
.

பதச்சேதம்: வினைமுதல் நாம் ஆயின், விளை பயன் துய்ப்போம். வினைமுதல் ஆர் என்று வினவி தனை அறிய, கர்த்தத்துவம் போய், கருமம் மூன்றும் கழலும். நித்தமாம் முத்தி நிலை.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): viṉaimudal nām āyiṉ, viḷai payaṉ tuyppōm. viṉaimudal ār eṉḏṟu viṉavi taṉai aṟiya, karttattuvam pōy, karumam mūṉḏṟum kaṙalum. nittam-ām mutti nilai.

English translation: If we are the doer of action, we will experience the resulting fruit. When one knows oneself by investigating who is the doer of action, doership will depart and all the three actions will slip off. The state of liberation, which is eternal.

Explanatory paraphrase: If we are the doer of action, we will experience the resulting fruit. [However] when one knows oneself [as one actually is] by investigating who is the doer of action, [the ego, which is what seemed to do actions and to experience their fruit, will thereby be eradicated, and along with it its] kartṛtva [doership] [and its bhōktṛtva, experiencership] will depart and [hence] all [its] three karmas [its āgāmya (actions that it does by its own free will), sañcita (the heap of the fruits of such actions that it is yet to experience) and prārabdha (destiny or fate, which is the fruits that have been allotted for it to experience in its current life] will slip off. [This is] the state of mukti [liberation], which is eternal [being what actually exists even when we seem to be this ego].

Explanations and discussions:
2017-09-24: Comment explaining that though Bhagavan does not accept that any action ever actually happens, he does concede that they seem to happen and that we seem to be the doer of them, because in our view this seems to be the case
2017-07-27: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 38: if we investigate it keenly enough, we will find that there is no ego and hence no bondage, so liberation is eternal
2017-06-20: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 38: only by using our free will to investigate ourself can we free ourself from the ego and all its three karmas
2016-05-06: Comment explaining that so long as we experience ourself as this ego, we will seem to be the thinker of all thoughts (the doer of all mental actions) and hence the doer of whatever bodily or vocal actions result from our thinking, so we cannot relinquish our sense of doership without annihilating our ego
2016-04-17: Comment explaining that the way to free ourself from all forms of karma is only to try to be self-attentive as much as possible, because self-attentiveness alone will dissolve the primal illusion that we are this ego, the doer of actions and the experiencer of their fruits
2016-02-08: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 38: karma exists only for the ego
2014-09-12: We need not investigate karma in any great depth or detail, but should focus all our effort and attention only on investigating the ‘I’ that feels ‘I am doing karma’ or ‘I am experiencing the fruit of karma
2011-01-21: By trying to be self-attentive we will not alter what the mind is destined to experience, but will remove the illusion that we are this experiencing mind
2009-06-14: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: an explanatory paraphrase

Verse 39:

பத்தனா னென்னுமட்டே பந்தமுத்தி சிந்தனைகள்
பத்தனா ரென்றுதன்னைப் பார்க்குங்காற் — சித்தமாய்
நித்தமுத்தன் றானிற்க நிற்காதேற் பந்தசிந்தை
முத்திசிந்தை முன்னிற்கு மோ.

baddhaṉā ṉeṉṉumaṭṭē bandhamutti cintaṉaigaḷ
baddhaṉā reṉḏṟutaṉṉaip pārkkuṅgāṯ — siddhamāy
nittamuttaṉ ḏṟāṉiṟka niṟkādēṯ bandacintai
mutticintai muṉṉiṟku mō
.

பதச்சேதம்: ‘பத்தன் நான்’ என்னும் மட்டே, பந்த முத்தி சிந்தனைகள். பத்தன் ஆர் என்று தன்னை பார்க்குங்கால், சித்தமாய் நித்த முத்தன் தான் நிற்க, நிற்காதேல் பந்த சிந்தை, முத்தி சிந்தை முன் நிற்குமோ?

Padacchēdam (word-separation): ‘baddhaṉ nāṉ’ eṉṉum maṭṭē, bandha mutti cintaṉaigaḷ. baddhaṉ ār eṉḏṟu taṉṉai pārkkuṅgāl, siddhamāy nitta muttaṉ tāṉ niṟka, niṟkādēl bandha cintai, mutti cintai muṉ niṟkumō?

அன்வயம்: ‘நான் பத்தன்’ என்னும் மட்டே, பந்த முத்தி சிந்தனைகள். பத்தன் ஆர் என்று தன்னை பார்க்குங்கால், நித்த முத்தன் தான் சித்தமாய் நிற்க, பந்த சிந்தை நிற்காதேல், முத்தி சிந்தை முன் நிற்குமோ?

Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): ‘baddhaṉ nāṉ’ eṉṉum maṭṭē, bandha mutti cintaṉaigaḷ. baddhaṉ ār eṉḏṟu taṉṉai pārkkuṅgāl, nitta muttaṉ tāṉ siddhamāy niṟka, bandha cintai niṟkādēl, mutti cintai muṉ niṟkumō?

English translation: Only so long as one says ‘I am a person in bondage’, thoughts of bondage and liberation. When one looks at oneself as who is the person in bondage, when oneself, the one who is eternally liberated, remains as accomplished, if thought of bondage will not remain, will thought of liberation henceforth remain?

Explanatory paraphrase: Only so long as one says [that is, only so long as one experiences oneself as] ‘I am a person in bondage’ [will there be] thoughts of bandha [bondage] and mukti [liberation]. When one looks at [observes, examines or scrutinises] oneself [to see] who is the person in bondage, and when [thereby] oneself, the one who is eternally liberated, [alone] remains as siddham [what is firmly established or always accomplished], since thought of bondage will not remain, will thought of liberation henceforth remain?

Explanations and discussions:
2009-06-14: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: an explanatory paraphrase

Verse 40:

உருவ மருவ முருவருவ மூன்றா
முறுமுத்தி யென்னி லுரைப்ப — னுருவ
மருவ முருவருவ மாயு மகந்தை
யுருவழிதன் முத்தி யுணர்.

uruva maruva muruvaruva mūṉḏṟā
muṟumutti yeṉṉi luraippa — ṉuruva
maruva muruvaruva māyu mahandai
yuruvaṙitaṉ mutti yuṇar
.

பதச்சேதம்: உருவம், அருவம், உருவருவம், மூன்று ஆம் உறும் முத்தி என்னில், உரைப்பன்: உருவம், அருவம், உருவருவம் ஆயும் அகந்தை உரு அழிதல் முத்தி. உணர்.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): uruvam, aruvam, uru-v-aruvam, mūṉḏṟu ām uṟum mutti eṉṉil, uraippaṉ: uruvam, aruvam, uru-v-aruvam āyum ahandai-uru aṙidal mutti. uṇar.

அன்வயம்: உறும் முத்தி உருவம், அருவம், உருவருவம், மூன்று ஆம் என்னில், உரைப்பன்: உருவம், அருவம், உருவருவம் ஆயும் அகந்தை உரு அழிதல் முத்தி. உணர்.

Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): uṟum mutti uruvam, aruvam, uru-v-aruvam, mūṉḏṟu ām eṉṉil, uraippaṉ: uruvam, aruvam, uru-v-aruvam āyum ahandai-uru aṙidal mutti. uṇar.

English translation: If it is said that liberation that one will experience is three, form, formless, form-formless, I will say: know that the ego-form, which distinguishes form, formless, form-formless, being destroyed is liberation.

Explanatory paraphrase: If it is said that mukti [liberation] that one will experience [or that one will attain, or that will happen] is of three kinds, with form, without form, or either with form or without form [that is, a state in which one can alternate back and forth between being a form or being formless], I will say: know that [only] destruction of the ego-form [the form-bound ego], which distinguishes [these three kinds of liberation], with form, without form, or either with form or without form, is mukti.

Explanations and discussions:
2016-07-13: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 40: liberation is destruction of our ego, the sole cause of all differences
2015-12-10: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 40: annihilating our ego by means of ātma-vicāra is fulfilling the ultimate purpose of sanātana dharma
2009-06-14: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: an explanatory paraphrase

355 comments:

1 – 200 of 355   Newer›   Newest»
Sanjay Lohia said...

If ‘I’ is unreal, then its being under the sway of maya is an illusion

Maya means ‘what is not’, but as long it seems to exist, it gives us unending troubles. Bhagavan used to say that mind itself is maya, and therefore whatever our mind projects and experiences is also nothing but maya. This maya will always keep us confused in various ways. I also had a confusion in April 2014, which prompted me to write to Michael:

In the beginning we should have been in the state of jnana (assuming that apparently we are in the grips of maya or delusion currently). Then for some inexplicable reason this maya overpowers us.

It is said that once we attain jnana, maya can never touch us again. Then why did it overpower us in the first place (when we were in the state of pure jnana)? And even if we attain atma-jnana, how can we be sure that we will not come under its grips again?

Michael replied:

Here you are making an assumption that Bhagavan never allowed us to make. Why should we assume that we are in the grips of maya? We seem to be, but that does not mean that maya is actually real.

Whenever Bhagavan was asked such questions, he would say: ‘First see whether you are in the grips of maya’. If we investigate the ‘I’ that seems to have been caught by maya, we will find that this ‘I’ is unreal, so its being under the sway of maya is an illusion.

jacques franck said...

Thank you very much for this GREAT GREAT GREAT work....

pranam

jacques franck

Sanjay Lohia said...

No words will be enough to thank Michael for this article: Ulladu Narpadu: Tamil text, transliteration and translation. This work and its companion Upadesa Undiyar: Tamil text, transliteration and translation are like collectors' items. It needs to be carefully preserved. Of course we would refer to these regularly, especially whenever we have any doubts about Bhagavan’s teachings.

Someone asked Sri Sadhu Om: ‘Which according to you is the best work of Bhagavan?’ he simply said: Ulladu Narpadu. Michael has explained in more detail what Sri Sadhu Om had conveyed in just one word.

I think the 42 verses of Ulladu Narpadu are like 42 pieces of most precious diamonds. However, though they are available to all, they are hidden inside a heap of most colourful and scented flowers. Therefore until and unless someone lets us know that they are buried inside these bunch of flowers, we would not know about this crest-jewel of Bhagavan’s teachings. The colourful and scented bunch of flowers represents all the other written and recorded teachings of Bhagavan.

Therefore, Sri Sadhu Om and Michael have done a great service to us by pointing out the great importance of Ulladu Narpadu. I think no one else has made this as clear as these two have done. As Michael says, many of the key principles of his teachings are expressed nowhere as clearly and as coherently as they are in these 42 verses.

I was one of those who used to give more importance to books such as Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi over Ulladu Narpadu, Nan Yar? and Upadesa Undiyar. This is how many of the devotees are made to believe. It is recorded that a prominent old time devotee had said that each and every word in Talks is pure gold, and we blindly believed him. However, Michael has broken this myth, and has shown us why we should trust and rely more on Ulladu Narpadu.


Mouna said...

I humbly want to add my voice to the choir of praise for Michael’s work both translating and commenting Bhagavan’s essential teachings. My understanding and practice of them changed and grew over time because of his relentless effort to clarify even further what is already clear and simple and yet at times esoteric because of our own ignorance.
Michael was (and still is) able to bring forward the subtleties and logic hidden in Bhagavan’s writings with impeccable humility, never taking authorship but always pointing at the source of the teaching, Bhagavan.

Eternally grateful. Thank you Michael.

Oh! and by the way, isn’t that funny that, as he (Michael) always mentions, all the crores of words, articles and commentaries written and spoken are in fact variations on a single composite word, self-attention? It requires a Master to paint such a vast, colorful and meaningful canvas with just one brush and one color!

Enough words and praise! let’s go back to work!

Hector said...

Michael
Thank you so very much for this article and for all your others too for that matter. You write with such clarity and have given us another beautiful priceless treasure.

power of grace said...

Michael,
many thanks for giving us this translation.
May we readers become fit to carefully study and correctly understand this work.
These verses may show us the way to salvation by the destruction of the ego that rises as 'I'. May we fully grasp/comprehend the import of Ulladu Narpadu and thus by grace experience our real ever-existing nature shining as 'I-I'.

Wittgenstein said...

As many of the other readers have pointed out, this is a very valuable contribution from Michael and will be most useful for all those on the path of ātma-vicāra.

Several weeks of sustained work should have taken place in the background for such an article to emerge (still, it is work in progress, as we understand). Not everything is conducive when such work takes place, especially given the fact that there is some negative criticism against Michael about his life style, in sarcastic and foul language. It suffices to say Michael, with his abilities, could have had a very decent job and kept all his articles and books (and even criticisms!) behind a pay wall. As that did not happen in his case, Bhagavan has chosen him for something important, as some of us would believe, as ‘just a translator’ cannot write with such depth. Some readers expressed the wish that Michael should moderate the comments in his blog. It appears to me Michael was busy with other productive work related to Bhagavan (as always). So we have two examples (Michael and his staunch critics) of how we may use our free will. The choice is ours.

Thank you very much Michael. The translations stay very close to original Tamil verses.

For those sincere devotees who regret not knowing Tamil, it is my feeling that Bhagavan himself has translated this very lovingly into English through Michael.

With this note of thanks, I would like to share some thoughts related to this article in the following series of comments.

Wittgenstein said...

Part 1 of 4

The explanations and discussions cited for verses 25 and 26 are 39 and 36, respectively, which shows the importance of these verses, which was pointed out by Michael in the beginning of the article.

We may treat the development of verses leading to verse 26 as somewhat similar to development of a scientific theory leading to a reasonable hypothesis. For example, when Newton’s second law is taught in schools, a series of experiments can be demonstrated leading up to the hypothesis that the net force acting on an object is proportional to its rate of change of momentum.

In a similar way, Bhagavan considers the whole of our experience with the intention of finding the link between world, ego and God. After a series of ‘experiments’ he comes to a reasonable hypothesis that ‘when the ego rises, everything rises; when it goes, everything goes and ego is everything’. A scientific hypothesis is a relation between cause and effect, as in the relation between force (cause) and rate of change of momentum (effect). At first sight it may appear there is only a correlation between the ego and ‘everything else’ and we know that correlation is not causation, even if Bhagavan says ego is the cause of everything. We know that he means ego as the cause of everything as he uses the word karu (which usually means ‘embryo’ but means ‘cause’ in this context) in the kalivenba version of this verse. How do we then reconcile between correlation and causation?

When we consider this situation seriously, we would realize that sometimes a cause simulataneous with its effect would appear to be just correlated [with its effect]. In western philosophy, the idea of cause simultaneous with effect was demonstrated by Immanuel Kant (which we may not go into details here). Bhagavan uses a better approach here. He uses the dream argument (which in western philosophy was also used by Descartes) to demonstrate the cause of everything is the ego (but Descartes did not do that with his own argument). The dream argument states that there is no substantive difference between dream and waking. Therefore, just as the cause of dream is the dreamer (the ego) and everything appears simultaneously with the dreamer in a dream, ego is the cause of everything, in both dream and waking. This he implies in Maharshi’s Gospel (Book 2, Chapter 3, when he discusses ‘invariable concomitance of mind and world’ and put to good use in an unexpected manner by Michael in his excellent article ‘The role of logic in developing a clear, coherent and uncomplicated understanding of Bhagavan’s teachings’ on 28 February 2016).

Like any hypothesis, we cannot be sure if this is true of false, until we test it rigorously. Although Newton’s law happens to be true in most of the situations, a good scientist will keep his options open if it turns out to be wrong during one of the tests. Similarly, we test this hypothesis in verse 26 by the experiment called ātma-vicāra, where the cause is investigated. Bhagavan, having completed this test (we, his devotees, believe he completed it and others may not do so and they are not asked by his devotees to do so) says that we will discover that the ego never existed.

Wittgenstein said...

Part 2 of 4

A scientific hypothesis should stop where causal chain stops. In a similar way, the causal link stops with the ego. We cannot ask what causes the ego, as causality itself starts with ego and there is no scope for asking such questions before the ego arises. It is like asking why Newton’s law exists. A scientist may be surprised if he is asked such a question. Bhagavan is also surprised about this arising of ego (when he teaches us through this vivartha mode) when he says, ‘eṇṇē vichchai’ (what a wonder!)’, in the kalivenba version of verse 25 and as atiśaya śakti (wonderful power) in Nāṉ Yār?, fourth paragraph. When devotees asked about it (even in many places in Talks), he would urge them to find out if it arose.

All these discussion do not mean we are pressing science or western philosoply into service, as we are handicapped otherwise. We do not need any scientific or philosophical background to understand what Bhagavan teaches. We simply use the scientific analogy with some arguments from western philosophy for elucidation.

It is also important to differentiate between what Bhagavan says (there never was an ego, which is ajata) and what we are asked to investigate. It is possible to lip-sync with Bhagavan ‘there never was an ego’ and to misunderstand everything Bhagavan said to mean ‘the Self’ [our essential self] creates everything. Proponents of such a view, quite paradoxically, claim to practise ātma-vicāra. This is a paradox because if we lip-sync with Bhagavan ‘there never was an ego’, should we also not pretend to be Bhagavan who never needed any ātma-vicāra? Venkataraman needed it but he never said ‘there never was an ego’. Did he not ask himself ‘who am I?’?

Wittgenstein said...

Part 3 of 4

In verse 25, Bhagavan explains the functioning of ego. For example, when he says, uru viṭṭu, uru paṯṟum (leaving form, it grasps form), such things can be found in our own experience. One may deliberately induce an ‘out of body experience’ (OBE) or it may happen spontaneously for some (although not necessarily) during ātma-vicāra or during a ‘near death experience’ (NDE). Induction can happen by use of drugs like ketamine or by ‘probing’ certains regions of brain in the laboratory.

With some relatively cheap gadgets that do not probe the brain, and without use of any drugs, scientists can also induce this experience in the laboratory. One may find an interesting article at http://www.neuro.ki.se/ehrsson/pdfs/Ehrsson-Science-2007-with-SOM.pdf.

These experiments have surprised scientists that the sense of self or consciousness (by which they mean ego consciousness and not our essential consciouness) is so fluid and it is constructed every moment by the brain (as normally scientists believe mind ‘emerges’ out of brain and no mind exists independent of brain). Although OBE is part of NDE, there is no measurable brain function in NDE, as per majority of the reports, which suggests mind can in fact be further delinked from brain. Even in such cases, those who report NDE say that they were with some subtle body compared to the gross body left over on their death bed (or their ‘near death bed’?).

We do not need such dramatic experiences and clever experiments. What we need is to consider carefully our experiences of waking and dream, as taught by Bhagavan. We may imagine we have considered our experiences carefully. It is almost impossible for us to do, unless assisted by Bhagavan, as mankind’s intellectual journeys into western philosophy, psychology, physics and (more recently) neuro science shows. That is not surprising as science embraces subject-object duality at its core. Pure subject, for science, will be mere unconsciousness and hence not of any interest. Science can investigate only phenomena. But we are interested in the source of all phenomena.

In the simple teaching of Bhagavan, we (as this ego) do leave the current form and grasp another form in a dream (uru viṭṭu, uru paṯṟum (leaving form, it grasps form)). This should be readily understood by us without any fancy experience. That pure self-awareness persists in sleep without either of these forms and continues in waking and dream, as taught by Bhagavan, is something science will not accept, as we have noted. However, this is most important for someone on the path of ātma-vicāra, which is what is meant by the ‘search’ in verse 25 or the ‘investigation’ in verse 26. For those who have tried sincerely ātma-vicāra, it should be evident that self-awareness is glaringly clear when most of the phenomena recede and lingers in the background even when attention branches out to phenomena. To follow this diligently is the task given to us by Bhagavan.

Wittgenstein said...

Part 4 of 4

With persistent practice one can sense (especially when waking up) that the statement ‘uru paṯṟi uṇḍām’ (grasping form it comes into existence) should be correct. This does not mean ‘waking up’ moment is somehow important. We all go through it. But ātma-vicāra at other times would make us notice it more sharply, just like we are likely to remain alert during death only if we have sincerely practised ātma-vicāra in this life. Therefore, ātma-vicāra is a moment to moment practice, leading us to the final exit, which could be any moment.

To sum it up: verses 25 and 26 are most important as they summarize the function of ego and help us to understand the hypothesis put forth by Bhagavan and give us the impetus to test that hypothesis.

Advik said...

Thank you very much Michael,
Magnificent work as usual!
Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu truly is a gift and so are you.
I wish you all the very best Michael and thank you once again from the bottom of my heart.

Advik said...

Wittgenstein
Thank you for your valuable contribution.
It was an absolute joy to read.
Please post more of your insights and clear deep understandings on this blog.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Revealed: Einstein’s theory of happiness

Einstein is famous for his Theory of Relativity. But shortly after he had received the Nobel Prize for physics, he wrote (as it appeared in today’s newspaper):

A quiet and modest life brings more joy than a pursuit of success bound with constant unrest [state of dissatisfaction, disturbance, and agitation]. Where there is a will, there’s a way.

This was said by a scientist. Even he somehow knew that all his (or other’s) scientific discoveries will not bring about real happiness in men. These discoveries may make our life easier, it may give us medicines to fight our disease and so on, but these will also increase our unrest. For example, it is these very discoveries will have given us weapons of mass destruction.

Therefore, as Einstein says, a quiet and modest life is conducive to peace and joy (at least in a relative sense). We need to keep our material ambitions to a bare minimum.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Wittgenstein, this is in response to your recent comments. You write, ‘the explanations and discussions cited for verses 25 and 26 are 39 and 36, respectively, which shows the importance of these verses, which was pointed out by Michael in the beginning of the article. We may treat the development of verses leading to verse 26 as somewhat similar to development of a scientific theory leading to a reasonable hypothesis’.

I agree, but then his entire teachings can be taken as a reasonable hypothesis. Of course this bunch of hypothesis is backed up by simple logic and our experience in three states of waking, dream and sleep. As an example, let us consider the hypothesis Bhagavan has given us in verse 22 of Ulladu Narpadu:

Consider, except by turning the mind back within [and thereby] completely immersing it in God, who shines within that mind giving light to the mind, how to fathom [or investigate and know] God by the mind?

What Bhagavan has given here is a very reasonable hypothesis. If God shines within the mind giving light to the mind, we can merge in God only by turning within and subsiding in God. However, others may not agree with this hypothesis. Some of them claim that all paths lead to God. Let them show us how they can lead to God. How can an outward directed effort help us to merge in God, if God shines within us as ‘I’?

We can prove this hypothesis correct if we turn within with single pointed attention. As a consequence if our ego merges within, the hypothesis which Bhagavan has given us will be proved to be correct.

As you quote, Sharma writes in the chapter 8 of Maha Yoga: ‘For even now, in this realm of ignorance, we are sustained by currents — however weak and fitful — of the Happiness of the real Self, trickling through the dense folds of ignorance and sin, in just sufficient amounts to keep us from despair and suicide'.

What he says here is very true. We will surely become mad if such ‘currents’ of happiness are not there within us. At least in sleep we experience pure happiness. Such regular doses of happiness keep us going amidst all the misery, dissatisfaction and despair.




Sanjay Lohia said...

Is there creation?

Q: How has srishti [creation] come about?

Bhagavan: Various accounts are given in books. But is there creation? Only if there is creation do we have to explain how it came about. We may not know about all these theories but we certainly know that we exist. Why not know the ‘I’ and then see if there is a creation. (DBD p. 132)

My note: According to Bhagavan, creation has never taken place, and therefore all questions about creation are irrelevant. Only thing which is relevant is asking oneself: who has all these doubts about creation? Who am I?

Thus Bhagavan is always shifting our attention away from the seen to the seer. What or who is this seer? When we manage to experience ourself as we really are, we will directly come to know that creation never took place. Creation was our ego's imagination.

power of grace said...

Sanjay Lohia,
as you say first we have to get to know the 'I' who we are. Then we may come to know whether there is a world or creation at all.
Primarily we should try to know the knower.

Sanjay Lohia said...

power of grace, yes, first thing first. We have to first find out about ourself: who is the knower of this world? If world still exists after we know the knower, we may try and find out about the origin of the world.

According to Bhagavan, once we experience ourself as we actually are, the creator, creation and the act of creation will all merge into ourself, never to reappear again. Who is the creator? It is our ego. What is creation? It is only our mental vision or mental idea. How does creation take place? It takes place due to our outward directed attention or self-negligence: pramada.

If we attend only to ourself by ignoring everything else, we will clearly see that creation was just a creation of our deluded mind. When our mind is annihilated, how can creation remain? The creation arises with our mind and subsides with our mind.

Salazar said...

From one of Wittgenstein’s past comments:”[…] It appears to me Michael was busy with other productive work related to Bhagavan (as always). So we have two examples (Michael and his staunch critics) of how we may use our free will. The choice is ours. […]”

No, neither Michael nor his staunch critics did choose what they were doing, it was predetermined and they really had no choice. Why are people here so strongly ignoring or misinterpreting Bhagavan’s statements about predetermination? It must be their prarabdha ;-)

Also, there was the comment of lip-syncing ‘there never was an ego’……. Well, isn’t everything on this blog a “lip-sync” of Bhagavan’s teaching? Michael’s whole work is a lip-sync par-excellence. What is wrong with the part of ‘there was never an ego’? Does that automatically imply that one pretends to be a Jnani? Maybe Annamalai Swami was wrong with his suggestion to always affirm to be Self and never consider to be an ego?

Again, there seems to be a sectarian-like attitude to Bhagavan’s teaching.

power of grace said...

Sanjay Lohia,
regarding the quoted article of Mountain Path (Deepam 2017), Swami Chinmayananda's commentary on the Hymn to Sri Dakshinamurti, I want to add:
"Bhagavan:
...But is there creation ? Only if there is creation, we have to explain how it came about...But that we exist now is certain...
The world is created by the 'I' which in its turn rises up from the Self. The riddle of the creation of the world is thus solved if you solve the creation of the 'I'.
So I say find your Self.
Again , does the world come and ask you "Why do 'I' exist ? How was 'I' created ?"
It is you who ask the question. The questioner must establish the relationship between the world and himself. He must admit that the world is his own imagination. Who imagines it ? Let him again find the 'I' and then the Self...
There is no creation in the state of realization. When one sees the world, one does not see oneself. When one sees the Self, the world is not seen. So see the Self and realize that there has been no creation."

ulladu-unarvu said...

Michael,
mangalam verse 1,linked article of Monday, 24 February 2014 We should meditate only on 'I', not on ideas such as 'I am brahman':

"Therefore the very nature of uḷḷadu or what is is to be aware of itself, so in order to be aware of itself, it does not have to think. In fact, since its nature is just to be and to experience that it is (that is, to experience 'I am'), it is completely devoid of thought, and since it exists within our heart (that is, in the innermost core of ourself) as our heart, it is called 'heart'."
"Since thought cannot reach it, in order to meditate upon it we must just be it: that is, we must be without any thought, as it is, experiencing only 'I am'. And since it is what we experience as 'I am', in order to meditate upon it or to experience it we just have to be without thought as 'I am' alone."
"Therefore thinking any thought such as 'I am brahman' will only take us away from what brahman actually is, namely the one thought-free self-aware reality that we always experience as 'I am'."

I am surprised that 'ulladu' and the fundamental experience 'I am' could be disturbed by any thought which is only temporary and possibly passing soon.

Mouna said...

ulladu-unarvu, if I may,
”I am surprised that 'ulladu' and the fundamental experience 'I am' could be disturbed by any thought which is only temporary and possibly passing soon.”

Actually ulladu can never be disturbed, it is from the ego’s viewpoint that we seem to go in and out of it. A screen is never disturbed by the appearance or disappearance of the movie, it is only from the spectator’s point of view that a film seems to start and finish and restart again.

ulladu-unarvu said...

Mouna, greetings,
of course my comment is written from the view of the spectating ego.
In no way I do doubt your statement about the undefiled intactness of our pure self-awareness, i.e. the screen.
Since thoughts are clearly banished in the quoted parts of the linked article
1. "...so in order to be aware of itself, it does not have to think."
2. "... that is, we must be without any thought, as it is, experiencing only 'I am'. And since it is what we experience as 'I am', in order to meditate upon it or to experience it we just have to be without thought as 'I am' alone."
3. "Therefore thinking any thought such as 'I am brahman' will only take us away from what brahman actually is, namely the one thought-free self-aware reality that we always experience as 'I am'."
I referred my astonishment principally back to the incompatibility of actual experience 'I am' with the presence of mere thoughts.

yuvaraj said...

The greatest joy I have got from this blog was when

1) I had a hard question which I was struggling with got answered by Michael's essay or
2) When I wrote to Michael and his response clarified or
3) When Michael wrote an essay and Wittgenstein commented and elucidated on it.

I have poor understanding of Bhagavan's Bhakti literature. So thanks very much for these translations, Michael. And thanks Wittgenstein for your extensive and helpful comments.

I would also echo something that Wittgenstein said - on "sarcastic and foul language" seen lately on this blog...I see one person doing it regularly. Let me refer to this person as "bee". I thought this bee not liking the smell of this flower called Michael will soon go away and let the other bees like us enjoy the fragrance. It is yet to happen. So I am now wondering that probably the fragrance of Michael will soon overpower this bee.

Well, but that will depend on this bees' Free Will! Or may be not?

Wittgenstein I like your emphasising the point - "Like any hypothesis, we cannot be sure if this is true of false, until we test it rigorously." As long as I cannot convert Bhagavan's teachings and Michael's essays as my own experientially I will not go far.

Do hope to see more of your comments, Wittgenstein, and I entirely second your and others' praise for Michael.

Thank you very much, Michael.

savadavar said...

Michael,
mangalam verse 2,
I refer to the linked article of Thursday, 15 March 2007 Taking refuge at the 'feet' of God
"The feet of guru are that which is always shining within you as 'I I'."
"The only true refuge or fortress which will protect us from the fear of death and every other form of misery is the innermost core of our own being, which is the real abode of God and which, being the foundation that underlies and supports our mind and everything known by it, is figuratively described as his 'feet'."

I am sitting at the moment at my desk and do feel that shining of the real abode of God only vaguely. Evidently I have to go much deeper. Having not the power and love to complete self-surrender by subsidence of the mind into the heart till now I could not take refuge to the true state of deathlessness or immortality.
May Arunachala not stop taking my stubborn ego under his wings.

Salazar said...

yuvaraj, yes - if only that "bee" could have "free will". However it is only an illusion when the jiva thinks it could decide what happens in the phenomenal world. There is no free will and there is no destiny. It always comes back to turning within.

Bhagavan himself wanted to leave the ashram and he said he tried several times but his prarabdha let him stay where he was. That's according to Sadhu Natanananda.

Of course that is just a story because what does it matter where a Jnani "goes" in the phenomenal world? The actions of the body of a Jnani is as much part of the script as anything else including the stories of the devotees visiting him and the story of jivas trying to become what they believe they don't are :-)

savadavar said...

Michael,
verse 1, linjed with the article of Sunday, 15 January 2017
What is aware of everything other than ourself is only the ego and not ourself as we actually are

"When we remain as we actually are, no picture of names and forms (nāma uru cittiram) appears in our awareness, and nor does any seer (pārppāṉ), because as we actually are we are aware of nothing other than ourself as we actually are, so it is only when we rise as this ego that any picture of names and forms appears in our awareness and that we consequently see ourself as the seer of it."
" What we actually are is only pure self-awareness, which alone is what is real, so though pure self-awareness is the ultimate substance that appears as both the picture of names and forms and the seer of it, neither the picture of names and forms nor the seer of it are pure self-awareness as it actually is, because they are both mere appearances."

How can I as the seeming ego force out of it the relinquishment of rising ?
Will the false awareness i.e. the seeming ego ever abstain from rising ?

Certainly your answer will be : investigate keenly whether there is an ego at all.
Or what other method will me keep remaining as I actually am ?

savadavar said...

Michael,
verse 2,
linked with the article of Sunday, 14 June 2009
Ulladu Narpadu – an explanatory paraphrase,
"...abiding in our own natural state (of pure thought-free self-conscious being) is the highest achievement."
I am regrettably far from being able to abide in my natural state of pure thought-free self-conscious being.
What to do with such a heap of complete misery ?

Mouna said...

savadavar, if I may,

"I am regrettably far from being able to abide in my natural state of pure thought-free self-conscious being.
What to do with such a heap of complete misery?”


that specific thought is what prevents you from abiding… disregard it and keep trying to follow Bhagavan’s instructions...

be well,
m

Salazar said...

One thing one can say for sure, as long as the mind is involved with a process, things are already screwed up. A goal and the notion of achievement is a process of the mind and it will log jam at the outset.

To complain about being stuck or of being not able to go “deep” is the mind. When are we going to learn to ignore the musings of the mind? Sages said that it is necessary to go deep, but when the mind picks that up as a goal it has already shot itself in the foot. In that case it is better to forget about ‘going deep’ than to let oneself torment by another thought. Relax! There is no “how”! To ask or wonder about “how” is again the mind shooting itself in the foot. Don’t make anything a task, just be quiet and leave the mind alone.

savadavar said...

Mouna, greetings,
the referred statement is not only a "specific thought" but also a sober factual report.
My opposite claim - namely to abide (effortlessly and uninterruptedly) in my natural state of pure thought-free self-conscious being - would not be in accordance with the facts. Of course, seen from the absolute standpoint of atma-svarupa there has never arisen any ego. But should we not leave things as they are and not get carried away ?
On the other hand you are entirely right in saying that instead of mournful wailing I should always keep trying to follow Bhagavan’s instructions...
be well too

savadavar said...

Salazar,
'leaving the mind alone' is just (the same as) 'going deep'.
Thanks for your comment.

savadavar said...

Michael,
are you open to suggestions ?
I was now reading the recent Mountain Path- article of John Grimes KEYWORD "Chaitanya Consciousness-of and Consciousness-as". I am and certainly other readers are interested in the referred subjects as
a) reflected consciousness
b) the four functions of the internal organ (antahkarana)
c) the antahkarana in conjunction with the sense-organs
d) the modes of the mind
e) the process of perceiving/perception of sense-objects
summarised in five steps i)...ii)... iii)...iv)... and v)...
May I please dare to ask you to indicate with a list of links to places in this blog where you have possibly already explained that themes or write an new summarising article about them.

Sanjay Lohia said...

One suffers because of the idea that the body, which is never oneself, is ‘I’; suffering is all due to this delusion

Bhagavan was very clear: suffering is a symptom of our ego. The ego is nothing but ‘I am this body' idea. Why does suffering arise? It arises because we leave ourself in pursuit of happiness outside of ourself. In other words, as long as we have desire we will move away from ourself, and as long as we ignore ourself we will suffer. Bhagavan explains this in paragraph 14 of Nan Yar?:

What is called happiness is only svarūpa [the ‘own form’ or actual nature] of ātmā [self]; happiness and ātma-svarūpa [our own actual self] are not different. Ātma-sukha [the happiness of self] alone exists; that alone is real. Happiness is not obtained from any of the objects of the world. We think that happiness is obtained from them because of our lack of discrimination. When [our] mind comes out, it experiences unhappiness. In truth, whenever our thoughts [or wishes] are fulfilled, it [our mind] turns back to its proper place [the core of our being, our real self, which is the source from which it arose] and experiences only the happiness of self.

Therefore, happiness is our very nature, but when we rise as an ego we ignore this happiness by latching on to jada, insentient things, which is totally devoid of happiness. We wrongly believe that our material pursuits will give us happiness, but in fact such pursuits are itself misery.

(I will continue this manana in my next comment)

Sanjay Lohia said...

In continuation of my previous comment:

The following extract from Talks will further illustrate this point:

Q: How can you say that suffering is non-existent? I see it everywhere.

Bhagavan: One’s own reality, which shines within everyone as the Heart is itself the ocean of unalloyed bliss. Therefore like the unreal blueness of the sky, misery does not exist in reality but only in mere imagination. Since one’s own reality, which is the sun of jnana that cannot be approached by the dark delusion of ignorance, itself shines as happiness, misery is nothing but an illusion caused by the unreal sense of individuality. In truth no one has ever experienced any such thing other than that unreal illusion. If one scrutinises one’s own Self, which is bliss, there will be no misery at all in one’s life. One suffers because of the idea that the body, which is never oneself, is ‘I’; suffering is all due to this delusion.

My note: Such a simple but profound teaching: ‘Ātma-sukha [the happiness of self] alone exists; that alone is real’. All suffering exists only in our mind, and therefore, when we are able to destroy our mind, we will also destroy all suffering forever.



savadavar said...

Sanjay Lohia,
you may call suffering and misery as "nothing but an illusion caused by the unreal sense of individuality". Visit a hospital and you will find hardly any department with the inscription "imagination, delusion or ignorance". Likewise you will not see there any department "for suffering which exists only in the mind". If suffering would exist only in the mind all hospitals would have been erected also only in the mind.
By inference presumably it is meant that all this world exists only in the mind.

Reading the sentence "In truth no one has ever experienced any such thing other than that unreal illusion." I cannot see the sense in it. Could you please give further explanation in more detail ?

gargoyle said...

Greetings to one and all

This blog has been a boon for me and I have been reading it for some 4+ years.

At times I read there are some who come to this blog and speak critically of others.
All of us are at this blog because of our love for Bhagavan.
As humans we are all different, and we all have our own opinons and believes.

If one does not like what a particular person says about ourself or anyone else, simply scroll past that comment and forget about it. Don’t let it bother you. Easier said than done, I realize that, but try not to let the ego have it’s way.

Do we only show love, compassion and respect to those we agree with?

Always try to find the good in people, not the bad. If something is negative, find a way to turn it into a positive. If one cannot say something nice, then its better not to say anything at all.

Ask yourself…could I cause harm to anyone who reads my comment?

I have always found the following to be helpful ~ write your comment in whatever format you use and when done, don’t post it. Get up, take a break, walk around the block, mediate for while, anything, just get away from the computer for a few hours, even overnight. You will almost always find that when you return to the computer that you will edit what you had originally written, and if you are like me I always say to myself …I’m sure glad I did not post that comment or I’m sure glad I did not send that email.

Regarding moderating comments: I sometimes read someone mentioning moderating comments.

I could not possibly imagine Michael ever considering such a thing.

This is causing harm to the individual being blocked from commenting. Could any of us possibly imagine Bhagavan or Jesus ever considering such an action?

It all comes down to love, compassion and respect for our fellow humans.

Helping others is only helping oneself, harming others is only harming oneself.

About this comment….there is no need to respond to my comment. I say this because I won’t be reading comments anyway. As usual, I post a comment and drop off the radar for a few weeks or months. When I do get back to reading this blog I will have no idea where I left a comment anyway.

Food for thought…………

P.S. I’m not very good at writing so please excuse anything that does not make sense, any misspelling or any thing else that seems to be written by an idiot.
My apologies to Michael for the off topic comment.

barn owl said...

Gargoyle's view "All of us are at this blog because of our love for Bhagavan." is well meaning but a bit blue-eyed. Some commentators love mainly to impose their quite windy opinions to the readers and do not want to admit that this blog is dedicated to discussing the philosophy and practice of the spiritual teachings of our sadguru, Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi. Unctuous statements do only turn a deaf ear to that phenomenon.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Savadavar, as recorded in Talks, it was Bhagavan who said: ‘misery is nothing but an illusion caused by the unreal sense of individuality’. Bhagavan repeatedly emphasised that this world-appearance is exactly like our dream-world. For example, he says in paragraph 18 of Nan Yar?:

Except that waking is dīrgha [long lasting] and dream is kṣaṇika [momentary or lasting for only a short while], there is no other difference [between these two mind-created states]. To the extent to which all the vyavahāras [doings, activities, affairs or occurrences] that happen in waking seem [at this present moment] to be real, to that [same] extent even the vyavahāras that happen in dream seem at that time to be real.

Therefore, if we visit a hospital in our dream, we will find suffering, pain and death happening within that dream hospital to be real. However, when we wake up we will realize that that hospital and all suffering in it was just our imagination.

Likewise, as long as we experience ourself as this person (Savadavar, Sanjay), we will inevitably feel that the world around us is real, and therefore all our suffering is real. But are they real? According to Bhagavan this world is nothing but a dream, and therefore we have to conclude that all the suffering, pain and death we experience is nothing but our imagination. These have never really taken place.

(I will continue this reply in my next comment)

Sanjay Lohia said...

In continuation of my previous comment in reply to Savadavar:

So this world seems to exist, but it exists only in our mind. This is Bhagavan’s clear and emphatic teaching. For example he says in paragraph 4 of Nan Yar?:

What is called ‘mind’ is an atiśaya śakti [an extraordinary or wonderful power] that exists in ātma-svarūpa [our actual self]. It projects [or causes the appearance of] all thoughts. When one sets aside all thoughts and sees, solitarily there is no such thing as ‘mind’; therefore thought alone is the svarūpa [the ‘own form’ or fundamental nature] of the mind. Excluding thoughts [or ideas], there is not separately any such thing as ‘world’. In sleep there are no thoughts, and [consequently] there is also no world; in waking and dream there are thoughts, and [consequently] there is also a world. Just as a spider spins out thread from within itself and again draws it back into itself, so the mind projects the world from within itself and again dissolves it back into itself.

I have highlighted one sentence. Therefore whatever we see, hear, smell, feel and taste is an unreal illusion. As the water seen in a mirage is nothing but an illusion, likewise this world is nothing but an illusion. This world is only experienced by our ego or mind, but this mind itself is the first illusion. Where was this mind in our sleep? Whenever this mind rises it also creates a world, which seems to be real as long as we see it.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Gargoyle, you say, ‘About this comment….there is no need to respond to my comment. I say this because I won’t be reading comments anyway’. This made me think: do we reply to each other or reply only to ourself? I mean if this world is nothing but our own thoughts or ideas, all the questions and answers are taking place only in our mind. So whatever we write here should be treated more of a manana, then replying to each other.

Of course, as long as we experience ourself as person (Gargoyle, Sanjay), we have to admit the existence of others also. So from this perspective, we seem to be corresponding with each other.

You claim: ‘This blog has been a boon for me and I have been reading it for some 4+ years’. Yes, I have also been reading this blog for perhaps 5 or 6 years, and as you can see I am one of the most regular ramblers here. Participation on this blog has become my addiction, but I believe this is helping me get over my other addictions (attachments).

I agree with you when you say, ‘Do we only show love, compassion and respect to those we agree with? Always try to find the good in people, not the bad. […] If one cannot say something nice, then it’s better not to say anything at all’. Bhagavan was the peerless example of this. His love and compassion for all was not only equal but also infinite. He always found good in people. He used to find something worthwhile even in the persons whom we may consider most vile or obnoxious.

You also write: ‘Helping others is only helping oneself, harming others is only harming oneself’. Bhagavan also said in paragraph 19 of Nan Yar?:

All that one gives to others one is giving only to oneself. If [everyone] knew this truth, who indeed would refrain from giving?

Salazar said...

Nice comment Sanjay Lohia, thank you.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Thanks Salazar.

Salazar said...

barn owl, what is a "windy opinion"? English must not be your first language. Just an observation and not a criticism.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Should Michael moderate the comments on this Blog?

We sometimes feel that Michael should moderate these comments. However, Michael may not have time to carefully read each and every comment, and even if he is reading them, he has shown no inclination to censure or moderate them. Like a true devotee of Bhagavan, Michael let others have their say. Bhagavan’s attitude in such matters can best be illustrated by the following incident. Exactl source of this extract is not known, but I have heard Nochur and Michael cite this story, and therefore this has to be correct:

Even before Bhagavan’s English biography was published, a Malayalam scholar came one day to Bhagavan. As soon as he saw Bhagavan he was inspired to write his biography. So he began to gather information from some local people, asking them, 'Who is this Ramana Maharshi?; 'Where was he born?’ and so on.

Not being familiar that the Self-realization of a Jnani is itself his real greatness, some people imagined that Bhagavan should possess all sorts of supernatural powers (siddhis) and they therefore spread rumors which attributed such powers to him, thinking that they were thereby glorifying him. Bhagavan Ramana taught that all siddhis are as trivial as straw and are to be regarded as treacherous friends by the spiritual aspirant. However, unfortunately, it was only from this type of people that the Malayalam scholar quickly gathered information on Bhagavan. Then, within a day, he edited all his notes and completed writing the biography.

According to his biography Bhagavan was a householder, a lawyer from Madurai who had three children, and he exhibited a number of siddhis. In this way, many untrue incidents were contained in that biography. When he had finished writing it, the scholar brought the biography to Bhagavan.

(I will continue this in my next comment)

Sanjay Lohia said...

In continuation of my previous comment:

Bhagavan, who was well versed in Malayalam read the whole biography, stopping only here and there to correct some spelling mistakes, and then returned it to the author without altering even a single statement or idea.

The next day Kunju Swami, a Malayalam devotee, returned to the Asramam and the devotees all eagerly told him, ‘This new devotee has written Bhagavan's biography in Malayalam’. When Kunju Swami saw the many untrue reports written in it, he was unable to bear it. So he brought the biography to Bhagavan and complained, ‘O Bhagavan! Your own handwriting is found here in many places, so you must have seen this. But how can this all be true?’

‘Are all these other things true (pointing to the world), and is this alone false?’ replied Bhagavan with a peaceful smile.

In Bhagavan's view, even the biography we now have, which records his life, is as true as this Malayalam biography. That is to say, in Bhagavan's view, even his birth, his attainment of Self-realization, his renunciation and his life as Jagat-Guru are just as real or unreal as this Malayalam biography!

My note: If this topic of censure and moderation of comments were discussed with Bhagavan, he would have probably said: ‘who is to moderate, whom and how, when all that exists is only oneself? If you moderate our own comments, it would be more than enough’.




Sanjay Lohia said...

Practising vichara is like patiently preparing the canon

Whenever it happens, our final experience of atma-jnana (pure self-awareness) will happen in a split second. It is like falling asleep or waking up from sleep, or the final moment of death. These happen in a split second, likewise even our final experience of atma-jnana will happen in a split second. Michael explained this in his article, Why is atma-vicara necessary?, by the example of preparing a canon for detonation. He writes:

The example of preparing a canon for detonation is very apt. It takes time to prepare it, but when ready it will detonate in an instant. Practising vicara is like patiently preparing a canon: eventually it will lead to perfect clarity of self-awareness, which will immediately destroy the mind forever, and this is like the instantaneous detonation of the carefully prepared canon.

Thus we should be ever vigilant and prepared, because this detonation can happen any moment. We should keep walking, or even run whenever possible, towards our destination (ourself). We never know one final step, and we are at our goal.

What is preventing this detonation of the canon? Michael answered this in one of his emails to me:

It will detonate as soon as we are ready to let it detonate, but not till then. Our unwillingness to let go is the only constraint on Bhagavan detonating it here and now. Our part is just to persevere, and everything else will be taken care of by him.

My note: It is only our wrong choices which are preventing us from reaching our destination, and these wrong choices are our liking to experience things other than ourself. So we need to reverse this process by constantly trying to attend to ourself. Consequently, a moment will come, sooner rather than later, when we will experience the absolute clarity of self-awareness.


Sanjay Lohia said...

At the time of death, it is not the body but the awareness that we fear to lose

At the moment of Bhagavan’s famous ‘death experience’, what sort of fear did he have? Since Venkataraman was highly mature, he had insignificant material attachments at that moment. Therefore when he had this overwhelming fear of death, he didn’t fear to lose his worldly attachments, but he feared to lose himself – that is, he feared that he would lose his very existence or his very awareness. This fear prompted him to turn within and cling to his existence with such great intensity that at that very moment his ego was destroyed.

Bhagavan explained this in the following conversation, as recorded in the book Guru Ramana (p. 39) by S. Cohen:

Q: How can the terrible fear of death be overcome?

Bhagavan: if you trace this fear to the object, the loss of which gives rise to it, you will find that object is not the body, but the mind which functions in it. Many a man would be too glad to be rid of his diseased body and all the problems and inconvenience it creates for him if continued awareness is vouchsafed for him. It is the awareness, the consciousness, and not the body, he fears to lose. Men love existence because it is eternal awareness, which is their own Self. Why not then hold on to the pure awareness right now, while in the body, and be free from all fear?

Sanjay Lohia said...

Pain is inevitable as a result of discarding of vasanas [mental tendencies] which you have had for so long

Our spiritual life will never be plain sailing. There may be extreme highs with extreme lows. There may be periods of bliss and joy along with periods of despair. So our spiritual journey may be like a see-saw. Furthermore, there may be mild or even extreme physical pain, sprain or other similar issues when we embark on serious sadhana.

I say this from direct experience, because I did have pains in my body when I started the practice of self-investigation with earnestness. Of course, this could have been a result of some health issues (and I have quite a few of these), or it could be that I was not practising correctly. However, it could instead be that my bodily pain was the natural consequence of my initiating self-investigation (with earnestness).

Bhagavan also indicated that when we embark on our practice, there could be some bodily discomfort in the initial stages. The following extract taken from the book Crumbs from his Table (p. 36) by R. Swarnagiri expands on this theme:

Q: People practising meditation are said to get new diseases; at any rate, I feel some pain in the back and front of the chest. This is stated to be a test by God. Will Bhagavan explain this and say if it is true?

Bhagavan: There is no Bhagavan outside you and no test is therefore instituted. What you believe to be a test or a new disease resulting from spiritual practice is really the strain that is now brought to play upon your nerves and five senses. The mind which was hitherto operating through the nadis [nerves] to sense external objects, maintaining a link between itself and the organs of perception, is now required to withdraw from the link, and this action of withdrawal naturally causes a strain, a sprain or a snap attendant with pain. Some people call this a disease and some call it a test of God.

All these pains will go if you continue your meditation, bestowing your thought solely on understanding your Self or on Self-realisation. There is no greater remedy than this continuous union with God or atman. Pain is inevitable as a result of discarding of vasanas [mental tendencies] which you have had for a long time.

My question: Did any of you also had pain or extreme bodily discomfort, when you first started practising atma-vichara (self-investigation)?

Salazar said...

Yes. In addition there was/is additional emotional discomfort, strange things coming up from the subconsciousness. For me that is going on for quite awhile and it seemed that I did or do something wrong. However also Robert Adams said that pain and emotional turmoil is inevitable (once one has started practicing seriously) and actually a sign that something is happening. He said that vasanas are coming up from the subconsciousness and the discomfort is the destruction of these vasanas.

Thank you for bringing that up!

Hector said...

Hi Sanjay,
Personally I have never experienced disease or illness as far as I know with regards being linked to vichara. However I have noticed one change which is before Bhagavan appeared in my life and before vichara I use to have goals like places to go, things to see and people to meet etc. But I find now I am getting more uninterested in the world. My previous goals are of little interest to me now.

I am not depressed just losing interest and spending more time turning within.
I am caught in the jaws of the tiger so to speak but unfortunately I still do struggle, I just seem to be struggling less but before I was struggling frantically!!

Hopefully I will keep struggling less and less.
Cheers.
H

R Viswanathan said...


It is hard for me to understand some comments made on "Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi" in order to put Ulladhu Narpadhu on highest pedastal.

Sure, even Sri David Godman also wrote something on the possibility of not all what has been given in Talks might be wholly what Bhagavan would have uttered:

http://sri-ramana-maharshi.blogspot.in/2008/05/authenticity-of-bhagavans-writings-and.html

But, he is also on record in the same article the following:

"Having said all this, I have to say that Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi is one of my favourite books of Bhagavan’s teaching. One can feel the power of Bhagavan’s words and teachings on every page. It may not be exactly what Bhagavan said, but his teachings are simple and clear enough to withstand the occasional embellishment."

I would think that if at all one has supposedly gone up to the level of understanding Ulladhu Narpadhu, in all probability, it could be because of having gone through Talks, not just once, but again and again, and perhaps even after reaching the state of assumption that one has understood Ulladhu Narpadhu very well. Occasionally, if not very often, we find reference to Talks in this blog by both Sri Michael James as well as by others. Sri Nochur Venkataraman refers to Talks very often in his discourses.

Mouna said...

Personally, I’ll be careful to draw any causal relationship between pain, atma-vichara or the dissolution of desires and tendencies in all instances. The crucial word of the phrase “attributed” to Bhagavan is the word “inevitable”. As we know, many times He addressed the questioner at the personal level and many times the questioner might have heard something that might have not be what Bhagavan intended to say but was put down on paper through the questioner subjective interpretation. Like the questioner writing down (afterwards) what he/she wanted to hear.
For some, self-attention might be causing the “person” having pains, contractions, “getting worth”, accidents, etc. For some others, at the beginning, on the contrary, might mean easing pains, a sense of relaxation, getting softer, openness...

“Things have to be like this when this is like this” is always a double edge knife and has to be treated carefully, otherwise we start to look for “signs” of “awakening” that give the ego more resources to happily satisfy its hunger for phenomena...

Each character of this common dream we are all different...

Mouna said...

”I would think that if at all one has supposedly gone up to the level of understanding Ulladhu Narpadhu, in all probability, it could be because of having gone through Talks, not just once, but again and again, and perhaps even after reaching the state of assumption that one has understood Ulladhu Narpadhu very well.”

Very well put Viswanathan.
Many of us started there, and as you rightly imply, it cannot be all wrong, even when passing through the subjective colored prism of the scribe/translator’s memory.
As time goes by, it is not that we put the original texts of Bhagavan in a pedestal, it more that deepening our understanding of texts like UN, NY, UU and GVK allow us a little bit more to perceive the differences in Talks.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Hector, you say, ‘I am caught in the jaws of the tiger so to speak but unfortunately I still do struggle, I just seem to be struggling less but before I was struggling frantically!!’ Perhaps the pain and strain Bhagavan talked about was when we ‘struggle frantically’ to get out of the jaws of the tiger. As long as we struggle, the pain is inevitable. It is only when we surrender completely that all our pain and discomfort will cease.

savadavar said...

Sanjay Lohia,
1. "...Likewise, as long as we experience ourself as this person (Savadavar, Sanjay), we will inevitably feel that the world around us is real, and therefore all our suffering is real. But are they real? According to Bhagavan this world is nothing but a dream, and therefore we have to conclude that all the suffering, pain and death we experience is nothing but our imagination. These have never really taken place."
What is the gain to declare our suffering, pain and death as unreal imagination which has never taken place ?
That experience is undisputably something unpleasant.
2. "Therefore whatever we see, hear, smell, feel and taste is an unreal illusion. As the water seen in a mirage is nothing but an illusion, likewise this world is nothing but an illusion. This world is only experienced by our ego or mind, but this mind itself is the first illusion."
3."Whenever this mind rises it also creates a world, which seems to be real as long as we see it."
That statements do not remove the fact that this world along with this ego or mind is something unpleasant.
4. With reference to my comment of 25 October 2017 at 18:58 :
relating to the mentioned sentence "In truth no one has ever experienced any such thing other than that unreal illusion." you did not give further explanation.



barn owl said...

Salazar,
your observation is correct.
With "windy opinion" is meant something like empty phrases, rambling talk, bombastic speech and garrulous/talkative remark/statement/expression.

Anonymous said...

Same here. I have become less motivated in worldly affairs. Not sure if it is good or bad. And I am slowly becoming aware of the false beliefs I have been having all this life. It is not because of the practice, but because of repeatedly reading the blog.

Agnostic said...

Greetings R Vishwanathan!

You began your earlier comment -

It is hard for me to understand some comments made on "Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi" in order to put Ulladhu Narpadhu on highest pedestal.

-----------------

I appreciate the spirit of your comment and would like to confess that I give more credence to Talks than the other sources. Of course I always keep the criticisms of DG and MJ in mind while reading Talks and trying to understand the teachings better.

In my opinion what Sri Ramana conversations with staunch devotees like Chadwick, Devaraja, TMP, Suri N, etc, etc (apologies for not mentioning all of them) is a real treasure trove because it is, quite literally, revelation.

This is because I think in the realm of revelation spontaneity is paramount and what a man says in his unguarded moments is a direct seeing into the heart of Nature, God, Self, etc, etc.

The more I read about laborious editing by Sri Ramana and sundry talented poets infected by extreme devotional fervor the less convinced I am of what they say.

Sri Ramana himself said something to the effect that nothing would come out of his mouth that could not come have come out of the mouths of the ancient Rishis who first saw the Truth.

I am sorry to state it so boldly but Muruganar's coarse comments about prostitutes and chastity would never have occurred to Sri Ramana. I will leave it at that.


Agnostic said...

Sorry, Sri Ramana never had any conversations, talks with TMP. Was just trying to name some devotees off hand.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Savadavar, you ask, ‘What is the gain to declare our suffering, pain and death as unreal imagination which has never taken place?’ If we know, even intellectually, that everything we experience is just part of our dream, we will not be overly attached to our suffering. Of course suffering will still remain suffering, but we will have extra incentive to leave all this behind and turn within - after all everything is an illusion, including all our suffering.

Bhagavan said, ‘In truth no one has ever experienced any such thing other than that unreal illusion’. Everything other than ourself, other than atma-svarupa, is an illusion. Bhagavan has made this very clear. So whatever phenomena we experience is an unreal illusion. Bhagavan teaches us this in paragraph 7 of Nan Yar:

What actually exists is only ātma-svarūpa [our own essential self]. The world, soul and God are kalpanaigaḷ [imaginations, fabrications, mental creations or illusory superimpositions] in it, like [the imaginary] silver [seen] in a shell. These three appear simultaneously and disappear simultaneously.


Hector said...

Thanks for your feedback on what I wrote Sanjay.
H

Hector said...

Thanks for your feedback on my comment Sanjay.

Sanjay Lohia said...

The following extract, which is not verbatim, is taken from the video: 2017-10-07 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 9 (1:13 onwards):

Once, Seshadri Swami was standing at the corner of a street looking at a buffalo, and one of his devotees came up to him and said, ‘Swami, why are looking at the buffalo?’ Seshadri Swami said, ‘You fool, I am not looking at the buffalo; I am looking at brahman. You are buffalo who sees brahman as a buffalo’.

So if there are other sentient beings, they are definitely brahman.

Hector said...

I thought my first comment had not posted sorry about that.
H

savadavar said...

Sanjay Lohia,
thank you for your reply.
Is it not astonishing that atma-svarupa does not prevent the appearance and disappearance of world ,soul and God ?
Presumably that appearance and disappearance are themselves only delusion and illusion and we are deceived only by them.
So we seem to be only big buffalos which do not even know their own true nature.
But why could brahman have any intent to deveive us or in the worst case take pleasure in seeing us dazzled by that ploys and plays of charades ? Should we not put brahman across our knee ?

Anonymous said...

Sanjay

Where do you find the video? I am unable to locate this current video.

thanks

Sanjay Lohia said...

Anonymous, Michael has recently unloaded two new videos in his YouTube channel called Sri Ramana Teachings. Please go to the video page of his website and clink on the link Sri Ramana Teachings to access these videos.

Anonymous said...

Sanyay
thanks, I found it, I was looking at the list of videos and show last updated Nov. 2015

cheers

dikpalaka said...

Sanjay Lohia,
if the buffalo is brahman would then the buffalo see Sheshadri also as brahman or only as a buffalo too ?
In any case a blissfull company...

dikpalaka said...

Sanjay Lohia,
"Everything other than ourself, other than atma-svarupa, is an illusion."
Seeing only other things than oneself seems to be a general phenomenon. So one can ask if there has been ever any evolution of mankind. Did we ever leave or climb over the conscious-level of a buffalo ?

dikpalaka said...

Michael James,
may I ask you if you are happy ?

Foolish Tenth Man said...

Sri Michael James

Even though this article evidently has been thoroughly proofread and edited, there is one missed (though implicit) word in the English Translation and Explanatory Paraphrase of Verse 17.

For those who do not know themself, for those who have known themself, the body is actually ‘I’. For those who do not themself, ‘I’ is only the extent of the body; for those who have known themself within the body, oneself, ‘I’, shines without limit. Consider that the difference between them is only this.

For those who do not know themself [their real nature] and for those who have known themself, the body is actually ‘I’. For those who do not themself, ‘I’ is [limited to] only the extent of the body, [whereas] for those who have known themself within the body, oneself [called] ‘I’ shines without limit [boundary or extent] [as the one infinite whole, which alone exists and which is therefore the sole substance that appears as the body and everything else]. Consider that the difference between them is only this.

There seems to be one 'know' missing in the second sentence.

Sanjay Lohia said...

dikpalaka, when Seshadri Swami said, ‘You fool, I am not looking at the buffalo; I am looking at brahman’, he could be saying the truth, because Seshadri Swami was supposed to be a jnani, and the jnani is formless pure-awareness. If he was formless pure awareness, he could not have seen the form of the buffalo, and therefore he did literally see the buffalo as brahman.

Your question is: ‘if the buffalo is brahman would then the buffalo see Sheshadri also as brahman or only as a buffalo too? In any case a blissfull company...’. We have to become that buffalo to accurately say what it saw. If the buffalo was also a jnani, it would have also seen Seshadri Swami as brahman.

A question may arise: can a buffalo be a jnani? We cannot rule out such a possibility. When Cow Lakshmi passed away, Bhagavan did confirm that she had merged in self, indicating that she had become liberation. So if Cow Lakshmi could be a jnani, so could a buffalo. However, all this is mere speculation.

You also wonder, ‘So one can ask if there has been ever any evolution of mankind. Did we ever leave or climb over the conscious-level of a buffalo?’ Mankind is always in the same state. There will always be a mixture of immature and mature souls. The degree of maturity or immaturity may wary, but overall this mixture will always exist. We are spiritually mature, if we love to attend to ourself and are immature if we don’t have such love.

The mankind as a whole doesn’t climb up or down the consciousness ladder, but individual jivas (souls) do so – in the sense that our consciousness is increasingly purified as we persevere in our sadhana (spiritual practice).

Anonymous said...

Sanjay Lohia, this is REALLY deep and profound...I don't know what to say.

But I find it disappointing that Bhagavan recognized the cow as a fellow gnani, but could not see anyone else in the whole wide world as another fellow gnani.

"A question may arise: can a buffalo be a jnani? We cannot rule out such a possibility. When Cow Lakshmi passed away, Bhagavan did confirm that she had merged in self, indicating that she had become liberation. So if Cow Lakshmi could be a jnani, so could a buffalo. However, all this is mere speculation."

Sanjay Lohia said...

Anonymous, it is wrong to say that Bhagavan didn’t recognise or acknowledge others as jnanis. He did clearly say that his mother (and perhaps also Palini Swami or someone else) had merged within before she passed away. He also indicated that siddhas and other highly evolved souls did come to his presence, not only in human forms but also in non-human forms.

Of course, from the highest perspective Bhagavan never saw any other sentient being, because all he experienced was himself, and so how could he see another jnani? He is the non-dual, pure-awareness in whose clear view there are no others.

However, should we really be bothered about other jnanis? They may be there or may not be there, how does this knowledge benefit us? Our primary duty is to turn within and see ourself as we really are. As Bhagavan used to say: 'there is only one jnani and you are that (tatvamasi)'.

Anonymous said...

Yes, it seems he gave 'certificates' of liberation to Lakshmi(cow), Azhagammal, Seshadri, Mastan.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Anonymous, I think Bhagavan also gave this certificate of liberation to Muruganar. As I can recall, Bhagavan gave hints confirming his liberation, though I do not recall what exactly he said in this regard.

savadavar said...

Sanjay Lohia,
Muruganar's liberation is clear and definite, beyond any doubt.
Muruganar wrote for example in his book "The Shining of my Lord" in chapter "Preliminary Verses" under the heading "What are my qualifications to write these verses ?":
13 As a result of worshipping daily with my salutation only the feet of grace of my Lord who exists as my trustworthy companion, my mind became one-pointed. The glorious attainment of the jnana experience reached me, as did the excellent power of singing in an illustrious manner verses suffused with grace.
14 The king who transcends both speech and mind granted to me the direct experience [of the Self], along with poetry inspired by divine grace. From then on, glorifying the chintamani [the wish-fulfilling jewel] who destroyed the bewilderment of the mind that had ruined me became my life's sole occupation.
15 My Guru Lord, who has the power to grant true jnana, reached and adopted my heart as his temple and stood shining there.....
16 As the supreme light of grace, my God reigned over me in the heart, ensuring the complete absence of darkness and its progeny.....
17 I did not myself compose these verses. The heart of this bewildered and limitation-bound person blossomed through the power of true jnana. Then that power of jnana, dwelling in my tongue, takes birth as sweet Tamil venba verses possessing the excellence of that jnana.

Under the heading "The subject of my verses":
20 The matter expounded on in this work is the jnana experience that arose through divine grace. This [jnana experience] enabled me, a stupid dog wallowing in the state of complete ignorance about the way of redemption, to attain in my heart the certainty of salvation.

Sanjay Lohia said...

savadavar, thanks. However, I was trying know if Bhagavan himself confirmed Muruganar's state of jnana.

Michael James said...

Foolish Tenth Man, thanks (from one fool to another) for pointing out the missing word, which I have now added.

Salazar said...

Mouna, you said “... for some others, at the beginning, on the contrary, might mean easing pains, a sense of relaxation, getting softer, openness...”

Yes of course, however anybody will and must face quite some unpleasant things along the path, this is a matter of fact. It would be naïve to believe that the path to liberation is a walk in a park, quite the opposite. Even though every character is different we are quite similar in many ways and share similar addictions and attachments.

The “ghost” ego won’t give up that easily and it will test the resolve for liberation many, many times in most unpleasant ways.

Salazar said...

Sanjai Lohia, you said "we should not be bothered by other Jnanis" and I can see your point.

But permit me to remind you that you've posted a comment awhile ago where you made clear that you did not believe that Lakshmana Swamy (the guy from David Godman's book 'No mind, I am the Self') is a Jnani because he was not as humble a Murugunar. I believe you also didn't like that he emphasized the importance of a living guru...

It appears you were at least bothered then by other Jnanis...

Mouna said...

Salazar,
Sanja’s question was: “Did any of you also had pain or extreme bodily discomfort, when you first started practising atma-vichara (self-investigation)?” (bold signaling is mine)
Pain, discomfort, suffering and the like are determined by the person’s prarabdha, and throughout its illusory life.
Again, when we “first start”, for some, it could well be “a ride in the park”, but not for others. Later on is a completely and unrelated story.

”The “ghost” ego won’t give up that easily and it will test the resolve for liberation many, many times in most unpleasant ways.”
And many pleasant ways also, Salazar... actually the pleasant ones like pleasure, wealth, perfect health, emotional acknowledgement, etc... could be in some cases the most difficult tests to overcome...

Salazar said...

Mouna agreed, but I see pleasure and wealth not as much as a test to overcome than actual experiences like bliss which could give the [false] impression to be realized.

Wealth, pleasure, emotional acknowledgment are things which present themselves without atma-vichara, I was more looking at the tests directly related to the practice of vichara.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Salazar, yes, I did say that many things which Lakshmana Swamy says are not in accord with Bhagavan’s teachings. Like Lakshmana Swamy emphasises the importance of a living guru, but we do not find this emphasis in Bhagavan’s teachings. We do need the teachings of a genuine sadguru, but he need not currently be in his body.

Guru is not the body; he is ourself as we really are. So why do we need a physical guru? Is Bhagavan not present now? If he is absent now, then he is not of much use to us. Only the Guru is ever living, and likewise his teachings are our eternal companion.

Who am I to judge the inner state of Lakshmana Swamy? Did I ever say that he is not a jnani? I never said that, as far as I can remember. Also when or where did I say that Lakshmana Swamy was not as humble as Muruganar? Personal traits of different teachers or guru’s should not be our focus. However, if their teachings are not in accord with Bhagavan’s teachings, we just try to point out the differences (according to our limited understanding). So we are not here to make moral judgments.

dikpalaka said...

Sanjay Lohia,
when we call Sri Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi of Annamalai a jnani it seems a likely supposition that he could not at all see anything outside of atma svarupa. Therefore he never has seen anything other than jnana in whatever direction he directed his look.

Mouna said...

Hello All,
(Caveat, I’ll be extremist and fundamentalist here)
Are we still, here in this blog, speaking about who is a jnani and who is not? Really? I thought we were, or at least some of us, seasoned aspirants of some kind that already put all those questions behind.
Wasn’t enough Bhagavan’s teachings and sayings and the continuous pounding in our heads by Michael telling us that “there are no jnanis, there is only jnana” or “the jnani is yourself”?
I could understand someone that just started in this path asking “is Michael James a jnani?” Because she/he wants to “know” how much to trust his words, but after a while asking if someone is a jnani or not denotes a lack of effort to implement Bhagavan’s teachings in one’s life when it come to relate to “others”...
Who really cares if X, Y or Z are jnanis or not after we spent some time with B’s teachings? The least we can do to honor His teachings is to consider “the possibility” that jnana is our essential nature and outside “dream data” like others (being Bhagavan, MJ, DG, Muruganar or the local Swami) is just the contents of ego that in some cases like Bhagavan, proves to be the most useful to wake up.

To paraphrase the famous saying: “not many jnanis, not one jnani, only jnana.”

Sanjay Lohia said...

dikpalaka, yes, Bhagavan is incapable of seeing or experiencing anything other than or apart from itself, because it is the infinite, unbroken, immutable, pure awareness. Since it alone exists, in whichever direction it sees, it sees only himself.

However, to assume that it sees in different directions is not exactly true. It is timeless, spaceless and directionless, because it is non-dual reality. It is the centre which has no circumference.

Mouna said...

Salazar,
”I was more looking at the tests directly related to the practice of vichara.”
I understand what you were saying but for me at least, the only test presented and related to the practice of atma-vichara is oir attention going out or ego rising again.

Salazar said...

Sanjay Lohia, I’d have to scroll through all of your past comments on this blog (I’d say the last two years) to find your comment that Lakshmana Swamy is not as humble as Murugunar. I am pretty sure that you’ve said that but since you now have changed your opinion I leave it at that. No need to put you on a spot.

I find it very interesting how vehemently you argue that a physical guru is not necessary. It seems to be a sensitive issue for you. I personally am neutral to this point. So I can see value with a physical guru and also appreciate the “inner guru”. Yes, yes, a physical guru is only there to point to the inner guru, however there are other ramifications.

So, in your opinion, is anything which is not in accord with Bhagavan’s teaching irrelevant? That seems a little bit narrow-minded, don’t you think? I.e. Papaji seemingly may have said things which are not in accord with Bhagavan’s teachings (at least a few individuals seem to have that impression) but I see Papaji’s teachings as a true reflection of Bhagavan even when he may not have used similar concepts. Too bad you never had the chance to be in his presence, I’d say that you’d have changed your opinion about the value of a physical Jnani…

You know that you have to let go of Bhagavan’s teaching eventually, right? His concepts may help you now but if you keep clinging at the ‘meaning’ as you do it will soon become an obstacle rather than an aid. To replace an addiction with another one “seemingly noble” is not helpful at all; it is just an expression of denial.

First people are striving for money and fame, and then they replace that strife with the strife for wisdom and liberation. But in all reality nothing has changed, except that the mind can tell itself that it is now “on the path” or doing something beneficial. And yet it is still the mind just replacing one addiction with another and keeping samsara alive.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Not only the world is our shadow, but even the thoughts is our shadow

Extract (which is not verbatim) from the video: 2017-10-07 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 9:

Sometimes Bhagavan used to compare other means of getting rid of the mind to someone trying to bury their own shadow.

A man didn’t like his shadow following him around the whole day, so he dug a big pit, and he was happy when he saw his shadow at the bottom of the pit. So he quickly started filling the pit, but that shadow started climbing out as sooner or quickly as he could fill the pit. So he could never bury his shadow. Trying to get rid of the mind in any way, other than by turning within, is like trying to bury our shadow in a pit. Bhagavan says in paragraph 8 of Nan Yar?:

For the mind to subside [permanently], except vicāraṇā [self-investigation] there are no other adequate means. If made to subside by other means, the mind will remain as if subsided, [but] will emerge again.

So long as our root thought ‘I’ is there, we cannot avoid other thoughts from coming, and these thoughts give us unending troubles and problems. We cannot push them away from us, any more than we can bury our own shadow.

Why the shadow follows us? It is because we are looking at it. Instead of looking at the shadow, we should turn back towards the light. That is, instead of looking at the world and our thoughts, which is just our shadow, we should turn back within to see the light. What is the light that causes the shadow to appear? This is the only way to drive away our shadow.







Salazar said...

Mouna, yes and that attention of going out is something which will keep happening until the non-existence of the mind is realized. Therefore it may helpful to describe what will come up during that process where the mind keeps going outwards. The tendency to be drawn into the imaginations of mind will be alive to the very end, "knowing" some of the possibilities may help to refrain from giving them attention ...

dikpalaka said...

Refraining from being at the mercy of the mind's tyranny is possible at any moment - here and now. That has as a pre-condition that one stands in the light of supreme grace.

dikpalaka said...

Mouna, greetings,
you are right.
Only buffaloes do judge if someone is a jnani.

dikpalaka said...

Sanjay Lohia,
you are right in saying "non-dual reality is timeless, spaceless and directionless."
Therefore consequently it has even neither a centre nor circumference nor periphery.

dikpalaka said...

Sanjay Lohia,
"That is, instead of looking at the world and our thoughts, which is just our shadow, we should turn back within to see the light. What is the light that causes the shadow to appear?"
So even the shadow needs light to appear. It seems that the bright light of our inner atma-svarupa radiates its powerful rays to help us keep the mind abiding in the Lord Arunachala's feet.

Sanjay Lohia said...

dikpalaka, yes, shadow cannot appear without a light to cause its appearance. In our case our thoughts and this world cannot appear if there were no light of awareness to cause its appearance.

However, the question is do we need this shadow – that is, do we need our thoughts and this world? Does this shadow benefit us in any way? No, this shadow is of no use to us. It does not actually exist but it seems to be there, and as long as it is there it seems like a ghost, and therefore we are perpetually afraid of this ghost.

However, if we turn towards our original light, the light of pure-awareness, we will find that this shadow – our thoughts and this world never existed in the first place. Therefore, all our fear was meaningless.

savadavar said...

Michael,
verse 3, in relation to some of your comments on the article of Sunday, 15 February 2015 (Why is it necessary to consider the world unreal?) which you wrote in reply to a friend called Shiba:
1. "the fundamental misapprehension that gives rise to the appearance of the world is only the ego, because the ego is nothing but our misapprehension of ourself — that is, our error of experiencing ourself as something that we are not. Having misapprehended or mistaken ourself to be this ego, we expand ourself as the mind and all its thoughts, of which the entire world is just a part."

Our error of experiencing ourself as something that we are not is indeed a big misadventure. That this is at all possible amazes me. The stupid thing is that my amazement does not help further.

2. "When you say that the world ‘is real as Self’, it is important to understand the correct meaning of such a statement. So long as we see the world as such, we are not experiencing ourself as we really are, so contrary to what some people imagine, we can never see the world as ourself. When we see ourself as we really are, there will be no world for us to see."

3. "the jñāni is brahman itself, and brahman never sees the world but only itself. Therefore when it is said that the jñāni sees the world as brahman, it does not mean that he sees the world as such but only that what we see as the world he sees as nothing but brahman, because in his view brahman (himself) alone exists."

Now slowly I begin to grasp why self-investigation is the best remedy to get cured of my biting misapprehension.

Sanjay Lohia said...

dikpalaka, I wrote in my previous comment, ‘yes, shadow cannot appear without a light to cause its appearance. In our case our thoughts and this world cannot appear if there were no light of awareness to cause its appearance’. This may require some clarification.

Our light of pure-awareness is the cause for the appearance of this world, but it is not its efficient cause nor is it its instrumental cause, but pure-awareness is the substantial cause for the appearance of this world. This may need some explanation.

A painter is the efficient cause and his brush is the instrumental cause of this portrait, but the paint is the substantial cause of this portrait. Likewise pure-awareness is the substantial cause of this world, because it alone exists. So who creates this world? It is created by maya, who is the efficient cause of creation.

In other words, our pure self-awareness is just an immutable substratum of light, which just is. Since this world is the projection of Maya (an extraordinary power that exists within the immutable substratum), our original tight doesn’t undergo any transformation even when it is so used, and therefore pure self-awareness is not the creator or cause of this world in true sense.

dikpalaka said...

Sanjay Lohia,
this play of shadow and light seems to be rather absurdly.
Hopefully we will also find that even our turning away from our original light of pure awareness has "never existed in the first place".

Sanjay Lohia said...

Sir (Sri Michael James), in my previous comment addressed to dikpalaka, I wrote: ‘A painter is the efficient cause of a portrait, his brush is the instrumental cause of it, and the paint is the substantial cause of this portrait’.

However, I am a bit confused now. What exactly is the substantial cause of the portrait? Is it the paint, as I have mentioned, or is it the canvas on which this painting is done? I would appreciate your insight into this. With regards.

Sanjay Lohia said...

dikpalaka, yes, as you say, ‘we will also find that even our turning away from our original light of pure awareness has "never existed in the first place”’.

It seems that we have turned away from the light of pure-awareness, but such turning away is only in the view of the ego, and since the ego does not actually exist (though it seems to exist), this turning away has never actually happened. It is all maya, which is mind-boggling.

dikpalaka said...

Sanjay Lohia,
is it not astonishing that maya - as that which is being not - can at all project anything on the ever undefiled screen of our pure self-awareness ?
The mind will ever be baffled by that enigmatic mysteriousness.
By the way I think you mean original light instead of "tight".

dikpalaka said...

Sanjay Lohia,
see it practically; upon closer consideration: without any canvas and paint there would be no painting (to be looked at).

savadavar said...

I sit at my table and see an apple on it.
How could it happen that I do not see brahman instead of the forms of my body, room, table and apple ?
Evidently when I rose as the ego that disaster simultaneously happened that I see that snake (the mentioned forms) instead of the rope (brahman).
As I quoted above:"the fundamental misapprehension that gives rise to the appearance of the world is only the ego, because the ego is nothing but our misapprehension of ourself — that is, our error of experiencing ourself as something that we are not. Having misapprehended or mistaken ourself to be this ego, we expand ourself as the mind and all its thoughts, of which the entire world is just a part."

I may repeat what Michael wrote on 16 th February 2015 in reply to Shiba, as mentioned above in my first today comment:

"When the mind comes out from ātma-svarūpa [our essential self], the world appears. Therefore when the world appears, svarūpa does not appear [as it really is]; when svarūpa appears (shines) [as it really is], the world does not appear’."
"“If the mind, which is the cause of all knowledge [other than our fundamental knowledge ‘I am’] and of all activity, subsides, jagad-dṛṣṭi [perception of the world] will cease. Just as knowledge of the rope, which is the base [that underlies and supports the illusory appearance of a snake], will not arise unless knowledge of the imaginary snake ceases, svarūpa-darśana [experience of our own essential self], which is the base [that underlies and supports the imaginary appearance of this world], will not arise unless perception of the world, which is an imagination [or fabrication], ceases.”

"When you say that the world ‘is real as Self’, it is important to understand the correct meaning of such a statement. So long as we see the world as such, we are not experiencing ourself as we really are, so contrary to what some people imagine, we can never see the world as ourself. When we see ourself as we really are, there will be no world for us to see.

What we now see as this entire appearance of ego and world is actually only ourself, but so long as we experience this appearance, we cannot experience ourself as we actually are. As Bhagavan said in the first passage that I quoted in this article from Maharshi’s Gospel (2002 edition, p. 64), this is aptly illustrated by the snake and rope analogy. So long as we see the snake, we cannot see the rope as it really is, and when we see the rope as it really is, we will no longer see any snake. Likewise, when we experience ourself as we really are, we will no longer see any world."

savadavar said...

verse 4,
linked article of Saturday, 25 January 2014
1. "By discovering what 'I' actually is, we will swallow time":
"Therefore, in order to experience anything other than itself, the first person (the mind or ego) must first experience itself as a form, which it does by mistaking itself to be a physical body. However, though it now experiences itself as the form of a body, this ego actually has no form of its own, so it depends upon forms for its seeming existence. ..."
2. "As Sri Ramana says in verse 25 of உள்ளது நாற்பது (Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu)...
Therefore, to destroy our present illusion that we are the form of this body, we must examine ourself and thereby discover what this 'I' actually is. If we do so, this ego, which now seems to be 'I', will 'take flight' and cease to exist, after which whatever is really 'I' alone will remain."

So we must urgently learn to make a precise conscious distinction between mere perceiving the body and being deceived by experiencing a mistaken identity. Then we will be able to refrain from fatefully identifying ourself/our real nature with this wrong identity as a body-form.

savadavar said...

verse 4,
linked article of Friday, 2 May 2014 "Ātma-vicāra: stress and other related issues":
"However, since the real form of God is nothing other than 'I' (our own real form, which is not actually a physical or mental form but only the formless and therefore infinite expanse of pure consciousness), if we want to experience his real form as formless, we should attend only to 'I' (which is what Bhagavan describes as 'thinking of your form without thinking'). When we do so, he assures us, we will dissolve and cease to exist as a separate entity, like a salt-doll placed in the ocean...".

When I walk happily on Arunachala Hill I try sometimes to consider/conceive God/Siva as formless (light) albeit I feel the rocks under my feet as material form. However, I succeed not often in such my attempts.

savadavar said...

verse 4,
evidently we cannot lose our misperception/misapprehension to be a physical body while living in such a body by mere thinking/wishing away that misapprehension.
Therefore only most meticulous examination/investigation will bring the desired clarity (hoped-for).

Sanjay Lohia said...

Extract (not verbatim) from the video 2017-10-14 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on silence:

Michael: Bhagavan’s path is so-so-so simple, but we do not understand its clarity. The only way to get this clarity, which is ever shining in our heart, is to turn within – to turn our attention back to ourself – to face ourself. So Bhagavan’s path is the simplest of all paths; it’s the simplest of all philosophies.

Devotee: But it is natural to look outwards…

Michael: Why does it feel natural to look outside? It’s because we experience ourself as the ego. The ego comes into existence by grasping form. It’s the very nature of the ego to look outwards. The ego will dissolve only when it looks within, but is the ego ready to dissolve? Until we are ready to give up everything, this will seem very difficult. It will seem unnatural to look within, because we are not ready to let go.

If you are standing at the edge of a cliff, to fall over the cliff is very easy. But so long as you are clinging to a poll, you are not going to fall over the cliff. You have to be ready to let go. We are not ready to let go, are we? That’s the problem.

Why we are not ready to let go? It’s because we have not understood Bhagavan’s teachings, in spite of all our reading, all our talking about it. We may have understood superficially – at the surface level of our mind – but we don’t have a deep conviction. If we had deep conviction, we would happily let go.

If the ego turns its attention towards itself to know ‘who am I?’ or ‘what am I?’, it is letting go of other things which are its food. So it’s cutting off its nourishment. The ego seems to exist only so long as it’s looking at other things, because only so long as we are looking at other things that we are able to look at ourself as the body.

When we look at ourself alone, if we turn our attention 180 degrees towards ourself, then we are 100% excluding everything else from our awareness, then where is the ego?

The root of everything is the ego. When we attend to the ego, it begins to dissolve. So to the extent we vigilantly, very carefully, look at or attend to ourself, to that extent the ego is dissolved, and along with it all the phenomena are also dissolved.





savadavar said...

verse 4,
...discover what this 'I' actually is. If we do so, this ego, which now seems to be 'I', will 'take flight' and cease to exist, after which whatever is really 'I' alone will remain.
First step: Discovering what this 'I' actually is by meticulous examination
Thus: the false ego-body-mind-awareness will take flight and cease to exist.
After that: the real 'I' will remain.
Sounds very easy but this involves a great deal of effort.
Can I manage that or is it beyond me ?
In any case: The ego must leave possibly soon.
Let's be off. Let's go. Let's get started. There is no more much sand in the upper section of the hour-glass of my life.
Come on ! All or nothing.

Sanjay Lohia said...

What Bhagavan teaches us is turning all our beliefs, all our so-called ‘knowledge’, on its head

Extracts (not verbatim) from the video: 2017-10-14 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on silence:

1) Bhagavan once said this as a joke, but it also has a very deep meaning. He said, ‘People say that in spite of any amount of effort it is impossible to stop thoughts, but I find quite the opposite. In spite of any amount of effort, I find it difficult to think thoughts.

2) So long as we experience ourself as a body, to say ‘I am God’ is meaningless. We have to experience ourself as God, that is, we have to experience what we really are. Saying ‘I am God’ is a lie, because who says it? It is the ego. The ego has to turn its attention back to see what it is, and thereby dissolve in God, and then we are God. Then God alone is.

3) Bhagavan is omniscient. He knows everything, because for him there is only one thing to know, and that is ‘I am’.

4) What Bhagavan teaches us is turning all our beliefs, all our so-called ‘knowledge’, on its head. Bhagavan says, ‘knowledge of multiplicity is ignorance’. He asks, ‘knowing anything other than itself can only be ignorance, can it be knowledge?’ Real knowledge is only pure self-awareness.



‘the eye itself’ said...

Sanjay Lohia,
in thinking thoughts I am a master. So Bhagavan could be my disciple.
Saying 'I am God' is certainly a lie. But being God is the truth.
Knowledge of multiplicity is certainly ignorance. But real knowledge is not our starting point.

Agnostic said...

I just read my earlier response to R. Vishwanathan's comment about Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi and noticed an omission which I have added and bolded below.
------------
In my opinion what Sri Ramana said in conversations with staunch devotees like Chadwick, Devaraja, TMP, Suri N, etc, etc (apologies for not mentioning all of them) is a real treasure trove because it is, quite literally, revelation.
-------------
Thanks.

Sam, would appreciate your response to this issue... when you find the time.

D Samarender Reddy said...

Agnostic,

I for one treasure Talks. I do not find much in that seems like what Bhagavan would not have said or has been misinterpreted or mis-recorded. There are others who seem to be wary of trusting Talks as being exactly what Bhagavan may have said because they are recordings several hours after what transpired in Bhagavan's presence. I guess each to his own. But I have to confess that I do wonder sometimes when I see long conversations between Bhagavan and devotees how it was possible for someone to remember the exact wordings and sequence of the long conversations to be able to record it exactly afterwards.

Agnostic said...

Sam, thanks for the reply.

I am able to understand Sri Ramana's Teachings on the topic of free will much better from the Talks than from his other writings.

For example, Talk 28 is the best description of "free" will that I have come across in all religious philosophy.

Not to sound blasphemous, but I am (sentimentality?) inclined to place more faith in a jnani's spontaneously expressed insight than in his intellectual deliberations. The more time there is to process a thought, the more contaminated it becomes, IMHO.

The spoken word is not the thing, but the written word is worse because it really embalms the "not-thing"!

Agnostic said...

Sorry, meant to say "the more time there is to process a flash of insight", the more contaminated it becomes.

the eye itself said...

Agnostic,
summa summarum and in the end Bhagavan's teachings are given only to serve one purpose namely to remove our ignorance and to clear things up by clarifying our misunderstandings. Are not we who have a lot of misapprehensions about the reality ?
Bhagavan himself did not need any teaching to be taught...

Sanjay Lohia said...

dikpalaka, in one my recent comments I wrote to you, ‘A painter is the efficient cause and his brush is the instrumental cause of this portrait, but the paint is the substantial cause of this portrait. Likewise pure-awareness is the substantial cause of this world, because it alone exists. So who creates this world? It is created by maya, who is the efficient cause of creation’.

A question may arise, ‘If maya or mind is the efficient cause of this world, then what is its instrumental cause?’ Our power of attention is the instrumental cause of all creation. It is only when our ego directs its attention away from itself that this world comes into existence.

So this pramada or self-negligence is the instrumental cause of all creation, whether such creation are our thoughts in our mind or whether it is a seemingly solid world outside, everything is a result of pramada. Who uses this instrument? It is our ego. So the efficient cause of creation can only be the ego.


Sanjay Lohia said...

Muruganar requested Bhagavan: Teach us the nature of reality and the means of attaining it. The result was Ulladu Narpadu:

Extract (not verbatim) from the video: 2017-10-14 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on silence:

What Bhagavan has taught us is the quintessence of advaita philosophy. He has refined it by getting rid of many unnecessary concepts.

For example it is said that in sleep what exists is anandamaya-kosha. However, Bhagavan says this cannot be true, because who or what is covered by any of the koshas? It is only the ego. The ego seemingly covers itself by these five sheaths by taking them as itself. So these five sheaths exist only when the ego rises. So, there is no anandamaya-kosha in sleep. What exists in sleep is only pure self-awareness.

Of course Bhagavan sometimes conceded that anandamaya-kosha exists in sleep, because that was all some people were willing to accept. So according to the type of questions people asked that he gave answers. To those who asked deeper questions, he revealed deeper truths.

What is revealed in Ulladu Narpadu is the core or essence of Bhagavan's teachings. Is there any spiritual or philosophical text which can come anywhere near to Ulladu Narpadu? I don’t think so. It contains the real teachings of Bhagavan in its most undiluted form. Why did Bhagavan write Ulladu Narpadu? He wrote it because of the question Muruganar asked him.

Muruganar asked him an extremely simple question. He requested Bhagavan: ‘teach us the nature of reality and the means of attaining it’. That was all Muruganar was interested in. The result was Ulladu Narpadu.

Sanjay Lohia said...

How can I be anything other than God?

Extract (not verbatim) from the video: 2017-10-14 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on silence:

Bhagavan says in Upadesa Undiyar that doing action without desire and for love of God purifies the mind and shows the way to liberation. Worshipping God is not the way to liberation. Going to temples, mosques and churches is not the way to liberation. The way to liberation is to turn within.

But until we have a certain degree of purity of mind, we will not accept that. We will not be willing to accept that God is our very own self. God is what we actually are, and therefore to know God we have no other option but to turn within. As Bhagavan teaches in verse 22 of Ulladu Narpadu:

Consider, except by turning the mind back within [and thereby] completely immersing it in God, who shines within that mind giving light to the mind, how to fathom [or investigate and know] God by the mind?

99% of people will not be willing to accept this simple truth, and therefore they are more attracted to all the outward forms of worship. So we need a certain degree of purity of mind to understand Bhagavan’s teachings, and we can get such purity only if we worship God for God’s sake, and not for the sake of any worldly gain. Only such worship will purify our mind.

Ramakrishna Paramhamsa, for example, worshipped Kali with so much love; he wasn’t expecting anything from Kali. For him Kali was his mother, and he loved her more than anything else. That is pure devotion. Such devotion will surely purify our mind very fast. And when the mind is purified it will become very clear: how can I be anything other than God?


dikpalaka said...

Sanjay Lohia,
if the ego is the "efficient cause of creation" of the whole universe then we as the ego can easily get into danger to take off our hat to it and adore or worship the ego because of its gigantic power of creation although it is said that it is only a phantom and does not at all actually exist. Therefore we have with extreme vigilance to be on our guard in order to fall still more under its devilish spell. We are already overburdened enough by having as starting position our misapprehension of our unlimited nature as a limited ego-mind-body consciousness.

dikpalaka said...

Sanjay Lohia,
we are not prevented to turn within when we "go to temples, mosques and churches".

dikpalaka said...

Sanjay Lohia,
when the mind gets its light by God should we not be much more careful to denigrate or stone it ? As you say we should manage to immerse it completely in God by turning the mind back to its source.

dikpalaka said...

Sanjay Lohia,
sorry about a missing "not":
in my first today comment of course I wanted to write "...in order to fall not still more under its devilish spell".

dikpalaka said...

Sanjay Lohia,
usually it is said that the body has five sheats:
in verse 5 we read:
Verse 5: the body is a form consisting of five sheaths, and without such a body has anyone ever perceived any world?
"The body is a form of five sheaths. Therefore all five are included in the term ‘body’. Without a body, is there a world? Say, leaving the body, is there anyone who has seen a world?

Explanatory paraphrase: The body is pañca-kōśa-uru [a form composed of five sheaths, namely a physical structure, life, mind, intellect and what is described both as the darkness of self-ignorance and as the will, the totality of the ego’s vāsanās (propensities, inclinations or urges), which are the seeds that sprout as its likes, dislikes, desires, fears and so on]. Therefore all five [sheaths] are included in the term ‘body’. Without a body [composed of these five sheaths], is there a world? Say, without [experiencing oneself as such] a body, is there anyone who has seen a world?"

When we read now "The ego seemingly covers itself by these five sheaths by taking them as itself. So these five sheaths exist only when the ego rises. So, there is no anandamaya-kosha in sleep. What exists in sleep is only pure self-awareness." our attention is directed now to look at the five sheaths from the viewpoint of the ego.
At first glance I do not see any contradiction.

Sanjay Lohia said...

dikpalaka, I thank you for your various comments. Sri Ramakrishna used to say, God-intoxicated people are like drunkards who enjoy their drinks (talk of God) in each other’s company. Likewise, we are also like drunkards who like to share and enjoy Bhagavan’s teachings. We celebrate many festivals in India, but, a devotee rightly said, our Bhagavan is a festival in itself, because we can celebrate him daily (by reading and reflecting on his teachings).

We already worship and adore our ego. Who is there who doesn’t love himself more than anything else? Don’t we all worship this body by giving it a bath, food and clothes on a constant basis? This is how we worship idols in temples, don't we? So we all are idol worships.

Yes, we should be ever vigilant by keeping a watch on this ego. If we leave it free even for a moment, it will continue with its bad habit of attending to things other than itself. We need to keep it in check by being attentively self-aware as much as possible.

When we go to temples and churches, we more often than not get lost in their ceremonies and worship. Of course, these are beneficial, because if done with love it will purify our mind and expose us to higher truths. However, we can also go to temples and churches and sit quietly in meditation or self-investigation. I think many do this.

However, do we really need to go to temples and churches to meditate? If our aim is to turn within, we can do this anywhere and therefore we need not to go to temples for this. Moreover, if we turn within we may not be even aware of the idol or pujas etc. taking place, so what is the use of our being there?

We have to make a choice: should be go to temples or meditate in our own house and workplace. Of course some combine both of these together, and it could be working for them. However, when Bhagavan says that we should do nirantara svarupa-smarana (unceasing self-remembrance), we have to practise amidst all our daily chores, because we cannot be in temples or churches all day long.

Mouna said...

Sanjay,
”A painter is the efficient cause and his brush is the instrumental cause of this portrait, but the paint is the substantial cause of this portrait. Likewise pure-awareness is the substantial cause of this world, because it alone exists.”

I have a problem (semantic of philosophical one) with the word “likewise”.
I think you cannot equate the three part process of painter/brush/paints with maya/pure-awareness/world. Something doesn’t sound right in that extrapolation and I believed is that in the former all three agents are separate and in the latter they are one and indivisible, which is a mayor difference between the two.

I would rather say that maya (or ego) is both the efficient and material (substantial) cause of the world. And I can grant as an interesting statement that the power of suttarivo or pointing awareness (or object creating and oriented consciousness) might be the instrumental part.
Vedanta (traditionally) stipulates that Ishwara is both efficient and material cause and maya is His instrument of veiling and proyecting but I would rather go for ego being the E and M causes (let us remember that maya has a “part” of pure awareness because being the chit-jada-granthi) and “ignorance” being the instrumental cause, although all are “He”.

As for your previous question to Michael, paint and canvas (or any support) are the substantial cause of a painting, because a painting couldn’t exist without those two elements, as well as without the maker (painter, even if it’s a computer nowadays!) and the instrument (brush or other).

My two cents on your interesting comment.
M

dikpalaka said...

Sanjay Lohia,
"A painter is the efficient cause and his brush is the instrumental cause of this portrait, but the paint is the substantial cause of this portrait. Likewise pure-awareness is the substantial cause of this world, because it alone exists. So who creates this world? It is created by maya, who is the efficient cause of creation."
May I give belatedly my remark about your above statement ?:
According Sri Bhagavan there is actually no world outside. What we seem to experience as a separate world is only mental fabrication.
When we say that pure awareness is the one what really exists how could we then assume that a separate world can exist ? Our world-experience is therefore only illusion created by maya or ego. Hence pure-awareness can be called neither a world-creator nor named as "substantial cause of this world".

Sanjay Lohia said...

Mouna, I agree. The painter, brush and painting/canvas analogy is slightly confusing in our context.

However, I do not agree when you say, ‘I would rather say that maya (or ego) is both the efficient and material (substantial) cause of the world’. maya has no independent material or substance of its own, so it cannot be the substantial cause of this world. What exists is only atma-svarupa. Therefore the real substance of all phenomena (world, thoughts and everything) is only atma-svarupa. At least, this is my understanding.

We can understand this through the rope-snake analogy. We may see a snake lying on the ground, when actually it is just a rope. Who misperceives the rope as a snake? It is our ego, and so the ego is the efficient cause in this case. Why do we misperceive it? It is because we look at it and assume that it is a snake. So the instrumental cause of the appearance of this snake is our attention to this seeming snake.

But what is the substance or material there? Even when we misperceive it as a snake, it is only a rope. It is only because a substance called rope exists there that we can misperceive it as something else. So the substantial or material cause of this snake is only the underlying rope. Likewise the only substance or material underlying this world-appearance is ourself as we really are, because this world seems to exists only when we misperceive ourself as a body. The world does not actually exist. What exists is only this porul [the real substance] or vastu, even when we see this world.

In this context, it would be useful to reflect on verse 7 on Ulladu narpadu:

Though the world and mind arise and subside simultaneously, the world shines by the mind. Only that which shines without appearing or disappearing as the base for the appearing and disappearing of the world and mind is poruḷ [the real substance], which is pūṉḏṟam [the infinite whole or pūrṇa].



dikpalaka said...

Sanjay Lohia,
as you say, mind and world both do not really exist.
This world appearance do not even have any substance or "material underlying".
Therefore this porul, vastu or atma-svarupa cannot be really named as substance of our misinterpretation/misapprehension/wrong conclusion/defective vision/incorrect assessment or wrong judgement.
However, we can state that atma-svarupa is even the essence of the ego-phantom which is the root of our mistake.
Finally one can conclude that your assumption is not wrong...

Sanjay Lohia said...

Mouna, in continuation of our discussion, we can also reflect on paragraph 7 of Nan Yar?:

What actually exists is only ātma-svarūpa [our own essential self]. The world, soul and God are kalpanaigaḷ [imaginations, fabrications, mental creations or illusory superimpositions] in it, like [the imaginary] silver [seen] in a shell. These three appear simultaneously and disappear simultaneously. Svarūpa [our ‘own form’ or actual self] alone is the world; svarūpa alone is ‘I’ [our ego, soul or individual self]; svarūpa alone is God; everything is śiva-svarūpa [our actual self, which is śiva, the absolute and only truly existing reality].

Bhagavan is again making it abundantly clear that what exists is only atma-svarupa, and therefore it is the only substance that exists. So everything else - that is, world, God and our ego are just like silver seen in a shell – meaning that these have never come into existence, even though they may seem to exist in our deluded view.

Therefore, this paragraph underlines the fact that the substantial or material cause of this world is only ourself as we really are – which is porul (the real and only existing substance) and purna (the infinite whole).

Mouna said...

Sanjay,
I think you sufficiently made your point about this matter, and I do agree with you in all counts.
Still, and this is not about your position in the matter but a doubt that I have in these propositions of efficient, material and instrumental causes, is that for some strange reason I can’t give the snake the luxury of having the rope as its material cause (go figure!, and I recognize this as my own confusion on this specific thread of the teaching). It is a conundrum for my intellect.
I do understand the rope as being the underlying existence/awareness of all but my problem is exactly that word “underlying“!!!
Here my doubts that I invite you to explore with me:
Snake cannot have material cause because it is unrelated with rope (and vice versa). It is only from the observer (maya/ego) point of view (ergo false) that there is a relationship of superimposed illusion. The rope has no snake in the first place. And if we have to adscribe any substantial cause to snake then I feel it should be the ignorance/veiling/avarana that actually permeates all objects. When this ignorance evaporates there is no longer any substance of anything and never was. There is only oneself and oneself only.

Thx
m

Salazar said...

From Sanjay Lohia’s previous comment:”[…] that what exists is only atma-svarupa, and therefore it is the only substance that exists.”

Since we are delving into concepts again and into matters the mind cannot grasp (that what really is ‘atma-svarupa’) I’d like to point out that atma-svarupa is not a “substance” or anything else the mind may imagine.

To keep repeating these concepts are an absolute waste of time. Nobody on this blog knows atma-svarupa and just keeps imagining what it could be. Well, the mind can never grasp it. So why keep talking about it? How many times do these concepts have to be repeated until the mind realizes it is chasing its own tail? ;-)

Sanjay Lohia said...

Should we trust our memories to be true?

My following reflection is based purely on the ideas of Sri Sadhu Om and Sri Michael James. Therefore, all credit to these ideas should go to them, but if there is any confusion, this should be attributed to me:

Our earliest memories may be from our third year or so. In my dream also I may feel the same. In my dream, I may experience myself as a 20 years old young man, and therefore have memories of my past 17 years or so. But when I wake up, I will realise that that dream was just my own mental creation, and so were all the happenings (including my memories) in that dream. When I wake up I will realise that that dream lasted a very short while, but while I was dreaming it seemed 20 years. So how I can be sure that I am not dreaming now? How can I be sure that my current memories are all true?

In my waking-dream I may seem to be 50 years or so, and I may seem to have memories of my childhood and subsequent years, but how can I be sure that these memories are not my imagination? If this waking state is just another dream, which Bhagavan says it is, then all my current memories are deluding me. These memories come into existence in the present moment, and therefore is nothing but my imagination.

That is why Bhagavan wrote in verse 15 of Ulladu Narpadu:

Past and future stand grasping [or depending upon] the present. While occurring, they too are actually the present. [Therefore] the present is the only one [the only time that actually exists]. [Hence] without knowing the truth of the present, trying to know the past or future is like trying to count [calculate or evaluate] without [knowing the value of the unit] one.

So past and future are just ideas that occur in the present moment. This is called yugapat srishti (instantaneous creation): that is, not only do we imagine the present but simultaneously also imagine our past and future.

Bhagavan often used to say, ‘Do not believe what you do not know?’ We believe we were born and will die one day, but since we can never experience our birth or death, why should we believe in such ideas?




Sanjay Lohia said...

Mouna, you say, ‘And if we have to adscribe any substantial cause to snake then I feel it should be the ignorance/veiling/avarana that actually permeates all objects’. But the imagined snake itself is the ignorance, veiling or avarana, because it is only this imagined snake that veils or obscures the rope (ourself as we actually are). Since ignorance, veiling or avarana have no real existence, they also do not have any real substance.

Therefore, there is only one substance, and that is atma-svarupa. How can any imagination ever be a substance? To be a substance a thing must exist.

Salazar said...

There is no “present time” either because the present can only be known with the reference point what was before and will be after ‘present’.

The concept of present is as much a pointer and not really true as all of the other concepts. Bhagavan’s teaching, and all the teachings of other sages are meant to be pointers and to be discarded after ‘consumption’. Keeping repeating pointers is a trap of the mind.

Salazar said...

Sanjai Lohia: "How can any imagination ever be a substance?"

Me: How can atma-svarupa be a substance but as an imagination that it is a substance?

barn owl said...

Salazar,
you write "...Nobody on this blog...and just keeps imagining what it could be ".
If nobody keeps imagining what it (atma-svarupa) could be, what is wrong with that ?
What is wrong when the mind realizes that it is chasing its own tail only after many repetition of "these concepts" ?
Who cares about "absolutely wasting time" ?
Does it offend the eye of atma-svarupa when the mind does neither grasp nor know it ?

doubt the doubter said...

Sanjay Lohia,
you ask "Should we trust our memories to be true?".
Can we really trust our own being and awareness ?

Salazar said...

barn owl, I said that "nobody knows atma-svarupa" and not "nobody keeps imagining" as you stated in your comment.

Your questions imply Self-realization, like "who cares" etc. But even your question "is atma-svarupa offended ..." is just an imagination of your mind.

So here again with your last comment you've joined this club of bloggers who keep imagining atma-svarupa ;-)

savadavar said...

verse 5,
linked article of Tuesday, 20 June 2017 "Concern about fate and free will arises only when our mind is turned away from ourself", section 5,
..."according to Bhagavan ... we should investigate this ego to see whether it actually exists even now, because if we investigate it keenly enough, we will find that it does not actually exist (just as we would find that an illusory snake does not actually exist if we were to look at it keenly enough to see that it is not a snake but only a rope), and since it does not actually exist, it has never actually risen from sleep. Therefore asking how or why it has risen is like asking how or why the son of a barren woman was born.

The rising of the ego alone causes the appearance of everything else (as Bhagavan implies in verse 26 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu), so the ego is the first cause, and hence there can be no cause antecedent to it. Therefore trying to find what caused the appearance of the ego is futile. Instead we should just investigate it as keenly as we can and should persevere in doing so until we see the one reality that underlies its false appearance, namely the pure self-awareness that we always actually are."

When I try to squeeze right up to the ego keenly enough I indeed feel there is no better way to lure the ego out of its hiding place and to expose it as a swindler.

barn owl said...

Salazar,
can an ego-mind really "imagine atma-svarupa" ?

Salazar said...

barn owl, that's what I keep saying and nonetheless people keep posting comments about the nature of atma-svarupa what can only be an imagination.

So what is your point? Of course can the mind/ego not imagine atma-svarupa. Did you not read my previous comment on this thread where I said that? Then what is the reason of your question????

Salazar said...

On the other hand, yes - in making comments about atma-svarupa and what ii could do or what its nature could be your ARE in fact IMAGINING it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Is that so hard to grasp or is your mind playing hide and seek with itself? LOL

Salazar said...

So when you say "does it offend the eye of atma-svarupa when the mind does neither grasp nor know it ?" then you IMAGINE what atma-svarupa would do or not do.

BECAUSE you DON'T KNOW IT. Alright?????? So it can only be but an imagination!!!!

Salazar said...

Your mind ONLY knows it in form of a concept which is an imagination. EVERY concept is an imagination. You can ONLY truly know by direct experience. Everything else is a load of crap by the mind.

Divine Madman said...

Salazar,

With regards your recent comment:

[The concept of present is as much a pointer and not really true as all of the other concepts. Bhagavan’s teaching, and all the teachings of other sages are meant to be pointers and to be discarded after ‘consumption’. Keeping repeating pointers is a trap of the mind.]

Yes I agree, just like the concept that everything is preordained and we have no free will. To take it as true and keep saying it is true and trying to convince others it is true is of little use and a trap of the mind just as you say.

I say this tongue in cheek.

barn owl said...

Salazar,
you say the mind/ego cannot imagine atma-svarupa at all. Before you named me a member of the club of bloggers who keep imagining atma-svarupa. Is that not a circular argument ?

Divine Madman said...

Mouna,

With regards your recent comment:

[Snake cannot have material cause because it is unrelated with rope (and vice versa). It is only from the observer (maya/ego) point of view (ergo false) that there is a relationship of superimposed illusion. The rope has no snake in the first place. And if we have to adscribe any substantial cause to snake then I feel it should be the ignorance/veiling/avarana that actually permeates all objects. When this ignorance evaporates there is no longer any substance of anything and never was. There is only oneself and oneself only.]

Great point thank you.

Divine Madman said...

Michael,

Thank you for this article and for all your work you give freely on this blog.

Salazar said...

Divine Madman, who says that I am trying to convince others? That is your assumption.

And yes, the mind can come up with all kinds of smart comments like yours, so it goes nicely along with my previous point of mind masturbation.

I find this blog less and less appealing and for some reason prarabdha lets me keep posting here. Eventually it will drop of (?), I guess when my "outward" interest in this blog has exhausted itself :-)

Salazar said...

barn owl, at this point I cannot take you seriously anymore. So permit me to ignore you from now on. God bless.

first cause said...

Divine Madman,
as you say we should accept Michael's great work with thanks.
In his sense we would show the most our gratitude to him with getting a deeper understanding of Bhagavan's teaching.

barn owl said...

Salazar,
excuse I was in a joking mood. I promise to mend my ways.
Treat me as a joker or ignore me.

Sanjay Lohia said...

In the traditional jnana marga, one needs to constantly repeat or remember one’s identity with God or brahman (by repeating ‘I am brahman’ or ‘I am pure-consciousness’ and so on). However, Bhagavan made it abundantly clear this is not what he recommends. Such repetitions of ‘I am brahman’ or similar sayings has some benefit, but it also has severe limitations. Bhagavan has clarified this in Ulladu Narpadu through 3 verses, which are:

Verse 29: Without saying ‘I’ by mouth, investigating by an inward sinking mind where one rises as ‘I’ alone is the path of jñāna [the means to experience real knowledge]. Instead, thinking ‘[I am] not this [body or mind], I am that [brahman]’ is an aid, [but] is it vicāra [self-investigation]?

Verse 32: When the Vēdas declare ‘that is you’, instead of oneself knowing and being oneself, what [am I], thinking ‘I am that, not this’ is due to deficiency of strength, because that itself always exists as oneself.

Verse 36: If we think that we are a body, thinking ‘No [we are not this body], we are that [brahman]’, will be just a good aid for [reminding and encouraging] us to abide as that. [However] since we abide [or constantly exist] as that, why [should we be] always thinking ‘we are that’? Does one think ‘I am a man’ [that is, does one need to always think ‘I am a man’ in order to experience oneself as a man]?

In 2 of these verses Bhagavan says that repeatedly continuously ‘[I am] not this [body or mind], I am that [brahman]’ can be an aid to self-investigation. Such repetitions can enable one to purify one’s mind (to some extent), or to develop some intellectual clarity about our true nature. However, its benefits are quite limited, because it cannot help us to surrender our mind to brahman, and without such surrender how can we experience brahman as ourself? So, it will show our lack of viveka (discrimination), if we go on repeating such formulas.

In this context, it may be useful to read texts such as Ribhu Gita (a text which repeatedly reinforces the message: ‘I am not this body, I am that’ in so many ways), but if we want to follow Bhagavan’s path of self-investigation, we should very soon switch our loyalties over to Ulladu Narpadu, Nan Yar? and Upadesa Undiyar. Text such as Ribhu Gita can have a limited use, but such texts are like kindergarten stuff in front of Ulladu Narpadu, which, according to Michael, is the PhD level text.

Divine Madman said...

First cause,

Thank you for your message.

Yes I think Michael's blog is an outward expression of his deep love for Bhagavan. He has said it helps him because constantly reflecting on Bhagavan's teaching helps him cultivate more and more love to turn within. I am very thankful for Michael's outward expression of love for Bhagavan.

venkat said...

Sanjay

When you write:

"In the traditional jnana marga, one needs to constantly repeat or remember one’s identity with God or brahman (by repeating ‘I am brahman’ or ‘I am pure-consciousness’ and so on)"

You are incorrect.

Bhagavan's comments in Ulladu Narpadu that you cite were to correct a common misperception of sadhakas of what jnana marga is. Bhagavan never disputed the teaching of Shankara and Gaudapada who systematised the teaching of advaita / jnana marga. They are the authority on "traditional jnana marga", and they certainly do not say what you have stated.

Divine Madman said...

Salazar,

I was only saying that with a smile and pointing out you should "maybe" take your own advice :o)
But of course you are free to do what ever you like, or maybe not?

[Divine Madman, who says that I am trying to convince others? That is your assumption.]

Your previous comments on this blog?

[And yes, the mind can come up with all kinds of smart comments like yours, so it goes nicely along with my previous point of mind masturbation.]

Is this not a bit like the pot calling the kettle black Salazar? :o)
Maybe you should point that high-powered finger of perception back at yourself?

[I find this blog less and less appealing and for some reason prarabdha lets me keep posting here. Eventually it will drop of (?), I guess when my "outward" interest in this blog has exhausted itself :-)

Do you think your prarabdha will absolutely determine this Salazar?
Are you 100% sure this concept you have acquired is the truth?
Have you always believed this?
Have you believed it your whole life?
Where and when did you learn this concept?

The same questions can of course be directed to concepts I think maybe true. But I am uncertain and cannot turn them into facts. How could I possibly know for certain?

I maybe wrong but I think Bhagavan never asked us to believe anything he said, instead he encouraged us to look and find out for ourself.

So maybe all the elaborate concepts we take to be true are nothing but white lies to encourage us to turn within and find out for ourself.
But who will find out? :o)

Take for example another concept Bhagavan taught eka-jiva vada.
What are your thoughts on this concept is it right or wrong?
Is it absolutely true or undeniably false?

There are countless concepts Salazar. They could trap us as you say especially if we focus to much on the concept itself compared to where it is pointing.

With regards whether you decide to leave this blog or not. Who cares? What does it matter? Of course the same can be said of me. So please don't take offense :o)

Sanjay Lohia said...

Not believing in the glory of our own soul is what the Vedanta calls atheism, says Swami Vivekananda

When I wrote, ‘In the traditional jnana marga, one needs to constantly repeat or remember one’s identity with God or brahman (by repeating ‘I am brahman’ or ‘I am pure-consciousness’ and so on)’, what I meant was that this was (or even ‘is’) the prevalent practice of jnana marga. As you say, it is for this very reason that Bhagavan had to write three verses in Ulladu Narpadu in order to clarify this ancient path.

Of course, the practice of atma-vichara was not started by Bhagavan, but was certainly rediscovered by Bhagavan. Among the other sources I know, Bhagavad Gita and Sankara definitely talk about the need and the method of atma-vichara. However, no sage other than Bhagavan has focused all their teachings around the paramount need to investigate only ‘I’. Bhagavan is unique because he rediscovered the true jnana marga and was relentless in teaching the same.

Take any famous guru before or even during the life time of Bhagavan. Did they teach Bhagavan’s jnana marga? I started this comment by a quotation by Swami Vivekananda only to show what was prevalent or the customary practice of jnana–marga. As Vivekanada says we need to believe in the glory of our soul [self]. This was how one practiced jnana marga by repeatedly asserting that we are the all-powerful and all-knowing atman and so on. Vivekananda gave many speeches famous on jnana marga in the west and in India. But as far as I know, he hardly spoke about the need or practice of self-investigation.

You say, ‘Bhagavan never disputed the teaching of Shankara and Gaudapada who systematised the teaching of advaita / jnana marga. They are the authority on "traditional jnana marga". I agree. Bhagavan, at least, completely agreed with Sankara’s teachings, because I do not know much about Gaudapada. I this Dakshinamurti, Sankara and Bhagavan are all known exponents of the real or genuine jnana marga (atma-vichara), whereas many others teach and practise this path as they understand it (however perfect or imperfect this may be).

Sanjay Lohia said...

Venkat, my previous comment is addressed to you. I forgot to write your name in it.

D Samarender Reddy said...

"The urge to find oneself is a sign that you are getting ready. The impulse always comes from within. Unless your time has come, you will have neither the desire nor the strength to go for self-enquiry whole-heartedly." --- Nisargadatta Maharaj, I Am That

Mouna said...

Sanjay,
Please notice that in all verses quoted by Bhagavan there is the word “thinking”:
V29-“Instead, thinking ‘[I am] not this [body or mind], ...”
V32-“instead of oneself knowing and being oneself, what [am I], thinking ‘I am that, not this’ is due to deficiency of strength, ...”
V-36”If we think that we are a body, thinking ‘No [we are not this body], we are that [brahman]’,...”

As per my understanding, Bhagavan is clearly implicating here that just the mere thinking “I am That”, “I am Brahman”, etc... is not abiding as That.
A little bit the same as the detractors of Bhagavan’s teachings imply that Bhagavan’s Path is repeating “Who Am I” constantly as a mantra only intellectually (thinking) when Bhagavan clearly indicated that it is not a mantra, that Who am I is the question which triggers the mind to turn inwards.

The same happened to Nisargadatta, whom trusted his teacher completely when he told him that he (Nisargadatta) was Brahman and then used that phrase to continuously “look at himself”... there is a difference in “thinking” I am Brahman and use those words to investigate or abide in that fact.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Mouna, yes, in the so called jnana magra, they repeatedly think: I am not this body, I am pure atman or brahman or whatever. As you point out, these are all mental thoughts and since thinking is an action, they can never give us liberation. Bhagavan teaches us this in verse 2 of Upadesa Undiyar:

The fruit of action having perished [remains] as seed [and thereby] it causes [one] to fall in the ocean of action. [Therefore] it [action] does not give liberation.

Therefore, no amount of such soham repetitions can help us to experience ourself as we really are (namely, brahman). Who repeats these formulas? It is the ego, and therefore this ego will be kept alive by such repetitions. We have to give up all thinking, and turn our full attention on ourself. This is the practical import of the Upanishadic mahavakya 'That you are'.

If I am brahman, I need to turn my full attention within to know what this ‘I’ actually is. Therefore, to repeat soham and so forth is a wrong application of this teaching. Of course, as Bhagavan says, such repetitions can be an aid, but it is an aid which we can easily do away within.

Yes, ‘who am I?’ is not a mantra. When Bhagavan asks us find out ‘who am I?’, he doesn’t expect us to repeatedly question ‘who am I?’ Such questioning is not the real vichara. We need to investigate ‘who am I?’, and for that we need to turn our entire attention within to directly see this 'I' as it actually is. Thoughts are our hindrances, so why should we think any thoughts? We can use such verbal questioning to a limited extent as an aid (as a reminder to turn our attention within), but it is again a totally dispensable aid.


Mouna said...

My point was, Sanjay, that any of the “formulas” (being “I am Brahman”, “Who am I” or Not this, not this) when practiced and understood correctly finish in the same “place”, i.e. abidance in being or in other words, oneself.

venkat said...

Sanjay

I concur with Mouna's points.

Vivekananda was a great whirlwind that set the stage for resurgence of interest in vedanta in India and abroad. If you have ever read him, you would know that he never taught blind faith or repetition. He taught men to be free, to think for themselves, and to free themselves of the shackles of their conditioning, their fears, their desires, their selfishness.

As such he was a wonderful precursor to Bhagavan and his teaching of atma vichara. It is unnecessary to dismiss one, to honour the other.

naraka said...

Sanjay Lohia,
I think you wanted to refer to jnana marga instead of ..."in the so called jnana magra...".

the eye itself said...

Michael,
verse 5,
"English translation: The body is a form of five sheaths. Therefore all five are included in the term ‘body’. Without a body, is there a world? Say, leaving the body, is there anyone who has seen a world?

Explanatory paraphrase: The body is pañca-kōśa-uru [a form composed of five sheaths, namely a physical structure, life, mind, intellect and what is described both as the darkness of self-ignorance and as the will, the totality of the ego’s vāsanās (propensities, inclinations or urges), which are the seeds that sprout as its likes, dislikes, desires, fears and so on]. Therefore all five [sheaths] are included in the term ‘body’. Without a body [composed of these five sheaths], is there a world? Say, without [experiencing oneself as such] a body, is there anyone who has seen a world?"

In which way is the ego included in the five sheaths ?

linked article of Thursday, 5 May 2016 The person we seem to be is a form composed of five sheaths:
"Therefore whatever person or body we seem to be is a package consisting of these five sheaths or coverings, which appear as soon as our ego rises and disappear as soon as it subsides. Among these five sheaths, the only one that remains unchanged so long as our ego survives is the ānandamaya-kōśa, which is the darkness of pramāda or self-negligence, and until it is destroyed by keen self-attentiveness, it will always give rise to the appearance of the other four sheaths, which are constantly undergoing change. Therefore whatever person we seem to be in this or in any other dream is a very fleeting and insubstantial thing, which seems to be given substance only by our ego, whose nature is to be self-negligent."

Is the ego somehow interwoven in all the five sheats ?

Sanjay Lohia said...

Venkat, I agree when you say, ‘Vivekananda was a great whirlwind that set the stage for resurgence of interest in vedanta in India and abroad’.

You say, ‘He taught men to be free, to think for themselves, and to free themselves of the shackles of their conditioning, their fears, their desires, their selfishness’. Yes, but who has these shackles of conditioning? Who has these fears, desires and selfishness? It is our ego. This is where the teachings of Bhagavan are so useful. He not only points to the root cause of all our defects and problems, but also gives us the simple and direct path to get rid of this defect.

Yes, I agree. Vivekananada’s teachings are a precursor to Bhagavan’s core teachings. Constant reflection on the glory on one’s true nature will purify our mind and may motivate us to turn without to experience ourself as we really are – so that we can directly experience our own glory.

Therefore, you rightly imply that all teachings have their usefulness. But having been exposed to Bhagavan’s simple but extremely radical teachings, we are blinded by it. We cannot, therefore, look beyond his teachings, so we at times may sound like Ramana fanatics, but we are happy to be one!

Sanjay Lohia said...

naraka, thanks. Yes, it should have been jnana marga.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Venkat, I wrote: ‘Vivekananada’s teachings are a precursor to Bhagavan’s core teachings. Constant reflection on the glory on one’s true nature will purify our mind and may motivate us to turn without to experience ourself as we really are – so that we can directly experience our own glory’.

Sorry, ‘without’ should have been ‘within’. We are already experts at turning without, so it would be foolishness if we turn more without!

Sanjay Lohia said...

Mouna, our destinies are fixed: by this I mean both, our present destiny in this world and our final destiny. We (the ego) have risen from ourself, and we will sooner or later merge in ourself – there can be no doubt here.

So whether we repeat any formulas or practise self-investigation, whether we are a Hitler or a Gandhi, eventually we will all merge in God. We are like the birds flying in the sky. Sooner or later, they will return to the ground.

However, the point is if we want to return to our source in the quickest time, vichara in the the way. I may wish to go to London from India. I may decide to walk all the way to London, in which case it may take me, perhaps, one or two years to reach London, or I may decide to fly, in which case in will take me about 10 to 12 hours.
Bhagavan teaches us the relative superiority of the path of self-investigation in verse 8 of Upadesa Undiyar:

Rather than anya-bhāva [meditation in which God is considered to be other than I], ananya-bhāva, in which he is [considered to be none other than] I, is certainly the best among all [practices of bhakti and forms or varieties of meditation].

venkat said...

Sanjay,

I am just reading Letters from Sri Ramanashram. I just read this passage this morning, relating to how one finds a true guru.

Bhagavan: If you want to perceive the true Guru swarupa, you must first learn to look upon the whole universe as Guru rupam. One must have the Gurubhavam towards all living beings . . . First of all know your own real swarupam.

The youth was not satisfied. He started out with a list of great men, and pointed out their defects, asking how can they be looked upon as Gurus?

Bhagavan tolerates any amount of decrying of himself, but cannot tolerate even a little fault-finding of others. He asked with some impatience: "Oho! You have been asked to know your own Self, but instead you have started finding fault with others. It is enough if you correct your own faults. Those people can take care of their faults. It looks as if they cannot attain salvation unless they obtain your certificate first."

He went on to say: "Dattatreya said that the whole world was his Guru. It seems that he asked a hunter which way he should go, but the latter ignored his question as he was intent upon his aim to shoot a bird above. Dattatreya saluted him saying 'You are my Guru! Though killing the bird is bad, keeping your aim so steadfast in shooting the arrow as to ignore my query is good, thereby teaching me that I should keep my mind steadfast and fixed on Ishwara.'"

Sanjay Lohia said...

Venkat, thanks for this sharing. Your last paragraph has a very good message:

He [Bhagavan] went on to say: "Dattatreya said that the whole world was his Guru. It seems that he asked a hunter which way he should go, but the latter ignored his question as he was intent upon his aim to shoot a bird above. Dattatreya saluted him saying 'You are my Guru! Though killing the bird is bad, keeping your aim so steadfast in shooting the arrow as to ignore my query is good, thereby teaching me that I should keep my mind steadfast and fixed on Ishwara.'"

We should be fully convinced of the spiritual-path that we have chosen, and stick to it with all our might – taking the example of this hunter. What is the bird we want to kill? Obviously our only aim is to merge in God or ourself. We have to be relentless in our practice – there is no other easy way.



Sanjay Lohia said...

Sir (Sri Michael James), ‘the eye itself’ quotes from one of your article, where you say:

Among these five sheaths, the only one that remains unchanged so long as our ego survives is the ānandamaya-kōśa, which is the darkness of pramāda or self-negligence, and until it is destroyed by keen self-attentiveness, it will always give rise to the appearance of the other four sheaths, which are constantly undergoing change.

My question is: If the only sheath ‘that remains unchanged so long as our ego survives is the ānandamaya-kōśa, which is the darkness of pramāda or self-negligence’, then why is this anandamaya-kosa called a kosa (sheath)? If this sheath is one with our ego or an integral part of our ego (that is, if the 'ego' cannot be called a 'ego' without this ‘kosa’), why is it after all called a sheath? So if we go by this logic, we should have only four sheaths: a physical structure, life, mind and intellect.

Please be kind enough to clarify this doubt of mine. With regards.


R Viswanathan said...

"So if we go by this logic, we should have only four sheaths: a physical structure, life, mind and intellect.Please be kind enough to clarify this doubt of mine."

May be this article is helpful?

http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.in/2007/02/our-body-mind-and-other-adjuncts-are.html

Some passages from this article:

"Since [our] body, mind, intellect, life and darkness [the seeming absence of knowledge that we experience in sleep] are all jada [inconscient] and asat [unreal or non-existent], [they are] not 'I', which is [chit or consciousness and] sat [being or reality]."


"Once we have thus understood that our body, our mind and all our other adjuncts are not our real self, we should ignore them. Instead of wasting our time and energy examining or thinking about them or anything else that is not our real self, we should direct all our energy and effort into scrutinising only ourself — our essential self-conscious being, which we always experience as 'I am' — because we can know who or what we really are only by keenly scrutinising or attending to our own real and essential self."

Sanjay Lohia said...

R. Viswanathan, I appreciate your last comment which says that we should mot waste our time and energy on thinking about or analyzing these pancha kosas, because they are after all asat (not real) and jada (insentient) objects. We should instead spend our entire time and energy on thinking about ourself (that is, on reading and reflecting on Bhagavan's teachings), or better still investigating ourself. Point well taken.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Because we are infatuated with this world, we are reluctant to accept that this world is unreal

Extract from Michael’s latest video 2017-11-04 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 10 (0: 32). As usual this is not exactly verbatim:

Even to accept Bhagavan’s teachings we need to have certain degree of vairagya. If we are still in love with this world, we are not going to find Bhagavan’s teachings agreeable. We will be unwilling to accept that this world is absolutely unreal.

In one of the verses of Guru Vachaka Kovai, Bhagavan said very graphically and strongly:

Those who take the world to be real is like an infatuated lover who tries to foist chastity on a prostitute.

If someone is madly in love with a prostitute, he would imagine that this prostitute is the purest and most chaste girl in the world. He will not be willing to accept that this girl is just a prostitute, and therefore cannot be faithful to only one partner. Same way, because we are infatuated with this world, we are reluctant to accept that this world is unreal.

So Bhagavan is emphasising in so many ways the unreality of this world, because the one who projects this world, namely the ego, is itself unreal. But most people are unwilling to accept it, and Bhagavan doesn’t force us to accept it.

naraka said...

Sanjay Lohia,
do you not behave a bit hypocritically/innocently ? Can we really expect that a prostitute is under the vow of chastity ?
Do we not rather willingly/with pleasure give preferential treatment to the contrary behaviour of the girl ?

the eye itself said...

What is the wrapped core of the five sheaths if any at all ?

the eye itself said...

As Michael writes in his article of Thursday, 1 March 2007 Everything is only our own consciousness:

"Therefore, referring to our basic self-consciousness 'I am', which we experience continuously, Sri Ramana concludes verse 7 by expressing his own transcendent experience of true self-knowledge:

… Only that which shines without [ever] appearing or disappearing as the space [or base] for the appearing and disappearing of the world and [our] mind [is] porul [the true substance, essence or absolute reality], which is the whole [the infinite totality of all that is].
...
The real being is only our own being, because our being is self-conscious, whereas the seeming being or existence of every other thing is known only by us, and is therefore dependent upon us. Since our being is self-conscious, it is a perfectly non-dual consciousness, and hence it is not dependent upon any other thing either to be or to be known to be. Being completely independent, it is free from all forms of limitation, all conditions and all relativity. It is therefore the one infinite and absolute reality.

In this verse of Guru Vachaka Kovai the word that I have translated as 'being' is unmai, which usually means 'truth' or 'reality', but which etymologically means 'is'-ness or 'am'-ness. Since the real being or 'am'-ness is self-conscious, it is not an objective form of being, but is the one infinite reality that underlies and supports the appearance of all objectivity or duality. It is the fundamental consciousness that makes the appearance of all other things possible.

Since our mind, our body, this world and every other conceivable thing depend upon our non-dual self-conscious being, and since they all appear and disappear, they are all mere imaginary appearances, and the sole reality that underlies and supports their appearance is only our own being or consciousness. In other words, the one substance that appears as everything is only our own essential consciousness, 'I am'.

Whereas every other thing is only relatively real, being a mere imagination, our own consciousness is the one and only absolute reality. In essence, therefore, everything is only our own consciousness. Hence our consciousness alone is real. Other than it, nothing truly exists. This is the final conclusion to which Sri Ramana leads us.

However, understanding theoretically that everything is only our own consciousness is not an end in itself. Sri Ramana leads us to this conclusion in order to convince us that the only means by which we can experience the absolute reality is to experience ourself as the infinite non-dual consciousness of being that we really are. In order to experience ourself thus, we must divert our attention away from all other things, and focus it wholly and exclusively upon ourself — that is, upon our own self-conscious being, which we always experience as 'I am'.

Our present knowledge of duality or otherness is what obstructs us from experiencing our own consciousness as the adjunct-free and absolutely non-dual self-consciousness that it truly ever is. Since our knowledge of duality arises only when we imagine ourself to be a body, we cannot experience ourself as the infinite, undivided, non-dual and absolute reality so long as we experience the seeming existence of any other thing.

In order to remove our imaginary knowledge of duality, we must cease to imagine ourself to be this or any other body, and in order to cease imagining ourself thus, we must know ourself as we really are. Our mind rises, imagining itself to be a body and thereby experiencing things that appear to be other than itself, only because of our self-ignorance, and hence it will be destroyed only by true self-knowledge.

Just as a rope appears to be a snake without ever ceasing to be a rope, so our non-dual self-consciousness 'I am', which is the one absolute reality, appears as our mind and all the duality experienced by our mind without ever ceasing to be what it really is."

Mouna said...

Sanjay,

'So whether we repeat any formulas or practise self-investigation, whether we are a Hitler or a Gandhi, eventually we will all merge in God. We are like the birds flying in the sky. Sooner or later, they will return to the ground."

I am not so sure about that as long as the illusion of “I” (ego) keeps “apparently” popping up. This illusory status of our misplaced identity comes from “times immemorial” and will continue through “times immemorial” unless we completely reverse the flow from the outside to the inside and question (or investigate) “ITs“ reality.
Since the ghostly ego feeds on itself by itself there is no reason why it should, by itself, terminates its self-deluded hallucination with itself.
Again, unless we profit from the “cracks on the wall” that Bhagavan pointed us within the illusion, nothing will happen by itself...

the eye itself said...

R Viswanathan,
thanks for pointing to Michael's article of Monday, 26 February 2007
Our body, mind and other adjuncts are not 'I' .
The final passage reads:
"Our real consciousness is only our 'being consciousness' — our essential self-consciousness 'I am'. Our mind or 'knowing consciousness' is merely an unreal form of consciousness, which exists only in its own imagination, and which is therefore experienced only by itself, and not by our real 'being consciousness'. Since the imaginary rising of this unreal 'knowing consciousness' is the cloud that seemingly obscures our real 'being consciousness', preventing us from experiencing it as it really is, let us now proceed to examine the nature of this unreal 'knowing consciousness' — our own self-deceptive mind.

Though our ultimate aim, as we discussed above, is to ignore our mind and to attend only to our own true self, which is the reality that underlies it, we will nevertheless derive great benefit from examining the nature of our mind more deeply and thereby understanding it more clearly. There are two main reasons for this:

The first and most important reason is that it is essential that we should understand and be firmly convinced of the fact that our mind is unreal and is therefore not our true self or 'I' — our essential and real form of consciousness. Since our mind is an impostor who deludes us into mistaking it to be ourself, we must be able to see through its self-deceptive nature in order to recognise our real self, which underlies its false appearance, just as a rope underlies the false appearance of an imaginary snake.

The second reason is that when we try to scrutinise our real self, the only obstacle that will actually stand in our way will be our own mind. Since our mind is the primary enemy that will oppose and obstruct all our efforts to know our real self, we should understand this enemy correctly in order to use it to our advantage and to avoid falling a prey to all its subtle and self-delusive tricks. In particular, we should understand the unreality and insubstantiality of our mind, because only then will we be truly convinced of the fact that the only means to overcome it and all its self-delusive tricks is to ignore it by attending only to our real underlying consciousness — our essential non-dual self-consciousness 'I am'."

first cause said...

(How) can the ego-mind ever investigate its own fundament ?

dikpalaka said...

@first cause,
why not ?

first cause said...

dikpalaka,
how can the unreal mind in its self-deluded nature and view - as an impostor - ever recognise the real self ? The recommended attention "only to our real underlying consciousness - our essential non-dual self-consciousness 'I am' proves possibly to be just the very self-delusive trick of the ego.
Hopefully I am mistaken/my mind is wrong !

dikpalaka said...

@first cause,
instead of only doubting which is the very delusive trick of the mind,
you should not stop trying it every day.

first cause said...

dikpalaka, thank you for your words of encouragement.

Agnostic said...

Naraka, you bring up a very deep point about innocence and hypocrisy but I feel this blog is not the proper place to discuss such matters.

Searching for a similie, this same poet who has earlier dismissed fame, women and wealth now "expands" his interest and attention to chastity and prostitution.

Personally I try to keep clear of the pathological side of Advaita from Ramanasramam, purely out of respect for Bhagavan. But he was a man too, incarnated in a human body and I find I cannot agree with him on everything.

The culture of the time and place contains, I think, valuable information about what was said, and written.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Mouna, we will surely get back to our source, whatever effort we make or do not make. As I said earlier, what will differ is the time taken to merge back. For example, if we repeat formulas it may take us 30 to 40 births, whereas if we practise self-investigation we may reach our goal in 2 to 3 births. If we are a Hitler it may take us perhaps 300 – 400 births, whereas if we a Gandhi it will take us perhaps 2 to 3 births. Who better to elaborate on this than Sri Sadhu Om. He explains this graphically in The Path of Sri Ramana (chp. 2, page 53, pp. 53-58). This comment is 3 parts:

The nature of water is to run down. The water of the ocean stands there itself as a vast mass. The ocean is the lowest place on earth. Therefore, the water in the ocean has no place to run down. But, when water is evaporated by the sun and transformed into clouds, it never stands still in the sky. Driven away by the winds to mountain tops, cooled and transformed into pure water, it runs. As per the nature of water it again starts flowing down seeking for its source in waterfalls, gathers into many streams, runs down to lower places as river and finally merges again into its source, the ocean. In no way it can be stopped till it reaches its source, the ocean. Though it may flow into many channels and irrigate fields or be collected in lakes and tanks or be stopped by springs and wells, it will not remain there for long; for, it evaporates again, is transformed into clouds and tries to reach its source as before! The efforts that we observe as in the life of jeevas, individual souls, are exactly like this!

The source of all jeevas, not only humans but of all creatures is the Supreme Thing (Brahman). The innumerable souls living in innumerable globes which, because of an indefinable wondrous power appear to be separated from their source, are ever hurrying back to the Supreme, their source. Just as running down towards the lowest place is the nature of water, the effort observed in jeevas in the form of thoughts, speech and actions to return to their source, the Supreme, is verily the nature of jeevas. Hence the aim of all jeevas is to return to their source, Brahman.

But the rain water while coursing down from the hill-tops, does not run straight towards the ocean. It fills any pool or pit it meets, overflows it and runs down in any direction to the next lower one, according to the characteristics of the land. It does not even know that it is going to the ocean. In the same way, jeevas engage themselves according to their tastes into one activity after another with no clear understanding of the final aim of their efforts. The rain water cannot help but be engaged in the only activity it can perform according to its nature, i.e., running down to lower places. Whether it knows the way or not it will certainly reach the ocean soon or later; for, it cannot stop permanently anywhere on its way. So also, jeevas cannot help but long for happiness, because such is their nature. Therefore they engage themselves into the only activity they can perform, i.e., the fulfilment of their immediate desires. Whether they are aware or not that the result of all their efforts is attaining their source, Brahman. They certainly will attain even if it is only after many crores of cycles of creations (Re-birth) [highlighted by me].

(I will continue this in my next comment)

Sanjay Lohia said...

In continuation of my previous comment:

As we have described above, the water in the clouds evaporated from the ocean, after once raining on the hill-tops, does not run immediately back into the ocean in one run as a river. On its way it is again evaporated, and again floats in the form of clouds and when cooled down it again takes the form of water. This is its rebirth. Is it not? So also, before it reaches its source, Brahman, the jeeva takes different bodies again and again. Each time it makes efforts in many directions and every time when the body once taken wears out and dies, the jeeva takes another body. This is its rebirth.

The efforts in the form of activities of the jeeva are like the efforts in the form of the running of the water. Such efforts will never cease, not even for a second until the jeeva reaches its source. Just as water, in spite of any amount of obstacles standing on its way will wind its way about again and again and will reach the next deep place, so also the jeeva, in spite of any amount of obstacles encountered in its life, persists in making efforts in the forms of actions (karmas).

Just as the nature of water is aiming at the lowest place, the jeeva, on account of its nature which is nothing but love for happiness, is always working with mind, speech and body. This love for happiness – the jeeva’s nature, in its highly refined state, becomes the Supreme Love (Para Bhakti) which leads it to the Supreme Thing, because that Supreme Thing is nothing but an unlimited ocean of Bliss. Yet, the movement of the water running down from the hilltops appears to be arrested when the water reaches a nearby pool. There, also the movement is going on, but in a different direction – the water no longer runs down but rises up. It seems then that the very nature of water, i.e., running down, is changed into rising up (evaporating). So also, on account of some enjoyment gained in life (including enjoyment here or in other worlds), the nature of the jeeva, i.e., love for happiness and making efforts towards it, seems to be changed to a state of contentment where there is no effort, i.e., the nature of Brahman. But, just as the water has to start running down again when the pool is full, the jeeva also, has to start making effort again in so many ways he wishes, to attain perfect happiness, because the enjoyments gained here and in other worlds as the fruit of his actions (karmas) cannot satisfy him for long.

Until he reaches the goal, the Supreme Thing (Sat-Chit-Ananda) which is limitless, never-decreasing, ever-brimming over, perfect Bliss, no trivial enjoyment can stop the effort seen as the struggle of life in the jeeva and make him keep still. Just as the rain water becomes motionless, effortless and is at rest as soon as it reaches the ocean, so also when the jeeva reaches the Supreme Thing, it loses its jeeva nature, becomes effortless and as one who has accomplished everything, it regains the nature of Brahman – Eternal Peace.

(I will continue this in my next comment)

Sanjay Lohia said...

In continuation of my previous comment:

“Since his mind form is thus destroyed, and since he is established in the Supreme Truth, for that great Yogi there is not even a single karma to do. For, He has attained His Natural State!” – Upadesha Undiyar, verse 15.

Let us suppose that the rain water streaming down from the hill-top before it is evaporated, joins a big river ever flowing into the ocean, it reaches the ocean - the source, avoiding all kinds of tribulation and delay. In the same way, the Sages are the ever-flowing Divine Rivers that take the jeeva directly to the Supreme Thing without tribulations. The paths traced by the running of these Divine Rivers are the True Faiths now existing on earth. If one takes one’s course through one of these Paths till its very end, one will reach the Supreme Thing, one’s Source and Aim and will attain Peace. Each one of these Faiths refines the love for happiness in the individual and courses it directly to the Goal. This direct path of the refining of the love for happiness, is the Path of Love (Bhakti Marga). The purpose of those Faiths is to advise and encourage humanity: “O man, all your efforts are in view of your happiness only. The perfect form of your happiness is Bliss, the Supreme State. Do not stop on the way deluded by the glamour of anything else. Awake, arise, stop not in your efforts along the right channel till you reach your state of perfect Bliss, or the real God.” When the effort in the form of karmas, which is the nature of jeevas is brought under control and regulated, itself it becomes a spiritual practice (Atma Sadhana), the love for the Supreme Thing. Hence the very best effort that one can make is to love the Supreme. This is well told in the following verse of Bhagavan Sri Ramana:

“The water showered by the clouds risen up from the sea, will not stop, though obstructed till it reaches the sea-abode. Likewise, the embodied soul rises from Thee and will not stop till it reaches Thee, although it wanders here and there through so many paths that come its way (or) it takes to. The bird, though, flying here and there Love or Bhakti 57 into the vast sky, has no stay there. The place of rest (for the bird) is nothing but the earth. It is bound to go back the way it came. So also, when the soul goes back the way it came, it will join Thee, the Ocean of Bliss, Oh Aruna Hill!”

- Sri Arunachala Ashtakam, Verse 8


Sanjay Lohia said...

Mouna, there is a typo in the last paragraph of previous comment (its 3rd and last installment). It should read:

“The water showered by the clouds risen up from the sea, will not stop, though obstructed till it reaches the sea-abode. Likewise, the embodied soul rises from Thee and will not stop till it reaches Thee, although it wanders here and there through so many paths that come its way (or) it takes to. The bird, though, flying here and there into the vast sky, has no stay there. The place of rest (for the bird) is nothing but the earth. It is bound to go back the way it came. So also, when the soul goes back the way it came, it will join Thee, the Ocean of Bliss, Oh Aruna Hill!”

- Sri Arunachala Ashtakam, Verse 8

There was an extra ‘Love or Bhakti 57’ inserted in one of its sentences courtesy poor copy-paste job.

naraka said...

Sanjay Lohia,
thanks for quoting Sri Sadhu Om's Path of Sri Ramana, part two.
In the last paragraph, the line beginning with "Love or Bhakti 57".
These words and numbers are obviously not part of the text but only the heading of the page (57).

naraka said...

Sanjay Lohia,
thanks , you have just corrected it.

the eye itself said...

Sanjay Lohia,
"Likewise, the embodied soul rises from Thee and will not stop till it reaches Thee, although it wanders here and there through so many paths that come its way (or) it takes to."
"So also, when the soul goes back the way it came, it will join Thee, the Ocean of Bliss, Oh Aruna Hill!"
Ocean of bliss, why should it have been my own fault that you did not prevent me from rising ?
Are you not conscious of having done any wrong ?
Are you really entirely blameless ?
Were you actually in no way responsible for the accident of my rising ? You are looking at me with an air of innocence. However, it does not help me further that I cannot believe/buy your (story and) protestation of innocence.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Mouna, why is it inevitable that we will reach our source, and that we will not remain dangling somewhere on the way? It is because more that our effort, Bhagavan is also working overtime by supporting our source-ward journey, and Bhagavan cannot fail.

Though we are acting in many ways, but, as Sadhu Om says, we have no clear understanding of the final aim. We are looking for happiness, but are making our efforts in the wrong direction. It is here that Bhagavan’s role comes into the picture. He shows us the error of our ways, and keeps up on track. How? Michael explains this in his video: 2017-11-04 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 10:

Michael: Bhagavan is dwelling in the hearts of each one of us and is slowly-slowly purifying our mind – giving us various experiences through our prarabdha, which is given to us to make us dejected with the external world. So after many trials and tribulations, we will somehow be willing to listen to Bhagavan, and thus turn within.

So Bhagavan is infinitely patient. He will allow us to go whichever path we want to, because he knows eventually when we are ready for it, we will come back to the only path to salvation. Salvation is the annihilation of the ego, and we need to turn within to see the reality of our ego – this is salvation. Extremely simple!

My note: We make efforts through various karmas (actions), whereas Bhagavan is making unceasing effort through akarma (by remaining without action). By his mere presence in our heart, he is providing us with all the help we need to get back to our source. So we should proceed with the firm faith that Bhagavan is our helmsman, and that he will surely take us to our destination.

Mouna said...

Sanjay,

First of all thank you for your well constructed and well meant “article”.
I do agree that when the “turn” in understanding within the dream happens by Bhagavan’s grace there are strong chances that the ego’s edifice will start crumbling down and will, inevitably and eventually, be completely erased, although the timing is uncertain (now, or maybe a million lifetimes from now).
What I said I wasn’t sure about what you wrote at the beginning is that you were saying “all jeevas” (from Ghandi to Hitler to “us all”) will eventually self-realize!
There are no “jeevas” except the one that is identified with a character now reading or writing these lines. Do all characters in your dream last night, including you, self-realize after you woke up? Or did it mean that ego continued its journey into another dream, the “waking” one? and will continue projecting jeevas all around and feeding on that illusion...
I see the language used in Sadhu Om and Bhagavan’s writings, to my understanding, as a concession to apparent aspirants within the dream to continue making efforts that eventually will bear fruits with the help of grace.
No jeeva (ego) ever realizes, because realization is the dissolution of the illusion of being a jeeva in the first place (and that there are other jeevas around “me”).

In the final analysis I do understand what you wrote, the intention behind it and the “truth” within it, but at a certain point we can’t afford to rely anymore in the assurance that eventually “we” will all get there no matter what (it sounds as the promise of paradise for christians that only have to believe that Jesus is their savior) because if we investigate properly, the understanding starts to shine through that there are no and never will be a “we” neither a “there”, only “this”and “here”.

nuṇ mati said...

Sanjay Lohia,
the question if, why and how we ever left our source remains always unanswered.
When it is said that "By his mere presence in our heart, he is providing us with all the help we need to get back to our source" I direct the obvious question to Bhagavan why he did not provide all the help not to rise as an ego at all.
Evidently there is no correct answer at all but only speculation.
But many people feel instinctively that they have lost their "real home perhaps paradise" because they are not completly happy even when they are healthy and live relatively in a carefree manner.
So it is not surprising that we are looking for perfect happiness in many ways.
"Bhagavan is dwelling in the hearts of each one of us". One may believe it or not.
What we know undeniably is merely that we exist or at least seem to exist. Otherwise we would not be aware of us and the surroundings. For example we would not be able to read, think and write on an internet blog.
Because of the evident absence of knowing our real nature (perhaps of unclouded happiness) it suggests itself that we follow the advice of a real sage - not a pseudo-sage. Nobody can talk me into believing that Bhagavan is not a real sage. So I too endeavour to obtain the right self-knowledge by keeping firm faith to Bhagavan Arunachala to the best of my ability.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Mouna, thanks for your response. Your question was, why do we talk about many jeevas (egos), when Bhagavan has told us that there is only one ego? But is this our direct experience? Don’t we experience many egos around us? Bhagavan did tell us that ‘there is only one ego, and you are that’, but he also told us that we should not believe in anything which we do not directly experience? Do you experience only one ego or many egos around you? I, for sure, experience many egos around me.

According to Bhagavan, even this one ego doesn’t actually exist. So if we assume that this one ego does having have a seeming existence, why not assume that other egos also seem to exist?

As long as we take our body to be ourself, we will also experience a world outside filled with other egos. How can we avoid that? Should we bring advaita in our vyavahara (day-to-day life)? If I meet you, can I tell you, ‘Mouna, you are just my mental creation, and therefore there is no use talking to you’? Obviously not! I will interact with you taking both of us (Mouna and Sanjay) to be real, won’t I?

In Bhagavan’s view there is no world, no egos, nothing; there is only himself. However, as you say, he did concede for our sake that a world does seem to exist, and that other egos do seem to exist. However, he also made it clear that they do not really exist. He starts the 1st verse of Ulladu Narpadu by saying. ‘Because we see the world…’ So Bhagavan’s entire teachings are based on the assumption that a world and all the egos in it do seem to exist, at least as long as this one ego sees them.

(I will continue this reply in my next comment)

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 355   Newer› Newest»