Śrī Aruṇācala Aṣṭakam verse 4: Be and shine in my heart as one without a second
This article is also available in a clearer and more easily readable format on my main website:
Śrī Aruṇācala Aṣṭakam verse 4: Be and shine in my heart as one without a second
* * * * *
Śrī Aruṇācala Aṣṭakam verse 4: Be and shine in my heart as one without a second
* * * * *
In continuation of my previous four articles, Śrī Aruṇācala Aṣṭakam: Tamil text, transliteration and translation, Śrī Aruṇācala Aṣṭakam verse 1: When, by its wonderful act of grace, Arunachala enchanted and pulled my mind close, I saw as this is acalam, Śrī Aruṇācala Aṣṭakam verse 2: When investigating within the mind who he who saw is, I saw what remained when he who saw was completely non-existent and Śrī Aruṇācala Aṣṭakam verse 3: When thinking of your form without thinking, form will cease, in this article I will explain and discuss the meaning and implications of the fourth verse:
இருந்தொளி ருனைவிடுத் தடுத்திட றெய்வPadavurai (word-explanation): இருந்து (irundu): being, existing {adverbial participle} | ஒளிர் (oḷir): shine {root of this verb, used here in the sense of an adjectival participle, ‘shining’ or ‘who shine’} | உனை (uṉai): you {poetic abbreviation of uṉṉai, accusative (second case) form of the second person singular pronoun} | விடுத்து (viḍuttu): leaving, letting go, abandoning, forsaking, neglecting {adverbial participle} | அடுத்திடல் (aḍuttiḍal): approaching, coming near, joining, depending on, taking refuge in (but used here in the sense of ‘seeking’) {verbal noun} | தெய்வம் (deyvam): God {Tamil form of the Sanskrit daiva, ‘what is divine’, ‘deity’ or ‘God’} | இருட்டினை (iruṭṭiṉai): darkness (accusative (second case) form of iruṭṭu) | விளக்கு (viḷakku): light, lamp | எடுத்து (eḍuttu): taking, holding, carrying {adverbial participle} | அடுத்திடலே (aḍuttiḍalē): just seeking {intensified form of the verbal noun aḍuttiḍal (see above)} | காண் (kāṇ): see {root of this verb, used here as an imperative} >>> so this first sentence, ‘இருந்து ஒளிர் உனை விடுத்து அடுத்திடல் தெய்வம் இருட்டினை விளக்கு எடுத்து அடுத்திடலே காண்’ (irundu oḷir uṉai viḍuttu aḍuttiḍal deyvam iruṭṭiṉai viḷakku eḍuttu aḍuttiḍalē kāṇ), means ‘See, seeking God leaving you, who exist and shine, is just seeking darkness taking a lamp’, which implies:
மிருட்டினை விளக்கெடுத் தடுத்திட லேகா
ணிருந்தொளி ருனையறி வுறுத்திடற் கென்றே
யிருந்தனை மதந்தொறும் விதவித வுருவா
யிருந்தொளி ருனையறி கிலரெனி லன்னோ
ரிரவியி னறிவறு குருடரே யாவா
ரிருந்தொளி ரிரண்டற வெனதுளத் தொன்றா
யிணையறு மருணமா மலையெனு மணியே.
irundoḷi ruṉaiviḍut taḍuttiḍa ṟeyva
miruṭṭiṉai viḷakkeḍut taḍuttiḍa lēkā
ṇirundoḷi ruṉaiyaṟi vuṟuttiḍaṯ keṉḏṟē
yirundaṉai madandoṟum vidhavidha vuruvā
yirundoḷi ruṉaiyaṟi hilareṉi laṉṉō
riraviyi ṉaṟivaṟu kuruḍarē yāvā
rirundoḷi riraṇḍaṟa veṉaduḷat toṉḏṟā
yiṇaiyaṟu maruṇamā malaiyeṉu maṇiyē.
பதச்சேதம்: இருந்து ஒளிர் உனை விடுத்து அடுத்திடல் தெய்வம் இருட்டினை விளக்கு எடுத்து அடுத்திடலே காண். இருந்து ஒளிர் உனை அறிவு உறுத்திடற்கு என்றே, இருந்தனை மதம் தொறும் வித வித உருவாய். இருந்து ஒளிர் உனை அறிகிலர் எனில், அன்னோர் இரவியின் அறிவு அறு குருடரே ஆவார். இருந்து ஒளிர் இரண்டு அற எனது உளத்து ஒன்றாய், இணையறும் அருண மா மலை எனும் மணியே.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): irundu oḷir uṉai viḍuttu aḍuttiḍal deyvam iruṭṭiṉai viḷakku eḍuttu aḍuttiḍalē kāṇ. irundu oḷir uṉai aṟivu uṟuttiḍaṟku eṉḏṟē, irundaṉai matam toṟum vidha vidha uruvāy. irundu oḷir uṉai aṟihilar eṉil, aṉṉōr iraviyiṉ aṟivu aṟu kuruḍarē āvār. irundu oḷir iraṇḍu aṟa eṉadu uḷattu oṉḏṟāy, iṇai-y-aṟum aruṇa-mā-malai eṉum maṇiyē.
அன்வயம்: இருந்து ஒளிர் உனை விடுத்து தெய்வம் அடுத்திடல் விளக்கு எடுத்து இருட்டினை அடுத்திடலே காண். இருந்து ஒளிர் உனை அறிவு உறுத்திடற்கு என்றே மதம் தொறும் வித வித உருவாய் இருந்தனை. இருந்து ஒளிர் உனை அறிகிலர் எனில், அன்னோர் இரவியின் அறிவு அறு குருடரே ஆவார். இணையறும் அருண மா மலை எனும் மணியே, எனது உளத்து இரண்டு அற ஒன்றாய் இருந்து ஒளிர்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): irundu oḷir uṉai viḍuttu deyvam aḍuttiḍal viḷakku eḍuttu iruṭṭiṉai aḍuttiḍalē kāṇ. irundu oḷir uṉai aṟivu uṟuttiḍaṟku eṉḏṟē matam toṟum vidha vidha uruvāy irundaṉai. irundu oḷir uṉai aṟihilar eṉil, aṉṉōr iraviyiṉ aṟivu aṟu kuruḍarē āvār. iṇai-y-aṟum aruṇa-mā-malai eṉum maṇiyē, eṉadu uḷattu iraṇḍu aṟa oṉḏṟāy irundu oḷir.
English translation: See, seeking God leaving you, who exist and shine, is just seeking darkness taking a lamp. Only to make yourself, who exist and shine, known, you have been as various forms in every creed. If there are those who do not know you, who exist and shine, such people are just blind people without knowledge of the sun. Gem called the peerless great Aruna Hill, exist and shine in my heart as one without a second.
Explanatory paraphrase: See, seeking God [while] leaving [letting go, forsaking or neglecting] you, who exist and shine [eternally in one’s heart as pure being-awareness (sat-cit), ‘I am’, which is God as he actually is], is just [like] seeking darkness taking a lamp. Only to make yourself, who exist and shine [eternally as the sole reality], known [to those who fail to recognise you shining in their heart as their own being], you have been [appearing] as various forms in every mata [creed or system of religious beliefs]. If there are those who do not know you, who exist and shine [as the light that illumines the mind, enabling it to know other things], such people are just [like] blind people without knowledge of the sun. Gem [of pure awareness] called the peerless great Aruna Hill, exist and shine in my heart as one without a second.
See, seeking God [while] leaving [letting go, forsaking or neglecting] you, who exist and shine [eternally in one’s heart as pure being-awareness (sat-cit), ‘I am’, which is God as he actually is], is just [like] seeking darkness taking a lamp.<<< இருந்து (irundu): being, existing {adverbial participle} | ஒளிர் (oḷir): shine {root of this verb, used here in the sense of an adjectival participle, ‘shining’ or ‘who shine’} | உனை (uṉai): you, yourself {poetic abbreviation of uṉṉai, accusative (second case) form of the second person singular pronoun} | அறிவுறுத்திடற்கு (aṟivuṟuttiḍaṟku): for making known {dative (fourth case) form of aṟivuṟuttiḍal, a verbal noun that means ‘making known’, which is a compound of aṟivu, ‘knowledge’ or ‘awareness’, and uṟuttiḍal, ‘causing to be’, ‘causing to happen’ or ‘causing to obtain’} | என்றே (eṉḏṟē): only saying, just {intensified adverbial participle of eṉ, ‘say’, used here in the sense ‘only’ or ‘just’} | இருந்தனை (irundaṉai): [you] have been, [you] have remained {second person singular past tense form of iru, ‘be’, ‘exist’ or ‘remain’} | மதந்தொறும் (matandoṟum): in each creed, in every creed, in all creeds {compound of matam, a Tamil form of the Sanskrit mata, ‘what is thought’, ‘what is believed’, ‘opinion’, ‘tenet’, ‘doctrine’ or ‘view’ (particularly a creed or system of religious beliefs), and the suffix toṟum, ‘in all’, ‘in every’ or ‘in each’ (formed from toṟu, a distributive suffix, and um, a suffix that in this context implies completeness, wholeness, totality or entirety)} | விதவிதவுருவாய் (vidha-vidha-v-uru-v-āy): as various forms {compound of vidha-vidham, reduplication of vidham (Tamil form of the Sanskrit vidhā, ‘sort’ or ‘kind’), implying ‘different kinds’ or ‘various’; uru, ‘form’; and āy, adverbial participle and suffix meaning ‘being’ or ‘as’} >>> so this second sentence, ‘இருந்து ஒளிர் உனை அறிவு உறுத்திடற்கு என்றே, இருந்தனை மதம் தொறும் வித வித உருவாய்’ (irundu oḷir uṉai aṟivu uṟuttiḍaṟku eṉḏṟē, irundaṉai matam toṟum vidha vidha uruvāy), means ‘Only to make yourself, who exist and shine, known, you have been as various forms in every creed’, which implies:
Only to make yourself, who exist and shine [eternally as the sole reality], known [to those who fail to recognise you shining in their heart as their own being], you have been [appearing] as various forms in every mata [creed or system of religious beliefs].<<< இருந்து (irundu): being, existing {adverbial participle} | ஒளிர் (oḷir): shine {root of this verb, used here in the sense of an adjectival participle, ‘shining’ or ‘who shine’} | உனை (uṉai): you {poetic abbreviation of uṉṉai, accusative (second case) form of the second person singular pronoun} | அறிகிலர் (aṟihilar): those who do not know | எனில் (eṉil): if said {conditional form of eṉ, ‘say’, implying ‘if so’, ‘if such is the case’ or ‘if it is the case that’, so ‘aṟihilar eṉil’ implies ‘if those who do not know are the case’ or simply ‘if there are those who do not know’} | அன்னோர் (aṉṉōr): such people | இரவியின் (iraviyiṉ): of the sun {inflectional base and genitive (sixth case) form of iravi, Tamil form of the Sanskrit ravi, ‘sun’} | அறிவு (aṟivu): knowledge | அறு (aṟu): cease, perish, be cut off, be severed, be separated, be rooted out, be removed {root of this verb, used here in the sense of an adjectival participle meaning ‘bereft of’, ‘devoid of’ or ‘without’} | குருடரே (kuruḍarē): just blind people {intensified form of kuruḍar, ‘those who are blind’ or ‘blind people’} | ஆவார் (āvār): [they] are >>> so this third sentence, ‘இருந்து ஒளிர் உனை அறிகிலர் எனில், அன்னோர் இரவியின் அறிவு அறு குருடரே ஆவார்’ (irundu oḷir uṉai aṟihilar eṉil, aṉṉōr iraviyiṉ aṟivu aṟu kuruḍarē āvār), means ‘If there are those who do not know you, who exist and shine, such people are just blind people without knowledge of the sun’, which implies:
If there are those who do not know you, who exist and shine [as the light that illumines the mind, enabling it to know other things], such people are just [like] blind people without knowledge of the sun.<<< இருந்து (irundu): being, existing {adverbial participle} | ஒளிர் (oḷir): shine {root of this verb, used here as an imperative} | இரண்டற (iraṇḍaṟa): without two, without a second {compound of iraṇḍu, ‘two’, and aṟa, ‘without’} | எனது (eṉadu): my {genitive (sixth case) form of the first person singular pronoun} | உளத்து (uḷattu): in heart {poetic abbreviation of uḷḷattu, inflectional base and locative (seventh case) form of uḷḷam, ‘heart’} | ஒன்றாய் (oṉḏṟāy): as one {compound of oṉḏṟu, noun meaning ‘one’, ‘one thing’ or ‘the one’, and āy, adverbial participle and suffix meaning ‘being’ or ‘as’} | இணையறும் (iṇai-y-aṟum): peerless {compound of iṇai, ‘likeness’, ‘resemblance’ or ‘pair’, and aṟum, adjectival participle meaning ‘without’} | அருணமாமலை (aruṇa-mā-malai): Aruna-great-hill, great Aruna Hill {compound of aruṇa, ‘Aruna’, mā (Tamil form of the Sanskrit mahā), ‘great’, and malai, ‘hill’ or ‘mountain’} | எனும் (eṉum): called, which is called, which is said {future (but used generically as a continuous present) adjectival participle of eṉ, ‘say’, ‘utter’ or ‘express’} | மணியே (maṇiyē): Gem, O Gem {vocative (eighth case) form of maṇi, ‘gem’ or ‘jewel’} >>> so this final sentence, ‘இருந்து ஒளிர் இரண்டு அற எனது உளத்து ஒன்றாய், இணையறும் அருண மா மலை எனும் மணியே’ (irundu oḷir iraṇḍu aṟa eṉadu uḷattu oṉḏṟāy, iṇai-y-aṟum aruṇa-mā-malai eṉum maṇiyē), means ‘Gem called the peerless great Aruna Hill, exist and shine in my heart as one without a second’, which implies:
Gem [of pure awareness] called the peerless great Aruna Hill, exist and shine in my heart as one without a second.
- Arunachala is what exists and shines as pure being-awareness (sat-cit)
- We can know Arunachala (God) as he actually is only by knowing ourself as we actually are
- Seeking God but neglecting Arunachala, the self-shining light of awareness, is like seeking darkness taking a lamp
- Only to make itself known, Arunachala has appeared as various forms in every creed
- Devotion to God as a name and form will purify our mind, thereby enabling us to know him as formless
- If anyone does not know Arunachala or God, they are like blind people, who do not know the sun
- Arunachala is pure being-awareness, other than which nothing can be, so he is and shines as one without a second
- Though devotion to a name and form of God is a powerful aid and support for self-investigation, it can never be an adequate substitute for it
Each of the four lines of this verse begins with the phrase ‘இருந்தொளிர்’ (irundoḷir), which consists of two verbs, இருந்து (irundu) and ஒளிர் (oḷir). இருந்து (irundu) is an adverbial participle that means ‘being’, ‘existing’ or ‘remaining’, and ஒளிர் (oḷir) is the root of a verb that means ‘shine’. In each of the first three lines ஒளிர் (oḷir) is used in the sense of an adjectival participle meaning ‘shining’ or ‘who shines’, whereas in the final line it is used in an imperative sense, ‘shine’.
In a Tamil sentence there can be only one main verb, and likewise in an adjectival (or relative) clause there can be only one adjectival participle, so in either case any other verbs become adverbial participles. Therefore an English sentence such as ‘He sat down and ate’ would be expressed in Tamil as ‘Sitting down, he ate’, and a relative clause such as ‘who sat down and ate’ would be expressed as ‘who sitting down ate’. Therefore in each of the first three lines of this verse ‘இருந்து ஒளிர்’ (irundu oḷir) is an adjectival clause that literally means ‘who being shines’, ‘who existing shines’ or ‘who remaining shines’, but that implies ‘who is and shines’, ‘who exists and shines’ or ‘who remains and shines’, and in the final line it is an imperative clause that means ‘being shine’, ‘existing shine’ or ‘remaining shine’, but that implies ‘be and shine’, ‘exist and shine’ or ‘remain and shine’.
In each of the first three lines the adjectival clause ‘இருந்து ஒளிர்’ (irundu oḷir) describes ‘உனை’ (uṉai), a poetic abbreviation of உன்னை (uṉṉai), an accusative (second case) form of the second person singular pronoun, ‘you’, referring here to Arunachala, so ‘இருந்து ஒளிர் உனை’ (irundu oḷir uṉai) means ‘you, who are [exist or remain] and shine’, thereby implying that Arunachala is what actually is (what actually exists and therefore remains eternally) and what actually shines. In other words, this adjectival clause implies that what Arunachala actually is is pure being (sat), which shines as pure awareness (cit), so in this verse Bhagavan is emphasising that the real nature (svarūpa) of Arunachala is pure being-awareness (sat-cit), which is the fundamental reality underlying the appearance of all particular things, the ground on which they appear, the source from which they appear and the ultimate substance (poruḷ or vastu) of which they are composed. Since nothing can be other than being and since nothing can appear except in awareness, pure being-awareness (sat-cit) is ananta (endless, limitless, boundless and infinite) and therefore ‘one only without a second’ (ēkam ēva advitīyam), so when he prays in the final line of this verse ‘இருந்து ஒளிர் இரண்டு அற எனது உளத்து ஒன்றாய்’ (irundu oḷir iraṇḍu aṟa eṉadu uḷattu oṉḏṟāy), ‘Be [exist or remain] and shine in my heart as one without a second’, in effect he is teaching us to pray to Arunachala to reveal itself to us in our heart as it always actually is, namely as the one infinite and otherless being-awareness (sat-cit).
2. We can know Arunachala (God) as he actually is only by knowing ourself as we actually are
Though Arunachala always exists and shines in our heart as our own being, our fundamental awareness, ‘I am’, we do not know it as it actually is because instead of being aware of ourself as just ‘I am’ we are now aware of ourself as ‘I am this body’. Since this body is not what we actually are, the awareness ‘I am this body’ is a false awareness of ourself, and what is aware of itself as ‘I am this body’ is not ourself as we actually are but only ourself as ego. That is, it is only when we seem to have risen as ego, namely in waking and dream, that we are aware of ourself as ‘I am this body’, because when we do not rise as ego, as in sleep or any other state of manōlaya (temporary dissolution of mind), we are aware of nothing other than our own being, ‘I am’.
Whatever we mistake ourself to be is called an upādhi, a term that is often translated as ‘adjunct’ or ‘limiting adjunct’, but that more precisely means a disguise, false identity, deceptive appearance, distinguishing attribute, superimposed limitation or fraudulent substitute, particularly in the sense of a secondary thing that a primary thing is mistaken to be (such as the snake that a rope is mistaken to be), so in the false awareness ‘I am this body’, the body is an upādhi whereas ‘I am’ is the underlying reality. Since Arunachala (God) is our very being, it is only our false identification with a set of upādhis that makes us seem to be other than him, as Bhagavan points out in verse 24 of Upadēśa Undiyār:
இருக்கு மியற்கையா லீசசீ வர்கSo long as we are aware of ourself as one set of upādhis, whatever conception we have of God will be another set of upādhis, because we cannot know him as he actually is without knowing ourself as we actually are. As Bhagavan points out in this verse, what he actually is and what we actually are is just one substance (poruḷ or vastu), namely pure being, which is what he refers to as ‘இருக்கும் இயற்கை’ (irukkum iyaṯkai), ‘being nature’. Therefore, since God shines as our very being, in order to be aware of him as he actually is, we need to be aware of ourself as we actually are, which means being aware of ourself without any upādhis, as he says in the next verse, namely verse 25 of Upadēśa Undiyār:
ளொருபொரு ளேயாவ ருந்தீபற
வுபாதி யுணர்வேவே றுந்தீபற.
irukku miyaṟkaiyā līśajī varga
ḷoruporu ḷēyāva rundīpaṟa
vupādhi yuṇarvēvē ṟundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: இருக்கும் இயற்கையால் ஈச சீவர்கள் ஒரு பொருளே ஆவர். உபாதி உணர்வே வேறு.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): irukkum iyaṯkaiyāl īśa-jīvargaḷ oru poruḷē āvar. upādhi-uṇarvē vēṟu.
English translation: By [their] being nature, īśa [God] and jīva [soul] are just one poruḷ [substance or vastu]. Only upādhi-uṇarvu [adjunct-awareness] is [what makes them seem] different.
தன்னை யுபாதிவிட் டோர்வது தானீசன்If we try to know or see God by any means other than by knowing ourself as the pure adjunctless being-awareness (nirupādhika sat-cit) that we actually are, what we will thereby know or see will be no more than a ‘மனோமயம் ஆம் காட்சி’ (maṉōmayam ām kāṭci), a ‘mental vision’ or ‘mind-constituted image’, as Bhagavan says in verse 20 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu:
றன்னை யுணர்வதா முந்தீபற
தானா யொளிர்வதா லுந்தீபற.
taṉṉai yupādhiviṭ ṭōrvadu tāṉīśaṉ
ḏṟaṉṉai yuṇarvadā mundīpaṟa
tāṉā yoḷirvadā lundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: தன்னை உபாதி விட்டு ஓர்வது தான் ஈசன் தன்னை உணர்வது ஆம், தானாய் ஒளிர்வதால்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): taṉṉai upādhi viṭṭu ōrvadu tāṉ īśaṉ taṉṉai uṇarvadu ām, tāṉ-āy oḷirvadāl.
English translation: Knowing oneself without upādhis [adjuncts] is itself knowing God, because of [God being what is always] shining as oneself.
காணுந் தனைவிட்டுத் தான்கடவு ளைக்காணல்When we do not know the reality of ourself, namely pure being-awareness (sat-cit), we know ourself as if we were a body, a form consisting of five sheaths (namely the physical form of the body, the life that animates it, and the mind, intellect and will that operation within it), and consequently we can know God only as a form, as Bhagavan says in the first sentence of verse 4 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: ‘உருவம் தான் ஆயின், உலகு பரம் அற்று ஆம்’ (uruvam tāṉ āyiṉ, ulahu param aṯṟu ām), ‘If oneself is a form, the world and God will be likewise’. Unless we know the reality of ourself, therefore, we cannot know God as he actually is but can only know him as a form of one kind or another, and all forms are mental fabrications (manōkalpanās), so if we see God without knowing ourself as we actually are, we would be seeing him just as a ‘மனோமயம் ஆம் காட்சி’ (maṉōmayam ām kāṭci), a ‘mental vision’ or ‘mind-constituted image’.
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.
English translation: Leaving [neglecting to know the reality of] oneself [namely ego], who sees [all things other than oneself], oneself seeing God is seeing maṉōmayam ām kāṭci [a mental vision or mind-constituted image]. Only he who sees himself [as he actually is], the origin [base or foundation] of himself [as ego], is he who has seen God, because oneself [as one actually is], [which alone is what remains] when oneself [as ego], the origin [root or foundation of all other things], has gone, is not other than God.
Therefore, as he says in the second sentence of this verse, ‘தனை காணும் அவன் தான் கடவுள் கண்டான் ஆம்’ (taṉai kāṇum avaṉ-tāṉ kaḍavuḷ kaṇḍāṉ ām), ‘Only he who sees himself is he who has seen God’, and he clarifies that what he means here by ‘தனை’ (taṉai), ‘himself’ or ‘oneself’, is ourself as we actually are by adding in apposition to it the phrase ‘தன் முதலை’ (taṉ mudalai), ‘his origin’ or ‘the origin of himself’, thereby implying the origin or source of ego. The reason why seeing ourself as we actually are alone is seeing God is ‘தான் கடவுள் அன்றி இலதால்’ (tāṉ kaḍavuḷ aṉḏṟi iladāl), ‘because oneself is not other than God’, and he again clarifies that what he means here by ‘தான்’ (tāṉ), ‘oneself’, is ourself as we actually are by adding an adverbial clause, ‘தான் முதல் போய்’ (tāṉ mudal pōy), which literally means ‘oneself, the origin, going [or having gone]’, and which implies ‘when oneself [as ego], the origin [root or foundation of all other things], has gone’. That is, though we are always nothing other than God, we will be aware of ourself as such only when ego, the origin and foundation of all phenomena, has been eradicated by our seeing ourself as we actually are.
3. Seeking God but neglecting Arunachala, the self-shining light of awareness, is like seeking darkness taking a lamp
This is why he says in the first line of this fourth verse of Śrī Aruṇācala Aṣṭakam: ‘இருந்து ஒளிர் உனை விடுத்து அடுத்திடல் தெய்வம் இருட்டினை விளக்கு எடுத்து அடுத்திடலே காண்’ (irundu oḷir uṉai viḍuttu aḍuttiḍal deyvam iruṭṭiṉai viḷakku eḍuttu aḍuttiḍalē kāṇ), ‘See, seeking God leaving you, who exist and shine, is just seeking darkness taking a lamp’. The lamp that illumines our mind and by which we thus know everything, both ourself and all other things, is Arunachala (God), who exists and shines in our heart as the light of pure awareness, so this is the விளக்கு (viḷakku), ‘lamp’, that Bhagavan refers to here. If we neglect this light, which is the real form (svarūpa) of God, and instead seek God outside ourself, that would be just like taking a lamp to search for darkness.
God is the very antithesis of darkness, being the original light of pure awareness, which shines eternally in our heart as our own being, ‘I am’, so what Bhagavan implies by this analogy is not that God is darkness but that searching for him as something other than ourself is as futile as searching for darkness with the aid of a lamp.
However, this is not the only implication of this analogy. Just as ‘light’ is a metaphor for awareness, clarity, wisdom and knowledge, ‘darkness’ is a metaphor for ignorance, confusion and delusion. So long as our mind (attention) is directed away from ourself towards anything else, we are ensnared in the darkness of self-ignorance, because it is only when we are aware of ourself as ‘I am this body’ that we are consequently aware of anything other than ourself. Though this false awareness ‘I am this body’ is the darkness of self-ignorance, it is not total darkness, because within this false awareness shines our being, ‘I am’, which is the light of real awareness. That is, even when we are aware of ourself as ‘I am this body’, we never cease to be aware of our being, ‘I am’. However, though we are aware that we are, we are not aware what we are because we mistake ourself to be something other than ourself, namely a body consisting of five sheaths.
As Bhagavan used to say, the appearance of phenomena cannot occur either in infinite light or in total darkness, but only in a limited light within a background darkness, and to illustrate this he gave the analogy of a cinema picture, which cannot appear either in full daylight or in complete darkness, but requires both a limited light from a projector and the darkness of a cinema hall. Without light from the projector, no picture would appear on the screen, but even when light from it does project a picture, if the roof were blown off the cinema allowing the sunlight to flood the hall, the picture would be swallowed by the sunlight and thereby disappear. Likewise, because ego is a limited light shining in the darkness of its own self-ignorance, it is able to project and perceive this picture of names and forms, but if it turns back to face the infinite light of pure awareness that is always shining within it as its own being, ‘I am’, it will be swallowed by that light along with all its projections.
Since the infinite light of pure awareness that exists and shines eternally and immutably in our heart as ‘I am’ is the real form (svarūpa) of Arunachala (God), turning our attention back within and thereby being swallowed by him is the only way to see or know him as he actually is, as Bhagavan implies in the final sentence of verse 21 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, ‘ஊண் ஆதல் காண்’ (ūṇ ādal kāṇ), ‘Becoming food is seeing’, and as he points out even more explicitly in verse 22 by asking rhetorically:
மதிக்கொளி தந்தம் மதிக்கு ளொளிருIn the first line of this fourth verse of Śrī Aruṇācala Aṣṭakam, ‘இருந்து ஒளிர் உனை விடுத்து அடுத்திடல் தெய்வம் இருட்டினை விளக்கு எடுத்து அடுத்திடலே காண்’ (irundu oḷir uṉai viḍuttu aḍuttiḍal deyvam iruṭṭiṉai viḷakku eḍuttu aḍuttiḍalē kāṇ), ‘See, seeking God leaving you, who exist and shine, is just seeking darkness taking a lamp’, what he implies by saying ‘இருந்து ஒளிர் உனை விடுத்து’ (irundu oḷir uṉai viḍuttu), ‘leaving you, who exist and shine’, is neglecting to turn our mind back within to immerse it is Arunachala, who exists and shines within us as the infinite light of pure being-awareness (sat-cit), ‘I am’. Instead of turning our entire attention back within to immerse ourself in this light, if we look for God as something other than ourself, we would be using the adjunct-conflated light of our mind, which is an infinitesimally limited reflection of the infinite light of pure awareness, to search for him among names and forms, which seem to exist only in the darkness of our own self-ignorance. Since all names and forms (objects or phenomena) are born and live only in the darkness of self-ignorance, namely ego, they partake of the nature of their parent, so they too are darkness, and hence Bhagavan says that searching for God among them is ‘இருட்டினை விளக்கு எடுத்து அடுத்திடலே’ (iruṭṭiṉai viḷakku eḍuttu aḍuttiḍalē), ‘just seeking darkness taking a lamp’.
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.
English translation: Except by, turning the mind back within, completely immersing it in God, who shines [as pure awareness] within that mind giving light to the mind, how to fathom God by the mind? Consider.
Though the verbal noun அடுத்திடல் (aḍuttiḍal), which is the head of both noun phrases in this sentence, namely the subject, ‘இருந்து ஒளிர் உனை விடுத்து அடுத்திடல் தெய்வம்’, (irundu oḷir uṉai viḍuttu aḍuttiḍal deyvam), ‘seeking God leaving you, who exist and shine’, and its complement, ‘இருட்டினை விளக்கு எடுத்து அடுத்திடலே’ (iruṭṭiṉai viḷakku eḍuttu aḍuttiḍalē), ‘just seeking darkness taking a lamp’, literally means ‘approaching’, ‘coming close’, ‘joining’, ‘depending on’ or ‘taking refuge in’, in this context Bhagavan uses it in the sense of ‘seeking’, ‘searching for’ or ‘trying to know’.
The word he uses here for God is தெய்வம் (deyvam), a Tamil form of the Sanskrit दैव (daiva), which is an augmented (vṛddhi) form of देव (deva), ‘what is divine’, ‘deity’ or ‘God’, which derives from the verbal root दिव् (div), ‘shine’ or ‘be bright’, so the root meaning of देव (deva) and दैव (daiva) is ‘what shines’ or ‘the shining one’, and hence this is a very apt term to refer to God, particularly in this context, because he is the original light of pure awareness, which illumines the mind and thereby causes all other things to shine in the view of the mind. That is, all phenomena shine only by the light of the mind, which derives its light from the original light of pure awareness, so only pure awareness shines by its own light, and hence it is described as svayam-prakāśa, ‘self-shining’ or ‘self-luminous’. Since there is no real light other than this self-shining light of pure awareness, it alone is fit to be called தெய்வம் (deyvam), ‘the shining one’ or ‘God’. Therefore this real light called தெய்வம் (deyvam) cannot be found among objects or phenomena but only deep within the subject, namely ego, the core of the mind, in whose view alone all objects or phenomena seem to exist.
4. Only to make itself known, Arunachala has appeared as various forms in every creed
Just as in the second line of the previous verse Bhagavan pointed out the futility of trying to think of, meditate upon or conceive God as formless, saying ‘உன் உரு அரு என உன்னிடில், விண் நோக்குற உலகு அலை தரும் ஒருவனை ஒக்கும்’ (uṉ uru aru eṉa uṉṉiḍil, viṇ ṇōkkuṟa ulahu alai tarum oruvaṉai okkum), ‘If one thinks of your form as formless, one is like someone who wanders the world to see the sky’, in the first line of this verse he points out the futility of trying to know him as anything other than oneself, implying as a form of any kind, saying ‘இருந்து ஒளிர் உனை விடுத்து அடுத்திடல் தெய்வம் இருட்டினை விளக்கு எடுத்து அடுத்திடலே காண்’ (irundu oḷir uṉai viḍuttu aḍuttiḍal deyvam iruṭṭiṉai viḷakku eḍuttu aḍuttiḍalē kāṇ), ‘See, seeking God leaving you, who exist and shine, is just seeking darkness taking a lamp’. However this does not mean either that we cannot know God as formless or that being devoted to him as a form, as if he were other than oneself, is not an appropriate or useful part of the process of coming to know him as formless.
We can know him as formless, not by trying to think of him as such, but only by deeply contemplating our own formless being, which shines as our fundamental awareness, ‘I am’, because this alone is his svarūpa (his real ‘form’, meaning what he actually is), as Bhagavan implies in the third line of the previous verse: ‘உன் உரு உனல் அற உன்னிட, முன் நீர் உறு சருக்கரை உரு என உரு ஓயும்’ (uṉ uru uṉal aṟa uṉṉiḍa, muṉ-nīr uṟu sarukkarai-y-uru eṉa uru ōyum), ‘When without thinking one thinks deeply of your form, form will cease like a salt doll touching the ocean’. Likewise, he implies that being devoted to God as a form is an appropriate and useful part of the process of coming to know him as formless by saying in the first line of the previous verse, ‘நின்னை யான் உரு என எண்ணியே நண்ண, நிலமிசை மலை எனும் நிலையினை நீ தான்’ (niṉṉai yāṉ uru eṉa eṇṇiyē naṇṇa, nilamisai malai eṉum nilaiyiṉai nī-tāṉ), ‘When I approach thinking of you as a form, you yourself have settled [standing firmly] as a hill on earth’, and in the second line of this verse: ‘இருந்து ஒளிர் உனை அறிவு உறுத்திடற்கு என்றே, இருந்தனை மதம் தொறும் வித வித உருவாய்’ (irundu oḷir uṉai aṟivu uṟuttiḍaṟku eṉḏṟē, irundaṉai matam toṟum vidha vidha uruvāy), ‘Only to make yourself, who exist and shine, known, you have been as various forms in every creed’.
When Arunachala exists and shines eternally within each of us as the formless light of pure awareness, without which there would be no knowledge of anything, why does it need to appear as any form in order to make itself known to us? Arunachala is ātma-svarūpa (the real nature of ourself, meaning ourself as we actually are) and it always knows itself as it actually is, but when we rise as ego we know ourself as ‘I am this body’ and hence we do not know ourself as we actually are, namely as Arunachala, the formless light of pure awareness. Ego is essentially just this formless light of pure awareness, but as such it has no separate existence but is just ourself as we actually are. It seems to have a separate existence, therefore, only when it mistakes itself to be the form of a body, so it cannot come into existence as a separate entity or endure without mistaking itself to be the form of a body, as Bhagavan points out in verse 25 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu:
உருப்பற்றி யுண்டா முருப்பற்றி நிற்குThe form that ego grasps as it comes into existence is the form of a body consisting of five sheaths (the physical form of the body, the life that animates it, and the mind, intellect and will that operate within it), but since no form can exist independent of ego, in whose view alone forms seem to exist, in the first sentence of this verse, ‘உரு பற்றி உண்டாம்’ (uru paṯṟi uṇḍām), ‘grasping form it comes into existence’, ‘உரு பற்றி’ (uru paṯṟi), ‘grasping form’, implies projecting a body and simultaneously mistaking it to be ‘I’. Likewise the second sentence, ‘உரு பற்றி நிற்கும்’ (uru paṯṟi niṯkum), ‘grasping form it stands’, implies that ego endures only by continuously projecting and mistaking a body to be itself.
முருப்பற்றி யுண்டுமிக வோங்கு — முருவிட்
டுருப்பற்றுந் தேடினா லோட்டம் பிடிக்கு
முருவற்ற பேயகந்தை யோர்.
uruppaṯṟi yuṇḍā muruppaṯṟi niṯku
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 niṯkum; uru paṯṟi uṇḍu miha ōṅgum; uru viṭṭu, uru paṯṟum; tēḍiṉāl ōṭṭam piḍikkum. uru aṯṟa pēy ahandai. ōr.
English translation: Grasping form it comes into existence; grasping form it stands; grasping and feeding on form it grows abundantly; leaving form, it grasps form. If seeking, it will take flight. [Such is the nature of] the formless demon ego. Investigate.
However, a body is not the only form that ego grasps. Having grasped a body as if it were itself, ego projects and perceives a myriad of other forms, both those that constitute a seemingly external world of physical phenomena and those that constitute a relatively more internal world of mental phenomena, and by doing so it nourishes itself and grows, as he says in the third sentence: ‘உரு பற்றி உண்டு மிக ஓங்கும்’ (uru paṯṟi uṇḍu miha ōṅgum), ‘grasping and feeding on form it grows abundantly’. Since ego cannot arise, stand or flourish without grasping form, as soon as it leaves one form it grasps another one, as he says in the fourth sentence: ‘உரு விட்டு, உரு பற்றும்’ (uru viṭṭu, uru paṯṟum), ‘leaving form, it grasps form’.
Whenever ego stops grasping form, it subsides in a state of temporary dissolution (laya) such as sleep, swoon, coma, general anaesthesia or kēvala nirvikalpa samādhi, from which it will rise again. Since it cannot rise or stand even for a moment without constantly grasping form, grasping form is its very nature, so if instead of grasping form it tries to grasp its own formless essence, namely awareness, it will subside and dissolve back into the source from which its arose, namely pure being-awareness (sat-cit), as Bhagavan implies in the fifth sentence: ‘தேடினால் ஓட்டம் பிடிக்கும்’ (tēḍiṉāl ōṭṭam piḍikkum), ‘If seeking, it will take flight’.
Though தேடினால் (tēḍiṉāl) just means ‘if seeking’, and though in this case it has no explicit subject or object, what it implies here is ‘if ego seeks to know its own reality by investigating who am I’, or in other words, ‘if ego seeks to know what it actually is by attending to itself alone’. To the extent to which we as ego attend only to our own being, our fundamental awareness, ‘I am’, we will thereby subside, and if we attend to our being so keenly that we thereby cease to be aware of anything else whatsoever, we will subside completely and dissolve forever back into our being, as our being.
Thus in this verse Bhagavan reveals the nature of this formless demon called ego, namely that it cannot come into existence or endure without grasping (attaching itself to and identifying itself as) the form of a body, and it cannot feed itself or flourish without constantly grasping (attending to and experiencing) other forms, but if it attends only to itself, thereby letting go of all forms, it will subside completely and dissolve forever back into its own formless essence, which is pure being-awareness (sat-cit), ‘I am’. Since this formless essence is the reality not only of ourself but also of Arunachala or God, dissolving into it in this way by keenly and steadily attending to it is the only means by which we can know him as he actually is.
Until then, we will continue to experience ourself as if we were a body, and so long as we experience ourself thus, God will likewise seem to us to be a form of one kind or another, as Bhagavan points out in the first sentence of verse 4 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: ‘உருவம் தான் ஆயின், உலகு பரம் அற்று ஆம்’ (uruvam tāṉ āyiṉ, ulahu param aṯṟu ām), ‘If oneself is a form, the world and God will be likewise’. Whatever our conception of God may be, even if we consider him to be infinite and formless being-awareness (sat-cit), that is just an idea, which is a mental form, because we cannot experience him as the infinite and formless reality that he actually is without experiencing ourself as such.
Since we cannot rise, stand or flourish as ego without constantly grasping form, it is almost true to say that whenever we have risen as ego whatever we know is only a form. However, this is not quite true, because without the formless light of awareness we could not know any forms, so in addition to forms we also know this light of awareness, which in its pure form is the reality of both God and ourself. Nevertheless, though we know this light of awareness, which is our own being, ‘I am’, we do not know it as it actually is, namely as pure formless awareness, because we experience it mixed and conflated with a set of forms (an adjunct or upādhi) as ‘I am this body’.
So long as we remain as ego, therefore, we cannot know God as the pure, infinite and formless being-awareness that he actually is, even though he always exists and shines as such in our own heart, so to make himself known to us in a way that we can more easily relate to, he has appeared as various forms, as Bhagavan says in the second line of this verse: ‘இருந்து ஒளிர் உனை அறிவு உறுத்திடற்கு என்றே, இருந்தனை மதம் தொறும் வித வித உருவாய்’ (irundu oḷir uṉai aṟivu uṟuttiḍaṟku eṉḏṟē, irundaṉai matam toṟum vidha vidha uruvāy), ‘Only to make yourself, who exist and shine, known, you have been [appearing] as various forms in every mata [creed or system of religious beliefs]’.
5. Devotion to God as a name and form will purify our mind, thereby enabling us to know him as formless
On one level we can take the clause ‘இருந்து ஒளிர் உனை அறிவு உறுத்திடற்கு என்றே’ (irundu oḷir uṉai aṟivu uṟuttiḍaṟku eṉḏṟē), ‘Only to make yourself, who exist and shine, known’, to mean as I said in the previous paragraph, namely to make himself known to us in a way that we can more easily relate to, but Bhagavan actually means more than just this, because on a deeper level this clause implies to make himself known as he actually is, namely as pure, infinite and formless being-awareness (sat-cit), as indicated by the phrase ‘இருந்து ஒளிர் உனை’ (irundu oḷir uṉai), ‘being shining you’ or ‘yourself, who are and shine’, since இருந்து (irundu), ‘being’ or ‘existing’, implies existing as pure being (sat) and ஒளிர் (oḷir), ‘shining’ or ‘who shines’, implies shining as pure awareness (cit). So how can his appearing as various forms help us to know him as the formless light of pure being-awareness that he actually is?
These two ways of knowing God, namely knowing him as a form and knowing him as the one underlying formless being-awareness, are not just two distinct and alternative ways of knowing him but are intimately related, because the former is an effective and powerful means to the latter. If we can cultivate deep and intense love for God as a form and thereby develop an intimate and loving relationship with him as if he were a person, our mind will thereby be purified, and thus we will gain the clarity to understand that he is so much more than just a form or a person, because he is the one infinite space of pure being, awareness, happiness and love, which is the formless source, ground and substance of ourself and all other things, so nothing can be other than him, and hence he is not anything other than ourself but our own very being, the fundamental awareness by whose light we know not only our own being but also the seeming existence of all other things. When we gain this understanding by his grace, we will recognise that our seemingly separate existence is an illusion, and that to dissolve this illusion we must lose ourself entirely in him, and since we can do so only by his grace, we will learn to pray to him as Bhagavan taught us in verse 7 of Śrī Aruṇācala Padigam:
வெளிவளி தீநீர் மண்பல வுயிராDeveloping an intimate and intensely loving relationship with a form of God as if he were a person is therefore not an end in itself, as taught in many less mature bhakti traditions, but is a powerful means to a much greater end, namely giving ourself wholly to him by subsiding back within and thereby melting as love in him, the very form of love, like a snowflake melting in the ocean, as Bhagavan sings in verse 101 of Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai:
விரிவுறு பூதபௌ திகங்கள்
வெளியொளி யுன்னை யன்றியின் றென்னின்
வேறுயா னாருளன் விமலா
வெளியதா யுளத்து வேறற விளங்கின்
வேறென வெளிவரு வேனார்
வெளிவரா யருணா சலவவன் றலையில்
விரிமலர்ப் பதத்தினை வைத்தே.
veḷivaḷi tīnīr maṇpala vuyirā
virivuṟu bhūtabhau tikaṅgaḷ
veḷiyoḷi yuṉṉai yaṉḏṟiyiṉ ḏṟeṉṉiṉ
vēṟuyā ṉāruḷaṉ vimalā
veḷiyadā yuḷattu vēṟaṟa viḷaṅgiṉ
vēṟeṉa veḷivaru vēṉār
veḷivarā yaruṇā calavavaṉ ṟalaiyil
virimalarp padattiṉai vaittē.
பதச்சேதம்: வெளி, வளி, தீ, நீர், மண் பல உயிரா விரிவு உறு பூத பௌதிகங்கள் வெளி ஒளி உன்னை அன்றி இன்று என்னின், வேறு யான் ஆர் உளன்? விமலா, வெளி அதாய் உளத்து வேறு அற விளங்கின், வேறு என வெளி வருவேன் ஆர்? வெளி வராய், அருணாசல, அவன் தலையில் விரி மலர் பதத்தினை வைத்தே.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): veḷi, vaḷi, tī, nīr, maṇ pala uyirā virivu-uṟu bhūta-bhautikaṅgaḷ veḷi oḷi uṉṉai aṉḏṟi iṉḏṟu-eṉṉiṉ, vēṟu yāṉ ār uḷaṉ? vimalā, veḷi-adāy uḷattu vēṟu aṟa viḷaṅgiṉ, vēṟu eṉa veḷi varuvēṉ ār? veḷi varāy, aruṇācala, avaṉ talaiyil viri malar padattiṉai vaittē.
English translation: If the elements, space, air, fire, water and earth, and what are composed of the elements, which expand as many living beings, do not exist besides [or are not other than] you, the space of light [the light of pure awareness], who else am I? O blemishless, if [you are] shining without another in the heart as that space, who am I who come outside as if another? May you come outside, Arunachala, placing [your] fully blossomed [expansive or all-pervading] lotus-feet on his head [namely on the head of this ego, the spurious ‘I’ who has come out as if other than you].
அம்புவி லாலிபோ லன்புரு வுனிலெனைSince Arunachala exists and shines as our own being, ‘I am’, knowing him as he actually is is extremely easy, as Bhagavan teaches us in Āṉma-Viddai, but to us it seems to be difficult because of our attachment to our separate existence as whatever person we currently seem to be and our consequent reluctance to surrender ourself completely and thereby merge forever back into the formless being-awareness (sat-cit) that we actually are. Therefore to know what we actually are, which is what Arunachala actually is, requires wholehearted and all-consuming bhakti (devotion or love for what is ultimately real, namely sat-cit) and vairāgya (freedom from desire for and attachment to anything else).
யன்பாக் கரைத்தரு ளருணாசலா.
ambuvi lālipō laṉburu vuṉileṉai
yaṉbāk karaittaru ḷaruṇācalā.
பதச்சேதம்: அம்புவில் ஆலி போல் அன்பு உரு உனில் எனை அன்பு ஆ கரைத்து அருள் அருணாசலா.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): ambuvil āli pōl aṉbu-uru uṉil eṉai aṉbu ā karaittu aruḷ aruṇācalā.
English translation: Arunachala, be gracious, melting me as love in you, the form of love, like ice in water.
Since the very nature of ourself as ego is to grasp form, meaning to attach ourself to things other than ourself, the love that is required for us to subside and remain as the pure being-awareness that we actually are is contrary to our very nature as ego, so it cannot originate from ego but only from our own real being, which is what is called Arunachala or God. Since Arunachala is infinite being-awareness, which is one and indivisible, it knows us as itself and therefore loves us as itself, and since it is infinite love, just by being as it is it naturally cultivates love for itself in our heart. This power of infinite and all-embracing love, which is the very being of Arunachala, is what we experience as its grace.
Though the grace of Arunachala is always working silently and motionlessly in our heart in this way, gently but firmly pulling our mind within to face itself, the one infinite light of awareness (as Bhagavan describes in verse 10 of Śrī Aruṇācala Padigam), we resist its inward pull by rushing outwards with great impetus under the sway of our viṣaya-vāsanās (inclinations to seek happiness by experiencing viṣayas, object or phenomena), so until we are wholeheartedly willing to yield ourself to it, grace will not force us to submit ourself to its loving embrace. Instead, it will sow the seed of love in our heart and gradually nurture it, making it grow into a great tree that will supplant all the weeds in the form of viṣaya-vāsanās, thereby making us wholeheartedly willing to surrender ourself completely to its inward-pulling power.
Though grace does shape our outward life (meaning all that we are given to experience) in such a way that will be most conducive to this process, its primary work lies deep in our heart, so it does not work on us so much as work through us. That is, as Bhagavan explained, grace is not something that will one day descend from above and transform us from outside, but what is always present within us as our own being, gradually transforming us from within, so whatever effort we make on the spiritual path is grace working through us. Therefore for grace to transform us by weeding out our viṣaya-vāsanās and cultivating within us the love to subside back into our being, our cooperation is necessary.
Our viṣaya-vāsanās are the impurities in our mind, so the process of weeding them out is called purification of mind (citta-śuddhi). The most effective way for us to cooperate with grace in this process of purification is to try persistently to turn our attention back within and hold on to self-attentiveness, but this process begins long before we ever feel inclined to attempt to be self-attentive, so trying to be so is not the only means by which we can cooperate with grace. Much of this process takes place during the preliminary stages of the path of bhakti, as Bhagavan outlines in verses 3 to 7 of Upadēśa Undiyār. After explaining in verse 2 that ‘seeds’, namely viṣaya-vāsanās, are what causes us to be immersed in the great ocean of action and that action (karma) will therefore not give liberation, in verse 3 he says:
கருத்தனுக் காக்குநிட் காமிய கன்மங்The opening words of this verse, ‘கருத்தனுக்கு ஆக்கும்’ (karuttaṉukku ākkum), ‘done for God’, imply ‘done for the love of God’, as Bhagavan makes clear in his Malayalam version of this verse, in which he translated கருத்தனுக்கு (karuttaṉukku), ‘for God’, as ‘ഈശ്വര പ്രീതിയിനായ്’ (īśvara-prītiyināy), ‘for love of God’. What purifies the mind is not any action itself but the love for God with which it is done, because the same action done without love for him but with desire for anything else will not thereby purify the mind, so in this verse Bhagavan clearly indicates that niṣkāmya karma is not a separate path but an integral part of the preliminary stages of the path of bhakti. When love for God begins to grow in our heart, it is natural for us to express our love for him through actions, and to the extent to which such actions are motived by love for him rather than by desire for anything else, they are niṣkāmya.
கருத்தைத் திருத்தியஃ துந்தீபற
கதிவழி காண்பிக்கு முந்தீபற.
karuttaṉuk kākkuniṭ kāmiya kaṉmaṅ
karuttait tiruttiyaḵ dundīpaṟa
gativaṙi kāṇbikku mundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: கருத்தனுக்கு ஆக்கும் நிட்காமிய கன்மம் கருத்தை திருத்தி, அஃது கதி வழி காண்பிக்கும்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): karuttaṉukku ākkum niṭkāmiya kaṉmam karuttai tirutti, aḵdu gati vaṙi kāṇbikkum.
English translation: Niṣkāmya karma [action not motivated by desire] done for God, purifying the mind, it will [thereby] show the path to liberation.
Since in niṣkāmya karma love for God replaces desire for other things, it will gradually weaken our viṣaya-vāsanās, thereby purifying our mind, and as the dense fog of viṣaya-vāsanās that cloud our mind is gradually dissipated in this way, we will gain the clarity to understand that the way to liberation is not doing but being, as Bhagavan implies by saying ‘அஃது கதி வழி காண்பிக்கும்’ (aḵdu gati vaṙi kāṇbikkum), ‘it will show the path to liberation’, in which காண்பிக்கும் (kāṇbikkum), ‘will show’, is a causative verb that literally means ‘will make [one] see’. That is, though action itself cannot give liberation, as Bhagavan explained in the previous verse, if it is done for the love of God rather than for satisfying any desire for other things, it will purify the mind and thereby enable it to see clearly that liberation cannot ultimately be attained by doing anything but only by just being as we actually are, as he explains in verses 8 and 9 of Upadēśa Undiyār after discussing the practice of niṣkāmya karma in verses 3 to 7.
In verses 4 to 7 he discusses the various types of niṣkāmya karma that we can do for the love of God, presenting them in an ascending order according to their respective efficacy in purifying the mind. In verse 4 he says that pūjā (worship), japa (repetition of a mantra, prayer or name of God) and dhyāna (meditation) are actions of body, speech and mind, and then asserts ‘உயர்வு ஆகும் ஒன்றில் ஒன்று’ (uyarvu āhum oṉḏṟil oṉḏṟu), ‘One than one is superior’, thereby indicating that superior to pūjā is japa and superior to japa is dhyāna, in which உயர்வு (uyarvu), ‘high’, ‘elevated’ or ‘superior’, implies more efficacious in purifying the mind. In verse 5 he implies that worshipping any form considering all forms to be forms of God is good worship (pūjā) of God, and in verse 6 he indicates that more beneficial than praising God by chanting hymns is japa, more beneficial than japa done in a loud voice is japa whispered faintly within the mouth, more beneficial than which is mānasika japa (japa done mentally), which is a form of meditation (dhyāna). And in verse 7 he says that uninterrupted meditation like the flow of a river or pouring ghee is better than interrupted meditation.
‘விட்டிடாது உன்னல்’ (viṭṭiḍādu uṉṉal), ‘thinking without leaving’, which implies ‘uninterrupted meditation’, does not just mean sitting for a while with closed eyes thinking of God uninterruptedly but implies thinking of him uninterruptedly even while engaged in other activities, and the reason why this is more efficacious in purifying the mind than mediation that is frequently interrupted by other thoughts is that to the extent to which we have intense and all-consuming love for God we will naturally think of him rather thinking of anything else, so the extent to which we think of him uninterruptedly is proportionate to the intensity of our love for him. Thus in this verse Bhagavan indicates indirectly that love for God is what purifies our mind, because as our love for him grows stronger, we will think of him more, thereby reducing the extent to which we concern ourself with other things, so the more we love him and therefore think of him, the more our mind will thereby be purified.
As forms of niṣkāmya karma done for the love of God, pūjā, japa and dhyāna entail directing our love and attention towards a name or form of God through the actions of our body, speech and mind, and since we experience any name or form of God as something other (anya) than ourself, Bhagavan describes such devotional practices as ‘அனிய பாவம்’ (aṉiya-bhāvam), which is a Tamil form of the Sanskrit term anya-bhāva, which in this context means ‘meditation on what is other’, thereby implying directing our mind towards God as if he were other than oneself. However, when our mind is purified to a sufficient extent by such devotional practices, we will gain the clarity of mind and heart to understand that though God seems to be something other than ourself so long as we mistake ourself to be a body or person, he is actually our own very being, so he is the reality of ourself, meaning what we actually are, and hence in verse 8 of Upadēśa Undiyār Bhagavan says:
அனியபா வத்தி னவனக மாகுJust as anya means ‘other’, ananya means ‘non-other’, ‘not other’ or ‘otherless’, so in this context ananya-bhāva means ‘otherless meditation’ or ‘meditation on what is not other’, thereby implying meditation on God as none other than oneself, as Bhagavan confirms in the adjectival clause ‘அவன் அகம் ஆகும்’ (avaṉ aham āhum), ‘in which he is I’, and hence ‘அவன் அகம் ஆகும் அனனிய பாவம்’ (avaṉ aham āhum aṉaṉiya-bhāvam), ‘otherless meditation, in which he is I’, implies meditation on nothing other than oneself with the clear understanding and resultant firm conviction that God alone is what exists and shines as ‘I’. Therefore ‘அனனிய பாவம்’ (aṉaṉiya-bhāvam), which is a Tamil form of the Sanskrit term ananya-bhāva, ‘otherless meditation’ or ‘meditation on what is not other’, implies being self-attentive (attending to nothing other than oneself), which is the practice of self-investigation (ātma-vicāra), so ‘அனனிய பாவம்’ (aṉaṉiya-bhāvam) is a synonym for ātma-vicāra.
மனனிய பாவமே யுந்தீபற
வனைத்தினு முத்தம முந்தீபற.
aṉiyabhā vatti ṉavaṉaha māhu
maṉaṉiya bhāvamē yundīpaṟa
vaṉaittiṉu muttama mundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: அனிய பாவத்தின் அவன் அகம் ஆகும் அனனிய பாவமே அனைத்தினும் உத்தமம்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): aṉiya-bhāvattiṉ avaṉ aham āhum aṉaṉiya-bhāvam-ē aṉaittiṉ-um uttamam.
English translation: Rather than anya-bhāva, ananya-bhāva, in which he is I, certainly is the best among all.
As Bhagavan says in this verse, ‘அனனிய பாவமே அனைத்தினும் உத்தமம்’ (aṉaṉiya-bhāvam-ē aṉaittiṉ-um uttamam), ‘ananya-bhāva certainly is the best among all’, thereby implying that it is the best among all practices of bhakti, all varieties of meditation and all kinds of spiritual practice, not only because it is the most effective of all means to purify the mind, but also because it is the only means to eradicate ego, the root of all impurities. That is, it is the only means to eradicate ego because it is only when we rise and stand as ego that we are aware of the seeming existence of anything other than ourself, so by attending to anything other than ourself, even to a name or form of God, we are nourishing and sustaining our seeming existence as ego, as Bhagavan points out in the third sentence of verse 25 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: ‘உரு பற்றி உண்டு மிக ஓங்கும்’ (uru paṯṟi uṇḍu miha ōṅgum), ‘grasping and feeding on form it grows abundantly’. Even if we cease attending anything other than ourself, that is not by itself sufficient to eradicate ego, because we cease attending to other things whenever we fall asleep, but ego is not thereby eradicated, since sleep is just a state of manōlaya (temporary dissolution of mind along with its root, namely ego), so ego will sooner or later rise again. Since we cannot eradicate ego either by attending to anything other than ourself or by ceasing to attend to anything other than ourself, we can eradicate it only by attending to ourself.
To the extent to which we attend to ourself, we as ego will thereby subside, and if we attend to ourself so keenly that we thereby cease to be aware of anything other than ourself, ego will subside completely and dissolve forever in our being, as our being. Therefore in verse 9 of Upadēśa Undiyār Bhagavan says:
பாவ பலத்தினாற் பாவனா தீதசற்In this context ‘பாவ பலத்தினால்’ (bhāva-balattiṉāl), ‘by the strength of meditation’, implies ‘by the strength [intensity, firmness or stability] of ananya-bhāva [meditation on nothing other than oneself]’. Whereas attending to anything other than oneself is a mental activity (karma), attending to oneself is a cessation of mental activity, because to the extent to which we attend to ourself, we will subside back into our being, which is the source from which we rose as ego, and when we subside all our mental activity will subside along with us. When our self-attentiveness (ananya-bhāva) becomes very intense, firm and stable, therefore, we thereby subside completely into our natural state of being (sat-bhāva), which transcends all bhāvanā (which in this context implies meditation in the sense of mental activity).
பாவத் திருத்தலே யுந்தீபற
பரபத்தி தத்துவ முந்தீபற.
bhāva balattiṉāṯ bhāvaṉā tītasaṯ
bhāvat tiruttalē yundīpaṟa
parabhatti tattuva mundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: பாவ பலத்தினால் பாவனாதீத சத் பாவத்து இருத்தலே பரபத்தி தத்துவம்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): bhāva-balattiṉāl bhāvaṉātīta sat-bhāvattu iruttal-ē para-bhatti tattuvam.
English translation: By the strength of meditation, being in sat-bhāva, which transcends bhāvanā, alone is para-bhakti tattva.
Since being in sat-bhāva (the state of being), having subsided due to ananya-bhāva-bala, the strength, intensity or firmness of self-attentiveness, is the state of complete self-surrender, it is para-bhakti tattva, the tattva (reality, true state or essential nature) of para-bhakti (supreme devotion). Therefore, though the path of bhakti begins with various practices of niṣkāmya karma, as outlined by Bhagavan in verses 3 to 7 of Upadēśa Undiyār, it culminates in the state of just being as we actually are, which is brought about by ‘அவன் அகம் ஆகும் அனனிய பாவம்’ (avaṉ aham āhum aṉaṉiya-bhāvam), ‘otherless meditation, in which he is I’, meaning meditation on nothing other than ‘I’, having clearly understood that what exists and shines as ‘I’ is God alone, as explained by him in verses 8 and 9.
By the ananya-bhāva-bala, the strength of self-attentiveness, subsiding in our very being, which is the source from which we rose as ego, and thereby being as we actually are is the culmination and pinnacle not only of the paths of niṣkāmya karma (action done without desire) and bhakti (devotion) but also of the paths of yōga (yoking or harnessing the mind to various practices that are aids to and techniques for curbing mental activity) and jñāna (knowedge), as Bhagavan says in verse 10 of Upadēśa Undiyār:
உதித்த விடத்தி லொடுங்கி யிருத்தThus, as Bhagavan explains in verses 3 to 9 of Upadēśa Undiyār, the benefit of worshiping and meditating with love on a form of God is that the mind will thereby be purified and hence enabled to understand clearly that God alone is what exists and shines as ‘I’, so meditating on nothing other than ‘I’ is the means to know him as he actually is. This is therefore the reason why he says in the second line of this third verse of Śrī Aruṇācala Aṣṭakam: ‘இருந்து ஒளிர் உனை அறிவு உறுத்திடற்கு என்றே, இருந்தனை மதம் தொறும் வித வித உருவாய்’ (irundu oḷir uṉai aṟivu uṟuttiḍaṟku eṉḏṟē, irundaṉai matam toṟum vidha vidha uruvāy), ‘Only to make yourself, who exist and shine, known, you have been [appearing] as various forms in every mata [creed or system of religious beliefs]’.
லதுகன்மம் பத்தியு முந்தீபற
வதுயோக ஞானமு முந்தீபற.
uditta viḍatti loḍuṅgi yirutta
ladukaṉmam bhattiyu mundīpaṟa
vaduyōga ñāṉamu mundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: உதித்த இடத்தில் ஒடுங்கி இருத்தல்: அது கன்மம் பத்தியும்; அது யோகம் ஞானமும்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): uditta iḍattil oḍuṅgi iruttal: adu kaṉmam bhatti-y-um; adu yōgam ñāṉam-um.
English translation: Being, having subsided in the place from which one rose: that is karma and bhakti; that is yōga and jñāna.
Though God is one, he has appeared ‘விதவித வுருவாய்’ (vidha-vidha v-uru-v-āy), ‘as various forms’, in order to appeal to the outward-going mind, which is naturally attracted to diversity. However, though initially the mind may be attracted to many different names and forms of God, as it is purified by his grace it will tend to be attracted to one of his names and forms more than to others, and whichever name and form it is thus attracted to is what is called its iṣṭa-dēva, ‘beloved God’ or ‘favourite God’. Since he is one, infinite and indivisible, none of the many names and forms in which he appears to his devotees is intrinsically superior to any other one of them, so whichever one becomes the iṣṭa-dēva of any particular devotee serves equally well not only as a focus and support for that devotee’s love and devotion but also as a conduit of God’s grace. Though a mature devotee will be devoted to one form of God above all others, therefore, they will not consider other names and forms of his to be in any way inferior, but will look upon them all as various forms in which their one iṣṭa-dēva has appeared for the sake of other devotees, as Bhagavan teaches us by example by singing to Arunachala: ‘இருந்தனை மதம் தொறும் வித வித உருவாய்’ (irundaṉai matam toṟum vidha vidha uruvāy), ‘you have been [appearing] as various forms in every mata [creed]’.
Though God is infinite and therefore formless, by appearing in name and form he enables us to have an intimate and passionately loving relationship with him, as we can see beautifully and heart-meltingly expressed by Bhagavan in so many verses of Śrī Aruṇācala Stuti Pañcakam (his five hymns to Arunachala, namely Akṣaramaṇamālai, Navamaṇimālai, Padigam, Aṣṭakam and Pañcaratnam), and such intimate and passionate love for him purifies our mind, thereby giving us the clarity and love to yield ourself entirely to the inward-pulling power of his grace, as a result of which we will sink deep into the heart, where we will know him as he actually is, namely as the one infinite and formless being-awareness (sat-cit), which is what exists and shines eternally as our own being, ‘I am’. This is how he makes himself known by appearing as various forms in every mata (creed).
6. If anyone does not know Arunachala or God, they are like blind people, who do not know the sun
Nevertheless, though practising devotion to a name or form of God through actions of mind, speech and body is an indirect means by which we will eventually be enabled to know him as he actually is, if we aspire to follow Bhagavan’s direct path of self-investigation and complete self-surrender we should not lose sight of the fact that he always exists and shines in our heart as our own being, ‘I am’, so he is eternally accessible to us and hence we can know him directly at any time simply by turning our entire attention back within to face him there. Therefore, since by his infinite grace he has made himself eternally available to us by existing and shining as our fundamental awareness, ‘I am’, which is the self-shining sun by whose light we are able to know all other things, if we do not know him we are like a blind person, who cannot see the sun, as Bhagavan says in the third line of this verse: ‘இருந்து ஒளிர் உனை அறிகிலர் எனில், அன்னோர் இரவியின் அறிவு அறு குருடரே ஆவார்’ (irundu oḷir uṉai aṟihilar eṉil, aṉṉōr iraviyiṉ aṟivu aṟu kuruḍarē āvār), ‘If there are those who do not know you, who exist and shine, such people are just blind people without knowledge of the sun’.
What blinds us to the eternal presence of God in our own heart as the one real awareness, ‘I am’, is our false awareness of ourself as ‘I am this body’, so to cure this blindness of ours and thereby see him as he actually is, all we need do is remove this false awareness by investigating and thereby being aware of ourself as we actually are. Instead of removing our false awareness ‘I am this body’ in this way, trying to know him as something other than ourself is just like ‘விளக்கு எடுத்து இருட்டினை அடுத்திடல்’ (viḷakku eḍuttu iruṭṭiṉai aḍuttiḍal), ‘seeking darkness taking a lamp’, as Bhagavan says in the first line of this verse.
Since Arunachala (God) exists and shines eternally as the sole reality, he can never be completely unknown to us, so if we seem to not know him, that is only because we know him as something other than what he actually is. This is why Bhagavan compares not knowing him to a blind person not knowing the sun. Though blind people do not know the light of the sun, they are not completely devoid of ability to know the sun, because they can know it by its heat, so though their knowledge of it is limited and incomplete, they know it at least to some extent. Likewise, though our knowledge of Arunachala is limited and incomplete so long as we know ourself as ‘I am this body’, we know him at least to some extent, because he is what always exists and shines within us as our own being, ‘I am’, and we never cease to be aware ‘I am’ even when we are aware of ourself mixed and conflated with adjuncts (upādhis) as ‘I am this body’.
As Muruganar sings in the anupallavi of Āṉma-Viddai, ‘நொய்யார் தமக்கும் உளங்கை ஆமலக கனி பொய் ஆய் ஒழிய மிகு மெய் ஆய் உளது ஆன்மா’ (noyyār tamakkum uḷaṅgai āmalaka kaṉi poy āy oṙiya mihu mey āy uḷadu āṉmā), ‘Oneself (ātman) exists as so very real even for those who are simple-minded that an āmalaka fruit on the palm ends as unreal’, because each of us always knows ourself as ‘I’, and this truth is echoed by Bhagavan in the first two lines of verse 1 of the same song: ‘மெய் ஆய் நிரந்தரம் தான் ஐயாது [அல்லது: நையாது] இருந்திடவும், பொய் ஆம் உடம்பு உலகம் மெய் ஆ முளைத்து எழும்’ (mey āy nirantaram tāṉ aiyādu [or: naiyādu] irundiḍavum, poy ām uḍambu ulaham mey ā muḷaittu eṙum), ‘Though oneself exists incessantly and indubitably [or imperishably] as real, the body and world, which are unreal, arise sprouting [springing forth or appearing] as [if] real’. The one thing we always know and can never reasonably doubt is our own existence, our very being, and since our being is what is called God or Arunachala, we know him incessantly and indubitably, even if we fail to recognise this fact.
Though he always exists and shines as our own being, we seem to be ignorant of him because instead of being aware of ourself as just ‘I am’, as ego we are aware of ourself as ‘I am this body’. However, since he is always so clearly known to us, knowing him as he actually is is not difficult, provided that we are willing to pay the price, which is giving up our false identification ‘I am this body’. If we do not know him as he actually is, therefore, we are not just blind but wilfully blind.
The only impediment to our knowing him as he actually is, therefore, is our abhimāna, our strong attachment to this false identification ‘I am this body’. To overcome this impediment, therefore, we must have all-consuming love to know ourself as we actually are, which alone is what he actually is.
7. Arunachala is pure being-awareness, other than which nothing can be, so he is and shines as one without a second
Therefore, even if we practise devotion to a name or form of God instead of channelling all our love and effort in trying to turn our entire attention back within to see him shining in our heart as our own being, what we should pray to him for is to give us all-consuming love to look deep within ourself and thereby to make us see him as the peerless gem of pure being-awareness (sat-cit), which exists and shines in our heart eternally and immutably as the sole reality, other than which nothing exists, as he teaches us to pray in the final line of this verse: ‘இருந்து ஒளிர் இரண்டு அற எனது உளத்து ஒன்றாய், இணையறும் அருண மா மலை எனும் மணியே’ (irundu oḷir iraṇḍu aṟa eṉadu uḷattu oṉḏṟāy, iṇai-y-aṟum aruṇa-mā-malai eṉum maṇiyē), ‘Gem called the peerless great Aruna Hill, be [exist or remain] and shine in my heart as one without a second’.
‘இரண்டு அற ஒன்றாய்’ (iraṇḍu aṟa oṉḏṟāy), ‘as one without a second’, is an allusion to the phrase ‘एकमेवाद्वितीयम्’ (ēkam ēva advitīyam), ‘one only without a second’, which occurs in the Chāndōgya Upaniṣad 6.2.1-2, which states that before this (implying before all this multiplicity appeared) there was ‘sat ēva’ (being only), ‘ēkam ēva advitīyam’ (one only without a second). This implies that even now what actually exists is ‘being only, one only without a second’, because according to one of the fundamental principles of Vedanta, only what is permanent is real, so whatever has not always existed is not real but just an unreal appearance. Bhagavan expressed this principle by saying ‘Whatever exists at one time but not at another time does not actually exist even when it seems to exist’, and it has been expressed most famously in the first half of the Bhagavad Gītā 2.16, in which Bhagavan Krishna says, ‘नासतो विद्यते भावो नाभावो विद्यते सत:’ (nāsatō vidyatē bhāvō nābhāvō vidyatē sataḥ), ‘Of non-being (asat) there is not being (bhāva); of being (sat) there is not non-being (abhāva)’ or ‘Of the non-existent there is not existence; of the existent there is not non-existence’, which Bhagavan Ramana has translated into Tamil in verse 9 of Bhagavad Gītā Sāram, ‘இல்லாததனுக்கு இருப்பு இல்லை; உள்ளதனுக்கு இல்லாமை என்பது இலை’ (illādadaṉukku iruppu illai; uḷḷadaṉukku illāmai eṉbadu ilai), ‘For what is not (illādadu) there is not being (iruppu); for what is (uḷḷadu) there is not what is called non-being (illāmai)’ or ‘For what does not exist there is not existence; for what does exist there is not what is called non-existence’, thereby implying that what is non-existent does not ever exist, and what does exist is never non-existent. This principle is also expressed by Gaudapada in the first half of his Māṇḍūkya Kārikā 2.6, ‘आदावन्ते च यन्नास्ति वर्तमानेऽपि तत्तथा’ (ādāvante ca yannāsti vartamāne'pi tattathā), ‘What does not exist in the beginning and in the end is also thus in the present [implying in between the beginning and the end]’.
The reason for this is that what is intrinsically existent cannot ever be non-existent, so whatever does not exist at any time is not intrinsically existent, because by coming into existence it gains existence and by ceasing to exist it loses existence. Whatever gains and loses existence must derive its existence from something else, so whatever is impermanent must derive its existence from something else, and all impermanent things must ultimately derive or borrow their existence or being from something that is permanent.
How one thing can derive its existence from another thing can be illustrated by the example of gold and gold ornaments. Without gold, gold ornaments would not exist, so they derive their existence from the gold of which they are made. The same gold that is now a bangle can be melted and formed into some other ornament, such as rings or a necklace, so ornaments are impermanent, whereas gold is relatively permanent. Ornaments are forms, and gold is their substance, so forms derive their existence from their substance, which is relatively more permanent than them. The same applies to any form and its substance. Earthenware pots derive their existence from clay, their substance. Though they have a name, form and function that does not intrinsically belong to clay, they have no existence of their own, because clay is the source from which they derive their existence. Forms therefore do not have an independent existence, because for their existence they depend entirely on the substance or substances of which they are formed.
Material substances such as gold or clay are not fundamental substances, because they are formed of more basic substances such as molecules, which in turn are formed from even more basic substances such as atoms and sub-atomic particles, so even such substances are forms that derive their existence from the more basic substances of which they are made, and hence they are impermanent, because they can be broken down and reduced to those more basic substances. What then is the most fundamental of all substances, the one substance from which all other substances are formed and to which they can therefore ultimately be reduced, but which itself is not made of and cannot be reduced to anything else? That one most fundamental substance (poruḷ or vastu) is pure being, because it is the ultimate substance of all things, the one substance from which they all derive their existence, and it is permanent, because all impermanent things depend on time for their temporary existence, whereas time like all other phenomena depends on pure being for its existence.
Since all things ultimately derive their existence from pure being, none of them is intrinsically existent, so though they seem to exist, they do not actually exist. They gain their seeming existence when they come into being, and they lose it when they cease to be, so it is not their own existence but one that they have borrowed from their one ultimate substance, namely pure being.
Therefore, since nothing can be other than pure being (sat), it is necessarily ‘one only without a second’ (ēkam ēva advitīyam), and it existed prior to the appearance of any other thing (including the appearance of time itself), as stated in the Chāndōgya Upaniṣad 6.2.1-2. Moreover, since pure being alone is what actually exists, there cannot be any awareness other than it to know it, so it must itself be the awareness that knows itself, as Bhagavan points out in verse 23 of Upadēśa Undiyār:
உள்ள துணர வுணர்வுவே றின்மையிSince we are what is aware of being, we ourself are the awareness that is pure being, the awareness that actually is. As pure awareness, therefore, we alone are what actually is, as Bhagavan points out in verse 13 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu:
னுள்ள துணர்வாகு முந்தீபற
வுணர்வேநா மாயுள முந்தீபற.
uḷḷa duṇara vuṇarvuvē ṟiṉmaiyi
ṉuḷḷa duṇarvāhu mundīpaṟa
vuṇarvēnā māyuḷa mundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: உள்ளது உணர உணர்வு வேறு இன்மையின், உள்ளது உணர்வு ஆகும். உணர்வே நாமாய் உளம்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): uḷḷadu uṇara uṇarvu vēṟu iṉmaiyiṉ, uḷḷadu uṇarvu āhum. uṇarvē nām-āy uḷam.
English translation: Because of the non-being of [any] other awareness [any awareness other than what is] to be aware of what is, what is is awareness. Awareness alone is as we.
ஞானமாந் தானேமெய் நானாவா ஞானமஞ்What he means by மெய் (mey), ‘real’, is what actually exists, and what he means by பொய் (poy), ‘unreal’, is what does not actually exist even if it seems to exist. What actually exists is only ourself as pure awareness (jñāna), but when we rise as ego, we are aware of the seeming existence of a multitude of other things, so ego is what he refers to here as ‘நானாவாம் ஞானம்’ (nāṉā-v-ām ñāṉam), ‘awareness that is manifold’. In the original version of this verse, which is now verse 12 of Upadēśa Taṉippākkaḷ, the equivalent term he used was ‘நானாவாய்க் காண்கின்ற ஞானம்’ (nāṉā-v-āy-k kāṇgiṉḏṟa ñāṉam), ‘awareness that sees as many’, thereby implying the awareness that sees the one thing that actually exists as many things. Since only one thing actually exists, being aware of this one thing as if it were many things is not knowledge but only ignorance (ajñāna). However, even this ignorance cannot be anything other than ourself as pure awareness, just as all the many gold ornaments are not anything other than gold, so though this ignorance as such is unreal, as pure awareness, which is its underlying substance, it is real.
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 jñāna [awareness], alone is real. Awareness that is manifold is ajñāna [ignorance]. Even [that] ignorance, which is unreal, does not exist except as oneself, who is awareness. All the many ornaments are unreal; do they exist except as gold, which is [from a relative perspective] real? Say.
Since pure being (sat) is itself pure awareness (cit), just as we can explain that all things derive their existence ultimately from pure being, we can equally well explain that they derive their existence ultimately from pure awareness. That is, all things seem to exist only in the view of ourself as ego, so they derive their seeming existence from the seeming existence of ourself as ego, and ego derives its seeming existence and awareness from the real existence and awareness of ourself as we actually are, namely pure awareness.
Since nothing other than ourself exists except in the view of ourself as ego, in verse 26 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu Bhagavan points out: ‘அகந்தை உண்டாயின், அனைத்தும் உண்டாகும்; அகந்தை இன்றேல், இன்று அனைத்தும். அகந்தையே யாவும் ஆம்’ (ahandai uṇḍāyiṉ, aṉaittum uṇḍāhum; ahandai iṉḏṟēl, iṉḏṟu aṉaittum. ahandai-y-ē yāvum ām), ‘If ego comes into existence, everything comes into existence; if ego does not exist, everything does not exist. Ego itself is everything’. In this context ‘everything’ (aṉaittum or yāvum) means all objects or phenomena, and since they all seem to exist only in the view of ego, they appear whenever ego rises, namely in waking and dream, and they disappear whenever ego subsides completely, such as in sleep. Therefore they do not exist independent of ego, so ego alone is their immediate substance, as Bhagavan implies by saying ‘அகந்தையே யாவும் ஆம்’ (ahandai-y-ē yāvum ām), ‘Ego itself is everything’. In other words, what ego is aware of as a multitude of phenomena is actually just itself, just as in a dream it sees itself alone as all the dream phenomena. However, though ego is the immediate substance of all other things, it is not their ultimate substance, because it is just a temporary appearance and hence not real, so since it derives its seeming existence from the real existence of ourself as pure being-awareness, the one ultimate substance of ego and hence of everything else is only pure being-awareness (sat-cit).
Therefore, since what exists and shines as pure being-awareness (sat-cit) is what is called Arunachala or God, it alone is what we actually are, and also what all other things actually are, so it is always ‘one only without a second’ (ēkam ēva advitīyam). However, since we now seem to have risen as ego, we are now aware of ourself not just as pure being-awareness, ‘I am’, but as ‘I am this body’, and consequently we are aware of the seeming existence of so many other things. In order for us to be aware of ourself as ‘one only without a second’, therefore, we must cease rising as ego, and since ego is just a false awareness of ourself, being awareness of ourself as something other than what we actually are, we can eradicate it forever only by being aware of ourself as we actually are. Hence, when Bhagavan prays to Arunachala, ‘இருந்து ஒளிர் இரண்டு அற எனது உளத்து ஒன்றாய்’ (irundu oḷir iraṇḍu aṟa eṉadu uḷattu oṉḏṟāy), ‘be and shine in my heart as one without a second’, what he is in effect teaching us to pray for is for Arunachala to make us see him as the sole reality that he actually is, thereby annihilating ego forever.
When he prays thus, ‘இருந்து ஒளிர் இரண்டு அற எனது உளத்து ஒன்றாய்’ (irundu oḷir iraṇḍu aṟa eṉadu uḷattu oṉḏṟāy), ‘be and shine in my heart as one without a second’, he clearly implies that what he refers to as ‘my heart’ is not a second thing other than Arunachala but is Arunachala himself. That is, in this context ‘heart’ means what is centremost and most interior, so what is in the heart cannot be anything other than the heart, because if anything other than the heart were in the heart, that other thing would be the heart of the heart. Therefore, since Arunachala is the ultimate heart, the heart for which there is no other heart, and since it exists and shines eternally as one without a second, it alone is the heart of each and every one of us, meaning that it alone is what we actually are.
This is also made clear by Bhagavan in verse 2 of Śrī Aruṇācala Pañcaratnam, where he sings: ‘நித்தியமும் நான் என்று இதயம் நடித்திடுவையால், உன் பேர் தான் இதயம் என்றிடுவர் தாம்’ (nittiyamum nāṉ eṉḏṟu idayam naḍittiḍuvaiyāl, tām uṉ pēr tāṉ idayam eṉḏṟiḍuvar), ‘Since you dance eternally in the heart as I, they say your name itself is heart’. That is, what exists and shines in the heart as ‘I’ is the heart itself, and that is what Arunachala actually is.
He concludes this prayer, ‘இருந்து ஒளிர் இரண்டு அற எனது உளத்து ஒன்றாய்’ (irundu oḷir iraṇḍu aṟa eṉadu uḷattu oṉḏṟāy), ‘be and shine in my heart as one without a second’, by addressing Arunachala as ‘இணையறும் அருண மா மலை எனும் மணியே’ (iṇai-y-aṟum aruṇa-mā-malai eṉum maṇiyē), ‘Gem called the peerless great Aruna Hill’. It is இணையறும் (iṇai-y-aṟum), ‘peerless’ or ‘without likeness [to any other thing]’, because it is what exists and shines eternally as ‘இரண்டு அற ஒன்று’ (iraṇḍu aṟa oṉḏṟu), ‘one without a second’, and it is மணி (maṇi), ‘gem’, because it is the self-shining gem of pure awareness, which is the sole reality, the only thing that actually exists, as he implies at the end of the next verse by asking rhetorically ‘உன்னின் மறு பொருள் அருண நல் ஒளி மலை உண்டோ?’ (uṉṉiṉ maṟu poruḷ aruṇa-nal-l-oḷi-malai uṇḍō?), ‘Aruna, hill of sublime light, is there another thing than you?’, and as he confirms in the first sentence of verse 6: ‘உண்டு ஒரு பொருள் அறிவு ஒளி உளமே நீ’ (uṇḍu oru poruḷ aṟivu oḷi uḷamē nī), ‘There is only you, the one thing [or substance], the heart, the light of awareness’.
8. Though devotion to a name and form of God is a powerful aid and support for self-investigation, it can never be an adequate substitute for it
Thus it is clear both from this verse and from the previous one that though Bhagavan does acknowledge the value of devotion to a name and form of God as an effective means to purify our mind and thereby enable us to know him as he actually is, he constantly reminds us that ultimately we cannot know him as he actually is by any means other than by meditating on his svarūpa without the slightest movement of mind (‘thinking deeply of your form without thinking’, as he expressed it in the third line of the previous verse), and since his svarūpa (himself as he actually is) alone is our svarūpa (ourself as we actually is), he is what exists and shines within us as our own being, so meditating on his svarūpa means mediating on nothing other than our own being, which shines as our fundamental awareness, ‘I am’.
Therefore we should understand from these verses and from other teachings of his that devotion to a name and form of God is a powerful aid and support for us while following this path of self-investigation, but it can never be an adequate substitute for it, so rather than just practising devotion to one of his names and forms, we should give priority to the deepest and most effective of all practices of devotion (bhakti), which is trying to know him directly by fixing our attention on his svarūpa, which exists and shines within us as our own being.
The importance and efficacy of this practice of self-investigation is further emphasised by Bhagavan in the next verse.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment