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 which prevails, fate or 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 were not, 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] were not, 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 or reality] 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:
2018-01-04: In what sense does Bhagavan generally use the terms பொருள் (poruḷ) and வஸ்து (vastu)?
2018-01-01: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu first maṅgalam verse: what exists is only thought-free awareness, which is called ‘heart’, so being as it is is alone meditating on it (a detailed explanation of this verse, its original kuṟaḷ veṇbā form and its kaliveṇbā version)
2017-12-28: Upadēśa Kaliveṇbā lines 1-4: the extended version of the first maṅgalam verse of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
2017-12-28: Some poetic features of the first maṅgalam verse of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
2017-12-28: Bhagavan’s Sanskrit translation (in veṇbā metre) of the first maṅgalam verse of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
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:
2017-12-28: Upadēśa Kaliveṇbā lines 4-8: the extended version of the second maṅgalam verse of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
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:
2017-12-28: Upadēśa Kaliveṇbā lines 8-12: the extended version of verse 1 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
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:
2017-12-28: Upadēśa Kaliveṇbā lines 12-16: the extended version of verse 2 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
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:
2017-12-28: Upadēśa Kaliveṇbā lines 16-20: the extended version of verse 3 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
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:
2017-12-28: Upadēśa Kaliveṇbā lines 20-24: the extended version of verse 4 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
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:
2018-04-18: Whatever body the ego experiences as ‘I’ is always a form composed of five sheaths
2017-12-28: Upadēśa Kaliveṇbā lines 24-28: the extended version of verse 5 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
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:
2017-12-28: Upadēśa Kaliveṇbā lines 28-32: the extended version of verse 6 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
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:
2018-05-13: The awareness that appears and disappears with the world and by which the world shines is not real awareness but only a semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa), namely the ego or mind
2018-02-28: The awareness that perceives the world and that appears and disappears along with it is the ego, whereas what shines without appearing or disappearing as the ground for the appearing and disappearing of the world and ego is alone the real substance
2018-01-04: Bhagavan’s view of ‘substance’ is perhaps best expressed in the second sentence of this verse
2018-01-01: What Bhagavan refers to in the first maṅgalam verse as உள்ளபொருள் (uḷḷa-poruḷ), ‘the existing substance’ or ‘real substance’, is what he refers to in this verse as ‘பூன்றம் ஆம் பொருள்’ (pūṉḏṟam ām poruḷ), ‘the substance that is the [infinite] whole’
2017-12-28: Upadēśa Kaliveṇbā lines 32-36: the extended version of verse 7 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
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 பொருளை 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:
2017-12-28: Upadēśa Kaliveṇbā lines 36-40: the extended version of verse 8 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
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:
2017-12-28: Upadēśa Kaliveṇbā lines 40-44: the extended version of verse 9 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
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:
2017-12-29: Comment explaining ‘இருள் போல் மண்டும்’ (iruḷ pōḷ maṇḍum), ‘which is dense like darkness’, the kaliveṇbā extension to the first sentence of this verse
2017-12-28: Upadēśa Kaliveṇbā lines 44-48: the extended version of verse 10 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
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: Not knowing oneself, who knows, knowing other things is ignorance; besides, is it 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], is it 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:
2017-12-28: Upadēśa Kaliveṇbā lines 48-52: the extended version of verse 11 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
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:
2018-04-30: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 12 and Upadēśa Undiyār verse 27: real knowledge or awareness is that which is completely devoid of both knowing and not knowing
2018-04-18: That which knows anything other than itself (namely the ego) is not real awareness, because real awareness is completely devoid of awareness or ignorance of anything else, since it shines without any other thing to know or to make known
2017-12-28: Upadēśa Kaliveṇbā lines 52-56: the extended version of verse 12 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
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:
2018-01-04: Though Bhagavan sometimes uses physical analogies to distinguish substance from form, such as the analogy of gold and ornaments made of it, when he uses the terms poruḷ or vastu in the sense of ‘substance’, he is not referring to any kind of physical substance but only to metaphysical substance (the one real substance), which is pure awareness
2017-12-28: Upadēśa Kaliveṇbā lines 56-60: the extended version of verse 13 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
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:
2017-12-28: Upadēśa Kaliveṇbā lines 60-64: the extended version of verse 14 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
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
2016-10-17: Comment referring to the kaliveṇbā extension of this verse and explaining that though the body or person we seem to be is actually a second person (an object of our perception), it seems to be the first person, the subject, because our experience now is ‘I am this body, this person called so-and-so’
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. Not knowing the reality of now, 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 today [the present moment, now], trying to know the past or future is [like] trying to count [calculate or evaluate] without [knowing the value of] one.

Explanations and discussions:
2017-12-28: Upadēśa Kaliveṇbā lines 64-68: the extended version of verse 15 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
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:
2017-12-28: Upadēśa Kaliveṇbā lines 68-72: the extended version of verse 16 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
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’ [or only ‘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:
2017-12-28: Upadēśa Kaliveṇbā lines 72-76: the extended version of verse 17 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
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:
2017-12-28: Upadēśa Kaliveṇbā lines 76-80: the extended version of verse 18 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
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 will is there dispute about which prevails, fate or will. Those who have known themself, who is the one origin for fate and 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 will (mati), namely the ego] is there dispute about which prevails, fate or will. Those who have known [the reality of] themself [the ego], who is the one origin [cause or foundation] for fate and 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 will]. Say, will they thereafter be associated with them?

Explanations and discussions:
2018-04-19: Comment explaining that in this context மதி (mati) means ‘will’, and though it can justifiably be interpreted as implying ‘free will’, translating it more literally as just ‘will’ avoids obscuring the simplicity of what Bhagavan is actually saying in this verse
2017-12-28: Upadēśa Kaliveṇbā lines 80-84: the extended version of verse 19 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
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:
2017-12-28: Upadēśa Kaliveṇbā lines 84-88: the extended version of verse 20 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
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:
2017-12-28: Upadēśa Kaliveṇbā lines 88-92: the extended version of verse 21 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
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:
2018-04-18: Except by turning within to see its own real nature, the ego cannot experience the true knowledge (namely pure self-awareness) that will eradicate its self-ignorance
2017-12-28: Upadēśa Kaliveṇbā lines 92-96: the extended version of verse 22 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
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] by nuṇ mati [a subtle, refined, sharp, keen, acute, precise, meticulous and discerning mind or intellect] where this ‘I’ rises.

Explanations and discussions:
2017-12-28: Upadēśa Kaliveṇbā lines 96-100: the extended version of verse 23 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
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)
2015-05-28: 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:
2018-04-18: The ego is neither the body composed of five sheaths nor our real nature, which is being-awareness (sat-cit), but is just a formless phantom that rises by usurping properties both of the body and of being-awareness as if they were its own
2018-02-28: The ego is not the real awareness (sat-cit), nor is it an insentient body, so it is just a spurious entity that rises between them, so to speak, and usurps the properties of both as if they were its own
2017-12-28: Upadēśa Kaliveṇbā lines 101-104: verse 24 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
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:
2018-04-18: The ego cannot rise or stand without grasping the form of a body as ‘I’
2018-01-24: As this ego we are not yet willing to die, so we project phenomena (which are all thoughts), because it is only by grasping phenomena that the ego seems to exist
2017-12-28: Upadēśa Kaliveṇbā lines 104-108: the extended version of verse 25 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
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:
2018-05-13: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 26: everything depends for its seeming existence on the seeming existence of the ego, so when we investigate the ego keenly enough to see that it does not exist, that is giving up everything (this section contains an explanation of the significance and importance of the kaliveṇbā extension to this verse, namely கருவாம் (karu-v-ām), which refers to the ego and means ‘which is the embryo [womb, efficient cause, inner substance or foundation]’)
2018-04-18: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 26: everything else depends for its seeming existence on the seeming existence of the ego
2018-01-24: Though Bhagavan says that the ego comes into existence, stands, feeds itself and grows by grasping ‘form’ or phenomena, he does not mean that forms exist independent of it or when it does not exist
2017-12-28: Upadēśa Kaliveṇbā lines 108-112: the extended version of verse 26 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
2017-12-28: Some poetic features of verse 26 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
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 one exists without ‘I’ 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 one exists without ‘I’ [the ego] rising 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:
2018-04-30: Unless we investigate the ego, how to annihilate it, and unless we annihilate it, how to abide as that [brahman, the fundamental substance, which is the one infinite whole]?
2018-04-30: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 27: the state in which ‘I’ does not rise is the state in which we are that, and unless one investigates where ‘I’ rises, how to abide in that state in which it does not rise?
2017-12-28: Upadēśa Kaliveṇbā lines 112-116: the extended version of verse 27 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
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:
2017-12-28: Upadēśa Kaliveṇbā lines 116-120: the extended version of verse 28 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
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: Not 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:
2017-12-28: Upadēśa Kaliveṇbā lines 120-124: the extended version of verse 29 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
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:
2018-01-01: What Bhagavan refers to in the first maṅgalam verse as உள்ளபொருள் (uḷḷa-poruḷ), ‘the existing substance’ or ‘real substance’, and in verse 7 as ‘பூன்றம் ஆம் பொருள்’ (pūṉḏṟam ām poruḷ), ‘the substance that is the [infinite] whole’, is what he refers to in this verse as ‘தான் ஆம் பொருள்’ (tāṉ ām poruḷ), ‘the substance that is oneself’
2017-12-28: Upadēśa Kaliveṇbā lines 124-128: the extended version of verse 30 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
2017-12-28: Some poetic features of verse 30 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
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:
2018-04-18: What experiences itself as ‘I am doing’ or ‘I am experiencing’ is only the ego, and without the ego nothing else exists, so there is nothing either to do or to experience
2017-12-28: Upadēśa Kaliveṇbā lines 128-132: the extended version of verse 31 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
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:
2017-12-28: Upadēśa Kaliveṇbā lines 132-136: the extended version of verse 32 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
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:
2018-04-30: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 33: the ego is ridiculous whatever it may think or say, whether ‘I do not know myself’ or ‘I do know myself’
2017-12-28: Upadēśa Kaliveṇbā lines 136-140: the extended version of verse 33 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
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:
2017-12-28: Upadēśa Kaliveṇbā lines 140-144: the extended version of verse 34 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
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 [this] 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:
2017-12-28: Upadēśa Kaliveṇbā lines 144-148: the extended version of verse 35 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
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:
2017-12-28: Upadēśa Kaliveṇbā lines 148-152: the extended version of verse 36 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
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:
2017-12-28: Upadēśa Kaliveṇbā lines 152-156: the extended version of verse 37 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
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:
2018-04-18: When the sense of doership (the ego) is erdicated, all action (karma) will cease to exist
2017-12-28: Upadēśa Kaliveṇbā lines 156-160: the extended version of verse 38 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
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:
2017-12-28: Upadēśa Kaliveṇbā lines 160-164: the extended version of verse 39 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
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:
2017-12-28: Upadēśa Kaliveṇbā lines 164-168: the extended version of verse 40 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
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

733 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 733   Newer›   Newest»
Sanjay Lohia said...

In continuation of my previous comment in reply to Mouna:

Yes, no ego or person can ever ‘realise’, because ‘realisation’ entails dissolution of our ego along with the person we take ourself to be.

As you correctly imply, we cannot rely on the assurance that Bhagavan will come one day and save us. Bhagavan always stressed the need for effort, although he also made it clear that his grace is the dominant partner in our sadhana. For example, he says in paragraph 12 of Nan Yar?:

God and guru are in truth not different. Just as what has been caught in the jaws of a tiger will not return, so those who have been caught in the glance of guru’s grace will surely be saved by him and will never instead be forsaken; nevertheless, it is necessary to walk unfailingly along the path that guru has shown.

So Bhagavan makes it clear that ‘it is necessary to walk unfailingly along the path that guru has shown’. Bhagavan would also say, ‘mukti (liberation) is not your birth-right’, thereby stressing the need for maximum possible effort on our part.

Mouna said...

Sanjay, thanks

"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?”
Yes it is! practice vichara for just one second and you will “experience” it. My faith is on what I verified to be true, even in that split second of… grace and understanding. So yes! it is our direct experience, even when we believe it is not.

"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?”
I don’t assume anything in either case. I “knows" there is no ego. You may ask: “Who knows?” and the response will be: look at the “s” after the word “know”.

Should we bring advaita in our vyavahara (day-to-day life)?
No need. But here in this blog, most of the time we are not discussing our every day life but rather our real life, so it is a completely secure environment (except for some pathological exceptions) to say “there is no ego” and I stands for it…

"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.”
Bhagavan’s entire teachings are not based on that assumption, it is the so called hallucinated jeevas that have that assumption, and Bhagavan is addressing that confussion by speaking a language for two year-old seekers.

"So Bhagavan makes it clear that ‘it is necessary to walk unfailingly along the path that guru has shown’. Bhagavan would also say, ‘mukti (liberation) is not your birth-right’, thereby stressing the need for maximum possible effort on our part.”
Now we are talking my dear friend. Great point of agreement between us.
No promises of heaven for Hitler or Gandhiji if “they” don’t try to figure out what’s happening in the dream and if there is a dream at all. Because is not your birth-right!!!
This exact phrase of our Guruji was my whole point since we started this discussion.

Be well,
m

nuṇ mati said...

Mouna, greetings,
may I raise an objection to your statement that mukti (liberation) is not our birth-right. Is not mukti our very nature which was actually never born ? Therefore our real nature can be equated with our real birth. So in this sense mukti can or has to be considered quite well as our birth-right.

Mouna said...

nun mati, greetings back

"may I raise an objection to your statement that mukti (liberation) is not our birth-right. Is not mukti our very nature which was actually never born ? Therefore our real nature can be equated with our real birth. So in this sense mukti can or has to be considered quite well as our birth-right.”

You raise an interesting point. I would say yes and no.
Yes if you claim it trying to investigate what is that birth right one supposedly have.
No, if you do not claim it or even know its existence...

Again, the fact of being “in the dream” doesn’t necessarily mean that in the long term we will realize authomatically our true nature/identity. Something must happen within the dream like the appearance of a teacher/teaching to make us realize what could be considered, only under those circumstances, our, I would say, NON-BIRTH right!!

nuṇ mati said...

Mouna,
so now I withdraw my objection. It is a great pity that our true nature/identity is not realized automatically. So far as I am concerned I will make an application for an automatic and sudden realization. Would you be fond of attending the proceedings ?

Mouna said...

nun mati,
"So far as I am concerned I will make an application for an automatic and sudden realization. Would you be fond of attending the proceedings ?”

Sure! but I don’t have all eternity to wait and attend to the answer you’ll get for your application! (that you might guess what it’ll be, right?)

nuṇ mati said...

Mouna,
your pessemistic view let me think I'd better refrain from applying. To be honest I too did not have great expectations for getting the desired answer/promise from Bhagavan. What ?

Mouna said...

nun mati,
"your pessemistic view let me think I'd better refrain from applying."

in terms of automatic, yes, it’s a pessimistic view, and don’t bother applying, it’s a waste of time.
But if you apply with atma-vichara running in the background, you might get a chance, even sooner that you think…

be well,
m

nuṇ mati said...

Mouna,
my last comments were meant only jocularly.
Be well too.

Mouna said...

nun mati,

mine too!

be well too too.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Mouna, I had written: 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.

In response you wrote: Bhagavan’s entire teachings are not based on that assumption, it is the so called hallucinated jeevas that have that assumption, and Bhagavan is addressing that confussion by speaking a language for two year-old seekers.

I will close my argument by quoting two verses from Ulladu Narpadu:

Verse 14: If the first person [ego] 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.

Verse 26: 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.

According to Sadhu Om and Michael, Ulladu Narpadu deals with Bhagavan’s very core and the purest teachings. In these two verses, Bhagavan admits that the ego does seem to exist (at least in our view). Not only that, he also teaches us that if the ego (the first person) comes into existence, everything (including other egos) also come into seeming existence. The only way to get rid of all other egos is by getting rid of our ego, and we can do it by carefully investigating this ego. When we see its non-existence, we will also find that everything else (including other egos) is also non-existent.

However, I agree, Ulladu Narpadu is for the hallucinated jeevas. Hallucinated ones experience a seemingly real perception of something not actually present, typically as a result of a mental disorder or of taking drugs. Don’t we experience this world which has no real existence? Don’t we see many jeevas, whereas there is not even one jeeva which actually exists?

So there can be no doubt, we are the worst cases of hallucinated patients, and therefore we have compelled the greatest doctor, Bhagavan, to appear amongst us to give us Ulladu Narpadu. Perhaps, no other teaching can cure us.

nuṇ mati said...

Sanjay Lohia,
as you say, the teaching of a real sage is the most precious help to get rid of the serious hallucination of having faith in the ego.
Nevertheless, hearing, reading and believing the highest teachings cannot substitute our primary concern and prime task to verify by our own experience the unreality of that hallucination of thinking to be and identifying with an ego .
Fortunately we can use the best remedy ordered by the best doctor of our era, Bhagavan Ramana, careful, tenacious and unflagging self-investigation. Only then we can testify the non-existence of ego and world. Becoming fervently enthusiastic about the teaching improves only our starting position. After complete eradication of the ego we - as our real nature - will laugh triumphantly like a conquering hero who returns back again in the land of eternal silence of Nektar and Ambrosia.

Mouna said...

Sanjay,
Let me also close this case acknowledging that maybe we are saying the same thing from different semantic points of view (at least this is what I think)
That is all I was referring to (semantics) when addressing what you wrote. I could explain this position further but I don’t think it will do any good to advance any understanding of Bhagavan’s teachings, that are quite simple and direct in their own way.
In any case thanks for the exchange.
M

Sanjay Lohia said...

Sadhu Om often used to say, Bhagavan didn’t come into this world just to be the subject of a story

Extracts (but not verbatim) from the video 2017-11-04 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 10:

1) Bhagavan’s path is for those who have had enough – who had enough of grasping things for themselves; had enough of seeing the hopelessness of trying to solve all the problems of this world and of other people. We can’t get satisfaction anywhere in this world. If we are after self-gratification, we will never be gratified. There will be something more to look forward to.

2) If what Bhagavan has told us in Ulladu Narpadu is true, Ulladu Narpadu is unreal. If Ulladu Narpadu is real than what Bhagavan told us in Ulladu Narpadu is untrue. Guru’s teachings are unreal, but they are true – that is, they are true in the sense that they are pointing us in the right direction for our own salvation.

Ulladu Narpadu is a phenomenon, so it appears in our waking and dream, but disappears in our sleep. So, like all other phenomena, it cannot be real. But it is extremely useful in our waking and dream because it is pointing us in the right direction in which we should be looking.

(I will continue this in my next comment)

Sanjay Lohia said...

In continuation of my previous comment:

3) Because Bhagavan loves himself, and because his real nature is pure sat-chit-ananda, he wants nothing more but to experience sat-chit-ananda, which he is always experiencing. Since he sees us as nothing other than himself, he wants us to also experience sat-chit-ananda - that is, he wants us to experience our real nature.

So Bhagavan’s infinite love for us makes him manifest as an outward human form, telling us to turn within. In other words, the human form of Bhagavan is nothing but an embodiment of pure love. Not only is he pure love, he is clarity of pure knowledge, pure awareness. So it is right to revere the name and form of the guru. Though the name and form of guru is not real, it’s the reality that appeared in that name and form in order to turn us within.

So Sadhu Om often used to say, Bhagavan didn’t come into this world just to be the subject of a story. Some people are satisfied by reading stories about Bhagavan’s life and everything. His teachings hardly attract them. They think if they love Bhagavan it is sufficient. However, he appeared in the form of our guru only to give us his teachings – that’s the whole purpose of his manifestation.

4) Yes, in the world we see everything falling under the laws of nature, but this is all part of maya. Since our body seems real to us, the whole world seems real to us, and therefore when we project the world, we project it in a convincing way.

In this dream, we are very-very strongly attached to our body. The strength of our attachment to this body, gives the stability to the world we see through the five senses of this body. So part of the stability of this world is based on the laws of nature. That all holds good, so long as this world seems to be real.

So the mind is producing a very convincing enactment. Like people flock to see first grade, excellent quality films, we likewise come back again and again to enjoy our own very convincing show: this world-appearance. Our mind has created such high quality show only for its own survival. If it loses interest in the world, it may soon die of boredom.





Sanjay Lohia said...

Knowledge and ignorance

Bhagavan has written 4 verses in Ulladu Narpadu on the topic of knowledge and ignorance (verses 10 to 13). Why did Bhagavan write 4 verses on this topic? Let us first read these verses and then try to reflect on their meaning and practical import:

V. 10: 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.

V. 11: 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.

V. 12: 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.

V. 13: 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?

Reflection: Our knowledge or awareness of things other than ourself and our ignorance of these very things come in pairs. We may hear about the extraordinary beauty of Switzerland, but we will ignorant of its real beauty until and unless we visit this country and experience it first-hand. Likewise when we visit Switzerland, we will have the first-hand knowledge of its sublime beauty, and simultaneously we will also come to know that we were ignorant of it earlier. So these – knowledge and ignorance – comes in pairs.

(I will continue this in my next comment)

Sanjay Lohia said...

In continuation of my previous comment:

However, Bhagavan says that since such knowledge and ignorance stands on the foundation of our ego, if we try to find out its reality, we will discover that there is no such thing as the ego. What we will then experience is pure and infinite self-awareness, and only this is real knowledge – which is devoid of all relative knowledge and ignorance.

Bhagavan explains that without knowing the reality of the one (ego) who knows objects, knowing objects is nothing but ignorance. Why? It is because the one who knows these objects is itself an illusion and therefore whatever it knows will also partake of its illusory nature.

So the subject (the ego) and all its objects (whatever it experiences) are both part of the same fabric of maya - they are totally unreal. Only when we experience ourself as we really are, will the subject and all its objects vanish forever, and this is real knowledge (atma-jnana).

Bhagavan also explains that our true and permanent awareness is not a void, but is wholeness and completeness. He said this to repudiate a section of the Buddhists, who claimed that our real nature is avoid (svabhava-sunya). This wholeness and completeness is the unchanging base or support for the appearance and disappearance of all phenomena.

Bhagavan repeatedly emphasises in these verses that our knowing ego or mind is absolutely unreal, but he also states that though this mind is unreal, it doesn’t exist apart from the one reality – ourself as we really are. In other words, whatever illusion may seem to appear, they are never apart from the one real substance – ourself.

By writing 4 verses on knowledge and ignorance, Bhagavan showed how much importance he attached to this subject. His sole intention behind writing these verses was to show us the complete unreality of both the knower (the ego) and the known (all the objects), so that we can be easily weaned away from our infatuation towards it. Without sufficient vairagya how can we leave everything behind, and turn within with all the force at our command?

Sanjay Lohia said...

nun mati, without intense and sustained self-investigation, our ego will not be destroyed. Five minutes of deep and one-pointed self-investigation is more beneficial than five hours of reading and reflecting on Bhagavan’s teachings. Only our practice can destroy our ego.

first cause said...

Sanjay Lohia,
"So the subject (the ego) and all its objects (whatever it experiences) are both part of the same fabric of maya - they are totally unreal."

Can the ego seem to exist and create/project the world without any content of consciousness ?
Evidently not. Therefore the ego cannot be totally unreal as you say.
Is it not said that the ego is in essence nothing but pure awareness ?

nuṇ mati said...

Sanjay Lohia,
you say "Ulladu Narpadu is a phenomenon, so it appears in our waking and dream,...".
As far as I'm concerned Ulladu Narpadu has never appeared in my dream or pointed me "in the right direction...".
You further say " Five minutes of deep and one-pointed self-investigation is more beneficial than five hours of reading and reflecting on Bhagavan’s teachings. Only our practice can destroy our ego."
On the other hand, an effective practice will not take place without a profound understanding of Bhagavan's teaching.

Agnostic said...

Sam, with reference to one of your earlier comments about enlightenment and destiny, here is WEI WU WEI -

---------
WHY LAZARUS LAUGHED : 10


Freedom. 1
Our freedom resides in mind, of which 'ours' is the aspect we experience. Knowledge is unreal, or relative, but Understanding is real. We are free to understand if we can.

But knowledge comes by reasoning, whereas understanding comes by intuition. It may be, however, that the knowledge obtained by reasoning can open the way for intuition, though to that end knowledge must be seen for what it is, that it is relative and not real.

As a result of understanding we function on a different plane, little as it may effect the mode of life we enjoy. Above all we may come to perceive the futility of our struggle to impose the supposed desires of our 'ego' on the inevitable. The Taoist injunction, taken over by Buddhism, to live in accordance with 'nature' must mean just that.

Freedom. 2

The Maharshi also wrote on a piece of paper when a young man: 'Whatever is destined not to happen will not happen, try as you may. Whatever is destined to happen will happen, do what you may to prevent it. This is certain.'

He was uncompromising in his teaching.

His answer was: 'Find out who it is who is predestined or has free-will.' More explicitly he said: 'All the actions that the body is to perform are already decided upon at the time it comes into existence: the only freedom you have is whether or not to identify yourself with the body.' That means that in playing our part in the comedy in which we are given a role and which we call our life, we can identify ourselves with our role, really imagine we are the character whose part we are playing, or stand apart mentally and play it by sheer technique.

'All the actions the body is to perform are already decided upon at the time it comes into existence....'

The mind has a certain freedom, but not to decide the actions of the body. Its most valuable freedom is the liberty to understand and thereby to rid itself of its identifications and particularly of its illusion of individuality. When it has understood as much as that, it is at the disposition of Mind Itself and may awaken to Reality at any moment.
----------

D Samarender Reddy said...

Agnostic, thanks for Wei Wu Wei's comments on destiny.

Sanjay Lohia said...

first cause, Bhagavan teaches us in the seventh paragraph of Nan Yar?:

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

When Bhagavan says that the world, soul and God are imaginations, ‘soul’ here means our ego or mind. Bhagavan, therefore, clearly says that the ego is totally unreal. It seems to exist in waking and dream but is not there in sleep, and therefore what is not there in all our three states cannot be real. As Bhagavan says, ‘What actually exists is only ātma-svarūpa [our own essential self]’, and only atma-svarupa remains in all our three states. So only atma-svarupa is real, and everything else, including the ego is totally unreal.

What seems to be the ego is nothing but pure self-awareness, like what seems to be a snake is nothing but a rope (in the rope and snake analogy). However, the ego is the spurious adjunct-mixed self-awareness that rises as ‘I am this body’. It is chit-jada-granthi (the knot formed by the entanglement of awareness with an insentient body). As this imaginary knot the ego is unreal. This imaginary knot is also called chidabhasa (abhasa or reflection of our true self). A mirror may have a reflection of light, but such reflection is not real. What is real is only the original light which makes this reflection possible.

Yes, one part of this ego is pure self-consciousness, but as a knot of pure self-consciousness and insentient body this ego is not real.

You say, ‘Can the ego seem to exist and create/project the world without any content of consciousness?’ The ego cannot project and create the world without the borrowed light of pure consciousness. However, pure consciousness is not the creator of this world. What projects this world in the ego, which is the spurious adjunct-mixed self-awareness that rises as ‘I am this body’. This adjunct mixed self-awareness is also called the thought called ‘I’. When this thought called 'I' rises, it projects other thoughts, and these thoughts (or images) constitutes this world.

Sanjay Lohia said...

nun mati, Michael said in his latest video:

Ulladu Narpadu is a phenomenon, so it appears in our waking and dream, but disappears in our sleep. So, like all other phenomena, it cannot be real. But it is extremely useful in our waking and dream because it is pointing us in the right direction in which we should be looking.

Ulladu Narpadu will appear in our dream only when we are ready for it. If we read Ulladu Narpadu before we are ready for it, we may not be attracted to the extremely radical and profound teachings contained in it. However, we can try bringing it in our dream by trying to read and reflect on the meaning of its verses.

I agree, ‘an effective practice will not take place without a profound understanding of Bhagavan's teaching’. However, the more we practise, the more clearly we will understand his teachings, and the more we reflect on his teachings, deeper will be our practice.

Shankara says: Manana (reflection) is hundred times more powerful (or purifying) that mere sravana (listening or reading), and nidhidyasana (self-investigation) is hundred thousand times more powerful (or purifying) than manana.

I tried to put this message of Shankara in my own words, when I wrote: ‘Five minutes of deep and one-pointed self-investigation is more beneficial than five hours of reading and reflecting on Bhagavan’s teachings. Only our practice can destroy our ego’.

first cause said...

Sanjay Lohia,
you state " However, the ego is the spurious adjunct-mixed self-awareness that rises as ‘I am this body’. It is chit-jada-granthi (the knot formed by the entanglement of awareness with an insentient body). As this imaginary knot the ego is unreal."
and
"Yes, one part of this ego is pure self-consciousness, but as a knot of pure self-consciousness and insentient body this ego is not real."

When we take a look at the gigantic power of the ego for instance

1. to seem to exist,
2. to borrow the light of pure consciousness
3. to function as that spurious adjunct-mixed self-awareness
4. to function as a knot,
5. to project the entire universe,
6. to be a part of pure self-consciousness

the ego cannot be or mentioned as totally unreal.

nuṇ mati said...

Sanjay Lohia,
in these days I try to reflect on the meaning of the verses of Ulladu Narpadu.

Sanjay Lohia said...

first cause, according to Bhagavan, there are three strict criteria for reality. A thing can be called real only if:

1) It is permanent
2) It is unchanging
3) It shines by its own light

Does the ego meet these three criteria? Is it permanent? Obviously not, since it is there in only two of our three states. It is not there is sleep. Is it unchanging? No, it waxes and wanes depending on the strength of its vishaya vasanas (inclinations, which are the seeds of our desires). Does it shine by its own light? Again no, because it borrows the light of pure self-consciousness, even for its seeming existence.

Moreover, Bhagavan repeatedly stresses in Ulladu Narpadu, Upadesa Undiyar and Nan Yar? that if the ego is investigated carefully enough, it will take flight – that is, it will vanish never to appear again. If it is real, why should it vanish forever?

It seems to be real, but this is all maya. A non-existent ego comes into existence by grasping form! Isn’t it unbelievable? How can a thing which doesn’t even exist, rise and grasp things? That too grasps things, which never existed before it grasped them. Again how can such a non-existent ego project this vast and mind-boggling world? It is all beyond the range of our imagination. Bhagavan calls this mind an atisaya sakti in 4th paragraph 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.

The effects of this atisaya sakti (mind or ego) will always baffle us, until we know by self-investigation that it does not exist, and it fact has never actually existed.

first cause said...

Sanjay Lohia,
thanks again for your reply.
Yes, what you say is not wrong. Hence I consider it as an quite acceptable view.

asat said...

verse 7,
linked 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
section 16. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 12: real awareness is our actual self, which shines without anything else to know or to cause to know

"As we actually are, we are just pure awareness — that is, awareness that is uncontaminated with awareness of anything other than itself, because in its clear view nothing other than itself exists or even seems to exist for it to know, as Bhagavan explains in verse 12 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu.


However, though the real awareness that we actually are is completely devoid of any knowledge or ignorance of anything other than itself, including any ego to know or be ignorant of any other things, Bhagavan says it is not a void."

Since what actually exists is only ātma-svarūpa, our own real nature, as Bhagavan says in the first sentence of the seventh paragraph of Nāṉ Yār?, ‘யதார்த்தமா யுள்ளது ஆத்மசொரூப மொன்றே’ (yathārtham-āy uḷḷadu ātma-sorūpam oṉḏṟē), neither the ego nor anything else actually exists.
So from the above I conclude that even an "awareness of everything other than ourself" or an "awareness of anything other than itself" does not at all actually exist.

asat said...

verse 7,
linked article of Tuesday, 11 August 2015 What is cidābhāsa, the reflection of self-awareness?
I refer to some passages:

"Since this ego can rise only by attaching itself to a body, it cannot seem to exist without experiencing a body as itself, and hence it can be described either as cit-jaḍa-granthi (the knot that seems to bind ourself, who are cit, and this body, which is jaḍa, together as if we were one) or as cidābhāsa (a reflection or semblance of cit shining in this body). Therefore the body we identify as ourself is the reflecting medium or surface, our ego is the reflection in it, and what is reflected in it is ourself. In other words, we are the original, our ego is the reflection, and the mirror in which this reflection appears is our body."

"Just as a cinema picture shines by the light in the projector but would disappear in the bright light of the sun, the world shines by the reflected light called mind but would disappear in the original light, which is the pure self-awareness that we actually are."
"Whereas the original light that we actually are is never aware of anything other than ourself, the reflected light called mind or ego is never aware of itself alone, but is always aware of itself plus other things. Thus we use this reflected light that we now experience as ourself to constantly experience other things, which seem to exist only because they are illumined by this reflected light. Therefore if we are to experience ourself as the pure self-awareness that we actually are, we must cease using this reflected light to experience other things and must instead try to use it to experience ourself alone. In other words, we must try to turn and redirect this reflected light back on its source, ourself."

It is said that the body consists of five sheaths. Which sheath(s) exactly is (are) the reflecting medium in the above context ?

Sanjay Lohia said...

asat, you ask, ‘It is said that the body consists of five sheaths. Which sheath(s) exactly is (are) the reflecting medium in the above context?’ May I try responding to this?

General belief about this panch kosas (five sheaths) is that they are like layers, one on top of the other. However, Bhagavan clarified that it is not so. These five are all mixed up, and therefore they should not be considered as existing in layers. Bhagavan also clarified that our all the five sheaths are included in the term ‘body’ – that is, all these five appear together and also disappear together. He clarifies this in the fifth verse of Ulladu Narpadu:

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?

Therefore, our body as whole – all the five sheaths together – is the reflecting medium or surface of the ego. At least, this is how I understand it.







Sanjay Lohia said...

Guru Ramana (p. 46), by S. Cohen

Q: Than [self] is the transcendent state.

Bhagavan: No. Transcending what, and by whom? You alone exist.

My note: Bhagavan never admitted that anything exists apart from oneself. As he says in Nan Yar?: What exists is only atma-svarupa. A question may arise, ‘If nothing exists apart from ourself, why does Bhagavan base his teaching assuming that the ego exists?’ It is because we experience ourself as this ego. So Bhagavan had to come down to our level, and start from our current experience. However, his entire teachings are based on the need to annihilate the ego, so that we experience ourself as we really are.

asat said...

Sanjay Lohia,
thank you for your response. I too comprehend our body as a unity of all the five sheaths together. Because I do not trust my mind I put the question.
As you imply these five adjuncts (Sanskrit: pancha-kosas) have no independent real being/consciousness of their own and are therefore only impermanent.

asat said...

Sanjay Lohia,
indeed Bhagavan's teachings are primarily a concession to our lack of experience and ignorance.

moonlight said...

verse 13,
linked article of Sunday, 14 June 2009
Ulladu Narpadu – an explanatory paraphrase

"In verse 13 he says that self, which is jnana (knowledge or consciousness), alone is real; that manifold knowledge (knowledge or consciousness of multiplicity) is only ajnana (ignorance); and that even such ignorance, which is unreal, is nothing other than self (its only real substance), which is jnana, just as all the many ornaments, which are unreal (as separate forms), are not other than gold (the real substance of which they are made)."
Reading "that even such ignorance, which is unreal, is nothing other than self (its only real substance), which is jnana, just as all the many ornaments, which are unreal (as separate forms), are not other than gold (the real substance of which they are made)."
one might derive that one could quiete without any disadvantage remain in ajnana.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Bhagavan: It is the mind which blows up everything

Once Ranga Iyer asked Bhagavan: How many lives more will it take me to get liberated?

Bhagavan: There is no such thing as time and space; in one hour you can dream of myriad experiences, in a cinema – in a tiny film, you see mighty oceans, mountains and temples in quick succession. It is the mind which blows up everything.

My note: The concept time and space is an integral part of our mind, but as our mind is a fiction, so also is time and space. Therefore, whatever seems to happen in time and space should not be taken seriously, because, as Bhagavan teaches us, mind will always blow up all happenings.

As Bhagavan implies, in one hour we can experience our life story advancing 70 years, or in a tiny film we can see the picture of gigantic mountains and oceans. So the mind will always distort things, and make it seem much bigger than they actually are. The mind makes a mountain out of a molehill – that is, it blows up every little problem out of its proportion. So we should be wary of accepting whatever our mind wants us to believe as real.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Bhagavan: We have to content against age-long mental tendencies. They will all go. Only they go comparatively soon in the case of those who have made sadhana in the past and later in the case of others.

My note: What a great assurance by Bhagavan! If we are practising self-investigation, we are valiantly fighting against our age-long vishaya vasanas (inclination to experience objects). Can we ever lose this battle? No, we cannot, because, as Bhagavan assures us, these vasanas will all go.

These vasanas disappear comparatively sooner ‘in the case of those who have made sadhana in the past and later in the case of others’. So our spiritual efforts accelerate our progress towards our goal, but even if we do not do any such effort, we will still reach our goal. It is just a question of time.

If a jiva is currently practicing intense self-investigation, he may reach the goal (atma-jnana) in, say, 1 or 2 births. If a jiva is engaged currently in puja or japa, he may reach in, say, 50 to 60 births. And if a jiva is currently not engaged in any spiritual practice, he will still reach the goal, but it may perhaps take him 700 to 800 births. He will also gradually and gradually start practising various sadhanas, until eventually he starts self-investigation.

So why should we do any sadhana, if we will anyhow reach our goal? Yes, if we want to suffer for say 700 or more births (as an example), we should definitely not make any spiritual efforts, but if want all our suffering and dissatisfaction to end as soon as possible, we will be well advised to persevere in our sadhana. Bhagavan implies all this when he says:

We have to content against age-long mental tendencies. They will all go. Only they go comparatively soon in the case of those who have made sadhana in the past and later in the case of others.

We can also draw the same conclusion from verse 8 of Sri Arunachala Ashtakam:

The water showered by the clouds, which rose from the ocean, will not stop, even if obstructed, until it reaches (its) abode, the ocean, (similarly) the embodied soul (the soul which rises as 'I am this body') rises from You (O Arunachala) and will not stop, though it wanders (or suffers) on the many paths which it encounters, until it reaches (or unites with) You.

moonlight said...

Sanjay Lohia,
when you say "We have to content against age-long mental tendencies."
you should use correctly the verb "contend" instead of the verb "content", because they have different meaning.

Sanjay Lohia said...

moonlight, thank you. Yes, it should have been, ‘We have to contend against age-long mental tendencies’. As I have found out, ‘contend’ is a verb which means: 'struggle to surmount (a difficulty)'.

Sanjay Lohia said...

A woman devotee: I wish to have your grace. When I am back in my place, I want to remember Bhagavan. May Bhagavan be pleased to grant my prayer.

Bhagavan: Where are you going? You are not going anywhere. […] The fact is that you are not the body. The Self does not move, the world moves in it. You are only what you are. So then, even after what looks like departure from here, you are here and there and everywhere. These scenes shift.

My note: Everything happens in our mind, and our mind seems to exist in ourself, so all happenings or movements seem to happen within ourself. Our body seems to move from place A to place B, but all these are like the movements in our dream. All change or movements are imaginary. In reality, we never move even an inch. As Bhagavan says, these scenes shift within us, but we do not shift. We are the ever immutable one.

If we identify ourself with our ego and body, it will seem that we are moving from place A to place B. However, if we are not this body, how can there be any movement for us? In such a case, who will move and how?

moonlight said...

Sanjay Lohia,
verse 8 of Sri Arunachala Ashtakam:
"The water showered by the clouds, which rose from the ocean, will not stop, even if obstructed, until it reaches (its) abode, the ocean, (similarly) the embodied soul (the soul which rises as 'I am this body') rises from You (O Arunachala) and will not stop, though it wanders (or suffers) on the many paths which it encounters, until it reaches (or unites with) You."
What is the use/gain of the rising of the embodied soul, its suffering on the many paths and again uniting with you, Arunachala ?
Arunachala, why must just embodied souls contribute/attend to your entertainment ? Why did you choose just this kind of amusement for you ? Because many other things would have great entertainment value you easily could provide another entertainment for you.

moonlight said...

Are we not resigned ourself to the irrevocable fate of identification with the body and ego ?

Anonymous said...

A partial quote from Sadhanai Saram, vs 50c


If one could see one's own defects, as clearly as one sees the defects of the others who are in front of one.......

reading these quotes made me stop and think about myself....am I guilty of finding defects in others? the answer is yes and often so subtle that its difficult to realize it.

Just thought I would pass it along....it if helped me, it may help someone else.

Take care

Anonymous said...

correction

....it if helped me, it may help someone else.

should read "It helped me and may help someone else"

Sanjay Lohia said...

moonlight, yes, it is foolishness to rise as this embodied soul. It is like a person who is peacefully resting in shade unnecessary goes out in the hot Tiruvannamalai sun, but soon tries to get back to the shade to escape the severity of heat. Why to rise as this ego and undergo untold miseries, and consequently perform all sorts of sadhana to get back to our source. Why rise as this ego in the first place?

However, Bhagavan would ask, ‘Have you risen as the ego? Find this out before you decide as to how you can return to your source’. If we investigate the ego, it will take flight. This is the direct path for all, says Bhagavan. We will then realise that we never rose at this ego. Such delusion was merely the play of maya.

Arunachala is not even witnessing our rising or setting, so we cannot blame him for our plight in any way. It is all our doing, and therefore only we should get back to our source by investigating: who am I, who have risen as this ego? This is the infallible means to end all our problems once and for all.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Anonymous, as Sri Sadhu Om says, ‘see one's own defects, as clearly as one sees the defects of the others who are in front of one’. Yes, I am one of those experts who easily see faults in others, but am unable to see my own faults. I think this could be true for many of us.

However, what is our greatest and, according to Bhagavan, the only real fault? It is our rising as this ego. If we can rectify this root fault, our other faults will automatically correct themselves. All other faults are just the symptoms, whereas the disease is our ego. If we can get rid of the disease, all its symptoms will go along with it.

moonlight said...

Sanjay Lohia,
in the quoted verse 8 of Sri Arunachala Ashtakam Sri Bhagavan himself states that
"the embodied soul (the soul which rises as 'I am this body') rises from You (O Arunachala) and will not stop, though it wanders (or suffers) on the many paths which it encounters, until it reaches (or unites with) You."
Therefore saying "that we never rose at this ego" does not coincide with the quoted verse. Which statement/opinion is now correct ?

Sanjay Lohia said...

moonlight, if a friend and I are walking in dark and if I happen to see a snake on our path, I will get afraid of it. However, it is only a rope, but as long as it appears as a snake I will hesitate to go near it, because to my eyes it is nothing but a snake. However, my friend does not see any snake there, but sees the rope as the rope.

So is there a snake there or not? It is there in my view, but not there in the view of my friend. Likewise as long as we experience ourself as an ego, for all practical purposes we cannot deny the existence of our ego, but for Bhagavan there is no ego, because he experiences only himself without the least trace of any ego anywhere.

Bhagavan says in Nan Yar? that what exists is only atma-svarupa, and therefore the ego seems to exist only in its own view, but not in his view. Therefore, ego has risen in its own view, but it has never risen in the view of ourself as we really are. Does this makes sense?

moonlight said...

Sanjay Lohia,
when you say "but for Bhagavan there is no ego, because he experiences only himself without the least trace of any ego anywhere." may I conclude that Bhagavan in the quoted sentence "the embodied soul(the soul which rises as 'I am this body') rises from You(O Arunachala)..." simply missed to insert after the verb "rises" the words "only in its own view" - perhaps for reasons of poetry/metre ?

pratiphalana said...

verse 11,
a.) linked article of Tuesday, 22 September 2015 Self-knowledge is not a void (śūnya)
13. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 11: knowing anything other than oneself is ignorance

"...according to Bhagavan the very nature of our ego is to know only other things but not itself. Knowing other things is possible only when we do not know ourself, who knows, and this is why he says that it is not real knowledge but only ignorance. To make this clear, in the next sentence he says that when we know ourself, the ādhāra or basis of knowledge and ignorance about other things, such knowledge and ignorance will cease to exist."
b.) linked article of Thursday, 10 December 2015 Thought of oneself will destroy all other thoughts
7. Our ego and its dream creation do not exist in the clear view of our actual self
"Being aware of otherness or multiplicity is not real knowledge but only ignorance, as Bhagavan says in verse 11 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu."



c.) linked 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
15. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 11: when we know the non-existence of the ego, knowledge and ignorance of everything else will cease

"Since what knows or is aware of any phenomena is only the ego, knowledge and ignorance of them is a feature only of this ego and not of our actual self, in whose clear view no phenomena exist either to be known or not known. However, whatever else it may know or not know, this ego does not know what it itself is, and not knowing this is real ignorance, as Bhagavan says in verse 11 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu:
...
"‘When one knows oneself, the basis for knowledge and the other [ignorance], knowledge and ignorance will cease’, is that when we know the non-existence of the ego by investigating what we actually are, knowledge and ignorance of other things will cease to exist, because they seem to exist only in the self-deluded view of ourself as this ego and not in the clear view of ourself as we actually are, as he explains in the next verse."


How can I ward off being aware of other things ? I cannot switch off my ignorance (knowing other things) and switch on knowing myself at the touch of a button.

Sanjay Lohia said...

pratiphalana, You ask, ‘How can I ward off being aware of other things? I cannot switch off my ignorance (knowing other things) and switch on knowing myself at the touch of a button’. I think, the following 2 verses from Bhagavad Gita could answers your doubts:

Bhagavad Gita verse 6.25 (verse 27 of Bhagavad Gita Saram): By [an] intellect [a power of discrimination or discernment] imbued with firmness [steadfastness, resolution, persistence or courage] one should gently and gradually withdraw [one’s mind] from [all] activity. Having made [one’s] mind stand form in atman, one should not think even a little of anything else.

Bhagavad Gita verse 6.26 (verse 28 of Bhagavad Gita Saram): Wherever the ever-wavering and unsteady mind goes, restraining [or withdrawing] it from there one should subdue it [by always keeping it firmly fixed] only in atman.

So we cannot switch off our ignorance (knowing other things) like switching off a light or fan. We need to work towards it, and we can cultivate such a habit by, as Bhagavad Gita says, trying to gently and gradually withdraw our mind from all activities. So, whenever we can or to whatever extent we can, we should slowly but surely try to restrain our outgoing mind by turning it inwards. There is no other way.

How does one learn to ride a bicycle? One has to start riding it, fall a few times, and try again and again until one succeeds. A time will come when riding it will become very easy. Likewise, when we start to practise self-investigation it may seem difficult to us, but as we go along we will find practising self-investigation to be as simple and easy as riding a bicycle. It is all a matter of perseverance and patience.

Sanjay Lohia said...

moonlight, Bhagavan would never speak or write even one word which was not required. He generally spoke and wrote using very few words, because he preferred frugality and simplicity.

Therefore, when Bhagavan wrote, ‘the embodied soul(the soul which rises as 'I am this body') rises from You (O Arunachala)...’, he didn’t miss to insert after the verb ‘rises’ the words ‘only in its own view’ for reasons of poetry/metre, as you seem to imply.

When we rise as an ego, we do not think that we have risen only in our own view. We feel that others also see us as we see ourself – that is, others also see us as this ego. So Bhagavan would come down to our level, and at times seem to imply that there are many egos which rise and subside all at any given time.

How can a spiritual novice understand that there is only one ego, and that too it rises only in its own view? After studying and reflecting so much on Bhagavan’s teachings, even we cannot comprehend or fully accept that there is only one ego, and that we are that one ego. So Bhagavan did admit that the world we see has a seeming existence, and that there are many egos in this world, because this is how we see this world.

However, in his clear view there is no world (in fact, there never was one), and therefore no egos. In his view even one ego doesn't exist, so how can this one ego rise? But he did explain that this ego rises by grasping forms. So he was instructing us according to our needs or present experience.

moonlight said...

Sanjay Lohia,
thank you for your comment.
May it so be as you write.

pratiphalana said...

Sanjay Lohia,
thank you for your response and quoting two verses from Bhagavad Gita.
Regarding verse VI-25(verse 27 of Bhagavad Gita Saram) I do not understand the words "stand form" of the sentence "Having made [one's ] mind stand form in atman,...".
Presumably you wanted to express the meaning "made the mind abide or inhere in atman".
As you say, to get the mind controlled with the help of self-investigation requires a lot of patience. So the mind will not easily or automatically remain established in atman but is made steady and controlled only by long practice and repeated withdrawal.

Sanjay Lohia said...

What we believe to be a finite chair is actually the infinite ‘I’

In the course of a conversation, Bhagavan once said that the slab we sit on is also brahman. Why? It is because the slab is just a thought or idea in our mind. What actually exists there is only infinite ‘I’ or brahman. I think, Bhagavan was trying to teach us exactly this when he wrote in verse 18 of Ulladu Narpadu:

To those who do not have knowledge and to those who have, the world is real. To those who do not know, reality is [limited to] the extent of the world, [whereas] to those who have known, reality pervades devoid of form as the ādhāra [support, substratum or foundation] for the world. This is the difference between them. Consider.

What we see as the world, the jnani sees as infinite ‘I’, so the world is not unreal for him. We may not be able to grasp this very subtle point. However, we should understand that the jnani experiences only the adhara (support, substratum or foundation) of this world, and, as Bhagavan says, this adhara is devoid of all form. So in simple terms, the jnani doesn’t see any world, but experiences only himself.

In this context, Michael once wrote to me (in reply to one of my emails):

The mind knows that the chair is a chair, an object of wood, etc., but this is not what the chair actually is. If we analyse a little deeper, both the chair and the wood are ideas in our mind, and we have no way of proving to ourself that any chair or wood actually exists independent of our ideas of them. Hence Bhagavan says that the whole world is nothing but ideas or thoughts, as for example in the fourth and fourteenth paragraphs of Nan Yar?:

Except thoughts [or ideas], there is separately no such thing as ‘world’.

What is called the world is only thought.

And if we analyse further, ideas are just an expansion of our ego, and hence Bhagavan says in verse 26 of Ulladu Narpadu: ‘The ego itself is everything’. And if we investigate this ego, we will find it to be nothing other than our essential self, which is the one infinite reality.

Therefore what we believe to be a finite chair is actually the infinite ‘I’. This is why it is said that (suttarivu), the mind, indicates that something exists without being able to know what that something actually is.

Sanjay Lohia said...

pratiphalana, Bhagavad Gita verse 6.25 (verse 27 of Bhagavad Gita Saram) should read as:

By [an] intellect [a power of discrimination or discernment] imbued with firmness [steadfastness, resolution, persistence or courage] one should gently and gradually withdraw [one’s mind] from [all] activity. Having made [one’s] mind stand firm in atman, one should not think even a little of anything else.

I had typed ‘form’, whereas it should have been ‘firm’.

ādhāra said...

Sanjay Lohia,
you write "...both the chair and the wood are ideas in our mind, and we have no way of proving to ourself that any chair or wood actually exists independent of our ideas of them. Hence Bhagavan says that the whole world is nothing but ideas or thoughts, as for example in the fourth and fourteenth paragraphs of Nan Yar?:

Except thoughts [or ideas], there is separately no such thing as ‘world’.

What is called the world is only thought."

However, Bhagavan did not say that we as an ego are excluded from the "world". On the contrary it is said that we are part of the world in waking and dreaming.
So we can conclude that we too are only an idea or a thought or a projection.
We definitely do not even have proof/evidence that we exist independent of our idea of that. Therefore we cannot reasonable/well-founded have to presume that we are more than an idea. There is no evidence to support this thesis.
Nevertheless we can put our trust in Bhagavan Ramana because he inspires confidence and looks trustworthy. To follow Bhagavan's teaching is even urgently necessary.

adhara said...

verse 12,
linked article of Tuesday, 22 September 2015 Self-knowledge is not a void (śūnya),
14. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 12: we are not a void, though devoid of knowledge and ignorance

"Therefore the knowledge that is devoid of such knowledge and ignorance is only self-knowledge or pure self-awareness — that is, the clear experience of ourself as we actually are."

"Its primary implication is ontological, namely that nothing other than ourself actually exists, and its secondary implication is epistemic, namely that there is therefore nothing other than ourself either to know or to make known."

"...therefore, that what makes us known to ourself is only ourself and not any other thing, so we are self-shining or svayam-prakāśa."

Therefore the conclusive view of Bhagavan is that our ego and all that it experiences or knows is wholly unreal, and this is why in the next verse he says that manifold knowledge or knowledge of multiplicity (which implies knowledge of anything other than ourself) is not only ignorance but is also unreal."

To exist as an ego is nothing but extreme senselessness and pointlessness.
It remains a mystery to me why I ever could choose to (seemingly) exist in the form of an ego. Certainly it was my prarabdha-karma.
Shall I not lay down immediately all my attachments to the world i.e. particularly my likes to the feet of Arunachala ?

Sanjay Lohia said...

adhara, yes, without any doubt we should fully trust Bhagavan. If by chance we aren’t able to fully trust him, such trust will surely ripen the more we try to follow his path, the more we try to turn within to see who we actually are.

Yes, we (our ego and our body) are nothing but an idea, but who has this idea? It is only our ego – the ego imagines itself to be the ego, and therefore creates its own separation and limitation. So as you imply in your latest comment, to exist as this ego utter foolishness. We who are infinite, limit ourself as this body and then lament that we are miserable. Can we be more foolish?

We seem to exist as this ego, but are we this ego? If we investigate this ego, we will find that the ego does not exist. Bhagavan says this is the direct path for all. Our prarabdha karma has not created this ego, but the ego has created all our karmas by choosing to ignore itself and by going after objective pursuits.

So as you say, we should surrender all our attachments at the feet of Arunachala, and we can do it only by surrendering our ego who has these attachments, and the only way to surrender our ego is by turning our entire gaze within to see what this ego actually is. Arunachala or Bhagavan is ourself as we actually are.

adhara said...

verse 12,
linked 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
16. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 12: real awareness is our actual self, which shines without anything else to know or to cause to know

"As we actually are, we are just pure awareness — that is, awareness that is uncontaminated with awareness of anything other than itself, because in its clear view nothing other than itself exists or even seems to exist for it to know, as Bhagavan explains in verse 12 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu"

"What actually exists is only ātma-svarūpa [our own real self]’, so when we are aware of ourself as we actually are, we are aware of ourself alone, because nothing else exists for us to be aware of. It is only when we rise as this ego that other things seem to exist, and so long as they seem to exist, we can either know or be ignorant of each particular one of them."

"...that what causes the ego to know other things is not our actual self but only the ego’s own self-ignorance. Indeed, since nothing else exists in the clear awareness that we actually are, there is not only nothing else to know but also nothing else — no ego — to know anything else or to be caused to know anything else."

"...what we actually are is the infinite and indivisible fullness of sat-cit-ānanda — being, awareness and happiness — since it alone exists and shines eternally as it is."

How can I leave back that outrageous ignorance which cries out to heaven ?
Oh Arunachala, how can you bear that I went insane ?

adhara said...

Sanjay Lohia,
as you say, the only way to surrender our ego is by turning our entire gaze within to see what this ego actually is. Arunachala or Bhagavan is ourself as we actually are.

adhara said...

verse 12,
linked article of Saturday, 28 January 2017 Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 12: other than the real awareness that we actually are, there is nothing to know or make known
8. The fifth sentence: know or be aware

"Bhagavan concludes this verse with a single-word sentence, ‘அறி’ (aṟi), which means ‘know’ or ‘be aware’ (since it is the root of this verb and therefore serves as an imperative when used on its own like this). In this context this imperative can simply imply ‘know what is stated here (either in the previous sentence or in this entire verse)’, but it can also imply ‘be aware of yourself thus (as the one real awareness that you actually are, which alone exists and which therefore shines without anything else to know or make known)’."
Arunachala, may you be inclined to make me able and ready to carry out your unambigious instruction ?

adhara said...

sorry ! Arunachala, a misspelling. The correct spelling is "unambiguous" instruction.

adhara said...

verse 12,
linked article of Thursday, 6 July 2017 What we actually are is just pure self-awareness: awareness that is aware of nothing other than itself

"...all we need do is investigate what we ourself actually are, because that is the only way to eradicate the ego or mind (the false awareness that is aware of things other than itself) and thereby achieve perfect clarity: clarity of pure self-awareness."
I should like it best if I could achieve perfect clarity of pure self-awareness today,
the sooner, the better. As a beginner I am afraid that it cannot be done at such short notice.

adhara said...

verse 12,
linked article of Thursday, 13 July 2017 Pure self-awareness is not nothingness but the only thing that actually exists

"...we seem to be this ego only when we are aware of phenomena, so awareness of phenomena is the very nature of the ego. It appears and co-exists with the ego in waking and dream, and disappears with it in sleep.

Since the ego does not exist in sleep, in its view sleep seems to be a state of nothingness. However, though the ego does not exist then, in sleep we exist and are aware of our existence, and hence after waking we know ‘I slept’.

The ‘I’ that existed and was aware that it existed in sleep is not the ego but what we actually are. However, since we now experience ourself as this phenomena-knowing ego, we seem to be not aware of ourself as we actually are, and hence we do not have a clear impression of what we were actually aware of in sleep, which is nothing other than the pure self-awareness that we actually are.

All this will become clear to us to the extent that we practise being keenly and persistently self-attentive, because the more keenly and persistently self-attentive we are, the more familiar we will become with self-awareness in isolation (or at least relative isolation) from all phenomena."

I do not even have a clear impression of what I am actually aware of in waking.
To be keenly self-attentive I first must learn practising by practice.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Bhagavan’s path requires us to believe only ‘I am’

In reply to one of my e-mails, Michael once wrote to me:

As Sadhu Om often used to say, all other spiritual paths require us to believe so many things that we do not know, whereas Bhagavan’s path requires us to believe only ‘I am’, which is the only thing that we actually know for certain. Therefore Bhagavan helps us to shed so many unnecessary beliefs, which helps us greatly in our effort to be interested only in ‘I’.

My note: So very true. Why does Michael say that ‘I am’ is the only thing that we actually know? It is because only our experience of ‘I am’ is permanent and unchanging. Whatever we experience other than ourself could be a dream. How can we be sure that these are not part of dream?

In dream we experience so many things, but when we wake up we realise that whatever we experienced were all a passing show, and therefore was merely a creation of our mind. So how can we be sure that all this is not just another dream? In fact, according to Bhagavan, everything other than ourself is nothing but a dream.

As Michael says, Bhagavan helps us to shed so many unnecessary beliefs. How? Since all our beliefs presupposes the existence of an external world, and if this world doesn't exist, all our beliefs have no real foundation. So Bhagavan repeatedly brings our attention back to ‘I’. Who has all these beliefs? Thus Bhagavan’s doesn’t allow our attention to be dissipated towards other things.

Therefore, Bhagavan’s teachings are unique. We don't need to believe in anything other than ‘I am’. Can any other path be simpler than this? It is just not possible.


unmai said...

Sanjay Lohia,
you say "We don't need to believe in anything other than 'I am'. Can any other path be simpler than this? It is just not possible."
Only to believe "That I am " is certainly simply but does that lead to being only ourself ?

unmai said...

verse 13,
linked article of Sunday, 14 June 2009 Ulladu Narpadu – an explanatory paraphrase,

"In verse 13 he says that self, which is jnana (knowledge or consciousness), alone is real; that manifold knowledge (knowledge or consciousness of multiplicity) is only ajnana (ignorance); and that even such ignorance, which is unreal, is nothing other than self (its only real substance), which is jnana, just as all the many ornaments, which are unreal (as separate forms), are not other than gold (the real substance of which they are made)."
That the unreal (ignorance) can appear as the real substance is at least surprising.
Of course, (how) can the mind ever grasp such a paradox ?

unmai said...

verse 13,
linked article of Tuesday, 22 September 2015 Self-knowledge is not a void (śūnya),
17. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 13: since we alone are real, being aware of anything else is ignorance

"Since what is real is only ourself, who are pure self-awareness, nothing other than ourself actually exists, so whatever else seems to exist is not real but just an illusion or false appearance. Therefore knowing anything other than ourself is not knowledge but only ignorance. Since we ourself are one, whatever appears as many is not ourself and hence not real, so knowledge or awareness of multiplicity is just a delusion."
In order to actively oppose to that ignorance of knowing anything other than ourself we must not allow to rise as an ego. But unfortunately this seems to be unavoidable - at least in my present state of endeavour/sadhana.

unmai said...

verse 13,
linked article of Tuesday, 22 September 2015 Self-knowledge is not a void (śūnya)
16. Upadēśa Taṉippākkaḷ verse 12: being aware of multiplicity is ignorance

"However, in the second sentence of this verse Bhagavan does not only say that knowledge that sees as many is ignorance, but also says that it does not exist besides ourself, who are real knowledge. The entire sentence is ‘நானாவாய் காண்கின்ற ஞானம் அன்றி இன்று ஆம் அஞ்ஞானம் தான் ஞானம் ஆம் தன்னை அன்றி இன்று’ (nāṉā-v-āy kāṇgiṉḏṟa ñāṉam aṉḏṟi iṉḏṟu ām aññāṉam tāṉ ñāṉam ām taṉṉai aṉḏṟi iṉḏṟu), which means ‘ignorance, which is nothing other than knowledge that sees as many, itself does not exist apart from oneself, who is knowledge’. In this context தன்னை (taṉṉai), which means ‘oneself’, refers to our actual self, as indicated by the relative clause ‘ஞானம் ஆம்’ (ñāṉam ām), which means ‘who is knowledge’ and which implies that we are real knowledge (the knowledge referred to in the first sentence).

The final words of this sentence, ‘தன்னை அன்றி இன்று’ (taṉṉai aṉḏṟi iṉḏṟu) mean that ignorance (ajñāna) ‘does not exist apart from [besides, excluding or as other than] oneself’, and to illustrate this in the next two sentences he uses the analogy of gold and ornaments made of it. Just as the many ornaments into which gold can be formed are impermanent, so all phenomena and the ego that experiences them are just transitory appearances, and according to Bhagavan whatever is not permanent is not real (that is, it does not actually exist but merely seems to exist). Hence he says ‘அணிகள் தாம் பலவும் பொய்’ (aṇigaḷ tām palavum poy), which means ‘all the many ornaments are unreal’. However, just as the variety of gold ornaments could not exist if there were no gold, so the ego and all the phenomena it experiences could not seem to exist if their real substance, which is ourself, did not actually exist. This is what he implies in the final sentence, ‘மெய் ஆம் பொன்னை அன்றி உண்டோ?’ (mey ām poṉṉai aṉḏṟi uṇḍō?), which means ‘do they exist apart from gold, which is real?’.

Thus in this verse Bhagavan implies that the only real substance is ourself, who are pure self-awareness, and that nothing else actually exists. Whatever else seems to exist seems to exist only in the limited and distorted view of our ego or mind, which is the awareness that experiences our single self as multifarious phenomena, so the real substance underlying and supporting all these false appearances (namely our ego and all the phenomena it experiences) is our actual self (ātma-svarūpa)."

So my picture of the world-facts is now heartely if not entirely turned upside down.
First I have to march through that.

Noob said...

The dreams exist only because there is a dreamer

Noob said...

How to end the dreamer?

Noob said...

So hard

Noob said...

so hard to look at myself

unmai said...

verse 13,
linked article of Thursday, 10 December 2015 Thought of oneself will destroy all other thoughts
7. Our ego and its dream creation do not exist in the clear view of our actual self

"Therefore, since ignorance can be an attribute only of our ego and not of our actual self, what we actually are can never be aware of anything other than itself, nor can it ever be aware of itself as many different things."

There is nothing to add.

unmai said...

Noob,
try it again later. According to Bhagavan there is not actually a dreamer.

unmai said...

verse 13,
linked article of Wednesday, 16 March 2016 We are aware of ourself while asleep, so pure self-awareness alone is what we actually are
14. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 13: real awareness is ourself, whereas awareness of other things is ignorance

"...because we will clearly recognise that our fundamental intransitive awareness endures whether this illusory transitive awareness appears or disappears."

Yes.

unmai said...

verse 13,
linked 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
17. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 13: what is aware of multiplicity is not real awareness but only ignorance

"Thus in these two verses (verse 12 of Upadēśa Taṉippākkaḷ and verse 13 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu) Bhagavan says unequivocally that what is real is only ourself, who is jñāna (awareness), and that what sees this one real thing as many is therefore not real awareness but only ignorance. In saying this so clearly, he leaves no room for us to doubt the fact that according to him what is aware of multiplicity (everything other than the one real awareness that we actually are) is not ourself as we actually are but only ourself as this ego that we now seem to be."

Therefore I prefer to be aware of what I actually am.

unmai said...

verse 13,
linked article of Tuesday, 25 July 2017 What is aware of the absence of the ego and mind in sleep ?

"However, as this ego we can comprehend waking and dream (at least to a certain extent), but we cannot adequately comprehend sleep, because it is a state in which we (this ego) do not exist. Therefore if we want to grasp all this with perfect clarity, we need to grasp ourself with perfect clarity, and when we do so we will see that we alone exist and that there is therefore nothing else for us to grasp or comprehend."

"English translation: What always exists is only that ēkātma-vastu [one self-substance]. If at that time the ādi-guru [the original guru, Dakshinamurti] made that vastu known [only by] speaking without speaking, say, who can make it known [by] speaking?

What Bhagavan taught us in words is useful only to point out to us where we can find the silence in which everything (namely ourself, which is the only thing) will become clear, namely deep within ourself, in the very core of our being, where pure self-awareness shines all on its own."

May Arunachala eliminate all my deficiencies of understanding his teaching and make me ready to look in that depths of my consciousness where "pure self-awareness shines all on its own." .

unmai said...

verse 13,
linked article of Thursday, 27 July 2017 Any experience that is temporary is not manōnāśa and hence not 'self-realisation'
6. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 13: awareness of phenomena is not real awareness (jñāna) but only ignorance (ajñāna)
"Therefore the only experience or awareness we should take interest in is awareness devoid of phenomena, because it is the only awareness that is real, and it is what we actually are. Hence the aim and purpose of practising self-investigation (ātma-vicāra) is for us to cultivate passionate interest (love or bhakti) in being aware of ourself alone and thereby to wean our mind away from its interest in being aware of anything else whatsoever."

Let's try.

Sanjay Lohia said...

unmai, as you imply, we may believe only in ‘I am’, but that doesn’t mean that we will also experience only ‘I am’. When we repeatedly read Bhagavan’s teachings, we become more and more convinced that what exists is only ‘I am’ (atma-svarupa, oneself, pure self-consciousness, brahman, silence or whatever else we may call it).

Bhagavan repeatedly stressed on the unreality of this world. According to Bhagavan’s direct experience, what exists is only consciousness which is conscious only of itself, and the consciousness which knows other objects is nothing but an illusion.

However, this is not our direct experience, and until we directly experience it ourself, it will just remain an intellectual knowledge. Though such conviction is beneficial, it is not an end in itself. We need to practise unceasingly to experience this ‘I am’ in absolute isolation.

unmai said...

Sanjay Lohia,
to be in the position "to practise unceasingly to experience this 'I am' in absolute isolation" one must first have eradicated the ego's most damaging habits.

unmai said...

verse 14,
linked article of Sunday, 14 June 2009 Ulladu Narpadu – an explanatory paraphrase


"...but that if we scrutinise the truth of the first person, it will cease to exist, and along with it the second and third persons will also cease to exist, and that the remaining single (non-dual) தன்மை (tanmai) — ‘self-ness’, ‘essence’, ‘reality’, ‘first person’ or ‘state’ — alone is ‘self’, our own real state."

So in this translation the term 'first Person' has two contrary meanings which we must distinguish.

unmai said...

verse 14,
linked article of Monday, 10 January 2011 Second and third person objects
section 8,
The fundamental principle of Sri Ramana’s teachings

"This is the fundamental principle of Sri Ramana’s teachings: second and third persons appear to exist only so long as the first person appears to exist, and the first person appears to exist only so long as it does not attend to itself; if it attends to itself solely and exclusively — excluding from its attention even the slightest trace of any second or third person — it will cease to exist as the first person and will remain only as the one non-dual reality, the pristine self-conscious being ‘I am’."
...
Pramāda: the first person seems to exist only because we do not attend to it
"This fundamental difference between the first person and second and third persons is one of the crucial reasons why ātma-vicāra (self-investigation or self-attentiveness) is the only means by which we can experience ourself as we really are and thereby destroy the illusion that the mind (the ego or first person) is real.

The reason for this fundamental difference is that the first person is conscious whereas second and third persons are non-conscious. Because they are non-conscious, second and third persons appear to exist only when they are known by the first person, which is the only consciousness that can experience their seeming existence. And because the first person is the consciousness (the subject) that knows or experiences second and third persons (all objects), it appears to exist as such only so long as it is experiencing any of them. If it ceases to experience any of them by attending exclusively to itself, it will cease to be the first person that it now appears to be, and will remain instead as pure non-dual self-conscious being.

Therefore, if we attend to the first person, it will disappear, because it is truly non-existent as such, and when it disappears all second and third persons will disappear along with it, because their seeming existence depends upon its seeming existence."

Due to my unripeness I afforded to abstain from attending to the first person.
I should now pursue the needed self-attention unceasingly or at least so well I can.

unmai said...

verse 14,
linked 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

19. 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

"...since awareness of multiplicity is ignorance (ajñāna), and since ignorance is unreal, it does not actually exist, even though it seems to exist in the view of the unreal ego, so its seeming existence is entirely dependent on the actual existence of ourself, who alone are real. However, though we are the sole reality underlying and supporting the unreal appearance of ignorance (awareness of multiplicity), this ignorance does not seem to exist in the view of ourself as we actually are but only in the view of ourself as this ego, the first person, who rises and stands as ‘I am this body’, because if our actual self were aware of multiplicity it would be ignorance (ajñāna) and hence not real awareness (jñāna), which is one and indivisible."

Nothing to add.

unmai said...

verse 14,
linked article of Monday, 18 September 2017 What creates all thoughts is only the ego, which is the root and essence of the mind
7. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 14: other thoughts are second and third persons, which depend for their seeming existence on the ego, the first person
...
"Here Bhagavan uses the word தன்மை (taṉmai), which etymologically means ‘selfness’, in two different senses. In the first three occurrences of it in this verse it means the first person, the subject or ego, 'I', whereas in the fourth and final occurrence it means our real nature, which is the one infinite, indivisible and immutable self-awareness, other than which nothing exists. Other things (second and third persons) seem to exist only so long as we seem to be this ego (the first person), but if we investigate the truth of this ego keenly enough, it will cease to exist, and hence everything else will cease to exist along with it."

Yes, nothing to say.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Unmai, if we wait for all our damaging habits to be eradicated before we start to practise self-attentiveness, we will wait forever. Even if we are able to eradicate a few of our damaging habits, others will instead develop as we move along. So such a wait will be futile.

The best and the quickest means to eradicate our bad habits is our practice of self-attentiveness. Therefore we should start to practise self-attentiveness with whatever good or bad habits our mind may currently have. As Bhagavan teaches us the tenth paragraph of Nan Yar?:

However great a sinner a person may be, if instead of lamenting and weeping ‘I am a sinner! How am I going to be saved?’ he completely rejects the thought that he is a sinner and is zealous [or steadfast] in self-attentiveness, he will certainly be reformed [transformed into the true ‘form’ of thought-free self-conscious being].

You write in another comment: ‘So in this translation the term 'first Person' has two contrary meanings which we must distinguish’. What according to you are the two contradictory meanings of the term ‘first person’? According to my understanding, the term ‘first person’ has only one meaning, and it is ‘the ego’ (or ‘I am this body’ idea).

If I say, ‘I can see you, but I cannot see them’, the ‘I’ here is the first person, ‘you’ is the second person and ‘them’ is the third person.

You quote Michael in your latest comment as saying, ‘Therefore, if we attend to the first person, it will disappear, because it is truly non-existent as such, and when it disappears all second and third persons will disappear along with it, because their seeming existence depends upon its seeming existence’. This makes it clear that the term ‘first person’ means only the ego, because only if we attend to our ego, it will disappear along with everything else.

We should not confuse the term ‘first person’ with the person we take ourself to be (Unmai or Sanjay). In the term ‘first person’, the person does not literally mean the person (Unmai or Sanjay), it means the ‘first entity’ to come into existence, and this first entity is our ego.

unmai said...

Sanjay Lohia,
you are correct in saying that there is no reason for waiting to give up false habits.

When you further write "you write in another comment: ‘So in this translation the term 'first Person' has two contrary meanings which we must distinguish’. What according to you are the two contradictory meanings of the term ‘first person’? According to my understanding, the term ‘first person’ has only one meaning, and it is ‘the ego’ (or ‘I am this body’ idea)."
You may observe that actually I wrote "contrary" not "contradictory" meanings.
In this context please read carefully the mentioned comment of today at 12:13 and then my today comment at 13:06. You indeed will find different meanings of the Tamil term 'tanmai'.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Bhagavan’s path requires us to believe only ‘I am’ – part two

The following extract is taken the video 2017-11-11 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on the place of suffering (1: 02). As usual it is not verbatim:

Self-investigation is a path of clarity. What we are seeking ultimately is perfect clarity – clarity of self-awareness. This clarity of self-awareness is called atma-jnana or ‘self-realisation’ or whatever. So first we have to be clear at the mental level. We have to clear out unwanted beliefs, and simplify our understanding. That’s the key.

We have to be ready to let go of so many of our old beliefs and preconceptions, but we want to hold on to our old beliefs. Bhagavan once said, ‘Here it is not a matter of learning; it’s a matter of unlearning’. We come to Bhagavan with so many ideas and beliefs, but Bhagavan begins chipping away at all our beliefs.

So what is our most fundamental belief? It is our belief ‘I am this body’. All our other beliefs are based on this belief. Here I use ‘belief’ not in the superficial sense, because it’s my actual experience that ‘I am this body’. Bhagavan is repeatedly attacking and demolishing this belief in so many ways.

So Bhagavan is questioning even our most fundamental belief and experiences. He is systematically deconstructing everything we have built up. He is deconstructing our understanding. He is simplifying it down to as simple, simple that it can be.



Sanjay Lohia said...

Unmai, as Michael says, Bhagavan used tanmai (meaning ‘selfness’) in two different senses – it can either mean the ego or our true self. So we have to consider the context before deciding on the exact meaning of tanmai, whenever we come across this word in Bhagavan’s teachings.

However, when we use the word ‘first person’, according to my understanding, it is always used as a synonym for the ‘ego’. I will be glad if I am corrected, if my understanding is wrong in this regards.

unmai said...

Sanjay Lohia,
your understanding of the term "first person" generally as a synonym of the ego is surely correct. However, as I quoted yesterday from Michael's article of Sunday, 14 June 2009 Ulladu Narpadu – an explanatory paraphrase
"but that if we scrutinise the truth of the first person, it will cease to exist, and along with it the second and third persons will also cease to exist, and that the remaining single (non-dual) தன்மை (tanmai) — ‘self-ness’, ‘essence’, ‘reality’, ‘first person’ or ‘state’ — alone is ‘self’, our own real state."
you find the 'remaining single non-dual reality surprisingly also named as 'first person'.
Perhaps Michael can give an clarifying explanation.

unmai said...

verse 15,
"...[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."

linked article of Sunday, 14 June 2009 Ulladu Narpadu – an explanatory paraphrase
"... trying to know the past or future without knowing the truth of the present is like trying to count without knowing 'one' (the basic number of which all other numbers are constituted)."

Knowing 'one' is evidently synonymous with knowing the reality of the present which is our real nature. Isn't it ?

unmai said...

verse 16,
linked article of Sunday, 14 June 2009 Ulladu Narpadu – an explanatory paraphrase
"...when we keenly scrutinise ourself in the precise present place and precise present moment, 'here' and 'now', we will discover that 'we' alone truly exist and that time and place are completely non-existent."
"...since we are 'one' (the one non-dual immutable reality), now, then and always, here, there and everywhere, that which really exists is only 'we', who are devoid of time and place."
May it be so. Let me discover what truly exists.

unmai said...

verse 16,
linked article of Saturday, 25 January 2014 By discovering what ‘I’ actually is, we will swallow time
"We never actually experience time as such, but only experience change (against the static background of the ever-present and unchanging ‘I am’), and our experience of change creates the appearance of time. Therefore so long as we experience change we will be entangled in time, and hence the only way to transcend and become free of time is to attend only to ‘I am’. As Sri Ramana says in verse 13 of உபதேசத் தனிப்பாக்கள் (Upadēśa Taṉippākkaḷ) (which is the original version of the verse that he later modified as verse 16 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu):
...Therefore if we do not examine ourself, we will experience ourself as a body and hence time (particularly in the form of death) will swallow us, but if we do examine ourself, we will find that we alone exist, and thus we will have swallowed time."

"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."

Which big amount of blindness made me serve other interests more than to destroy my present illusion...? Arunachala, why do you allow me to act as a complete fool ?
How can you know whether I will ever be ready to finish such an insane conduct ?
Are you perhaps even delighted by the celebration of my hair-raising negligence ?





unmai said...

verse 16,
linked article of Tuesday, 31 March 2015 All phenomena are just a dream, and the only way to wake up is to investigate who is dreaming
7. Physical space appears only in our mental space, and our mental space appears only in the space of our self-awareness

"So long as we experience time and space, we are experiencing ourself as if we were this ego, which always experiences itself as a body, through which we perceive a world constructed within a framework of time and space. As this ego, we experience ourself as the centre and reference point from which we experience every other point in time and space. Without experiencing ourself as this ego, we cannot experience any time or space, which is why we do not experience either time or space during sleep, in which we experience ourself without experiencing our ego or anything else.

Since this ego is an illusion that seems to exist only when we experience anything other than ourself, it will be dissolved and cease to exist only if we watch it — that is, only if we try to experience ourself alone. Therefore, since this ego is the root and foundation of our experience of time and space, and since it will cease to exist only if we try to watch, observe or attend to it alone, we can deconstruct the illusion of this ego (and the consequent illusion of time and space) just by watching it — that is, just by trying to attend to ourself alone."

I hope my efforts to deconstruct the illusion of this ego will not be vain. One cannot say that I make and made no efforts at all.

Sanjay Lohia said...

We think we get happiness from this world because of our aviveka (lack of proper judgement or discrimination)

Extract (not verbatim) from the video: 2017-11-11 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on the place of suffering (12:00)

It is sometimes said that suffering is good, and is necessary to progress on the spiritual path. That is true in a certain sense. If life was always rosy we would have less motivation to seek anything beyond that, but life is not always rosy. The only constancy in life is inconstancy, nothing lasts. The good things come and they go, and the bad things come and they go. So to the extent we suffer, we are looking for something which is beyond suffering.

But merely suffering in itself is not sufficient, because so many people are suffering in so many ways, but they don’t all turn to the spiritual path. We almost invariably look for the solutions to our suffering in this outside world, and this makes us suffer even more. If we are looking for happiness outside ourself, merely suffering isn’t going to turn our mind inwards.

We think we get happiness from the things of the world because of our aviveka, so what we need is viveka, which means proper judgement or discrimination. We need to see through all these appearances.

(I will continue this in my next comment)

Sanjay Lohia said...

In continuation of my previous comment:

In GVK, Bhagavan gave a very nice analogy. He said a very hungry dog once went to a cremation ground and found an old dry bone, and it started chewing on the bone. Because it was an old dry bone it started splintering. So the dog after chewing it for some time dropped it down and saw blood on the bone. It thought that it is the nice juicy marrow inside the bone. So it happily went on chewing it and making more and more wounds in its own mouth.

So also is our seeking for happiness outside ourself. Just like the bone that the dog was licking off its bones was its own blood, the happiness we think we are deriving from the things of this world is our own happiness, it’s our own real nature. So long as we are seeking happiness outside we will suffer, like the dog also suffered because it got so many wounds in its mouth. The price to be paid for the pleasures we get from this world is suffering. So we are looking in the wrong direction.

My note: So what is the right direction? Bhagavan deals with this subject comprehensively in the fourteenth paragraph 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. In the same way, at times of sleep, samādhi [a state of intense contemplation or absorption of mind] and fainting, and when a desired thing is obtained, and when termination occurs to a disliked thing [that is, when our mind avoids or is relieved from some experience that it dislikes], [our] mind becomes introverted and experiences only the happiness of self. In this way [our] mind wavers about without rest, going outwards leaving self, and [then] turning [back] inwards.


son of a barren woman said...

Sanjay Lohia,
where to buy the required viveka ?

Sanjay Lohia said...

Son of a barren woman, we can easily buy viveka in the shop called Bhagavan’s Teachings. Of course, this is not the only shop, but it is perhaps the best shop for purchasing viveka (spiritual judgement or discrimination). If and when we enter the shop of Bhagavan’s Teachings, the three must buy are his works: Ulladu Narpadu, Nan Yar? and Upadesa Undiyar.

In order to deepen our viveka (discrimination between the real and unreal), we need to constantly study these works and reflect on their meanings and above all practise self-investigation. This practice is the most important means of developing viveka.

The more we practice turning within to find out what we actually are, the more we will directly experience what is real, permanent, unchanging and eternal. Consequently, we will also directly know what is unreal, impermanent, ever changing and ephemeral. The discrimination between these two sets is the real spiritual intelligence. We need to totally reject everything unreal, and focus entirely on what is real. This is the only way to gain freedom.

unmai said...

verse 17,
a) linked article of Sunday, 14 June 2009 Ulladu Narpadu – an explanatory paraphrase

"...whereas to those who have known self, ‘I’ shines without any limit (and hence neither the body nor anything else exists as other than it)."

b) linked article of Wednesday, 19 October 2016 As we actually are, we do nothing and are aware of nothing other than ourself
8. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 17: what seems to the ignorant to be a finite body is actually only the infinite ‘I’
"…, when Bhagavan says that for the jñāni 'the body is only I', what we should understand is that the jñāni is not actually aware of any body at all but only of 'I', so what he means is just that what we mistakenly see as the limited form of a body is what the jñāni correctly sees as 'I', which shines without any limit and hence without any form."
At present I am not able to judge about the content of a jnani's awareness. I only can take note of that statement.

son of a barren woman said...

Sanjay Lohia,
many thanks for the given instructions about viveka.
As you imply the ability to distinguish between appearances and reality will increase only to the same extent as I understand Bhagavan's pioneering teachings not only theoretically but also in practice.

Sanjay Lohia said...


Ultimately the thoughts are just the expansion of our own vasanas

Extract (slightly modified) from the video: 2017-11-11 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on the place of suffering:

Ultimately the thoughts are just the expansion of our own vasanas, but we are ones who choose thoughts. Ok, sometimes unpleasant thoughts come. It is because we may fear something, and so the thought of that thing keeps on coming to us – because we are afraid of it. So though we choose the thoughts we think, these are not always pleasant thoughts.

As this ego we are deluded. This world seems to be real. For example, when we are dreaming, it’s all our mental projection, but we experience both, the pleasant and the unpleasant things. While dreaming if we are being chased by a monster, we just can’t will that monster to disappear. If we are caught in a flood, we just can’t will that flood to stop.

Why is this? It is because though we create a dream, we also create ourself as a character in that dream. We not only project a certain dream world, we project a certain person in that dream, a certain body which we take to be ourself. So in dream we don’t experience ourself as the creator, but experience ourself as a creature. We are the creator, but we created it by becoming a part of it.

(I will continue this in my next comment)

Sanjay Lohia said...

In continuation of my previous comment:

All this is created by you, but how do you experience yourself? Do you experience yourself as the creator of all this? You experience yourself as this little person in this vast universe occupying a small place in space, a small place in time. So how can you control all this, when you are a small creature? But actually it’s all your creation. This is maya.

Likewise our thoughts: it is we are projecting our thoughts, but sometimes we feel that we are overwhelmed by thoughts. People get terrible depressions. What is depression? It is nothing but thoughts. Some people are manic-depressive. Sometime they are v.v. happy, everything seems rosy in life. Sometimes they are v.v. depressed. It’s all thoughts. They themselves are projecting all these thoughts, but they are a victim of their own thoughts.

Just like, if we are caught in a war. The whole war is just our mental projection, but we cannot stop that war, so we suffer. Can an ordinary soldier fighting this war ever hope to stop the war? He can’t. It is because we have projected the world and projected ourself as a character in this world.






son of a barren woman said...

Sanjay Lohia,
when you say "The price to be paid for the pleasures we get from this world is suffering. So we are looking in the wrong direction."
I have some trouble to extend that statement to all earthly or worldly "pleasures".
Just to give you an example, hearing some great music or watching/ experiencing beautiful nature or work of art lets us feel upliftingly and take heart from that.
So I would not condemn such enjoyments as "wrong direction" or even as devil's work.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Son of a barren woman, yes, there can be different varieties of pleasures. Some of them are definitely more harmful than others. Hearing some great music, experiencing beautiful nature and enjoying work of art are relatively harmless pleasures. Why I say ‘relatively harmless’ is because whenever we direct our attention away from ourself, it does us some harm, because it takes us away from our innate happiness.

Though great music and art work, beautiful nature and so on give us some happiness, they are miniscule compared to our own supreme and unalloyed happiness. So if we enjoy the works of art or nature, we do so at the expense of forgoing our infinite happiness.

However, when Michael said, ‘The price to be paid for the pleasures we get from this world is suffering. So we are looking in the wrong direction’, he was speaking about more harmful and self-destructive pleasures. As an example, these could be pleasures we seem to derive from accumulating more and more wealth, from indulging in excessive sex, from drug/ alcohol/ tobacco addiction and so on.

Such pleasures will inevitably bring its own suffering in its wake. If and when we are denied such pleasures we will greatly miss it, and thus suffer. Also overindulgence in sensual pleasures can spoil our health, our relationships (example, if we are a drug addict), and so on. So ultimately all our temporary pleasures will give us suffering: pleasure followed by pain; pleasure followed by pain and so on.

However, we can try and stop these cycles by turning within: who experiences these pleasures and pains? Who am I? This is the only way to transcend all our pleasures and pains.

Salazar said...

Sanjay Lohia, how do you know that Michael was talking only of “more harmful and destructive pleasures”? That can only be an assumption of yours; because if Michael would make a distinction between good and bad pleasures then he’d have distorted Bhagavan’s teachings.

Listening to great music and experiencing beautiful nature is as distracting as everything else and to declare that as “good” or “uplifting” is the judgment of an ignorant and immature mind.

In order for moksha everything has to be discarded, even the most “uplifting” experiences which are just projections of the mind as everything else.

So funny, people post comments about projections of the mind but then they somehow exclude certain projections – how foolish. The solution: Less “manana” what has become a trap here and more atma-vichara.


son of a barren woman said...

Salazar,
a word of thanks to you who are always blessing us blind, ignorant and immature ajnanis with your devastating ruthlessness. But perhaps - who knows - you even are right in your stringent strictness seeing everywhere and always a lurking trap.
One can never be enough on one's guard.
As you say more atma-vichara certainly wouldn't do any harm.

karpaga said...

Salazar is completely right. As always he knows exactly what's going on. When he raises his admonitory finger he only wants to destroy our illusions, if I am not wrong.

Salazar said...

son of a barren woman, don’t take the comment of ignorance and immaturity personal. That is just a fact, to a lesser or greater amount, for everybody who is not realized. And your gratitude (even though tainted with sarcasm) for devastating ruthlessness is the correct approach: People who mock and criticize you are your best friends; people who praise or flatter you are your worst enemies (that is of course not from the viewpoint of the ego who loves the opposite as observed so often on this blog).

Regarding traps, they are not always lurking but the mind/ego has the tendency to fall into them and nobody is immune from that including the so often praised Michael.

This blog seems to be frequented mainly by beginners, especially when I look at certain copy and paste jobs lately added with empty and meaningless personal comments. We all have been at that place, but is it necessary to expose this to the public? “O arunachala, I have a hard time”. Huh? Who could benefit from reading something like that?

After have taken a break from this blog for almost two weeks I’ve read only a few comments, most of them I didn’t finish for lack of interest. I am amazed how people can talk about the same stuff on and on. But then they have not really grasped what they are repeating constantly and come with inane questions.

Sanjay Lohia’s comment about “more harmful and destructive pleasures” is a good example. It shows that he has not truly grasped Bhagavan’s teaching and should not really answer questions. When I read some of his comments the saying “the blind is leading the blind” comes to mind.

His comments gyrate between seemingly well understood concepts to sheer poppycock. I suppose the poppycock materializes when he cannot fall back to that what he’s memorized or what he’s parroting what Michael has emailed him. Anyway, people should be careful of his comments, they from time to time distort Bhagavan’s teachings.

By the way, for beginners the best book about Bhagavan’s teaching is Padamalai and not the “three major works” as touted here. Those three works are great but difficult to grasp and easily misunderstood. On the other hand Padamalai is exceptionally well edited by David Godman and sorted into subjects and makes many points of Bhagavan’s teachings easier to digest. In addition David added many comments from other works by Bhagavan including the “despised” Talks, however David added these so masterfully that many points become clear with the add-ons.

I’d say that for most here on this blog the three works (maybe except Nan Yar) will create more harm than good before have studied more approachable books like Padamalai which I find personally better than GVK (of course GVK is great too).




son of a barren woman said...

Salazar,
can someone on this blog claim that he has really or truly grasped Bhagavan's teaching ? Do we not all wander about the misty wood of our ignorance ?
When people think to rise above or stand out of the bulk of beginners they often suffer from self-deception in a high-handed manner and what is more they do not even notice/realize it.

Salazar said...

Son of a barren woman, you say “do we not all wander in ignorance?" I believe I said that in my last comment.

How you’ve put it, does that mean one is not allowed to point out the mistakes in the comments of others? Because it is not humble to do so or what? Because it seemingly implies a superiority of sorts? Only for your ego.

Like your comment about great music. That comment reflects a lack of understanding. What is wrong in pointing that out? Do you want moksha or not? Do you need pointed out your lack of understanding in a way your ego doesn’t feel diminished?

I guess that’s true for all who love to point out my arrogance ;-) Frankly, people here should stop living in la-la land and, when not doing atma-vichara, look at their own arrogance which is so greatly suppressed by all here.

This blog stinks of fake humility.

Mouna said...

Salazar,
"This blog stinks of fake humility.“

From another point of view I would say everyone here is trying the best they can with the understanding they have at the moment.
It might be seen as fake humility for some, irritating copy and paste for others, or simply useful for some others.
I am already used so much to the stinky smell of my own fake humility that I hardly get pissed off for others'.
We tend to reject and be sensitive mostly to that which mirrors our own shortcomings.

Be well,
m

son of a barren woman said...

Salazar,
can a blind ever lead an other blind ?

Salazar said...

Mouna, I do not fake humility and I am aware of my arrogance. Are you and the Indian passive-aggressives here? What annoys me is that people constantly believe that my comments are geared to put myself in a superior position what is BS.

It must be a cultural thing but I often don't get that "Indian" touch of comment here what is so indirect and feels fake.

Also what is rather annoying is that pointing out of personal "flaws" of others. Why don't we keep our critic at the spiritual concepts and flaws thereof?

We all f.en know that we are ignorant and full of short-comings, do we need to point that out when arguments seem to run out because of lack of understanding? It seems that way.



Salazar said...

son of a barren, what is the point of your question? Please deliberate because I have no idea what you are getting at.

son of a barren woman said...

Salazar,
let me formulate my above question in an other way:
are we not all in search of the light that guides our way on the path that is often dark and full of obstacles ?

Sanjay Lohia said...

Salazar, you write in one of your recent comment: ‘Sanjay Lohia’s comment about “more harmful and destructive pleasures” is a good example. It shows that he has not truly grasped Bhagavan’s teaching and should not really answer questions. When I read some of his comments the saying “the blind is leading the blind” comes to mind’.

I almost entirely agree with your views about me, except when you say that I should not really answer questions. I answer questions mostly for my own sake, because I am not sure if others benefit by my comments or not; however, I surely benefit by these comments, because it gives me a chance to reflect on Bhagavan’s teachings.

Yes, I have not fully grasped Bhagavan’s teachings, but I think this is true for all of us; otherwise we wouldn’t be participating on this blog. You imply that my answering question is like ‘the blind leading the blind’. I have to admit that I am indeed blind - I am blind to what is real, that is, I am blind to my true nature. We have come to Bhagavan only to remove this blindness, is it not?

howling wolf said...

Not seldom own blindness makes primarily blind to the own blindness.
Not to notice one's own blindness is certainly one of the most severe burdens with which we burden ourself.
Therefore we urgently should first persistently pursue sufficient attempts to remove our own heavy and serious blindness.
Making this appeal to us I give particular emphasis that of course I don't make an exception of me.

son of a barren woman said...

Sanjay Lohia,
as you imply only the mind needs purification not our pure self-awareness.
It is not at all an unusual phenomenon that the ego hits out wildly all round it.

Sanjay Lohia said...

One parameshwara shakti is making all the actions possible

Extract (slightly modified) from the video: 2017-11-11 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on the place of suffering:

Bhagavan says that one supreme ruling power (parameshwara shakti) is doing all actions or making all the actions possible. It is making everything happen by the power of its presence. So instead of subsiding and just being, why say ‘it is necessary to do this; it is necessary to do that’? Why should we always be thinking that we have these many things to do? According to Bhagavan, it is not necessary to do anything.

We may believe this at a superficial level, but if we really believed this, we will give up thinking about anything. The only reason we think about anything is because of our lack of faith in Bhagavan. Bhagavan says that the supreme ruling power is making everything happen, as it is meant to happen. So the work we have to do, we will be made to do. Why should we think that we have to do it?

It should become a deep-rooted conviction, and it can become a deep-rooted conviction only to the extent our mind is purified and clarified, and our mind will be purified and clarified only to the extent we put Bhagavan’s teaching into practice.

What is the practice? It is to surrender our ego. That is why it is called atma samarpana (self-surrender). The atma in atma samarpana is not our real self but our ego. What we call the ‘ego’ is the wrong awareness of ourself. So it is only by knowing what we actually are, that we can give up this false self-experience. This false awareness is the ego.




Salazar said...

Sanjay Lohia, excellent response to my previous comments and I concur. Yes, alas we are all blind, luckily there is a way to open one's eyes thanks to Bhagavan.

brahmastra said...

A very warm welcome to you all in the club of not-fully-graspers of Bhagavan's teaching. Alas...

padam said...

verse 17,
linked article of Sunday, 14 June 2009 Ulladu Narpadu – an explanatory paraphrase
"...to those who have not known self, 'I' is limited to the measure of the body, whereas to those who have known self, 'I' shines without any limit (and hence neither the body nor anything else exists as other than it)."

linked article of Wednesday, 19 October 2016 As we actually are, we do nothing and are aware of nothing other than ourself
8. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 17: what seems to the ignorant to be a finite body is actually only the infinite 'I'

"By saying that 'I' (our actual self) shines without limit, Bhagavan implies that it not only has no outer limit or boundary, but also has no internal limits or boundaries, so it is not only infinite but also indivisible. Since it is infinite, nothing can exist outside of it or other than it, and since it is indivisible, it cannot consist of parts, so it is otherless, partless and hence absolutely non-dual. Therefore it alone actually exists".
The above statement is a certain comfort to me.

padam said...

verse 18,
"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."

linked article of Sunday, 14 June 2009 Ulladu Narpadu – an explanatory paraphrase

"...whereas we experience the multiple forms of this world as real, a person who has known self experiences only its formless ground or underlying substance as real."

linked article of Tuesday, 22 September 2015 Self-knowledge is not a void (śūnya)
14b. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 18: when we know ourself, we will experience the world only as its formless substratum

"...when we experience this world as a collection of changing forms we do not experience it as its real substratum, which is our formless and unchanging ātma-svarūpa, and when we experience our ātma-svarūpa as it actually is we will no longer experience it as a collection of changing forms."

"...we cannot see the world as a collection of multiple forms and simultaneously see it as our formless self. When we see it as multiple forms we do not see it as ourself, and when we see it as ourself we do not see any forms."


"The ātma-jñāni is not aware of the world at all except as the one formless and immutable ātma-svarūpa, which alone is what actually exists and which is therefore the ultimate support and foundation (ādhāra or adhiṣṭhāna) of everything that seems to exist, beginning with the ego, in whose view alone anything else seems to exist."

I consider.

padam said...

verse 18,
linked article of Wednesday, 19 October 2016 As we actually are, we do nothing and are aware of nothing other than ourself
9. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 18: the world is real not as a finite set of forms but only as its formless substratum

"when Bhagavan says that for the jñāni the world is real, what he means is not that it is real as such (that is, as a myriad of forms) but that it is real as the formless substratum (ādhāra) that it actually is. What we mistake to be a world consisting of countless and ever-changing forms is actually just one formless, indivisible and immutable self-awareness, which alone is what is real, and which is therefore the ādhāra that underlies and supports everything that seems to exist but does not actually exist."
"Since forms are what differentiate one thing from another, one cannot see any forms without seeing differences, and one cannot see any differences without seeing forms. Therefore, since the one reality is formless, no differences can exist in it, so if one sees any differences of any kind whatsoever, one is seeing forms and hence not seeing the formless reality as it actually is. We cannot be aware of the formless reality without being aware of ourself as the formless reality, and if we are aware of ourself as the formless reality, we cannot be aware of any forms, as Bhagavan teaches us unequivocally in verse 4 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu.

Since the jñāni is nothing other than our actual self, which is the formless ādhāra, it cannot be aware of any forms or any differences whatsoever. Therefore when Bhagavan ends both this and the previous verse by saying that this is the difference (bhēda) between the jñāni and the ajñāni, we should understand that the difference he points out in each case exists only in the view of the ajñāni and not in the view of the jñāni, because in the view of the jñāni no differences exist at all.

This is why Bhagavan often used to say that in the view of the jñāni there is no such thing as an ajñāni. That is, for the jñāni there are no forms and hence no others, because what exists is only the one formless and hence infinite self-awareness, other than which nothing can exist or even seem to exist. All forms, differences and otherness exist only in the view of the ego, which is the very embodiment of self-ignorance (ajñāna), and if we investigate this ego keenly enough, we will find that it does not actually exist and has never even seemed to exist."

I consider.

padam said...

verse 18,
linked 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
20. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 18: for the jñāni, what is real is not the world as such but only its formless ādhāra

"...when Bhagavan agrees with us, saying that in his view also the world is real, what he means is not that it is real as the world (that is, as all the forms that we see it to be), but only that it is real as the formless self-awareness that it actually is. This is what he implies when he says here: ‘உலகினுக்கு ஆதாரமாய் உரு அற்று ஆரும் உணர்ந்தார் உண்மை’ (ulahiṉukku ādhāram-āy uru aṯṟu ārum uṇarndār uṇmai), ‘To those who have known, reality pervades devoid of form as the ādhāra for the world’."

So are the hard facts, so is the situation. I consider.

padam said...

verse 19,
linked article of Sunday, 14 June 2009 Ulladu Narpadu – an explanatory paraphrase
"...fate and free will appear to exist only so long as our mind appears to exist, but when we scrutinise this mind and thereby know the truth that it does not really exist, fate and free will will also cease to exist."

linked article of Monday, 8 February 2016 Why should we believe what Bhagavan taught us?
11c. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 19: fate and free will exist only for the ego

The only other verse in Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu in which Bhagavan refers indirectly to the karma theory is verse 19:
"...our actual self is the source and base of our ego, so as such it is the ultimate source and base of everything else, including fate and free will, but the intention of Bhagavan in this verse and many of the other verses of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu is to explain that everything other than ourself depends for its seeming existence upon the seeming existence of ourself as this ego, because by emphasising this he was able to explain that the simple and direct means to free oneself from everything else is to free oneself from this ego by investigating what it actually is."

"...‘oneself, who is the one origin [cause, root, foundation or base] for fate and free will’, both refer to our ego, because fate and free will exist only for this ego, so it is their source and foundation, since it is what uses its free will to do āgāmya and consequently experiences fate or prārabdha."

So I have to take that into consideration.

padam said...

verse 19,
linked article of Tuesday, 20 June 2017
Concern about fate and free will arises only when our mind is turned away from ourself
7. 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
"...‘oneself, who is the one origin [cause, root, foundation or base] for fate and free will’, both refer to our ego, because fate and free will exist only for this ego, so it is their source and foundation, since it is what uses its free will to do āgāmya and consequently experiences fate or prārabdha."
"...‘Only for those who do not have discernment of the root of fate and free will [namely the ego] is there dispute about which prevails, fate or free will’."

Without any doubt I have to take account of that.

Salazar said...

padam, your comments and style of posts are almost identical of those by "unmai".

Carry on my friend :-)

Sanjay Lohia said...

We may claim that we are not affected by anything, but if we turn our attention outwards we are being affected is some way or other

Extract (slightly modified) from the video: 2017-11-11 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on the place of suffering

So long as you are aware of yourself as anything finite, you are then aware of things other than yourself. The ego rises and obscures our real nature, and then it sees all these things now. Appearance of all these things inevitably comes with multifarious problems. So we are now in a bit of a pickle.

The substance of these things is only ‘I’, because there is nothing other than ‘I’. ‘I’ is more than just a word. It is a word that denotes our self-awareness.

But some of things other than ‘I’ (ourself) we find contribute to our happiness or pleasure, and some contribute to pain. So we develop likes and dislikes. These likes and dislikes are a reflection of our original self-love, which is our real nature.

We may claim that we are not affected by anything, but if we turn our attention outwards we are being affected is some way or other. We will be deluding ourself if we say ‘we are not affected’. None of us are satisfied; none of us are contented.


Sanjay Lohia said...

This infinite love manifests as Bhagavan to give us all these teachings

Extract (slightly modified) from the video: 2017-11-11 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on the place of suffering:

Antarmukham means ahamukham - facing ‘I’ alone. Everything other than ‘I’ is outside ourself. Every thought, every feeling is outside ourself. Where does it come from? It rises from within us. The ego rises and projects all these things. All these are external to ourself.

Aham in Sanskrit and Tamil means ‘I’, but in Tamil it has another meaning, which is ‘inside’. So in Tamil it’s got double meaning. So ahamukham means facing ‘facing inside’ and facing inside is facing ‘I’.

Everything other than ourself is extraneous – external to ourself. So we shouldn’t attend to anything other than ourself. That alone is complete surrender.

• Love that our real nature has for itself is what manifests in this state as grace. That grace is what moulds our destiny. Without doing anything, by its mere presence, it allots the correct fruits of our karma, in order to draw us back to itself. At an appropriate time it also manifests as the guru to tell us ‘turn within’.

What is Bhagavan? Bhagavan is our own self and our own self is infinite love. This infinite love manifests as Bhagavan to give us all these teachings.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Bhagavan writes in verse one of the kalivenba version of Ekatma Panchakam

One previously forgetting self, mistaking a body as self, taking innumerable births and finally knowing self and being self, is [just like] waking up from a dream of wandering about the world. Know thus.

Explanation by Sri Michael James: The ever-awakened state of self is here compared to the waking state of a person. On going to sleep, a person forgets the waking state; this is similar to one forgetting one’s true self-consciousness. In sleep a person dreams, and in that dream he mistakes the dream body to be himself; similarly, in the state of self-forgetfulness we mistake a body to be ourself. These two fundamental errors — forgetting self and mistaking a body as self — occur simultaneously.

Our undergoing innumerable births and deaths is similar to a person wandering about the world in a dream. Though in a dream a person may find himself to be wandering all over the world, does not his waking body in fact remain stationary on the bed? Similarly, despite our undergoing innumerable births and deaths, our true self is in fact ever motionless, unchanged and unaffected.

On waking up from a dream, a person finds that all that he did and experienced in that dream is unreal, and hence he is no way affected by any gain or loss that he may have experienced at that time. Similarly, on knowing self one finds that all the karmas that one has done and all their fruits that one has accumulated and experienced throughout innumerable births are unreal, and hence one is in no way affected by them. In one’s experience of self, one realizes that truly nothing has ever happened to one. This experience is the ultimate truth and is known as ajata — the knowledge that nothing ever comes into existence or happens, and that self, the sole reality, alone ever exists as it is.

(I will continue this in my next comment)

Sanjay Lohia said...

In continuation of my previous comment:

My note: Bhagavan once elaborated this verse one of Ekatma Panchakam by way of following illustration:

A man goes to sleep in this hall. He dreams he has gone on a world tour, is roaming over hill and dale, forest and country, desert and sea, across various continents and after many years of weary and strenuous travel, returns to this country, reaches Tiruvannamalai, enters the ashram and walks into the hall. Just at that moment he wakes up and finds that he has never moved an inch but was sleeping where he lay down. He has not returned after great effort to the hall, but is and always has been in the hall.

It is exactly like that. If it is asked, ‘Why being free do we imagine that we are bound?’ I answer, ‘Why being in the hall did you imagine you were on a world adventure, crossing hill and dale, desert and sea? It is all mind or maya [illusion].


padam said...

Salazar,
hopefully you will not my beginner-style of posts ("copy and paste jobs lately added with empty and meaningless personal comments" denigrate.

Salazar said...

padam, I apologize. I do not want to stifle your process, my comment about your posts was inappropriate.

self-ignorant ego said...

Sanjay Lohia,
"in sleep a person dreams, ...".
More accurately is "in dream a person dreams", isn't it ?

You write
a) "Similarly, despite our undergoing innumerable births and deaths, our true self is in fact ever motionless, unchanged and unaffected."
and
b) "In one’s experience of self, one realizes that truly nothing has ever happened to one. This experience is the ultimate truth and is known as ajata — the knowledge that nothing ever comes into existence or happens, and that self, the sole reality, alone ever exists as it is."

If you are right, then why should we ever be worried about the ego's adventures.
If the basic priciples/foundations of our being as the "main scene" would anyway never be damaged by any action or thought of the ego, why then should we not let things take their course ?

padam said...

Salazar,
with pleasure I accept your apology. So you will have a peaceful sleep tonight:-).
I am flabbergasted about your change of attitude.
Everyone must feel one's way forward according one's abilities/faculties.

padam said...

verse 19,
linked article of Tuesday, 5 September 2017 If we choose to do any harmful actions, should we consider them to be done according to destiny (prārabdha)?
1. 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

"The ego is just the false self-awareness 'I am this body' (in which 'this body' refers to whatever body we currently mistake ourself to be), which is an idea superimposed on our real self-awareness, ‘I am’, just as what seems to be a snake is an idea superimposed on the form of a rope, so it is what we seem to be only so long as we are not aware of ourself as we actually are. Therefore if we investigate ourself keenly enough to see what we actually are, the ego that we now seem to be will thereby be eradicated, just as the illusory snake would be eradicated if one were to look at it carefully enough to see that it is just a rope, and since fate and free will seem to exist only for the ego, they will cease to exist along with it."

"No matter how well we may think we have understood Bhagavan’s teachings, we should always be willing to question our own understanding critically in an open-minded and humble spirit, because that is the only way to deepen and refine it, and because if we do not do so we will get stuck with rigid and dogmatic opinions, which are opposed to the very spirit of investigation that we need to follow this path, and we will be liable to succumb to pride, thinking that we are right and others are wrong."

"...in particular we should not allow ourself to take pride in the idea that we have now understood all that there is to understand and that our understanding is therefore not in any need of further deepening, refinement or clarity. This is particularly true with regard to our understanding of what he taught us about karma and the subject of fate and free will, because though this is not the core of his teachings, it is one of the most subtle and complex aspects of them, and perhaps one that we will never fully understand, because as he indicates in this verse, we cannot understand it completely without knowing the truth of the ego, for whom alone karma, fate and free will exist, and when we know the truth of the ego, it will cease to exist along with all such things."
Knowing the truth of the ego is what I actually want to discover.

padam said...

verse 20,
linked article of Thursday, 18 June 2015 Prāṇāyāma is just an aid to restrain the mind but will not bring about its annihilation
7d. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 20

"...before we try to see God we should first try to see what we ourself actually are, because what we actually are is nothing other than the God whom we seek to see,..."

"...the only way in which we can ‘see’ or experience God as he really is is by seeing ourself as we really are, because in the absence of our ego we are nothing other than God. Therefore so long as we experience ourself as this ego, we cannot see God as he really is, but can see him only as a form, which would be merely a mind-created vision or ‘sight composed of mind’. "

To become aware of the absence of the ego in waking is what I desire yearningly.
However, the ego does not patronize and further such attempts.

padam said...

verse 20,
linked article of Thursday, 18 June 2015 Prāṇāyāma is just an aid to restrain the mind but will not bring about its annihilation
7d. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 20

"When we see ourself as we really are, we will no longer experience ourself as this ego or as any form, so we will not be able to see God as a form, because forms exist only in the view of ourself as this ego. Therefore so long as we meditate on any form or name of God, we are maintaining our ego, and hence we cannot experience God as he really is."

The awareness of my real nature seems to be hidden behind the wall of my ego's experiences and mental attitudes. By grace sometime I might conquer that wretched fortress.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Self-ignorant ego, I thank you pointing out my error.

What you have quoted was written by Michael. As long as we experience ourself as this ego we are affected by whatever we do, and so worry is also part of our present experience. However, as you imply, if we are wise we would not pay any heed to our ego’s adventures or misadventures: that is, we would try and remain indifferent to our pleasures and pains, because everything is a passing show.

As Michael says, ‘nothing ever comes into existence or happens, and that self, the sole reality, alone ever exists as it is’. So our true immutable self never undergoes any change. I think in Bhagavad Gita it is said that atman cannot be touched by any of the elements – that is, fire cannot burn it, water cannot make it wet and so on. So as you imply, any action by our ego cannot ‘damage’ ourself in any way.

Yes, we should let things take their own course. But even if we try to change the course of events, we will not be able to do so in spite of all our efforts. So, as Bhagavan taught his mother, it is best to remain quiet – that is, it is best to remain subsided.



Sanjay Lohia said...

Who is a true mature spiritual aspirant (pakvi)?

Sri Sadhu Om answers this most clearly in the verse 202 of Sadhanai Saram:

Know that he who likes to remain steadfastly attending to Self, knowing that Self-attention is far more important than any action that he has to do, than any world that he has to speak, or than any thought that he has to think, alone is a true spiritual aspirant (pakvi).

Michael commented on this verse as follows:

Most of us are still very immature (or at least I certainly am), but the only way to gain the required maturity is for us to persevere in trying to be self-attentive as much as possible. There is no short-cut or alternative way. Persistent practice of self-attentiveness alone will enable us to experience ourself as we really are, and then only will we discover that we were never the immature ego that we now seem to be.



Sanjay Lohia said...

There is a typo in my previous comment. It shoud read:

Sri Sadhu Om answers this most clearly in the verse 202 of Sadhanai Saram:

Know that he who likes to remain steadfastly attending to Self, knowing that Self-attention is far more important than any action that he has to do, than any word that he has to speak, or than any thought that he has to think, alone is a true spiritual aspirant (pakvi).

Sanjay Lohia said...

We should engage in discussions to clarify our understanding

Michael once wrote in one of his comments sometime in October 2014:

If we are engaging in discussions just to convince others or to defeat them in argument, that would be a futile delusion if this is just a dream, but if we are engaging in discussion to clarify our own understanding, that would be worthwhile even if this is just a dream.

My note: Salazar recently suggested to me that I should not answer the questions raised on this blog, because when I do so, it is like a ‘blind trying to lead another blind’. However, my answering questions should not be a problem for me, but it can become a problem, as Michael says, if I answer just to convince others or to show off my understanding. In other words, we should always be on our guard while participating in discussions, because we should discuss only to clarify our own understanding. I believe that this seems to be my main motive when I try to participate on this blog.

Michael further clarified this point through another comment of his (on 11 October 2014, 19: 06):

Whatever we may be doing we should always be careful to keep a watch on our ego, because if we do not watch it will definitely be asserting itself one way or another. Often we neglect to watch it, so it starts to assert itself, but as soon as we notice this we should try to watch it.

When we are engaged in discussions with others, particularly verbal discussions, we tend to neglect watching our ego, and hence without our noticing it it begins to assert itself by trying to show off its knowledge or persuade others that its view is correct. Therefore at such times we should be particularly vigilant.

We may begin the discussion just because of our interest in the subject, but if we are not vigilant our ego will take it as an opportunity to rise and boost its self-conceit [feeling of excessive pride]. To avoid this it is not necessary to avoid discussing spiritual matters, but it is necessary to be vigilantly self-watchful (that is, attentive to ‘I’).

Mouna said...

”Whatever we may be doing we should always be careful to keep a watch on our ego, because if we do not watch it will definitely be asserting itself one way or another.”
An observation about the word ego.
I am of the idea that the ego that tries to assert itself is of a different nature (maybe semantic) of the ego that projects phenomena. The former goes more with the ego notion of regular worldly psychology or in other words, that psychological unifying principle that holds a “person” together in order not to become pathologically fragmented like in schizophrenia or multiple personality disorders.
As I understand the ego we usually discuss in this blog related to Bhagavan’s teachings is more connected with the idea of “a separate self”, a veil of ignorance that hypnotizes itself believing itself real. In that regard asserting itself or not, being humble or proud, silent or talkative, etc are just traits of the illusory “person” connected more with its illusory prarabdha/vasanas.

Eventually the primary point is not to try to become a “better” person but to really see if there is one to begin with at all. Keeping the ego “in check” is just another movement at the level of the person, that while it makes transactional reality much easier to bear and apparent humans we would be better of if we all try it, in itself it doesn’t solve the problem of “root uprooting”.
Psychology tries to keep a healthy ego, while real spirituality is concerned with the understanding that there is none in the first place.

Mouna said...

(coda from last posting)

We don't have egos, ego has us.

origin said...

Mouna, greetings,
no, the ego only seems to have us - because according to Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi, the sage of incomparable Arunachala, there is nothing but the ever present pure self-awareness. The idea of having us wanders only in the ignorant view of the ego-phantom which itself does not actually exist at all. Therefore instead of identifying our real nature with the mere illusory idea of the false awareness called ego we should not and never mixe up appearances/pretence and reality.

Mouna said...

origin, geetings back
"no, the ego only seems to have us”

Ego is “one" with its projection and vice versa, so ego, within its apparent reality, “have” us, not seemingly but factually.
We usually speak about “our” or “my” ego, and my point is that is the other way around because there is only one mind/ego/dream/maya which is easily verifiable if “you” rely on your direct awareness/existence at this very moment.
When we speak about the battle of egos we are referring to the psychologists “ego” definition.

What is seemingly is the “seeming” assumption that there is an ego in the first place.

It’s all semantics anyways, mind gymics, so in the end, very disposable.

origin said...

Mouna,
no, the idea of an "apparent reality" of the ego wanders again only in the illusory view of the non-existent ego. According Bhagavan: (F)actually there is only atma-svarupa.
All other beliefs or assumptions are only fictitious and imaginary (theatre).
Because nothing but atma-svarupa does really exist, my "direct awareness/existence at this very moment" can therefore only be atma-svarupa. Neither semantics nor "mind gymics" can depict or comprehend reality. So in the end reality is in no way "very disposable".

Mouna said...

origin,
I agree completely with what you say, but that wasn't my point. We are saying the same thing with different words from different angles and different levels, that's what I call semantic gymnastics and disposable in the end.
Unfortunately, when you and some people start their sentences with "no" (I did it in the past also so I'm the first to blame here) I'm not very interested anymore in discussing anything.

be well,
over and out,
m

origin said...

Mouna,
I am sorry, I did not want to affront you. Beginning with the accented and decided/ categorical adverb "no" I only wanted to emphasize a different and contrapuntal opinion.
In no way I wanted to reduce/downgrade or even decry/degrade/demote/denigrate/disparage/depreciate/belittle your view/conception or way of thinking. I will never again start with "no" in any reply to you.

be wll too

Mouna said...

"I will never again start with "no" in any reply to you."

NO! please do!

:)

(no affront taken my friend/comrade/brother-in-the-quest...)

origin said...

Mouna,
okay, brother-in-the-quest.
:)
be well

Sanjay Lohia said...

I had quoted Michael as saying, ‘Whatever we may be doing we should always be careful to keep a watch on our ego, because if we do not watch it will definitely be asserting itself one way or another’. Mouna gave his views on this statement. I would also like to share my reflections on this quote:

As Mouna implies, we use the term ‘ego’ in two senses. In our day-to-day usage we may take it to mean the ego in the sense of arrogance, pride, stubbornness and so on. For our discussion purpose we may call it the child-ego, because it the offshoot of its parent, namely our original ego. We may call this original ego the mother-ego.

Obviously, we should keep our child-ego in check in all situations. In this context, whenever we engage in conversations with others we should try and maintain some basic etiquette. Like we should give the other person a chance to speak even if we do not agree with them (in other words, listen to others), keep our cool and try not to raise our voice, try to attend to one person at a time and so on. Therefore, this child ego should definitely be kept in check.

However, when Michael says, ‘Whatever we may be doing we should always be careful to keep a watch on our ego, because if we do not watch it will definitely be asserting itself one way or another’, he was taking about our parent-ego. It the context of Bhagavan’s teachings, we are much more concerned about keeping the parent-ego is check, because if we keep it in check we will be automatically keeping our child-ego in check.

How can we keep our parent-ego in check? It is only attending to it as much as possible. Even when we engage in conversations, we can keep it in check by attending to it (‘I’) to whatever extent possible. Obviously while we are conversing we cannot be fully self-attentive, but we can definitely maintain a tenuous current of self-attentiveness even in such situations. I think Michael was indicating this, if I have understood correctly.

origin said...

Mouna,
somehow yesterday I was only in the egoistic mood to state my own present "feeling" instead of being responsive of your comment (at 16:18) which is written quite accurately.
As you remarked (western) psychology mainly seems to be satisfied to care lovingly for the ego and to keep it in a more superficial way in a sphere or sense of well-being. On the other hand the ego itself does not feel any (urgent) incentive to uproot its roots.

origin said...

Sanjay Lohia,
the quoted statement of Michael is indeed accurate and we as the ego would be well advised to take it in hand and to keep it on a tight rein. That means maintaining at least a "tenuous current of self-attentiveness" permanently in all situations.

Sanjay Lohia said...

All impurities of the mind boil down to desire

Extract from the video: 2017-11-11 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on the place of suffering:

All impurities of the mind boil down to desire. Whether we say anger, jealousy, fear, these are all impurities of the mind, but they all boil down to desire. The root of all impurity is desire, and the root of desire is the ego, the one who has this desire.

My note: I think in Buddhism they say that the root of all our problems is desire. Bhagavan doesn’t dispute this, but goes even further by teaching us that if we want to root out all our desires, we need to root out the ego that has these desires. If the ego, which is the root, is intact, if one desire goes it will be replaced by another desire very soon. So we need to tackle the root of all desires, which is the ego.

According to Bhagavan, the ego comes into existence only because of its desire for things other than itself. As Bhagavan says in verse 25 of Ulladu Narpadu, the ego comes into existence by grasping form, and is sustained by grasping more and more forms. This grasping of form is nothing but its desires for those other things. Then he says in verse 26 that when ego comes into existence, everything (including all the impurities of mind) comes into existence. Therefore, we cannot rise as this ego without desire for things other than itself, and this desire for things other than itself creates all our other impurities.

Michael says, ‘All impurities of the mind boil down to desire. Whether we say anger, jealousy, fear, these are all impurities of the mind, but they all boil down to desire’. Let us try and analyse this. How do our desires create anger, jealousy and fear in us?

Suppose if I come back late from office with a strong desire to have a cup of coffee, but when I reach my house and ask for coffee, my wife informs me there is no coffee in the house. Consequently I get angry, because my wife couldn't fulfill my desire for coffee at that moment. Thus my desire for coffee resulted in this anger.

Likewise, I may be jealous of my neighbour because he has just purchased a car which I wanted for a long time. If I had no desire for this car, why should I feel jealous? If I am satisfied with my bicycle I won’t desire the car, and if I didn’t desire the car why should I become jealous when my neighbour purchases this car.

Again let us take fear. Suppose if I am travelling in an overnight train with a lot of cash. I may not get sleep that night because of the fear that someone will steal my cash. It is my desire to hold on to my possession (cash) which becomes a cause of my fear.

So, as Michael says, all our mental impurities boil down to desire.








Mouna said...

Sanjay,
Tank you for your views on the subject of different connotations for the word ego.
Just to complement yours, I’d like to say that Michael also makes a clear distinction between “ego” and “the person” . The former being synonym with maya and mind (in Bhagavan’s parlance) and only one (eka-jiva), while the latter is the character projected by the former (Michael, Sanjay, Mouna, etc..), which identifies itself as “the one running and experiencing the show”.
According to Bhagavan, both never came into being (maya=ya-ma) and will cease to be once a keen and deep investigation into it bears fruit.

be well,
m

Mouna said...

origin, still mouna here,
"somehow yesterday I was only in the egoistic mood...

Only yesterday?... wow my friend, you are a lucky one, I'm in that mood all the time!
:)

padam said...

verse 20,
"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."

Can the leave-taking of the ego or its retirement be so difficult ?
No, on the contrary it must be easy to escape the clutches of the ego-phantom because it is said that it does not even really exist. Therefore in order to manage the annihilation of the ego one must be only absolutely and fiercely determined to refuse to serve as a deployment area for the deceitful ego.

Sanjay Lohia said...

If we understand the basic principles of Bhagavan’s teachings, it helps a lot to live in this world

Extracts (slightly modified) from: 2017-11-11 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on the place of suffering:

1) Only when our mind reaches a certain degree of purity, will it be possible to turn a full 180 degrees within.

2) If we understand the basic principles of Bhagavan’s teachings, it helps a lot to live in this world.

3) Bhagavan has said only a atma-jnani can be a perfect karma-yogi, because nobody else can do actions without any expectations.

origin said...

Mouna,
ah, my friend, of course the ego occupies my heart all day long.
But I did not want to admit it.:)
Even to be even only just in the present moment in the "good" company of that uninvited guest/adjunct is burden enough !

Sanjay Lohia said...

Mouna, I agree with your views, However, you say, ‘According to Bhagavan, both never came into being (maya=ya-ma) and will cease to be once a keen and deep investigation into it bears fruit’. What is this 'it' that we need to investigate? Is it the ego or the person or both? This is not clear from your statement.

It should be remembered that we need to investigate only ego (ourself). That is, by investigating the person we take to be ourself (Mouna, Sanjay or whatever), our ego will never cease to exist, and if it is alive it will inevitably project one person after another.

origin said...

Sanjay Lohia,
thanks for the given extract to which I agree in all three points.

padam said...

verse 21,
linked article of
"...we can truly see God, who is our own real self, only by surrendering ourself entirely to him, allowing ourself to be consumed in his infinite light of pristine self-consciousness, 'I am'."

To be able to become food to God, first I must know this infinite light (of pristine self-consciousness 'I am') by which I shall become swallowed or in which get immersed.
Without experiencing consciously that inner light in waking I will possibly or certainly not become enough convinced to entirely surrendering myself to the pristine self-consciousness.

Mouna said...

Sanjay,
"It should be remembered that we need to investigate only ego (ourself). That is, by investigating the person we take to be ourself (Mouna, Sanjay or whatever), our ego will never cease to exist, and if it is alive it will inevitably project one person after another.”

The line between ego and person is just conceptual. Eka jiva vada demonstrates it.
When I spoke about “investigating” it, I didn’t use this term as “observing” or being the observer of it. It meant both the ego or person. I wasn’t talking about finding out personality traits or childhood neurosis (if there are any), etc..

If you investigate the person by turning the attention inwards and asking “to whom ths experience is happening” and your answer is “to me”, that “me” is both the person AND the ego. In my experience, the “person” is the point of entry that ego has into its projection. (please put the words apparent, unreal or illusory before every time I say ego or person, just to save some time).
So it really doesn’t matter if one thinks that one is investigating the person or the ego, both lead to the same place of unreality if the attention is turned inwards towards the source.

I’ll even go a step further in blasphemy saying that even investigating the (apparent) world also leads to the same conclusion, because what is the world anyways? a bunch of sensations, perceptions, feelings and thoughts that create the texture of ego’s projection, and what are those sensations, perceptions, feelings and thoughts made of in part if not awareness and existence? So again everything boils down to the source when we shed light on “it”, being the ego or its projection (person-world).

I try to keep it simply, turning attention inwards towards the source of whatever the experience of the moment is. Defining things in compartments help at the beginning to familiarize oneself (“me") with the teachings and the tools. After a while it really doesn’t matter what is what because we recognized without a doubt what “is not” and sadhana means from then on seeing through that illusion.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Mouna, the following extract is taken from Michael’s article: What is the ‘self’ we are investigating when we try to be attentively self-aware? This is relevant to our present discussion:

[…] though our ego is a mixture of pure self-awareness and adjunct-awareness (centred around our basic adjunct, namely a body), and is therefore called cit-jaḍa-granthi (the knot formed by the entanglement of self-awareness with non-conscious adjuncts), when we investigate our ego what we are seeking to know correctly is not any part of our adjunct-awareness (the non-conscious or jaḍa portion of this cit-jaḍa-granthi) but only our essential self-awareness (the conscious or cit portion of it), so we should be trying to isolate our essential self-awareness from all our adjuncts by focusing our attention on ourself (this essential self-awareness) alone. This is what Bhagavan indicated when he said (as recorded in the final chapter of Maharshi’s Gospel: 2002 edition, p. 89):

The ego functions as the knot between the Self which is Pure Consciousness and the physical body which is inert and insentient. The ego is therefore called the chit-jada-granthi. In your investigation into the source of aham-vritti, you take the essential chit aspect of the ego; and for this reason the enquiry must lead to the realization of the pure consciousness of the Self.

What is translated here as ‘the pure consciousness of the Self’ is pure self-awareness, which is what we actually are, and what he calls ‘the essential chit [cit or awareness] aspect of the ego’. Since we are the fundamental self-awareness from which the ego or ‘I’-thought (ahaṁ-vṛtti) and everything else appears in waking and dream and into which it all disappears in sleep, what he calls ‘your investigation into the source of aham-vritt’ is investigating our actual self, the pure self-awareness that we always truly are.

(I will continue this reply in my next comment)

Sanjay Lohia said...

In continuation of my previous comment in reply to Mouna:

My note: You say, ‘So it really doesn’t matter if one thinks that one is investigating the person or the ego, both lead to the same place of unreality if the attention is turned inwards towards the source’. According to Bhagavan, we need to totally ignore the body/ person we take ourself to be and try to focus all our attention on the awareness aspect of our ego.

You say, ‘I’ll even go a step further in blasphemy saying that even investigating the (apparent) world also leads to the same conclusion, because what is the world anyways?’ We can never experience ourself as we really are if we investigate this world in any way. Why? It is because who is investigating the world? It is only our ego. Therefore, our ego cannot be annihilated as long as it is looking outwards. We need to turn it 180 degrees within to face ourself, and only then it can be destroyed.

However, we need to draw our own conclusions and proceed in sadhana with the available light (inner clarity). The more we persevere in our practice, the more this clarity will increase, and consequently we will understand Bhagavan’s teachings with more and more clarity and depth.





Mouna said...

Sanjay,
The excerpts that you copy and paste prove exactly my point, but you might not be able to see it as I’m not seeing yours, because we humans filter what we want to see according to what we want to proselytize to others, meaning, our own view. Please notice that I’m talking about myself also.
I could go on and on, but unfortunately, I don’t have the time for endless and meaningless discussions about semantics disguised with the “manana” mask, I still have to work to sustain a family.
So let’s leave it at that, at least on my side.
Nevertheless, I would still propose to focus on what we have in common, our love for Bhagavan, vichara and Michael’s point of view about Bhagavan’s teachings, even if in my case, that love is still very dim and my understanding feeble. For the rest, we have really different points of view.

You may have the last word if you wish, but I’m done with this thread between us.

Thank you and be well
Yours in Bhagavan,
M

origin said...

Sanjay Lohia,
you say "...our ego cannot be annihilated as long as it is looking outwards."

Pure self-awareness is said to be an infinite whole. How can there be any(thing) "outward" or outward form ? Does not the infinite whole enclose inside, outside and all other directions ?

origin said...

Mouna,
I wish you to have a very fertile, satisfactory, stress-free and uplifting working day/week to sustain your family.
Be well.
Yours in Bhagavan

Sanjay Lohia said...

Origin, as you imply, pure self-awareness is infinite whole, so there can be no inside or outside in pure self-awareness. However, I wrote, ‘our ego cannot be annihilated as long as it is looking outwards’, and I was obviously here talking about the ego – our spurious self-awareness which rises as ‘I am this body’. The ego does experience things which seem to be inside its body, and it also takes some things to be outside of itself.

I believe, you do experience some mental chatter happening inside you, and also likewise experience the computer to be outside of you. As long as we experience ourself as this ego, this duality of inside and outside will always be there.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Relax gently without any strain

Bhagavan: Relax and your meditation (atma-vichara) will be easy. Keep your mind steady by gently warding off all intruding thoughts but without strain. Soon you will succeed.

I have highlighted some words in the above quotation by Bhagavan: relax, gently and without strain. We should keep these three words in mind when we try to practise self-investigation. This is a gentle path – that is, it is unlike many other forms of meditation in which one has to use great force to achieve one’s desired aim.

Bhagavan would say that this path is akin to bringing a runaway cow back to its shade, by tempting it with some luscious grass. Why should we beat the cow with a stick, when we can easily achieve this aim by gently tempting it with her favourite food?

Likewise, we need to gently tempt our mind to return to its source by regularly reminding it that happiness lies only within - by reminding it that if it goes out it will surely experience a world, and any world is nothing but misery. Bhagavan teaches us all this in Nan Yar?

So, as Bhagavan teaches us, our practise of self-investigation should be without any strain. While practicing, I was and am still guilty of excreting too much force at times. I should, therefore, learn to relax. However, to be relaxed doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to go deeper and deeper within ourself. We should try and focus our attention more and more only on ourself, but this should be done with a soft touch.

This is sukha-marga (the path of happiness). That is, not only is our goal absolute and infinite happiness, but our path is also happiness. Instead of experiencing happiness, we may experience bodily or mental strain, if we apply too much force to go within. This should be avoided.

Mouna said...

Origin, my friend
”I wish you to have a very fertile, satisfactory, stress-free and uplifting working day/week to sustain your family.”

I do really appreciate these heartily felt words amidst the blog’s most of the time dryness due to its intellectual and virtual (we can’t feel or see each other) nature.
In fact, by grace, my work is very stress free and although it doesn’t allow me to write on a computer while performing it (this might be a blessing), gives me “the time” to practice self-investigation for long hours on a row... while listening to good relaxing music that I love (trio jazz music like Red Garland, Bill Evans, Oscar Peterson, etc...). It is really a paradox because while it is not what Mouna’s would have chosen to do to earn a living (art) it does provide me the opportunity to reflect on and practice Bhagavan’s teachings. Although almost eight hours a day job, it is a second job, since the rest of the time I do work on my art which requires “full undivided” attention (that’s why I said I can’t spend much time writing!...)

Again Origin, thanks for your words.
Y in B,
M

padam said...

verse 22,
linked article of Sunday, 14 June 2009 Ulladu Narpadu – an explanatory paraphrase

"...except by turning our mind back within and immersing it in God, who shines within it (as its essential self-consciousness, 'I am') giving it light (the light of consciousness by which it is able to know both itself and the appearance of thoughts, objects or otherness)."

When my sensual desires cause me great distress I rather wish that the essential self-consciousness instead of giving light to the mind would take away its light from it.

origin said...

Mouna,
I am glad that you appreciate my words. I too rejoice with you that you have the opportunity to practise Bhagavan's teachings even while doing your job (apparently in a music-shop/club or something similar).
Y in B.

Mouna said...

Origin,
"(apparently in a music-shop/club or something similar)"

Hahaha... good guess, but no.
I started working as an Uber/Lyft driver in Southern California after loosing my old time graphic design book publishing job.

Be well friend,
m

padam said...

verse 22,
linked article of Thursday, 20 March 2014 Ātma-vicāra is the only means by which we can experience ourself as we really are

"Here ‘turning the mind back within and immersing it in God’ denotes the practice of ātma-vicāra, which is trying to turn our mind or power of attention away from all other things, back towards itself, 'I', and thereby to make it merge and become one with its own essential self, which is God, the source of its light of awareness. Therefore, by asking how it is possible for us to know God except by thus ‘turning the mind back within and immersing it in God’, Sri Ramana clearly implies that we cannot know God, the one absolute reality, except by practising ātma-vicāra."

My experience is that I cannot really start pursuing atma-vichara when the mind is just struggling for freedom from sensual desires. In such moments it is nearly impossible for me to be aware of even God's uninterrupted presence. Unless I have won that fight my practice of atma-vichara will run only on narrow gauge.

Mouna said...

Sivanarulji!! my friend, are you still around?

Today seeing the 378 comments on this posting alone made e remember the day when we were kind of astonished that the blog posting had reached a 100 comments, remember?

Miss your thought process, brother...
Anyways, hope all is good.

Sending virtual blessings your way,
Mouna

origin said...

Mouna,
your new job seem to be a bit risky. Keep a vigilant eye on you ! Take care of you !
Be well.

Mouna said...

Thanks again Origin.
M

padam said...

verse 22,
linked article of Thursday, 28 May 2015 The ego is essentially a formless and hence featureless phantom
"As our real self, God is the pure self-awareness that illumines our mind, enabling it to be aware of both itself and all other things. Therefore in order to know God as he really is we must experience ourself as we really are, and in this verse Bhagavan emphasises that the only means by which we can 'know God' or experience ourself as we really are is by turning our mind (our power of attention) back within ourself and thereby drowning it in God, our real self."

At present I am often busy to clear the air of the mind from troublemakers of all sorts in the run-up/in advance to atma vichara.

Salazar said...

padam, to struggle against sensual desires is as bad as indulging in them. “I am” doesn’t struggle nor does “I am” need to do anything.

Salazar said...

padam, there is no run up/advance to atma-vichara, that is an excuse of the mind to avoid it.

padam said...

verse 22,
linked article of Tuesday, 11 August 2015 What is cidābhāsa, the reflection of self-awareness?
5. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 22: this reflected light must turn back within and merge in its source

"As we have seen, the original light that illumines our mind is ourself, who are pure and infinite self-awareness, but as the pure self-awareness that we actually are we are aware of nothing other than ourself. Therefore when we rise as this mind or ego, we seemingly cease to experience ourself as pure self-awareness and instead experience ourself as a finite awareness who experiences other things in addition to ourself. This finite awareness called mind or ego is therefore not our original light of pure self-awareness but only a limited and distorted reflection or image of it.

Whereas the original light that we actually are is never aware of anything other than ourself, the reflected light called mind or ego is never aware of itself alone, but is always aware of itself plus other things. Thus we use this reflected light that we now experience as ourself to constantly experience other things, which seem to exist only because they are illumined by this reflected light. Therefore if we are to experience ourself as the pure self-awareness that we actually are, we must cease using this reflected light to experience other things and must instead try to use it to experience ourself alone. In other words, we must try to turn and redirect this reflected light back on its source, ourself."

"If we have a mirror, we can use it to reflect light from the sun into a dark cave to see whatever is in there, but if we turn the mirror back to face the sun, the reflected ray of light from it will merge and disappear in the direct light of the sun. Likewise, if we turn our attention or mind away from all other things to face ourself alone, it will merge and disappear in our original light of pure self-awareness.

Therefore though Bhagavan speaks here of ‘பதியை மதியால் மதித்திடுதல்’ (patiyai matiyāl matittiḍudal), which means ‘knowing [measuring or ascertaining] God by the mind’, we cannot actually know him by our mind, because when we attempt to do so our mind will merge in him and thereby cease to exist as a separate entity. Therefore what will eventually know God (our real self) is only God himself, who always knows himself and nothing but himself. Hence the final result of our self-investigation will not be to know anything that we do not already know, but will only be to shed all our other knowledge (or seeming knowledge) by shedding the fundamental illusion that we are this mind or ego."

At present I do not consider the final result of my self-investigation because I have not even begun it seriously.

padam said...

Salazar,
to keep me away from indulging in sensual desires is not possible without a fight to the death. Unfortunately. That fight must clear up the conditions before I am at all able to hold me in the position to keep the mind onepointed.

Salazar said...

padam, it must become clear for you that to engage in sensual desires is not bad per se and it will happen according to your prarabdha. The issue is not the sensual desires but the IDENTIFICATION with an apparent do-er/ego (who indulges in sensual desires).

The sensual desires are not the enemy, the ego who believes the it is it who is indulging in them is. The idea is not to refrain from actions (or inaction) but to not identify with that there is someone who is doing it.

That has to become clear and reading and repeating Ulladu Narpadu won't do that.

padam said...

Salazar,
how to avoid the identification with the ego which is stricken by heavy/strong sensual desires ?
If one is about to cut your throat with the a sharp point of a knife how to avoid to identify with your throat ?

padam said...

verse 22,
linked comment of 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
"There are many ways in which the practice of self-investigation can be expressed, and it is often beautifully expressed by saints in the language of dualistic devotion, but however it may be expressed in words, we each need to do what needs to be done, namely to turn back within in order to merge in the clear light of pure self-awareness, which alone is the real nature of God and ourself. This is what Bhagavan called ātma-vicāra, and he made it clear that it is also the culmination, pinnacle and crowning glory of complete self-surrender."

linked article of Wednesday, 6 January 2016 Why do I believe that ātma-vicāra is the only direct means by which we can eradicate the illusion that we are this ego?
5. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 22: unless we turn within to look at ourself, how can we see what we actually are?

"If we do not turn our attention or mental gaze back within to face ourself alone, how can we directly see what we actually are? Therefore whatever other spiritual practices we may do, we must sooner or later turn our attention back towards ourself alone, because until we do so we will not be able to experience ourself as we really are."

padam said...

verse 22,
linked comment of 2016-04-04: Comment explaining verse 22 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu

"Therefore what he implies in this verse is that our mind or intellect can enable us to know what we actually are only if we turn it back within and thereby completely immerse and dissolve it in the clear light of pure self-awareness that is always shining within it and illuminating it."

linked article of Wednesday, 19 October 2016 As we actually are, we do nothing and are aware of nothing other than ourself
11. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 22: we cannot fathom God except by turning our mind within and drowning it in him

"Therefore, since we see differences where God sees none, we (as the ego we now seem to be) can never adequately understand him or his view. All we can do is merge within and lose ourself in him, as Bhagavan teaches us in verse 22 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu:
...
"So long as our mind is turned outwards, we experience ourself as this finite ego, and hence we can never know God as he really is, because he is nothing other than our infinite self, which is what shines within our mind as the fundamental intransitive awareness that illumines it, enabling it to be transitively aware of other things. Therefore we can know God, who is our own actual self, only by turning our mind within and drowning it in him."

I will try to turn the mind within to the best of my ability.

Salazar said...

padam, step by step (via atma-vichara). Your objections come from your mind and it of course comes with strong examples like the loss of one’s life. It is a valid example of one’s attachment but it also is a ruse of the mind to demonstrate the apparent difficulty and almost impossibility to reach such non-identification.

So the first step would be to stop indulging in thoughts of difficulty and impossibility. Plain atma-vichara: “Who is asking how to avoid the identification with the ego? You are! But where are you? Where can you be found? Who is asking that question?” ..............

My personal observation with you: There is a huge gap between reading and studying Ulladu Narpadu and theoretical/conceptual interest and where you are on a practical level. In your position I’d stop reading (or at least much less) and just do atma-vichara and give it some time. Don’t give up. Keep trying. AND do not indulge in thoughts of difficulty and problems etc. As soon as you catch these thoughts coming up, ask who is thinking these thoughts. You have to interrupt your train of thoughts constantly.

There is no other way. Posting comments about your ego’s difficulty is a ruse to avoid tackling the real issue, that has to become clear too.

Less conceptualization, more actual practical application is needed.

padam said...

verse 22,
linked 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
12. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 22 (kaliveṇbā version): our actual self gives light to the mind, which sees everything

"Though the mind is what illumines the appearance of both itself and the world, it does not shine by its own light but only by the light of our actual self, as Bhagavan indicates in verse 22 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu:

"The awareness or 'light' by which we as this mind or ego see everything is called cidābhāsa, a semblance, likeness, reflection or false appearance of awareness, because it is not our original awareness (cit) but only a reflection or semblance of it. By means of this reflected light we are able to see everything other than ourself, but we cannot see what we ourself actually are, because what we actually are is the original light of which this mind is just a reflection, so if we turn our mind back within to see ourself, the source from which it derives light, this mind will dissolve and disappear in its source, just as a ray of sunlight reflected from a mirror into a dark cave would disappear as soon as the bright light of the sun shines directly into the cave."

linked article of Sunday, 19 March 2017 What is ‘remembering the Lord’ or ‘remembrance of Arunachala’?

"Regarding attaining mōkṣa by remembering the Lord at the time of death, mōkṣa (liberation) is only the death of the ego, because the ego is what is bound and is therefore the root of all bondage, and as Bhagavan explained, the ego will die only when we turn our entire attention inwards to investigate what it is, so remembering the Lord at the time of death means turning our mind inwards to look at ourself alone, as Bhagavan implies in verse 22 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu:
...

Therefore rather than meditating on Arunachala or Ramana as if they were something other than ourself, it is better to meditate upon them as ourself, 'I',...".

Regrettably even in the physical presence of Arunachala Hill I failed to hold on meditating upon him as 'I' for some longer period. Hope to intensify that at my next visit there by grace.

padam said...

Salazar,
thank you for giving your well-meaning hints.
Because it is the first time that I pursue studying any text of Bhagavan Ramana in detail, I do not want to stop now. Your recommendation "more actual practical application is needed." is quite correct. But it seems that my way is paved with obstacles constructed by my prarabdha. That hurdle race over paving stones stacked up in piles can be handled only by me. My little and poor practice is certainly evident. Because of my immense difficulties with atma-vichara I could not step further to some "available success" till now. On the other hand I feel strongly attracted to the path shown by Ramana. Of course one must walk persistently on it - whithout respect of any success. AS you say one must always thwart the ego's ruse to avoid tackling the real issue.

padam said...

verse 23,
...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.

linked article of Sunday, 14 June 2009 Ulladu Narpadu – an explanatory paraphrase

"...The only means by which we can destroy this illusion is to withdraw our attention from everything else and focus it exclusively upon 'I', because just as we would not recognise the truth that the imaginary snake is actually nothing other than a rope unless we looked at it carefully, so we will not recognise (or truly experience) the truth that this imaginary finite 'I' is actually nothing other than the one real infinite 'I' unless we scrutinise it keenly."

linked article of Thursday, 28 May 2015 The ego is essentially a formless and hence featureless phantom
5. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 23: why is this body not what I actually am?

"...‘When one investigates [or observes] with a subtle mind where this ‘I’ rises, it will slip away’."

To keep the mind in the required subtle condition is the fundamental prerequisite.

Sanjay Lohia said...

We cannot go wrong in outward terms, and in inward terms the only wrong we can do is not to surrender to Bhagavan

We at times have to make tough decisions in our life. Many such decisions may make our life quite difficult, especially if its outcome backfires. We (my wife and I) also had to make one such decision recently. After making such a decision, when I shared my state of mind with Michael, this is what he replied:

Yes, sometimes in life we have to make tough decisions, and we decide whatever we think is best, but then we have to leave the outcome to Bhagavan. Fortunately we know that nothing can happen against his will (in other words, nothing can happen that is not ordained in our prarabdha), so even if we make a decision against that, his will will override it. So we cannot go wrong in outward terms, and in inward terms the only wrong we can do is not to surrender to him.

In this regard, we will be comforted by the following sayings of Bhagavan, Sri Krishna and Jesus:

Bhagavan: God never forsakes a devotee who has surrendered.

Sri Krishna: To those who are devoted to me and me alone, I assure their yogashema (material and spiritual welfare).

Jesus: Seek first the kingdom of heaven, and everything will be added unto you.

(I will continue this in my next comment)

Sanjay Lohia said...

In continuation of my previous comment:

What Bhagavan, Sri Krishna and Jesus are essentially saying is that if we are sincerely practising self-surrender or self-investigation, we should not worry about our external or worldly life. God is more than willing to take care of us in all possible ways. There is a popular saying that if we take one step towards God, he will surely take a hundred steps towards us. In this context, it would be useful to reflect on the twelfth paragraph of Nan Yar?:

God and guru are in truth not different. Just as what has been caught in the jaws of a tiger will not return, so those who have been caught in the glance of guru’s grace will surely be saved by him and will never instead be forsaken; nevertheless, it is necessary to walk unfailingly along the path that guru has shown.

I have highlighted, ‘will surely be saved by him and will never instead be forsaken'. Bhagavan has assured us that God or guru will never forsake us, if our devotion to the guru is sincere and wholehearted. He will eventually consume us, but in the meanwhile he will also take care of us in all possible ways. We should have unshakable faith in Bhagavan’s love and protection. This can never fail.

padam said...

verse 23,
linked article of Sunday, 28 February 2016 The role of logic in developing a clear, coherent and uncomplicated understanding of Bhagavan’s teachings
3. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verses 23 and 28: we need a subtle and sharp mind in order to discern what we actually are

"The instrument by which we must thus investigate ourself is expressed by the phrase ‘நுண் மதியால்’ (nuṇ matiyāl), which is an instrumental case form of ‘நுண் மதி’ (nuṇ mati) and which therefore means ‘by a subtle mind’ or ‘with a subtle mind’. நுண் (nuṇ) means subtle, refined, minute, slender, sharp, acute, precise and discriminating, and மதி (mati) is a word of Sanskrit origin that in this context means mind, intellect, understanding, perspicacity or power of discernment.

The meaning of ‘நுண் மதி’ (nuṇ mati) is very close to that of ‘கூர்ந்த மதி’ (kūrnda mati), which is a term that Bhagavan used in a similar context in verse 28 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu":
English translation: Like sinking in order to see an object that has fallen into water, diving within restraining speech and breath by a sharp mind it is necessary to know the place where the rising ego rises. Know.

"...what we require in order to discern what we actually are is a deep inner clarity of perception that goes far beyond the mere ability to reason clearly and logically. Though clear and subtle reasoning can help us to recognise the means by which we can discern what we actually are, it cannot by itself enable us to discern our actual self, because to do so we need to turn our entire attention back towards ourself alone, thereby leaving all reasoning behind.

If we have developed the deep, subtle and acute inner clarity of self-awareness that Bhagavan implies by the terms நுண் மதி (nuṇ mati) and கூர்ந்த மதி (kūrnda mati), we will naturally be able to reason in a clear, coherent, logical and keenly perceptive manner, but being able to reason clearly, coherently and logically does not necessarily mean that one has the sharp and subtle clarity of perception that one requires in order to focus one’s entire attention on oneself alone and thereby experience oneself as one actually is. Many people who have brilliant intellects, which they can apply fruitfully in philosophy, mathematics, science and other such outwardly directed intellectual pursuits, would not be able to turn their entire attention within and thereby merge back in the source from which they arose, and they may not even be able to understand the subtle philosophy taught by Bhagavan, particularly if they are unable to recognise the crucial fact that we are always aware of ourself, even when we are aware of nothing else whatsoever, as in sleep."

Oh Guhesa, cave-dwelling Lord, would you like to support my wish to become able to turn my entire attention back towards myself alone, thereby leaving all reasoning behind ? You certainly would demand the total submission of my ego to your command.
The readiness for that required entire subjugation cannot be developed without your fiendship and protection.

padam said...

Oh Guhesa,
sorry about my typo. Of course, I depend on you and your "friendship" (not fiendship) for help.

padam said...

verse 23,
linked 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
4. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 23: everything else arises only after the ego arises, and if we investigate this ego it will disappear

"Since everything else appears only after the ego appears, and since nothing else appears when the ego does not appear, everything depends for its seeming existence on the seeming existence of this ego. Therefore since this ego seems to exist only when it does not keenly investigate itself, and disappears when it does investigate itself keenly enough, the only means by which we can free ourself from everything is by investigating this ego with a very keenly focused power of attention, as Bhagavan instructs us to do in verse 23 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu:
...
"...since this ego rises as ‘I am this body’ by attending to things other than itself, beginning with whatever body we currently mistake ourself to be, it will subside back into its source to the extent that it attends keenly to itself alone, so if it manages to focus its attention on itself so keenly that it ceases to be aware of anything else whatsoever, it will thereby cease to exist."

...‘When one investigates with a subtle mind where this I rises, it will slip away’.

"Therefore, since everything else arises only after this 'I' arises, and since consequently nothing else exists when it does not arise, when Bhagavan says that it will slip away when one keenly investigates where it rises, he clearly implies that everything else will thereby cease to exist."

Therefore keen self-investigation cannot postponed any more.

padam said...

verse 23,
linked article of Tuesday, 5 September 2017 If we choose to do any harmful actions, should we consider them to be done according to destiny (prārabdha)?

"‘After one thing [called] ‘I’ rises, everything rises. Investigate [consider, determine or find out] with a subtle mind where this ‘I’ rises’, thereby indicating that the instrument we need for investigating ourself is (unsurprisingly) ‘நுண் மதி’ (nuṇ mati), a ‘subtle mind [or intellect]’. Such a subtle mind or intellect is required not only for self-investigation but also for understanding his teachings clearly and correctly, because though his teachings are essentially very simple, they are also very subtle and deep, so they cannot be understood clearly by a crude mind that is inflexibly attached to dogmatic beliefs or rigid interpretations.

The more we practise being self-attentive, the more our mind will be purified or cleansed of its desires, attachments, pride and so on, and the more it will thereby become subtle and refined, enabling it to go still deeper within to see what we actually are, which is the source from which this ‘I’ (the ego) rises. As our mind and intellect thus become more subtle and refined, the clarity with which we are able to understand his teachings will also increase and deepen, so what we thought we had understood clearly some years ago (or perhaps just some months or weeks ago) we may now find that we understand more clearly and perhaps even in an entirely fresh light. This will be the experience of anyone who is seriously following this path of self-investigation that he has taught us."

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 733   Newer› Newest»