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:
2018-11-08: What alone exists is beyond the ability of ego or mind to conceive or comprehend as it actually is, so in order to be aware of it as it is we need to just be as it is, that is, as pure awareness devoid of any awareness of anything other than ourself
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 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 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 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:
2019-05-08: Though ajāta is the ultimate truth, it is more appropriate for us to be taught dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda because we see the world, which is why Bhagavan began this verse with the clause ‘நாம் உலகம் காண்டலால்’ (nām ulaham kāṇḍalāl), ‘because we see the world’
2018-11-08: Bhagavan wrote Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu taking into consideration our present perspective as ego, in which we seem to be a body, and this is why he began the first verse by saying ‘நாம் உலகம் காண்டலால்’ (nām ulaham kāṇḍalāl), ‘Because we see the world’, in which the first word, ‘நாம்’ (nām), ‘we’, refers to ourself as this body-bound ego
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 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 ego exists. [By] destroying ‘I’ [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’ [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:
2019-05-08: The nature of whatever we perceive is determined by what we perceive ourself to be, so it is only because we rise as ego and thereby mistake ourself to be a form that the world and God seem to be forms
2019-02-20: Oneself is a form only when one rises as ego, so only as ego can we see the world and God as if they were forms, and hence if we do not rise as ego, who is there to see them as forms?
2018-11-08: Forms seem to exist only in the view of ourself as ego, because as ego we are aware of ourself as if we were a body, a form composed of five sheaths
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 will]. 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:
2019-06-11: When Bhagavan says that ego is just the false awareness ‘I am this body’, what he means by the term ‘body’ is not just the physical body but the entire person that we as ego mistake ourself to be, which is a form composed of the five sheaths: a physical body, life, mind, intellect and will
2019-05-08: There is no world except when we mistake ourself to be a body composed of five sheaths, so the world is created only by our perception of it
2018-12-30: Since the five sheaths always appear together as a single package and are collectively experienced by us as ourself, Bhagavan referred to them collectively as ‘body’
2018-12-30: Whatever body we experience as ourself, whether in waking or dream, is a form composed of five sheaths, so all five are included in the term ‘body’ when Bhagavan says that ego is the false awareness that is aware of itself as ‘I am this body’
2018-12-30: There is absolutely no difference between waking and dream, so whatever body we experience as ourself in any such state is just a kalpanā (an imaginary fabrication or figment) projected by ourself as ego, and it consists of all five sheaths
2018-11-08: In the two rhetorical questions he asks in this verse Bhagavan implies that no world exists without a body and no world is perceived without a body, thereby indicating that the (seeming) existence of the world and our perception of it are one, since it seems to exist only because we perceive it
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:
2019-08-05: Though Bhagavan does not explicitly say in Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu that our present world is just a dream, he clearly implies this in many of its verses, such as this one
2019-05-08: No world exists independent of the one mind that perceives it, because the world is nothing but a series of phenomena consisting of the five kinds of perception or sensation.
2019-05-08: What he refers to as ‘மனம் ஒன்று’ (maṉam oṉḏṟu), which means ‘one thing, the mind’, ‘the one, mind’, ‘the one [called] mind’ or ‘the mind alone’, is ego, the perceiver of all phenomena
2018-11-08: What Bhagavan clearly implies by asking whether there is a world besides the mind is that no world exists independent of the mind that perceives it
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 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:
2019-07-24: Phenomena appear and disappear along with ego, but whether they appear, as in waking and dream, or disappear, as in sleep, we always exist and are always aware of our existence as ‘I am’, so we are the fundamental awareness in which both ego and phenomena appear and disappear
2019-06-28: Just as a movie picture projected on a screen does not affect the screen in any way (for example, a picture of a raging fire does not burn the screen, and a picture of a flood does not drench it), the rising of ourself as ego and our consequent awareness of phenomena does not in any way affect ourself as pure awareness, which is eternal and immutable
2019-05-08: The world shines only by ego or mind because it seems to exist only in the view of ego, the perceiving element of the mind, and therefore would not seem to exist without it
2019-05-08: What is real is only the source from which the perceiver appears along with all its perceptions in waking and dream and into which it disappears with them in sleep
2018-12-30: What makes the world appear is only ego or mind, because it appears only in the view of this ego, the awareness that appears in waking and dream and disappears in sleep
2018-12-30: Ego is no more real than whatever phenomena it perceives, because they both appear and disappear simultaneously, so what is real is that from which they appear and into which they disappear, namely ourself, the fundamental awareness that exists and shines by its own light without ever appearing or disappearing
2018-11-08: What makes the world appear is awareness, because it is perceived by awareness, but the awareness that perceives the world is not real awareness but only ego or mind, which is the awareness that rises and subsides or appears and disappears
2018-11-08: Though the perceiver and the perceived appear simultaneously, the perceiver is causally antecedent to the perceived, and though the dreamer and the dream appear simultaneously, the dreamer is causally antecedent to the dream
2018-11-08: When Bhagavan says ‘உலகு அறிவு தன்னால் ஒளிரும்’ (ulahu aṟivu-taṉṉāl oḷirum), ‘the world shines by awareness’, he implies that what causes the world to appear is only ego or mind, which is the awareness that rises and subsides along with the world
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 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, ego, will itself cease to exist]. Only those who have seen [what remains when all dyads and triads have thereby ceased to exist along with their root, ego] have seen the reality. See, they will not be confused.

Explanations and discussions:
2019-06-28: In sleep, when we do not rise as ego, there are no dyads or triads, but in waking and dream we rise and stand as ego, and consequently dyads and triads seem to exist, so since ego will cease to exist if we investigate it keenly enough, all dyads and triads will cease to exist along with it
2019-05-08: All pairs of opposites and all sets of three factors of transitive awareness depend for their seeming existence on one thing, namely ego, which is the root, foundation and essence of the mind
2019-05-08: To emphasise that there is only one ego, in verses 6, 9, 23 and 24 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu Bhagavan uses the noun ‘ஒன்று’ (oṉḏṟu), which means ‘one thing’ or ‘the one’, when referring to it
2019-03-22: Other than self-awareness, every experience entails three factors (called tripuṭi in Sanskrit and muppudi in Tamil), namely the experiencer, whatever is experienced, and the experiencing, and since the experiencer in all cases is ego, in the absence of ego there can be no experience in the conventional sense of the term
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 [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:
2019-02-20: The அறிவு (aṟivu) in the final clause is pure intransitive awareness (suṭṭaṯṟa aṟivu), whereas all the earlier occurrences of this term aṟivu, which means knowledge or awareness, refer to transitive awareness (suṭṭaṟivu)
2019-01-31: As Bhagavan explains in verses 10 to 13, awareness or knowledge of anything other than ourself is not real awareness or knowledge but only ignorance, because nothing other than ourself actually exists
2018-11-08: Only self-awareness is real awareness
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: Instead of knowing [the reality of] oneself [ego], who knows [everything else], knowing other things is ignorance; except [that], is it knowledge? When one knows [the reality of] oneself [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 ego is just pure self-awareness, so when one knows oneself as pure self-awareness ego will no longer seem to exist, and hence all its knowledge and ignorance will cease to exist along with it].

Explanations and discussions:
2019-02-20: Knowing or being aware of anything other than ourself (suṭṭaṟivu) is not real knowledge or awareness but only ignorance, and when we know ourself all knowledge and ignorance of other things will cease
2019-01-31: As Bhagavan explains in verses 10 to 13, awareness or knowledge of anything other than ourself is not real awareness or knowledge but only ignorance, because nothing other than ourself actually exists
2018-11-08: When one knows oneself, knowledge and ignorance about other things will cease
2018-11-08: If we investigate and know the reality of ego, ego as such will cease to exist and along with it awareness of phenomena will also cease
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 ego] is not real aṟivu [knowledge or awareness]. Since [the real nature of oneself] 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:
2019-06-28: Real awareness is not ego, which is aware of other things, but only pure awareness, which is never aware of anything other than itself
2019-03-25: Comment explaining that in Bhagavan’s view nothing other than himself exists
2019-03-22: What actually exists is only ātma-svarūpa, so what it is aware of is only itself and not anything else, because in its clear view nothing else exists
2019-02-20: Real awareness is only self-awareness, which is intransitive, because it is devoid of awareness of anything else whatsoever
2019-01-31: As Bhagavan explains in verses 10 to 13, awareness or knowledge of anything other than ourself is not real awareness or knowledge but only ignorance, because nothing other than ourself actually exists
2018-11-08: Real awareness is devoid of awareness and ignorance of anything else, because there is nothing else for it to know or not know
2018-11-08: In the kaliveṇbā version of this verse Bhagavan emphasises that real awareness is completely devoid of even the slightest trace of any knowledge or ignorance of other things
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 yiṉḏṟaṇiga 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. aṇigaḷ 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, 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 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 ego or mind but only oneself.]

Explanations and discussions:
2019-08-24: Nothing other than oneself is real, and even the very awareness of anything other than oneself is unreal, being just ignorance, not real awareness
2019-03-31: The belief that some people are jñānis (self-realised people) and the majority are ajñānis (people who are not self-realised) can arise only in the state of ajñāna
2019-03-25: Comment explaining that since Bhagavan is devoid of ajñāna, he is not aware of any multiplicity
2019-03-22: Knowing ourself is not a knowledge that can be either gained or lost, because it is what we always are, and it alone is real
2019-02-20: Oneself, who is awareness, alone is real, so awareness of anything else is not real awareness but only ignorance
2019-01-31: As Bhagavan explains in verses 10 to 13, awareness or knowledge of anything other than ourself is not real awareness or knowledge but only ignorance, because nothing other than ourself actually exists
2018-12-30: As ego we mistake awareness of phenomena to be knowledge, so we mistake the absence of such awareness in sleep to be ignorance, but as Bhagavan implies here, awareness of phenomena is ignorance, because real awareness is not aware of anything other than itself, and because phenomena are not real, since they do not exist independent of our perception of them
2018-11-08: Since nothing other than ourself actually exists, being aware of other things is not real awareness but only ignorance
2018-11-08: Since awareness that is aware of other things is what is generally called ‘ego’ or ‘mind’, in this verse Bhagavan implies that ego is not real awareness but only ignorance, but what seems to be ego is nothing other than real awareness, because nothing else actually exists
2018-11-08: So long as we are aware of anything other than ourself, as such we are not real awareness but only mind, but though mind is not real awareness, it is nothing other than real awareness, so when instead of being aware of anything else we are aware of ourself alone, we cease to be mind and remain as real awareness, which is what we always actually are
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 [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:
2019-05-08: Ego will cease to exist when it investigates itself keenly enough, and everything else will cease to exist along with it, and because other things seem to exist only when we rise and stand as ego
2018-11-08: The reason why second and third persons come to an end when ego, the first person, ceases is that they cannot exist without it, because they seem to exist only in its view
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:
2019-02-12: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 15: now is the only time that ever actually exists
2019-02-12: The kaliveṇbā extension, ‘நிதமும் மன்னும்’ (nitamum maṉṉum), ‘which always endures’, implies that the present is what always exists, namely ourself, so it gives a clue to what he meant by ‘இன்று உண்மை’ (iṉḏṟu uṇmai), ‘the reality of today [the present moment, now]’
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:
2018-11-21: Comment explaining the difference between Bhagavan’s view and ours and the incomprehensibility of his view from our point of view
2018-11-08: The body is a form, so like any other form it is defined by limits, and hence if ‘I’ is without limit, it is without body or any other form
2018-09-01: Verses 17 and 18 are an example of the nuanced manner in which Bhagavan expressed his teachings
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:
2018-11-21: Comment explaining the difference between Bhagavan’s view and ours and the incomprehensibility of his view from our point of view
2018-11-08: What the ātma-jñāni sees and what the ajñāni sees is exactly the same, but what they each see it as is different
2018-09-01: Verses 17 and 18 are an example of the nuanced manner in which Bhagavan expressed his teachings
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 ego] is there dispute about which prevails, fate or will. Those who have known [the reality of] themself [ego], who is the one origin [cause or foundation] for fate and will, have [thereby] discarded them [because 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 ego will be dissolved forever, and thus one will have discarded not only ego but also its fate and will]. Say, will they thereafter be associated with them?

Explanations and discussions:
2018-09-01: Though it is generally interpreted as ‘free will’, in this verse மதி (mati) actually means just ‘will’.
2018-09-01: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 19: the origin, root and foundation of both fate and will is the ego
2018-09-01: In this verse Bhagavan does not explicitly refer to ‘free will’ at all, because the term he uses is மதி (mati), which in this context means ‘will’, so the simple teaching that he gives us in this verse is rather obscured and complicated when மதி (mati) is translated as ‘free will’
2018-09-01: Bhagavan’s verdict on this dispute is that fate and freedom of will are not mutually exclusive, because as he often explained fate is the fruit of actions that we have done of our own free will in previous lives
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 [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:
2019-03-22: Since seeing even a vision of God is just a ‘mind-constituted appearance’ (maṉōmayam ām kāṭci), seeing any other phenomena must likewise be just a ‘mind-constituted appearance’
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, ego being swallowed and consumed entirely by the infinite light of pure self-awareness is alone real seeing.]

Explanations and discussions:
2019-08-05: Being devoured by Bhagavan’s infinite love is seeing and thereby being what we actually are
2019-07-28: Second of two comments explaining that by Bhagavan merely being as he actually is, the flower of love to be as we actually are blossoms in our heart, and when this love blossoms fully it will devour us, and what will then remain is only infinite love, which is his true form and what we actually are
2019-03-22: Our real nature (ātma-svarūpa) is absolute silence (mauṉam), because it is completely devoid of even the least rising of ego and hence of anything else, so being swallowed by it is alone seeing it
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, a-m-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, a-m-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:
2019-08-24: Self-investigation is not only sufficient but also necessary, because we cannot know our real nature by any other means
2019-08-05: We can surrender ourself completely and thereby rest eternally in our natural state of absolute nivṛtti only by turning our entire attention back within (towards ourself alone) and thereby immersing it in the pure light of grace
2019-02-20: Since ego is aware of things other than itself, it obscures our real nature, which is aware of nothing other than itself, so in order to be aware of ourself as we actually are we must be willing to surrender this ego by turning it back within to merge in its source
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 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:
2019-05-30: What blunts our power of attention and thereby prevents us attending to ourself keenly enough to see what we actually are is our likes, dislikes, desires, attachments, hopes and fears for things other than ourself
2019-05-08: As Bhagavan says in this verse and verse 26, all other things come into existence only when we rise as ego
2019-05-08: To emphasise that there is only one ego, in verses 6, 9, 23 and 24 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu Bhagavan uses the noun ‘ஒன்று’ (oṉḏṟu), which means ‘one thing’ or ‘the one’, when referring to it
2019-01-29: In order to see what we actually are, we need to observe ourself with a very keen and acute power of discernment, as Bhagavan implied by using the terms ‘நுண் மதியால்’ (nuṇ matiyāl) in this verse and ‘கூர்ந்த மதியால்’ (kūrnda matiyāl) in verse 28
2018-11-08: The body and everything else seem to exist only when ego, this one thing called ‘I’, seems to exist, because they seem to exist only in its view and not in the view of our real nature (ātma-svarūpa)
2018-11-08: ‘After one thing, I, rises, everything rises’ implies that the appearance of ego is causally antecedent to the appearance of everything else
2018-11-08: In verses 23 and 26 Bhagavan says unequivocally that everything else comes into existence only after ego comes into existence, so we need to interpret what he says in verses 24 and 25 accordingly
2018-09-01: The clarity, sharpness and subtlety of mind or intellect that Bhagavan refers to here as ‘நுண் மதி’ (nuṇ mati) is what the term ‘vivēka’ actually refers to, and it is the instrument that we must hone and use in order to be able to investigate ourself so keenly that we distinguish ourself clearly from everything else and thereby see what we actually are
2018-09-01: We must investigate where ‘I’ rises ‘நுண் மதியால்’ (nuṇ matiyāl), ‘by a subtle [refined, sharp, keen, acute, precise, meticulous and discerning] mind [intellect or will]’
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, soul, subtle body, ego, this wandering and 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], nuṭpa mey [subtle body], ahandai [ego], this saṁsāra [wandering, revolving, perpetual movement, restless activity, worldly existence or the cycle of birth and death] and manam [mind].

Explanations and discussions:
2019-06-11: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 24: though ego as such does not exist in sleep, its essence and reality, sat-cit, which is our fundamental awareness ‘I am’, remains there, so ego remembers ‘I was asleep’ as if it existed in sleep
2019-05-08: Ego itself is bondage (bandha), because by rising as ego we bind ourself to all the limitations of whatever body we mistake to be ourself
2019-05-08: To emphasise that there is only one ego, in verses 6, 9, 23 and 24 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu Bhagavan uses the noun ‘ஒன்று’ (oṉḏṟu), which means ‘one thing’ or ‘the one’, when referring to it
2019-02-20: Ego is the false awareness ‘I am this body’, which is neither our real nature (ātma-svarūpa), which is pure awareness (cit), nor the body, which is non-aware (jaḍa), but a confused mixture of both, and hence it is called cit-jaḍa-granthi (the knot formed by the entanglement of awareness with an insentient body, binding them together as if they were one)
2018-11-08: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 24: ego is neither the body, which is jaḍa (non-aware), nor sat-cit (real awareness), but just the false awareness ‘I am this body’
2018-11-08: In the view of ourself as ego there now seems to be a body, and it seems to be ‘I’, but since it is jaḍa (non-aware or insentient), it is not actually aware of itself as ‘I’
2018-11-08: Though we are now aware of ourself as if we were this body, we continue to be aware of ourself in both dream and sleep, in which we are not aware of this body, so there is an underlying and enduring awareness of our own existence that exists whether we are aware of this body or not, and this is what Bhagavan refers to when he says ‘sat-cit (existence-awareness) does not rise’
2018-11-08: When Bhagavan says that ego rises ‘in between’ the body and sat-cit, this is a metaphorical way of saying that it is neither the body nor sat-cit, but has features of both
2018-11-08: Though Bhagavan says that ego rises in between the body and sat-cit, he does not mean to imply that the body exists prior to ego, because it seems to exist only in the view of ego
2018-11-08: In verses 23 and 26 Bhagavan says unequivocally that everything else comes into existence only after ego comes into existence, so we need to interpret what he says in verses 24 and 25 accordingly
2018-11-08: Because ego is a confused mixture of the body, which is non-aware (jaḍa), and sat-cit, it is called cit-jaḍa-granthi, the knot (granthi) formed by the entanglement of what is aware (cit) with what is non-aware (jaḍa), binding them together as if they were one
2018-11-08: Why does Bhagavan say that ego is the subtle body, saṁsāra and bondage?
2018-09-01: By its very nature ego is bound by its own limitations, so in this verse Bhagavan says it itself is bondage
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:
2019-08-15: Comment explaining that the nature of ourself as ego is to rise, stand and flourish to the extent to which we grasp (attend to) anything other than ourself, and to subside, wither and dissolve when we attend to ourself
2019-07-30: What Bhagavan implies here is that grasping form is the very nature of this formless phantom called ego, so it cannot come into existence, stand or flourish without grasping form
2019-06-11: Ego is a formless phantom that comes into existence, stands, feeds itself and flourishes only by ‘grasping form’, so since it is formless, ‘form’ means anything other than itself, namely any phenomena, and it can ‘grasp’ phenomena only by being aware of them, and hence what this implies is that ego comes into existence, stands, feeds itself and flourishes only by perceiving phenomena, all of which it brings into seeming existence by its mere perception of them
2019-05-08: We mistake ourself to be a form, namely a body consisting of five sheaths, whenever we rise as ego
2019-05-08: Ego is just a formless phantom, because it has no form of its own, so it comes into existence only by grasping the form of a body as itself
2019-05-08: If we investigate what ego actually is, it will dissolve and disappear, because it does not actually exist, as he implies by saying, ‘தேடினால் ஓட்டம் பிடிக்கும்’ (tēḍiṉāl ōṭṭam piḍikkum), ‘If sought, it will take flight’.
2019-05-08: We rise, stand and flourish as ego only by ‘grasping form’, which means holding fast to the appearance of things other than ourself
2019-04-19: Being aware of things other than ourself is what Bhagavan refers to as ‘உரு பற்றி’ (uru paṯṟi), ‘grasping form’, so in this verse he implies that we rise, seem to exist and flourish as ego only by being aware of things other than ourself
2019-03-31: We rise, stand and flourish as ego by being aware of forms, which are things other than ourself, so ego will subside and dissolve back into our real nature, its source, only to the extent that we attend to ourself, thereby withdrawing our attention from all other things
2019-02-20: Oneself is a form only when one rises as ego, because we come into existence as ego only by projecting and grasping the form of a body as ourself
2019-02-12: We rise, stand and flourish as ego by grasping form, and ‘grasping form’ implies being aware of phenomena, as we are throughout the states of waking and dream, so to cease rising as ego we must cease being aware of phenomena, as we are in sleep
2019-01-30: The cornerstone of Bhagavan’s teaching is this simple principle: the ego is a formless phantom that seems to exist and flourish only when it grasps forms (phenomena of any kind whatsoever), but when it tries to grasp itself, it takes flight
2018-11-20: Comment explaining the distinction between ego, which is a formless phantom, and whatever adjuncts it mistakes to be itself, which are all forms
2018-11-08: Whereas ego is what Bhagavan called ‘சுட்டறிவு’ (suṭṭaṟivu), which means transitive awareness (that is, awareness that is aware of things other than itself), our real nature is what he called ‘சுட்டற்ற அறிவு’ (suṭṭaṯṟa aṟivu), which means intransitive awareness (that is, awareness that is aware of nothing other than itself), so we rise and stand as ego only by being aware of other things (phenomena of any kind whatsoever)
2018-11-08: In verses 23 and 26 Bhagavan says unequivocally that everything else comes into existence only after ego comes into existence, so we need to interpret what he says in verses 24 and 25 accordingly
2018-09-01: பற்று (paṯṟu), grasping, clinging, attachment or desire, is the very nature of ego, because by grasping form it comes into existence, stands, feeds itself and flourishes
2018-09-01: Since the will (cittam) is the subtlest of the five sheaths that constitute whatever body ego currently mistakes itself to be, ego comes into existence, stands, feeds itself and flourishes only by grasping or attaching itself to the will and other four sheaths, so without its will ego would not even seem to exist
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 ego comes into existence, everything comes into existence; if ego does not exist, everything does not exist. Ego itself is everything. Therefore, know that investigating what this is alone is giving up everything.

Explanatory paraphrase: If 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 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 ego, and hence it cannot seem to exist unless ego seems to exist]. [Therefore] 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 [ego] is alone is giving up everything [because 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:
2019-08-15: Comment explaining that the practice of self-investigation (ātma-vicāra) is clinging firmly to oneself, which means being keenly self-attentive, and the practice of self-surrender is letting go of everything other than oneself, which entails attending to nothing other than oneself, so self-investigation and self-surrender are inseparable
2019-08-05: Since we as ego create and sustain the appearance of everything else, if by being keenly self-attentive we surrender ourself entirely to the infinite love of Bhagavan, which is our own real nature (ātma-svarūpa), we thereby give up not only ego but also everything else
2019-08-05: Though Bhagavan does not explicitly say in Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu that our present world is just a dream, he clearly implies this in many of its verses, such as this one
2019-07-30: Everything other than ego seems to exist only because we have risen as ego, so ego is the first cause: the cause of all other causes
2019-05-30: The keen and subtle intellect (kūrnda mati or nuṇ mati) that we require in order to discern what we actually are can be cultivated only by self-investigation (ātma-vicāra), for which we need to be willing to give up being aware of anything else
2019-05-08: What misperceives brahman as all these phenomena is only ego, so the appearance of any illusion is entirely dependent on the appearance of ourself as ego
2019-05-08: Everything perceived is just an illusory appearance (vivarta), like everything perceived in a dream, so it is brought into seeming existence only by the perceiver’s perception of it, and the perceiver of everything is only ourself as ego
2019-05-08: In verse 7 of Śrī Aruṇācala Aṣṭakam Bhagavan says, ‘இன்று அகம் எனும் நினைவு எனில், பிற ஒன்றும் இன்று’ iṉḏṟu aham eṉum niṉaivu eṉil, piṟa oṉḏṟum iṉḏṟu), ‘If the thought called I does not exist, even one other [thought or thing] will not exist’, which is exactly the same teaching that he gave us in the second sentence of this verse
2019-03-25: Comment explaining that all phenomena cease to exist when ego ceases to exist
2019-03-23: Comment explaining that the seeming existence of all other things depends on the seeming existence of ourself as ego
2019-03-22: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 26: if we investigate ego keenly enough, it will cease to exist, and everything else will cease to exist along with it
2019-03-22: So long as we are aware of phenomena, we must be present as ego, because what experiences phenomena is not ourself as we actually are but only ourself as ego
2019-03-22: The appearance of phenomena entails the fundamental duality of subject and objects, perceiver and things perceived, because all phenomena are objects of perception, and the subject who perceives them is only ego, so ego and phenomena co-exist
2019-02-15: Thoughts and dreams appear only in the view of ourself as ego, so as long as any thoughts or dreams appear we have not ceased to rise as ego
2018-12-30: Since ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’, does not exist in sleep, nothing other than our real nature (ātma-svarūpa) exists there, not even the ānandamaya kōśa or ‘causal body’ (kāraṇa śarīra)
2018-12-30: Whenever ego rises, it rises with its will or causal body, which is what is called ānandamaya kōśa, and from which it instantaneously projects the other four kōśas, through which it in turn projects all other phenomena, so as Bhagavan says, ‘அகந்தையே யாவும் ஆம்’ (ahandaiyē yāvum ām), ‘Ego itself is everything’
2018-11-08: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 26: everything is ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’
2018-11-08: As in many other verses of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, in this verse Bhagavan clearly implies that the appearance of ego is causally antecedent to the appearance of everything else
2018-11-08: Though it is only in and by the presence of our real nature that everything else seems to exist, it is not in the view of our real nature that other things seem to exist but only in the view of ourself as ego
2018-11-08: In verses 23 and 26 Bhagavan says unequivocally that everything else comes into existence only after ego comes into existence, and they do not exist when ego does not exist, so we need to interpret what he says in verses 24 and 25 accordingly
2018-11-08: Neither ego nor anything else other than our real nature actually exists, so their existence is not actual existence but only seeming existence
2018-11-08: Ego itself is everything in the sense that it is the seed that expands as everything else, so what it projects and perceives as so many phenomena is nothing but itself, and hence it is the one substance that appears as all forms
2018-11-08: What is aware of everything else is only ego, so if we investigate ourself keenly enough to be aware of ourself as we actually are, we will thereby give up being aware of anything else
2018-11-08: When ego ceases to exist everything else will cease to exist along with it, so in the fourth and final sentence of this verse he says: ‘Therefore, know that investigating what this [ego] is alone is giving up everything’
2018-09-01: Our ultimate aim is to give up everything, including its root, the ego, which we can do only by investigating what this ego is
2018-09-01: Since ego does not exist in sleep, nothing else exists there
2018-09-01: Bhagavan introduced one extremely important clarification that is not stated so explicitly elsewhere, whether in the upaniṣads or in any other ancient advaita texts, namely that the original cause of all phenomena is only ego, so ‘if ego comes into existence, everything comes into existence’, and ‘if ego does not exist, everything does not exist’
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’ [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 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 ego, the false rising and subsiding ‘I’.] [And] without reaching [or taking refuge in the annihilation of one’s ego], say [or explain], how to stand [stop, stay or abide] in the [real] state of oneself, in which oneself is that?

Explanations and discussions:
2019-08-24: Ego is a false self-awareness, an awareness of ourself as something other than what we actually are, so it can be eradicated only by awareness of ourself as we actually are, and in order to be aware of ourself as we actually are, we need to investigate ourself by being so keenly self-attentive that we cease to be aware of anything other than ourself
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:
2019-05-30: What blunts our power of attention and thereby prevents us attending to ourself keenly enough to see what we actually are is our likes, dislikes, desires, attachments, hopes and fears for things other than ourself
2019-01-29: In order to see what we actually are, we need to observe ourself with a very keen and acute power of discernment, as Bhagavan implied by using the terms ‘நுண் மதியால்’ (nuṇ matiyāl) in verse 23 and ‘கூர்ந்த மதியால்’ (kūrnda matiyāl) in this verse
2018-09-01: The clarity, sharpness and subtlety of mind or intellect that Bhagavan refers to here as ‘கூர்ந்த மதி’ (kūrnda mati) is what the term ‘vivēka’ actually refers to, and it is the instrument that we must hone and use in order to be able to investigate ourself so keenly that we distinguish ourself clearly from everything else and thereby see what we actually are
2018-09-01: We must investigate where ego rises ‘கூர்ந்த மதியால்’ (kūrnda matiyāl), ‘by a sharpened [pointed, keen, acute, penetrating and discerning] mind [intellect or will]’
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:
2019-03-29: Comment explaining that repetition of ‘I am not this, I am that’ may be a means to imbibe these elementary principles of advaita, like primary school children learning the alphabet and multiplication tables by repetition, but that it becomes unnecessary once we have clearly and firmly understood these principles
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’ [ego] dies, one thing [or the one] appears spontaneously [or as oneself] as ‘I am I’. Though it appears, it is not ‘I’ [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:
2019-08-28: Comment explaining that ‘நான் நான்’ (nāṉ nāṉ), ‘I am I’, expresses recognition of the fact that I am nothing other than I, because when ego is eradicated, what remains in its place is just pure self-awareness (ātma-jñāna), which is never aware of itself as anything other than itself
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 [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:
2019-08-05: Bhagavan is not aware of anything other than himself, so as this finite ego we can never adequately comprehend his state or the infinite love that he has for us as himself
2019-07-28: Comment explaining that as this finite ego we can never adequately comprehend the infinite love that Bhagavan has for us as himself
2019-03-25: Comment explaining that so long as we experience the illusion of multiplicity and otherness we cannot comprehend Bhagavan’s state
2018-11-21: Comment explaining the difference between Bhagavan’s view and ours and the incomprehensibility of his view from our point of view
2018-09-01: The jñāni is not a person but only the infinite space of pure self-awareness, in whose clear view neither a person nor anything else exists at all, so the jñāni never actually does any action, either with or without doership
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 being knowing oneself as ‘what?’, 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 being [as one is] [by] knowing oneself [by investigating] what [am I], thinking ‘I am that [brahman], not this [body or mind]’ is due to non-existence [destitution or deficiency] of strength [of bhakti and vairāgya] [and consequent lack of clarity of heart and mind], because that [brahman] alone [or that itself] is always seated [calmly] as oneself.

Explanations and discussions:
2019-03-29: Comment explaining that repetition of ‘I am not this, I am that’ may be a means to imbibe these elementary principles of advaita, like primary school children learning the alphabet and multiplication tables by repetition, but that it becomes unnecessary once we have clearly and firmly understood these principles
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, ego, which is merely a false awareness of ourself (an awareness of ourself as something other than what we actually are), and when 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:
2019-03-22: Unless we rise as ego, there is no one to say either ‘I do not know myself’ or ‘I have known myself’
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 sleep, 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] sleep [of self-ignorance], 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:
2019-08-24: Even if we could experience wonderful phenomena of one kind or another as a result of our practice of self-investigation, none of those phenomena would be real, so why should we value them in any way, and why should we feel that we are lacking anything worthwhile if we do not experience any of them?
2019-08-05: When Bhagavan says that all other siddhis are just siddhis achieved in dream, and asks whether they will be real if one wakes up, he clearly implies that any world in which such siddhis are achieved is just a dream, and that if we wake up from our sleep of self-ignorance, in which all dreams appear, whatever worlds we perceived in those dreams will no longer seem to be real
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:
2019-03-29: Comment explaining that repetition of ‘I am not this, I am that’ may be a means to imbibe these elementary principles of advaita, like primary school children learning the alphabet and multiplication tables by repetition, but that it becomes unnecessary once we have clearly and firmly understood these principles
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, [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:
2019-05-27: Comment explaining that ego is both the doer of actions and the experiencer of their fruit, but will cease to exist along with all its three karmas if we investigate ourself keenly enough to see what we actually are
2018-09-01: If we want to free ourself entirely from the entangled and tightly binding web of karma we must patiently and persistently persevere in practising self-investigation, and we must give up the mistaken belief that we can act without a sense of doership before eradicating ego, which is what Bhagavan refers to in this verse as வினைமுதல் (viṉai-mudal), the doer and root of all actions
2018-09-01: We are the doer of whatever actions we do by our will, so we alone are responsible for them, which is why Bhagavan said in the first sentence of this verse: ‘வினைமுதல் நாம் ஆயின், விளை பயன் துய்ப்போம்’ (viṉaimudal nām āyiṉ, viḷai payaṉ tuyppōm), ‘If we are the doer of action, we will experience the resulting fruit’
2018-09-01: Bhagavan refers to ego as ‘வினைமுதல்’ (viṉaimudal), which in grammar means the subject, doer or agent of an active verb, and therefore in this context means the doer of action, but which is a compound formed of two words, namely வினை (viṉai), which means action or karma, and முதல் (mudal), which means beginning, origin, cause, base or foundation, so it is a term that clearly expresses the role of the doer as the initiator, origin, cause and foundation of all action or karma
2018-04-18: When the sense of doership (the ego) is eradicated, 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:
2018-11-08: Ego is bandha (bondage), so to be free of bondage the price to be paid is eradication of ego
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   601 – 733 of 733
iruppu-unarvu said...

Sanjay Lohia,
you say "Our dream world disappears as soon as we wake up."
After awaking we always are aware of the waking world which disappears only when we enter a dream or deep sleep. So we can hardly compare our consciousness with that of the waking state. of course we can doubt the unreality of our waking experience.
On the other hand I do not assume that Bhagavan tells us the untruth. But Bhagavan's truth with its quite far-reaching consequences cannot be easily recognized by a simple-minded seeker like me. Even to take it as tentatively true costs me much effort. Making the seemingly existing ego vanish I am at present unable to achieve.

Karttikai Deepam said...

Sanjay Lohia,
"Even though the ego seems to exist, it has no substantial reality. It exists only in its own view, and will disappear if it is investigated - 'if sought it takes flight'."
To achieve the disappearance of the ego, however requires apparently superhuman quality of self-investigation.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Karttikai Deepam, you say, ‘To achieve the disappearance of the ego, however requires apparently superhuman quality of self-investigation’. What requires superhuman quality is to give up our attachment to things other than ourself.

If we are permanently stay inside Sri Ramanasramam, what can be easier than staying inside the asramam permanently? However, it may seem difficult to remain all the time inside the asramam, if we are too attached to things which are outside the asramam.

For example, I may be in love with a lady in the town, and this will compel me to go to town every day in order to meet her. I may also be addicted to beetle-leaves (paan), and this will require that I regularly go out of the asramam to procure the same. Similarly, I may be addicted to playing cards with my friends, and again this makes me go out every day to be with my friends.

Our case is similar to the above mentioned example. There can be nothing easier than self-investigation, because we are the very self which we want to investigate. In other words, we just have to be as we really are. Can it really be difficult? If it seems difficult it is because of our desires and attachments to things other than ourself.

Karttikai Deepam said...

Sanjay Lohia,
desires and attachments do not take their leave voluntarily. So they block my attempts to perseveringly/tenaciously practising self-investigation. Indeed sometimes I think:
if there were no desires and attachments to things other than myself I could remain in jnana already for a long time. Overcoming all the obstacles is what I feel sometimes - thank God not always - superhumanly and extremely difficult. That seems to be at least my fate.

I am. said...

I am.

ever present I said...

I am only I.

nirvisesa said...

Our real self is what we are aware of constantly, without any break and in all three states.

nan nan said...

I am one.

anubhava said...

Bhagavan is what is shining in you as I.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Michael: The body is jada (insentient); the body is not aware of pain.

Devotee: What about pain?

Michael: The body isn’t experiencing pain; you are experiencing pain. You think that the body is experiencing pain, because you think the body is yourself. What is happening in the body is simply some electrochemical signals are being sent from one part of the body up to the brain, and some reactions are taking place in the brain. If you view this from a purely physical perspective, that is all that’s happening – it’s just signals.

Why should some electrochemical signals be experienced by us as pleasure and others experienced by us as pain? Body is not experiencing anything. It’s we who are experiencing it.

Devotee: That means the mind is experiencing pain or pleasure.

Michael: Yes, but the mind always experiences itself as a body. So when it is experiencing pleasure or pain, it feels ‘I’, Michael, am experiencing pleasure or pain. What is Michael? Michael is the name of a body, isn’t it?

That’s why it’s called chit-jada-granthi. The jada and the chit are so much entangled. That’s the ego. We have to unravel that knot. We have to separate awareness from what is jada. When we allow the ego to rise, it always grasps the jada, the forms. By attending only to ourself (awareness) we can separate ourself from everything else.

So, as Bhagavan says, ‘leaving the body like a corpse’ - when our body is dead, will we be aware of it? So long as we are aware of it, the body seems to be alive. So when our body is dead, we will be totally unaware of it. So also our attention should be focused on ourself to such an extent that we are totally unaware of the body – unaware of anything other than ourself. Then only we will be aware of ourself as we actually are.

~#~ Slightly modified extract from the video: 2017-12-09 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on Nāṉ Ār? paragraph 1

Sanjay Lohia said...

Michael: In order to practise vichara, a very-very pure and subtle mind is necessary, and the way to purify and refine the mind, and to make it fit for this path of vichara is the practise of vichara.

Devotee: How do we practise vichara?

Michael: Are you not aware of yourself? Is there ever a moment when you are not aware of yourself? Whatever else we are aware of, we are always aware that ‘I am aware of it’. So we are always aware of ourself. However, we are not interested in ourself, but are interested in phenomena. The person we seem to be is one of the phenomena.

Because we take this body as ourself, we are so much interested in taking care of this body, but in taking care of our body we are neglecting ourself. We are taking for granted the self-awareness that we actually are.

Just like when we go to cinema to watch a film, we are not interested in the screen, we are only interested in the pictures which are there. Like that, we are interested in this world-picture that is appearing, but are not interested in the screen. The screen is the self-awareness.

So though we are always self-aware, we are negligently self-aware. That is, we overlook our self-awareness because of our interest in other things. Being attentively self-aware is what is called atma-vichara (self-investigation).

^*^ Slightly modified extract from the video: 2017-12-09 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on Nāṉ Ār? paragraph 1

aha-nokku said...

Sanjay Lohia,
thank you for your transcription of this extract of Michael's London video.
"So also our attention should be focused on ourself to such an extent that we are totally unaware of the body – unaware of anything other than ourself. Then only we will be aware of ourself as we actually are."
Such degree of focusing my attention I reached only sporadically. So I have to try to bring my inner eye more into focus. Unfortunately my inner camera does not focus automatically on self-awareness.

atma-anusandhana said...

Sanjay Lohia, thank you too for your transcription of 2017-12-09 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on Nāṉ Ār? paragraph 1

"So though we are always self-aware, we are negligently self-aware. That is, we overlook our self-awareness because of our interest in other things. Being attentively self-aware is what is called atma-vichara (self-investigation)."

It seems to be my fate/prarabdha to be only negligently self-aware. I only can start trying now to be attentively self-aware.

Sanjay Lohia said...

aha-nokku, congratulations, because you are able to focus all your attention on yourself to such an extent that you are totally unaware of anything other than yourself, although you claim it is only sporadic. You are obviously more advanced than probably most of us, because at least I have still not able to achieve such an intense state of self-attentiveness.

Yes, we have to practise and practise to make our sporadic states more permanent. As you rightly say, we have to bring our inner eye (attention) into more and more focus on what we actually are. Yes, in the beginning of our practice, we will have to make a lot of effort to focus our inner camera on self-awareness. However the more we practise the easier it would become to turn within. In fact, such turning within will become automatic as we go on persevering.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Atma-anusandhana, our fate or destiny can never prevent us from being attentively self-aware. We can do it here and now, or can do it whenever we want to do it. Our practice of self-investigation is totally under the jurisdiction of our free-will, so we should not blame our fate or prarabdha if we are not interested to turn within.

It’s all a matter of what we like or choose. Perhaps 99% of the time we choose to attend to things other than ourself, and it could be that only 1% of the time that we try to turn within. How can we hope to achieve any worthwhile results by such an inadequate practice?

So the only solution is to try to increase the practice time to 2%, 5%, 10%, 20% and so on, until we able to practise 100% of the time. Of course, as Michael often reminds us, intensity of our practice is much more important than the duration of practice. A single moment of perfect and total self-attentiveness is enough to destroy our ego.

aha-nokku said...

Sanjay Lohia,
hopefully I reported scrupulously honest the full truth when I claimed to be able sporadically to focus all my attention on nothing other than myself alone because one must be always on one's guard against the ego's self-delusion. I will continue in trying to focus my onepointed attention meticulously and scrupulously only on 'I am' alone. Thus I try to prepare my next visit to Arunachala Hill during February 2018 whith which I want to intensify my endeavours to devote my attention to the omnipresence of 'I am'.

atma-anusandhana said...

Sanjay Lohia,
you say "A single moment of perfect and total self-attentiveness is enough to destroy our ego."
To be able for such a single moment of perfect and total self-attentiveness one must have developed the required ripeness. So far as I'm concerned I do not have that prerequisite till now. Although I try to direct all my energies towards that I pitifully miss this target.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Aha-nokku, as you say, ‘one must be always on one's guard against the ego's self-delusion’, but how to be against this guard? It is only by constant self-attentiveness. If we forgo this practice even for a moment, our ego will raise its head and will start troubling us.

In order to intensify your self-investigation, why do you want to wait until you go to Arunachala hill in February 2018? Bhagavan has made it clear that our practice should be done here and now. In fact, it should be going each moment - even when I am typing this comment and even when you are reading it. Why to postpone a thing which we can do here and now?

Kabir says (in Hindi): kaal kare so aaj kar, aaj kare so ab, pal mein pralaya hoyegi, bahuri karega kab

Translation: Tomorrows work do today, today's work now. If the moment is lost, how will the work be done? Meaning, do the work that needs to be done now. There is no other time then now.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Michael: We don’t have to give up actions. We have to give up the actor, the one who does actions.

^ Extract from the video: 2017-12-09 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on Nāṉ Ār? paragraph 1

My note: Can we give up the actor (the ego) and still continue to act? It is not possible in the absolute sense. Because once the ego is destroyed no actions can take place (at least in our view). However, the body of the jnani continues to act in the view of others.

However, even when our ego is active, we can keep it in check by trying to constantly attend to it. To the extent we can keep it in check, to that extent we will be able to act without any sense of doership. In other words, to the extent the actor subsides, to that extent our actions and its consequences will not affect us.

Our body and mind will continue to act as per its destiny, but we can separate ourself from our body and mind by remaining attentively self-aware.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Bhagavan explains, ‘God looks after all of us’:

1) They pray to God and finish with ‘Thy Will be done!’ If His will be done why do they pray at all?

2) It is true that Divine will prevails at all times and under all circumstances.

3) The individual cannot act of their own accord. Recognise the force of the Divine Will and keep quiet.

4) Each one is looked after by God. When He looks after so many will he omit you? Even common sense dictates that one should abide by His Will.

5) Again there is no need to let Him know your needs. He knows them Himself and will look after them.

6) Well, does your Protector not know your weakness? Should you parade your weakness in order to make him know it?

• The above quotes are taken from internet. Even though we should not rely too much on whatever appears on the net (without the mention of its proper source), I found the above quotes quite useful. Therefore I felt like sharing it.

aha-nokku said...

Sanjay Lohia,
you ask "how to be against this guard?" but I wrote "against the ego's self-delusion".
As you say only by constant self-attentiveness can we be on our guard.
You are correctly saying that the ego is somehow always lying in wait to trouble us.
You are also right in saying that our practice should be done here and now, as much as possible without any interruption.
But during my planed five weeks stay at the foot of Arunachala Hill I am completely exposed to the additional radiation of Arunachala Siva himself which is said to be the essence of the hill. Further I can do my walks on the hill, pradakshinas around both the hill and Bhagavan's and his mother's samadhi. And in these weeks I am free from my family duties as husband, son, father and grandfather.
Therefore this stay at Sri Ramanasram is for me an actually intense period of self-remembrance. Even I deem myself lucky and happy when I feel the bodily contact with the rocky ground and the plants while walking on the hill. So I hold the Aruna Hill in high esteem because I think it will indeed direct me in any case in the correct direction i.e. back to myself.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Aha-nokku, there is an English saying: ‘icing on the cake’. The cake in our context is our daily practice of self-investigation, and the icing is the favourable (inner or outer) circumstances. Such icing may enable us to practise with greater intensity or for longer duration. However, without a cake its icing cannot stand. Likewise, without our regular practice, we will not be able to make much use of any favourable circumstance, as and when it comes to us.

Moreover, one’s visit to Arunachala is decided by one’s destiny. This is not to say that our visit to Arunachala is not useful. Bhagavan said that Arunachala is jnana-svarupa and is also guru-svarupa. The hill is the fire of jnana (pure-knowledge). Therefore Bhagavan always emphasised that it is highly beneficial just to be in the vicinity of the hill. Of course, it is also beneficial to remember Arunachala from wherever we are.

However, the hill should be treated as a catalyst. A catalyst aids or accelerates any process by its very presence. Likewise, if we are in the presence of Arunachala it will accelerate our sadhana, but if there is no process of sadhana in place, how can any catalyst help us? So irrespective of our outer circumstances, we need to daily practise self-investigation as much as possible.

I believe, in the early stages of our sadhana, Arunachala calls us quite frequently to its presence. A young and tender plant needs a lot of nourishment and protection to enable in to grow properly. However, when the plants grows to some extent, such protection may not be absolutely necessary.

Young Michael was made to stay near Arunachala continuously for 20 years. This has matured him to a great extent. We can see this by the clarity with which he explains Bhagavan's teachings. However, since 20 years he has not been called to Arunachala, because it is not required. I also used to go quite frequently to Arunachala about 8-10 years back, but I don't feel like going there now.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Whatever happiness we seem to experience as a result of experiencing external objects, is the happiness which is already within us. So rather than seeking happiness outside, which in any case we can experience only partially, we should seek it directly within ourself.

So long as our attention is turned outwards, our mind is agitated. It is only relative pleasure that we get from external things. When we have a very strong desire for something, our mind is thereby agitated. When we attain the desired object, this agitation temporarily subsides, and thus we experience temporary satisfaction – we experience no agitation on the surface. But such satisfaction doesn’t last long. So the mind hasn’t completely subsided, though it is relatively subsided.

Even this relative subsidence of our mind gives us pleasure, so how much greater will be our pleasure if our mind subsides completely? We are seeking the permanent subsidence of our mind. According to Bhagavan, it’s the supreme happiness, and that happiness we can experience only by knowing what we actually are.

We still believe that happiness lies outside ourself. We still have liking and interest in things other than ourself. So long as this liking is there, we will not be willing to give up our ego, which is the root of all our problems.

It is the nature of the mind to always be going outwards. The ego comes into existence by grasping forms; it stands by grasping forms; and by grasping forms it feeds itself and flourishes. Grasping forms means attending to forms other than itself. That’s how the ego exists and survives – how it comes into existence, and how it continues existing. So the very nature of the ego is to go outwards.

When we try to turn our mind within, we are swimming against the current, as it were. But there is another current which is helping us, which is the current of grace, which is the love for permanent happiness which we all have. We just need to redirect our love within us, to seek it within ourself rather than seeking it outside.

• Slightly modified extract from the video: 2017-12-09 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on Nāṉ Ār? paragraph 1

Sanjay Lohia said...

Michael: Every moment in our life, the ego is asserting itself in one way or other. Even if one seems to be outwardly a very humble person, still the ego is asserting in them. Every thought which rises in our mind, who is thinking those thoughts? It’s the ego. So long as even a single thought is present in us, the cause of it is the ego. That’s the first cause, and the root of all other causes.

# Slightly modified extract from the video: 2017-12-09 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on Nāṉ Ār? paragraph 1

My note: Bhagavan’s teachings are a brutal attack on the ego. Once we have been exposed to his teachings, our ego’s days are numbered. Bhagavan has released his atom-bomb of jnana on the ego, and therefore its absolute annihilation is inevitable.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Generally we are too much interested in other things. Whatever is there, they are just transient phenomena. Whatever big problem we face in life, they are all transient – that is, they come and go. We may be facing all sorts of problems at this moment, but when we go to sleep where are these problems? They vanish. They come again when we wake up, but they are there only in this state. According to Bhagavan, all this is just a dream. So none of the problem we face need concern us. Nothing in this world need concern us.

When circumstances are favourable we are relatively happy, and when they are not favourable we are relatively unhappy. But these are all superficial. You yourself are the infinite and eternal happiness. Happiness is not within you, it is you. We say, ‘within you’ because we are aware of multiplicity – there is outside and there is inside. But all multiplicity is an illusion.

All that we need to be concerned about is our self-awareness. What is self-awareness? Now we have got a confused impression of our self-awareness, because our self-awareness is mixed up with the awareness of the body. So we take this body to be ourself. We need to separate these.

We can do this by being attentively self-aware - by focusing all our interest and attention only on our fundamental self-awareness, and not on our body-awareness.

^~^ Slightly modified extract from the video: 2017-12-09 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on Nāṉ Ār? paragraph 1

aha-nokku said...

Sanjay Lohia,
you are right, whithout the cake its icing cannot stand. Your urgent warning is certainly appropriate. We should not abstain from our daily practice of self-investigation.
Of course I am in the early stages of my sadhana. Therefore I try to practise self-investigation - as much as I can that is to the best of my abilities. Even on the hill I have to prove myself in wearisome fights against all sorts of obstacles. Obviously just due these my difficulties, hindrances and unripeness I am called to stay also physically at Arunachala. As long as I feel attracted to Arunachala I will follow readily that call whatever people are thinking about such a stay.
Moreover I do not feel that Arunachala does attract only or mainly beginners of any sadhana as you seem to assume. Of course, one should not always and unlimitedly trust one's feelings/instinct because as the ego we are never free of fallacy or misconception.

Chandrasekhara said...

Sanjay Lohia,
"According to Bhagavan, all this is just a dream. So none of the problem we face need concern us. Nothing in this world need concern us."
Shall a mother who is in need of welfare then leave their children unprovided for ?
I cannot believe that Bhagavan would have been approved or recommended such an egotistic act of recklessness and criminal hard-heartedness.
Therefore I consider the second and third sentence of the above quotation as a translation error or a gross misinterpretation or at least taken out of their context. Because even in a dream one should act in a very responsible manner.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Aha-Nokku, I agree, Arunachala does attract all sorts of devotees and not just beginners. Therefore, it will be oversimplification to say that the hill attracts only the unripe ones. Arunachala has attracted countless ripe souls in the past, and continues to do so even today.

Its prime example is Bhagavan Ramana. As we know, he was drawn to Arunachala when he was already established in jnana. Other examples, such as Sri Muruganar and Sri Sadhu Om also come to my mind. They were very advanced aspirants when they were attracted to Arunachala. Bhagavan also used to say that many sidhhas (highly accomplished ones) visit him in various disguises.

Yes, as this ego we are never free of misconception. In fact, our ego itself is a misconception of what we actually are. It is the root all misconception, and this root gives rise to all are other misconceptions.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Chandrasekhara, Michael did say, ‘According to Bhagavan, all this is just a dream. So none of the problem we face need concern us. Nothing in this world need concern us’. This is in no way misinterpretation of Bhagavan’s teachings, as you seem to suggest.

The following extract which is taken from Michael’s article: We should not be concerned with anything happening outside but only with what is happening inside will elaborate on this theme:

One thing that Bhagavan was absolutely categorical and clear about is that the entire course of our outward life is already determined by our prārabdha, so we cannot change it in any way, and hence we need not and should not concern ourself with it. What relationships we have with family, friends and others, and what work we do or don’t do are all not in our hands, so we should leave all concern about such matters to Bhagavan, who alone knows what is best for us.

What is in our hands is not any external events but only our own inward response to them. Do we allow our mind to go out to experience whatever prārabdha has been allotted to us, or do we turn it within to be aware of ourself alone; […]

My note: Our love and compassion for others is not necessarily in conflict with our attitude of vairagya. Both of these (our love for others and our vairagya) will increase, as we go on practising self-investigation. Bhagavan is an excellent example of this. He had absolute vairagya (which is another way of describing atma-jnana), and simultaneously also had infinite love and compassion for all of us.

Yes, while engaged in our worldly duties we do need to act carefully and responsibly, but we need not be concerned about the results of such responsible actions. Bhagavan never advised us to act recklessly. He advised us (‘us’ means the ego) not to act at all, but as long as it seems to act, it should act responsibly.





Venkat said...

Chandraseka

Sri Murugunar writes in his commentary to verse 809 of Guru Vachaka Kovai:

"There is truly nothing in the world which can be bartered for oneself. Though it is so, IF IT IS FOR THE SAKE OF GIVING, even that [selling oneself] should be done. Thus giving is glorified. The implication of this is that falling from one's state as a result of helping others is no fall at all"

venkat said...

Apologies Chandrasekhara, I mis-typed your name.

Chandrasekhara said...

Sanjay Lohia,
let us use our practical mental power and keep our mental faculties.
If we have family we feel responsible for making sure that everything goes off all right. So if determined or not - in any case we of course have to act carefully and responsibly. All other attitudes are reprehensible. As you say Bhagavan never advised us to act recklessly. Therefore the quoted statement "Nothing in this world need concern us" is incomprehensible at least in this overgeneralized way of expression highly unsuitable to deal with the day-to-day realities.

Chandrasekhara said...

Venkat or venkat,
could you please explain the meaning of the quoted verse of Sri Muruganar's GVK by giving a practical example ?

Sanjay Lohia said...

My reflections based on Michael’s article: How to avoid following or completing any thought whatsoever?:

Though our ego with all its cares and concerns are a huge burden on us, but we are unwilling to surrender it, because we erroneously believe that these burdens are our responsibility. In order to give up our ego and all its cares and concerns we need to turn within – as frequently and as intensely as possible. This is the only way to surrender them completely.

We should remember that Bhagavan, who is all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving, is carrying all our burdens. His infinite knowledge, power and love is taking perfect care of all of us.

We should try and wean ourself away from our liking to think thoughts and to experience things other than ourself, and we can do so most quickly and effectively by practising self-investigation. When our desires and attachments become extremely weak, we will become willing to surrender ourself completely.

Therefore, as Bhagavan teaches us, whenever we start to think any thoughts, without trying to complete them we should investigate ‘who is thinking these thoughts?’ Thus we should try to completely ignore all our thoughts, by focusing all our attention and interest on the thinker, ‘I’. This is the direct path to surrender our ego along with all its cares and concerns.


Sanjay Lohia said...

My reflections based on Michael’s article: Why is effort required for us to go deep in our practice of self-investigation?:

We cannot adequately describe the practice of self-investigation is words. As Bhagavan used to say, we each have to discover for ourself what the state of pure self-attentiveness actually is. That is why Bhagavan called this practice ‘self-investigation’, because the way to proceed will be gradually revealed to us as we proceed with our practice.

Thinking deeply and carefully about Bhagavan’s teachings is certainly a great aid on the path of self-investigation. We also need proper explanations of his teachings, because they are too subtle and profound. Bhagavan and his close devotees have given have given us many clues which, if followed, will certainly help us in our inward-journey.

Self-investigation is like any other scientific investigation. Eventually we have to do our own experiments and come to our own conclusions. We need to see by our direct experience whether or not our conclusions match with Bhagavan’s conclusions.


peewit said...

Sanjay Lohia,
please pay attention:
you repeatedly at least thirty times this year you wrote "is" instead of "in".
No double "have given" is necessary.

Venkat said...

Chandrasekhara

It is often said that the path of Advaita is a razor's edge.

Bhagavan and Advaita both teach that the world, and importantly one's own body-mind-thoughts, are illusory and should be discarded, not taken seriously. At the same time they also teach nishkama karma - desireless action; action done for the sake of others rather than oneself.

So the whole onus of this teaching is to see that 99% of our actions are for our own sake, that of our ego. And that is the cause of suffering - our own and that of the world. Even when we care for our family, that is because we regard them to be an extension of ourselves. That is not to say that we should not fulfil our responsibilities to our family, but we should also see that all are our family, so we should not unnecessarily grab for ourselves, on the pretext that we need to look after our family.

Hence Murugunar's quote in which giving is glorified, even above self-realisation. Because what is self-realisation if not just losing the I-sense - that I am separate from the world and need to care for myself? So by this giving, is not the I-sense simultaneously attenuated?

Sanjay Lohia said...

Peewit, I thank you and also apologise for all these typos. I type with one finger, and therefore I am not expert at it. However, this is no real excuse for my carelessness.

Chandrasekhara said...

Venkat,
thank you for your reply. As you seem to imply one has to find one's balance or equilibrium between worldly commitments and all "spiritual" demands which are connected with self-investigation. Both will lead to the attenuation of the ego-mind-sense. As you say we should also see that all are our family. Making pretext or pretending anything is in any case self-deception.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Michael: When we try and try and reach a point where we can try no further, that’s when our true self takes over. But Bhagavan often used to say, ‘your efforts can extent only thus far’. When you reach a certain point, you cannot make any further effort, because the more we try to attend to ourself, the more the ego subsides, and the more the ego subsides, the less it can make any effort of any sort. The only effort we can make is to remain in that state.

If we remain there, Bhagavan described it in a poetic way, ‘a power will rise from within and draw us inside’. We shouldn’t take that too literally. What is means is that we will be engulfed by the clarity of perfect self-awareness.

Devotee: So the effort stops…

Michael: Until the ego is destroyed, there will still be the tendency to come our again. So we reach a point where the only effort we can make is to be there, and if remain there that power will consume us.

In practice we get close to that point, and then we come out again, but if we reach that point and just remain there, we will get consumed completely.

Vishnu is a very good example here. Vishnu burrowed down, burrowed down, until he was so exhausted that couldn’t burrow any further. That was the point he understood that it was foolish to think that we could find the top or bottom of the column (the infinite light of Siva). That point when we give up all effort, when we totally surrender, that is the point where we get consumed.

Devotee: So it is an admission of defeat?

Michael: Yes, exactly, except that that admission of defeat won’t be in a form of a thought, ‘I can’t do this’. It is because you won’t be there. It’s completely giving up. Then only we surrender completely.

~*~ Slightly modified extract from the video: 2015-04-11 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on self-investigation

Sanjay Lohia said...

Bhagavan taught Lakshmana Sharma the meaning of each verse of Ulladu Narpadu. Lakshmana Sharma went over Ulladu Narpadu again and again and again with Bhagavan. Once Bhagavan remarked to other people, ‘His passion for Ulladu Narpadu and his translating it again and again is a great tapas for him’. Indirectly Bhagavan approved of such activity.

Ultimately we have to turn within and merge within. However, most of us are not quite mature enough to keep our attention focused on ourself all the time, so our mind keeps on jumping outwards. So long as our mind is turning outwards, we should keep it dwelling on Bhagavan’s teachings as much as possible, because his teachings are constantly encouraging us turn back within.

People sometimes ask, ‘Is there any aid to self-enquiry?’ Well, what better aid is there than studying and constantly reflecting on Bhagavan’s teachings?

The more we read and think about Bhagavan’s teachings, the clearer it becomes to us, and the more we are strongly motivated to try and put it into practice, which is where the real clarity will come from.

# Slightly modified extract from the video: 2017-06-03 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 5

My note: There is clear purpose to my madness of posting so many comments. I think, like Bhagavan approved Lakshmana Sharma’s effort at again and again revising his translations of Ulladu Narpadu, he would have also approved of my passion for writing so many comments here. Others may get tired or irritated or bored or whatever by my unceasing comments, but I never get tired of writing these. In fact, I just love writing it.



Sanjay Lohia said...

Sleep is a very-very-very important clue that Bhagavan has given us’, said Michael in one of his videos.

To start with, Bhagavan said that waking and dream are states of ignorance, whereas sleep is the state of pure knowledge. It is because we are in our native state in sleep, whereas in waking and dream we are just experiencing our own imagination, which is a product of self-ignorance.

Bhagavan also said that to think is not our nature, and since we are never without thoughts in our waking and dream, we are not in our natural state in either waking or dream (which are in fact one and the same). Therefore, our sleep gives us a clue about our goal, that is, we should aim to experience a state which is without any thoughts. Once our ego vanishes there will remain no one to think thoughts.

Secondly, our sleep is a state of perfect happiness. Why do we all look forward to our sleep? It is because without sleep we will literally go mad. We need a respite from our constant thinking, and without regular breaks from thinking we will have no energy to function normally. Therefore, our aim is to remain in wakeful-sleep, because we are all seeking supreme and eternal happiness.

Thirdly, the state is sleep in place of supreme power. After 16 hours of thinking we are dead exhausted, and we need to sleep we recuperate our energy. When we wake up our batteries our recharged, and therefore we are again ready for another round of 16 hours of thinking. Where did we get this energy from? It is only from ourself. Our ego was immersed in ourself for 8 hours, and this makes it re-energized. Thus sleep shows us where the real power is.

We are the supreme power (chit-shakti). Therefore, if we want to gain real power, the only place we should look is inside ourself.

Thus, as Michael implies, sleep has very many important lessons for us.


Sanjay Lohia said...

Bhagavan said, 'your duty is to be, not to be this or that. Why do you think you are a householder?' It is because you identify a particular body as yourself. So you take that body to be yourself, some other body to be your wife, and some other bodies to be your children. It all originates from your wrong identification of yourself as a body. So our svadharma is to know what we actually are.

To start with an idea ‘I am a grahastha (householder)’ is itself is an obstacle. Why do you even think that you are a person whom you seem to be? OK, I seem to be this householder, I seem to have a family, and I seem to have responsibilities. But who has these responsibilities? It is for the body and mind. So our body and mind will be made to act according to its destiny.

So if you (that is your body and mind) are destined to earn money for your family, and take good care of them and everything, it will happen. But why should you take yourself to be this body and mind?

So we have to slowly-slowly separate ourself from what we seem to be. You cannot do anything more for your family that you are destined to do, and we need not be concerned about that. Bhagavan is in your heart, and you will be made to do whatever you need to do according to prarabdha.

Your only duty is to keep quiet – turn your attention within and try to know what you yourself are.

~+~ Slightly modified extract from the video: 2017-07-22 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 6

Sanjay Lohia said...

When we are trying to practise self-investigation, we are slowly-slowly trying to detach ourself. A detached householder will be much better for their family than someone who has strong attachments, because often strong attachments cloud our judgement.

I am not saying that our outward life is going to be transformed by following atma-vichara, because our outward life is anyway going on according to our destiny. So what is destined to happen is going to happen anyway, whether we like it or not. But we are able to be much calmer and much more at peace in the midst of all this, then we would otherwise be.

Simply understanding Bhagavan’s teachings helps us to free our mind from a lot of worries. We can bear with our problems much better, to the extent we are able to detach ourself from it.

We all know we are going to die one day. Whatever great problems we have now, in about hundred years we don’t be around to experience our problems. There will be no one even to remember the problems which we once had. So why do we give so much importance to it?

So this way we can slowly-slowly train our mind to be detached, and to the extent we are able to detach our mind in in the midst of other activities, to that extent it will be easier for us to turn within. Bhagavan used to say, ‘sadhana should go on throughout the day’.

+++ Slightly modified extract from the video: 2017-07-22 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 6

nan nan said...

Sanjay Lohia,
you say "Thirdly, the state is sleep in place of supreme power."
What do you mean with that statement ?

atma-anusandhana said...

Sanjay Lohia,
"So long as our mind is turning outwards, we should keep it dwelling on Bhagavan’s teachings as much as possible,...".
However, the centrifugal force of the mind is mostly stronger than its centripetal force. Therefore only total sacrificing of one's mind can prevent the mind from turning outwards. But that required power of total surrender of one's mind to the clarity of perfect self-awareness can be developed only by total love to the omnipresence of Bhagavan that is the infinite light of Arunachala-Siva which is said to be our real self.

Sanjay Lohia said...

1) We are very simple, but we mistake ourself to be something very complex, and we have got ourself caught up in this complexity. So need to separate ourself from this complexity and turn to our native simplicity. It is only by separating ourself from this person that we can return to our native simplicity.

2) Once a Muslim asked Bhagavan, ‘Swami, what is the goal of all religions?’ Bhagavan answered, ‘salaam’ (meaning ‘peace'), and the person asked, ‘what is the path to attain that goal?’, and Bhagavan said, ‘Islaam’ (meaning ‘surrender’).

3) Bhagavan is touching on the heart of everything, which is ‘I’. Nobody can deny ‘I’, and also nobody can deny that because of what we take ourself to be, we are suffering a million problems. So surrendering our self-identification (which is Islaam), we attain peace (which is salaam).

So Bhagavan is beyond all religions. What Bhagavan has taught us is not a religion, but at the same time it is the essence of all religion – the real heart of every religion, the spiritual essence of every religion.

<-> Slightly modified extracts from the video: 2017-07-22 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 6

Sanjay Lohia said...

My reflections based on Michael’s article: Do we need to do anything?:

We think that we need to do this or that (which is our kartavya-buddhi), and we also think that we are doing this and that (which is our kartrtva-buddhi). But since Bhagavan has taught us that we are pure self-awareness, how can we as pure self-awareness have any needs, duties and responsibilities? Likewise, how can our pure self-awareness do anything or act in any way?

As pure self-awareness, we are immutable and actionless existence, and therefore we cannot act in any way. We are just pure bring. So our kartavya-buddhi and kartavya-buddhi belongs to only our ego, and doesn’t belong to ourself as we actually are.

When we rise as this ego, we simultaneously project a body and take it to be ourself, and since this is a living body, we experience ourself as a person so-and-so (Sanjay or whatever). As a person we have needs, duties and responsibilities. We need to breathe, we need food and water, we need shelter and clothing, and we need to provide for our family, so we need money and so on.

Since I experience myself as a living person (Sanjay), as this person I do have needs, duties and responsibilities. Suppose if I stop eating or drinking water, I may die after a few days. So no living body is without any needs.

(I will continue this in my next comment)

Sanjay Lohia said...

In continuation of my previous comment:

But do we (our true self) have any needs? Do we (our true self) have to earn money to live? No, according to Bhagavan, we need nothing to exist or live. Once Kavyakantha told Bhagavan, ‘Bhagavan, I think we can easily live on three rupees a month. What do you think?’ Bhagavan replied, ‘Why three rupees, we need nothing to live’. So our body may need three rupees (may be a thousand rupees now) a month to survive, but we can live even without a body, and therefore we can live without any money. We are the eternally living reality, and therefore we need nothing.

Bhagavan said, ‘your only real duty is to be, and not to be this or that’. Whatever the body is to go through in this life, has already been decided when it came into existence. So we cannot change, add to or subtract from our predestined actions and experiences. So it is foolish to think otherwise. Therefore, as Bhagavan advised his mother, ‘it is best to keep quiet’.

Bhagavan is taking perfect care of all our body’s needs, duties and responsibilities, isn’t he? So why should be worry on this front? Thus we should devote all our time to investigate who we are, and consequently give up our identification with the person which we now seem to be. Once this identification is gone, our kartavya-buddhi and its concomitant kartrtva-buddhi will both disappear, never to reappear again. This is nirvana or mukti or whatever else we may choose to call it.

arive arivu ahum said...

Sanjay Lohia,
"So surrendering our self-identification (which is Islaam), we attain peace (which is salaam)."
In which sense/function is the verb "surrender(ing)" used in the above sentence,
as an intransitive, transitive or reflexive verb ? If used intransitively or reflexively could you please state to whom this surrendering is to be happen.

vasuki said...

Sanjay Lohia,
"We are just pure bring. So our kartavya-buddhi and kartavya-buddhi belongs to only our ego...".
Should we not read pure "being" instead of "bring" ?
What means double "kartavy-buddhi" ?

Sanjay Lohia said...

Arive Arivu Ahum, I do not know much about grammar rules. However, our transitive awareness (the awareness which is aware of things other than itself) has to turn within and merge in our intransitive awareness (the awareness which is aware of only itself). This is surrender - surrender here means 'self-surrender'.

In other words, we need to surrender what we now seem to be (this ego), into what we actually are (pure self-awareness). Bhagavan describes the method of self-surrender beautifully in the 13th paragraph of Nan Yar?:

Being completely absorbed in ātma-niṣṭhā [self-abidance], giving not even the slightest room to the rising of any thought other than ātma-cintanā [thought of oneself or self-attentiveness], alone is giving oneself to God.

Bhagavan uses the term 'God' here to mean our true self, which is our pure intransitive self-awareness.

vasuki said...

Sanjay Lohia,
you emphasize that you experience yourself as a "living person".
Can one experience oneself as a dead person ?

Sanjay Lohia said...

Vasuki, I thank you for pointing out my typos. The corrected sentences should read: We are just pure being. So our kartavya-buddhi and kartrtva-buddhi belongs to only our ego, and doesn’t belong to ourself as we actually are.

Yes, we always experience ourself as a ‘living person’. We can know only others as ‘dead persons’. For example, 'my dead father'.

Anonymous said...

Looking for suggestion on which book to purchase of Vivekachudamani Of Sri Sankaracharya.
I was reading on Advaitin.net a PDF that seems to have good commentary but thought might be better to ask some experts.
thanks for help

Sanjay Lohia said...

There is no body in sleep. If there is a body in sleep we would be aware of it, because according to Bhagavan nothing exists apart from our perception of it. This world seems to exist because we perceive it. Just like any dream world seems to exist because we perceive it. When we see any person in a dream, they come into existence only when we perceive them, and they cease to exist when we stop perceiving them.

Can you point to me anything about this waking state that distinguishes it from a dream? The whole life of Alasdair, from the time he was a small child to now, is one dream. Within that one dream there are periods of sleep, and there are periods of dream within that sleep.

There may be different qualities of our dream, but their substance is exactly the same. In both states, we experience a body as ‘I’, and through the five senses of that body we experience a world, we experience passage of time, people we talk to seem to be real, and we seem to have memories stretching back many years. All the memories we have in waking state, we take to our dream.

There were no Wright Brothers (who were the first to fly an aeroplane) until you learnt about them in your history book. So the idea that the Wright Brothers were the first to fly an aeroplane is your own mental projection.

*^* Modified extract of the video: 2017-04-22 (afternoon) Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James

venkat said...

Anonymmous

I would suggest getting the version with commentary from Sri Chandraeskhara Bharati of Sringeri. Though this may be out of print.

Otherwise, Sw Chinmayananda's translation and commentary is also very good.

maravadu said...

Sanjay Lohia,
you say or quote "...according to Bhagavan nothing exists apart from our perception of it. This world seems to exist because we perceive it. Just like any dream world seems to exist because we perceive it. When we see any person in a dream, they come into existence only when we perceive them, and they cease to exist when we stop perceiving them."
Therefore according Sri Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi any sense-perception has nothing to do with reality. However, it is hardly to accept that any human sense-perception - the essential foundation of our experience in waking and dreaming - is to be considered as totally irrelevant to reality. Is not even that consciousness which is the solid basic foundation of our sense-perception supported anyway only by atma-svarupa itself ?
Regarding the mentioned example of the Wright brothers:
How can reading (in a history book) be called as the own mental projection of the reader ?

tanmaya-nishtha said...

Some reflections:

1.) "...according to Bhagavan nothing exists apart from our perception of it."

2.) " This world seems to exist because we perceive it."

3.) These above statements are in any case correct.

4.) But we cannot know with certainty whether that world does really exist.

5.) Because I am aware of myself - that is of my awareness of my own being - at least all the indications are that - I conclude to exist.

6.) Being aware of oneself - that is certainly not a matter of course.

7.) Is it not astonishing/amazing that I never am and never was afraid of getting lost or annihilated when the moment has come to fall asleep ?

8.) That indicates that one is or must have been conscious/aware also/even in dreamless sleep. There can be no doubt about it !

Sanjay Lohia said...

Maravadu, Bhagavan says in the 18th paragraph of Nan Yar:

Except that waking is dīrgha [long lasting] and dream is kṣaṇika [momentary or lasting for only a short while], there is no other difference [between these two mind-created states]. To the extent to which all the vyavahāras [doings, activities, affairs or occurrences] that happen in waking seem [at this present moment] to be real, to that [same] extent even the vyavahāras that happen in dream seem at that time to be real. In dream the mind takes another body [to be itself]. In both waking and dream thoughts and names-and-forms [the objects of the seemingly external world] occur in one time [that is, simultaneously].

Though Bhagavan says here that waking is long lasting and dream is momentary, he clarifies in GVK that even this is not exactly true, because waking and dream occur in two different time references. So, according to Bhagavan, there is absolutely no difference between waking and dream – both are just our mental projections.

Are you willing to accept this tentatively? If not would you mind answering Michael’s question to Alasdair, namely, ‘Can you point to me anything about this waking state that distinguishes it from a dream?’

(I will continue this reply in my next comment)

Sanjay Lohia said...

In continuation of my previous comment in reply to Maravadu:

However, I will proceed with the assumption that you are willing to tentatively accept that this world could be a dream. Bhagavan says in the 6th verse of Ulladu Narpadu:

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?

Since our mind perceives the world by way of the five sense organs, and since, according to Bhagavan, our mind will be destroyed if it investigated, all our sense impressions are utterly unreal. These impressions are as unreal as our unreal mind. Therefore, as you imply, our pure self-consciousness, which is the solid basic foundation of our sense-perceptions alone is real and permanent. Everything else that appears and disappears is nothing but an unreal superimposition, which has no substance of its own.

Suppose if I am dreaming, and I experience myself studying in a school. My teacher teaches me about Wright brothers and how they were the first to fly an aeroplane and so on. When I wake up from my dream, will I not consider the Wright brothers and all their inventions as part of my dream? These were just my mental projections.

Likewise, if this world is a dream, everything we hear about Wright brothers is our mental projection. Of course, as long as we consider this world to be real, this world and all our scientific discoveries will also seem real to us. However, once we wake up to our true nature, we will come to know that everything was part of our dream. This is what Bhagavan teaches us.




Sanjay Lohia said...

It is said in Bhagavad Gita that we should work, eat and sleep in moderation. This is an important teaching, and therefore I would like to share my reflections of this statement by Sri Krishna:

Why should we work in moderation?

It is because if we work too much, we will be exhausted and consequently will have very little energy left to carry on with our sadhana. Suppose if I am a workaholic and work for 14 hours a day, all of this time I may be passionately involved with extroverted activity, and my practice, which needs me to be introverted, will suffer.

Likewise, we should not abstain from work altogether. We need to keep our body and mind engaged with whatever work comes to us according to our prarabdha. Our self-remembrance can go on even in the midst of our worldly duties. Of course, as Sri Krishna says, we should work in moderation.

Why should we eat in moderation?

Bhagavan has also asked us to consume mita sattvika-ahara (moderate quantity of sattvic food). If we overfill our belly, we will feel uncomfortable or sleepy. Such conditions are not conducive to our turning within. Likewise, if we eat too little or fast for long durations, we may have no energy left to practise self-investigation. So again, consuming food in moderate quantity is best.

Why should we sleep in moderation?

If we sleep in excess, we are wasting our precious time in a state in which no sadhana is possible. So we should sleep enough in order to recharge our batteries, and get up as soon as we have had enough sleep to continue with our sravana, manana and nididhyadana. We can make no spiritual progress in any state of manolaya.

Likewise, we should not sleep too little. A drowsy mind obviously cannot help us to perform any task properly, whether the task is worldly or spiritual.

Sanjay Lohia said...

I take myself to be Michael. Michael is not the ego, but the one who says ‘I am Michael’, that’s the ego. Even though one day this Michael is going to die, but because I am so much attached to Michael, I want to cling to this form at any cost. Even if I have to give up this form, I will grasp some other form. That’s the nature of the ego, it’s not willing to let go. It keeps grasping something or the other because it wants to survive. We want to survive; we want to continue living.

Basically we are enamoured by the experience of phenomena. We fall asleep when we are too tired to cling to phenomena, but again we rise and project things. Even in our sleep (in the middle of the night) we dream of phenomena. This desire to cling to things is so strong. The taste or liking to experience things other than ourself is called vishaya-vasana, and this taste or liking is the problem.

How to give up the desire to attend to things other than oneself? We have to constantly turn our attention back to ourself. If you have got a big balloon full of air, and if you try to push it under the water, you can push it down to certain extent, but it will pop up this way, you push it down again, it pops up that way. It is because of the air inside. Because of the buoyancy you can’t push it far under the water.

That’s the nature of the ego. However many times we try to turn it within, it will again jump out to grasp things, because it’s doing it for its own survival. Even though we are suffering, we are not ready to let go. Even if we get some very-very painful illness, we still want the doctors to treat us, so that we can live for some more days.

We have to weaken this desire. Who is responsible for these desires? We are, because we have cultivated this liking to be aware of things other than ourself, by constantly experiencing more and more things.

In order to overcome that liking, which we have cultivated through so many janmas, we have to begin turning in the opposite direction – turn back towards ourself slowly-slowly. We need to cultivate the liking just to be as we really are (which is called sat-vasana or svatma-bhakti), not to be aware of other things.

~^~ Slighty modified extract from the video: 2016-12-10 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu maṅgalam verse 1

maravadu said...

Sanjay Lohia,
if Bhagavan does not see any difference between waking and dream this is certainly owing to his extraordinary foresight and exceptional depth of experience. He obviously considers even all our sense-perceptions in waking and dream as just mental projections. With it the term "mental projection" seems from the beginning to indicate the falseness/wrongness/illusory nature of that projecting.
Surely mental projections are as true or untrue as the projecting subject, the mind.
However, Bhagavan leaned himself on sense-perceptions when he for instance undertook in the year 1896 the travel from Madurai to Tiruvannamalai to which place he felt drawn.
Of course I do not seriously dare to contradict to Bhagavan and therefore I am readily willing to accept at least tentatively what he taught us. Actually this world could be only a "dream", but it is a fact that we do experience or are aware of that dream. Nevertheless, neither Bhagavan nor Michael did really define exactly the term "dream". That the world is perceived and known only by sense-perceptions/impressions through our five senses is an indisputable fact. But we do not know for sure if such a sense-perception has any reality in the absolute sense of it.
Regarding Michael's question to Alasdair about differences between dream and waking: In dream I rarely or never am able to use all my strength and will power whereas in waking I can indeed do it. In dream one has to let the appearances/occurrences wash over one whereas in waking I nearly always have or at least seem to have the possibility to stop any unwanted occurrence.
In dream I can fly over the landscape and even feel the wind and even get out of the way of telegraph wires and posts whereas in waking I must use an aeroplane in order to fly to Tiruvannamalai via Chennai.
If we call our experience as waking or dream does not matter. But as long as we experience us as a separate body-mind-bounded being our sensory experience
of our "life" seems to be also relatively real to us. What your dream teacher told you about the Wright Brothers is possibly true also in the view of waking albeit only in the relative sense of our sense-perceptions. Finally we could ask the descendants of the Wright Brothers or of any contemporary witness whether they have actually directed an aeroplane in those early days of American aeronautics.
Of course, once we wake up to our true nature we may coming to the point of knowing what really is…
.

sundar said...

As we all know, we should focus on who actually we are. Or, Just Be.

This is to be done without using the mind or the sense organs. Feel the Self in the heart. But, we know only how to use the sense organs and the mind.

Asking the question 'who am I' and not getting an answer from the mind and thereby quietening the mind temporarily is one way and it is called self enquiry.

Why don't we brain storm other ways of going about this and leave out all other discussions? If we succeed, we would have attained moksa and we will have no further questions.

Thank you.

maravadu said...

Sundar,
you say "Why don't we brain storm other ways of going about this ...?
What can/do you recommend me ?

Sanjay Lohia said...

Maravadu, you say, ‘However, Bhagavan leaned himself on sense-perceptions when he for instance undertook in the year 1896 the travel from Madurai to Tiruvannamalai to which place he felt drawn’. Did Bhagavan have a body in his view? Although Bhagavan seemed to be a name and form in our view, but Bhagavan has himself clarified that a jnani is ever without a body. If he experiences himself as a body, he is not a jnani.

So without a body can the senses function? No, if the idea ‘I am this body’ is no more there, how can such a one have any sense-perceptions? Therefore, contrary to what you claim, Bhagavan never leaned himself on sense-perceptions when he undertook his journey from Madurai to Tiruvannamalai. Bhagavan says in the verse 31 of Ulladu Narpadu:

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’?

As Bhagavan clarifies, a jnani doesn’t know anything other than himself. Therefore, he or she is not aware of any body, mind, senses or whatever. As long as we experience ourself as a body, we cannot fully comprehend the state of a jnani. Michael wrote in one of his articles:

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. This is a truth that Bhagavan repeatedly emphasised not only in his own writings but also in many of the conversations with him that have been recorded by others, […]

Sanjay Lohia said...

Sunder, as you seem to imply, ultimately we have to abandon all our verbal or written discussions, because our questions and answers are unending, and these will not give us the ‘ultimate answer’ we all are seeking. What is the ‘ultimate answer’ we all are seeking? It is not some answer in words, but the answer in the form of our experience of undefiled happiness. We are all seeking, knowingly or unknowingly, happiness which is without any misery.

We can experience this unending happiness only when we experience ourself as we actually are. However, as long as we experience ourself as this ego, our discussions around Bhagavan‘s teachings have tremendous value – especially if it is done in the spirit of trying to deepen our understanding of his teachings. These discussions motivate us to put the theory into practice, by repeatedly trying to turn within.

The real answer to all our questions is hidden deep within the questioner (that is, deep within our ego). So ultimately we have to burrow down deep within ourself, until we find the fresh spring of clear water of pure self-awareness: who am I, who has so many doubts?

Therefore the only valid and relevant question is: who or what am I? If we experience ourself as we really are, all our doubts will surely come to an end. We are the absolute clarity of pure self-awareness. If we experience pure self-awareness, it will not only dissolve all our doubts, but more importantly will dissolve the doubter. Thereafter we can have no further doubts.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Michael implies in his article Why is it so necessary for us to accept without reservation the fundamental principles of Bhagavan’s teachings?:

Bhagavan is the very form of love. Therefore, in order to merge in Bhagavan we need to have tremendous love for him and his teachings, because only love can merge in love. Only ice can melt in water, because both are ultimately only water.

Bhagavan continues to be manifest among us in the form of his clear and simple teachings. His written teachings are he himself in the form of words. We must accept Bhagavan fully and in every way. Full acceptance of the guru by the disciple entails complete and unreserved acceptance of his teachings.

He will do everything for us, and in return all he asks us to do for ourself is to wholeheartedly and unreservedly follow the path that he has shown us.



Sanjay Lohia said...

Devotee: Could you please explain the concept ‘we are not the doer'?

Michael: Actions are done by three instruments: body, speech and mind. If we are the body, the actions of the body are our actions, the actions of the speech are our actions. If we are the mind, the actions of the mind – thinking, perceiving and everything – is our doing. That is our experience now, because we experience ourself as the body and mind, we have a sense of doership.

By this practice of vichara we experience this ‘I’ more and more clearly. We will be more and more clearly aware of the distinctness of ‘I’ – that is, how it is actually separate from these things. These things come, cover it and go. So by experiencing ‘I’ more and more clearly, we become more and more detached from the body and mind - we have less and less strong sense of doership.

The other side of the sense of doership is the sense of experiencership. Just like we have a sense ‘I am sitting here’ and ‘I am doing this’, if a thorn pricks me we feel ‘I am experiencing this thorn pricking me’. So the doership and experiencership are just two sides which are inseparable from the identification of ‘I’ with body and mind.

So the only way to separate from these things is to try to attend to ‘I’. For most of us it’s a slow process; it takes time. Slowly-slowly we have to cultivate this love to attend to ‘I’. Eventually we are able to experience the full clarity of self-awareness, which will completely destroy the mind and all the products of the mind – the world, body and everything else. Until then we will continue, at least to some extent, to experience this body and mind as ‘I’.

So the sense of doership and sense of experiencership will remain so long as the ego is there. Only when the ego is destroyed by the perfect clarity of self-awareness (which is called atma-jnana or self-knowledge), will these completely come to an end.

/*/ Slightly modified extract from the video: 2014-05-10 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on self-investigation

maravadu said...

Sanjay Lohia,
From our limited view it is not relevant if Bhagavan was aware of a body or not.
Obviously in August 1896 his body was able to enter the trains in direction to Villupuram, Tirukovilur and finally Tiruvannamalai. Without using (his)sight in the early morning of 1 st September 1896 he would not even find the way from the railway station to the big temple of Arunachaleswara. So we can quite impartially assume that this body used his five senses to reach his final destination. Otherwise you seem to funny suppose that Venkataraman's travelling body was somehow remote-controlled.
Admittedly, of course we cannot discuss the clear view of a jnani which we cannot comprehend as long as our awareness is only that of an ajnani.

maravadu said...

Sanjay Lohia,
as you say thereafter, thereafter, thereafter...

maravadu said...

Sanjay Lohia,
"Eventually we are able to experience the full clarity of self-awareness, which will completely destroy the mind and all the products of the mind – the world, body and everything else. Until then we will continue, at least to some extent, to experience this body and mind as 'I'."

Eventually means at some time or other. Experiencing the full clarity of self-awareness sounds really full of promise/auspiciously. I too long burningly to experience that peaceful clarity because nothing else will satisfy me. This is certain. But this ego puffs itself up and seems to fill in all the ditches in which lie embedded the paths of easy walking along.

"So the sense of doership and sense of experiencership will remain so long as the ego is there. Only when the ego is destroyed by the perfect clarity of self-awareness (which is called atma-jnana or self-knowledge), will these completely come to an end."

The perfect clarity of self-awareness is said to be always present in the innermost heart, here and now. But the overcast and dubious cloud of the ego seems to cover it. Therefore this ego must be dispersed completely by cultivating the love of attending tenaciously to 'I' alone.

Sundar said...

Maravadu,
I have heard and I practice observing thoughts as they arise, when the thought stream slows down and stops. But, another thought starts. Ditto. I have somehow not kept at this long enough to say whether it finally results in completely quietening the mind and the Just Be to prevail. I end up feverishly hunting for the thoughts as they arise so I can observe and stop their continuation. This ends up being another endless mental activity.

To answer your question, I am looking for ideas from people.

Again, I think this is what we should focus on, because if we succeed in this, we will have no more questions.

Sanjay Lohia,
"..So ultimately we have to burrow down deep within ourself,"
The 'how to' part for this is what I had asked. I am sorry, you did not address it.

I really hope to hear more on this 'final step'.

sundar

maravadu said...

Sundar,
search for that "place" from where the 'I'-thought seems to arise and if found then try to make it vanish "there".

Sundar said...

Thanks, Maravadu.

Both (searching and vanishing) appear slippery - the second more than the first. But, I will keep trying. I understand what you mean. But, elaborate more if you don't mind.

More suggestions welcome.

Sundar

Sanjay Lohia said...

Sundar, you say, ‘I practice observing thoughts as they arise’, but if you are trying to practise Bhagavan’s teachings, which I believe you are, then you should be trying to ignore all your thoughts and not be observing them. This we can do most effectively by turning our attention towards the thinker. Our aim is to experience ourself as we really are, and if we manage do so, all our thoughts will automatically stop. This is beautifully described by Bhagavan in verse 16 of Upadesa Undiyar:

Leaving aside external visayas [phenomena], the mind knowing its own form of light is alone real awareness [true knowledge or knowledge of reality].

As to how can we burrow deep down within ourself, we all have to find our own way in. When Bhagavan was asked similar questions, he used to say: The way is subjective and not objective, so it need not and cannot be shown by another. Do you need to be shown the way inside your own home?

So all we have to do is to turn our mind within and let it rest calmly and peacefully in or on ‘I’. We have to learn to practice correctly by trying to practise repeatedly. Bhagavan often used to say that no one has succeeded on this path without perseverance and patience. Bhagavan has assured us that sincere efforts will never go in vain.



Sanjay Lohia said...

Sundar, you may find the following extracts from Michael’s video dated 7th October, 2017 helpful:

There is only one way: turning deeper within, turning more and more towards ourself alone. Awareness ‘I’ is the scent. If we want to reach Bhagavan, we have to follow the scent. By following this scent diligently we will reach the source from which this scent has come. That source is Bhagavan; that source is our real nature. Bhagavan wants us to focus all our attention on ourself, not on anything else.

So we have to be very-very-very one pointed in this practice. We must constantly keep our focus on ourself. Anything else is a distraction, a diversion. Why we study Bhagavan’s teachings? It’s to constantly remind us of this, otherwise we will get into diversions.

Extreme one-pointedness is required. That’s why in Upadesa Saram, in verse 14 of Sanskrit version, Bhagavan uses the word ‘eka-chintana. People think that that is thought of any one. When Bhagavan talks of eka-chintana, he is talking of the one. The one is the ego. What is this ego? Investigating the ego is eka-chintana. That’s what Bhagavan calls atma-chintana - thinking of ourself, attending to ourself, not to anything else.

It is only by turning our attention back to ourself that all our problems can be solved. That’s why Bhagavan is supremely compassionate. His greatest kindness is that he has come to us and said, ‘You are that. See yourself and you will find that infinite happiness in your real nature’.

maravadu said...

Sundar,
no matter how slippery it may appear, continue to try going always deeper.
Regrettably I cannot elaborate more because it's not long since I started to practise self-investigation with more persistence, perseverance, vigour, patience and thoroughness.

Sundar said...

Sanjay,
"This we can do most effectively by turning our attention towards the thinker."
This is the self enquiry method. When thoughts arise, ask 'to whom are these thoughts coming'. The answer is 'to me. Then ask 'who am I?'. I reach a blank, as I do not know who I am.

I guess I am supposed to feel the I awareness at this point. I can not deny my existence. But, I can not exclusively be conscious of the existence.

The observing of thought is the other method that I follow. By observing the thought, the thought stream stops.. I had explained this already.

"the mind knowing its own form of light is alone real awareness"
Not clear what is meant by' its own form of light'.

"Do you need to be shown the way inside your own home?"
I feel this question is condescending somewhat. We all will accept knowing oneself is not as easy as knowing how to go inside one's home. If it were that easy, there will be no need for this blog site.

"no one has succeeded on this path without perseverance and patience"
I agree. But, we have to make sure all the nuances are addressed. Perseverance on an erroneous procedure will not yield results.

"Awareness ‘I’ is the scent."
This is another condescending statement. If I awareness is as clear to notice as a scent, we would all be Gnanis in a jiffy.

"His greatest kindness is that he has come to us and said, ‘You are that. See yourself "
I think You are that is in Maha vakya itself. Sri Ramana's kindness is in answering the thousands of questions posed to him. Not in him pointing out 'you are that'.

Sorry, if I appear to be challenging a number of your statements. I just want to say I am still looking for my answer.

It IS a subjective process. But, we need more clear pointers for making progress.

Barring this, perhaps, some miraculous grace will come to the poor persevering soul one day.

Mind (thinking) or the sense organs or great intellect are not of use in exclusively being conscious of oneself as one actually is. If the three listed above are not of use, what else do we have that we can use?

Sundar

maravadu said...

Sundar,
you say "Mind (thinking) or the sense organs or great intellect are not of use in exclusively being conscious of oneself as one actually is. If the three listed above are not of use, what else do we have that we can use? "
According to Bhagavan and Michael James exclusive attention only to our 'I' is the best weapon against (remaining in) ignorance. Persistent self-attention/self-investigation is neither using mind, sense organs nor intellect. If the clouds of ignorance are removed by that scrupulous self-scrutiny we shall see the bright light of the sun of pure self-awareness. No one other than we ourselves must carry out that task.

Sundar said...

Maravadu,

"..exclusive attention only to our 'I' is the best weapon against (remaining in) ignorance. Persistent self-attention/self-investigation is neither using mind, sense organs nor intellect. If the clouds of ignorance are removed by that scrupulous self-scrutiny"

".. If the three listed above are not of use, what else do we have that we can use? ".."

This question is still not answered.

Thanks.

Sundar

maravadu said...

Sundar,
when I wrote "Persistent self-attention/self-investigation is neither using mind, sense organs nor intellect." I indeed answered your question.
Of course we use the mind to start self-investigation.
After reaching some sufficient depth the mind will be pushed/recede into the background.
Then self-investigation is not anymore mind-driven but will pass action-free by awareness only.

Sundar said...

Maravadu,
At some unknown point, a miraculous power takes over and pushes the mind into the background, perhaps. Until then we have no way of knowing if sufficient depth has been reached by the mind’s efforts.

When the mind finds that nothing is happening, it usually gives up and moves on to watching a YouTube comedy. I guess you are saying that mind should be pushed to keep at it.

Sundar

Sanjay Lohia said...

Sundar, you ask what is meant by ‘the mind knowing its own form of light is alone real awareness’. Our mind is an entangled mixture of self-awareness and all its imaginary adjuncts - body and mind. However, mind is essentially only pure self-awareness, since all its adjuncts are illusory superimposition of the screen of pure self-awareness. So mind's own form of light is just this pure and uncontaminated self-awareness.

Bhagavan says in verse 7 of Ulladu Narpadu:

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.

Mind’s own form of light is ‘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’.







Mouna said...

Sundar, greetings

If I may interject some thoughts since you asked for “other options”...

Let go...
whatever that could mean right now right here, just let go...

Questions, searches, efforts, “perseverances”, etc.. let’s let go of everything, for just one second ... or two, like breathing a cup of fresh air after being under water for some time...

Letting go in the moment is that dimension of surrendering that “cleans” the moment from the dust of doubts, heavy emotions, unwanted thoughts...
all those will come back, for certain, but at least we gave the moment some space to just be, even for a split second... and we might regain some strength to continue whatever we thing might work.

Strip yourself into that nakedness which is a door leading to something else that doesn’t need words, or answers.

Let’s stop everything, right now right here, for a second... and let’s let go...

It might not be a clear intellectual answer, but who cares?! for a split second, all is well, and calm, and silent...

...

Be well,
m

Sanjay Lohia said...

When we meditate we get freedom from mental chatter, but they are only one variety of thought. According to Bhagavan, the whole universe is your own thought. It’s all a mental projection, and the root of the whole world is the ego. So it’s only by investigating the root that we can get rid of all other thoughts.

The root thought is not real, but unlike other thoughts this root thought has an element of reality – that is awareness. No other thought is aware of itself. Only I am aware of myself, and I am also aware of other things. So who is this ‘I’ who is aware of all these things?

So the ultimate science has to be para-vidya - the practice of self-investigation, the science thought by Bhagavan. You are the one brahman, and you are the one ego. Investigate the ego and you will find that there is no ego but only brahman. Bhagavan was relentless in his teachings, constantly pointing us back to ourself.

If we want to express gratitude to what Bhagavan has given us, we should follow what he has shown us. So if we have real love for Bhagavan, we must follow the way that he has shown us.

The fire of jnana is there in our heart, so all we have to do is to turn within, and he will melt us in him.

~^~ Modified extract from Michael’s video dated October 7, 2017

asat said...

Sanjay Lohia,
let's read ...science "taught" by Bhagavan... not thought...
(past participle of the verb teach is taught)

maravadu said...

Sundar,
not a "miraculous power" pushes the mind into the background but your one-pointedness. You do quite well note if sufficient depth of contemplation is reached. On that point you must go further beyond the mind's assessments and expectations. You should gradually learn to overcome the mind's tendency to giving up/retirement in favour of consuming any entertainment.
That ability we call perseverance. Do not renounce to use your power of persistence. Do not make any concessions to the arch enemy, the ego-mind, at least try it repeatedly - again and again.
As Bhagavan assures us: "...if sought it takes flight" !

tannai vidadiruttal said...

Mouna,
greetings, you recommend: "Let’s stop everything, right now right here, for a second... and let’s let go...".
Well said, one should really try it...
You tried it apparently because you seem to sustain yourself on the memory of that moment. Therefore you presumably try to repeat that moment of just silently being.

maravadu said...

Sanjay Lohia,
you state "The fire of jnana is there in our heart, so all we have to do is to turn within, and he will melt us in him."
Turning the mind within into the heart we succeed only by having developed sufficient love to get absorbed in and by that flame of real knowledge.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Asat, thanks. The corrected sentence should read, ‘So the ultimate science has to be para-vidya - the practice of self-investigation, the science taught by Bhagavan’.

Sanjay Lohia said...

So long as we are thinking of anything other than ourself we are grasping form, and thus are sustaining and nourishing our ego. In order to surrender our ego we need to cease grasping things other than ourself. This way the ego will have nothing to grasp, and so it will subside back into ourself. In fact, the practice is to try to grasp only oneself.

Why do all our cares, duties and responsibilities seem to be real? It is because when we rise as this ego, we cannot do so without taking a body to ourself, and this body or person invariably has unending cares, concerns, duties and responsibilities? Even a person living in a cave is concerned about how he would arrange for his next meal. So nobody is without any care or concern.

If we want to give up all our cares and concerns, the only way to do so is to stop identifying ourself with the person which we now seem to be, and the only way we can do so is by destroying our ego. The only way we can destroy our ego is by looking at it very-very-very closely. Since the ego is just a formless phantom, it will cease to exist if it closely investigated. No ego -> no person -> no cares and concerns. It is a very simple and straightforward logic.

So it is only as this limited ego that we seem to have all these cares and responsibilities. Though our ego and all its duties and problems are not real, but as long as experience ourself as the ego and consequently as a person, our ego, the person we seem to be and all our cares and duties, all seem quite real.

However, are any of these things actually real? We need to investigate our ego and find this out for ourself.

*-* My above reflections are based on Michael’s article: Why should we rely on Bhagavan to carry all our burdens, both material and spiritual?

Sanjay Lohia said...

Bhagavan says, ‘Even though one places whatever amount of burden upon God, the entire amount he will bear’. However, God doesn’t even see our ego and all its burdens, because these don’t exist in God’s non-dual view. Then how can God bear all our burdens?

Bearing them is no burden for God, because God doesn’t experience any ego or any of its burdens. So bearing them is no burden for God, because in his view he is bearing nothing. As Bhagavan says in verse 9 of Ari Arunachala Padikam, ‘for you who bear everything, what is a burden?’

Why does Bhagavan bear all our burdens most willing and without complaining? Why is he not indifferent to our pitiable condition? It is because God is limitless love. Since he doesn’t experience us as apart from himself, he loves us as himself. So just by his pure and infinite love, God is taking more than perfect care of all of us. So why should we foolishly carry all our cares, duties and responsibilities on our head? Why not let God take care of everything, which he is anyway doing.

If we rise to think anything, it shows we are not having sufficient trust in Bhagavan to take care of all our concerns and responsibilities. We cannot change our prarabdha, and things will happen as they are meant to happen. We cannot change anything in our outward life, so why try to do so?

Bhagavan used to say that your effort to do something or not to do something is itself bondage. We should just remain as we actually are, and let out outward life go on according to the will of Bhagavan.

*!* My above reflections are based on Michael’s article: Why should we rely on Bhagavan to carry all our burdens, both material and spiritual?

nan nan said...

Sanjay Lohia,
you say "We cannot change our prarabdha, and things will happen as they are meant to happen. We cannot change anything in our outward life, so why try to do so?"
Only by own experience can we get certainty that we cannot change prarabdha. That is the reason why we try to change our fate.

Sundar said...

Thank you, Mouna, with your perspective on 'Let go'.

The easiest sounding action is the most difficult to perform, it seems.

Why do we call the I as I, when that I can not know right away what it is!

I agree persistence is the key.

Wishing all to crack this code at least in 2018.

Sundar

maravadu said...

Sundar,
why, why , why...because the ego never wants to die.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Nan Nan, why do we try to change our fate? The reason is very simple: it is because we think that we can change it by our effort. It is because we feel that if we try to change things this way or that way, we will be happier. As long as we identify ourself with a person, we will have a sense of doership – that is, we will feel that the actions of our body, speech and mind can change things in this world.

We sometime seem to succeed to change things by our efforts, but we also fail to do many times. When we seem to succeed, it is because this was already part of our destiny, and if we don’t succeed then the result was not part of our destiny.

When we read Bhagavan’s teachings we come to know that our outward life is going on according to our destiny, and that we are powerless to change even a small event. We may try doing so, but we will fail to do anything which is contrary to our destiny. However, this is just a superficial understanding, and we need to put Bhagavan’s teachings into practice to convert this superficial understanding into our direct experience.

If we look back at our lives, we will see that so much water has passed under the bridge. So many things have happened, and many of the incidents seemed quite troublesome or worrisome when they happened, but they are now completely out of our mental radar. We now come to understand that whatever happened was in our best interest in all ways.

We can clearly see a divine plan working in our life. We now understand that it was beyond our limited capacity to make so many things happen and that too with such perfect planning and execution. So definitely our mind and body were being used by a higher power to carry out its plans.

However, it is only when our ego is destroyed by self-investigation that we will come to know that we were never this body and mind, and therefore we never had any fate or destiny, because these belong to us only so long as we experience ourself as a body.

nan nan said...

Sanjay Lohia,
yes, we read Bhagavan's teachings with enthusiasm but sometimes or even many times we disagree with him here and there because his infinite experience does not tally with our finite view of ajnana. Because we simply do not know our destiny we naturally try to change our life although "our mind and body were being used by a higher power to carry out its plans."
Only by reading Bhagavan's instructions we do not become "initiated" in jnana, because we cannot shake down experiencing ourself as a separate body-mind-consciousness. I categorically or emphatically reject the attitude that we are only helpless puppets/marionettes of our prarabdha. Such a belief may easily lead to total numbing of our free will and lethargy.
Nevertheless, in order to find out our real nature we can and should use the outstanding weapon of keen self-investigation.

nirvisesa said...

Sanjay Lohia,
you write "However, this is just a superficial understanding, and we need to put Bhagavan’s teachings into practice to convert this superficial understanding into our direct experience."
I think you wanted to express the necessary conversion/transformation of a mere superficial understanding (of Bhagavan's teachings) into a deep one.

Sanjay Lohia said...

The path of prayer that Bhagavan exemplified in Aksaramanamalai and other hymns of Arunachala Stuti Panchakam is all prayer about turning within. Bhagavan asks in verse 7 of Navamanimalai, ‘Do whatever you want, only give me increasing love for your two feet’. What better thing to ask for than pure love for Bhagavan? How can our love for Bhagavan be pure? Only when we see Bhagavan as ourself, and turn our attention back within.

So such prayers are beneficial. By these we are channeling our love for Bhagavan. We are reminding ourself that only our love for him can save us. We should pray for that which we can change. We cannot change anything in the external world. What is destined to happen is going to happen, whether we like it or not. We cannot change that one iota. We cannot add it one iota; we cannot subtract from it one iota.

Bhagavan says prarabdha affects the outward facing mind, not the inward facing mind. So prarabdha can never prevent us from turning our attention within. When we turn our attention outward we have to experience prarabdha, but even while experiencing prarabdha we can turn our attention within.

Bhagavan says, ‘Let it go on or stop, it is not other than you’. That means, all this prarabdha, all this world, let it all go on or stop. It is not apart from you. If we turn our attention within, we don’t have to be concerned about prarabdha or free-will at all.

Praying for love to turn within is meaningful, because we are always free to turn within. Even when we pray for any changes in the external world, any changes in our external life, at least then our attention is turned towards God. So to that extent it may be purifying our mind, because we are thinking about that which is infinitely pure, even though our understanding of it may not be pure. But the most beneficial prayer, what we should be praying for, is that love to turn within.

~*~ My above reflections are based on Michael’s video dated 10th June 2017

Sanjay Lohia said...

Bhagavan appeared in the name and form of a human being in Tiruvannamalai, lived there for 54 years, but what we see as Bhagavan, that person, that is not what Bhagavan really is. Through that person Bhagavan was shining, but Bhagavan is the one infinite reality that is shining in the heart of everyone as arivu - as that awareness, self-awareness, that is ‘I’.
So by turning our attention within to investigate this ego, we are actually attending to Bhagavan himself in his true svarupa.

^ Slightly modified extract from Michael’s video dated 23rd October, 2016

Sanjay Lohia said...

Merry Christmas!

Bhagavan used to often quote the Biblical statement: I am that I am. He used to say that this statement is more direct and accurate than even the four mahavakyas of the Upanishads, namely ‘I am brahman’ or ‘pure-consciousness is brahman’ and so on. It is because these mahavakyas may take our attention away from ourself towards the concept of brahman, whereas the statement I am that I am doesn’t allow our attention to move away from ourself. So Bhagavan was fond of quoting this statement.

‘I am this’ or ‘I am that’ is the ego, whereas ‘I [am] I’ is what we actually are. Bhagavan used to often describe our true nature as ‘I [am] I’ or ‘I am nothing but I’. How can ‘I’ be something other than ‘I’? This mixture of ‘I’ with 'this' or 'that' is the ego, whereas logically ‘I’ cannot be anything other than ‘I’.

tannai vidadiruttal said...

Sanjay Lohia,
it is said that the mixture of 'I' and any adjunct appears only in the limited view of this ego. Therefore we need "only" to refrain from being mixed up with that adjunct.
Merry Christmas !

nan nan said...

Sanjay Lohia,
"But the most beneficial prayer, what we should be praying for, is that love to turn within."
That fundamental love to turn within we cannot produce out of a hat.
Even to pray for that love presupposes a purified mind to some minimal degree.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Bhagavan taught us eka-jiva-vada (the contention that there is only one jiva or ego). Who is this one jiva? If we ask Bhagavan, he will always say ‘You are that’. It is because though we can never be sure whether or not anybody is experiencing anything, we are surely aware of ourself and are also aware of things other than ourself. So ‘I’ must be that one jiva.

This eka-jiva-vada is implied in so many of his teachings. For example, in verse 26 of Ulladu Narpadu Bhagavan says:

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.

Therefore, if this one ego is destroyed, everything else will also be destroyed along with it, and this everything else also includes all the other seeming egos. So in the above verse we can clearly read that there is only ego. All the phenomena vanish along with the ego. What then remains will be beginningless, infinite and unbroken, being, awareness and bliss.

When we experience ourself as we really are, there will remain no one to experience anything. No one will remain to experience either nothingness or fullness. Thereafter we will exist as only pure self-awareness. Thus there will be no to say ‘I have seen’ or ‘I have not seen’.

There is a saying in Tamil, Kandavar Vindillai; Vindavar Kandillai, which means ‘those who have seen do not say [or open their mouth]; those who say [or open their mouth] have not seen’. Bhagavan explains this in verse 33 of Ulladu Narpadu:

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.

Referring to this verse, Michael says, ‘Therefore we should be very skeptical about anyone who claims ‘I have known myself’ or ‘I have experienced what remains after the ego is annihilated’. One will not make such egoistical statements after one experiences oneself as one really is. Who will remain apart from oneself to whom we can make such statements? If we make such statements, it will be a ground for ridicule.

+ The above points are taken from Michael’s article: There is only one ego, and even that does not actually exist



maravadu said...

Sanjay Lohia,
"When we experience ourself as we really are, there will remain no one to experience anything. No one will remain to experience either nothingness or fullness. Thereafter we will exist as only pure self-awareness..."

Actually we exist not only thereafter, but even now only as pure self-awareness.

By the way, when you write "Thus there will be no to say ‘I have seen’ ....". ...we should read "no one"...

tannai vidadiruttal said...

Sanjay Lohia,
"...So ‘I’ must be that one jiva."

Can we compare this one ego with a big cloud between heaven and earth ?

Can every person try to destroy this one ego ?

tanmaya-nishtha said...

Sanjay Lohia,
"...All the phenomena vanish along with the ego. What then remains will be beginningless, infinite and unbroken, being, awareness and bliss"
After destroying of the ego the remaining is evidently the same as the already previously and ever existing beginningless, infinite and unbroken, being, awareness and bliss. So the ego seems to exist only in its own delusive view.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Tannai Vidadiruttal, yes, metaphorically we can say that this one ego is a big cloud between heaven and earth. In this context heaven is what we actually are – that is, atma-svarupa, and earth is all the jada (insentient) adjuncts which seems to be associated with ourself. We can say that this cloud (the ego) is what appears in between the heaven (ourself) and the earth (all our jada adjuncts).

Yes, everyone can destroy their egos if they want to. As Bhagavan teaches us in verse 17 of Upadesa Undiyar:

When one investigates [examines or scrutinises] the form of the mind without neglecting [forgetting, abandoning, giving up or ceasing], anything called ‘mind’ will not exist. This is the direct [straight or appropriate] path for everyone whomsoever.

Therefore if we try to investigate ourself keenly enough, we will come to know that anything called ‘mind’ never existed in the first place. This is so called destruction of the ego. As Bhagavan says in the above quoted verse, self-investigation is the direct path for all – that is, self-investigation is the direct path to destroy our seeming ego.

tannai vidadiruttal said...

Sanjay Lohia,
thank you for your answer("Yes, everyone can destroy their egos if they want") but I asked if every person can try to destroy this one single ego.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Tannai Vidadiruttal, you ask, ‘if every person can destroy this one single ego?’ To understand this correctly we have to closely consider our experience in dream. We see many persons in our dream, but how many egos are experiencing this dream? Obviously only one ego is experiencing this dream, in which it experiences many persons.

Likewise Bhagavan says this waking state is another dream. So in this state also there can be only one ego projecting and experiencing all phenomena (all the persons and everything else). So Tannai Vidadiruttal, Sanjay and all other persons are projections of this one ego. Who is this one ego? Bhagavan would always say ‘You are that’. The one awareness (ego) which takes Tannai Vidadiruttal as itself is the one ego.

So if you investigate your one ego, you will find that this ego doesn’t exist, and therefore all its projections will also cease to exist. So to answer your question more directly, every person cannot destroy this one ego, but this one ego can destroy all the persons, and it can do so only by destroying itself.

We may not grasp these things fully, but this should not bother us. If we look closely at our ego and find it to be not existent, we will surely solve all our doubts about everything under the sun. Bhagavan does not merely teach us theories, but more importantly teaches us the practical means to verify these theories for ourself.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Reflections… on Michael’s article: If we chose to do any harmful actions, should we consider them to be done according to destiny (prarabdha)?:

1) Both fate and free will is operating at every moment of our ego’s seeming existence. We are free to turn within at every moment, if we want to.

2) The ego is the false awareness ‘I am this body’, in which ‘this body’ is the body which we currently mistake ourself to be. This ‘I am this body’ idea is merely an illusory superimposition of our pure self-awareness.

3) For every vishaya-vasana there is a corresponding karma-vasana, and vice versa. If we are inclined to experience a particular phenomenon, we are also inclined to do whatever it takes to experience that phenomenon.

4) Fate may expose us to situations in which particular vasana may rise to the surface, but whether or not we allow ourself to be swayed by that vasana is decided by our free will.

5) To the extent we allow our mind to face outwards, to that extent we will be doing agamya of one kind or another, because if we are facing outwards we will be always wander under the sway of our vasanas. We may try not to get carried away by our vasanas and we even succeed to some extent, but it is virtually impossible not to swayed our vasanas if we are facing outwards.

6) The cause of our bondage is not fate but only vasanas, over which fate has no jurisdiction.

7) Free will alone is the cause of our bondage and also of our liberation. We are bound because we regularly attend to objects by our free will, and we can be liberated at this very moment, if we are able to focus our entire attention on ourself here and now. So our liberation is in our hands.

8) Even the choices and efforts that have been predetermined are likely to coincide with the choices and efforts that we anyway happen to make by our free will. So if we eat meat it must be our destiny to do so, but it is highly likely that we also desire to eat meat. So our eating meat is impelled by two forces: fate and free will. We have a choice to curb our liking to eat meat, but if it our destiny to do we may still continue eating it.

However, as long as we are eating meat we have to assume that it is our free will that is making us do so, because our desire to eat meat is anyway present in us.



Sanjay Lohia said...

When we practise self-investigation, we are building up a bank account. It won’t go to waste. It’s a bank account that can’t be squandered. If you do a lot of good karmas, and you are enjoying its fruits, but while enjoying it you may also do many bad karmas. So you can squander all your gains. So there is debit and credit in your karma account, and you can squander all your credit.

But self-investigation is not a karma. It’s a non-karma - akarma. It’s turning within and just trying to be. So the credit we build up here is in the form of love to experience ourself, and in the form of detachment from experiencing anything else. This will never go to waste.

So we just have to continue working at it patiently. Every little effort we make is worth it. Whether to get to our goal in this life time or hundred life times hence, it shouldn’t bother us. Whether it happens now in the next few minutes, or a thousand births ahead doesn’t matter, because it is all ultimately a dream. What matters is our attempt to practise self-investigation from moment to moment.

# Slightly modified extract from Michael’s video dated 12th September, 2015


tannai vidadiruttal said...

Sanjay Lohia,
thanks again for your reply.
However, in my dream there seems to be only this my person as the experiencer of this dream. Therefore from closely considering this dream experience I cannot conclude the existence of only one (big) ego.
But as you say more important than the (difficult) understanding of Bhagavan's theories are the practical means he gave us.

tanmaya-nishtha said...

Sanjay Lohia,
"6) The cause of our bondage is not fate but only vasanas, over which fate has no jurisdiction."
Nevertheless the amount of vasanas which we find oursef facing or are faced/confronted with or have work off is apparently preordained by fate or God.

nan nan said...

Sanjay Lohia,
regarding your above listed remarks:
"7) Free will alone is the cause of our bondage and also of our liberation. We are bound because we regularly attend to objects by our free will, and we can be liberated at this very moment, if we are able to focus our entire attention on ourself here and now. So our liberation is in our hands."
That we evidently are not able to focus our entire attention on ourself here and now is certainly dependent on our destiny. So in contrast with your statement our liberation is not in our hands. We can only strive for or try to obtain it.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Tannai Vidadiruttal, you say, ‘However, in my dream there seems to be only this my person as the experiencer of this dream’. When you write this, you are confusing the person, Tannai, with the ego, which is the experiencer of this dream. Our ego and the person we take ourself to be are entirely different. However, I was also confused in a similar way as you are now, but Michael clarified the differences between the ego and a person through a serious of comments. I will reproduce some of the extracts from Michael’s comments on this topic:

[…] though we as this ego always experience ourself as a person, we do not experience ourself as the same person. Now we experience ourself as a person called ‘Sanjay’ or ‘Michael’, but before the birth of this person we would have experienced ourself as some other person, and if our ego is not destroyed by self-knowledge, after the death of this person we will experience ourself as yet another person.

If the person we currently experience as ourself were identical with our ego, the death of this person would have been the death of our ego, and hence all our problems would be over. However, they will not be over, because this ego can project any number of persons one after another to experience as itself.

The ego is a tricky fellow who poses as one person at one time and another person at another time. A person is a seeming mixture of pure self-awareness and a particular body, whereas the ego is a seeming mixture of pure self-awareness and any body, not just a particular one.

[…] the ‘subject’ [the ego] refers specifically to ‘I’ as the experiencer, perceiver or knower – the one who is aware of all objects – whereas the body or person is not aware of anything and is therefore not an actual experiencer or perceiver.

(I will continue this reply in my next comment)

Sanjay Lohia said...

In continuation of my previous comment in reply to Tannai:

What is a person? It is a set of phenomena centred around a particular body, and it has both physical and mental features. Though its physical and mental features change over time, however extreme those changes may be we identify it as the same person because it is the same body that displays those features.

Other people see me as a person called Michael, who is someone with certain outwardly visible physical and mental characteristics, but they can never see or experience my ego. If I behave in an egotistical manner, they can say that they see my egotism, but though my egotism is an effect of my ego, it is not my ego itself but only its outward symptom or manifestation. My experience of my ego is entirely private or subjective in the sense that only I can experience it, whereas the person I experience as myself is public or subjective in the sense that he can be seen by anyone.

In your present dream Sanjay is as much a projection as any other person, so it cannot be Sanjay who has projected all this. The creator of a dream is not any person in that dream, not even the person the dreamer experiences as itself, but is only the dreamer, who is our ego.

When Bhagavan advises us that we should vigilantly investigate or observe our ego, the one who experiences this entire dream, he does not mean that we should observe the person who seems to be ourself in this dream, but only that we should observe the one who is aware of that person as if that person was itself. The person we experience as ourself is drsya, an object experienced by us (this ego), whereas we are drs, the experiencer of this and all other objects, so we need to distinguish ourself (this experiencing ego) from everything else that we experience, including the person that we currently seem to be.

Tannai, are things clearer now?



Sanjay Lohia said...

Tanmaya-Nishtha, no, the number of vasanas which we have is never preordained by God, as you seem to suggest. What is preordained are all the experiences we have to go through in this or in any other birth. What is also preordained are the actions we need to do by our body, speech and mind to experience these preordained experiences (which are the fruits of our actions done in our previous lives).

However, our vasanas come under the jurisdiction of our free will. That is, we are free to act or not to act of our vasanas, whenever these rise to our surface mind. Michael explains this in his article, If we choose to do any harmful actions, should we consider them to be done according to destiny (prārabdha)?:

The domain over which free will (mati) has jurisdiction is our desires, wishes, hopes, attachments, likes, dislikes, fears, aversions and so on, and consequently whatever efforts we make to achieve, hold on to or avoid whatever we desire, want, like, dislike, fear or feel aversion for. Since such efforts are what is called āgāmya, whatever āgāmya we may do belongs entirely to the domain of free will and not to the domain of fate. Since vāsanās are propensities, inclinations or urges, the formation, cultivation, modification, restraint, control and eradication of all kinds of vāsanās likewise belong only to the domain of free will and not to the domain of fate.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Nan Nan, you say, ‘That we evidently are not able to focus our entire attention on ourself here and now is certainly dependent on our destiny’. This is not correct. We are always free to turn our entire attention on ourself and to thereby dissolve our ego. That is, even while we are experiencing our prarabdha, we are entirely free not to experience our prarabdha by the practice of self-investigation.

nan nan said...

Sanjay Lohia,
to be theoretically "free to turn our entire attention on ourself and to thereby dissolve our ego." is not the same as to be "able to focus our entire attention on ourself here and now" as I wrote. Therefore already the quality of our practice of self-investigation seems to be dependent on (or be made conditional upon) our prarabdha.

tanmaya-nishtha said...

Sanjay Lohia,
I did not speak about the number of vasanas. I used the noun "amount" in the sense of quantity.
How much power is available to us to overcome of all kinds of vasanas is certainly influenced by our fate.

tannai vidadiruttal said...

Sanjay Lohia,
thanks again for your response and giving more explanatory remarks.
The distinction between the (our) experiencing ego and a person [as an object like an final stage or final product or final adjunct experienced by us (this ego)] makes the things not much clearer to me than before.
As you say we now in so-called waking state experience ourself as a person so-and-so. In dream the same person experiences "his" dream also as the same person so-and-so albeit in a more subtle dream-body. Before and after death we may experience us as another person with another body.
In any case we have to leave any 'I'-thought in whatever form/figure/adjunct/character which seem to veil/hide or conceal our pure self-awareness by keen investigation.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Michael has explained verse 24 of Ulladu Narpadu in his video dated 22nd April 2017 (morning) as follows (slightly modified):

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.

Michael: The insentient body does not say ‘I’, and the existing-awareness (sat-chit) does not rise. So the real awareness doesn’t rise. In the next sentence, Bhagavan says that in between the body and sat-chit one ‘I’ rises as the extent of the body – that means limited to the body an ‘I’ arises rises. It is the ‘I’ that feels ‘I am this body’.

The ego is nothing but the false awareness ‘I am this body’. The real self-awareness is aware of itself as ‘I’ or ‘I am’ or ‘I am I’, but the ‘I’ that rises to say ‘I am this’ or ‘I am that’ is the ego, and it never rises without grasping the body as itself.

Then in the next sentence he says ‘know that this is chit-jada-granthi’. Chit is the real awareness, jada is the insentient body or non-conscious body, and granthi means the knot. That is, when awareness becomes entangled with a body and forms a knot, that knot is the ego. So the ego is always the combination of ‘I am’ and ‘this body’.

Then the next word he says is bandham, which means ‘bondage’. Why the ego is bondage? For whom is the bondage? Bondage is only for the ego. The sat-chit has no bondage. The ego limits itself as a body and that is bondage. So the ego itself is bondage, and it is what is bound. The next word is jiva, which is the individual life or soul. The next word he uses is ‘subtle-body’, and then he uses ahandai, which means the ego.

(I will continue this in my next comment)

Sanjay Lohia said...

In continuation of my previous comment:

Then he says samsara. Samsara is a Sanskrit word, and it comes from the verbal root which means to 'move about, revolve or wander'. So what samsara basically implies is constant, restless activity. So long as we rise as this ‘I’, we can never keep quiet. We may sit in silence, but are we really silent?

Bhagavan ends this list by describing the ego as manam. The term ‘mind’ can be used in two senses. Bhagavan says in verse 18 of Upadesa Undiyar:

Thoughts alone are mind. Of all, the thought called ‘I’ alone is the root. What is called mind is ‘I’.

Bhagavan says here that thoughts alone are the mind. Of all these thoughts the thought called ‘I’ is the root, it is the ego. Why is it the root? It is because what is it that thinks thoughts? What is it that is aware of thoughts? It is only the ego, the thought called ‘I’. So without this thought called ‘I’, no other thought can rise or be experienced.

Bhagavan refers to the ego as thought, because it is not pure chit. It is a mixture of chit and jada. The jada portion is a thought. So the combination of chit and jada is itself a thought. But it’s unlike all other thoughts, because no other thought is aware of itself or of anything else. The only thought which is aware of anything is the ego. Bhagavan ends by saying that what is called ‘mind’ is the ‘I’.

No other thought is permanent. Other thoughts come and go, but so long as any thought is there, the first thought ‘I’ is always there as the thinker and as the experiencer of that thought. So generally when Bhagavan talks of mind he is referring to the ego, but in some contexts he will be referring to other thoughts.



Arjuna said...

"Practise, practise, practise".
Only inner personal experience may raise oneself to a higher level of being.
May divine grace be vouchsafed to us - on the pre-condition that we are true devotees.

Arjuna said...

Sanjay Lohia,
in the last paragraph of your recent comment you say that the first thought (called) 'I' is permanent and always there as the thinker and experiencer of that thought.
But is it not said that in deep sleep there is only pure self-awareness ?

Sanjay Lohia said...

Arjuna, what Michael said was:

No other thought is permanent. Other thoughts come and go, but so long as any thought is there, the first thought ‘I’ is always there as the thinker and as the experiencer of that thought. So generally when Bhagavan talks of mind he is referring to the ego, but in some contexts he will be referring to other thoughts.

So Michael didn’t say ‘first thought (called) 'I' is permanent and always there […]’, but he said, ‘Other thoughts come and go, but so long as any thought is there, the first thought ‘I’ is always there as the thinker and as the experiencer of that thought’.

Yes, according to Bhagavan, ‘in deep sleep there is only pure self-awareness', but when we rise as this ego we simultaneously project and experience thoughts, because without projecting thoughts our ego cannot rise.

Arjuna said...

Sanjay,
thanks, I agree.

All is within me said...

According the Article Archive in the year 2012 no article was posted by Michael James.
It seems that we must prepare ourself again for a year 2018 without his articles and comments.
It would be no wonder if Michael grew tired to correct our ignorant views.
In any case, we owe Michael James a great debt of gratitude for having written tirelessly numerous articles, comments, translations and explanations in order to convey a clearer and deeper understanding of Bhagavan's teachings.
(Michael set up this forum with the article of Wednesday, 27 December 2006 "Your questions and comments are welcome" for open discussion.)

In grateful recognition, I thank you gratefully.
One of the many participants as a reader and commentator.

Michael James said...

Ādhāra, I have replied to your first comment above in a separate article: Our existence is self-evident, because we shine by our own light of pure self-awareness.

adhara said...

Michael,
thank you for writing the mentioned article with your considerations about my ego's outpouring which was of course given not from the viewpoint of seeing or knowing what we actually are.

«Oldest ‹Older   601 – 733 of 733   Newer› Newest»