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 ego (the first person or subject) and hence all its progeny (all second and third persons or objects), because 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 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 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 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:
2020-06-22: When Bhagavan says, ‘உள்ளத்தே உள்ளபடி உள்ளதே உள்ளல்’ (uḷḷattē uḷḷapaḍi uḷḷadē uḷḷal), ‘Being in the heart as it is alone is thinking [or meditating on it]’, he means that we should be in and as உள்ள பொருள் (uḷḷa-poruḷ), the existing substance, which is our real nature, pure awareness
2019-12-21: Bhagavan is not the body but pure awareness and infinite love, so he is always here and now, shining clearly in our heart as our fundamental awareness of our own existence, ‘I am’, and hence only by being in the heart as it is (uḷḷattē uḷḷapaḍi uḷḷadē) are we truly sitting in his presence
2019-11-08: The real substance always exists within us without a single thought as our real nature, so to know it we must be as we actually are, without thinking anything
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:
2020-12-11: Here ‘the feet of Mahēśaṉ, who is devoid of death and birth’ means the pure awareness that is always shining in our heart as ‘I’, which alone is our refuge, and until we take refuge in those feet we will continue undergoing this dream of repeated births and deaths
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. ‘I’ perishing, 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. [As a result of] ‘I’ [ego] perishing [or being destroyed], 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 awareness], the infinite [and hence formless] eye [so it can never see any forms or phenomena, which are all finite].

Explanations and discussions:
2021-03-22: Perception of a world (jagad-dṛṣṭi) is the very nature of ego, because whenever we rise as ego we are aware of ourself as ‘I am this body’ and consequently we are aware of other phenomena, which constitute whatever world we currently perceive
2020-12-31: When we rise and stand as ego, we are not only aware of ourself as if we were the form of a body, but are also consequently aware of other forms, whereas when we do not rise as ego, we are aware of ourself just as ‘I am’, and consequently we are aware of nothing other than ‘I am’, which is the one infinite awareness
2020-03-09: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verses 4 and 25: only when we grasp the form of a body as ourself are we aware of other forms
2020-03-02: Awareness of phenomena is just a by-product of ego’s conflation of self-awareness with awareness of a body, because only when we mistake ourself to be the form of a body can we perceive other forms, some of which we call the world and others of which we may call God
2020-01-16: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 4: only when we rise as ego and consequently grasp the form of a body as ourself are we able to perceive other forms
2020-01-16: Since the nature of what is seen cannot be other than the nature of the eye that sees it, only a finite eye can see finite things, and the infinite eye can see only what is infinite, namely itself
2019-12-08: Comment explaining that real awareness is never aware of any forms (by which term Bhagavan means phenomena of any kind whatsoever), but since ego (being a mere semblance of awareness) is aware of itself as a form, it is consequently aware of other forms
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:
2020-01-23: The person we seem to be is what Bhagavan refers to as ‘body’, because as he clarifies in this verse, what he means by ‘body’ is not just the physical body but a form composed of five sheaths (the physical body, life, mind, intellect and will)
2020-01-16: When Bhagavan says that ego is what rises as ‘I am this body’, what he means by the term ‘body’ is a form composed of five sheaths, namely the physical form, life, mind, intellect and will, all of which are non-aware (jaḍa)
2019-12-15: Whatever person we seem to be is a form composed of five sheaths, a physical body and the life, mind, intellect and will that animate it, and since whenever we rise as ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’, we are aware of all these five sheaths as parts of a single whole, Bhagavan referred to them collectively as ‘body’
2019-09-22: Comment explaining that ego, the primal thought ‘I am this body’, is the root of all forms of self-identification, and that when Bhagavan says that ego is the false awareness ‘I am this body’, what he means by ‘this body’ is not only the physical body but also the life, mind, intellect and will that we always experience along with it whenever we are aware of ourself as a body
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:
2021-03-22: In the third paragraph of Nāṉ Ār? Bhagavan said that jagad-dṛṣṭi is kalpita (a fabrication, imagination or mental creation) and compared it to sarpa-jñāna (awareness of the snake), which must be removed in order for rajju-jñāna (awareness of the rope) to arise, because according to him there is no world other than our perception of it, and perception of a world (jagad-dṛṣṭi) is the very nature of ego
2021-03-22: According to Bhagavan, the world does not exist independent of our perception of it, so what we call the world is nothing but our perception of it, and hence the problem does not lie out there in what is perceived but in here in ourself as the perceiver
2020-03-02: Since sense-impressions (sensory perceptions) are just mental impressions, and as such are an aspect of the manōmaya kōśa (sheath composed of mind), awareness of a world comes packaged along with our awareness of ourself as a body
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:
2020-12-31: The one real substance (poruḷ or vastu) is ‘I am’, our fundamental awareness of our own existence (sat-cit), which is the infinite whole (pūṉḏṟam or pūrṇa), which shines without appearing or disappearing as the base for the appearing and disappearing of ego (the subject or perceiver) and the world (all objects or thing perceived)
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:
2020-03-09: Knowledge and ignorance of things other than ourself (transitive awareness and non-awareness) are a pair of opposites, so the seeming existence of both depend upon the seeming existence of ourself as ego, because it is only as ego that we are either aware of or ignorant of other things
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:
2021-03-22: The distinction between transitive and intransitive awareness is one of the fundamental principles of Bhagavan’s teachings, and it is explained by him, albeit without using these terms, in verse 27 of Upadēśa Undiyār and verses 10, 11, 12, 13 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
2020-12-31: What we actually are is just pure awareness, which means awareness that is not aware of anything other than itself
2020-03-09: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 10: only awareness of ourself as we actually are, which is pure intransitive awareness, is real awareness
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 awareness, so when one knows oneself as pure 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:
2021-03-22: The distinction between transitive and intransitive awareness is one of the fundamental principles of Bhagavan’s teachings, and it is explained by him, albeit without using these terms, in verse 27 of Upadēśa Undiyār and verses 10, 11, 12, 13 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
2020-12-31: What is aware of anything other than ourself is only ourself as ego, and since nothing other than ourself actually exists, being aware of other things is not real awareness but only ignorance
2020-03-09: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 11: when we know the reality of ourself, who now know other things, transitive knowledge and ignorance will cease to exist
2020-02-02: Being aware of anything other than ourself is avidyā (ignorance), as Bhagavan implies in the first sentence of this verse and the second sentence of verse 13
2020-01-16: Since nothing other than our real nature actually exists, being aware of anything other than ourself is being aware of what does not exist, so it is not real awareness but only ignorance
2019-10-25: Being aware of anything other than ourself, which is the nature of ourself as ego, is not real awareness but only ignorance
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:
2021-03-22: The distinction between transitive and intransitive awareness is one of the fundamental principles of Bhagavan’s teachings, and it is explained by him, albeit without using these terms, in verse 27 of Upadēśa Undiyār and verses 10, 11, 12, 13 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
2020-12-31: What is aware of anything other than ourself is only ourself as ego, and since nothing other than ourself actually exists, being aware of other things is not real awareness but only ignorance, so only when we are aware of nothing other than ourself are we aware of ourself as we actually are, and being aware of ourself thus is alone real awareness
2020-03-09: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 12: real awareness, which is ourself as we actually are, is devoid of transitive awareness and ignorance, because nothing else exists for it to know or not know
2020-01-16: When we are aware of ourself as we actually are, nothing else will exist for us to know or make known
2019-10-25: Real awareness is not awareness of anything other than ourself but only pure awareness, which is completely devoid of either awareness or ignorance of any other thing
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:
2021-03-22: The distinction between transitive and intransitive awareness is one of the fundamental principles of Bhagavan’s teachings, and it is explained by him, albeit without using these terms, in verse 27 of Upadēśa Undiyār and verses 10, 11, 12, 13 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
2021-02-02: Here ‘real’ means what actually exists, whereas ‘unreal’ means what does not actually exist, even if it seems to exist, so the implication is that only one thing actually exists, and that one thing is what we actually are, namely pure awareness
2020-12-31: What we actually are is just pure awareness, which means awareness that is not aware of anything other than itself, so only when we are aware of nothing other than ourself are we aware of ourself as we actually are
2020-12-18: What is real is only ‘I am’, our fundamental awareness of our own existence (sat-cit), as Bhagavan clearly implies in the first sentence of this verse
2020-03-09: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 13: awareness of multiplicity is ignorance, and though it is unreal, in substance it is not other than oneself, who is real awareness
2020-02-02: Being aware of anything other than ourself is avidyā (ignorance), as Bhagavan implies in the first sentence of verse 11 and the second sentence of this verse
2020-01-16: Since nothing other than our real nature actually exists, it alone is real awareness, and being aware of anything else is being aware of what does not exist, so it is not real awareness but only ignorance
2019-10-25: What is real is only ourself, who are pure awareness (jñāna), so being aware of anything other than ourself is not real awareness but only ignorance
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:
2020-01-16: When he says in this verse that second and third persons will come to an end when the first person ceases to exist as a result of its investigating the reality of itself, he clearly implies that when ego ceases to exist by investigating itself, nothing else can exist in its absence
2020-01-16: One reason why no world could be perceived after the annihilation of ego is that phenomena come into existence only when we rise as ego, so they do not exist when we do not rise as ego
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:
2019-11-28: If we do not read verses 17 and 18 carefully enough, they may seem to imply that the jñāni is aware both of the body and world, but if we read them more carefully it will be clear that what Bhagavan is actually saying here is that what we see as a body and world is what he sees as himself, so he does not actually see any body or world at all but only himself
2019-11-19: Comment explaining that Lord Siva is Arunachala and is in Arunachala, but since he is jñāna-svarūpa (the form of pure awareness), for him, though this hill is actually ‘I’, ‘I’ shines without limit, so there is nothing other ‘I’
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:
2019-11-28: If we do not read verses 17 and 18 carefully enough, they may seem to imply that the jñāni is aware both of the body and world, but if we read them more carefully it will be clear that what Bhagavan is actually saying here is that what we see as a body and world is what he sees as himself, so he does not actually see any body or world at all but only himself
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 awareness, so when one knows oneself as pure 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:
2020-12-18: Fate (vidhi) and will (mati) operate side by side in our life, without either ever intruding upon the domain of the other, so there is no question of either prevailing over the other
2020-12-18: Our actions are driven by two forces, namely our prārabdha and our will, which are respectively what Bhagavan referred to in this verse as விதி (vidhi), fate, and மதி (mati), will
2020-12-18: Our will (what we want to experience) cannot change our fate (what we are destined to experience), and our fate (what we are destined to experience) cannot change our will (what we want to experience)
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:
2019-12-29: Comment explaining that anything that appears or disappears is not real, and such things appear only in the view of ourself as ego, not in the view of ourself as we really are, so experiencing any such thing, no matter how sublime it may seem to be, is just experiencing a manōmayam-ām kāṭci (a mental vision or mind-constituted image, phenomenon or appearance)
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 awareness is alone real seeing.]

Explanations and discussions:
2020-02-24: In order to eradicate ourself as ego and thereby be eternally as we actually are, we need to experience pure awareness, because as soon as we as ego experience pure awareness we will be devoured by it
2019-12-29: Comment explaining that anything that appears or disappears is not real, and such things appear only in the view of ourself as ego, not in the view of ourself as we really are, so real seeing is not seeing any such thing but only seeing our own real nature, which we can see only by being devoured by it
2019-10-25: The swallowing of ego and everything else in the infinite clarity of pure self-awareness is what Bhagavan refers to in the final sentence of this verse: ‘ஊண் ஆதல் காண்’ (ūṇ ādal kāṇ), ‘Becoming food is seeing [God, who is one’s own real nature]’,
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:
2020-12-23: How can we see the bright sun of pure awareness that is always shining in our heart as ‘I’ except by turning back within to look at ourself keenly?
2020-01-09: Series of two comments explaining that God is never unknown to us, because as Bhagavan says in this verse, God is what ‘shines within that mind giving light to the mind’, thereby implying that it is the original light of awareness that shines within the mind as our fundamental awareness of our own existence, ‘I am’, and that it is what illumines the mind, thereby enabling it to know itself and all other things
2019-12-29: Second of two comments explaining that anything that appears or disappears is not real, and such things appear only in the view of ourself as ego, not in the view of ourself as we really are, so real seeing is not seeing any such thing but only seeing our own real nature, which we can see only by turning our mind back within and thereby completely immersing it in that
2019-12-21: We cannot know பதி (pati), the Lord who shines within us as pure awareness, except by turning our mind back within and immersing it completely in him
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:
2020-11-01: Being keenly self-attentive is what he describes here as investigating by ‘நுண் மதி’ (nuṇ mati: a subtle, refined, sharp, keen, acute and discerning mind or intellect) where this ‘I’ (namely ego) rises
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 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:
2021-02-18: Ego is neither the body, which is not aware of itself as ‘I’, nor sat-cit, which does not rise, but something that misappropriates certain properties of each: from sat-cit it borrows its substance, namely its existence (sat) and its awareness (cit), because it is aware of itself as ‘I am’, whereas from the body it borrows its form, which rises and subsides and is limited in time and space
2020-01-23: Ego is neither the body nor sat-cit (because the body is jaḍa and therefore not aware of itself as ‘I’, and sat-cit does not rise), but a spurious ‘I’ that rises in between them as ‘I am this body’
2020-01-20: When Bhagavan says, ‘சத்சித் உதியாது’ (sat-cit udiyādu), ‘sat-cit does not rise’, he implies not only that our real nature, which is being-awareness (sat-cit), never rises but also that it never wants (chooses or decides) to rise
2020-01-16: Ego is neither the form of a body, which is non-aware (jaḍa), nor sat-cit (existence-awareness or real awareness), which does not rise, but something that rises in between them as ‘I am this body’, so from sat-cit it borrows the property of being aware of itself as ‘I am’, and it borrows the properties of the body by mistaking itself to be a form composed of five sheaths
2020-01-09: Comment explaining that when Bhagavan says, ‘The jaḍa body does not say I’, he is using the verb ‘say’ in a metaphorical sense, because what he means is simply that the body is not aware of itself as ‘I’, since it is not aware, so he is not talking about the physical act of talking, nor about the desire and mental activity that cause the body to talk
2019-12-18: Comment explaining that ego is neither the body (by which term Bhagavan means the entire person consisting of five sheaths), which is jaḍa, nor sat-cit (existence-awareness), but something that rises in between them, by which he implies that it is something that borrows the properties of both even though it is neither
2019-12-08: Comment explaining the connection between the description of ego as uru-v-aṯṟa pēy ahandai (formless phantom-ego) in verse 25 and the description of it as cit-jaḍa-granthi (the knot formed by the entanglement of awareness with a body) in this verse
2019-11-13: Series of two comments explaining that intellect and will are both non-aware (jaḍa), so though intellect is ego’s ability to judge and distinguish one thing from another, and will consists of ego’s likes, dislikes, desires, attachments, hopes, fears and so on, neither of them is ego itself
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 sought, it will take flight. Investigate.

Explanatory paraphrase: Grasping form [that is, 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]; grasping form [that is, holding on to that body as itself] it stands [endures, continues or persists]; grasping and feeding on form [that is, 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 sought [that is, 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:
2021-03-22: Ego is a formless phantom and therefore cannot come into existence, stand or flourish without grasping form (firstly the form of a body as ‘I’ and consequently other forms also), so it will ‘take flight’ (subside and dissolve back into its source) if it is keenly investigated
2021-02-18: Ego is ‘உருவற்ற பேய்’ (uru-v-aṯṟa pēy), a ‘formless phantom’, because it has no form or substance of its own, so it does not actually exist
2020-12-31: The nature of ego is such that we cannot rise, stand or flourish as ego except by ‘grasping form’, which means attending to things other than ourself, so if we turn back within to attend to ourself alone, ego ‘will take flight’, which means we will thereby subside and merge back into our source, the pure awareness ‘I am’, which is what we always actually are
2020-12-31: Since the nature of ego is to rise, stand and flourish by attending to anything other than itself, but to subside and dissolve back into its source by attending only to itself, the more carefully and lovingly we attend to ‘I am’, the more ego will subside and dissolve, until eventually it merges forever in and as its source, whereupon what will remain is only ‘I am’ shining in its pristine and eternal state as pure awareness
2020-12-31: Whenever we rise as ego we grasp the form of a body as ‘I’, and when we leave one body at the time of its death, we rise again grasping the form of another body as ‘I’, as we also do whenever we begin to dream
2020-09-19: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 25: being just a formless phantom, ego does not actually exist, even though it seems to exist, so if it is sought it will take flight
2020-04-13: Ego seems to exist only when we look elsewhere (at anything other than ourself), but disappears as soon as we look at it carefully enough
2020-03-31: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 25: the nature of ego is such that we rise, stand and flourish as ego by grasping things other than ourself, and we will subside and disappear if we try to grasp ourself alone
2020-03-09: Ego is a ‘formless phantom’, which means that it has no form or substance of its own, but it seems to be both a substance, namely awareness, and a form, namely a body
2020-03-09: The nature of ego is such that it rises, stands and flourishes by ‘grasping form’, which means being aware of anything other than itself, and it subsides and dissolves back into its source (pure awareness) when it tries to grasp or attend only to itself
2020-02-24: Identifying ourself with the form of a body and consequently being aware of the forms of other phenomena are what he means here by ‘grasping form’, so these are the very nature of ego
2020-01-20: Grasping things other than itself is the very nature of ego, so since grasping is driven by desire, desire is likewise the very nature of ego
2020-01-16: When Bhagavan describes ego as ‘உருவற்ற பேய் அகந்தை’ (uru-v-aṯṟa pēy ahandai), ‘formless phantom-ego’, what he means by saying it is formless (uru-v-aṯṟa) is that it has no form of its own, and what he means by saying it is a phantom (pēy) is that it has no substance of its own
2020-01-16: Though ego has no form of its own, it is always aware of itself as if it were the form of a body, as Bhagavan implies by saying, ‘Grasping form it comes into existence; grasping form it stands; grasping and feeding on form it grows abundantly’
2020-01-16: As ego we grasp forms by projecting and perceiving them, but since the nature of ego is to be always aware of itself as ‘I am this body’, the first form that we as ego project and perceive is whatever body we currently perceive as if it were ourself
2020-01-16: What Bhagavan teaches us in this verse is arguably the most important principle of his teachings, because in it he clearly explains the nature of ego and indicates why he taught us that self-investigation is the only means by which we can eradicate it forever
2020-01-16: What perceives forms or phenomena is only ego, because as Bhagavan implied in the first three sentences of this verse, the very nature of ego is to grasp form, which means to project and perceive them
2020-01-16: When he says, ‘உரு பற்றி உண்டாம்’ (uru paṯṟi uṇḍām), ‘grasping form it comes into existence’, what he means that ego rises or comes into existence by projecting and perceiving the form of a body as itself
2019-12-24: Comment explaining that Bhagavan described ego as a ‘phantom’ because it is insubstantial and therefore seems to exist only when we do not look at it carefully enough, and that our real nature (ātma-svarūpa), though formless, can never be a phantom, because it alone is what is actually substantial
2019-12-18: Comment explaining that ego is a formless phantom, which seems to exist only when it grasps the form of a body as itself, so if instead of grasping the body or any other form it tries to grasp itself alone, it will subside and dissolve back into its source, which is sat-cit, our fundamental awareness of our own existence, ‘I am’
2019-12-08: Comment explaining that when Bhagavan describes ego as ‘உருவற்ற பேய் அகந்தை’ (uru-v-aṯṟa pēy ahandai), ‘formless phantom-ego’, what he implies by saying that it is formless is that it has no form of its own, so it seems to exist only when it grasps some form as itself, and what he implies by saying that it is a ghost or phantom is that it has no substance of its own, so being without form or substance, it does not actually exist at all
2019-11-08: Rather than explaining how ego comes into existence, this verse explains that grasping form is the very nature of ego, so it grasps form as soon as it comes into existence, and as long as it continues to grasp form it endures, and by grasping form it feeds itself and flourishes
2019-11-08: In order to eradicate ego forever it must be dissolved as a result of our being aware of ourself alone, and hence we must be so keenly self-attentive that we thereby cease to grasp or be aware of anything other than ourself
2019-11-08: Ego is a formless phantom whose very nature is to grasp form, so as soon as we come into existence as this formless phantom we grasp the form of a body as ourself, and then we endure, feed ourself and flourish by grasping other forms
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 [the false awareness ‘I am this body’] comes into existence, everything [all phenomena, everything that appears and disappears, everything other than our pure, fundamental, unchanging and immutable awareness ‘I am’] comes into existence; if ego does not exist, everything does not exist [because nothing other than pure 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 [namely 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:
2021-03-22: All other things seem to exist only so long as we rise as ego, so investigating ego is giving up everything
2021-02-18: Though ego does not actually exist, it does seem to exist, and only so long as it seems to exist do all other things seem to exist
2021-02-02: ‘Ego itself is everything’ because everything is just thoughts (in other words, all phenomena are mental phenomena), and thoughts are just mental modifications, so their substance is only mind, and mind is in essence just ego, the first thought ‘I’
2020-12-23: In order to be able to investigate ourself keenly enough to know what we actually are we need to be willing to give up everything, and we will be willing to give up everything else only when our svātma-bhakti (love to know and to be what we actually are) is so strong that it overwhelms and consumes all our desires and attachments for other things
2020-11-16: ‘Investigating what this [namely ego] is alone is giving up everything’, so we can be self-attentive only to the extent that we are willing to let go of everything else and thereby surrender ourself entirely
2020-09-19: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 26: if we want to see the non-existence of ego, we must investigate ourself, and in order to investigate ourself effectively we must be willing to give up not only ego but also everything else
2020-04-15: In the absence of ego, the ‘I’ that projects and perceives it, there is no world
2020-04-13: What Bhagavan means by ‘everything’ (aṉaittum or yāvum) is everything other than our real nature, so it includes self-forgetfulness and all other forms of māyā
2020-04-13: Since ego disappears as soon as we look at it carefully enough, investigating what it is is giving up everything
2020-02-02: What Bhagavan teaches us in this verse may seem very radical, but it is actually in perfect accord with our own experience, because phenomena appear only when we rise and stand as ego, as in waking and dream, and they cease to appear as soon as we cease rising as ego, as in sleep
2020-02-02: We cannot dispel avidyā (ignorance) without dispelling ego, and when ego is dispelled everything other than ourself will cease to exist
2020-02-02: Since phenomena are nothing but ego’s awareness of them, and since being aware of them is the very nature of ego, ego itself is all phenomena
2020-01-23: This path of self-investigation and self-surrender is a solitary path, because it is only when we rise as ego that we are aware of anything other than ourself, so if we are to surrender this ego we need to cease being aware of anything else
2020-01-16: When we know ourself as we actually are, we will thereby cease to be ego, and since ego alone is the dreamer of all dreams, all dreams will forever cease to exist, and their respective worlds will cease to exist along with them
2020-01-16: When Bhagavan says in verse 24 that ego rises in between the body, which is non-aware (jaḍa), and sat-cit, which does not rise, and when he says in verse 25 that it comes into existence grasping form, he does not mean that the body or any other form exists prior to the rising of ego, as he makes clear in verse 26 by saying: ‘If ego comes into existence, everything comes into existence; if ego does not exist, everything does not exist. Ego alone is everything’
2020-01-16: ‘If ego does not exist, everything does not exist’ is one of the fundamental principles of his teachings, and is implied by him in the final sentence of the fifth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?, the first sentence of verse 7 of Śrī Aruṇācala Aṣṭakam and verse 14 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
2020-01-16: One reason why no world could be perceived after the annihilation of ego is that phenomena come into existence only when we rise as ego, so they do not exist when we do not rise as ego
2020-01-06: Second of a series of two comments explaining that Bhagavan is not the body or mind that he seemed to be but only pure awareness, so he was not aware of anything other than himself, because in the absence of ego there is nothing to know other than oneself
2020-01-03: Comment explaining why Bhagavan says ‘Therefore when the world appears, svarūpa does not appear; when svarūpa appears (shines), the world does not appear’ in the fourth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?
2019-12-21: We cannot surrender ourself entirely without investigating what we actually are
2019-12-16: Comment explaining that ego is everything in the sense that it is the sole substance that appears as all phenomena, but when it sees itself as a constantly changing stream of phenomena, what changes or is modulated is not ego itself but only the forms in which it sees itself
2019-12-15: Though Bhagavan said, ‘அகந்தையே யாவும் ஆம்’ (ahandaiyē yāvum ām), ‘Ego alone is everything’, this does not mean that we cannot and should not distinguish ego from all phenomena, because ego is the formless substance, whereas all phenomena are mere forms whose sole substance is ego, so ego is distinct from phenomena in the same sense that gold is distinct from whatever ornaments are formed from it
2019-12-10: Everything other than ourself seems to exist only in the clouded view of ourself as ego and not in the clear view of ourself as we actually are, so in order to be aware of ourself as we actually are we need to be aware of ourself alone, in complete isolation from awareness of anything else
2019-11-08: None of the other things that ego looks at exist prior to or independent of it, because they are created by its perception of them
2019-11-08: Everything else comes into existence only when ego comes into existence, so when ego does not exist nothing else exists, and hence ego is the first cause, the cause of all other causes, so no cause could exist prior to our rising as ego
2019-10-16: Comment explaining that nothing exists in sleep other than our real nature, which is sat-cit-ānanda, so the only difference between sleep (manōlaya) and eradication of ego (manōnāśa) is that ego will never rise again from the latter, whereas it does rise from the former, but this in not a difference in those states but only a difference from the perspective of ourself as ego in waking or dream
2019-10-07: Everything (all phenomena or objects) appears only from ego, and ego appears only from pure awareness, which is our real nature, so the immediate source and substance of everything is ego, and the ultimate source and substance of everything is pure awareness
2019-09-14: Comment explaining that the world cannot appear after ego has been eradicated, because ‘if ego does not exist, everything does not exist’
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 awareness of one’s own existence, ‘I am’] where [from which or in which] ‘I’ rises, how to reach [achieve or take refuge in] the annihilation of oneself [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 rising as ego, the false awareness that rises and subsides as ‘I am this body’.] [And] without reaching [or taking refuge in] [the annihilation of 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:
2021-02-18: When we keenly investigate our fundamental awareness, ‘I am’, which is the ‘place’ or source from which we rose as ego, we will recognise that that alone is what we always actually are, and thereby we will attain தன்னிழப்பு (taṉ-ṉ-iṙappu), loss or annihilation of ourself
2020-12-23: How can we see the bright sun of pure awareness that is always shining in our heart as ‘I’ except by turning back within to look at ourself keenly?
2020-08-24: To be as we actually are we must cease rising as ego, and to cease rising as ego we must investigate ourself, the source from which we have risen
2019-12-21: We cannot experience ourself as that (brahman), which is pure awareness, without annihilating ego, and we cannot annihilate ego without investigating ourself, the place or source from which we have risen as ego
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 awareness] where [from which or in which] the rising ego rises. Know [or be aware].

Explanations and discussions:
2020-11-01: Being keenly self-attentive is what he describes here as sinking within by ‘கூர்ந்த மதி’ (kūrnda mati: a sharpened, pointed, keen, acute, penetrating and discerning mind or intellect) to know the place where the rising ego rises
2020-01-16: Bhagavan often uses the term ‘இடம்’ (iḍam), which literally means ‘place’, as a metaphor for our real nature (ātma-svarūpa), because it is the ‘place’ or source from which we rise as ego and into which we must eventually subside
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 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:
2020-06-21: Bhagavan used the term ‘நான் நான்’ (nāṉ nāṉ), ‘I am I’, to distinguish our real adjunct-free self-awareness from our false adjunct-mixed self-awareness, namely ego, which he referred to as ‘நான் இது’ (nāṉ idu), ‘I am this’, because ‘நான் இது’ (nāṉ idu), ‘I am this’, denotes a false identity, since it is an identification of ourself with something other than ourself, namely a body consisting of five sheaths, whereas ‘நான் நான்’ (nāṉ nāṉ), ‘I am I’, denotes our real identity, since it is an identification of ourself with ourself alone
2019-09-22: Comment explaining that ‘I am I’ is not a circular definition of ‘I’, because it refers to the clear awareness that I am nothing other than I, which is what shines forth when ego, the false awareness ‘I am this’, is destroyed
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:
2020-01-06: First of a series of two comments explaining that Bhagavan is not the body or mind that he seemed to be but only pure awareness, so he was not aware of anything other than himself, because in the absence of ego there is nothing to know other than oneself
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:
2021-02-18: The aim of ‘tat tvam asi’ is to direct our attention back to ourself by making us understand that, since we are that, all we need do in order to know that is to investigate what we actually are
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 awareness.]

Explanations and discussions:
2020-11-01: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 33: we are not an object, and can never become an object, so we are not the sort of thing that we can know at one time and not know at another time
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’
2014-05-31: Not only is self-attentiveness (the state of just being self-attentive) not an action, it is also not a state of duality, because it is a state in which there is absolutely no distinction between the experiencer and the experienced — that is, it is a state in which the experiencing ‘I’ experiences nothing other than itself
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 awareness] knowing poruḷ [the real substance, namely pure 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:
2020-02-05: If we are interested only in disputation and asserting our own views and opinions, then discussing different teachings, interpretations and views is certainly ‘மாயைச் சழக்கு’ (māyai-c caṙakku), ‘mischief of māyā’, but if our aim is liberation, discussing them can help us to choose which one suits us best
2019-11-08: The real substance always exists within us without a single thought as our real nature, so to know it we must be as we actually are, without thinking anything
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 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. என்றும் நாம் அதுவா நிற்கும் அதனால், ‘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. eṉḏṟum nām adu-v-ā niṟkum adaṉāl, ‘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 always stand as that, why 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 always stand [abide or exist] as that, why [should we be] 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 see that we always 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 only 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 [exists] only in spiritual practice, [and] non-duality [exists 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 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:
2020-12-18: If we investigate keenly enough what this ego (the doer of āgāmya and the experiencer of prārabdha) actually is, we will thereby know our real nature, and hence ego will be eradicated and all its three karmas (āgāmya, saṁcita and prārabdha) will cease to exist
2020-12-08: To the extent that we attend to ourself and thereby refrain from attending to whatever happens according to prārabdha, we will not be affected by it, and if we attend to ourself keenly enough, we will eradicate ego and thereby destroy all the three karmas
2020-10-27: Doership is the very nature of ego, because as ego we experience all the five sheaths as ourself, and hence the actions of those five sheaths as actions done by us, so doership will not disappear entirely until ego is eradicated
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 someone bound’, thoughts of bondage and liberation. When one looks at oneself as who is the one who is bound, 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 ‘I am someone bound’ [that is, only so long as one experiences oneself as if one were bound] [will there be] thoughts of bandha [bondage] and mukti [liberation]. When one looks at [observes, examines or scrutinises] oneself [to see] who is the one who is bound, 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   401 – 600 of 733   Newer›   Newest»
Sanjay Lohia said...

Congratulations .... we are 400 not out.

We are 400 not out, to use Cricket terminology. Is it the first time we have had 400+ comments on one article? I am not sure. May be old timers may clarify this. It may have happened once earlier, but I am not sure.

porul said...

Sanjay Lohia,
please look at the article of Thursday, 10 December 2015
Thought of oneself will destroy all other thoughts

429 comments

sat-vasana said...

verse 24,
linked article of Sunday, 14 June 2009 Ulladu Narpadu – an explanatory paraphrase

"...in between being-consciousness and this non-conscious body one 'I' rises as the ‘measure’ of this body (that is, a spurious consciousness 'I' rises as 'I am this body', assuming the boundaries of bodily existence, being confined within the limits of time and space). This false 'I', he says, is chit-jada-granthi (the knot that binds together consciousness and the non-conscious), bondage, the soul, the ‘subtle body’, the ego, the mind and this samsara (‘wandering’, the state of incessant activity, passing through one dream-life after another)."

linked article of Friday, 7 October 2011 Manōnāśa – destruction of mind

" The jaḍa [non-conscious] body does not say 'I' [because it does not experience itself]; sat-cit [being-consciousness] does not rise [or come into being]; [but] in between [consciousness and the body] an 'I' rises as the dimension of the body. Know that this [false consciousness 'I am this body'] is cit-jaḍa-granthi [the knot between consciousness and the non-conscious], bandha [bondage], jīva [the soul or person], the subtle body, the ego, this saṁsāra [wandering, restless activity, illusion or ignorance] and manam [the mind].

Thus the mind is a confused mixture of the real and the unreal. Its real element is its sat-cit aspect, 'I am', and its unreal element is its jaḍa aspect, the body and all the other adjuncts that it confusedly mistakes to be 'I'. What is destroyed in manōnāśa is only its unreal jaḍa aspect and not its real sat-cit aspect, which is eternal and hence indestructible and immutable.

Because the mind thus confuses consciousness (cit) with the non-conscious (jaḍa), it is called the cit-jaḍa-granthi, the knot (granthi) that seemingly binds consciousness to the non-conscious. In a conversation recorded in the last chapter of Maharshi’s Gospel (13th edition, 2002, page 89), Bhagavan emphasises this fact that the mind or ego is nothing but the cit-jaḍa-granthi:

"...In your investigation into the source of aham-vṛtti [the thought 'I'], you take the essential cit aspect of the ego; and for this reason the enquiry must lead to the realization of the pure consciousness of the Self.

Bhagavan says that this primal thought 'I' (the false impression 'I am this body') is the root of all other thoughts and the thread upon which they are strung, because it is the thinker and experiencer of them, so without it no other thought could exist. Therefore all thought or mental activity is dependent upon this delusion 'I am this body', which is the mind or ego.

In waking the mind mistakes itself to be this present body, and in dream it mistakes itself to be some other imaginary body. The bodies change, but the false 'I' that takes each of them to be itself remains essentially the same. Since our entire bodily life is just a dream that occurs in our prolonged sleep of self-ignorance, when one body dies, the mind imagines another body to be itself, and thus it undergoes a long series of bodily lives (dreams)..."

sat-vasana said...

verse 24,
linked article of Friday, 26 September 2014 Metaphysical solipsism, idealism and creation theories in the teachings of Sri Ramana

"The body is jaḍa (non-conscious), so it does not experience anything, and hence it does not experience itself as 'I'. Therefore when Sri Ramana says that the body does not say 'I', that is a metaphorical way of saying that it does not experience itself as 'I'. What experiences itself as 'I' is something that actually exists and is actually conscious of its own existence, so this is what he refers to here as sat-cit, which is a compound of two words, sat (which means ‘what exists’) and cit (which means ‘what is conscious’). The reason this compound word is used to refer to what experiences itself as ‘I’ is that it is both what exists and what is conscious of its existence, so its existence (sat) and its consciousness (cit) of its existence are not two separate things but one and the same. As he says in verse 23 of Upadēśa Undiyār, what exists (uḷḷadu) is what is aware (uṇarvu) that it exists, because the 'I' that is aware that 'I am' cannot be other than the 'I' that exists. When we say 'I am', we are expressing not only that we exist but also that we are aware that we exist. Therefore sat-cit denotes our real self, which is what we experience as ‘I am’, and Sri Ramana says that it does not rise or come into existence, because it always exists and is always aware of its existence.

This body comes into existence in waking, when we are aware of it, and ceases to exist in sleep or dream, when we are not aware of it, so it cannot be 'I', because we are aware of ourself as 'I am' in all these three states: waking, dream and sleep. Thus the body rises and subsides and is not aware of itself as 'I', whereas sat-cit does not rise or subside but is always aware of itself as 'I'. Therefore the body is not sat-cit, and sat-cit is not the body. However, between these two something rises as 'I' and experiences itself as the extent of the body. That is, it feels that it is confined within the spatial and temporal limits of the body, and thus it experiences itself as 'I am this body'.

This spurious body-confined 'I' is what is called the ego, mind or soul (jīva), and it is also called cit-jaḍa-granthi because it functions as a knot (granthi) that binds the conscious (cit) and the non-conscious (jaḍa) together as if they were one. Because it rises by attaching itself to a body and other adjuncts, it is a conflated mixture of our pure 'I', which is not a thought, and various adjuncts, all of which are mere thoughts or ideas, so in verse 18 of Upadēśa Undiyār Sri Ramana describes it as the 'thought called I' and says that it is what the mind essentially is. Therefore when he says that the world is a creation or projection of the mind, what he means by ‘mind’ is only this spurious thought called 'I', the ego.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Porul, thanks. I think, this is then only the 2nd time we have achieved this milestone of 400+ comments in one article!

sat-vasana said...

verse 24,
linked article of Thursday, 28 May 2015 The ego is essentially a formless and hence featureless phantom
4. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 24: the ego is cit-jaḍa-granthi

"However, though it cannot exist without grasping forms, it is something that is distinct from all forms, because whereas any form is non-conscious (jaḍa) this ego is something that is conscious or aware (cit). However even its awareness is not its own, because awareness endures even when this ego has ceased grasping forms and has therefore subsided. What is permanently aware is only ourself, and since we exist and are aware of ourself even in the absence of this ego (such as in sleep), this ego is not what we really are. It therefore comes into existence only by posing both as ourself, who are what is truly conscious or aware (cit), and as a body, which is non-conscious (jaḍa), and hence it is sometimes described as cit-jaḍa-granthi, the knot (granthi) that binds together the conscious (cit) and the non-conscious (jaḍa) as if they were one.

When two strings are tied together they form a knot, but that knot is not something that can exist by itself. When either string is removed, the knot ceases to exist. Likewise this ego seems to exist only when it ties together both our conscious self and a non-conscious body. It is neither ourself nor a body, so it cannot exist without seemingly tying ourself to a body. ..."

"Therefore the body and ourself are quite different: whereas the body is jaḍa and hence not aware of itself as 'I', we are cit and hence aware of ourself as 'I'; and whereas the body appears and disappears, or rises and subsides, we neither appear nor disappear, and neither rise nor subside, because we are sat — what actually exists, and hence what exists without either a beginning or an end.

However between us and this body a spurious entity rises calling itself ‘I’ yet taking itself to be limited to the extent of the body (that is, limited to its extent both in space and in time). By experiencing and calling itself ‘I’, this spurious entity is usurping what rightfully belongs only to ourself, and by taking itself to be limited to the extent of the body, it is likewise usurping this body. Therefore it is called cit-jaḍa-granthi, the knot (granthi) that binds together the conscious (cit) and the non-conscious (jaḍa) as if they were one, and it is also called by various other names such as ahandai (the ego), manam (the mind), jīva (the life, soul or individual self), the subtle body, bandha (bondage) and saṁsāra, which is a word that means wandering, perpetual movement, restless activity, worldly existence or the cycle of birth and death."

linked article of Thursday, 24 August 2017 The ego is a spurious entity, but an entity nonetheless, until we investigate it keenly enough to see that it does not actually exist

"Thus in this verse he indicates that the ego is a spurious entity (because it poses both as ourself and as a body, even though it is neither), but it is an entity nevertheless — or rather it seems to be an entity so long as it seems to exist, as it will until we look at it carefully enough to see what we actually are."

Looking at the ego carefully enough - that is the point. But I have to test how the ego will behave when it notices my (the ego's) investigation.

Anonymous said...

Congratulations to all, especially Sanjay Lohia!
What a wonderful way to spend our valuable time doing "Manana" on Bhagavan's teachings!
Practice - What's that? Who needs it?

porul said...

Sanjay Lohia,
regrettably the number of comments does not prove that our understanding of Bhagavan's teaching has improved a great deal.
Besides the number of comments on one article depends on the length of the period between the posting of a new article and the last one.

Furthermore we cannot be sure whether Michael will at all continue posting new articles.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Porul, yes, the number of comments just proves how dense our ignorance is. It shows that we are still trying to understand Bhagavan’s teachings, thereby confirming that our present understanding is imperfect. Our goal is absolute silence, and in such silence there is no place for even a thought to arise. So if we are still fond of producing so many thoughts, words and actions, we are obviously still quite ignorant.

Yes, the number of comments in any particular article is largely decided by the time gap between two comments. Nevertheless, nowadays we find more and more people writing more and more comments. That is a good sign, because they are obviously trying to understand Bhagavan’s teachings with greater clarity.

Why was Michael taken away from Tiruvannamalai 20 years back? I think Bhagavan wanted him to settle in the UK, so that he could easily participate in the meetings of RMF, UK, enabling priceless YouTube videos to be made. We can clearly see the reason why Bhagavan wanted him to settle in the UK. This blog is another manifestation of Bhagavan’s grace. I can’t imagine what I would have been doing, if I was not glued to this blog.

Of course, I try and put Bhagavan’s teachings into practice, because the purpose of all these videos, articles and discussions is to clarify our understanding, and above all is to motivate us to turn within, as much as possible.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Silence is the most fundamental teaching

Extract (slightly modified) from the video: 2017-10-14 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on silence (0.00 to 0:02):

Silence is Bhagavan’s real nature, and he both the teacher and the teaching. Silence is the ultimate teaching. In fact silence is both, the ultimate teaching and also the most fundamental teaching.

The reason why Bhagavan appeared in this world was to give us teachings. He gave us teachings through words, but in order to understand those words we need an inner clarity, and that inner clarity comes from silence.

So in that sense, silence is the most fundamental teaching. Bhagavan’s teachings are of no use without silence. All that he said in words will be like water off a duck’s back - it will mean nothing to us, without the inner clarity given to us by silence.


Cultivating anything is anātma-vicāra said...

porul, the mind will never fully understand Bhagavan's teaching, it just loves to analyze and grasp objects, here the objects of [seeming] understanding.

Many probably see the mind as an entity capable of independent rationalization and deduction what is an illusion. The mind is just the conglomerate of thoughts which are seemingly "created" by vasanas. But even that is just an illusion what we call maya.

Any true understanding is rather a "surfacing" of the Self which happens when the mind finally shuts up and gives it a rest with its delusional thought processes. "Manana" tends to be misunderstood and it is of course the mind which misunderstands so it has more excuses to chatter about ....

"We", the ego/mind makes never a decision, we just believe we do.

porul said...

Sanjay Lohia,
it would be nice to hear Michael's opinion how it came to him to leave Tiruvannamalai and to shift back to the country of his physical birth. Your idea hat he is just an instrument of Bhagavan Ramana cannot simply be dismissed.
I too cannot even imagine where I would have been run aground without this blog.

Cultivating anything is anātma-vicāra said...

"Michael" never decided to leave India, it was his prarabdha. His ego might believe that it made that decision but that would be an illusion.

The entity Michael does what it does and to find an explanation for why and so forth is the past-time of the mind which needs to find a reason for everything. That is part of maya too. There is no reason and cause and effect. It's time to let go of this erroneous beliefs.

Going to this blog and believing it is "helping" to get Self-realized is an illusion too. That "help" is only imaginary.

We don't realize by doing manana and shifting through concepts but by getting rid of all concepts and beliefs.

vasuki said...

Heaven only knows if looking up to our great sage Salazar is the only way to dissolve our utter ignorance. Does he not talk about everything under the sun ? God willing.

Cultivating anything is anātma-vicāra said...

I don’t quite understand the resistance on this forum regarding prarabdha. Agnostic made some great comments about destiny earlier.

We all know the question of a devotee to Bhagavan that when he’d raise his arm at this moment if that would be prarabdha too and Bhagavan said yes. So ANY little (or not so little) movement of the body at ANT time is prarabdha or destined. That can be the only conclusion. There cannot be an exception because it would render Bhagavan’s statement invalid.

Bhagavan also said that if one is destined to work one will work even if one desperately doesn’t want to and if one is destined to not work one won’t no matter how much effort one will put into it.

Those two statements by Bhagavan alone (and there are many more like that) suggest that ALL of the actions of the body are destined and that the mind/ego CANNOT decide against it.

Why? Because these “actions” of a body are projected/imagined by mind and happen within the mind. The mind imagines not only the actions of one’s body but also the actions of other bodies and objects as it imagines making decisions .....

That is the extend of delusion and looking at the comments on this blog still very prevalent.






Cultivating anything is anātma-vicāra said...

The [apparent] mind is not something located within the head or brain or body but it is infinite as Self and has no physical parameters.

Everything what transpires in the phenomenal world is "within" that mind.

vasuki said...

Salazar,
I don't feel much appreciation of your schoolmasterish style which invites contradiction.

Cultivating anything is anātma-vicāra said...

vasuki, well that's my style and if you don't like it please ignore it. Allow me another school-masterly comment: It is a waste of time to point out other jiva's flaws because these perceived flaws are nothing else than projection of one's own ego. It projects the unconscious and suppressed attributes in oneself.

So any pointing out of "others" flaws is like yelling "look at my personal shortcomings I have not yet made peace with". :-)

vasuki said...

Salazar,
of course everyone is free to uphold his own theories and concepts.:-)

Cultivating anything is anātma-vicāra said...

As everybody is free to ignore the truth :-D

vasuki said...

Generally and always we are in danger of delusion. One may be firmly convinced that one has more fundamentally grasped the master's teaching than his neighbour or one may fancy himself to be clever and ripe enough to get a glimpse of reality. But in any case we should try to avoid clouding our ability to judge.

Ramesh said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ramesh said...

Namaste Michael-ji,

Thanks for the phenomenal effort in translating Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu.

I have a simple question on what should be the right method of chanting Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu. Is there any reference from Sri Sadhu OM? Differenet groups (Tiruvannamalai, Bangalore etc) chant the slokas differently. Anvyam helps a lot while meditating on the slokas. In a group chanting, I find it difficult to dwell on the meaning when one side of the group chants the first line, the other second line, then the first chant the thongal (தொங்கல்) etc. Appreciate your help.

Sanjay Lohia said...

There is nothing we can do to qualify for Bhagavan’s grace

Extract (slightly modified) from the video: 2017-10-14 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on silence:

We cannot do anything to earn Bhagavan’s grace, because you can’t earn which is already there. When all the wealth of the universe is yours, you can’t do anything to earn it. So also Bhagavan’s grace is already ours; it’s our real nature. So there is nothing we can do to qualify for Bhagavan’s grace. In order to appreciate Bhagavan’s grace, all we have to do is to turn within. Then we will recognise that grace alone exists.

Bhagavan’s teachings in words and his teaching in silence are not two different things. His words are there to point us back to the silence which is ever there in our heart, which is ever our true nature.

Our ego is this ‘I am this body’ thought. When Bhagavan says ‘I am this body’, he is not talking about the superficial verbal thought. It’s a deep rooted experience. Don’t we feel we are sitting here? All space is related to what? The centre point in space is always here, and ‘here’ is where I take my body to be. Our whole experience is centred in the experience ‘I am the body’. Our ajnana is so deep rooted. We are v. v. deeply deluded. This ahankara (ego) is so deeply entrenched.

Though Bhagavan’s teachings are v. v. simple, they are also v. v. subtle. So long as we experience ourself as this body, it is very difficult for us to grasp the simplicity of Bhagavan’s teachings. It is because we are trying to understand by our intellect, and our intellect is the function of the mind, and mind is nothing but darkness. So we are seeing through darkness to see the light, as it were.

The more we allow our mind to go outward, the more confused and obscured everything will be. The more we turn our attention within, the clearer everything will be.

Divine Madman said...

Salazar,

I haven't visited this blog for a while and don't post much unlike you.

I am only posting this out of curiosity because I see you are still stating that your understanding of prarabdha is correct?

I also see you never answered the questions I previously asked you about it.

Here are my questions again to something you said in one of your previous comments;

You said,

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

Obviously your outward interest in this blog has not exhausted itself and your continued posting is all down to your prarabdha.

But do you think your prarabdha will absolutely determine this Salazar?
Are you 100% sure this concept you have acquired is the truth?
Have you always believed this?
Have you believed it your whole life?
Where and when did you learn this concept?
Do you unequivocally trust the person or the literature you learned it from?

Also you more recently wrote:

[That is the extend of delusion and looking at the comments on this blog still very prevalent.]

It seems you are inferring that Michael along with other people who comment on this blog are deluded because their understanding of prarabdha does not conform to your own correct understanding about prarabdha?

You appear to have a lot invested in this concept you have acquired and are pre occupied with defending it tooth and nail? Does it need you to fight its corner? Your belief seems to have become a deep rooted conviction.

What is your motivation?

porul said...

Sanjay Lohia,
" In order to appreciate Bhagavan’s grace, all we have to do is to turn within. Then we will recognise that grace alone exists."
Turning the mind within is just the point. Any attempt to turn our attention (=the mind) within the mind finds as disruptive disturbance to which it often reacts with annoyance. Therefore - in my experience - uprooting our deep-rooted ajnana is actually a thorny and wearisome task/business. Our experience 'I am the body' can be wiped out
only by an earthquake-like occurence. With the help of persisent self-investigation on one of these days the mind may got purified to such an extent that only the ever omnipresent grace of Bhagavan will remain.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Porul, you say, ‘Therefore - in my experience - uprooting our deep-rooted ajnana is actually a thorny and wearisome task/business’. Yes, but if you had said this to Bhagavan, he would have probably said, ‘Forget about uprooting your deep-rooted ajnana, find out if ajnana exists in the first place’. Ajnana is nothing but our mind, and according to Bhagavan if we try to look for this mind, we will find that anything called the ‘mind’ simply doesn’t exist. This he says is the direct path for all.

If we read his teachings, it will be clear that he seldom gave any reality to the ego or mind. He would say for example that ‘you are already liberated, so any talk of mukti (liberation) is inadmissible. It is only if you are bound that we can talk about liberation and about the ways to achieve such a liberation’. He talked this way because he never saw anyone bound. But when people insisted that they were indeed bound, he would say as a concession, ‘OK, then find out who is bound. That is the way to liberation’.

However, from another perspective he always insisted on maximum effort from our side, because, as Michael says, this ajnana seems to be so deep and entrenched, and therefore we can’t simply wish it away. So the only answer is to daily turn within to look at ourself. Sooner rather than later we will surely experience ourself as we actually are.

Once this happens we will realise that we were never bound in the first place. Since there was no bondage, there was no one trying to achieve liberation, and therefore the so called ‘liberation’ also never happened. This is ajata, Bhagavan’s real teaching.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Bhagavan’s silence and his verbal teachings are inseparable

Michael says in his video (slightly modified by me): 2017-10-14 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on silence:

When you turn to look at the light, everything is clarified. So the more we turn within to see our own light, the more inner clarity will blossom in us, and it is only by that clarity that we can understand the real depth, the real import of Bhagavan’s teachings.

So Bhagavan’s silence and his verbal teachings are inseparable. His verbal teachings will come to an end only when this ego comes to an end, and what remains is what is always there – which is silence. But so long as we rise and allow our mind to go outwards, his silence and his teachings in words are inseparable.

We say that Bhagavan’s teachings are clear to us, but it is not so. For example, Bhagavan says happiness lies only within ourself. If this was clear why would we rise to attend to anything else? So the whole process of following Bhagavan’s teachings is a process of deepening our clarity. The more we are clear that truth, that happiness, that everything is there within us as ourself, the more love we will have to turn within, and love is the key.

So silence is the most fundamental of Bhagavan’s teachings, and all his words are built on the foundation of silence. Ultimately, however, silence is also the ultimate teaching.

He says in Ekatma Panchakam that what exists is that ekatma vastu (the one real substance which is oneself), and that it exists by its own light. Only our own self or real nature is what actually exists, and it is shining by its own light. Then he says that even the adi-guru (the original guru) - here he is referring to Dakshinamurti - made it known by saying without saying. In other words, he made it known through silence, and therefore who can make it known by saying?

So ultimately even Bhagavan’s words can’t reveal the truth. His words can point us in the right direction and give us the love to turn within, but the ultimate teaching is only through silence.

Cultivating anything is anātma-vicāra said...

Divine Madman, you again assume way too much what I seem to believe or not and what I believe others would have understood or not. One cannot form an opinion about someone based on some comments one has read.

Nobody here made a sincere attempt to explore more prarabdha and it would have been very likely anyway a repetition of the stating of believed concepts as on the other thread with no real conclusion. Because nobody here has a f.en clue. All this "manana" here is frankly BS. People stating their concepts and then start arguing when the other seemingly disagrees. I've seen that with mouna, venkat, Sanjay Lohia, Ravi, and many others ...... and then it's kiss and make up :-)

Looking at that process copied from Michael, that is quoting a passage from the "holy trinity" and then chatter about it will not bring anybody an iota closer to realization. I guess that has to be figured out on its own by the believers.

Atma-vichara doesn't need the concept of prarabdha and therefore I don't feel the need to engage you further in beating down the exhausted horse.

Throughout my life I have talked with countless "spiritual" people from a Jnani to a very beginner and only the Jnani made sense. It is a waste of time to discuss spiritual concepts with ajnanis. For some reason I thought that blog would be different but that was of course pretty naive.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Bhagavan’s whole life was an expression of silence.

Michael says in his video (slightly modified by me): 2017-10-14 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on silence:

It is only in the frying pan of jnana that the ego can be destroyed by the fire of jnana, Bhagavan sings in Appalam Song.

In the 2nd verse of Sri Arunachala Panchakam, Bhagavan again explains beautifully:

When the seer looked within the mind to see who the seer is, I saw what remained when the seer ceased to exist. Now no thought arises to say ‘I have seen’, so how can any thought arise to say ‘I have not seen’. When in ancient times you made it known without saying, who can make it known (or make it clear) by saying? You stand as a hill from ground to sky only to make your state known without words.

So no words can reveal silence. ‘You stand as a hill from ground to sky’ is an analogy meaning ‘the all-pervading hill’.

Out of all forms of God, why only the form of Arunachala attracted Bhagavan? It is because Arunachala is the embodiment of silence. In the manifest world we saw Bhagavan’s great love for Arunachala. That is the outward expression of his love for silence, which is our real nature. So only by loving silence, as Bhagavan loved silence, as Bhagavan loved Arunachala, can we really know what we really are. Silence is what we really are.

So the whole of Bhagavan’s teachings ties together, whether it’s Sri Arunachala Stuti Panchakam, whether it’s Ekatma Panchakam, whether it’s Ulladu Narpadu, Upadesa Undiyar, Nan Yar? or Appala-p-pattu. All these places Bhagavan is pointing us back to silence, and that is what we really are. So silence is not the highest teaching, it’s the only teaching ultimately, because it’s only by silence that it will all be revealed.

Just like the teaching is in silence, the learning has to be also in silence, and that requires us to turn our attention back within. It is only when we turn our attention within that the root of all noise, namely the ego, subsides. Only then we can experience real silence.

Bhagavan’s whole life was an expression of silence.


porul said...

Sanjay Lohia,
"find out if ajnana exists in the first place" is only another expression/wording for "uprooting deep-rooted ajnana" and "looking for this mind" and "find out who is bound" and "turn within to look at ourself".

To realise that there never was any bondage or liberation might be the fruit of our efforts.

Mouna said...

Hey Salazar, oh great sage of lore

You still don’t get that everybody here is trying the best they can, for some reason you would like everybody here to be jnanis, as per your statement of speaking with so called “jnanis”. And that of course is frustrating, so why didn’t you stick with your “jnani” instead of lowering yourself down to these bunch of ignorants that we are, full of spiritual pride, shortcomings, etc? Why are you still self-inflicting pain by visiting this blog, is it because you want to “teach” us ajnanis how to think about all this?… or is it that still you can’t accept that things are what they are and you are yet unable to accept them, wanting them to be otherwise?

This blog proved to be a good “grinding” experience for our wordly psychology and even if, in my case, I did have roughing times with many of us here, I love them all, almost like a family. Some people they have time to write long discussions, some others don’t. Some they like to have long discussions, some they don’t.

There has been a lot of people in the past criticizing the blog because they “thought that”… or critizicing Michael because “they thought that”… they all came, stay for a while and then went their way, thinking maybe, that the ones that stayed are not “worth of their attention”… good for them then!

The less expectations you have on others the more happier and profitable will be your life my friend.

oh and by the way, thank you for putting me first on your list of “ajnanis” whom: ”...stating their concepts and then start arguing when the other seemingly disagrees. I've seen that with mouna,etc...”, it’s a well deserved title!

Last but not least, the idea that “ALL” the manana here is simply bovine manure is mostly (if not all) in your head, so I understand how that must be very uncomfortable to carry with…

And of course I won’t respond to any comment you will make to this one, of course, because not only I am in the reacting mood today but mainly because… who cares?

PS: testing you, do you still want to "kiss and make up" after this?...)
Relax :)
M

gargoyle said...

I’m confused…should I give up Atma Vichara and now spend my time exploring prarabdha?

I hope Salazar all the best in his spiritual practice and hope he finds his happiness.

He reminds me of my past and the attitude I once had. Very similar indeed.

Bhagavan has done wonders for me, not saying I don’t have a lot of work ahead, as I do.

Until we meet again, just call me clueless x 100


vasuki said...

gargoyle,
regarding your hopes relating to Salazar's outbursts of grandeur:
unless one does purify his heart he never can find happiness because arrogance,impertinence, presumptuousness, bragging, conceitedness, pompousness, self-importance and similar "amazing qualities" obstruct our view. As the proverb has it: Pride goes before a fall. That is certain.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Porul, we should have no doubt that to realise there never was any bondage can only be the fruit of our effort. As Bhagavan used to say, ‘no one succeeds without perseverance’. What is needed is tireless perseverance and great patience. Of course, Bhagavan is the inspiration and support of our effort. Without his loving pull from within no real sadhana is possible.

porul said...

Sanjay Lohia,
as you say, Bhagavan is the inspiration and support of our effort. Without his loving pull from within no real sadhana is possible.
Particularly and only then when I feel a kind of pulsating/throbbing pull from within/inside my attempts to go deep behind the realm of the mind go off well.

Sanjay Lohia said...

What decision we make at any time really does not matter

About three or four years back, I was addicted to placing shits before Bhagavan’s picture whenever I wanted to decide on any course of action. These chits had various options, and I tried acting according to whatever chit I picked. I thought this is working for me – in the sense, I thought Bhagavan or some higher power was guiding me to take correct decisions by this process. When I shared this addiction of mine with Michael sometime in 2013, this is what he replied:

Casting lots or chits is not a form of spiritual guidance, and can only be a guidance in worldly matters, albeit a very dubious type of guidance.

The only possible spiritual application of it I could imagine is if you are faced with a real dilemma in which you have to choose between two options and you have absolutely no means of judging which would be the correct one to choose, and if you decide that you will abide by whichever option the lots or chits select, taking that to be will of Bhagavan. However, this would only be a ‘spiritual’ application if you are really able to accept the outcome (whatever it may be, whether seemingly ‘good’ or ‘bad’) as his will, and if you are able thereby to remain unmoved whether the outcome is seemingly favourable or unfavourable.

However, since we have learnt from Bhagavan that whatever happens is according to his will, we do not actually need such gimmicks to surrender to his will. Surrender means accepting joyfully and calmly whatever may happen, being completely indifferent to both pleasure and pain. If we understand this, when we are faced with dilemma, we can trust Bhagavan to guide us from within, and with such trust we can choose (for ‘better’ or for ‘worse’) whichever options seems best, and then accept the outcome as his will, without allowing our mind to be agitated by it.

You ask why, if it does ‘work’, placing chits before Bhagavan’s picture ‘works’. What do you mean by ‘works;’? if you mean that it ‘works’ if it the outcome is favourable to you, but does not 'work' if it is unfavourable, that would be worldly - kamyata - attitude, and it would be folly to believe that it will ‘work’ in such a way.

(I will continue this in my next comment)

Sanjay Lohia said...

In continuation of my previous comment:

It would ‘work’ – and could be absolutely guaranteed to ‘work’ – if you firmly believe that whatever happens is his will and is therefore what is best, whether or not we can understand that it is best. The reason it would ‘work’ is that whatever is to happen will certainly happen, and it would happen whether or not you use chits to make your decision.

In fact, what decision we make at any time really does not matter, because no decision that we make can change what is to happen. If we make a decision that is not according to his will, something will obstruct whatever we have decided. As Bhagavan wrote in his message to his mother:

According to their-their prārabdha, he who is for that being there-there will cause to dance [that is, according to the destiny (prārabdha) of each person, he who is for that (namely God or guru, who ordains their destiny) being in the heart of each of them will make them act]. What is never to happen will not happen whatever effort one makes [to make it happen]; what is to happen will not stop whatever obstruction [or resistance] one does [to prevent it happening]. This indeed is certain. Therefore silently being [or being silent] is good.

Therefore, if we really wish to surrender to his will, the proper course is not to place chits before his picture, but is to remain inwardly silent. And the only means by which we can thus remain inwardly silent is explained by him in the 13th paragraph of Nan Yar? (Who am I?):

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.

In other words, it is best to give up all thoughts of chits, lots or anything else whatsoever, and instead cling fast to atma-chintana, the thought of self alone.

My note: After receiving this email, I very soon almost gave up placing such chits before Bhagavan’s picture. However, by the force of habit, I have done this once or twice in the last few years.



chit-shakti said...

verse 25,
linked article of Sunday, 14 June 2009 Ulladu Narpadu – an explanatory paraphrase

"...since this ego has no form (no finite and separate existence) of its own, it can seemingly come into existence and endure only when we imagine ourself to be the form of a body, and it flourishes when we attend to any form (anything that appears to be separate from ourself)."

"...since this ego is a ‘formless ghost’ and since it can therefore rise and endure only by ‘grasping form’, when it tries to ‘grasp’ (or attend to) itself, which is not a form, it will subside and disappear."

"...the truth that our mind or ego is nourished and sustained by attending to anything other than itself, and will therefore be dissolved and destroyed only by attending to itself."

"...It is also the key to complete self-surrender, because our false self is sustained by attending to anything other than itself, and hence we can effectively surrender it only by vigilantly scrutinising it."

unpleasant smell said...

Sanjay Lohia,
you certainly did not really place "shits" before Bhagavan's picture but only chits or lots.

chit-shakti said...

verse 25,
linked article of Sunday, 12 July 2009 ‘Tracing the ego back to its source’

"...Therefore in practice 'tracing the ego back to its source' means only attending vigilantly to our ego or finite sense of 'I' in order to make it subside back into our pristine non-dual self-conscious being, 'I am', which is the source or 'birthplace' from which it originated."

linked article of Friday, 7 October 2011 Manōnāśa – destruction of mind

"Because the mind or ego has no form of its own, it seems to exist only by attending to forms (which are all products of its imagination), but if it attempts to attend to itself, it will find no form to grasp, so it will subside and disappear.

The mind seems to exist only in waking and in dream, when it has grasped a body as itself, but it subsides and disappears in sleep, because sleep is a state in which it is too exhausted to grasp any form, so it subsides in its source to recuperate its energy.

Because sleep is only a temporary state of subsidence, it is a state of manōlaya (abeyance of mind), and from it the mind will certainly rise again. Likewise death and coma are both only states of manōlaya, as also is any temporary subsidence or samādhi achieved by means of yōga and other such spiritual practices that entail attending to anything other than 'I'."

chit-shakti said...

verse 25,
linked article of Saturday, 4 January 2014 Focusing only on 'I'

"But how to surrender this 'I'? We can surrender all that is ours, but how to surrender ourself? Since this 'I' thrives by attending to anything other than itself, and withers when it is not allowed to attend to anything else, the only way to effectively surrender it is to attend to it.

That is, the nature of 'I' is that it rises and thrives when it attends to anything else, but withers and subsides when it attends only to itself. This is explained clearly by Bhagavan in verse 25 of உள்ளது நாற்பது (Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu)..."

English translation: Grasping form, the formless phantom-ego rises into being; grasping form it stands [or endures]; grasping and feeding on form it grows [or flourishes] abundantly; leaving [one] form, it grasps [another] form. If sought [examined or investigated], it takes flight. Know [thus].

In this context ‘form’ (உரு: uru) means anything other than ‘I’. The ego rises only by attending to such things, it endures only by attending to them, it thrives only by feeding on them, and when it leaves one such thing it catches hold of another one. But if we seek to know what this ego is by examining it closely, it takes flight (ஓட்டம் பிடிக்கும்: ōṭṭam piḍikkum): in other words, it subsides and disappears.

This therefore is the only effective way to surrender the 'I' that thinks 'I want to surrender everything to God'.

If we are really intent up surrendering everything (including ourself) to God (who is none other than our real self, 'I am'), what does it matter whether or not our life in this world is a dream? Whether it is a dream or real, it all has to be surrendered back to him, the source from which it all came."

linked article of Saturday, 25 January 2014 By discovering what 'I' actually is, we will swallow time

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

Sanjay Lohia said...

Unpleasant smell, yes, it should have been ‘About three or four years back, I was addicted to placing chits before Bhagavan’s picture whenever I wanted to decide on any course of action'. Thank you.

Incidentally, Michael once wrote to me saying that I should forget all about chits, and focus my entire attention instead only on chit (our self-awareness).

chit-shakti said...

verse 25,
linked article of Wednesday, 5 February 2014 Spontaneously and wordlessly applying the clue: 'to whom? to me; who am I?'

"He describes this thinking (thought-experiencing) 'I' as a thought because it is not our original and essential pristine 'I' (what we really are), which is devoid of adjuncts, but is this same 'I' mixed with adjuncts such as this body and mind and whatever else it experiences as 'I', and hence he often described it as the thought 'I am this body'.
In its pristine state, 'I' is not a thought but the one infinite reality, but when it is mixed with adjuncts, which are all thoughts, it thereby partakes the nature of thought and functions as such, rising and enduring in waking and dream but subsiding and disappearing in sleep. However, though it is a thought, this 'I' is fundamentally different to all other thoughts in two important respects:

Firstly, no other thought experiences either itself or anything else, but is experienced only by this 'I', whereas this 'I' experiences both itself and all other thoughts, and is experienced by nothing other than itself. Secondly and more importantly, other thoughts rise and flourish only when this 'I' attends to them, and they subside and disappear as soon as it ceases attending to them, whereas this 'I' rises and flourishes only when it attends to other thoughts, and it subsides and disappears when it tries to attend to itself.

In other words, this thought called 'I' depends for its seeming existence upon whatever other thoughts it is currently attending to and experiencing, so if it ceases attending to or experiencing any other thought by attending only to itself, its seemingly separate existence begins to dissolve and disappear in its source, leaving as residue only its source and substance, the one pure adjunct-free 'I', which alone is real.
Sri Ramana does not advise us merely to cease attending to any other thought, because that would only result in a sleep-like state of manō-laya (temporary subsidence of mind) and would not help us to achieve manō-nāśa (complete annihilation of the mind), which can be achieved only by experiencing ourself (this 'I') as we really are. Hence what he advises is that we should attend only to 'I' in order to clearly experience who or what this 'I' actually is.

When we try thus to experience this 'I' as it actually is by attending keenly and vigilantly to the primal thought that we now experience as 'I', this thought will subside and disappear. This is why he says: ‘If sought [examined or investigated], it takes flight’ (தேடினால் ஓட்டம் பிடிக்கும்: tēḍiṉāl ōṭṭam piḍikkum). When it thus ‘takes flight’ (subsides and disappears), what remains in its place is only the one pristine 'I', which is what we really are.

The reason why this ego or thought called 'I' thus ‘takes flight’ when it is examined or investigated is that it seems to exist only when it is grasping a gross form (that is, attending to any thought other than itself), so when it tries to grasp (attend to and experience) only itself it subsides, since it has no form of its own for it to cling to (which is why he describes it as the ‘formless phantom-ego’, உரு அற்ற பேய் அகந்தை: uru aṯṟa pēy ahandai). Thus in this verse, which is a clear summary of one of his most basic and essential teachings, he has revealed to us a unique and crucially important property of this ego or thought called 'I' (which is the primal and only essential thought that constitutes the mind), namely that it seems to exist only when it is attending to anything other than itself, and that it therefore subsides and ceases to exist when it attends only to itself.


(To be continued in my next comment)

chit-shakti said...

verse 25,
in continuation of my previous comment:
This is the basic principle upon which his entire teachings are based, and the logic of his teachings cannot adequately understood unless this is firmly imprinted in our mind, so it deserves to be printed in bold type:

The mind or ego, which is our primal thought 'I', seems to exist only when it attends to and thereby experiences anything other than itself, and it subsides and ceases to exist when it attends to and thereby experiences only itself.

Since everything that we attend to and experience other than 'I' is just a thought, and since attending to and experiencing them is what sustains the illusion that we are this mind or ego, if we are to destroy this illusion and thereby experience ourself as we really are, we must cease attending to any kind of thought (anything other than 'I') by persistently focusing our entire attention upon 'I' alone, and by drawing our attention back to 'I' whenever it is distracted even in the least by the appearance of any other thought.

Apart from our primal thought 'I', all thoughts are about something other than 'I', and even our primal thought 'I' seems to exist only by attaching itself to other thoughts, beginning with whatever body it currently experiences as 'I'. However, though it is always mixed with other thoughts, which are all unreal appearances, our primal thought 'I' does contain an element of reality, namely its essential 'I'-ness, so when we attend only to this essential 'I'-ness, all its unreal elements (its adjuncts) will be ignored and will therefore disappear from our awareness.

This essential 'I'-ness is what Sri Ramana refers to as ‘the essential chit aspect of the ego’ in the following passage recorded in the final chapter of Maharshi’s Gospel:

[...] The ego functions as the knot [granthi] between the Self which is Pure Consciousness [chit] and the physical body which is inert and insentient [jada]. The ego is therefore called the chit-jada granthi. In your investigation into the source of aham-vritti [the ‘I’-thought], you take the essential chit [consciousness or awareness] aspect of the ego; [...]

Because we are accustomed to attending only to other thoughts, which are relatively gross (being forms of one kind or another and hence having discernible and distinguishing features), our power of our attention is at present insufficiently refined to attend only to its essential ‘I’-ness, which is extremely subtle (being formless and hence featureless), so we are currently unable to experience our essential ‘I’-ness in complete isolation from even the slightest trace of any other thought. However, by persistently training ourself to attend only to ‘I’ in this manner taught to us by Sri Ramana, we will gradually refine and sharpen our power of attention until eventually it will be sufficiently refined, sharp and clear for us to experience our essential ‘I’-ness in complete isolation from all other thoughts, whereupon we will experience ourself as we really are, thereby destroying forever the illusion that we are anything other than that.

Since thoughts are what distract our attention away from 'I', Sri Ramana gave us this powerful clue 'to whom? to me; who am I?' as the only effective means by which we can persistently turn our attention back towards 'I' away from any thought that has distracted us even to the slightest extent. Whatever thought may appear to distract us, we should remember to turn our attention away from it back to the 'I' that experiences it — the 'I' to whom it has appeared."

Sanjay Lohia said...

Bhagavan teaches us in the 13th paragraph of Nan Yar:

Since one paramēśvara śakti [supreme ruling power or power of God] is driving all activities [everything that happens in this world], instead of yielding to it why should we always think, ‘it is necessary to act in this way; it is necessary to act in that way’? Though we know that the train is going bearing all the burdens, why should we who go travelling in it suffer bearing our small luggage on our head instead of remaining happily leaving it placed on that [train]?

However, is this paramesvara sakti real? That is, does it exist independent or apart from atma-svarupa? I had some similar doubts in the year 2013, and when I conveyed my doubts to Michael, this is what he wrote to me:

The power of the reality (which is the true form of grace) does not ever do anything, but just is. It is the power of just being, not a power of doing anything.
In contrast, both paramesvara sakti and maya are concepts that does something, and since doing (karma) is unreal, neither of them are real. That is, they are not absolutely real (paramarthika satya), even though they are in effect real from a relative (vyvaharika) perceptive.

However, though they are not absolutely real, they are nothing other than the one real power, so we could say that one real power (which is self) seems to act in the form of both paramesvara sakti and maya (which are what Ramakrishna Paramahamsa called respectively vidya and avidya maya, the former being grace and the latter being its opposite).

My note: So ultimately both paramesvara sakti and maya are concepts, but, as Michael explains, ‘they are in effect real from a relative (vyvaharika) perceptive.
So long as we experience ourself as this ego and a person, we should have full faith in paramesvara sakti to carry all our worldly burdens. This sakti is nothing other than Bhagavan, and therefore we should blindly trust it to take care of us, along with our entire luggage.

As Bhagavan said about Arunachala, ‘what is a burden for you, the all sustaining one’? When this supreme power is taking perfect care of this world, will it not take care of our small burden? We should happily place all our worldly burdens in its care, so that we become free to focus wholeheartedly on our practice of self-investigation.

Divine Madman said...

Salazar,

Your comments and your views are pretty clear so I don't think I am assuming anything to be honest. I am just quoting things you actually said.

I see you have not answered my questions again about how you can be so sure your understanding of prarabdha is true and others are wrong.

It doesn't matter. :o)

I was just curious how you could be so sure and criticise others understanding that's all.

Let me share with you what I believe about prarabdha.

I am not sure and don't know for certain because it is just a concept I have acquired. This is why I am not criticising your understanding believe it or not because how can criticise or argue about something I am unsure of myself. That would be a bit foolish I think.

There are not many things I am certain about, one thing for example is I exist and am self aware.

Bhagavan often said to never believe anything he says but find out for ourself.

Anyway to end on a light humorous note.

You said:

[Atma-vichara doesn't need the concept of prarabdha[and therefore I don't feel the need to engage you further in beating down the exhausted horse.]

But Salazar you won't have a choice whether you engage me further and continue beating the exhausted horse, will you? What choice do you have? If you can choose to carry on it would violate your own correct understanding of Prarabdha.

I say that tongue in cheek of course. :o)

porul said...

Sanjay Lohia,
if I am right your recent explanation about paramesvara sakti and maya related correctly to the relative 'perspective' - not 'perceptive'.

chit-shakti said...

verse 25,
linked article of Friday, 25 April 2014 Scientific research on consciousness

"Therefore, to destroy our present illusion that we are the form of this body, we must examine ourself and thereby discover what this 'I' actually is. If we do so, this ego, which now seems to be 'I', will 'take flight' and cease to exist, after which whatever is really 'I' alone will remain."

linked article of Friday, 29 August 2014 The crucial secret revealed by Sri Ramana: the only means to subdue our mind permanently

"...the nature of the mind or ego (our primal thought called ‘I’) is to rise, endure and be nourished so long as it attends to anything other than itself (that is, anything other than ‘I’), and to subside when it tries to attend to itself alone. This is clearly stated by Sri Bhagavan in verse 25 of உள்ளது நாற்பது (Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: Forty Verses on What Is).

" 'If sought, it takes flight', means that if it tries to attend to itself, it will subside and disappear. This is the crucial and extremely valuable secret that Sri Bhagavan has revealed to us all about the nature of our ego or mind: If we attend to anything other than ourself, our mind will thereby rise and be nourished, whereas if we attend only to ourself, our mind will thereby subside and dissolve in its source."

I have to admit - I never tried to attend constantly only to myself. Mostly I failed because of my lack of perseverance.

chit-shakti said...

verse 25,
linked article of Sunday, 28 September 2014 The perceiver and the perceived are both unreal
"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. In the absence of the perceiver, nothing is ever perceived, and in the absence of anything perceived, there is a never a perceiver. The perceiver and the perceived are therefore mutually dependent."

"...the ego (the perceiver) rises into being, endures and is nourished only by clinging to forms (that is, to things that it perceives). However, according to Sri Ramana whatever it perceives does not exist in its absence, so before it rises there is no form for it to cling to, and hence when it rises it simultaneously projects the forms that it clings to.

Therefore the seeming existence of the perceived depends upon the seeming existence of the perceiver, so the perceived actually exists only if the perceiver actually exists. So does this perceiver, the ego, actually exist? It seems to rise into existence and to endure only by experiencing the perceived, so throughout the time of its seeming existence it never experiences itself alone, in complete isolation from everything else perceived by it.

Since it cannot rise or endure without experiencing some form or other (that is, something other than itself), if it tries to experience itself alone, in complete isolation from everything else, it will subside and lose its seeming existence. This is why Sri Ramana says in this verse: ‘தேடினால் ஓட்டம் பிடிக்கும்’ (tēḍiṉāl ōṭṭam piḍikkum), 'If sought, it will take flight'. That is, the ego seems to exist only so long as it is experiencing anything other than 'I', so if it tries to experience only 'I' (itself), it 'will take fligh' — that is, it will subside and cease to exist even seemingly."

chit-shakti said...

verse 25,
linked article of Saturday, 13 December 2014 The need for manana and vivēka: reflection, critical thinking, discrimination and judgement

"Here உரு (uru) or ‘form’ means anything that has distinguishing features of any kind whatsoever — that is, any features that distinguish it in any way from anything else. Since we ourself are essentially featureless, we are formless, and hence ‘form’ here denotes anything other than ourself. By itself, the ego has no ‘form’ or distinguishing features, so Sri Ramana describes it here as உருவற்ற பேய் அகந்தை (uru-v-aṯṟa pēy ahandai), ‘the formless phantom-ego’. Since it has no form, the ego is not actually anything other than our infinite real self, so it can seem to exist as a separate entity only by attaching itself to forms (that is, to things that are other than itself), which it creates along with itself.

Therefore the ego rises into seeming existence by creating and attaching itself to forms, it ‘stands’ or endures by continuing to attach itself to forms, and by thus feeding on forms it waxes and flourishes. Since it cannot endure without grasping some form or another, when it lets go of one form it grasps another one. How it ‘grasps’ or attaches itself to forms is by experiencing them, and it experiences them by attending to them. Hence what nourishes and sustains the ego is only attention to anything other than itself. Therefore if, instead of attending to anything else, the ego tries to attend to itself alone, it will subside and dissolve in its source, our real self.

Hence Sri Ramana concludes this verse by saying: ‘தேடினால் ஓட்டம் பிடிக்கும்’ (tēḍiṉāl ōṭṭam piḍikkum), 'If sought, it will take flight'. Here தேடினால் (tēḍiṉāl) literally means 'if sought', so this conditional sentence implies that if we try to see, examine or investigate what the ego actually is, it will disappear, having no real existence of its own.

Sanjay Lohia said...

In Search of a Lost Love – Lessons from the Musk Deer by Radhanath Swami:

Mother Nature is always speaking. She speaks in a language understood within the peaceful mind of the sincere observer. Leopards, cobras, monkeys, rivers and trees; they all served as my teachers when I lived as a wanderer in the Himalayan foothills. They shared the kind of lessons that elevate the spirit.

One particularly illuminating lesson from the forest comes in the form of the Himalayan musk deer. The musk deer is referenced in Sanskrit poetry and philosophy owing to its peculiar behavior. Prized by the perfume industry for its exceptional aroma, musk is one of the world’s most expensive natural products, fetching more than three times its weight in gold. The aroma of musk is so alluring that when the stag’s sensitive nose catches wind of it he roams the forest day and night in pursuit of its source. He exhausts himself in a fruitless quest, never realizing the bitter irony: the sweet fragrance he was chasing resided nowhere but within himself. Musk, you see, is produced by a gland in the stag’s very own navel: it was searching without for what was all along lying within.

The sages of India found in the musk deer an apt description of the human condition. We are all pleasure-seeking creatures wandering a forest of some sort — replete with pleasures and perils alike. Moreover, we are prone to the same type of folly as the deer: we seek our happiness externally. Misconceiving our true needs, we wrongly equate our fulfillment and self-worth with possessions, positions, mental and sensual thrills. We are often drawn into superficial relationships which hold the promise of lasting satisfaction, yet leave us feeling empty.

The true treasure lies within.

My note: An excellent analogy! Our condition is exactly like the musk deer, isn't it?

chit-shakti said...

verse 25,
linked article of Sunday, 4 January 2015 The fundamental law of experience or consciousness discovered by Sri Ramana
5. The fundamental law of experience

" […] The mind stands only [by] always going after [attending and thereby attaching itself to] something gross [something other than 'I']; solitarily it does not stand. […]

This principle is clearly stated by him in verse 25 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu:
...
"In other words, by experiencing (being aware or conscious of) anything other than ourself, we are nourishing and sustaining the illusion that we are this ego or mind, whereas by experiencing (being aware or conscious of) ourself alone, we would be depriving this illusion of the support that it requires into order to endure, and thereby we can dissolve it entirely. Since this principle governs all that we experience or could ever experience, we can call it the fundamental law of experience, awareness or consciousness.

This is why witnessing, observing or attending to any thoughts other than 'I' alone is counterproductive. So long as we are aware of any thoughts — anything other than 'I' (ourself) alone — we are sustaining the illusory experience that our ego or mind is 'I', so we cannot thereby experience ourself as we really are. In order to experience ourself as we really are, we must attend only to 'I'.

Therefore according to Sri Ramana the only real sādhana or spiritual practice is ātma-vicāra — investigating ourself by trying to experience nothing other than 'I' alone. Any other sādhana entails attending to something other than 'I', so it will sustain the illusion that this ego is what we really are.

This essential principle or fundamental law of experience was discovered by Sri Ramana when as a sixteen-year-old schoolboy he investigated himself in order to find out whether or not he (his essential self or 'I') would cease to exist when his body died, and it is the basis of his teaching that self-investigation (ātma-vicāra) is the only means by which we can experience ourself as we really are and thereby destroy the entire illusion of ego and otherness."

Unfortunately the above fundamental law of experience is still not firmly and unshakably established in my mind...

chit-shakti said...

verse 25,
linked article of Sunday, 11 January 2015 Why are compassion and ahiṁsā necessary in a dream?
8. To keep our ego in check we must be vigilantly self-attentive

"Since we ourself are formless, we cannot continue to experience ourself as this ego if we attend to and thereby experience ourself alone. And on the other hand, we cannot cease to experience ourself as this ego so long as we persist in attending to and experiencing anything other than ourself. Therefore self-negligence sustains our ego, and self-attentiveness alone can subdue and destroy it. Hence the only means by which we can effectively keep our ego in check and prevent it deluding us is by being constantly and vigilantly self-attentive."

chit-shakti said...

verse 25,
linked article of Monday, 9 February 2015 Self-attentiveness is not an action, because we ourself are not two but only one

"... Therefore if we try to attend to ourself alone, we will thereby cease attending to or 'grasping' anything else, and hence our ego will 'take flight' — that is, the illusion that we are this ego will dissolve and disappear — and what will then remain is only our essential awareness of ourself as we really are."

I excerpt from Michael's comment on that article:
"...Even in the midst of a busy lifestyle, we still find time to think many unnecessary thoughts, so if we try to replace all the moments that we spend thinking such thoughts with moments of attempting to be self-attentive, we will end up having spent much of our day trying to be self-attentive, albeit not for a long duration at each attempt, but just many brief attempts."

chit-shakti said...

verse 25,
linkled article of Saturday, 14 March 2015 Self-attentiveness and self-awareness
3. We should try to attend only to ourself and not to anything else

"Whether we talk of looking at, noticing, acknowledging, witnessing, watching, observing or putting attention on thoughts, it all means the same thing, and it all entails ‘grasping form’ and ‘feeding on form’, so it is the direct opposite of attending only to ourself, as Sri Ramana advised us to do. Witnessing, watching or observing is not different to attending, and if we witness, watch, observe or attend to any thought it will not subside or fade away but will only grow stronger.

Therefore our aim should not be to witness or be aware of any thought, but only to witness or be aware of ourself alone. Trying to do so is alone the correct practice of self-investigation (ātma-vicāra) as taught by Sri Ramana."

4. Being self-attentive in the midst of other work

"...but if you spend all or most of the rest of your time trying to be self-attentive, you will gradually find that a subtle degree of self-attentiveness can continue even while you are attending to all the necessary thoughts that your work entails."

Sanjay Lohia said...

Whether we know it or not, all dissatisfaction and desire are a longing for self

Michael once wrote to me: Whether we know it or not, all dissatisfaction and desire are a longing for self, because so long as we seem to be a separate entity, we will feel a deep yearning for what we have lost, namely our natural state of self, and hence we can never be satisfied for long with our present state of finitude.

We are dissatisfied because we can never be satisfied with any happiness less than the infinite happiness of self, so until we merge back in self we will always be driven by a deep desire and longing for infinite happiness. Whatever else we may desire, we desire it because we believe it will make us happy. Since longing for happiness is thus the driving force behind every desire, and since there is no real happiness in anything other than self, all desire is just a distorted form of our love and longing for self.

chit-shakti said...

verse 25,
linked article of Tuesday, 14 April 2015 What is the difference between meditation and self-investigation?
6. We seem to be this ego only when we are experiencing anything other than ourself

"Our ego seems to exist only so long as we are attending to and thereby experiencing anything other than ourself, so by attending to any such thing we are nourishing and sustaining our ego, whereas if we try to attend only to ourself we will thereby dissolve this illusion called ego. This is the crucial secret that Bhagavan teaches us in verse 25 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu:
...
Bhagavan describes our ego as 'the formless phantom-ego' (உருவற்ற பேய் அகந்தை: uru-v-aṯṟa pēy ahandai) because it has no form of its own. If it did not grasp and mistake itself to be any form (a body), it would not seem to be a form, so when it does not grasp any form, its formless nature is revealed, and hence we will then experience it as nothing other than our real self. This is why he says that if we seek this ego (that is, if we try to experience it alone), 'it will take flight' — that is, it will cease to seem to be an ego, and will instead be experienced as what we really are, which is what is called brahman.

Therefore the essential truth that Bhagavan repeatedly emphasised is that by attending to anything other than ourself we are nourishing and sustaining our ego, so the only way to destroy our ego is to try to attend to ourself alone. This is why he taught us that we should not meditate on anything else but only on ourself.

This simple principle is the cornerstone of his teachings, so in order to follow the path that he has shown us without getting distracted by or diverted onto any other path, it is essential that we understand and never forget this.

Every other kind of spiritual practice entails attending to something other than ourself, so it can only nourish and sustain our ego. Therefore ātma-vicāra — the simple practice of attending to or meditating on ourself alone — is the only means by which we can experience ourself as we really are and thereby destroy forever the illusion that we are this ego."

Sanjay Lohia said...

Michael once wrote to me: Tamas is like the darkness in a cinema theatre; sattva is like the light which is used (or rather misused) to project a picture on the screen, and rajas is like the seeming activity that appears on the screen as a result of the combination of light and darkness. We could say that being enveloped in darkness (ajnana, the basic form of tamas) makes us restless with desire (rajas), which is caused by our lack of satisfaction with anything less than pure light (jnana, the basic form of sattva).

If we focus our attention only on the light of pure self-awareness, ‘I am’, sattva (the quality of being-ness, sat-tva) alone will shine, but as soon as we allow our attention to slip even the least away from this light, the darkness of ignorance (tamas) arises, and close behind in the wake of tamas, rajas also arises.

Therefore Bhagavan teaches us to attend only to the pure light of self-awareness, ‘I am’, and thereby to avoid falling prey to either tamas and rajas and all the evil qualities they give rise to. The only medicine that can cure this disease (dis-ease) of tamas and consequently rajas is pure sattva, which is our natural state of pristine being-ness (sat-tva).

Sanjay Lohia said...

Porul, yes, it should have been 'perspective'. I thank you for pointing out this typo.

chit-shakti said...

verse 25,
linked article of Tuesday, 21 April 2015 What is meant by the term sākṣi or ‘witness’?
2. Can sākṣi-bhāva be an effective spiritual practice?

"Since our ego rises and stands only by attaching itself to something other than itself, it is born and survives only in a state of attachment, so we cannot free ourself from all our attachments unless we free ourself from our ego. Therefore, since our ego will dissolve and cease to exist only when it tries to attend to itself alone, being self-attentive is the only means by which we can give up or free ourself from all our attachments. This is why Bhagavan concluded verse 26 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu (which I cited earlier in this article) by saying: ‘ஆதலால், யாது இது என்று நாடலே ஓவுதல் யாவும் என ஓர்’ (ādalāl, yādu idu eṉḏṟu nādal-ē ōvudal yāvum eṉa ōr), which means, ‘Therefore, know that investigating what this [ego] is alone is giving up everything’.

That is, since our ego is merely a formless phantom — an illusory appearance, something that seems to exist but does not actually exist — if we investigate it by trying to attend to it alone, it will disappear entirely, like an illusory snake when it is recognised to be just a rope, and since everything else seems to exist only so long as we experience ourself as this ego, by investigating and experiencing what this ego actually is we will not only give up this ego but also everything else, including all our attachments.

In the final analysis, we are faced at each moment with just two options: either we try to investigate and experience what we actually are, or we allow our attention to continue grasping other things. So long as we allow our attention to grasp anything other than ourself, we are thereby nourishing and sustaining not only our ego but also all its attachments, so by choosing the second option we can never experience real detachment. Therefore the only effective means by which we can experience real detachment is self-investigation (ātma-vicāra) — that is, trying to be exclusively self-attentive.

Hence, if we interpret the term sākṣi-bhāva to mean an attempt to be detached even while we are aware of whatever seems to be happening, either within ourself or outside in the world in which we now seem to be living, that would be a self-deluding and futile attempt, and therefore not a proper spiritual practice. Therefore, if we want to interpret this term sākṣi-bhāva to mean an effective spiritual practice, we have to interpret it to mean only self-investigation, the simple practice of trying to be aware of ourself alone.

So long as we are aware of anything other than ourself, we are grasping it (holding it in our awareness) and thereby attaching ourself to it. Therefore we cannot be genuinely detached from anything so long as we are aware of it, and hence the only way in which we can be truly detached from everything is by being self-attentive — that is, by grasping nothing other than ourself alone. "

gargoyle said...

Sanjay

thanks for sharing the emails from Michael

I found the following to be very helpful...

"Whether we know it or not, all dissatisfaction and desire are a longing for self, because so long as we seem to be a separate entity, we will feel a deep yearning for what we have lost, namely our natural state of self, and hence we can never be satisfied for long with our present state of finitude."

Often times I read something and find the wording to be slightly different from what I have read many times before and suddenly I have that "Aha" moment where I finally understand what is being said. Such is the case on the email you shared.

This has been especially true when I watch the videos.

I realize many people get tired of seeing/reading the same subject over and over but I never do.

It's because I am so dense it takes a while for me to finally get it.

Remember back in grade school there is always the kid that was different than most others, never had friends, picked on by the bullies as well as the teachers, could not learn what was being taught, known in school as the idiot, the dunce, etc., etc., etc.

Oh, wait a minute, that was me.

Take care, I trust all is well with you and your family.






Sanjay Lohia said...

Gargoyle, thanks. Yes, by Bhagavan’s grace all is well with me and my family. I hope the same is the case at your end.

Yes, as Michael says, all dissatisfaction and desire are a longing for self. If we reflect on this statement, it becomes blatantly clear that this has to be true. We do not see a single creature – human or non-human – fully satisfied. We are always looking for something or the other. Even our pet dog looks forward to our affection. The more (money, power, name and fame, or whatever) we have, the more dissatisfied we are, because we still want more. So we can reach total satisfaction or complete non-seeking, only when we are able to merge in our true infinite nature. It cannot be any other way.

Yes, Michael’s videos are wonderful. How can a person know so much? Michael can be called ‘a man who knows too much’ (obviously not said in a negative sense). This is not only in reference to his knowledge about Bhagavan’s teachings, because he knows practically about everything under the sun. It’s a rare blessing to have someone like Michael in our midst. I think we are too close to his time to appreciate his full worth.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Michael once said in one of his videos: The mere presence of a jnani in the world is enough to be a blessing for the whole world. He does not have to give out his teaching...

I was not clear what exactly this meant, so I requested Michael to clarify this, and this is what he wrote:

Many of the things we are taught about jnanis are relatively true – that is, true relative to our limited perspective that sees the jnani as a person with a body and mind.

Therefore when for example Bhagavan said as recorded in verse 303 of Guru Vachaka Kovai, ‘It is said that the mere life on earth of a great jnani, who ever revels in sat [self], is itself the supremely pure uchishtam of God, which will remove all the sins of the world’, he is clearly talking from our relative perspective. This statement of his is as true as the world that we see, and as true as our belief that certain people we see in this world such as Bhagavan are jnanis.

Of course, from the standpoint of ajata, all this is completely untrue, but then so is everything else that we experience, including this person that we now experience as ourself.

chit-shakti said...

verse 25,
linked article of Monday, 11 May 2015 ‘Observation without the observer’ and ‘choiceless awareness’: Why the teachings of J. Krishnamurti are diametrically opposed to those of Sri Ramana
2. We cannot choose to be ‘choicelessly aware’

"Just as we have chosen to be aware of other things, we can also choose to be aware of ourself alone, and only if we choose this latter option will our ego and everything else evaporate, leaving ourself alone, as Bhagavan indicates when he says in verse 25 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, ‘தேடினால் ஓட்டம் பிடிக்கும்’ (tēḍiṉāl ōṭṭam piḍikkum), which means, ‘If sought [examined or investigated], it will take flight’. That is, what nourishes and sustains our ego is only its awareness of anything other than itself, so if instead of choosing to be aware of anything else, we choose to try to be aware of ourself alone, our ego will subside and disappear, because it has no substance of its own, but is just an illusion that seems to exist only so long as we are aware of anything other than ourself."

3. Our awareness of other things is not our primary illusion but only a secondary one
"Thus by trying to be aware of ourself alone, we can verify for ourself the truth of what Bhagavan teaches us in verses 25 and 26 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu. Whenever we experience anything other than ourself, we experience ourself as this ego (that is, as this adjunct-mixed form of self-awareness, which always experiences itself as a body), and vice versa: whenever we experience ourself as this ego, we always experience the existence of things other than ourself. Conversely, whenever we do not experience anything other than ourself, we also do not experience ourself as this ego, and whenever we do not experience ourself as this ego, we also do not experience anything other than ourself.

Therefore, by experiencing, being aware of, attending to, observing or watching anything other than ourself, we are perpetuating the illusion that we are this ego, and so long we perpetuate this primary illusion, we are also perpetuating the secondary illusion that other things also exist. Therefore we cannot bring about the dissolution or evaporation of anything else by attending to it, but can do so only by trying to attend to ourself alone.

If it were possible to bring about the dissolution or evaporation of other things merely by observing or inspecting them closely, scientists who closely observe and inspect the appearance of physical phenomena should find that such phenomena evaporate and disappear as a result of their observation, but in practice they do not find that this is what happens. Followers of JK or Nisargadatta could perhaps argue either that scientists are observing the wrong kind of phenomena or that they are not observing them in the correct manner, and that if we observe other kinds of phenomena, such as mental ones, or if we observe some or all kinds of phenomena in a particular way (such as ‘choicelessly’, ‘without the observer’ or in a detached manner), then we will find that they evaporate. However, this argument cannot stand up to careful scrutiny, because whatever kind of phenomena we may observe and in whatever way we may observe them, we cannot do so unless we experience ourself as this ego, so whatever we may observe other than ourself and in whatever special way we may observe it, we would still be perpetuating our primary illusion that we are this ego, and thereby we would also be perpetuating our secondary illusion that other things also exist."




chit-shakti said...

verse 25,
linked article of Thursday, 28 May 2015 The ego is essentially a formless and hence featureless phantom
3. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 25: how does this 'formless phantom-ego' seem to exist?

"Because it has no form of its own, this ego can come into existence only by grasping one or more forms, and it is only by continuing to grasp such forms that it stands or endures. Since its very existence depends entirely upon it grasping forms, it is only by grasping forms that it feeds and nourishes itself, and the more it grasps them the more it waxes, expands and grows strong. Since it cannot stand without grasping some form of other, when it leaves one form it grasps another one.

Because it is essentially formless, whatever form this ego grasps is something other than itself. However it cannot grasp other forms without first grasping a form as itself (as Bhagavan indicates in verse 4 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, which I quoted and discussed in the eighth section of my previous article), and the primary form that it grasps as itself is a physical body. Therefore it is only by grasping a physical body and identifying that body as itself that it is able to then grasp or become aware of other forms. When it does not experience itself as a body, it does not experience anything else. In fact it does not even exist when it does not experience itself as a body, which is why Bhagavan often described it as the experience or idea 'I am this body'."

chit-shakti said...

verse 25,
linked article of Thursday, 18 June 2015 Prāṇāyāma is just an aid to restrain the mind but will not bring about its annihilation
7b. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 25
"Therefore what we should infer from verse 25 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu is only that no matter how much our mind and heart may be purified by meditating on a form or name of God with heart-melting devotion, we cannot get rid of our ego so long as we continue to cling to that form or name. Ultimately in order to lose our ego and thereby to merge completely in God we must let go of all forms and names by turning our mind inwards to experience ourself alone, as Bhagavan emphatically and unequivocally teaches us in verse 22 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, and as he also implies in the first sentence of the thirteenth paragraph of Nāṉ Yār? (which I quoted above in the fifth section).

Since anything other than ourself is a form, and since we rise, stand and flourish as this ego only by grasping form, it logically follows that the only means by which we can annihilate this ego is by trying to grasp or experience ourself alone. This is why Bhagavan concludes all that he says about the nature of this ego in verse 25 by saying, ‘தேடினால் ஓட்டம் பிடிக்கும்’ (tēḍiṉāl ōṭṭam piḍikkum), which means 'If sought [examined or investigated], it will take flight'. Though he does not explicitly say in this verse that we can annihilate this ego only by self-investigation, this is what he clearly implies, because if we are formless and everything else is a form, we have only two options, either to meditate on our formless self or to meditate on a form, and if we choose the latter we are thereby feeding and nourishing our ego, whereas if we choose the former our ego 'will take flight', being nothing but an illusory and insubstantial phantom."

chit-shakti said...

verse 25,
linked article of Thursday, 25 June 2015 The term nirviśēṣa or 'featureless' denotes an absolute experience but can be comprehended conceptually only in a relative sense

3c. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 25: if investigated, this phantom ego will vanish

"Therefore, though this ego seems to exist, it is not real, but so long as it experiences anything other than itself it seems to be real, so if we investigate it by trying to be aware of it alone, it will dissolve and disappear. This is why Bhagavan says in verse 25 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu..."

linked article of Saturday, 18 July 2015 Can we experience what we actually are by following the path of devotion (bhakti mārga)?

6a. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 25: by attending to anything other than ourself we are sustaining our ego

"We seem to be this ego only when we experience anything other than ourself, so by attending to anything other than ourself we are sustaining the fundamental illusion that we are this ego. This is why Bhagavan always insisted that we can destroy our ego only by investigating it, as he clearly implies in verse 25 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu:

Thus in this verse Bhagavan expresses one of the fundamental principles of his teachings: by attending to anything other than ourself we are nourishing and sustaining our ego, so we can destroy it only by attending to it alone.

Therefore however much we may purify our mind by any other means, we cannot thereby remove its root-impurity, our ego. Hence even the greatest of devotees can finally surrender their ego to God only by turning their attention back within in order to ascertain what this ego actually is. Since it is just a formless phantom, it does not really exist, so when it is investigated 'it will take flight' — that is, it will dissolve and disappear."

chit-shakti said...

verse 25,
linked article of Saturday, 29 August 2015 What is meditation on the heart?
6. Meditating on hṛdaya-sthāna is not meditation on hṛdaya

"Therefore, since our body is a form — something other than ourself — meditating on it or on any part of it is ‘grasping form’, and hence by doing so we would be feeding and nourishing our ego. Since this ego is an erroneous experience of ourself, in order to experience ourself as we really are we must cease rising as this ego, and since we rise as this ego only by grasping anything other than ourself, we can cease rising as this ego only by trying to grasp or attend to ourself alone. This is what Bhagavan implies when he says in this verse, ‘தேடினால் ஓட்டம் பிடிக்கும்’ (tēḍiṉāl ōṭṭam piḍikkum), which means 'If sought [examined or investigated], it [this ego] will take flight'.

Therefore it is only by trying to attend to or be aware of ourself alone that we can cease rising as this ego and thereby experience ourself as we really are. Hence, since the term 'heart' or hṛdaya means only ourself as we really are, in order to experience the heart we must meditate only on ourself."

linked article of Wednesday, 11 November 2015 Sleep is our natural state of pure self-awareness
4. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verses 25 and 26: our ego and other things cannot exist without each other

"Since our mind is therefore essentially just this ego or primal thought called 'I', the question whether the mind exists in any form in deep sleep boils down to being the question whether our ego exists in any form then. To answer this question we need to consider what Bhagavan taught us about the nature of our ego. According to what he teaches us in verses 25 and 26 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, our ego is the root cause of everything, and it comes into existence and endures only by projecting and clinging to 'forms', by which term he means phenomena or anything other than our own actual self."

Mouna said...

chit-shakti, greetings

I find your postings an interesting case that I can’t really fathom, in a certain way. I am trying to figure out what motive could there be in copying and pasting extensive excerpts of Michael’s posts, which in the last days and weeks are becoming more and more frequent in terms of volume.
I am not trying to stop you in any way, just trying a little bit to understand what is behind the scenes…
Do you care if people reads them (or not)? and in case they don’t read them, like in my case (because I already did before), do you care?
Have you tried to present your own reflection (like Sanjay does sometimes) on what you paste?
Are you pasting passages you find meaningful and wanted to share with others even if they will read them or not? (this is the only option I can come up with)

There are Facebook pages and blogs where all there is are photos of Bhagavan (or Arunachala) with some phrase (like a meme) on top. The intention there is clearly devotional, no intention to deepen the intellectual understanding of his teachings, and for some is a way to connect with others in the same frequency. The same happens in other pages where the only thing you see are quotes from “Talks”, ad infinitum. These pages are like a virtual "japa" of some kind.

But in this case, without any judgement on my part and since we are (still) a free country, I am really curious on what do you profit from a simple copy-paste posting (that would be simply sravana), instead on reflecting or questioning on them to expand yours and others understanding (more like manana).

Thanks for your attention, and again, no judgement and no need to stop, only trying to understand this unusual phenomenon that has been popping up recently in this blog.

Yours in Bhagavan,
Mouna

chit-shakti said...

verse 25,
linked article of Tuesday, 17 November 2015 Is there more than one way in which we can investigate and know ourself?
"6. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 25: our ego rises and endures by attending to other things, so it will die only by attending to itself

"One of the most fundamental and important principles of Bhagavan’s teachings is that by attending to anything other than ourself we are nourishing and sustaining our ego, whereas by attending only to ourself we will dissolve it, so the teaching in ancient texts that our ego can be destroyed only by vṛtti-jñāna is in perfect accord with this principle taught by Bhagavan, which he expresses particularly clearly and beautifully in verse 25 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu:
...
Since in this verse Bhagavan describes our ego as an உருவற்ற பேய் (uru-v-aṯṟa pēy) or 'formless phantom', what he implies by the term ‘உரு பற்றி’ (uru paṯṟi) or 'grasping form' is our ego grasping anything other than itself, and since our ego can 'grasp' anything only by attending to and thereby being aware of it, 'grasping form' means attending to anything other than ourself. Therefore, since this ego can rise and stand only by attending to other things, if it tries to attend to itself alone it will subside and disappear, which is what he implies here by saying ‘தேடினால் ஓட்டம் பிடிக்கும்’ (tēḍiṉāl ōṭṭam piḍikkum), which means 'If sought [examined or investigated], it will take flight'. This is why Bhagavan often said that we can destroy our ego only by means of self-investigation (ātma-vicāra), by which term he means observing ourself or being self-attentive."

linked article of Thursday, 10 December 2015 Thought of oneself will destroy all other thoughts
9. Mere belief in ajāta or anything else is not an adequate means to free ourself from this ego illusion

"Moreover, is it actually possible for us to watch this ego? We can try to do so, and should try to do so, but we will never succeed in actually seeing this ego, because it does not actually exist. Though it may seem to us that when we try to be self-attentive we are watching the watching ego, we can never actually watch it, because as Bhagavan says in verse 25 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, ‘தேடினால் ஓட்டம் பிடிக்கும்’ (tēḍiṉāl ōṭṭam piḍikkum), which means ‘If sought [examined or investigated], it will take flight’, thereby implying that if we try to see it, it disappears, because it does not actually exist.

That is, we seem to be this ego only when we are aware of anything other than ourself, but if we turn our attention back to see the ego that we seem to be, it will disappear, because it has no real existence. It is just an ‘உருவற்ற பேய்’ (uru-v-aṯṟa pēy) or ‘formless phantom’ — something that seems to exist so long as one does not look at it directly, but that vanishes as soon as one does look at it directly. Therefore watching this ego is like trying to look carefully at an illusory snake: just as we seem to be looking at a snake only so long as we are not looking at it carefully enough, but find that what we were actually looking at was only a rope when we look at it with sufficient care, we seem to be watching a finite ego or ‘I-thought’ only so long as we are not watching it carefully enough, but find that what we were actually watching was only pure and infinite self-awareness (which is what we always actually are) when we watch it sufficiently keenly and vigilantly.

Secondly, though it is obviously true that our present dream will end with the death of our present body, the benefit we gain thereby will be no more lasting than the benefit we gain by falling asleep. Just as sleep provides us with only a temporary respite from our ego, physical death is also only a temporary respite, because until we destroy the basic illusion that we are this ego by trying to be attentively self-aware, this ego will continue rising and projecting one dream after another."


chit-shakti said...

Mouna,
greetings,
thank you for your inquiring reply which I take as an opportunity to stop my variant of manana/sravana of Bhagavan's teachings immediately.
I get much benefit from opening all the listed links to Michael's articles because for the first time I am studying Ulladu Narpadu more carefully. Also I find it useful to read all the linked passages of the mentioned articles again and again, because I am somehow not quick on the uptake.
However, you are right, there is no need to paste all this in the comment box and thus to tax the patience of other readers too much.
As you seem to imply I did not care if people would read my excerpts or not - although I am convinced that some readers can quite well benefit from reading these comments.
Yours in Bhagavan,
kind regards to South California.

Mouna said...

Good and fair point chit-shakti.
Thank you
_/\_
M

Sanjay Lohia said...

Actions of the mind are mental (that is, they are always actions that entail knowing or experiencing), whereas the actions of prana are physical

In October 2013, I exchanged a few emails with Michael, in which I requested him to explain verse 12 of Upadesa Undiyar. I thought this exchange will be worth reflecting upon:

Sanjay (first email): You have explained verse no. 12 of Upadesa Undiyar as follows:

Our mind is a jnana-sakti, a power of knowing, that is, a power of knowing otherness, which we call ‘thinking’. Our prana (breath or life-force) is a kriya-sakti, a power of doing or action, but the mula-sakti or root-power that functions as our mind and as our prana is one, like the single trunk of a tree with two branches.

It is not clear to me how our prana is a kriya-sakti? I have been thinking that our mind is both, our power of knowing and the power of doing. Could you explain your above statement?

Michael (first reply): Yes, it is true that action is done both by mind and by prana, but the actions of the mind are mental (that is, they are always actions that entail knowing and experiencing) whereas the actions of prana are physical. The difference between these two types of actions is that prana does not experience its own actions, whereas the mind does. Therefore the most characteristic feature of the mind is knowing, whereas the only characteristic feature of prana is action.

Prana does not mean only the breath, but all the life-processes (the beating of the heart, the flow of fluids and nerve impulses, etc.) that enable the body to function as a living entity.

The prana is a gross form of the mind, and the body is still grosser form of it, so all the actions of the prana and body do originate from the mind, and are essentially mental (which is why Bhagavan says that the entire world consists only of thoughts or ideas).

(I will continue this in my next comment)

Sanjay Lohia said...

In continuation of my previous comment:

Sanjay (second email): Can we say that the physical actions we perform in a seemingly outside world is also executed by our prana? Of course this prana has to work under the knowledge or direction of our mind.

Michael (second reply): Whenever the mind arises, it simultaneously projects and experiences that body as ‘I’. Since any body that we experience as ‘I’ is always a living body, it comes coupled with prana, the processes of life that not only keep it alive but also enable it to talk, walk and do all its outward actions. But as I said in my earlier mail today, the body and prana are just gross forms of mind, projected by it and non-existed independent of it.

Since the mind rises as (and is nothing other than) the wrong knowledge ‘this body is I’, we can free ourself from it (and hence from the body, prana and world that it has created) only by knowing what we really are.

Therefore, rather than concerning ourself with any questions about the body, prana, world or anything else, we should focus our concern and attention on trying to find out what this ‘I’ actually is.






Sanjay Lohia said...

Love is the motivating force behind surrender.

Michael says in his video (slightly modified): 2017-09-09 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on unconditional surrender

The term unconditional surrender is a bit of a tautology, because any surrender which is not unconditional is not surrender at all. Conditional surrender has no meaning. I cannot say ‘I went to the supermarket and surrendered one pound on the condition that they give me a bag of grain’. That is bargaining. If we approach God that way and say ‘I will surrender this if you give me that’, that is simply bargaining – like going to a supermarket.

That is what is called kamya-bhakti - that is, devotion for some desired end. That is not devotion to God; that is devotion to whatever we want to get from God. But real surrender has to be unconditional – we are giving ourself to God but we don’t want anything in return from God.

Unconditional surrender is possible only if there is love, because who is going to give up everything, including oneself, if one is not motivated by love. There are many things that we do for love of God, for which we accept nothing in return. If we love a person we are ready to do anything for them, even though there is nothing in it for us. Just because of our love we do it. So love is the motivating force behind surrender.

square -circle said...

Sanjay Lohia,
"Whenever the mind arises, it simultaneously projects and experiences that body as 'I'."
The simultaneity of projecting and experiencing of a body and outside world by the mind is - seen from the ego's view - spectacular and sheer unbelievable. The basic power of the mind seems to be the original thought called 'I'or ego. Presumably this ego is projecting and experiencing the mind and its thoughts.
Perhaps (the rising of) the ego itself is simultaneously projected and experienced by itself or whatever power.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Liberation is here and now

Michael says in his video (slightly modified): 2017-08-12 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on cit-jaḍa-granthi:

Michael: Bhagavan’s path is such a simple and beautiful path, because it doesn’t matter what we experience, who is experiencing it? That is all we have to investigate.

Devote: That will result in Samadhi

Michael: But we are not looking for samadhi. We are looking for who is it who is looking for samadhi? In yoga, samadhi is actually a goal, but Bhagavan hasn’t asked us to look for Samadhi. He hasn’t asked us to look for anything, he has asked us to look at what we are.

He hasn’t even asked us to look for liberation. What he has clarified is that liberation is not something which we will experience in future. Liberation is here and now. Liberation is our real nature. So who are you here and now? We are not looking for anything that we will experience in future, what we are here and now. This investigation can only be in the present moment.

My note: Some of the sentences from this extract merit repetition:

• Liberation is here and now.
• Who are you here and now?
• We are not looking for anything that we will experience in future.
• This investigation can only be in the present moment.

Yes, we are what we are here and now. So it should be very clear that self-investigation can only be here and now. It may take us a while to understand this message with perfect clarity, but it becomes clear with a bit of reflection.



mey aha-cudar said...

Today morning after awakening from a dream I told to myself :
There is nothing but Arunachala.
Arunachala is only an other name for atma-svarupa, our own essential self.
Am I right ?

Sanjay Lohia said...

Mey aha-cudar, yes, Arunachala is nothing but another name for atma-svarupa. Bhagavan has made this very clear, and not only that, he has also made it equally clear that what exists is only atma-svarupa.

Then why did Bhagavan weave this magic of Arunachala around us, as if it were a hill? The reason is very simple. He wants us to turn our gaze towards ourself and thus become one with him, but in the meanwhile he allows us to look at Arunachala as a hill. However, the power of Arunachala will surely turn our gaze within, and thus make us one with the real Arunachala, which is nothing but Bhagavan or ourself as we really are.

Sanjay Lohia said...

The real understanding is when we turn within and see what we really are

Extract (not verbatim) from the video: 2016-10-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on self-surrender:

Understanding of the mind is necessary in order to point us in the correct direction, and also to motivate us. It we understand the theory correctly it helps us in our practice, but simply understanding it by mind is not going to work. Why? What is mental understanding? It is just thoughts.

So the ego can become strong by thinking, ‘Oh, I have understood Bhagavan’s teachings’. Merely understanding it by intellect is not the real understanding. The real understanding is when we turn within, and see what we really are. That is the true understanding that we are seeking.

square -circle said...

Sanjay Lohia,
to be honest, when I turn my attention within I do not see what I really am but only thoughts which occupy more or less my screen of consciousness. Only when my inner space is cleared up to a large extent I am able to feel peace and to go deeper in the pool of awareness.
Am I far away of "real understanding" Bhagavan's teaching ?

mey aha-cudar said...

Sanjay Lohia,
I do not think that "looking at Arunachala as a hill" does necessary exclude one/us from becoming one with the real Arunachala or Bhagavan. Rather it depends on the intensity of gazing within.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Square-circle, you say, ‘when I turn my attention within I do not see what I really am but only thoughts which occupy more or less my screen of consciousness’. Who is this ‘I’ that turns its attention within? You should be seeking to experience that very ‘I’. Although you are definitely always aware of this ‘I’, but your awareness of it is not very clear, because this awareness is mixed up with other adjuncts – like your body and other thoughts.
So you have to turn your attention towards that which is aware of your thoughts.

Yes, to the extent we manage to go within, to that extent we will experience our innate peace, but even when we are not experiencing this peace, it is still there deep within us. This peace is the substratum on which all the disturbances appear and disappear. These disturbances are nothing but our thoughts.

The more frequently we try to turn within, the closer we will come to the true understanding which we are seeking. This perfect understanding is covered up by all our misunderstandings. What is first and the basic misunderstanding? It is that we are this body. It is this root misunderstanding which makes all our other misunderstandings to become superimposed on it. In order to remove all our misunderstandings, we need to investigate ourself and see what we actually are. If our ego disappears, everything else, including all our misunderstandings, will also disappear along with it.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Mey aha-cudar, you claim, ‘I do not think that "looking at Arunachala as a hill" does necessary exclude one/us from becoming one with the real Arunachala or Bhagavan’. Bhagavan has unequivocally taught us that if we experience ourself as a form, we will also likewise experience God as a form. Even the thought of God is nothing but a thought-form. Bhagavan says in the fourth verse of Ulladu Narpadu:

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.

So if we experience ourself as we really are, that is also experiencing Arunachala or Bhagavan as they actually are. Since atma-svarupa is formless, pure self-consciousness, when we are one with this formless consciousness, how can we experience the forms of Arunachala or Bhagavan? Who will experience their forms? Since we alone exist, there is no entity to experience their forms, when we are one with our true nature.

Yes, to experience ourself as we actually are depends on the intensity with which we look within. A single moment of perfect self-attentiveness and our ego will vanish forever. This is what we are seeking to achieve when we try to turn within.

Sanjay Lohia said...

For most of us food is more than a need, because we eat food, both in quantity and quality, which is way beyond our basic needs. We are too attached to eating particular types of food – we want this food, we don't want that food. So this is a major attachment in our life.

Bhagavan and other sages have clearly asked us to regulate our diet – that is, they teach us to eat only sattvik food and that too in moderate quantity. In Nan Yar? Bhagavan teaches us that we should eat mita sattvika-ahara (sattva conducive food in moderate quantity), because it will increase the sattva-guna of our mind, and this will help us to turn within relatively easily.

Bhagavan also spoke on this topic while answering questions. He was, of course, quite insistent that we consume only sattvik (vegetarian) food, and totally avoid non-vegetarian food, alcohol and other addictions. What comes under sattvik food? I think in Bhagavad Gita it is said that fresh and juicy fruits and vegetables are the most sattvik food.

Through his various emails, Michael has also explained to me the importance of eating a diet which is predominantly made of fruits and vegetables. This helps us in all ways: it keeps our mind relatively calm and clear; controls our weight; keeps a lot of diseases at bay; immensely helps our digestion by providing us with the much needed roughage and so on.

(I will continue this in my next comment)

Sanjay Lohia said...

In continuation of my previous comment:

Bhagavan once said that we should eat only one side dish of vegetables, and also said that its quantity should be more than the starchy foods like rice and grains. Such a diet is best for our digestion. He asked us to take all precautions to keep constipation at bay, because such a condition makes us uneasy, and therefore makes our self-investigation relatively difficult.

We should eat food in moderate quantity, because, according to Bhagavan, the more food we stuff into our stomach, the lower our mental state becomes. That it, excess food creates acid in us. Our mind becomes either tamasic (dull, lethargic) or rajasic (overactive, aggressive), if we eat wrong types of food or even the right types of food in excess.

Bhagavan used to say that the strings of musical instruments (like violin or sitar) should neither be too light nor be too loose, because in both cases it will be difficult to play music on these instruments. Likewise, he said, we should neither over-eat nor eat extremely less (by over fasting and so on). He used to say that like we have to keep the strings of the musical instruments with the correct amount of tension, we should likewise eat food in right quantity: that is, it should neither be too much, nor it should be too little. Both are detrimental to our sadhana.

So it would be wise if we try and regulate the quality and quantity of food.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Devotee: What is the relationship between ourself and the ego?

Michael: In Upadesa Undiyar Bhagavan says, ‘In their existing nature, God and soul are one thing. Their awareness of adjuncts is what is different’, and in the next verse he says, ‘Seeing oneself without seeing its adjuncts is seeing God, because God is always oneself’.

So what we call God there is what we really are. That is pure-awareness; that is the real substance that we are. However, when we attach ourself to these adjuncts, taking ourself to be a person, rising as ‘I am this’, ‘I am that’, that is the ego. So the real element of the ego is pure-awareness, but the ego itself is mixed awareness, because it has mixed itself up with adjuncts, and it cannot exist without these adjuncts.

The question you asked is a bit like, ‘what is the relationship between the rope and the snake?’ They are actually just one thing. So long as we have an idea that it is a snake, it will cause us fear. If we see it as it actually is, then there is no fear.

So the ego is actually nothing but awareness, ‘I am so and so’, ‘I am this person’, and all our problems results from that. But if look at what the ego actually is, we will see that it was always pure self-awareness, and there was never anything else.

~*~ The above extract, which is slightly modified, is from the video: 2017-05-13 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on importance of practice

Cultivating anything is anātma-vicāra said...

Mouna, do you feel rejected by my comment? According to you, I should stick with my Jnanis, that’s funny. LOL

Well, I am not surprised that my comment was not well received, too many fragile egos who predictably react according to their own issues. What a surprise (or rather not at all), the people who frequent this blog are not different than the ordinary bloke out there, the only difference, you guys here are interested in Bhagavan’s teachings and the others are not.

As I said before, repeating Bhagavan’s concepts won’t do a thing, that’s just an illusion but it appears that it takes some time to get that. People do what they do and no surprise here.

Sanjay Lohia is still blabbering about the importance of diet. When will he get that this is not in the power of the jiva to decide? It shows that ignorance is not that easily dispelled. That’s the problem when there is not actually a Jnani around, because he/she could clarify certain misunderstandings like why Bhagavan suggested a certain diet. No doubt that this diet is best for spiritual progress, however if the devotee ends up actually having this diet is entirely up to his prarabdha. If your prarabdha is to eat meat no amount of effort and willpower could change that! Even Michael conceded to that in one of his articles addressed to me.

My point is that people should not get all excited or frustrated if they have the “wrong” or “correct” diet and rather relax and actually look at what we really are and not get entangled with the actions of the body.

It is a Billion times better to eat meat and not be attached to it than to eat “sattvic” food and to be proud about it. If that is not understood or accepted than you have not understood Bhagavan at all …..



mey aha-cudar said...

Sanjay Lohia,
till now in waking I hardly experienced me/myself as I am really am that is without a form. But sometimes -admittingly in rare moments - it happened that I lost the awareness of any forms whereas the body was sitting on a rock of Arunachala Hill.
Therefore I thought that then in these rare moments my consciousness was embedded in the real formless Arunachala or at least approximately. Of course that was at most manolaya.

iduve tinnam said...

Salazar,
prarabdha does not at all exclude to some extent wielding/exercising free will.
Of course that amount of free will one may call also as determined by one's prarabdha.
Regarding sattvic food:
The idea that a meat-eater can be not "attached" to his habit or does not have to take the consequences of harming animals is based only on reduced thinking.
By the way sattvic food can be eaten quite well without "to be proud about it". Possibly this can be understood only by such ones who are able to understand Bhagavan's teaching really.

Cultivating anything is anātma-vicāra said...

iduve tinnam, Bhagavan suggested “cultivating” free will, but with that he meant to go inwards and not to fall into the delusion that the jiva makes any decisions outwardly. He doesn’t and he can’t. The actions of the body are entirely determined by prarabdha. Bhagavan never directed the actions of his body, not when he was 10 nor when he was 40 years old.

Your ego desperately wants to believe it could decide about it outwards actions but that is an illusion. The earlier you grasp that the earlier you forget about worrying what your body does or not.

Re. your “reduced” thinking …. LOL What about not thinking at all?

Of course can someone who eats sattvic food not be proud of it, same is true for someone who is eating meat. It is not what one does but what the inner attachment is to it.

Re. the consequence of harming animals: What about harming plant life, stealing fruit from trees etc.? Both (animal and plant life) are from the same ultimate source and a distinction is only made by the ego that needs a set of ethical rules. Ahimsa is ultimately irrelevant for liberation, just don’t let your ego misunderstand that ... I am afraid that will happen with the majority here :-)

If you want mukti you have transcend ethics, not staying attached to them ...

iduve tinnam said...

Salazar,
your statement "If you want mukti you have transcend ethics, not staying attached to them ..." might be correct.
However, actually experiencing mukti one certainly will never jump over "ethics" like ahimsa.
Regarding harming plants, it is true that plants are too feeling beings. Because rarely light, air and water alone are able to feed sufficiently humanity we need to live at least on a vegetarian diet.
Having (always) a self-constructed philosophy ready let one reach only an unknown or suspicious destination.

Adi Linga said...

Salazar, may I doubt that you would follow the clarifications of even a jnani (around). You rather would cultivate your "understandings" (or misundertsandings) and try to even teach the jnani your beliefs and concepts.

Cultivating anything is anātma-vicāra said...

To the last two comments: Guys believe and do what you must. What I've said is solely from the teachings by Bhagavan and nothing is by me.

Re. the ahimsa comment .... you don't understand what I am saying. Ahimsa is a natural by-product of a sincere devotee, the notion that it has to be cultivated is ludicrous. Any so-called attempt of an outward "cultivation" keeps one bound. It appears that is not grasped at all here.

That includes Michael's "love" for the Self. That is a subject-object relationship and is at best an aid, worse it keeps one bound. "Who" loves the Self? There is only Self. We just don't believe it. How can we "improve" a "connection" to what we already are? It seems Michael's logic cannot deal with the paradox of that any "effort" cannot real yield into attaining Self. Effort is by the ego (in form of a thought process) and will always perpetuate the ego. It is like telling a man to become a man, how ludicrous is that? How much effort has a man to expend to become a man?

What is needed is effortless effort, in form of atma-vichara. Any adjuncts like "love" taints it and assures samsara.

Any love of the jiva is selfish with a goal in mind, either to a fellow jiva or to the higher goal of [attaining] the illusive Self. Both cannot work. True love is Jnana, not the imaginations of a jiva.

Cultivating anything is anātma-vicāra said...

iduve tinnam, you said “having (always) a self-constructed philosophy ready let one reach only an unknown or suspicious destination."

What destination would that be when one does atma-vichara? Problems only arise if you think about them. It is as simple as that. There is no need for “cultivation”, aids, ethics etc. because they only exist as adjuncts of "I" in the world of thoughts. I thought Bhagavan suggested stopping to follow one’s thoughts? He didn’t say omit these thoughts (desires, “bad” things etc.) and keep using those thoughts (having a good diet, being “nice” or “good” etc.), a schizophrenic thing many on this blog seem to do.

Transcending means to go beyond the duality of "good" and "bad", you guys just cling at "being good", hence keep staying in samsara of this phenomenal world.

If you want liberation you have to get rid of anything what you perceive or believe in this phenomenal world, the “love” (or better attachment) to your family, the idea of being a “good” person etc. etc. No “philosophy” will do, including Bhagavan’s or Michael's musings on this blog.

If you cannot or do not want to do that you’ll stay in samsara.


iduve tinnam said...

Salazar,
regarding "Michael's love for the Self":
Our love to be self-attentive is the same as our love just to be as we really are.
Because pure love is the true nature of our essential self, non-dual self-love cannot be wrong.

iduve tinnam said...

Salazar,
thinking thoughts do not harm us as long they are serving in order to purify our mind.

You say "If you want liberation you have to get rid of anything what you perceive or believe in this phenomenal world, the “love” (or better attachment) to your family, the idea of being a “good” person etc. etc. No “philosophy” will do, including Bhagavan’s or Michael's musings on this blog."
Making such a statement you must also be aware that the conception of "wanting liberation" is likewise and equally a mind-made delusion because there is actually no one bound (in bondage).

Sanjay Lohia said...

My reflections on some of the recent comments:

Salazar writes: ‘My point is that people should not get all excited or frustrated if they have the “wrong” or “correct” diet and rather relax and actually look at what we really are and not get entangled with the actions of the body’.

Yes, we should not be over concerned about our diet and other bodily related issues. However, since Bhagavan has asked to consume mita sattvika-ahara (sattva conducive food in moderate quantity), should we ignore this advice? We may not fully succeed in sticking to a fully sattvik diet, but we should at least try.

Iduve Tinnam writes: ‘By the way sattvic food can be eaten quite well without "to be proud about it". Possibly this can be understood only by such ones who are able to understand Bhagavan's teaching really’.

Yes, I agree. What is there to be proud about, if we are trying to consume a more sattvik diet? We are trying to consume it, because we are convinced that this will help us in many ways. Moreover, a spiritual aspirant is expected to avoid himsa (violence), and a non-vegetarian diet is definitely promoting himsa.

(I will continue this reflection in my next comment)

Sanjay Lohia said...

In continuation of my previous comment:

Salazar writes: ‘Ahimsa is ultimately irrelevant for liberation […] If you want mukti you have [to] transcend ethics, not staying attached to them’.

According to Indian Religions or Eastern Religions (sometimes also termed as dharmic faiths or religions - religions that originated in the Indian subcontinent); namely Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism, ahimsa is the most fundamental principle. It is the most basic code of behaviour recommended in these dharmic religions. If ahimsa is irrelevant for liberation, as Salazar claims it is, why would these religions preach it?

Yes, Bhagavan didn’t attach too much importance to leading an overly moral or ethical life, because his main focus was on the practice of self-investigation. However, he clearly said that following moral injunctions are beneficial for an aspirant. Furthermore, his entire life was a lesson in ahimsa. He didn’t even allow a snake to be harmed.

So we will be well advised to avoid violence in thought, words and deeds. As long as our ego lasts this is not 100% possible, but we should definitely try to lead a more non-violent life.


Sanjay Lohia said...

We are either in jnana or in ajnana, there is no midway point

Sadhu Om never spoke about his self-experience in a personal way. He never said, ‘I have realised’ or anything. He has written Sri Ramana Sahasram - that is, a thousand verses praying for jnana. Towards the end of it he says something to the effect: ‘Did I see or did I not see? I do not know’. It is because once the ego is destroyed, there is no person remaining there to say ‘I have realised’, or to say ‘I have not realised’.

In Tamil there is a beautiful saying: Those who say have not seen; those who have seen do not say.

It is because there is nobody to say it – nobody remains to say. But just like Bhagavan, Sadhu Om also said that the final merger has to be in a split second. You either experience yourself as you really are, or you experience yourself as something else.

There is no half way between ‘realisation’ and ‘non-realisation’, if ‘realisation’ is a term we use to mean jnana. We are either in jnana or in ajnana, there is no midway point. Either you see the snake or you see the rope. You can’t see the two together.

~*~ The above is an extract from the video: 2016-04-24 (afternoon) Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James. As usual it is not verbatim.

Cultivating anything is anātma-vicāra said...

I don’t concur with the last comments but that’s alright. I don’t see any benefit to go on with that because there is a fundamental difference of understanding and that can only be reconciled in silence.

iduve tinnam said...

Salazar,
yes, as you say, reconciling such difference of comprehension happens best in silence.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Gandhiji’s Secret Mantra: Renounce & Enjoy! by Madan Mohan Mathur

The following extract is taken from today’s newspaper: The Times of India. I thought it would be a useful sharing:

When Gandhiji was asked if he could put the secret of his life in three words, he quoted from the Isha Upanishad: ‘Renounce and enjoy!’. But does this not seem contradictory? How can we enjoy something if we renounce it?

The Isha Upanishad is universally acclaimed for the precision with which it conveys the essence of Vedic philosophy. […]

Although Gandhiji uses the word ‘enjoy’, it is intended to mean that having renounced the ‘unreal’ we may enjoy the ‘real’. […]

We have to learn the technique of enjoyment and this technique is: ‘Renunciation’.

My note: We want to accumulate more and more things, including more and more money and wealth, because we erroneously believe that by such accumulation we will be able to enjoy our life. However, Isha Upanishad says, ‘renounce and enjoy’. It is so very true. It is only when we renounce everything that we can enjoy our true nature, and our true nature is eternal bliss.

So if we want to really have unalloyed enjoyment, we have no other option but to renounce everything. Since everything comes into existence only when the ego comes into existence, in order to renounce everything we have to renounce our ego, and we can renounce our ego only by self-investigation.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Yes, I concur with Salazar and Iduve Tinnam. All our differences can only be reconciled in absolute silence, and we can experience this absolute silence only when our ego is destroyed. As Bhagavan teaches us in the ninth verse of Ulladu Narpadu:

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.

So everything, including all our differences, will cease to exist only when our ego ceases to exist, and what will then remain is only the reality, which is another name for silence.

Sanjay Lohia said...

We will only succeed once, and that will be the end of our (ego’s) story

Bhagavan says, ‘daily turning within see yourself with the inner eye’. That’s the best form of bhakti. When we fail we pray to Bhagavan, and we are failing all the time, and we will continue failing all the time. We will only succeed once, and that will be the end of our (ego’s) story.

~*~ Extract from the video: 2015-09-12 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on life as a dream

Sanjay Lohia said...

The answers we are looking for are all within ourself, we just need to become better connected to our inner guide

I recently read the above quote. Yes, our present connection is weak and intermittent. It needs to be made strong and more permanent by regularly practising self-attentiveness.

We can receive answers to most of our questions if we trust our inner guide. We will invariably receive guidance from within, if we have faith in the supreme power which is residing in our heart. This power is all-knowing, all-loving and all-powerful, so it can never misguide us.

Mouna said...

Deep sleep is one of the tools to understand ourself. Mind automatically turns inwards when thinking and feeling dreamless sleep. It is another of satguru’s gifts within the dream to slash the veil and bring light to the projected movie of life. It is the first of the three states of mind, not the last, it’s another key that opens the door to ourselves. Although still embedded in ego as a concept, it is that space where “that which is not” faces its own absence and experiences it’s own emptiness and fullness at the same time .
Let’s awaken to sleep!

Cultivating anything is anātma-vicāra said...

Sanjay Lohia, you still are not understanding what I am saying. Ahimsa is ULTIMATELY irrelevant what means once one has realized there are no more any notions of ethics or any other notions or "rules" for that matter.

I am afraid you are stuck in "ego-mode" with the notion that the ego somehow has something to do in order to "improve". That is not the case. If you keep thinking/believing "since I am the ego I have to ...." you will keep being the ego no matter for how many aeons you'll practice ahimsa and have the perfect diet. That belief "I am the ego" will NEVER leave with any of these practices and "aids". The very practice of doing (with the belief I am doing that) is affirming the ego.

How can you ever transcend duality when you keep believing "I the ego" has to strive? Don't you see that the very idea of being an ego which has to do something is keeping you bound?

It is a crucial mistake to undertake the quest for mukti from the viewpoint of "I am this poor and sinful ego" and not from the viewpoint of being Self. THAT IS IMPERATIVE AND A CRUCIAL POINTER BY BHAGAVAN! Obviously overlooked by certain seekers.

Forget about the nonsense of religions, those rules are perverted no matter if that is modern Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist religion - these religions have disconnected from what the sages have taught.

Re. ahimsa and to underline the correct understanding: A Jnani could kill a person or even more than one person and that would not have an affect on the Jnani at all. Because the Jnani is not believing that he did that act since he is not identifying with that body people see him with. DO YOU ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT IT TRULY MEANS TO NOT IDENTIFYING WITH A BODY?

There is no real difference between a Jnani and an ajnani, the ONLY difference is the identification or non-identification with the body and mind.

Here is an example: Let's hypothesize that both, the Jnani and the ajnani are in total identical environmental circumstances and both do identical actions, they both eat a juicy steak from beef and after that they punch someone in the face.

What is the difference here? The only difference is that the ajnani believes that he is that body and mind and therefore seems to be responsible according to set rules from a dream society. The Jnani doesn't. Since the ajnani truly identifies with the body and having done that action he created karma with consequences. The Jnani doesn't, he sees himself as the substratum, he IS peace AND violence, or better he is That from where peace and violence manifests from and where is also subsides. So the Jnani did not really do that because who could he slap or kill? It would be himself, he is the victim and perpetrator in unison (not completely exact but good enough to convey the transcendental state beyond duality and non-duality).

THAT'S IT! It is only a belief! Nothing else!

In order to stop believing the wrong concepts you have to get rid of concepts and don't follow conjured up rules by some religious nuts who were very likely inspired by their own perverted ego.

You cannot lose your belief in following rules, because these rules are just more (and rather irrelevant) beliefs. What they do is to increase the erroneous belief to be a body and mind, nothing else! THAT is the truth of the sages but rarely shared so directly because most seekers, like the jiva Sanjay Lohia, are not ready for that and therefore they get something they can deal with like the nice idea of ahimsa or whatever they like to hear.

If you are really serious about mukti, forget to worry about "following rules", start rather to DIS-IDENTIFY with that which thinks it has to follow those rules!

vasuki said...

Salazar,
you say "There is no real difference between a Jnani and an ajnani, the ONLY difference is the identification or non-identification with the body and mind."
Are you not grossly mistaking the view of an ajnani for the view of a jnani ?
Good man, you must be mad. What a crazy idea - how can you claim to have fully understood what a jnani is ?

Cultivating anything is anātma-vicāra said...

vasuki, I am just relaying what a Jnani has said to me. Also I don't want to post any personal experiences I had since people here will take that as boasting or whatever they like to project.

Sanjai Lohia said that there is either a Jnani or an ajnani. Sounds logical but that's just an assumption of the mind since it cannot grasp something beyond duality. No, there is only Self and making comments like that by Sanjai shows just the strong identification with the body and mind.

We don't have to cultivate or "purify" anything, just stop running after these inane concepts like that "certain thoughts would purify the mind". LOL

How insane or mad is that notion that thoughts are beneficial? To whom? Only to a deluded ego who cannot let go of its essence what is thinking.

Adi Linga said...

When an ant claims to be in the position of an elephant, would we not tell to the ant: Hey, cheeky little thing or impudent rascal you must be joking. When likewise an ajnani claims to be able to speak from the perspective of a jnani should we not ask the ajnani not to play jokes on us ?

vasuki said...

Salazar,
you claim "We don't have to cultivate or "purify" anything, just stop running after these inane concepts like that "certain thoughts would purify the mind". "LOL".

Of course, there is only one self. Therefore we logically are all jnanis and there is nothing to do than to recognize that. All other views are rubbish. LOL.
Do you not feel ridiculous ?

pearl diver said...

If one follows the logic of Salazar, the idea could easily rise that Hitler was a great jnani, because he possibly did not identify himself with the consequences of his blindness.

Cultivating anything is anātma-vicāra said...

vasuki, pearl diver, your last comments are ridiculous and deliberately misunderstanding what I've said.

You guys, it's okay, you don't grasp it and that's very okay. Just don't make a fool out of yourself to argue about something you don't get. Just ignore my comments and read that what feels alright for you. I suggest Sanjai Lohia's comments, they are at your level of maturity.

Guhesa said...

Salazar,
you rightly point out: to know what the perspective of the jñāni actually is, one must turn within to see ourself and thereby to merge in and as the pure self-awareness (ātma-jñāna) that we actually are.

pearl diver said...

Salazar,
shall we really admire your exorbitant "level of maturity" ?
Let us finally return stating that jnana is freedom/absence of the ego.
Kind regards.

stray dog said...

Salazar seems to refer to Milarepa of Kailasa. It is said that Milarepa/Milaraspa killed some bad relatives without being attached by committing murders.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Reflections on the comment by Salazar addressed to me:

I think Salazar doesn’t likes when we mention the word 'ego', because he believes that even our doing so reinforces the belief that we are the ego. Therefore, I think, Salazar will appreciate the following Nirvana Shatakam by Sri Adi Shankaracharya, because it completely negates any ego:

1.1: Neither am I the Mind, nor the Intelligence or Ego,
1.2: Neither am I the organs of Hearing (Ears), nor that of Tasting (Tongue), Smelling (Nose) or Seeing (Eyes),
1.3: Neither am I the Sky, nor the Earth, Neither the Fire nor the Air,
1.4: I am the Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness; I am Shiva, I am Shiva,
The Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness.

2.1: Neither am I the Vital Breath, nor the Five Vital Airs,
2.2: Neither am I the Seven Ingredients (of the Body), nor the Five Sheaths (of the Body),
2.3: Neither am I the organ of Speech, nor the organs for Holding (Hand), Movement (Feet) or Excretion,
2.4: I am the Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness; I am Shiva, I am Shiva,
The Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness.

3.1: Neither do I have Hatred, nor Attachment, Neither Greed nor Infatuation,
3.2: Neither do I have Pride, nor Feelings of Envy and Jealousy,
3.3 I am Not within the bounds of Dharma (Righteousness), Artha (Wealth), Kama (Desire) and Moksha (Liberation) (the four Purusarthas of life),
3.4: I am the Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness; I am Shiva, I am Shiva,
The Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness.

(I will continue this in my next comment)

Sanjay Lohia said...

In continuation of my previous comment:

4.1: Neither am I bound by Merits nor Sins, neither by Worldly Joys nor by Sorrows,
4.2: Neither am I bound by Sacred Hymns nor by Sacred Places, neither by Sacred Scriptures nor by Sacrifies,
4.3: I am Neither Enjoyment (Experience), nor an object to be Enjoyed (Experienced), nor the Enjoyer (Experiencer),
4.4: I am the Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness; I am Shiva, I am Shiva,
The Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness.

5.1: Neither am I bound by Death and its Fear, nor by the rules of Caste and its Distinctions,
5.2: Neither do I have Father and Mother, nor do I have Birth,
5.3: Neither do I have Relations nor Friends, neither Spiritual Teacher nor Disciple,
5.4: I am the Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness; I am Shiva, I am Shiva,
The Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness.

6.1: I am Without any Variation, and Without any Form,
6.2: I am Present Everywhere as the underlying Substratum of everything, and behind all Sense Organs,
6.3: Neither do I get Attached to anything, nor get Freed from anything,
6.4: I am the Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness; I am Shiva, I am Shiva,
The Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness.

iduve tinnam said...

Sanjay Lohia,
asserting and repeating "I am the Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness; I am Shiva, I am Shiva, The Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness." are certainly encouraging and uplifting but that alone does presumably not and never bring about actually the firm establishment of the mind in that blissful Shiva-awareness.

mey aha-cudar said...

Mouna, greetings,
regarding your recent comment I doubt that the ego ever faces its own absence or experiences its own emptiness.
Not at all it can experience its essential fullness at the same time.
At least in the latter case we should call that awareness not ego but self, because when the ego is eradicated only pure self-awareness remains.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Iduve Tinnam, yes, I agree. Works such as Nirvana Shatakam by Sri Adi Shankaracharya can be an aid, but their mere recitation will not enable us to experience our ever blissful consciousness, Siva.

Nirvana Shatakam is a popular and a sublime reminder of our true nature, and therefore it does have value. Bhagavan believed that he is nothing other than Dakshinamurti and Adi Sankaracharya in a different form. So the words of the likes of Adi Shankaracharya definitely carry raw power, like the words of any jnani would. So such works are helpful.

However, though Bhagavan has said that such ‘I am not this, I am that’ approach can be an aid, but it is not a substitute for self-investigation. Such neti-neti reminders can be a precursor to our practice of self-investigation, but it is not the practice ever recommended by Bhagavan. Bhagavan has clearly pointed out its limitations.

For a start, Bhagavan indicated that we should not stretch such repetitions too far, because if we do so, it will expose our immaturity. He used to say that like a man will not unnecessarily repeat ‘I am a man; I am a man’, likewise since we are brahman, why should we unnecessarily repeat ‘I am brahman; I am brahman’? If we are brahman, why not remain as brahman? We can do so only by abiding in and as ourself, because we are nothing but Brahman.

Also who is repeating such formulas? It is our ego. So our ego can never be annihilated by such repetitions. In order to destroy our ego, we need to turn it within so that it experiences its true nature. If we are able to clearly see what we are, we will subside in brahman never to rise again. Then there will remain no one to repeat such formulas.

Mouna said...

mey aha-cudar, greetings

”I doubt that the ego ever faces its own absence or experiences its own emptiness.”
You are of course absolutely right about the second part of this statement, that is why the word “experiences”, in my posting, was in italics, like a figure of speech. But indeed a complete inward turn does make the ego face its own absence, and what happens next? It disappears into the melting of opposites of fullness and emptiness, that is oneself, the beyond thought space (that of course is not a space).

Sanjay Lohia said...

By trying to follow Bhagavan’s path we are yielding ourself to Bhagavan. We are giving him a blank cheque. We are ceasing to struggle in the tiger’s jaws. He is ready to swallow us at any moment, but we have to be wiling for it.

So we are a path of suicide, but it’s a very blissful death. Any pain we experience on the way is because of our struggling. To the extent we yield to him, to that extent we will be free of pain.

*~* The above extract is from the video: 2017-04-22 (afternoon) Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James

Sanjay Lohia said...

Bhagavan really became well known in the 1930s and 40s. When he was living in the Skandasramam, it was just a handful of people - v. v. few people - and even those who were with Bhagavan, I don’t know how many really understood his greatness.

Sadhu Om used to say, ‘if we really understood Bhagavan’s greatness, we wouldn’t be able to say anything, we wouldn’t be able to ask any questions or anything’.


## Extract from the video: 2016-04-23 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James

mey aha-cudar said...

Mouna,
1. coming back to your first comment of yesterday:
What do you mean with "Mind automatically turns inwards when thinking and feeling dreamless sleep." ?
In my opinion a thinking mind does not turn inwards automatically.
2. regarding your today comment:
A completely inward turned mind means its dissolution and hence only its substratum - self - remains. Therefore because of its total eradication it naturally cannot "face its own absence" any more.

Mouna said...

mey aha-cudar,

"In my opinion a thinking mind does not turn inwards automatically.”

Of course, because nobody feels or think deep sleep in the waking state! Try it, you’ll be surprised...

"Therefore because of its total eradication it naturally cannot "face its own absence" any more.”

It faces “its own absence” before disappearing, like the fake invited guest at a wedding faces its own disapearance when he understands that both parties realize he was never invited in the first place. According to the dictionaire, “facing” means: positioned with the front toward a certain direction; opposite.
You know what I mean, all the rest is semantic gymnastics…

(by the way, what is your “real” name? Mmmm not really prone to disclose it, right?…) ;)

mey aha-cudar said...

Mouna, thank you.
Okay, now I know what you mean.
(Mmmmmmmm, real name - not really inclined - for the time being, right ? Mmmmmmmmmm)
Best wishes.

Mouna said...

Thank you mey aha-cudar, your points were well taken.

But your name.... mmmm still working on it. ;)
Be well
M

Sanjay Lohia said...

We can carry on self-enquiry even in the midst of mental work

Bhagavan didn’t encourage sitting for hours in meditation. Even when we sit for meditation, how much time we spend actually attending to self? So many thoughts are coming and going.

So Bhagavan doesn’t give much importance to these outward postures of meditation. The main thing is what we are attending to. We can practise even while walking, talking or anything. Even now when we are talking, is there any one here who doesn’t know they exist? ‘I’ is clear to all of us, but we just ignore it all the time. Most activities – even talking – don’t take up the full power of our attention.

Nowadays most of us work in front of a computer monitor. There are gaps – when we click an email to send, or when we are uploading a file or downloading a file…

We can carry on self-enquiry even in the midst of mental work, because who is doing the mental work? I am. Who is that ‘I’? Obviously we can’t be 100% attentive to self and be doing the mental work, but our mental work can have an undercurrent of self-awareness beneath it. That is something we should all try to cultivate.

~^~ Extract from the video: 2011-07-09 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion on Sri Ramana's teachings with Michael James

mey aha-cudar said...

Mouna,
I write a short e-mail to your Blogger contact E-Mail-address.

Sanjay Lohia said...

All is an expansion of the ego. Guru is one

Michael: For Guru the idea of spiritual progress is meaningless, because if Bhagavan were to accept that we are making spiritual progress or are not making spiritual progress, it would mean he is accepting that we are something other than what we really are.

Bhagavan never sees us. In his view there are no ajnanis. No one is ignorant of self. That’s why he didn’t go out to give anyone any teaching. Only when people asked him questions, he gave teachings. Otherwise for him, he sees only self.

So there is no one for him to go and say, ‘you are ignorant, and therefore you have to enquire and find out what you are’. It is because we go to Bhagavan and say, ‘Bhagavan, I am miserable, how do I find happiness?’ that he says, ‘you are happiness, find yourself’.

Devotee: But we don’t know which guru to trust…

Michael: There is only one guru. There is no all at all. All is an expansion of the ego. Guru is one.

• The above extract is from the video: 2014-02-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on self-investigation


Sanjay Lohia said...

It may seem like madness, all these transcriptions by me. However, no ‘sane’ person can really succeed on this path, because we need ‘extreme madness’ to succeed in our search for ourself. You see, only a mad person will ‘search for himself’. Isn’t this insanity, we are ourself but we still want to ‘attain’ ourself? Such is the paradox of our spiritual adventure.


Dragos Nicolae Dragomirescu said...

Sanjay,

I like your transcripts :) Perhaps transcripts of all Michael videos would be a good idea for those that (for example) would like to read them on Kindle rather then watching or listening to them.. we could have them as pdf or something... read some spare paragraph from time to time...

All the best,
Dragos

mey aha-cudar said...

Happy Karttikai Deepam to all !!!

Sanjay Lohia said...

Dragos, thanks. I am glad you like the transcripts which I regularly post. Yes, it would be excellent if the transcripts of all of Michael’s videos are available to us, and for this I would like to pass on the baton to some other devotee who may be interested to do this. I am sure Michael will encourage such an endeavor.

Sanjay Lohia said...

We got to continue persevering until we are able to balance in the state between waking and sleep – in that jagrat-sushupti.

Michael: When a small child is learning to walk, how many times it has to fall over before it can eventually learn to walk steadily. If the child gave up because it fell a few times, it will never learn to walk, but no child will ever do that. They will continue trying until they master the art of balancing properly.

So also we got to continue persevering until we are able to balance in the state between waking and sleep – in that jagrat-sushupti. This is our real state, our state of wakeful-sleep, where we don’t succumb to the thoughts of waking or the seeming forgetfulness of sleep. We are ever clearly self-attentive. That is the state we are aiming for.

The more we practise, the faster our progress will be. Gradually it will pick up momentum. All we have to do is persevere, keep trying…

~^~ Transcript from one of Michael’s videos

deepa - darsana said...

Sanjay Lohia,
if my ability to understand spoken English would be better I would like to transcribe some passages of Michael's video-discussions about Bhagavan's teachings.

An other idea could be to put together all Michael-James-comments on an own site/page.

Happy Deepam !

Michael James said...

Today is Karttikai Deepam (கார்த்திகை தீபம்), the day when at 6pm IST (about an hour from now) the great light (dīpam or deepam) is lit on top of Annamalai (Arunachala), and on this day 86 years ago (Karttikai Deepam: 24th November 1931) Bhagavan composed the following verse explaining the real significance of seeing this தீபம் (dīpam):

தீபதர்சன தத்துவம் (Dīpa-Darśaṉa Tattuvam): The Significance of Seeing Deepam

இத்தனுவே நானா மெனுமதியை நீத்தப்
புத்தியித யத்தே பொருந்தியக நோக்கா
லத்துவித மாமெய் யகச்சுடர்காண் கைபூ
மத்தியெனு மண்ணா மலைச்சுடர்காண் மெய்யே.

ittaṉuvē nāṉā meṉumatiyai nīttap
buddhiyida yattē porundiyaha nōkkā
ladduvita māmey ahaccuḍarkāṇ gaibhū
maddhiyeṉu maṇṇā malaiccuḍarkāṇ meyyē
.

பதச்சேதம்: ‘இத் தனுவே நான் ஆம்’ எனும் மதியை நீத்து, அப் புத்தி இதயத்தே பொருந்தி அக நோக்கால், அத்துவிதம் ஆம் மெய் அகச்சுடர் காண்கை பூ மத்தி எனும் அண்ணாமலை சுடர் காண் மெய்யே.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): ‘i-t-taṉuvē nāṉ ām’ eṉum matiyai nīttu, a-b-buddhi idayattē porundi aha-nōkkāl, adduvitam ām mey aha-c-cuḍar kāṇgai bhū maddhi eṉum aṇṇāmalai cuḍar kāṇ meyyē.

அன்வயம்: ‘இத் தனுவே நான் ஆம்’ எனும் மதியை நீத்து, அப் புத்தி அக நோக்கால் இதயத்தே பொருந்தி, அத்துவிதம் ஆம் மெய் அகச்சுடர் காண்கை பூ மத்தி எனும் அண்ணாமலை சுடர் காண் மெய்யே.

Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): ‘i-t-taṉuvē nāṉ ām’ eṉum matiyai nīttu, a-b-buddhi aha-nōkkāl idayattē porundi, adduvitam ām mey aha-c-cuḍar kāṇgai bhū maddhi eṉum aṇṇāmalai cuḍar kāṇ meyyē.

English translation: [By] giving up the mind, [the false awareness] ‘this body alone is I’, [and by] that mind abiding only in the heart by self-attentiveness [or looking at ‘I’], seeing the non-dual real light of ‘I’ is the actual truth of seeing the light [on] Annamalai, which is called the centre of the world.

For more information about this verse and how Bhagavan came to write it, please see The truth of Arunachala and of ‘seeing the light’ (deepa-darsana).

Sanjay Lohia said...

A very happy Karttikai Deepam to one and all...

It is 6:21 pm IST, and therefore the great light (deepam) must have been lit on top of Annamalai. My pranams to the great light. I thank Sri Michael James for explaining the true significance of seeing this deepam.

I am sure Bhagavan will help us light this deepam in our heart. This is the light which if once lit, can never be extinguished. It is the all devouring light.

deepa - darsana said...

Therefore we should separate ourself from our dehatma-buddhi, our false consciousness 'I am the body', by self-attentiveness.

Michael James said...

With reference to my previous comment, to see the Deepam from the approximate moment it was lit you may look at the Deepam live streaming from Ramanasramam from 21 minutes and 40 seconds.

Sanjay Lohia said...

The truth of Arunachala and of ‘seeing the light’ (deepa-darsana)

The following extracts are from the above mentioned article by Sri Michael James, and these extracts are followed by my reflections:

1) In this story Siva in the form of Arunachala, the mountain of light, symbolises our real self, which is the original light of pure non-dual self-consciousness, ‘I am’; Vishnu symbolises our ego, the distorted and deluded form of self-consciousness that experiences itself as ‘I am this body’; and Brahma symbolises our intellect, the reflected light of consciousness by which we try to understand the external world, which appears as soon as we imagine ourself to be a body.

My note: We take so much pride in our intellect, don’t we? Our intellect is, as Michael says, the reflected light of consciousness by which we try to understand the external world. This reflected light takes us away from our original light, namely the light of pure, non-dual self-consciousness. So instead of letting our intellect move out towards the world, we need to introvert it, because this is the only way to freedom.

2) Brahma flying upwards to find the summit of the column symbolises the effort that we make to understand the truth of the world, God and ourself through our outward-going intellect, which seeks to know the reality by extroverted means such as science, religion or philosophy. So long as we thus direct our efforts outwards, away from our own essential self, ‘I am’, we can never know the reality as it truly is, and whatever knowledge we gain thereby is only a lie — an illusion or māyā, an insubstantial and self-delusive semblance of true knowledge.

My note: Yes, as Bhagavan teaches us, the knower and its knowledge, both are false - both are part of the same fabric of maya. We need to find out: Who is the knower? Who am I?

(I will continue this in my next comment)

Sanjay Lohia said...

In continuation of my previous comment:

3) Vishnu burrowing deep down into the ground to find the foot of the column symbolises the effort that we make to experience the reality of ourself — the one consciousness that alone knows the seeming existence of both the world and God — by penetrating deep into our heart, the innermost core or centre of our being. Only when we thus direct our efforts inwards, towards our own essential self-conscious being, ‘I am’, can we free ourself from the self-delusive grip of our ego and thereby experience ourself as we really are. And only when we thus experience ourself as we really are, will we truly know the reality not only of ourself but also of both the world and God.

My note: So we need to go burrowing deep down within ourself, as if trying to dig a deep well. Our freedom lies deep within us, and what lies without is only bondage.

4) In this verse Sri Ramana teaches us not only that our true aim should only be to see this non-dual real light of self in our heart, but also more importantly that the means by which we can see it is only அக நோக்கு (aha-nōkku) — self-attentiveness, self-observation or (figuratively speaking) looking at ‘I’. This term அக நோக்கு (aha-nōkku) very clearly and aptly expresses what the true practice of ātma-vichāra or self-investigation actually is, namely that it is the simple state of being exclusively self-conscious — conscious of nothing other than our own essential being, ‘I am’ — which is the only real advaita sādhana or non-dual spiritual practice, since it is the only practice that does not involve paying attention to anything that is anya or other than our essential self.

My note: Bhagavan uses such beautiful terms, like aha-nokku (looking at ‘I’), but we should not be misled by the simplicity of such terms, because they convey the most profound teachings.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Can a jnani really get angry?

Devotee: Even Bhagavan sometimes got angry. How do we understand that? Can a jnani really get angry?

Michael: Even Bhagavan sometimes used to get angry. It is like Vasistha telling Rama, ‘Having known what is to be known, play your part in the world, Rama’. So Bhagavan played a role. Sometimes when appropriate he got angry.

If we try to judge who is a jnani and who is not a jnani, we are sure to go wrong. Bhagavan said there is only one jnani, and you are that. Enquiring about whether this person is a jnani or that person is a jnani is ignorance, because so long as we see many-ness we are ignorant, and we cannot see who is a jnani.

Devotee: Our practice obviously becomes difficult if we are agitated, any advice?

Michael: When our mind is relatively calm it is obviously a favourable time to attend to ourself, but even when our mind is agitated, who is agitated? ‘I am’. So ‘I’ is always there, whatever state of mind we are in. It is always ‘I’ who is in that state of mind. So there is never a moment when we can’t attend to ourself, if we want to.

Sadhu Om used to say that people who say ‘first I have to calm down all the thoughts, and then only I can attend to myself’, that is not the right way to go. Even in the midst of a storm, we have to attend to ourself. However stormy it may be, if we dive down beneath the waves deep down in the ocean, there are no waves. So we have to plunge through the superficial activity of the mind and investigate, ‘who is aware of this activity?’ ‘Who is aware of this agitation?’ In that way we dive beneath the surface agitation and get the pearl.

(I will continue this in my next comment)

Sanjay Lohia said...

In continuation of my previous comment:

There are times when we get carried away by anger. We shouldn’t justify anger afterwards. As far as possible, we should try to curb our anger. The more we follow the path of self-surrender, the more we will accept whatever happens to be the will of Bhagavan. The more we accept whatever difficulties we face, the less inclined we will be to feel angry with the world.

There is only person we should be angry with, and that is this ego, who is the root of anger. So we should think, ‘why do I allow this small irritation to anger me so much?’

But Bhagavan said, if you have done something wrong, don’t justify it. Turn your attention to who is it that feels ‘I have done something wrong; I have lost my anger; I got unnecessarily angry’? If we start regretting our anger, who are we attending to? We are attending to this little person, instead of the ‘I’ that takes that little person to be itself.

So we need to divert our attention away from the anger, away from the person who is angry, back to the ‘I’ who is aware of that anger, and aware of itself as that person. That is the way forward, the way we have to progress.

• Slightly modified extract from the video: 2016-10-23 Sri Ramana Satsang group, California: discussion with Michael James on eradication of ego

Sanjay Lohia said...

Kabir says…

(In Hindi) chah miti chinta miti, manava beparavah, jisko kuch nahi chahiye, wahi shahansha. It means: If our desires and attachments are removed, our mind will become carefree and without any worries, and only those who do not need anything are real emperors.

It is said that a true sage or jnani baffles even kings and emperors. A true sage or jnani doesn’t have anything, and in spite of that they desire nothing. Even kings can’t understand their inner condition. A king or an extremely rich person is miserable because though they have plenty, they are still not satisfied and are always looking for more and more.

So their desires keep them in perpetual dissatisfaction and misery. In fact, they are worse than even beggars, because beggars beg since they have nothing, but rich men beg in spite of having so much. So such rich people are real beggars, and we should pity them and not envy them.

But how to be in such a state in which we desire nothing? As long as our ego is intact, such a condition is not possible, because our ego can’t exist without desires. One may try to control or reduce one’s desires and attachments, but they will still be there. So we need to give up our ego permanently, and we can do so only looking at it very-very closely (as Bhagavan says, the method is aha-nokku).

In it only Bhagavan who has given us the clear and direct method to destroy our ego. Although other sages also implore us to look at ourself, but their teachings are not so clear or direct. For example, I was recently listening to a bhajan (a devotional poem), which said:

(In Hindi) Bhahar ki tu maati faake, man ke bhitar kyon naa jhanke…. This means: You eat the mud which is outside of you, but why don’t you look within you?

So all true sages, directly or indirectly, give us the same message: Look within, ignoring whatever is outside. But are we listening? If we are honest we have to admit, ‘no, we are regularly ignoring their clarion call’. Of course, we do make some feeble attempts to turn within, but fail miserably because we are too attached to this ‘beautiful’ world. We simply don't want to let go, and this is our main problem.




nam said...

Sanjay Lohia,
"...but fail miserably because we are too attached to this ‘beautiful’ world. We simply don't want to let go, and this is our main problem."
Our attachments to "this beautiful world" shows our longing for true happiness.
Nobody will want to let go his/her small variant of happiness when he/she does not consciously know the state of desireless ego-free happiness. To look within - as the sages suggest - one is mostly ready only after experiencing heavy disappointments or when our hopes were/are dashed. To be ready for hearing and following/observing/paying attention to the "clarion call" of the sages one must be accordingly prepared. So becoming a seeker of truth does not come overnight or out of the blue.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Nam, whether we know it or not, we are all seekers. As soon as we rise as this ego, we become seekers. We have been seeking to regain our original state of pure self-awareness since time immemorial. However, like a musk-deer, we have been searching for happiness outside ourself, forgetting that happiness is our very nature. Therefore, to experience happiness we need to give up our outward direct seeking, and instead seek it where it actually exists. Happiness exists only in the core or centre of our being, so all our seeking should be directed only within ourself.

Don’t we experience unalloyed happiness while we are asleep? Nobody wants to be woken up from sleep, because we know that our waking state is full of misery and dissatisfaction. As Bhagavan says in verse 3 of Ulladu Narpadu, ‘that state in which ‘I’ [the ego] has [thereby] perished is agreeable to all’. Our ego does not exist in sleep, and it is for this reason that sleep is most dear to us.

Yes, when we inevitably encounter disappointments and when our hopes are dashed, we may turn to spirituality. However, there is no guarantee that we will necessarily do so. We all experience disappointments, but very-very few turn to spirituality because of it. But yes, we all will eventually come to a more spiritual way of life, and such a life will culminate in the practice of self-investigation. This practice is the final and the only doorway to freedom.

Of course, we do need some degree of purity of mind even to intellectually understand Bhagavan’s teachings, leave alone to practise it. So it is not everyone’s cup of tea. However, once we have tasted this tea we will surely become addicted to it, and such an addiction is a clear sign of our ego’s impending doom.






Sanjay Lohia said...

What Bhagavan is teaching us in Ulladu Narpadu is for one purpose and one purpose alone, and that is to get rid of the ego, which is the root of all problems.

Even if we accept all that he says in Ulladu Narpadu, the purpose of accepting it is to turn our attention within in order to eradicate our ego. It’s not to rise as this ego and argue with others. However strongly we believe in Bhagavan’s teachings, the purpose is not to argue with others.

Everyone believes according to their level of spiritual development, the level of maturity. People will have so many different beliefs. There is never going to be a day when everyone will accept Bhagavan’s teachings. If we accept Bhagavan’s teachings, that’s enough. We have to imbibe these teachings, put them into practice and turn within.


^•^ Slightly modified extract from Michael’s latest video: 2017-12-02 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 11

Mouna said...

”...It’s not to rise as this ego and argue with others. However strongly we believe in Bhagavan’s teachings, the purpose is not to argue with others.

Sanjay, greetings

The fact that you put in bold this part of Michael’s sentence sounds a little “bossy” and forceful (it doesn’t sound much like that in Michael’s video)… in fact it already sounds like arguing to whoever argues with this statement.
Of course the purpose of Bhagavan’s teachings is the eradication of the ego, but as we already know, “since we see the world”, meaning since we are still under the hallucinated sway of our own projection, the three process of sravana, manana and nididhyasana has to be continually going on all three at the same time and is inevitable that some arguing trying to find one’s way will happen, as it is happening as I write these words. The same with vegetarian food, ahimsa, compassion, kindness, etc, that as long as “we see the world” are the best tools to erode the veil of mind/ego for preparation of the final blow, but in themselves are also a projected illusion.
I learnt many many things from people that “argued” with me, even if they had no clue of what they were talking about (from my perspective of course) as well as from people that agreed with me, even if they didn’t have also a clue what I was talking about!! (again from my perspective of course)

In my (not so) humble opinion here is a little bit of a danger to turn Bhagavan’s teachings or Michael’s interpretation of them into a credo, a kind of “You Must…” kind of thing that history already proved desastrous and defeating its own purpose. (Remember that story where the devil is informed that people started awakening because they found a method to destroy ego? and the devil replies “Don’t worry, they will start institutionalizing”)

Anyhow I hope you read these lines in the spirit of a simple observation and investigation of what lies behind the words we sometimes pronounce and write, like in this case, putting in bold a part of Michael’s commentary.

Be well,
m

nam said...

Sanjay Lohia,
"Happiness exists only in the core or centre of our being, so all our seeking should be directed only within ourself."
But regrettably we hardly do advance to the core of our being even when we want to reach it. Therefore we mostly have apparently to play the role of imitating the musk-deer in its hopeless search for happiness. By the way, the ego escapes easily our attempts at its investigation despite all our efforts. However, as you seem to imply, it is no use moaning and groaning. As a consolation, we are lucky. As Bhagavan said, everyone finally must come (inwardly) to Arunachala, sooner or later.

musk-deer said...

Sanjay Lohia,
"Isn’t this insanity, we are ourself but we still want to ‘attain’ ourself? Such is the paradox of our spiritual adventure."
We are simply not aware of ourself as we actually are. Therefore it is neither surprising nor paradox that we "still want to attain ourself".
What is indeed paradox is the fact that one can seem or be at all not aware of one's actual infinite being but aware only of one's seeming finite being. So we urgently should try to repair that mishap.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Mouna, there are two senses (according to Oxford Online Dictionary) in which we use the term ‘argument’ and these are:

First sense: argument can mean ‘an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one’, as in ‘I've had an argument with my father’ or ‘heated arguments over public spending’ or ‘there was some argument about the decision’.

Second sense: ‘A reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory’, as in ‘there is a strong argument for submitting a formal appeal’.

Michael says, ‘However strongly we believe in Bhagavan’s teachings, the purpose is not to argue with others’. Here he is clearly talking about avoiding argument in its first sense – that is, we should not unnecessarily try and force Bhagavan’s teachings on anyone, if they are not willing to understand it. However, argument in the second sense is a perfectly valid means of reflecting on Bhagavan’s teachings. That is, it is useful to discuss his teachings with those who are interested to learn about it, by explaining to them as to why his teachings seem so logical. Therefore it is worth giving a try.

In my opinion, this blog in meant for the second type of arguments, in which we try to understand Bhagavan’s teachings in more depth. However, as far as possible, we should avoid heated arguments – like the ‘I am correct’ and ‘you are wrong’ type.

As to why do I put some sentences in bold, the answer is very simple, it is mainly for my own understanding. Whatever I put in bold, according to me, is the most important message of that particular extract or that piece of writing. This is my way of impressing upon my mind the importance of that particular central message.

So when I marked in bold, ‘However strongly we believe in Bhagavan’s teachings, the purpose is not to argue with others’, it was to impress upon my mind that I should not get into heated or mud-slinging type of arguments with others. That is not the purpose of Bhagavan’s teachings.

(I will continue this reply in my next comment)

Sanjay Lohia said...

In continuation of my previous comment in reply to Mouna:

Of course, there will be disagreements between different parties when they are discussing things. But we should not carry that argument beyond a point, especially if the other person wants to stick to his position. He is entitled to his opinion as I am entitled to mine. We should think in these lines and politely get out of unnecessary arguments.

However, when Michael was talking about avoiding unnecessary arguments with others, he was talking in reference to the following two verses of Ulladu Narpadu:

Verse 2: Each religion initially accepts three fundamentals. Contending ‘Only one fundamental stands as three fundamentals’, ‘Three fundamentals are always actually three fundamentals’, is only so long as the ego exists. Destroying ‘I’, standing in the state of oneself is best.

Verse 3: 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.

Isn’t Bhagavan clearly advising us to avoid all disputes and arguments about the real nature of world, God and ourself? So Michael was just trying to explain this point.






Mouna said...

Sanjay,

In our exchange here (you and me) we are not talking here about the reality of the world or Bhagavan’s teachings in general, we are talking about how to present them in the format of this blog (which is not really a blog anymore but a forum instead) to “those who are interested to learn about it, by explaining to them”... is interesting that you don’t include yourself in the “argument”.

It happened long time ago in an exchange we had, I told you that sometimes language needs a second lecture, like an “intended meaning” behind the words written, and I agree this is a very subjective perception prone to many misunderstandings.
You say you intended the second meaning of the word argument but what I receive as “intention” is the first one! I believe you, that is why I said is a simple subjective opinion about your intentions putting words in bold, but I still feel your intention “behind the words” is different.

I do believe also that this exchange will be completely different if we were face to face reading each other’s body language, hearing the sound of the words. This is a typical internet exchange at the level of concepts and justifications of behavior which is highly prone to error, first on my part about your intentions and second on your part ALSO about your intentions! It is hard just not to react to an observation about one’s own person trying to justify it in the first place to save the face as we say.

Unfortunately one of the shortcomings of the Google blogs (as opposed to Yahoo) is that we cannot know the personal email of the blogger (unless he or she don’t mind to disclose it in their blogger info) and many of these kind of personal discussions have to happen in the open. I would rather preferred to write you behind the scenes because, again, of the subjective nature of what we are talking here.

But anyways, thank you for explaining your position, (that for me sounds more like a behavioral justification of the person Sanjay about his own acts because unable to see it that way) and I rest my case here, not because I “don’t want to continue discussing the point” but mostly because since it turned “personal” (in the sense I am discussing behaviors, not ideas) I would rather continue it at a personal level, in order to keep this blog unburdened with so many postings. So if you would like to tell me something more or continue the conversation, I’ll invite you to write me to my personal email that is maunna-at-gmail-dot-com.

Thanks,
M

Noob said...

Let us consider this example:
We are walking along the road and suddenly see a snake, we cannot walk any further, we are afraid, we watch what the snake is going to do. After a while we notice it is not moving, aha, it pretends to be dead, waiting for an unsuspecting victim to come closer so that it can bite it. What an evil snake! It has to perish, we must annihilate it. So we are now researching how we can kill the snake: lets go buy some ammo and weapons, lets start from a shot gun, damn it does not work, it it is still there, lets get a nice pistol, ha, nice shot definitely hit the snake, but why is it still there and frightening? Need a bigger gun, a machine gun should do the trick..., so many rounds and the snake seems intact, this cannot be after all these preparations, Ill just 'king bomb it...

When the dust settles, the snake is still there, because it was not a snake to begin with, it was something indestructible..
As Michael has many times said, ego is made of self... You cannot look at ego without looking at self. Ego is not an enemy, it is a guide...

Sanjay Lohia said...

Mouna, I thank you for this response. We are travelling on the same boat – that is, we are all spiritual aspirants trying to understand and follow Bhagavan’s teachings to the best of our ability. I have the same weakness and shortcoming as probably most of us here. If you have noticed, my earlier comments were more argumentative that they are now. So we all are learning as we move forward.

Yes, face-to-face conversation has its own advantage. As you imply, when we are face-face-face, a large part of our conversation happens through our body-language. Who can deny the power of a warm smile which we sometimes use to greet each other?

Greetings

Mouna said...

Thanks Sanjay for your response also.
You know? It’s interesting, just a few hours ago, a few miles from my home, a terrible fire broke in Southern California (surrounding the city of Ventura) I wish you could see the images I have just out of my backyard...
Waking up in the middle of the night and still under the shock (although the wind is blowing away from our neighborhood so we at least are out of harm’s way) at this moment I thought about our recent exchange and it seemed so... ethereal, surreal even, really revealing the nature of this dream we are all characters in.
You are right, we are in the same boat and the only thought that seems really real amidst all the other ones at this very moment at least to me is to turn inwards...
Anyhow, just wanted to share the moment.
Be well,
M

Sanjay Lohia said...

Real power, sakti, is nothing but shanti (peace)

Slightly modified extract from the video: 2017-12-02 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 11

In the mere presence of the sun, all the worldly activities take place. If we were far-far away from the sun, there would have been no life on this planet. But what is the sun doing? It is just being. Bhagavan uses this as an analogy – by the mere presence of God all these things are happening, but God is not affected by them at all. God is all powerful, but actually God can’t do anything, because his nature is being and not doing. Doing is an illusion that occurs when the ego arises.

There were some followers of Bhagavan who wanted power, who wanted saktis and siddhis. Bhagavan said, where does real power lie? Real power, sakti, is nothing but shanti (peace).

Sadhu Om gave a nice analogy. He said if there is a big dam, it requires great power to hold all the water in it. If you breach the dam and allow all the water to leak out of the dam, that actually is reduction in power. As soon as we start doing anything, our power is seemingly reduced.

The supreme power is just being. So which requires more power, more strength, for the dam to hold the water or for the dam to crack and let the water out? Holding the water is greatest power. A weak dam will sooner or later crumble, and all the water will escape. Only a very strong dam can hold all the water there.

(I will continue this in my next comment)

Sanjay Lohia said...

In continuation of my previous comment:

So the greatest power is only peace, just being. So in that sense God is all powerful, because he never rises to do anything. He just is.

Awareness is the supreme power - chit-sakti. We squander this supreme power by letting it go outwards – that is like letting the dam crack. When the dam cracks the water starts pouring out, and the more water pours out the more the cracks widen, and more water flows. So we got to patch the cracks now. How to patch up all the cracks, and pull all the water back into dam? Very-very simple – we simply turn our attention back to ourself.

My note: Bhagavan once said something to the effect: ‘A jnani’s power is reduced when he speaks’. It may not be an entirely accurate recording, but as we saw in case of Bhagavan, his silence was more powerful than his words.

A Gandhi has more power that all those whom we see indulging in senseless violence. It is the power of non-violence. Gandhi shook the mighty British Empire by his power of non-violent resistance.

It takes more power to control anger that to give vent to it. It takes more power to completely ignore all the pulls and attractions of this world, than to indulge in senseless worldly enjoyments.

So being is power, and doing is dissipation of power.




aha-nokku said...

Sanjay Lohia,
you say " Very-very simple – we simply turn our attention back to ourself."
If that was true we all were just soon jnanis. As we - most of us - know from own experience, it is in practice not simple or easy "to turn our attention back to ourself." It seems that the dam (which keeps together the waters of consciousness) has already too many big cracks to patch them in order to save these clear floods of water.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Aha-nokku, jnana means pure self-awareness, so in that sense we are all jnanis, because we are nothing but pure self-awareness. However, our jnana seems to be clouded over by ajnana, which is nothing but our ego and all its accretions. If we are able to remove this ego from the scene, what will remain is pure jnana.

Michael says, ‘So we got to patch the cracks now. How to patch up all the cracks, and pull all the water back into dam? Very-very simple – we simply turn our attention back to ourself’. The practice is as simple as looking up at the sun. Can this be difficult? Isn’t it quite simple to look at the sun? It obviously is. But why we do not look at the sun. It is because we are afraid that if we look at it too directly, we will be blinded. Likewise, we are afraid to look at our ego directly and with our whole attention, because we are afraid that if we do so we (this ego) will cease to exist.

Bhagavan says self-investigation is the easiest of all practices. But why does it seem difficult? It is because, as Michael often says, we don’t yet want it. The more we practise, the more we will want it. Eventually we will find that the practice was never difficult. It was only our interest in things other than itself, which makes it seem that it is difficult.

The dam may have big cracks or small cracks, how does it matter? What matters is whether or not we trying to follow the path shown to us by our sadguru, Bhagavan Ramana? If we are trying to follow his path, we should rest assured that all the cracks will fill up sooner or later. Bhagavan has assured us this in so many ways.



aha-nokku said...

Sanjay Lohia,
you say "...we are nothing but pure self-awareness.
However, our jnana seems to be clouded over by ajnana, which is nothing but our ego and all its accretions. If we are able to remove this ego from the scene, what will remain is pure jnana."
"...we are afraid to look at our ego directly and with our whole attention, because we are afraid that if we do so we (this ego) will cease to exist."
"It was only our interest in things other than itself, which makes it seem that it is difficult."
Our interest in things other than itself cannot be completely unfounded. Certainly our mind is a blank about its origin. So - metaphorically spoken - unless we fill up that gap in our memory we would not loose our wrong interest in other things than ourself.

Anonymous said...

Sanjay - why don't you start your own blog? It pains one to see how this blog has been transformed into your own personal spiritual diary. Yes, Yes, I know I can choose not to visit the blog etc....But really, think about it. If these extensive ramblings help you, and maybe a few others, then please consider hosting them on a different site. I must confess that I sometimes visit the site just for entertainment - to see who is arguing with whom! And I wouldn't be absolutely surprised if I was the only one. It's like watching a car-wreck - not a beautiful sight, but still difficult to take one's eyes of the scene. So please, consider doing all of us a favor.

karpaga said...

Anonymous,
Sanjay surely likes to entertain you and all the heavenly hosts out of enthusiasm.
Regarding the unpleasant sight of a car-wreck - hopefully you was not just involved in a road accident.

Sanjay Lohia said...

According to Bhagavan, bhakti is the mother of jnana. Why are we all sitting here talking about this subject? We could be doing so many other things. Bhagavan has put a seed of interest in our heart. He has sown than seed of interest for this subject in our heart, and now we find this subject more and more fascinating, so keep on getting drawn to it.

Though we know this is a suicide mission – studying and practising Bhagavan’s teachings is like embarking on a suicide mission. We are like a moth flying around a flame. Sooner or later we are going to get too close to the flame, and we are going to get burnt. We know that, but still we can’t leave that flame.

So Bhagavan has put the seed of love in our heart, and he is never going to cheat us. He has kindled the interest in our heart; however, we may not be sincere in following what Bhagavan has taught us – that means we may not have enough love. However, Bhagavan is a loving gardener. When he plants a seed he will work on it, he will nurture it, and make sure that that seed grows into a beautiful flowering plant.

We may not be ready to flower yet, but we are being attended by the best gardener in the world. He will give us water, he will give us nourishment, and he will give us all the favourable circumstances. When the winter comes, he will take us to the greenhouse to protect us from the cold. In short do all that is necessary to ensure that one day we are ready to flower.

~*~ Slightly modified extract from the video: 2017-12-02 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 11 (51 minutes onwards)

(I will continue this in my next comment)

Sanjay Lohia said...

In continuation of my previous comment:

My note: Why do I reflect so much upon Bhagavan’s teachings? It is, as Michael says, because of the love for it that Bhagavan has planted in my heart. Why are 567 comments already posted on this article? It is because of the love (for this subject) that Bhagavan has so compassionately sown in the heart of so many of us.

Why does Michael write so much about Bhagavan’s teachings? Why does he regularly post videos on his YouTube channel? It is out of pure love for Bhagavan and his teachings. We should emulate his bhakti, and he is certainly my inspiration.

Why did Muruganar and Sadhu Om write so much on Bhagavan and on his teachings? Why do people visit Tiruvannamalai in hundreds every day? Why is Arunachala hill present in our midst? It is to spread his net of love, and to thereby draw us to its presence. Why did Bhagavan appear before us? It is again because of his infinite love and compassion for us.



square -circle said...

Sanjay Lohia and all other readers,
out of sheer curiosity I would you like to know the number of people who has done their girivalam /pradakshina around Arunachala Hill last week. Could you have a look in a South Indian newspaper ?

Sanjay Lohia said...

Square-circle, I just now read somewhere on the internet that about half a million (500000) people went around Arunachala this deepam. I obviously cannot verify its accuracy. Nevertheless, it looks like an exaggerated figure, but since I do not go to Tiruvannamalai during deepam, I can only guess.

square -circle said...

Sanjay Lohia,
thanks for your information. A half a million people on last Maha Deepam is quite possible. I did my girivalams mostly not on full moon days because the big crowd of at least 100000 then disturbes my full devotion to Arunachala. Obviously you too want to avoid the big crowd of people during deepam.

gargoyle said...

Can't We All Just Get Along?

(if Mouna has been in Southern Calif. any length of time he knows who I am quoting)

Glad you and yours are all safe from the fires Mouna. It reminded me of my experience in the late 70's living in Valley Center, wind was gusting up to 118 mph and we lost everything we had. Never did find my dog, or chickens.

Best Regards

Mouna said...

Gargoyle, my friend thank you for the short posting.
Suddenly the dream turned red... we had to evacuate our home and now we are living far away until we can get back home, if there’s is one when we get back!
It is very interesting when the screenplay of life that we take for granted daily suddenly turns upside down and one finds oneself just hanging on there by the thin (but indestructible) thread of simply being, without many thoughts except for those functional ones to keep one going... I’m sure you went through this for what you said in the posting...

Anyhow, I might have not lived long enough in Southern California (only 23 years) because at this moment I don’t recall who said “Can't We All Just Get Along?” Maybe you can instruct me on that...

Anyhow, the play unfolds as it must.
Be well brother.
M

Mouna said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
square -circle said...

Mouna, greetings,
keep having confidence in Bhagavan.
I will pray that you may come through the danger.
If possible try to keep calm.

Mouna said...

Square-circle, my friend
Thank you for your blessings and kind words.
Trust in Him is the only thought worth of having in this life, the rest just moves and changes and what we took for granted changes or disappears in the blink of an eye...
My family and myself we are ok. We can’t say the same for many people.
Bhagavan’s ground shaking technique proves invaluable, in some moments of our life, to rethink about what is important and worth pursuing and what is just a changing mirage and not worth pursuing.
Everyone, each of us, at one moment, will have to face the possibility of extinction, that being either the things we have, the ones we love, or oneself, the so much cherished person. Let’s prepare for that and try to surrender as much as we can every moment, everything, to Him.
Thanks square-circle (your name is a good analogy for ego!)
M

Sanjay Lohia said...

People say ‘I sat in meditation for 20 minutes, and there were no thoughts’. The ‘I’ who sat for meditation is a thought, the body that sat is a thought, 20 minutes is a thought. The only time when we get away from thought is when fall asleep. How do we get rid of thoughts in sleep? It is simply by giving up our ego. So long as the ego is there, other thoughts will be there, because the ego cannot stand without other thoughts.

The first thought that the ego depends on is the body. The ego is the dehatma-buddhi - the thought ‘I am this body’, that is the ego. The problem is not the thought; the problem is who is thinking the thoughts.

~*~ Slightly modified extract from the video: 2017-12-02 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 11

square -circle said...

Mouna,
as you say we should learn to surrender to the omnipresence of the Lord - also without any constant threat of our circumstances. I hope the firefighters will be able to stop the spread of that enormous blaze in Ventura county. May you and your family hold out till the fierce winds cease to blow in the direction of your mountain town. I do intensely sympathize with you and your sorror and worry.
Om namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanaya !

D. Samarender Reddy said...

Mounaji,

You are showing sterling equanimity, truly stithaprajna like, in this hour of trial for you. I know that if I was in your position I would have freaked out. Hats off to you, and best wishes, though my wishes may be unnecessary because given your devotion to and understanding of Bhagavan, His grace must be on you aplenty. Take care.

Mouna said...

D Samarenderji,

Thank you for your kind words of encouragement.
We all do what we can with the tools we have been given by our Guru and the support of our sanga.
Be well.
Yours in Him
M

Sanjay Lohia said...

Mouna, our thoughts are with you and your family. I also read about this huge fire in Southern California (near Ventura) in today’s newspaper. I hope things are under control now. As you wrote to Square-circle:

Everyone, each of us, at one moment, will have to face the possibility of extinction, that being either the things we have, the ones we love, or oneself, the so much cherished person. Let’s prepare for that and try to surrender as much as we can every moment, everything, to Him.

Bhagavan is our ultimate refuge.






Sanjay Lohia said...

There is nobody - no jiva - in this or in any other world who has a problem free life. It is because every jiva takes itself to be a body, and body brings problems – disease, hunger, and all these things. We cannot have a perfectly contented life so long as we experience ourself as a body.

So, yes, being aware of anything other than ourself is a problem – a big-big problem. We may not see it as a problem, because we are focusing on all those little problems that come in its wake. But the root problem is our seeing things other than ourself.

We know that there is no living being which is free of problems, but still which one of us is not seeking a problem free life. We think, ‘If I have money, my life will be free of problems’; or we think, ‘If I have better health, my life will be free of problems’. We are looking for solutions outside, but there is no solution outside, because the very looking outside is itself the problem. We know very well, whatever problems we get rid of in this life, some other problem will come in its wake.

So the only way to get rid of all our problems is to get rid of our ego, which is the root and foundation of all our problems.

~*~ Slightly modified extract from the video: 2017-12-02 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 11

Mouna said...

”Bhagavan is our ultimate refuge.”
You are so right Sanjay my friend, so right...

Thank you for your kind thoughts of support. And the so appropriate transcription from Michael’s video in the following post.

Be well,
M

Hector said...

Mouna,
I am very sorry to hear about your present situation and I hope everything works out for you and your family in the best possible way that it can.
Sincere best wishes to you all.
Take care.
H

Sanjay Lohia said...

Sadhu Om said a very nice thing in his book, The Path of Sri Ramana, ‘attention itself is grace’. Whatever we give attention to, that thing is strengthened. Supposing if you have an irrational fear of spiders, you are terrified of spiders. So every time you come into a room, you look around to see if there are spiders there. The more you think about spiders, the more the fear of spiders will be strengthened, because of your attention to it.

If you want to get rid of the fear of spiders, you have to just stop thinking about it - just stop thinking that spiders are dangerous, that spiders will do you any harm. So the less attention we give to something, the less strong it is. The more attention we give to something, the stronger it is. So it’s a play of attention.

In fact, it is our attention to things other than ourself that creates those other things. Awareness is the supreme power - chit-sakti. How is the world created? As Bhagavan says, ‘because we see the world, it seems to exist’. So our seeing itself is creation - dsrti-srsti-vada, that’s what Bhagavan taught us.

How does the world exist? Who created it? It is created by the one who sees it. By merely seeing that dream world, we create it. The dream world doesn’t exist apart from our perception of it. So our seeing it, our attention to it is what brings it to existence.

^ Slightly modified extract from the video: 2017-12-02 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 11

My note: I sometimes dream of terrible things, called ‘nightmares’. As long as they last, it seems that my world is about to come to an end, because I do not find any escape route from the position I then find myself in. But somehow when my dream is broken, I am quite relieved to find that it was all a dream, and that therefore my world is still intact. So there is nothing to fear – all fear was only my delusion.

So it is always drsti-srsti-vada - we project our fears (or whatever), and we get frightened by our own projection. How ridiculous, isn’t it? Why look away from ourself? Why create this horrifying or terrifying world? Why not just turn within with the entire power at our command, and destroy all creation once and for all. It is such a simple solution to all our problems - the problems which may seem insurmountable at present.

Karttigai Deepam said...

Sanjay Lohia,
"In fact, it is our attention to things other than ourself that creates those other things. Awareness is the supreme power - chit-sakti. How is the world created? As Bhagavan says, ‘because we see the world, it seems to exist’. So our seeing itself is creation - dsrti-srsti-vada, that’s what Bhagavan taught us.

How does the world exist? Who created it? It is created by the one who sees it. By merely seeing that dream world, we create it. The dream world doesn’t exist apart from our perception of it. So our seeing it, our attention to it is what brings it to existence."

To know that from own experience one (first or simultaneosly) has to cease as an ego.
I would like to gain this knowledge by all at once. Unfortunately turning within does not bring the desired result. Evidently my power of self-investigation is only a slight breeze. Because it was my own fault that I got into this situation I have to try to improve the quality of my self-attention. Otherwise I will remain sticking always in the same inferno of ignorance. May the fire of jnana exterminate all illusion and delusion.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Because of the density of our desires, our mind is still clouded. We see a glimmer of light in Bhagavan’s teachings, but we are not fully convinced by his teachings, though it all makes sense. It seems very plausible, but deep down the delusion is very much there – very thick and dense. So, how to get rid of that very basic ignorance, which is the basis of the ego?

Ignorance is darkness; we need light. What is the light that illumines the darkness, and enables us to see this world? It is only self-awareness, our real nature, our original light. So by turning our attention within, we are turning our eyes towards the light, so to speak. The ‘eye’ here doesn't means the physical eye, but the inner eye – the inner attention. Bhagavan says, turning within daily see yourself with the inner eye.

The more we turn our attention within, the more we are bathing ourself in light. That is the real ganga-snana - the ganga of self-awareness. We can have a bath here and now in the real ganga, by turning our attention within.

The more we bathe in our inner light, the more our heart will be clarified and purified, and the more it is clarified and purified, the more clear Bhagavan’s teachings will become, and as a result of that we get viveka, and viveka leads to vairagya and to bhakti. Vairagya means freedom from desire to attend to other things, bhakti means the love to attend to ourself. So it’s a snowballing process.

That light will purify you, cleanse you and transform you into itself, because it is
yourself.

*^* Slightly modified extract from the video: 2017-12-02 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 11

(I will continue this in my next comment)

Sanjay Lohia said...

In continuation of my previous comment:

My note: Michael uses a nice analogy of ganga-snana (bathing in the river ganga). As he says, ‘The more we turn our attention within, the more we are bathing ourself in light. That is the real ganga-snana - the ganga of self-awareness’.

For those who do not know, ganga is said to be the holiest river in India. It is believed that ganga was brought to earth by a divine intervention, in order to purify mother earth of all its impurities. Therefore, to have a bath in ganga is said to be purifying. In fact, people travel long distance just to visit one of the places where this river flows, so that they can bathe it. It is also customary to immerse the last remains of Hindus in ganga.

Bhagavan didn’t deny the purifying effect of ganga-snana, but also said that such a bath will only give a miniscule benefit, whereas what Michael indicates by ganga-snana is a million times more purifying that a mere bodily ganga-snana.

Moreover, as Hindus try to immerse the last remains of their loved ones in the river ganga, our ego's last purificatory bath will also be taken in our inner ganga, river of pure self-awareness. That is, our ego has to eventually dissolve back into pure self-awareness. That will be our final ganga-snana, and we can take this final bath here and now, if we really want to.


Mouna said...

Thank you Hector and all the members of this remarkable group initiated by Michael for your words of support, either through this blog or emails received personally. Very much appreciated.

The only way out is the way in...
Yours in Bhagavan
Mouna

Karttikai Deepam said...

Sanjay Lohia,
real ganga-snana is presumably/certainly the same as seeing the real inner deepam light of Arunachala.
In order to bath the ego-awareness in the flow of our inner real ganga we first must find that flowing river or bright light of pure self-awareness in us.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Karttikai Deepam, yes, inner ganga-snana or seeing the inner deepam are just two beautiful ways of describing our practice of deep self-attentiveness.

This inner ganga is ever flowing within us, and likewise the inner deepam is always burning inside us without even a least flicker. So we just need to turn towards this inner ganga or this inner depam.

Why are we afraid to turn towards this inner deepam? It is because we fear if we go too close to it we will be annihilated, and who wants to die? Likewise, we do not want to take the inner ganga-snana, because we are afraid if we do so, we may be swept away by the strong currents of the river.

So we need to be extremely brave if we want to be burn by the inner deepam, or if we want to be swept away by the strong current of the inner river. That is, we need to go nearer and nearer to the flame until we are reduced to ashes. Likewise, we need to immerse ourself in ganga and stay there, and the strong currents of ganga will do the rest. That is, it will carry us along with it to the infinite ocean of pure self-awareness.

The question is, are we ready to be burnt by our inner deepam? Are we ready to surrender ourself to our inner ganga? It is obvious, we are not, because otherwise why are we still alive as this ego? Our entire sadhana is just to make us ready for our full and final surrender.

Sanjay Lohia said...

So long as we are worried about our shadow (which is our ego and all its projections), we will be looking at this shadow, and therefore it will follow us wherever we go. You simply ignore the shadow and look at the sun, and then the shadow is no problem.

The shadow is there only when we look at it. Why look at the shadow? Why not look at the sun? So if we look at ourself, the ego will vanish. We don’t have to get rid of it. We just have to turn our attention within – ‘if sought, it will take a flight’.

*^* Slightly modified extract from the video: 2017-12-02 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 11

My note: Simply put, this world gives us all the problems because we look at it. If we turn within and look only at ourself, where are all those problems? We will find that these problems were never there in the first place, because the ego which experienced these problems itself was never there in the first place. Such a simple solution to all our mighty problems!

Sanjay Lohia said...

Devotee: Does it mean that God actually doesn’t heed our prayers?

Michael: So long as we take ourself to be a person, we also take God to be a person. Now you just asked me a question, didn’t you? You think there is someone called ‘Michael’ who is hearing and answering your questions. But supposing in dream if you ask someone, you will also get an answer. While dreaming you believe that there is a person there who is answering your questions. However, when you wake up you know that the person who asked the question and the person who replied, both were just a figment of your imagination.

So just you believe that Michael is hearing your questions, it is equally true that God is hearing our prayers. That is, so long as we rise as this ego, and experience ourself as this body in effect the world is real, and God is real as someone other than ourself, and other the world.

But when we wake from this dream we will realize that God (as something other than ourself) was not real. God is real but not someone other than ourself, but as our own self, our own reality.

• Slightly modified extract from the video: 2017-12-02 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 11

My note: In this context it would be useful to reflect on verse 7 of Nan Yar?:

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

gargoyle said...

Sanjay

I appreciate the texts of Michaels videos and hope you continue doing this. It has been an immense help to me. I often have difficulty understanding/hearing what is being said in these videos and having the text to read is a huge difference.

Someday I will have to thank you

Sanjay Lohia said...

Gargoyle, you say, ‘Someday I will have to thank you’, but you have already thanked me here and now. In fact, we should only thank Michael for all these videos which he so lovingly brings to us. Of course he will in turn thank Bhagavan, because it is Bhagavan who inspires him to talk and write with such clarity.

Without any doubt these videos are a great support in our inward journey. Another example of Bhagavan's overwhelming grace . . .

iruppu-unarvu said...

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

How to grasp and realize this mahavakya-like statement ?


Karttikai Deepam said...

Sanjay Lohia,
when you say "...we need to immerse ourself in ganga and stay there, and the strong currents of ganga will do the rest. That is, it will carry us along with it to the infinite ocean of pure self-awareness." you seem to refer the ego which is to be immersed in the inner ganga. So obviuosly you are speaking merely metaphorically because what could be carried along with the inner ganga is only the ego. I presume that nothing can actually be outside of the infinite ocean of pure self-awareness - not even the ego-phantom.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Iruppu-unarvu, you ask, how to grasp and realise that only atma-svarupa exists, and that everything else is only our imagination? It may be difficult to grasp this intellectually, because as long as we experience ourself as a body, we will experience a world and a God (which is apart from ourself) to be also real.

However, we can try to grasp this in various other ways. For a start, let’s take our experience in dream. As soon as we start dreaming we create ourself (Iruppu-unarvu, Sanjay or whatever) and simultaneously we also create a world around us, and also imagine that there is a God sitting somewhere taking care of this world.

These three – the person we take to be ourself, the world we see in that dream and the God who is seemingly in charge of that world – all come into existence all at once, don’t they? So these are nothing but ‘kalpanaigaḷ [imaginations, fabrications, mental creations or illusory superimpositions] in it, like [the imaginary] silver [seen] in a shell’. Our dream world disappears as soon as we wake up.

Then we can consider our deep sleep experience. There was nothing is our deep sleep except ourself, but as soon as we rise as the idea ‘I am this body’, everything else also comes into existence. When we again sleep, everything else again disappears. Therefore, we can infer from this that whatever comes and goes has to our imagination, because whatever is real can never disappear.

Last but the least, when Bhagavan says that the soul, world and God are our imagination, we have to take it as tentatively true. If Bhagavan is our sadguru, we should give weightage to whatever he says. That is, we should at least investigate our ego to see whether or not the ego, world and a separate God survive such self-investigation? According to Bhagavan, if our ego vanishes, all its imaginations will also vanish along with it, never to return again.


Sanjay Lohia said...

Karttikai Deepam, yes, I was talking about the ego, because we ourself (our real self) are that ganga. But as long as we take ourself to be the ego, we need to give it regular ganga-snana so that it becomes devoid of all its sins. What are the sins of our ego? These are nothing but our desires and attachments.

Yes, there is nothing outside the infinite ocean of pure self-awareness. Bhagavan has made this abundantly clear. 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’.

«Oldest ‹Older   401 – 600 of 733   Newer› Newest»