tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73459188889537652412024-03-14T06:17:15.373+00:00Happiness of Being: The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana MaharshiA collection of articles discussing the philosophy and practice of the spiritual teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana, written by Michael James and forming an extension of his main website, <a href="https://www.happinessofbeing.com">www.happinessofbeing.com</a>.Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comBlogger431125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-8613487709059514622023-12-07T21:33:00.017+00:002024-02-07T12:01:52.490+00:00Āṉma-Viddai verse 5: in the heart that looks within without thinking of anything else, oneself will be seen<a name="av5"></a>In continuation of and as a conclusion to the five articles on <i>Āṉma-Viddai</i> that I posted here previously, namely <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/01/anma-viddai-tamil-text-transliteration.html"><i>Āṉma-Viddai</i>: Tamil text, transliteration and translation</a>, <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/02/anma-viddai-verse-1-thought-is-what.html"><i>Āṉma-Viddai</i> verse 1: thought is what causes the appearance of the unreal body and world</a>, <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2023/05/anma-viddai-verse-2-thought-i-am-this.html"><i>Āṉma-Viddai</i> verse 2: the thought ‘I am this body’ is what supports all other thoughts</a>, <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2023/07/anma-viddai-verse-3-knowledge-of-all.html"><i>Āṉma-Viddai</i> verse 3: knowledge of all other things is caused by ignorance of ourself</a> and <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2023/11/anma-viddai-verse-4-self-investigation.html"><i>Āṉma-Viddai</i> verse 4: self-investigation is the easiest of all paths, because it is not doing but just being</a>, in this article I will explain and discuss the meaning and implications of the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/01/anma-viddai-tamil-text-transliteration.html#av5">fifth and final verse</a>:<br><a name='more'></a>
<blockquote>விண்ணா தியவிளக்குங் கண்ணா தியபொறிக்குங்<br>
கண்ணா மனக்கணுக்குங் கண்ணாய் மனவிணுக்கும்<br>
விண்ணா யொருபொருள்வே றெண்ணா திருந்தபடி<br>
யுண்ணா டுளத்தொளிரு மண்ணா மலையெனான்மா —<br>
காணுமே; அருளும் வேணுமே; அன்பு பூணுமே;<br>
இன்பு தோணுமே. (ஐயே)<br>
<br>
<i>viṇṇā diyaviḷakkuṅ kaṇṇā diyapoṟikkuṅ<br>
kaṇṇā maṉakkaṇukkuṅ kaṇṇāy maṉaviṇukkum<br>
viṇṇā yoruporuḷvē ṟeṇṇā dirundapaḍi<br>
yuṇṇā ḍuḷattoḷiru maṇṇā malaiyeṉāṉmā —<br>
kāṇumē; aruḷum vēṇumē; aṉbu pūṇumē;<br>
iṉbu tōṇumē</i>. (<i>aiyē</i>)<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> விண் ஆதிய விளக்கும் கண் ஆதிய பொறிக்கும் கண் ஆம் மனக் கணுக்கும் கண் ஆய், மன விணுக்கும் விண் ஆய் ஒரு பொருள் வேறு எண்ணாது இருந்தபடி உள் நாடு உளத்து ஒளிரும் அண்ணாமலை என் ஆன்மா காணுமே. அருளும் வேணுமே. அன்பு பூணுமே. இன்பு தோணுமே. (ஐயே, அதி சுலபம், ...)<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>viṇ ādiya viḷakkum kaṇ ādiya poṟikkum kaṇ ām maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ āy, maṉa-viṇukkum viṇ āy oru poruḷ vēṟu eṇṇādu irundapaḍi uḷ nāḍu uḷattu oḷirum aṇṇāmalai eṉ āṉmā kāṇumē. aruḷum vēṇumē. aṉbu pūṇumē. iṉbu tōṇumē</i>. (<i>aiyē, ati sulabham, ...</i>)<br>
<br>
<b>அன்வயம்:</b> வேறு எண்ணாது இருந்தபடி உள் நாடு உளத்து, விண் ஆதிய விளக்கும் கண் ஆதிய பொறிக்கும் கண் ஆம் மனக் கணுக்கும் கண் ஆய், மன விணுக்கும் விண் ஆய் ஒளிரும் ஒரு பொருள் அண்ணாமலை என் ஆன்மா காணுமே. அருளும் வேணுமே. அன்பு பூணுமே. இன்பு தோணுமே. (ஐயே, அதி சுலபம், ...)<br>
<br>
<b><i>Anvayam</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>vēṟu eṇṇādu irundapaḍi uḷ nāḍu uḷattu, viṇ ādiya viḷakkum kaṇ ādiya poṟikkum kaṇ ām maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ āy, maṉa-viṇukkum viṇ āy oru poruḷ oḷirum aṇṇāmalai eṉ āṉmā kāṇumē. aruḷum vēṇumē. aṉbu pūṇumē. iṉbu tōṇumē</i>. (<i>aiyē, ati sulabham, ...</i>)<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> In the heart that investigates within, as it is without thinking of anything other, oneself, which is called Annamalai, the one substance, which shines as the eye even to the mind-eye, which is the eye to all the sense organs beginning with eyes, which illumine what begins with space, and as the space even to the mind-space, will certainly be seen. Grace also is certainly necessary. Be adorned with love. Happiness will certainly appear. (Ah, extremely easy, ...)<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> In the <i>uḷḷam</i> [heart or mind] that investigates within, [just being] as it is without thinking of anything other [than itself], <i>ātmā</i> [oneself], which is called Annamalai, the one <i>poruḷ</i> [real substance], which shines as the eye even to the mind-eye, which is the eye to all the [five] sense organs beginning with eyes, which illumine [the five elements] beginning with space, and as the space even to the mind-space, will certainly be seen. [For one to see oneself as one actually is] grace also is certainly necessary. [In order to be a suitable receptacle to imbibe grace, one should] be adorned with [bound by or possessed of] love [for seeing and thereby just being as one actually is]. [Infinite] happiness will [then] certainly appear [or be experienced]. ([Therefore] ah, extremely easy, <i>ātma-vidyā</i>, ah, extremely easy!)</blockquote>
<b><i>Padavurai</i></b> (word-explanation): விண் (<i>viṇ</i>): sky, space | ஆதிய (<i>ādiya</i>): beginning with, what begins with | விளக்கும் (<i>viḷakkum</i>): which illumine, cause to shine, make clear, make known {adjectival participle} | கண் (<i>kaṇ</i>): eye | ஆதிய (<i>ādiya</i>): beginning with, which begin with | பொறிக்கும் (<i>poṟikkum</i>): to all the sense organs {<i>poṟikku</i> is a dative (fourth case) form of <i>poṟi</i>, ‘sense organ’, and in this context the suffix <i>um</i> implies ‘entire’, ‘complete’ or ‘all’} | கண் (<i>kaṇ</i>): eye | ஆம் (<i>ām</i>): which is {adjectival participle} | மன (<i>maṉa</i>): mind {<i>maṉam</i> is a Tamil form of the Sanskrit <i>manas</i>, ‘mind’, and <i>maṉa</i> is the form it takes when used as the first word in a compound, so <i>maṉa-k-kaṇ</i> means ‘mind-eye’, implying the ‘eye’ that is mind} | கணுக்கும் (<i>kaṇukkum</i>): even to the eye {<i>kaṇukku</i> is a dative (fourth case) form of <i>kaṇ</i>, ‘eye’, and in this context the suffix <i>um</i> implies ‘even’} | கண் (<i>kaṇ</i>): eye | ஆய் (<i>āy</i>): being, as {adverbial participle} | மன (<i>maṉa</i>): mind | விணுக்கும் (<i>viṇukkum</i>): even to the space {<i>viṇukku</i> is a dative (fourth case) form of <i>viṇ</i>, ‘space’, and in this context the suffix <i>um</i> implies ‘even’} | விண் (<i>viṇ</i>): space | ஆய் (<i>āy</i>): being, as | ஒரு (<i>oru</i>): one | பொருள் (<i>poruḷ</i>): substance {a Tamil equivalent of the Sanskrit <i>vastu</i>, which means ‘substance’ in the sense of the real and ultimate substance or fundamental reality, the only thing that actually exists, from which all other things borrow their seeming existence} | வேறு (<i>vēṟu</i>): what is other, different, separate | எண்ணாது (<i>eṇṇādu</i>): not thinking {negative adverbial participle} | இருந்தபடி (<i>irundapaḍi</i>): as it was, as it is | உள் (<i>uḷ</i>): inside, within | நாடு (<i>nāḍu</i>): investigate {the root of this verb, used here in the sense of an adjectival participle and therefore implying ‘investigating’ or ‘which investigates’} | உளத்து (<i>uḷattu</i>): in the heart, in the mind {the inflectional base of <i>uḷam</i>, a poetic abbreviation of <i>ulḷam</i>, ‘heart’ or ‘mind’, used here as a locative (seventh case) form of it} | ஒளிரும் (<i>oḷirum</i>): shining, which shines {adjectival participle} | அண்ணாமலை (<i>aṇṇāmalai</i>): Annamalai {a Tamil name of Arunachala} | என் (<i>eṉ</i>): say {the root of this verb, used here in the sense of an adjectival participle and therefore implying ‘called’ or ‘which is called’; <i>eṉ</i> is also the inflectional base of the first person singular pronoun and is often used as a genitive (sixth case) form of it, so it can also mean ‘my’} | ஆன்மா (<i>āṉmā</i>): self, oneself {a Tamil form of both <i>ātman</i> and <i>ātmā</i> (the nominative singular of <i>ātman</i>)} | காணுமே (<i>kāṇumē</i>): will certainly be seen {<i>kāṇum</i> means both ‘it will see’ (active voice) and ‘it will be seen’ (middle voice), and the suffix <i>ē</i> is an intensifier that in this case implies ‘certainly’, ‘actually’ or ‘indeed’} || அருளும் (<i>aruḷum</i>): grace also {<i>aruḷ</i> means ‘grace’, and in this context the suffix <i>um</i> implies ‘also’ or can be taken to be a poetic expletive} | வேணுமே (<i>vēṇumē</i>): is certainly necessary {<i>vēṇum</i> means ‘it is necessary’, and the suffix <i>ē</i> is an intensifier that in this case implies ‘certainly’} || அன்பு (<i>aṉbu</i>): love | பூணுமே (<i>pūṇumē</i>): wear, put on, be adorned with, be bound with, be possessed of, undertake || இன்பு (<i>iṉbu</i>): happiness, bliss, joy | தோணுமே (<i>tōṇumē</i>): will certainly appear.<br>
<ol>
<li><a href="#first">The structure and meaning of the first sentence</a></li>
<li><a href="#eye">We ourself are ‘the eye even to the mind-eye, which is the eye to all the sense organs beginning with eyes, which illumine what begins with space’</a></li>
<li><a href="#aamm15"><i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> verse 15: Arunachala is ‘the eye to the mind-eye’, because it is the eye of pure awareness, which is what illumines the mind-eye, so it cannot be seen or known by any eye other than itself</a></li>
<li><a href="#un04"><i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i> verse 4: The mind-eye sees forms because it sees itself as the form of a body, whereas the ‘eye to the mind-eye’ is infinite and hence formless, so it sees no forms but only itself, the infinite whole</a></li>
<li><a href="#space">We are ‘the space even to the mind-space’, so we are the one real substance, of which everything else is just an appearance</a></li>
<li><a href="#substance">There is only one substance, Arunachala, the heart, the light of awareness, which shines without appearing or disappearing as the space for the appearing and disappearing of the mind-eye and everything known by it</a></li>
<li><a href="#annamalai">What we actually are is what is called Annamalai, but so long as we rise as ego and thereby mistake ourself to be the form of a body, Annamalai appears outwardly in the form of a hill and in the human form of Bhagavan Ramana</a></li>
<li><a href="#seeing">As ego we can never see ourself as we actually are, but we must try to see ourself thus, because as soon as we see ourself as we actually are we will thereby cease to be ego and remain as we actually are</a></li>
<li><a href="#investigate">We can see ourself as we actually are only by turning our entire mind back to look within instead of thinking of anything else, thereby being as we always actually are</a></li>
<li><a href="#easy">Though looking at ourself and thereby being as we actually are is exceedingly easy, it seems difficult so long as we rise and stand as ego, because the very nature of ego is to be constantly grasping forms</a></li>
<li><a href="#grace">Grace is certainly necessary, because the all-consuming love to look deep within and thereby let go everything else can come only from grace, not from ego</a></li>
<li><a href="#love">If we cultivate and nurture love in our heart to know and to be what we actually are, infinite and eternal happiness, which is what we always actually are, will shine forth</a></li>
</ol>
<a name="first"></a><b>1. The structure and meaning of the first sentence</b><br>
<br>
In the first sentence of this verse Bhagavan indicates what we actually are and then explains the means by which we can see or be aware of ourself as what we actually are, so though the order of words in this first sentence is not the logical order in which they would occur in a prose sentence, he placed them in this order not only for poetic reasons but also for a logical reason, because in order to investigate ourself effectively and thereby be aware of ourself as we actually are we first need to understand what we actually are.<br>
<br>
Now we are aware of ourself as if we were a body consisting of five sheaths, namely a physical body, life, mind, intellect and will, so we first need to understand that these are not what we actually are, and hence we cannot know what we actually are by investigating any of these five sheaths. However, rather than emphasising what we are not, in this verse and elsewhere he emphasises what we actually are and thereby implies that we are not anything else. What we actually are is only the fundamental awareness ‘I am’, so this is what we need to investigate in order to be aware of ourself as we actually are, namely as nothing other than ‘I am’.<br>
<br>
Therefore the order in which I will explain and discuss the meaning and implication of what he says in this first sentence is the order in which he says it. However, before doing so I will first explain the connection between the various clauses in this sentence. The main clause is ‘ஆன்மா காணுமே’ (<i>āṉmā kāṇumē</i>), ‘oneself will certainly be seen’, in which ஆன்மா (<i>āṉmā</i>) is a Tamil form of the Sanskrit word आत्मा (<i>ātmā</i>), the nominative singular form of आत्मन् (<i>ātman</i>), which means ‘oneself’, and in this context it refers to the real nature of ourself (<i>ātma-svarūpa</i>), so this clause implies that we will see ourself as we actually are. This is preceded by a relative clause, ‘அண்ணாமலை என்’ (<i>aṇṇāmalai eṉ</i>), ‘which is called Annamalai’ (Annamalai being an alternative name of Arunachala), so ‘அண்ணாமலை என் ஆன்மா காணுமே’ (<i>aṇṇāmalai eṉ āṉmā kāṇumē</i>) means ‘oneself, which is called Annamalai, will certainly be seen’.<br>
<br>
This is preceded by an adjectival participle, ‘ஒளிரும்’ (<i>oḷirum</i>), ‘which shines’, which links two adverbial clauses to the main clause. The two adverbial clauses it links are ‘விண் ஆதிய விளக்கும் கண் ஆதிய பொறிக்கும் கண் ஆம் மனக் கணுக்கும் கண் ஆய்’ (<i>viṇ ādiya viḷakkum kaṇ ādiya poṟikkum kaṇ ām maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ āy</i>), ‘being [or as] the eye even to the mind-eye, which is the eye to all the sense organs beginning with eyes, which illumine what begins with space’, and ‘மன விணுக்கும் விண் ஆய்’ (<i>maṉa-viṇukkum viṇ āy</i>), ‘being [or as] the space even to the mind-space’. Together with ‘ஒளிரும்’ (<i>oḷirum</i>) these two adverbial clauses form a relative clause: ‘விண் ஆதிய விளக்கும் கண் ஆதிய பொறிக்கும் கண் ஆம் மனக் கணுக்கும் கண் ஆய், மன விணுக்கும் விண் ஆய் ஒளிரும்’ (<i>viṇ ādiya viḷakkum kaṇ ādiya poṟikkum kaṇ ām maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ āy, maṉa-viṇukkum viṇ āy oḷirum</i>), ‘which shines as the eye even to the mind-eye, which is the eye to all the sense organs beginning with eyes, which illumine what begins with space, [and] as the space even to the mind-space’.<br>
<br>
These two adverbial clauses are followed by a phrase, ‘ஒரு பொருள்’ (<i>oru poruḷ</i>), which means ‘the one substance’ in the sense of the one thing that actually exists and that is therefore the reality underlying and supporting the seeming existence of all other things. Though this is separated from the subject of the main clause, it stands in apposition to it, so ‘ஒரு பொருள், அண்ணாமலை என் ஆன்மா காணுமே’ (<i>oru poruḷ, aṇṇāmalai eṉ āṉmā kāṇumē</i>) means ‘oneself, which is called Annamalai, the one substance, will certainly be seen’. Therefore the subject of the main clause, namely ஆன்மா (<i>āṉmā</i>), ‘oneself’, is modified by this appositive phrase and two relative clauses, all of which are non-restrictive (meaning that they do not limit the meaning of the word they modify, namely oneself, but provide additional information about it), so together with these three modifiers (the first of which is a combination of two modifiers, making a total of four modifiers) the main clause in natural prose order is: ‘விண் ஆதிய விளக்கும் கண் ஆதிய பொறிக்கும் கண் ஆம் மனக் கணுக்கும் கண் ஆய், மன விணுக்கும் விண் ஆய் ஒளிரும் ஒரு பொருள், அண்ணாமலை என் ஆன்மா காணுமே’ (<i>viṇ ādiya viḷakkum kaṇ ādiya poṟikkum kaṇ ām maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ āy, maṉa-viṇukkum viṇ āy oḷirum oru poruḷ, aṇṇāmalai eṉ āṉmā kāṇumē</i>), ‘oneself, which is called Annamalai, the one substance, which shines as the eye even to the mind-eye, which is the eye to all the sense organs beginning with eyes, which illumine what begins with space, [and] as the space even to the mind-space, will certainly be seen’.<br>
<br>
In addition to the main clause and these three modifiers there is one other phrase in this sentence, namely ‘வேறு எண்ணாது இருந்தபடி உள் நாடு உளத்து’ (<i>vēṟu eṇṇādu irundapaḍi uḷ nāḍu uḷattu</i>), ‘in the heart [or mind] that investigates within, as it is without thinking of anything other’, which is an adverbial phrase that modifies the main verb of the sentence, namely காணுமே (<i>kāṇumē</i>), ‘will certainly be seen’. Therefore the entire sentence in natural prose order is ‘வேறு எண்ணாது இருந்தபடி உள் நாடு உளத்து, விண் ஆதிய விளக்கும் கண் ஆதிய பொறிக்கும் கண் ஆம் மனக் கணுக்கும் கண் ஆய், மன விணுக்கும் விண் ஆய் ஒளிரும் ஒரு பொருள், அண்ணாமலை என் ஆன்மா காணுமே’ (<i>vēṟu eṇṇādu irundapaḍi uḷ nāḍu uḷattu, viṇ ādiya viḷakkum kaṇ ādiya poṟikkum kaṇ ām maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ āy, maṉa-viṇukkum viṇ āy oḷirum oru poruḷ, aṇṇāmalai eṉ āṉmā kāṇumē</i>), ‘In the heart [or mind] that investigates within, as it is without thinking of anything other, oneself, which is called Annamalai, the one substance, which shines as the eye even to the mind-eye, which is the eye to all the sense organs beginning with eyes, which illumine what begins with space, [and] as the space even to the mind-space, will certainly be seen’.<br>
<br>
<a name="eye"></a><b>2. We ourself are ‘the eye even to the mind-eye, which is the eye to all the sense organs beginning with eyes, which illumine what begins with space’</b><br>
<br>
In the order in which it occurs in the verse, the first higher level clause is ‘விண் ஆதிய விளக்கும் கண் ஆதிய பொறிக்கும் கண் ஆம் மனக் கணுக்கும் கண் ஆய்’ (<i>viṇ ādiya viḷakkum kaṇ ādiya poṟikkum kaṇ ām maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ āy</i>), ‘being [or as] the eye even to the mind-eye, which is the eye to all the sense organs beginning with eyes, which illumine what begins with space’. As I explained above, together with the adjectival participle ‘ஒளிரும்’ (<i>oḷirum</i>), ‘which shines’, this clause modifies the subject of this sentence, ஆன்மா (<i>āṉmā</i>), ‘oneself’, and also by implication its two other modifiers, namely ‘ஒரு பொருள்’ (<i>oru poruḷ</i>), ‘the one substance’, and அண்ணாமலை (<i>aṇṇāmalai</i>). Therefore, since ஆன்மா (<i>āṉmā</i>), ‘oneself’, in this context means the real nature of oneself (<i>ātma-svarūpa</i>), which is the one real substance and which is what is called Annamalai or Arunachala, the implication of this first clause is that what we actually are is ‘விண் ஆதிய விளக்கும் கண் ஆதிய பொறிக்கும் கண் ஆம் மனக் கணுக்கும் கண்’ (<i>viṇ ādiya viḷakkum kaṇ ādiya poṟikkum kaṇ ām maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ</i>), ‘the eye even to the mind-eye, which is the eye to all the sense organs beginning with eyes, which illumine what begins with space’.<br>
<br>
‘விண் ஆதிய’ (<i>viṇ ādiya</i>) means ‘what begins with space’ and therefore refers to the five elements, namely space, air, fire, water and earth, and hence to everything that is made of them, namely the entire world, which includes both the world of physical phenomena and the world of mental phenomena, because just as all physical phenomena are said to be composed of the gross forms of these five elements, all mental phenomena are said to be composed of subtle forms of them. விளக்கும் (<i>viḷakkum</i>) is an adjectival participle that means ‘which illumine’, ‘which cause to shine’ or ‘which make clear’. In the context of Bhagavan’s teachings, to shine means to be known or perceived, and to cause to shine means to make known. Therefore ‘விண் ஆதிய விளக்கும்’ (<i>viṇ ādiyaviḷakkum</i>) is a relative clause that means ‘which illumine what begins with space’, thereby implying ‘which make what begins with space known’.<br>
<br>
<a name="uu22"></a>What makes the five elements and everything that is made of them known is ‘கண் ஆதிய பொறி’ (<i>kaṇ ādiya poṟi</i>), ‘the sense organs beginning with eyes’, in which பொறி (<i>poṟi</i>) means the sense organs, so it refers primarily to the eyes, ears, mouth or tongue (as the organ of taste), nose and body (as the organ of tactile sensation). However, just as physical phenomena are made known by these five physical sense organs, mental phenomena are made known by the inner sense organ called ‘mind’, and hence the mind (particularly in the sense of the <i>manōmaya kōśa</i> or mental sheath) is also called பொறி (<i>poṟi</i>), as Bhagavan refers to it in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu22">verse 22</a> of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i>:<br>
<blockquote>உடல்பொறி யுள்ள முயிரிரு ளெல்லாஞ்<br>
சடமசத் தானதா லுந்தீபற<br>
சத்தான நானல்ல வுந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>uḍalpoṟi yuḷḷa muyiriru ḷellāñ<br>
jaḍamasat tāṉadā lundīpaṟa<br>
sattāṉa nāṉalla vundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> உடல் பொறி உள்ளம் உயிர் இருள் எல்லாம் சடம் அசத்து ஆனதால், சத்து ஆன நான் அல்ல.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>uḍal poṟi uḷḷam uyir iruḷ ellām jaḍam asattu āṉadāl, sattu āṉa nāṉ alla</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Since body, mind, intellect, life and darkness are all <i>jaḍa</i> and <i>asat</i>, they are not ‘I’, which is <i>sat</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Since [the five sheaths, namely] body [<i>annamaya kōśa</i>], life [<i>prāṇamaya kōśa</i>], mind [<i>manōmaya kōśa</i>], intellect [<i>vijñānamaya kōśa</i>] and darkness [<i>ānandamaya kōśa</i>, namely the <i>cittam</i> or will, which is internal darkness in the form of the dense fog of <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, inclinations or desires to seek happiness in things other than oneself] are all <i>jaḍa</i> [non-aware] and <i>asat</i> [unreal or non-existent], they are not ‘I’, which is [<i>cit</i>, what is aware, and] <i>sat</i> [what actually exists].</blockquote>
Though the mind and other sense organs are what make all physical and mental phenomena known, they do not themselves know anything, because they are all <i>jaḍa</i> (devoid of awareness), like the five sheaths of which they are a part, so they are just instruments through which phenomena are known. Moreover, they are themselves just phenomena, so what is it that knows them and all other phenomena through them? Phenomena of all kinds are objects, because they are things that are known or perceived, so what knows them is the subject, the knower or perceiver, which is ourself as ego.<br>
<br>
Therefore ego is what Bhagavan describes in this first clause as ‘கண் ஆதிய பொறிக்கும் கண் ஆம் மனக் கண்’ (<i>kaṇ ādiya poṟikkum kaṇ ām maṉa-k-kaṇ</i>), ‘the mind-eye, which is the eye to all the sense organs beginning with eyes’. கண் (<i>kaṇ</i>) means ‘eye’, and it is a word that he often uses as a metaphor for awareness in the sense of what knows or is aware, so ‘கண் ஆதிய பொறிக்கும் கண்’ (<i>kaṇ ādiya poṟikkum kaṇ</i>), ‘the eye to [or for] all the sense organs beginning with eyes’, means the ‘eye’ that is aware of both the sense organs and whatever is made known by them. This ‘eye’ is what he calls ‘மனக்கண்’ (<i>maṉa-k-kaṇ</i>), ‘the mind-eye’.<br>
<br>
<a name="uu18"></a>In this term ‘மனக்கண்’ (<i>maṉa-k-kaṇ</i>), ‘the mind-eye’, which means the eye that is the mind, மனம் (<i>maṉam</i>), ‘the mind’, does not mean the <i>manōmaya kōśa</i> (the sheath composed of mind) or any of the other sheaths, because he uses it here as a synonym for ego, which is the root and essence of the mind, as he implies in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu18">verse 18</a> of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i>:<br>
<blockquote>எண்ணங்க ளேமனம் யாவினு நானெனு<br>
மெண்ணமே மூலமா முந்தீபற<br>
யானா மனமென லுந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>eṇṇaṅga ḷēmaṉam yāviṉu nāṉeṉu<br>
meṇṇamē mūlamā mundīpaṟa<br>
yāṉā maṉameṉa lundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> எண்ணங்களே மனம். யாவினும் நான் எனும் எண்ணமே மூலம் ஆம். யான் ஆம் மனம் எனல்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>eṇṇaṅgaḷ-ē maṉam. yāviṉ-um nāṉ eṉum eṇṇam-ē mūlam ām. yāṉ ām maṉam eṉal</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>அன்வயம்:</b> எண்ணங்களே மனம். யாவினும் நான் எனும் எண்ணமே மூலம் ஆம். மனம் எனல் யான் ஆம்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Anvayam</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>eṇṇaṅgaḷ-ē maṉam. yāviṉ-um nāṉ eṉum eṇṇam-ē mūlam ām. maṉam eṉal yāṉ ām</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Thoughts alone are mind. Of all, the thought called ‘I’ alone is the root. What is called mind is ‘I’. <br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Thoughts alone are mind [or the mind is only thoughts]. Of all [thoughts], the thought called ‘I’ alone is the <i>mūla</i> [the root, base, foundation, origin, source or cause]. [Therefore] what is called mind is [essentially just] ‘I’ [namely ego, the root thought called ‘I’].</blockquote>
‘மனம்’ (<i>maṉam</i>) or ‘mind’ is used in a variety of different senses, so the sense in which it is used in each case is determined by the context and needs to be understood accordingly. In its broadest sense it means the totality of all thoughts, as Bhagavan implies in the first sentence of this verse, ‘எண்ணங்களே மனம்’ (<i>eṇṇaṅgaḷ-ē maṉam</i>), ‘Thoughts alone are mind’, in which he uses the term ‘thoughts’ in its broadest sense, which includes everything that is mental or experienced within the mind.<br>
<br>
<a name="ny04a"></a><a name="ny14"></a>In this broad sense the term ‘mind’ includes both the subject and all objects, because all objects or phenomena are just thoughts or mental impressions, so the entire world is nothing but thoughts or ideas, as he points out in the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para04">fourth paragraph</a> of <i>Nāṉ Ār?</i>, ‘நினைவுகளைத் தவிர்த்து ஜகமென்றோர் பொருள் அன்னியமா யில்லை’ (<i>niṉaivugaḷai-t tavirttu jagam-eṉḏṟōr poruḷ aṉṉiyamāy illai</i>), ‘Excluding thoughts, there is not separately any such thing as world’, and in the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para14">fourteenth paragraph</a>, ‘ஜக மென்பது நினைவே’ (<i>jagam eṉbadu niṉaivē</i>), ‘What is called the world is only thought’. That is, just as the world we perceive in a dream is a mental fabrication and therefore nothing but thoughts, the world we perceive now and any other world we may perceive is just a mental fabrication and therefore nothing but thoughts.<br>
<br>
<a name="ny04"></a>Just as all objects are thoughts, so too is the subject, namely ego, and hence Bhagavan often refers to it as ‘the thought called I’. However, though ego is a thought, it is unlike all other thoughts, which are <i>jaḍa</i> (devoid of awareness), because it is the only thought that is endowed with awareness. Whereas other thoughts are not aware either of their own existence or of anything else, ego is what is aware both of its own seeming existence and of the seeming existence of all other thoughts. Therefore all other thoughts seem to exist only in the view of ego, and hence they do not exist in its absence, as Bhagavan implies in the last four sentences of the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para05">fifth paragraph</a> of <i>Nāṉ Ār?</i>:<br>
<blockquote>மனதில் தோன்றும் நினைவுக ளெல்லாவற்றிற்கும் <b>நானென்னும் நினைவே முதல் நினைவு</b>. இது எழுந்த பிறகே ஏனைய நினைவுகள் எழுகின்றன. தன்மை தோன்றிய பிறகே முன்னிலை படர்க்கைகள் தோன்றுகின்றன; தன்மை யின்றி முன்னிலை படர்க்கைக ளிரா.<br>
<br>
<i>maṉadil tōṉḏṟum niṉaivugaḷ ellāvaṯṟiṟkum <b>nāṉ-eṉṉum niṉaivē mudal niṉaivu</b>. idu eṙunda piṟahē ēṉaiya niṉaivugaḷ eṙugiṉḏṟaṉa. taṉmai tōṉḏṟiya piṟahē muṉṉilai paḍarkkaigaḷ tōṉḏṟugiṉḏṟaṉa; taṉmai y-iṉḏṟi muṉṉilai paḍarkkaigaḷ irā</i>.<br>
<br>
Of all the thoughts that appear [or arise] in the mind, <b>the thought called ‘I’ alone is the first thought</b> [the primal, basic, original or causal thought]. Only after this arises do other thoughts arise. Only after the first person [namely ego, the primal thought called ‘I’] appears do second and third persons [namely all other things] appear; without the first person second and third persons do not exist.</blockquote>
<a name="uu18a"></a>This is also what he implies in the second sentence of verse 18 of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i>: ‘யாவினும் நான் எனும் எண்ணமே மூலம் ஆம்’ (<i>yāviṉ-um nāṉ eṉum eṇṇam-ē mūlam ām</i>), ‘Of all [thoughts], the thought called ‘I’ alone is the <i>mūla</i> [the root, base, foundation, origin, source or cause]’. Since no other thought could exist without ego, it is the only essential thought in the mind, and hence it is what the mind essentially is, as he says in the third and final sentence of this verse, ‘யான் ஆம் மனம் எனல்’ (<i>yāṉ ām maṉam eṉal</i>), ‘What is called mind is I’, which implies that the mind is essentially just ego, the root thought called ‘I’.<br>
<br>
This is why he often uses the term ‘mind’ as a synonym for ego. From each context we can understand whether he is using it in this sense or some other sense by considering whether he is referring to the mind as something that knows or is just known, because ego is the only thought or element of the mind that knows anything. For example, in ‘மனக்கண்’ (<i>maṉa-k-kaṇ</i>), ‘the mind-eye’, கண் (<i>kaṇ</i>) means ‘eye’ and therefore implies what knows or perceives, so in this context ‘mind’ means ego, whereas in <i>manōmaya kōśa</i>, ‘the sheath composed of mind’, ‘mind’ does not mean ego but only the grosser functions or aspects of the mind, such as perceptions, memories, thoughts, feelings and emotions, which are all objects perceived by ego.<br>
<br>
In one of its broader senses mind is described as the <i>antaḥkaraṇa</i>, ‘the inner instrument’, which has four aspects or sets of functions, namely <i>manas</i> (mind), <i>buddhi</i> (intellect), <i>cittam</i> (will) and <i>ahaṁkāra</i> (ego). The first three of these are what are called respectively <i>manōmaya kōśa</i> (the sheath composed of mind, implying the grosser functions or aspects of the mind), <i>vijñānamaya kōśa</i> (the sheath composed of intellect, the faculty by which we discern, distinguish, judge, reason and understand) and <i>ānandamaya kōśa</i> (the sheath composed of happiness, implying the will, which is driven by our liking to be happy), so being sheaths these are all <i>jaḍa</i> (devoid of awareness), and hence they are known only by ego, which is not a sheath but what identifies all the five sheaths as itself. Ego is therefore what functions through the other three instruments but is itself not any of them, even though it mistakes them to be itself.<br>
<br>
<a name="un25a"></a>Therefore to distinguish ego from every other element or function of the mind, we need to clearly understand and recognise the distinction between the perceiver (<i>dṛk</i>) and what is perceived (<i>dṛśya</i>). Ego is the perceiver and can never be something perceived, because we seem to be ego only so long as we are attending even to the slightest extent to anything other than ourself. If we attend to ourself so keenly that we thereby cease to be aware of anything else, ego will subside completely, dissolving forever back into its source, as Bhagavan implies in <a href="#un25">verse 25</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>: ‘தேடினால் ஓட்டம் பிடிக்கும்’ (<i>tēḍiṉāl ōṭṭam piḍikkum</i>), ‘If seeking [that is, if ego seeks to know what it actually is by keenly investigating itself], it will take flight’.<br>
<br>
We can and should try to see ego, but we will never actually see it, because if we look at it carefully enough, what we will see is only the reality that lies behind it, namely the pure awareness ‘I am’, which is what we actually are. Therefore whatever we perceive or know is not ego. Everything other than ‘I’ is an object or phenomenon, so it is not ego, and though what we know as ‘I’ now seems to be ego, if we attend to it keenly enough, we will see that it is actually just pure awareness and was never ego, just as if we look carefully enough at what seems to be a snake, we will see that it is actually just a rope and was never a snake.<br>
<br>
<a name="un06"></a>Though no such thing as ego actually exists, it seems to exist and to be ourself so long as we are aware of anything other than ourself, and since all other things seem to exist only in the view of ourself as ego, they all depend for their seeming existence upon the seeming existence of ourself as ego, as Bhagavan implies in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un06">verse 6</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>:<br>
<blockquote>உலகைம் புலன்க ளுருவேறன் றவ்வைம்<br>
புலனைம் பொறிக்குப் புலனா — முலகைமன<br>
மொன்றைம் பொறிவாயா லோர்ந்திடுத லான்மனத்தை<br>
யன்றியுல குண்டோ வறை.<br>
<br>
<i>ulahaim pulaṉga ḷuruvēṟaṉ ḏṟavvaim<br>
pulaṉaim poṟikkup pulaṉā — mulahaimaṉa<br>
moṉḏṟaim poṟivāyā lōrndiḍuda lāṉmaṉattai<br>
yaṉḏṟiyula kuṇḍō vaṟai</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> உலகு ஐம் புலன்கள் உரு; வேறு அன்று. அவ் ஐம் புலன் ஐம் பொறிக்கு புலன் ஆம். உலகை மனம் ஒன்று ஐம் பொறிவாயால் ஓர்ந்திடுதலால், மனத்தை அன்றி உலகு உண்டோ? அறை.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>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</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>அன்வயம்:</b> உலகு ஐம் புலன்கள் உரு; வேறு அன்று. அவ் ஐம் புலன் ஐம் பொறிக்கு புலன் ஆம். மனம் ஒன்று உலகை ஐம் பொறிவாயால் ஓர்ந்திடுதலால், மனத்தை அன்றி உலகு உண்டோ? அறை.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Anvayam</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>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</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> 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, is there a world besides the mind? Say.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> 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 to [or for] the five sense organs. Since the mind alone [or since one thing, the mind] perceives the world by way of the five sense organs, is there [any] world besides [excluding, if not for, apart from, other than or without] the mind? Say.</blockquote>
Since the knowing or perceiving element of the mind is ego, and since he says here ‘உலகை மனம் ஒன்று ஐம் பொறிவாயால் ஓர்ந்திடுதலால்’ (<i>ulahai maṉam oṉḏṟu aim poṟi-vāyāl ōrndiḍudalāl</i>), ‘Since the mind alone knows [or perceives] the world by way of the five sense organs’, in this context he is using ‘மனம்’ (<i>maṉam</i>), ‘the mind’, as a synonym for ego. What he refers to in this verse as ‘உலகு’ (<i>ulahu</i>), ‘the world’, is what he refers to in the first clause of this fifth verse of <i>Āṉma-Viddai</i> as ‘விண் ஆதிய’ (<i>viṇ ādiya</i>), ‘what begins with space’, so when he says ‘உலகு ஐம் புலன்கள் உரு; வேறு அன்று’ (<i>ulahu aim pulaṉgaḷ uru; vēṟu aṉḏṟu</i>), ‘The world is a form of five sense-impressions, not anything else’, he implies that the five elements and everything that is composed of them are nothing other than sense-impressions, thereby implying that they have no existence independent of ego, whose impressions they are, as he explains in more detail in the subsequent sentences of this verse.<br>
<br>
What he refers to here as ‘ஐம் பொறி’ (<i>aim poṟi</i>), ‘the five sense organs’, are what he refers to in the first clause of this fifth verse of <i>Āṉma-Viddai</i> as ‘கண் ஆதிய பொறி’ (<i>kaṇ ādiya poṟi</i>), ‘the sense organs beginning with eyes’, but as he makes clear in this verse of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>, the five sense organs are merely the வாய் (<i>vāy</i>), the mouth, gateway, path or means by which the world is known, thereby implying that what knows the world is not the sense organs. What knows the world by means of the five sense organs is only the mind, so since the world is just a series of sense-impressions, and since sense-impressions are just mental impressions, the world does not exist independent of the mind that perceives it, as he implies by asking rhetorically: ‘உலகை மனம் ஒன்று ஐம் பொறிவாயால் ஓர்ந்திடுதலால், மனத்தை அன்றி உலகு உண்டோ?’ (<i>ulahai maṉam oṉḏṟu aim poṟi-vāyāl ōrndiḍudalāl, maṉattai aṉḏṟi ulahu uṇḍō?</i>), ‘Since the mind alone perceives the world by way of the five sense organs, is there [any] world besides [excluding, if not for, apart from, other than or without] the mind?’<br>
<br>
This is also what he implies, albeit less obviously, in the first clause of this fifth verse of <i>Āṉma-Viddai</i> by saying ‘விண் ஆதிய விளக்கும் கண் ஆதிய பொறிக்கும் கண் ஆம் மனக் கண்’ (<i>viṇ ādiya viḷakkum kaṇ ādiya poṟikkum kaṇ ām maṉa-k-kaṇ</i>), ‘the mind-eye, which is the eye to all the sense organs beginning with eyes, which illumine what begins with space’. That is, since ‘விண் ஆதிய’ (<i>viṇ ādiya</i>) means ‘what begins with space’ and therefore implies the five elements beginning with space and everything that consists of them, namely the entire world of phenomena, and since விளக்கும் (<i>viḷakkum</i>) means ‘which illumine’, ‘which make clear’ or ‘which cause to shine’ and therefore implies ‘which make known’, ‘விண் ஆதிய விளக்கும் கண் ஆதிய பொறி’ (<i>viṇ ādiya viḷakkum kaṇ ādiya poṟi</i>), ‘the sense organs beginning with eyes, which illumine what begins with space’, implies that what makes the world known is only the sense organs, so without the sense organs no world would seem to exist. However, what knows the seeming existence of the world is not the sense organs but only the mind, because it alone is the ‘eye’ or awareness that perceives the world through the sense organs, as he implies by saying ‘கண் ஆதிய பொறிக்கும் கண் ஆம் மனக் கண்’ (<i>kaṇ ādiya poṟikkum kaṇ ām maṉa-k-kaṇ</i>), ‘the mind-eye, which is the eye to all the sense organs beginning with eyes’. Therefore the world is nothing but a series of sensory impressions, and since sensory impressions are perceived only by the mind, they are just mental impressions, so without the mind there would be no such thing as a world.<br>
<br>
Though in English the word order has to be inverted in order to make sense of this first clause, ‘விண் ஆதிய விளக்கும் கண் ஆதிய பொறிக்கும் கண் ஆம் மனக் கணுக்கும் கண் ஆய்’ (<i>viṇ ādiya viḷakkum kaṇ ādiya poṟikkum kaṇ ām maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ āy</i>), ‘as the eye even to the mind-eye, which is the eye to all the sense organs beginning with eyes, which illumine what begins with space’, in Tamil Bhagavan is leading us step by step from what is most gross and exterior, namely the world, which consists of the five elements beginning with space, to what is most subtle and interior, namely our innermost ‘eye’ or awareness, which is what we actually are. The first step he takes in this inward journey is to point out that what makes the world known is only the sense organs, thereby implying that it would not seem to exist without their aid, so it is nothing but a series of sensory impressions. The second step is to point out that the ‘eye’ that perceives these sensory impressions is மனக்கண் (<i>maṉa-k-kaṇ</i>), ‘the mind-eye’, namely ego.<br>
<br>
However, though ego is endowed with awareness and therefore able to know the seeming existence of itself and all other things, it is not awareness in its pristine form, namely the pure awareness ‘I am’, because it is awareness mixed and conflated with adjuncts as ‘I am this body’, so it is called <i>cit-jaḍa-granthi</i>, the knot (<i>granthi</i>) formed by the seeming entanglement of pure awareness (<i>cit</i>) with a body, which is non-aware (<i>jaḍa</i>). Therefore ego is not real awareness but only a semblance of awareness (<a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2018/05/the-ego-is-sole-cause-creator-source.html#cidabhasa"><i>cidābhāsa</i></a>), so just as the moon derives its seeming light from the light of the sun, ego derives its seeming awareness from the one real awareness, namely being-awareness (<i>sat-cit</i>), which is our fundamental awareness of our own existence, ‘I am’, and which is therefore the essential <i>cit</i> element of the <i>cit-jaḍa-granthi</i>. Therefore this essential <i>cit</i> element of ego is what Bhagavan describes in this clause as ‘மனக் கணுக்கும் கண்’ (<i>maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ</i>), ‘the eye even to [or for] the mind-eye’.<br>
<br>
<a name="aamm15"></a><b>3. <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> verse 15: Arunachala is ‘the eye to the mind-eye’, because it is the eye of pure awareness, which is what illumines the mind-eye, so it cannot be seen or known by any eye other than itself</b><br>
<br>
This ‘மனக் கணுக்கும் கண்’ (<i>maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ</i>), ‘the eye even to the mind-eye’, is what he refers to as ‘கணுக்குக் கண்’ (<i>kaṇukku-k-kaṇ</i>), ‘the eye to the eye’, in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/10/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-15.html">verse 15</a> of <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>:<br>
<blockquote>கண்ணுக்குக் கண்ணாய்க் கண்ணின்றிக் காணுனைக்<br>
காணுவ தெவர்பா ரருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>kaṇṇukkuk kaṇṇāyk kaṇṇiṉṟik kāṇuṉaik<br>
kāṇuva tevarpā raruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> கண்ணுக்கு கண் ஆய் கண் இன்றி காண் உனை காணுவது எவர்? பார் அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>kaṇṇukku kaṇ āy kaṇ iṉḏṟi kāṇ uṉai kāṇuvadu evar? pār aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, who can see you, who, being the eye to the eye, sees without eyes? See.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, who can [by means of what eye] see you, who, being the eye to the eye [the real awareness that illumines the seeming awareness called mind, just as the sun illumines the moon], sees without eyes [that is, who sees (the reality of) everything without seeing (the appearance of) anything]? See [me so that I may see you by seeing myself as you see me].</blockquote>
Being the eye to the mind-eye, which is the eye that sees everything other than itself, Arunachala cannot be seen by any eye other than itself. That is, Arunachala is pure awareness, so it can never be an object of awareness, and hence it can never be known by anything other than itself. No other eye can see it, but there is no need for any other eye to see it, because it sees itself without eyes just by being itself. Being pure awareness, it does not see anything other than itself, so it sees itself as itself alone: ‘I am I’.<br>
<br>
Though it does not know anything other than itself, it knows all that there is to know, because it alone exists, and hence there is nothing other than itself for it to know. Since it is the original eye of awareness, it does not need any eye other than itself to see itself, so Bhagavan says that it sees without eyes, and what it sees is only itself, because it alone is all that there is to see.<br>
<br>
Therefore in the first sentence of this verse, ‘கண்ணுக்கு கண் ஆய் கண் இன்றி காண் உனை காணுவது எவர்?’ (<i>kaṇṇukku kaṇ āy kaṇ iṉḏṟi kāṇ uṉai kāṇuvadu evar?</i>), ‘Who can see you, who, being the eye to the eye, sees without eyes?’, he implies three things: Firstly, that Arunachala, being the eye of pure awareness, cannot be seen or known by anything other than itself. Secondly, that it does not need any eye other than itself to see itself, so it sees itself without eyes. And thirdly, but less obviously, that in seeing itself it sees everything, because nothing other than itself actually exists, so what the mind-eye sees as everything is what it sees as itself.<br>
<br>
The second sentence, ‘பார்’ (<i>pār</i>), means ‘See’, which is a prayer to Arunachala, and what he implies by this prayer is that since we cannot see Arunachala, it should see us in such a way that we turn within with all-consuming love to see it, because only then will we lose ourself entirely in it, thereby seeing it by being it.<br>
<br>
<a name="un04"></a><b>4. <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i> verse 4: The mind-eye sees forms because it sees itself as the form of a body, whereas the ‘eye to the mind-eye’ is infinite and hence formless, so it sees no forms but only itself, the infinite whole</b><br>
<br>
Arunachala is what we always actually are, but because we have seemingly risen as ego and thereby limited ourself as the form of a body, we seem to be something separate from Arunachala and from all the other forms that we consequently see. In this context ‘form’ means anything that seems to be in any way separate or distinct from any other thing, and the reason we are aware of such forms is that the nature of ego is to always grasp the form of a body, mistaking it to be itself, as Bhagavan points out in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un04">verse 4</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>:<br>
<blockquote>உருவந்தா னாயி னுலகுபர மற்றா<br>
முருவந்தா னன்றே லுவற்றி — னுருவத்தைக் <br>
கண்ணுறுதல் யாவனெவன் கண்ணலாற் காட்சியுண்டோ<br>
கண்ணதுதா னந்தமிலாக் கண்.<br>
<br>
<i>uruvandā ṉāyi ṉulahupara maṯṟā<br>
muruvandā ṉaṉḏṟē luvaṯṟi — ṉuruvattaik<br>
kaṇṇuṟudal yāvaṉevaṉ kaṇṇalāṯ kāṭciyuṇḍō<br>
kaṇṇadutā ṉantamilāk kaṇ</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> 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.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>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</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>அன்வயம்:</b> 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.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Anvayam</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>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</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> 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.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> 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 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].</blockquote>
<a name="un05"></a>In the first sentence of this verse, ‘உருவம் தான் ஆயின், உலகு பரம் அற்று ஆம்’ (<i>uruvam tāṉ āyiṉ, ulahu param aṯṟu ām</i>), ‘If oneself is a form, the world and God will be likewise’, Bhagavan clearly implies that the reason why the world seems to be a multitude of separate forms, and why God also seems to be something separate from ourself and from the world, is only because by rising as ego we have limited ourself as a body, which is a form consisting of five sheaths (as he says in the next verse, namely <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un05">verse 5</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>). He further emphasises this in the next pair of sentences by asking two rhetorical questions, ‘உருவம் தான் அன்றேல், உவற்றின் உருவத்தை கண் உறுதல் யாவன்? எவன்?’ (<i>uruvam tāṉ aṉḏṟēl, uvaṯṟiṉ uruvattai kaṇ uṟudal yāvaṉ? evaṉ?</i>), ‘If oneself is not a form, who can see their forms? How?’, thereby implying that if we do not experience ourself as a form, we cannot be aware of any other forms, because we have no means to be aware of them.<br>
<br>
Therefore it is only when we are aware of ourself as a form that we are aware of other forms, as we can see by considering our own experience. In waking and dream we are aware of ourself as the form of a body, and consequently we are aware of a multitude of other forms, including both the seemingly physical forms of the material world and the more subtle forms of our mental world, whereas in sleep we are not aware of ourself as any kind of form and consequently we are not aware of any other forms. From this simple fact of our own experience we can derive an important philosophical principle, namely that the nature of what is experienced is determined by the nature of what experiences it, so what is perceived or experienced cannot be of a different nature than what perceives or experiences it.<br>
<br>
This is what Bhagavan implies in the next sentence by asking rhetorically: ‘கண் அலால் காட்சி உண்டோ?’ (<i>kaṇ alāl kāṭci uṇḍō?</i>), which means ‘Can the seen be otherwise than the eye?’ Though the superficial meaning of this sentence is ‘Except the eye is there the seen?’, which implies that what exists is only what sees and not what is seen, or even ‘Without the eye is there the seen?’, neither of these is the meaning intended in this context, because as he himself explained, in this context he did not use ‘அலால்’ (<i>alāl</i>), which is a poetic abbreviation of ‘அல்லால்’ (<i>allāl</i>), in its usual sense of ‘except’, ‘besides’ or ‘without’, but in the deeper sense of ‘except as’, ‘otherwise than’ or ‘of a different nature than’, so the meaning he intended is ‘Is the seen otherwise than the eye?’ or ‘Can the seen be otherwise than the eye?’<br>
<br>
In this context காட்சி (<i>kāṭci</i>), ‘the seen’, means whatever is perceived or experienced, and கண் (<i>kaṇ</i>), ‘the eye’, means what perceives, experiences or is aware. If the eye is a form, what it sees will likewise be forms, and if the eye is devoid of form, what it sees will likewise be devoid of form. மனக்கண் (<i>maṉa-k-kaṇ</i>), ‘the mind-eye’, is ego, which is what is always aware of itself as ‘I am this body’, so since it sees itself as a form, everything that it sees is likewise a form.<br>
<br>
But is this mind-eye the real eye? It cannot be, because though it seems to exist in waking and dream, it ceases to exist in sleep, and even in its absence we do not cease to be aware of ourself as ‘I am’. Therefore the real eye is only this fundamental awareness ‘I am’, and since it never limits itself as a form, it is infinite, as Bhagavan implies in the final sentence of this verse: ‘கண் அது தான் அந்தம் இலா கண்’ (<i>kaṇ adu tāṉ antam-ilā kaṇ</i>), ‘The eye is oneself, the infinite eye’.<br>
<br>
அந்தம் (<i>antam</i>) means end or limit, so அந்தமிலா (<i>antam-ilā</i>) means endless, limitless or infinite. Every form is limited in one way or another, so whatever is limitless or infinite is formless. Since the real eye is infinite, it is formless, so it can never be aware of any forms. In other words, it can never be aware of anything finite, so what it is aware of is only the one infinite whole, which is itself.<br>
<br>
However, this does not mean that the mind-eye ever sees anything that the real eye does not see, because nothing other than the one infinite whole actually exists, so what the mind-eye sees as the multitude of forms that constitute itself, the world and God is what the real eye sees as itself, the one infinite and indivisible whole. If we are walking with Bhagavan along a dark path and see something that seems to us to be a snake but that he recognises to be just a rope, we are not seeing anything that he is not seeing, but whereas he sees it as it actually is, namely a rope, we see it as something that it is not, namely a snake. Likewise the real eye sees what exists as it actually is, whereas the mind-eye sees it as a multitude of forms.<br>
<br>
Since the real eye is infinite, nothing other than itself exists, so the mind-eye is actually nothing other than the real eye, but since the mind-eye sees itself as the form of a body, it does not see itself as it actually is, namely as the infinite eye. In order to see itself as the infinite eye, all it needs to do is to look at itself so keenly that it thereby ceases to be aware of anything else. In other words, to know what we actually are, all we need to do is to look at ourself keenly enough, so if we are willing to look at ourself keenly enough, we would see for ourself that knowing ourself is extremely easy, ah, so extremely easy.<br>
<br>
If at all it seems difficult, that is only because we are so attached to being aware of other things that we are not yet willing to look at ourself so keenly that we thereby forever cease to be aware of anything else whatsoever. Therefore in order to succeed in this simple path of self-investigation, we need to have all-consuming love to be aware of ourself alone, and to cultivate such love, all we need do is to persevere patiently and single-mindedly in trying to be more and more keenly and steadily self-attentive.<br>
<br>
When we, who now seem to be the finite mind-eye, investigate ourself keenly enough, we will see that what we actually are is only the infinite eye, which is the fundamental awareness ‘I am’ in its absolutely pure and pristine condition. Even when we seem to be the mind-eye, we are actually never anything other than the infinite eye, just as even when a rope seems to be a snake, it is actually never anything other than a rope. This is what Bhagavan implies by describing the infinite eye as ‘மனக் கணுக்கும் கண்’ (<i>maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ</i>), ‘the eye even to the mind-eye’, in the first clause of this fifth verse of <i>Āṉma-Viddai</i>: ‘விண் ஆதிய விளக்கும் கண் ஆதிய பொறிக்கும் கண் ஆம் மனக் கணுக்கும் கண் ஆய்’ (<i>viṇ ādiya viḷakkum kaṇ ādiya poṟikkum kaṇ ām maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ āy</i>), ‘being [or as] the eye even to the mind-eye, which is the eye to all the sense organs beginning with eyes, which illumine what begins with space’.<br>
<br>
Together with the adjectival participle ‘ஒளிரும்’ (<i>oḷirum</i>), ‘which shines’, this adverbial clause forms a relative clause, ‘விண் ஆதிய விளக்கும் கண் ஆதிய பொறிக்கும் கண் ஆம் மனக் கணுக்கும் கண் ஆய் ஒளிரும்’ (<i>viṇ ādiya viḷakkum kaṇ ādiya poṟikkum kaṇ ām maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ āy oḷirum</i>), ‘which shines as the eye even to the mind-eye, which is the eye to all the sense organs beginning with eyes, which illumine what begins with space’, which modifies the subject of this sentence, ஆன்மா (<i>āṉmā</i>), ‘oneself’, so it implies that what we actually are is ‘மனக் கணுக்கும் கண்’ (<i>maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ</i>), ‘the eye even to the mind-eye’. Therefore the purpose of this first clause is to draw our attention back from the world, which is composed of the five elements beginning with space, and from the sense organs, which illumine the seeming existence of the world, and from the mind-eye, which sees the world by means of the sense organs, in order to focus it on ourself, the fundamental awareness ‘I am’, which is the real eye from which the mind-eye derives its seeming awareness, by which it sees all other things.<br>
<br>
<a name="space"></a><b>5. We are ‘the space even to the mind-space’, so we are the one real substance, of which everything else is just an appearance</b><br>
<br>
The adjectival participle ‘ஒளிரும்’ (<i>oḷirum</i>), ‘which shines’, links the subject of this sentence, namely ஆன்மா (<i>āṉmā</i>), ‘oneself’, not only to this first adverbial clause but also to the second adverbial clause: ‘மன விணுக்கும் விண் ஆய்’ (<i>maṉa-viṇukkum viṇ āy</i>), ‘being [or as] the space even to [or for] the mind-space’, thereby implying that we are not only the eye to the mind-eye but also the space to the mind space. That is, the விண் (<i>viṇ</i>) or space that he refers to at the beginning of the first clause is physical space (<i>bhūtākāśa</i>), and since physical space and everything in it seems to exist only in the view of the mind, the mind is the space for physical space. That is, the space in which physical space appears and is therefore contained is the mind-space, which in Sanskrit is called <i>manākāśa</i> or <i>cittākāśa</i>, and which Bhagavan refers to here as மன விண் (<i>maṉa-viṇ</i>). Since the mind appears and disappears in the infinite space of pure awareness (<i>cidākāśa</i>), this space of pure awareness is what he refers to here as ‘மன விணுக்கும் விண்’ (<i>maṉa-viṇukkum viṇ</i>), ‘the space even to [or for] the mind-space’.<br>
<br>
Just as in the first clause he draws our attention step by step from what is most gross and exterior, namely the world composed of the five elements beginning with space, back to what is most subtle and interior, namely our innermost ‘eye’, which is pure awareness, in this second clause he likewise draws our attention from what is most gross and exterior, namely physical space, in which all other physical phenomena are contained, back to what is more subtle and interior, namely the mind, which is the space in which physical space appears and is therefore contained, and from the mind back to what is most subtle and interior, namely the innermost space of pure awareness, which is what we actually are. Here there may seem to be a paradox, in that what is said to be more exterior is contained in what is said to be more interior, but this paradox is rooted in the paradoxical nature of our experience as ego.<br>
<br>
That is, as ego we seem to be a body and a mind that is contained within that body, so we seem to be a tiny entity contained within the vast expanse of physical space, and hence in our view the rest of the world and the physical space in which it is contained seem to be something exterior to ourself, whereas in fact the entire physical space and everything contained within it, including the body that we seem to be, are a mere appearance, and what they appear in is only the space of our own mind. Therefore what seems to be exterior, namely physical space, is contained within what seems to be interior, namely the mind. Likewise the space of pure awareness is what shines within us as our fundamental awareness ‘I am’, which now seems to be limited within the extent of this body, whereas in fact it is the infinite space in which the mind-space and consequently the entire physical space is contained.<br>
<br>
The space of pure awareness, ‘I am’, is what is called the heart, because it is the innermost centre or core of ourself. Since it alone is what actually exists, it is the one substance (<i>poruḷ</i> or <i>vastu</i>) of everything that seems to exist, just as gold is the substance of all gold ornaments and a rope is the substance of what seems to be a snake, so it is both contained within everything and the infinite space in which everything is contained. This is why <i>brahman</i>, which is this infinite space of pure awareness, is said to be larger than the largest and smaller than the smallest.<br>
<br>
This infinite space of pure awareness, which contains everything and is contained within everything, is what we actually are, as Bhagavan points out in this verse by saying ‘மன விணுக்கும் விண் ஆய் ஒளிரும் ஆன்மா’ (<i>maṉa-viṇukkum viṇ āy oḷirum āṉmā</i>), ‘oneself, which shines as the space even to the mind-space’. Therefore we are ஒரு பொருள் (<i>oru poruḷ</i>), ‘the one substance’, as he points out in the phrase that immediately follows this second adverbial clause, ‘மன விணுக்கும் விண் ஆய்’ (<i>maṉa-viṇukkum viṇ āy</i>), ‘as the space even to the mind-space’, because as I explained earlier, though this phrase is separated from the subject of the main clause, namely ஆன்மா (<i>āṉmā</i>), ‘oneself’, it stands in apposition to it, meaning that oneself is the one real substance, of which everything else is just an appearance.<br>
<br>
<a name="substance"></a><b>6. There is only one substance, Arunachala, the heart, the light of awareness, which shines without appearing or disappearing as the space for the appearing and disappearing of the mind-eye and everything known by it</b><br>
<br>
<a name="aa6"></a>பொருள் (<i>poruḷ</i>) is a word that has a very deep significance and is therefore often used by Bhagavan. In most contexts, including this one, the equivalent term in Sanskrit is वस्तु (<i>vastu</i>), because it means the ultimate substance, the one thing that actually exists, the sole reality underlying and supporting the appearance of all other things, as he implies, for example, in the first sentence of <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-role-of-grace-in-all-that-ego.html#aa6">verse 6</a> of <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Aṣṭakam</i>: ‘உண்டு ஒரு பொருள் அறிவு ஒளி உளமே நீ’ (<i>uṇḍu oru poruḷ aṟivu oḷi uḷamē nī</i>), ‘There is only one substance, you [Arunachala], the heart, the light of awareness’.<br>
<br>
<a name="uu24"></a> This ஒரு பொருள் (<i>oru poruḷ</i>), the one substance, is our very existence or being, because it alone is what we actually are, and it is also what God actually is, so in our ‘இருக்கும் இயற்கை’ (<i>irukkum iyaṟkai</i>), ‘existing nature’ or ‘being nature’, God and we are just this one substance, as he says in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu24">verse 24</a> of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i>:<br>
<blockquote>இருக்கு மியற்கையா லீசசீ வர்க<br>
ளொருபொரு ளேயாவ ருந்தீபற<br>
வுபாதி யுணர்வேவே றுந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>irukku miyaṟkaiyā līśajī varga<br>
ḷoruporu ḷēyāva rundīpaṟa<br>
vupādhi yuṇarvēvē ṟundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> இருக்கும் இயற்கையால் ஈச சீவர்கள் ஒரு பொருளே ஆவர். உபாதி உணர்வே வேறு.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>irukkum iyaṟkaiyāl īśa-jīvargaḷ oru poruḷē āvar. upādhi-uṇarvē vēṟu</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> By existing nature, God and soul are just one substance. Only adjunct-awareness is different.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> By [their] existing nature [that is, because the real nature of each of them is what actually exists (<i>uḷḷadu</i>), which is the pure and infinite awareness (<i>uṇarvu</i>) that shines eternally as ‘I am’, devoid of all adjuncts], <i>īśa</i> [God] and <i>jīva</i> [soul] are just one <i>poruḷ</i> [substance or <i>vastu</i>]. Only <i>upādhi-uṇarvu</i> [adjunct-awareness, namely ego or <i>jīva</i>, the adjunct-conflated awareness ‘I am this body’, which is what attributes adjuncts not only to itself but also to God] is [what makes them seem] different. [However, though the soul (<i>jīva</i>) is aware of itself as a certain set of adjuncts, namely the five sheaths that constitute whatever person it currently seems to be, and consequently attributes certain other adjuncts to God, God always remains just as pure awareness, in the clear view of which no adjuncts exist at all, so the differences between God and soul seem to exist only in the view of the soul and not in the view of God.]</blockquote>
<a name="un07"></a>The nature of this ஒரு பொருள் (<i>oru poruḷ</i>) or one substance and where it stands in relation to everything else, namely the subject (the mind-eye) and all objects (everything perceived by the mind-eye), or rather where everything else stands in relation to it, is clearly explained by him in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un07">verse 7</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>:<br>
<blockquote>உலகறிவு மொன்றா யுதித்தொடுங்கு மேனு<br>
முலகறிவு தன்னா லொளிரு — முலகறிவு<br>
தோன்றிமறை தற்கிடனாய்த் தோன்றிமறை யாதொளிரும்<br>
பூன்றமா மஃதே பொருள்.<br>
<br>
<i>ulahaṟivu moṉḏṟā yudittoḍuṅgu mēṉu<br>
mulahaṟivu taṉṉā loḷiru — mulahaṟivu<br>
tōṉḏṟimaṟai daṟkiḍaṉāyt tōṉḏṟimaṟai yādoḷirum<br>
pūṉḏṟamā maḵdē poruḷ</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> உலகு அறிவும் ஒன்றாய் உதித்து ஒடுங்கும் ஏனும், உலகு அறிவு தன்னால் ஒளிரும். உலகு அறிவு தோன்றி மறைதற்கு இடன் ஆய் தோன்றி மறையாது ஒளிரும் பூன்றம் ஆம் அஃதே பொருள்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>ulahu aṟivum oṉḏṟāy udittu oḍuṅgum ēṉum, ulahu aṟivu-taṉṉāl oḷirum. ulahu aṟivu tōṉḏṟi maṟaidaṟku iḍaṉ-āy tōṉḏṟi maṟaiyādu oḷirum pūṉḏṟam ām aḵdē poruḷ</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>அன்வயம்:</b> உலகு அறிவும் ஒன்றாய் உதித்து ஒடுங்கும் ஏனும், உலகு அறிவு தன்னால் ஒளிரும். உலகு அறிவு தோன்றி மறைதற்கு இடன் ஆய் தோன்றி மறையாது ஒளிரும் அஃதே பூன்றம் ஆம் பொருள்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Anvayam</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>ulahu aṟivum oṉḏṟāy udittu oḍuṅgum ēṉum, ulahu aṟivu-taṉṉāl oḷirum. ulahu aṟivu tōṉḏṟi maṟaidaṟku iḍaṉ-āy tōṉḏṟi maṟaiyādu oḷirum aḵdē pūṉḏṟam ām poruḷ</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> 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.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> 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 <i>poruḷ</i> [the real substance or <i>vastu</i>], which is <i>pūṉḏṟam</i> [the infinite whole or <i>pūrṇa</i>].</blockquote>
அறிவு (<i>aṟivu</i>) means awareness, but in this verse it does not mean real awareness, namely pure awareness, which is அந்தமிலா கண் (<i>antam-ilā kaṇ</i>), ‘the infinite eye’, because real awareness does not arise or subside, since it is the eternal and immutable reality, the ஒரு பொருள் (<i>oru poruḷ</i>) or one real substance. Therefore the அறிவு (<i>aṟivu</i>) or awareness that he refers to here is the awareness that rises and subsides, namely மனக்கண் (<i>maṉa-k-kaṇ</i>), the mind-eye, which is ego. Since it is only in the view of this mind-eye that the world seems to exist, the world shines only by the light of this mind-eye, as he says in the first sentence of this verse: ‘உலகு அறிவும் ஒன்றாய் உதித்து ஒடுங்கும் ஏனும், உலகு அறிவு தன்னால் ஒளிரும்’ (<i>ulahu aṟivum oṉḏṟāy udittu oḍuṅgum ēṉum, ulahu aṟivu-taṉṉāl oḷirum</i>), ‘Though the world and awareness arise and subside simultaneously, the world shines by awareness’.<br>
<br>
Just as moonlight is just a reflection of sunlight that falls on the moon, the light of the mind-eye, which is the light by which the world shines, is just a reflection of pure awareness, which is what shines within the mind-eye as our fundamental awareness, ‘I am’. Since pure awareness shines as ‘I am’ within the mind-eye and thereby lends it the light by which it knows all other things, Bhagavan describes it as ‘மனக் கணுக்கும் கண்’ (<i>maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ</i>), ‘the eye even to [or for] the mind-eye’. However, though it shines as ‘I am’ within the mind-eye and is therefore always known by the mind-eye, the mind-eye does not know it as it actually is, because instead of knowing itself as just ‘I am’, the mind-eye always knows itself as ‘I am this body’.<br>
<br>
Because it knows itself as ‘I am this body’, two consequences follow: Firstly, it knows the world, because the body seems to be just a small part of the world and therefore seems to exist only in relation to the seeming existence of the world. And secondly, it rises and subsides, because the body is just a temporary appearance, as indeed is the whole world and everything else that is known by it, except its fundamental awareness ‘I am’.<br>
<br>
The mind-eye and the world appear in waking and dream and disappear in sleep, so the ground, substratum or source from which they appear and into which they disappear must be something that exists and shines not only in waking and dream but also in sleep. In other words, it must exist and shine eternally without ever appearing or disappearing. As we can understand by carefully considering our own experience, what exists and shines in all three states without ever appearing or disappearing is only our fundamental awareness ‘I am’, so that alone is what we actually are, and it is the source and substance from which everything else appears and into which it disappears, as he implies in the final sentence of this verse: ‘உலகு அறிவு தோன்றி மறைதற்கு இடன் ஆய் தோன்றி மறையாது ஒளிரும் பூன்றம் ஆம் அஃதே பொருள்’ (<i>ulahu aṟivu tōṉḏṟi maṟaidaṟku iḍaṉ-āy tōṉḏṟi maṟaiyādu oḷirum pūṉḏṟam ām aḵdē poruḷ</i>), ‘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 awareness is <i>poruḷ</i> [the real substance or <i>vastu</i>], which is <i>pūṉḏṟam</i> [the infinite whole or <i>pūrṇa</i>]’.<br>
<br>
பூன்றம் (<i>pūṉḏṟam</i>) is a Tamil form of the Sanskrit word पूर्ण (<i>pūrṇa</i>), which means full, complete, entire or whole, so it implies existence in its fullness or entirety, or in other words, the infinite whole, other than which nothing exists. That is, since பொருள் (<i>poruḷ</i>) in this context means the one real substance, the ultimate substance that underlies the appearance of everything else, there is nothing other than it, so it is the infinite whole.<br>
<br>
This one real substance, which is the infinite whole, is what we actually are, as Bhagavan implies in this first sentence of the fifth verse of <i>Āṉma-Viddai</i> by placing ‘ஒரு பொருள்’ (<i>oru poruḷ</i>), ‘the one substance’, in apposition to ஆன்மா (<i>āṉmā</i>), ‘oneself’. Therefore up to this point in the verse he has told us three things about ourself, namely that we are மனக் கணுக்கும் கண் (<i>maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ</i>), the eye to (or for) the mind-eye, மன விணுக்கும் விண் (<i>maṉa-viṇukkum viṇ</i>), the space to (or for) the mind-space, and ஒரு பொருள் (<i>oru poruḷ</i>), the one real substance.<br>
<br>
<a name="annamalai"></a><b>7. What we actually are is what is called Annamalai, but so long as we rise as ego and thereby mistake ourself to be the form of a body, Annamalai appears outwardly in the form of a hill and in the human form of Bhagavan Ramana</b><br>
<br>
<a name="un04a"></a>Further on in this sentence he tells us one more thing about what we actually are, namely that we are what is called Annamalai, which is an alternative name of Arunachala and is therefore a name of God, and more specifically, a name of the form of God that is most beloved to him. Though God is actually formless, being nothing other than ourself as we actually are, namely the fundamental awareness ‘I am’, so long as we mistake ourself to be the form of a body, God seems to be something other than ourself, and anything other than ourself must be a form of one kind or another, as he implies in the first sentence of <a href="#un04">verse 4</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>, ‘உருவம் தான் ஆயின், உலகு பரம் அற்று ஆம்’ (<i>uruvam tāṉ āyiṉ, ulahu param aṯṟu ām</i>), ‘If oneself is a form, the world and God will be likewise’.<br>
<br>
Until we experience ourself as the formless whole, we cannot experience God as formless, and even if we believe that he is formless, that belief is just an idea, so like all ideas it is just a mental form. We cannot form an accurate mental conception of formlessness, because every conception is a form, so it is appropriate for us to worship God as a form so long as we rise and stand as ego. Therefore from the perspective of ourself as ego Annamalai is the name of God in the form of a hill, but when we know ourself as we actually are, we will know that what the name Annamalai actually refers to is ourself, because what we actually are is what God actually is, namely ஒரு பொருள் (<i>oru poruḷ</i>), the one real substance, which is the infinite and hence formless whole, as Bhagavan implies in this sentence by saying ‘அண்ணாமலை என் ஆன்மா’ (<i>aṇṇāmalai eṉ āṉmā</i>), ‘oneself, which is called Annamalai’, in which ‘ஆன்மா’ (<i>āṉmā</i>), ‘oneself’, refers to ourself as we actually are, which is மனக் கணுக்கும் கண் (<i>maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ</i>), ‘the eye even to the mind-eye’, and மன விணுக்கும் விண் (<i>maṉa-viṇukkum viṇ</i>), ‘the space even to the mind-space’.<br>
<br>
In this phrase ‘அண்ணாமலை என் ஆன்மா’ (<i>aṇṇāmalai eṉ āṉmā</i>), ‘என்’ (<i>eṉ</i>) can be interpreted in either of two ways, because it is both the root of a verb that means ‘say’ and the inflectional base of the first personal singular pronoun. In the principal meaning of this phrase, namely ‘oneself, which is called Annamalai’, the verbal root ‘என்’ (<i>eṉ</i>) is used to represent the adjectival participle ‘என்னும்’ (<i>eṉṉum</i>), which means ‘which is called’. Since the inflectional base of nouns and pronouns is often used to represent the genitive or sixth case, as a pronoun ‘என்’ (<i>eṉ</i>) means ‘my’, so the alternative meaning of ‘அண்ணாமலை என் ஆன்மா’ (<i>aṇṇāmalai eṉ āṉmā</i>) is ‘myself, Annamalai’ or ‘Annamalai, myself’. If we interpret it in this sense, Bhagavan is indicating that he and Annamalai are one.<br>
<br>
<a name="aamm44"></a>Since Annamalai is ourself as we actually are, in the deepest sense we are all one with Annamalai, but Bhagavan is one with Annamalai in a very special sense, because Annamalai is God and <i>guru</i> in the form of a hill, but since as a hill he teaches us only through silence, and since we cannot understand what is taught through silence without turning within and merging in it, it was necessary for Annamalai to appear in the human form of Bhagavan Ramana to teach us in words what he is eternally teaching us through silence, namely ‘திரும்பி அகம் தனை தினம் அகக்கண் காண்; தெரியும்’ (<i>tirumbi aham taṉai diṉam aha-k-kaṇ kāṇ; ṭeriyum</i>), ‘Turning back inside, see yourself daily with the inner eye [or an inward look]; it [the reality that always shines as ‘I am only I’] will be known’, as he says Annamalai said to him in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/03/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-payiram.html#aamm44">verse 44</a> of <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>.<br>
<br>
<a name="seeing"></a><b>8. As ego we can never see ourself as we actually are, but we must try to see ourself thus, because as soon as we see ourself as we actually are we will thereby cease to be ego and remain as we actually are</b><br>
<br>
The subject of this first sentence is ஆன்மா (<i>āṉmā</i>), ‘oneself’, which in this context means ourself as we actually are, as is made clear by each of its four modifiers. Along with these modifiers the entire subject is ‘விண் ஆதிய விளக்கும் கண் ஆதிய பொறிக்கும் கண் ஆம் மனக் கணுக்கும் கண் ஆய், மன விணுக்கும் விண் ஆய் ஒளிரும் ஒரு பொருள், அண்ணாமலை என் ஆன்மா’ (<i>viṇ ādiya viḷakkum kaṇ ādiya poṟikkum kaṇ ām maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ āy, maṉa-viṇukkum viṇ āy oḷirum oru poruḷ, aṇṇāmalai eṉ āṉmā</i>), ‘oneself, which is called Annamalai, the one substance, which shines as the eye even to the mind-eye, which is the eye to all the sense organs beginning with eyes, which illumine what begins with space, [and] as the space even to the mind-space’.<br>
<br>
The main verb of this sentence is காணுமே (<i>kāṇumē</i>), which is an intensified form of காணும் (<i>kāṇum</i>), which is active in form but closer to passive in sense, so though as an active verb it would mean ‘[it] will see’, in this context it implies ‘[it] will be seen’, and when appended to a verb the intensifying suffix ஏ (<i>ē</i>) implies ‘certainly’, ‘definitely’ or ‘actually’. Though காணும் (<i>kāṇum</i>) in this context has to be translated as a passive verb in English, it is actually the neuter third person singular active form of a transitive verb that is used here in a non-active sense, because an active verb requires a specified agent as its subject, whereas in this case no agent is specified, so it is neither active nor passive but a particular type of agentless middle voice that is very common in Tamil but much rarer in English, in which it can be used only with certain verbs, as for example in ‘the food is cooking’, ‘the door opened’ or ‘the glass broke’ (in which the respective verbs are active in form but closer to passive in sense). Bhagavan frequently uses this middle voice because such an active yet agentless expression is particularly appropriate in the context of his teachings. In this case, ‘ஆன்மா காணுமே’ (<i>āṉmā kāṇumē</i>), ‘oneself will certainly be seen’, he uses this form of the verb to say that what we actually are will be seen without specifying the agent, namely the one who will see it.<br>
<br>
His use of this agentless middle voice form of the verb should prompt us to consider firstly who or what is to see oneself, and secondly why it is appropriate to avoid specifying who or what is to see oneself. As we actually are we do not need to see ourself, because seeing ourself means being aware of ourself as we actually are, and being aware of ourself as we actually are is the very nature of ourself as we actually are. As such, therefore, we see ourself just by being ourself, so we never cease to see ourself, and hence seeing ourself is not something that we as we actually are ever need to achieve. So does this mean that what needs to see ourself as we actually are is ourself as ego? Yes, but as ego we can never see what we actually are, because our nature as ego is to be always aware of ourself as ‘I am this body’.<br>
<br>
Therefore our real nature does not need to see itself, because it never sees anything other than itself, and ego cannot know itself as it actually is, so is it futile for us as ego to try to see ourself as we actually are? No, it is necessary for us to try to see what we actually are, but when we see what we actually are, we will thereby lose ourself in that, which means that we will cease to be ego and remain as we always actually are.<br>
<br>
<a name="investigate"></a><b>9. We can see ourself as we actually are only by turning our entire mind back to look within instead of thinking of anything else, thereby being as we always actually are</b><br>
<br>
In order to see ourself as we actually are, we need to look at ourself very carefully, which means we need to turn our entire attention back within to face ourself alone. This is what he implies in the adverbial phrase that modifies this main verb, ‘காணுமே’ (<i>kāṇumē</i>), ‘will certainly be seen’, namely ‘வேறு எண்ணாது இருந்தபடி உள் நாடு உளத்து’ (<i>vēṟu eṇṇādu irundapaḍi uḷ nāḍu uḷattu</i>), ‘in the heart [or mind] that investigates within, as it is without thinking of anything other’.<br>
<br>
உளத்து (<i>uḷattu</i>) is a poetic abbreviation of உள்ளத்து (<i>uḷḷattu</i>), which is the inflectional base of உள்ளம் (<i>uḷḷam</i>), which means ‘heart’ or ‘mind’, and this inflectional base is used here in a locative (seventh case) sense, so உளத்து (<i>uḷattu</i>) means ‘in the heart’ or ‘in the mind’, and the rest of this phrase is a relative clause that modifies this noun. உள் (<i>uḷ</i>) means inside or within, and நாடு (<i>nāḍu</i>) is the root of a verb that means ‘seek’, ‘search’, ‘investigate’, ‘scrutinise’, ‘examine’ or ‘look attentively’, which is used here to represent the adjectival participle நாடும் (<i>nāḍum</i>), which means ‘investigating’ or ‘which investigates’, so ‘உள் நாடு உளத்து’ (<i>uḷ nāḍu uḷattu</i>) means ‘in the inward investigating [or inward looking] <i>uḷḷam</i> [heart or mind]’ or ‘in the <i>uḷḷam</i> that investigates [or looks] within’.<br>
<br>
Inside and outside are relative terms, so they refer to different things in different contexts. For example, from one perspective the world (physical objects) is outside and thoughts (mental objects) are inside, so we seem to experience two distinct worlds, an external world of physical phenomena and an internal world of mental phenomena, but from another perspective even the world of physical phenomena is experienced only within our own mind, so it too is internal. However, in the context of self-investigation the terms inside and outside are used in a much deeper sense, according to which all objects or phenomena are external, being extraneous to ourself, so what is inside is only ourself, ‘I’. Therefore attending to anything other than ‘I’ is facing outwards (<i>bahirmukham</i>) whereas attending to ‘I’ alone is facing inwards (<i>antarmukham</i> or <i>ahamukham</i>), so whenever Bhagavan talks about turning, facing, looking, attending or investigating within, what he implies thereby is turning our attention back to face ourself alone.<br>
<br>
இருந்தபடி (<i>irundapaḍi</i>) means ‘as it was’ or ‘as one was’, but in this context can be translated as ‘as it is’ or ‘as one is’, because it implies ‘as one actually was’, and what we actually were is what we always actually are, so in this case tense is irrelevant. Coming immediately before ‘உள் நாடு’ (<i>uḷ nāḍu</i>), ‘inward investigating’ or ‘inward looking’, இருந்தபடி (<i>irundapaḍi</i>), ‘as it was’, implies that by looking within we remain as we always actually are and always have been, or to be more precise, that looking within is itself being as we actually are, because what we actually are is just our fundamental awareness ‘I am’ in its pure and pristine condition, which is always looking within in the sense that it is never aware of anything outside or other than itself.<br>
<br>
Looking within and thereby being as we actually are entails not thinking of or attending to anything other than ourself, so to make this clear he begins this adverbial phrase, ‘வேறு எண்ணாது இருந்தபடி உள் நாடு உளத்து’ (<i>vēṟu eṇṇādu irundapaḍi uḷ nāḍu uḷattu</i>), ‘in the heart that investigates within, as it is without thinking of anything other’, with the negative adverbial clause ‘வேறு எண்ணாது’ (<i>vēṟu eṇṇādu</i>), which means ‘not thinking of anything other’ or ‘without thinking of anything other’, and which therefore implies not attending to or being aware of anything other than ourself even to the slightest extent.<br>
<br>
Since this whole adverbial phrase modifies the verb of the main clause of this sentence, namely ‘ஆன்மா காணுமே’ (<i>āṉmā kāṇumē</i>), ‘oneself will certainly be seen’, what it implies is that we will certainly be aware of ourself as we actually are when, and only when, our entire heart, mind or attention looks within so keenly that we thereby cease to be aware of anything other than ourself and thus remain as we always actually are, namely as pure awareness, ‘I am’, which is ஒரு பொருள் (<i>oru poruḷ</i>), the one real substance, which is what is called Annamalai and which shines as மனக் கணுக்கும் கண் (<i>maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ</i>), the eye even to the mind-eye, and மன விணுக்கும் விண் (<i>maṉa-viṇukkum viṇ</i>), the space even to the mind-space.<br>
<br>
Therefore in this first sentence, ‘விண் ஆதிய விளக்கும் கண் ஆதிய பொறிக்கும் கண் ஆம் மனக் கணுக்கும் கண் ஆய், மன விணுக்கும் விண் ஆய் ஒரு பொருள் வேறு எண்ணாது இருந்தபடி உள் நாடு உளத்து ஒளிரும் அண்ணாமலை என் ஆன்மா காணுமே’ (<i>viṇ ādiya viḷakkum kaṇ ādiya poṟikkum kaṇ ām maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ āy, maṉa-viṇukkum viṇ āy oru poruḷ vēṟu eṇṇādu irundapaḍi uḷ nāḍu uḷattu oḷirum aṇṇāmalai eṉ āṉmā kāṇumē</i>), ‘In the heart that investigates within, as it is without thinking of anything other, oneself, which is called Annamalai, the one substance, which shines as the eye even to the mind-eye, which is the eye to all the sense organs beginning with eyes, which illumine what begins with space, and as the space even to the mind-space, will certainly be seen’, he teaches us very precisely and clearly the means by which we can know ourself as we actually are.<br>
<br>
Firstly he makes clear that what we actually are is not anything physical or material, anything composed of the five elements beginning with space, because all such things are illumined only by the sense organs beginning with the eyes; nor are we any of these sense organs, because they are not aware of anything, since they are just the windows through which the mind-eye, namely ego, perceives all physical things; nor are we even this mind or ego, because it borrows its seeming awareness (<i>cidābhāsa</i>) from the one real awareness (<i>cit</i>), which is therefore மனக் கணுக்கும் கண் (<i>maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ</i>), ‘the eye even to the mind-eye’, and also மன விணுக்கும் விண் (<i>maṉa-viṇukkum viṇ</i>), ‘the space even to the mind-space’; so what we actually are is only this fundamental awareness by which the mind and everything known by it shines. This fundamental awareness (<i>cit</i>), which is what always shines within us as our own very being (<i>sat</i>), ‘I am’, is ஒரு பொருள் (<i>oru poruḷ</i>), ‘the one real substance’, which is what is called Annamalai, so this alone is what we need to investigate and know. Since what we actually are is the eye even to the mind-eye, which means the light that shines within the mind-eye enabling it to know all other things, we can know what we actually are not by looking outwards but only by looking deep within ourself, and to see ourself as we actually are we need to look within ourself so keenly and deeply that we thereby cease to be aware of anything other than ourself and thus remain as we actually are, namely as pure awareness, which is awareness that is never aware of anything other than itself and that is therefore aware of itself as ‘I am I’.<br>
<br>
<a name="easy"></a><b>10. Though looking at ourself and thereby being as we actually are is exceedingly easy, it seems difficult so long as we rise and stand as ego, because the very nature of ego is to be constantly grasping forms</b><br>
<br>
<a name="av4"></a>As he said in the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2023/11/anma-viddai-verse-4-self-investigation.html">previous verse</a>, ‘கன்மாதி கட்டு அவிழ, சென்மாதி நட்டம் எழ, எம் மார்க்கம் அதனினும் இம் மார்க்கம் மிக்கு எளிது’ (<i>kaṉma-ādi kaṭṭu aviṙa, jeṉma-ādi naṭṭam eṙa, e-m-mārggam-adaṉiṉum i-m-mārggam mikku eḷidu</i>), ‘To untie the bonds beginning with action, to rise from the devastation beginning with birth, more than whatever path, this path is exceedingly easy’, because nothing can be easier than just being as we actually are. We are always as we actually are, so we seem to have risen as ego only because we are looking outside at other things instead of looking within at ourself. So long as we attend to anything other than ourself, we seem to be something other than what we actually are, so in order to see that we are always as we actually are, all we need do is look at ourself very carefully.<br>
<br>
<a name="un25"></a>Though looking at ourself and thereby being as we actually are is exceedingly easy, it seems difficult so long as we rise and stand as ego, because the very nature of ego is to be constantly grasping forms, which means attending to things other than ourself, as he points out in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un25">verse 25</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>:<br>
<blockquote>உருப்பற்றி யுண்டா முருப்பற்றி நிற்கு<br>
முருப்பற்றி யுண்டுமிக வோங்கு — முருவிட்<br>
டுருப்பற்றுந் தேடினா லோட்டம் பிடிக்கு<br>
முருவற்ற பேயகந்தை யோர்.<br>
<br>
<i>uruppaṯṟi yuṇḍā muruppaṯṟi niṟku<br>
muruppaṯṟi yuṇḍumiha vōṅgu — muruviṭ<br>
ṭuruppaṯṟun tēḍiṉā lōṭṭam piḍikku<br>
muruvaṯṟa pēyahandai yōr</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> உரு பற்றி உண்டாம்; உரு பற்றி நிற்கும்; உரு பற்றி உண்டு மிக ஓங்கும்; உரு விட்டு, உரு பற்றும்; தேடினால் ஓட்டம் பிடிக்கும். உரு அற்ற பேய் அகந்தை. ஓர்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>uru paṯṟi uṇḍām; uru paṯṟi niṟkum; uru paṯṟi uṇḍu miha ōṅgum; uru viṭṭu, uru paṯṟum; tēḍiṉāl ōṭṭam piḍikkum. uru aṯṟa pēy ahandai. ōr</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>அன்வயம்:</b> உரு அற்ற பேய் அகந்தை உரு பற்றி உண்டாம்; உரு பற்றி நிற்கும்; உரு பற்றி உண்டு மிக ஓங்கும்; உரு விட்டு, உரு பற்றும்; தேடினால் ஓட்டம் பிடிக்கும். ஓர்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Anvayam</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>uru aṯṟa pēy ahandai uru paṯṟi uṇḍām; uru paṯṟi niṟkum; uru paṯṟi uṇḍu miha ōṅgum; uru viṭṭu, uru paṯṟum; tēḍiṉāl ōṭṭam piḍikkum. ōr</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Grasping form it comes into existence; grasping form it stands; grasping and feeding on form it grows abundantly; leaving form, it grasps form. If seeking, it will take flight. The formless phantom ego. Investigate.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Grasping form [that is, projecting and perceiving the form of a body (composed of five sheaths) as itself] it 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 seeking [that is, if it seeks to know what it actually is by keenly investigating 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]. [Such is the nature of this] formless phantom [fiend, demon or evil spirit] ego. [Therefore] investigate [it] [or know thus].</blockquote>
Since ego cannot rise, stand or flourish without grasping things other than itself, and since we cannot turn within to look at ourself alone without thereby letting go of everything else, turning within and being self-attentive is going against the very nature of ourself as ego. However, though being aware of nothing other than ourself is diametrically opposed to our ego nature, it is the nature of ourself as we actually are. Therefore to the extent to which we look within or attend to ourself we are thereby renouncing our ego nature and embracing our real nature.<br>
<br>
<a name="grace"></a><b>11. Grace is certainly necessary, because the all-consuming love to look deep within and thereby let go everything else can come only from grace, not from ego</b><br>
<br>
Ego’s inclinations (<i>vāsanās</i>) to grasp forms are what are called <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, because all forms are <i>viṣayas</i> (objects or phenomena), and all <i>viṣayas</i> are forms in the broad and deep sense in which Bhagavan uses this term. Our inclination or liking to be self-attentive, on the other hand, is what is called <i>sat-vāsanā</i>, because being self-attentive means attending to our own being (<i>sat</i>), ‘I am’, and to the extent to which we attend only to our own being we thereby subside back into our being and are thus just being as we actually are. Whereas <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> are born with and from ego, <i>sat-vāsanā</i> originates from ourself as we actually are, because love to be as we actually are is the very nature of ourself as we actually are.<br>
<br>
The infinite love that we as we actually are have to be as we actually are is what is called grace, so <i>sat-vāsanā</i> is the clear shining of grace in our heart. The more we persevere in being self-attentive, the more our mind is thereby purified and clarified, so the more grace, which is always shining in our heart as our fundamental awareness ‘I am’, will shine clearly in the form of <i>sat-vāsanā</i>, which is love to know and to be what we always actually are.<br>
<br>
Therefore without grace we would have no inclination even to try to turn within. As Bhagavan often said, grace is the beginning, the middle and the end, because it is grace in the form of <i>guru</i> and his teachings that first attracts us to this path, it is grace that gives us the liking to try to be self-attentive, it is grace that supports and guides us on this path, and finally it is grace in its real form of pure awareness (<i>cit-svarūpa</i>) that will swallow us entirely when we eventually look within keenly and deeply enough. This is why he says in the second sentence of this verse: ‘அருளும் வேணுமே’ (<i>aruḷum vēṇumē</i>), ‘Grace also is certainly necessary’.<br>
<br>
அருள் (<i>aruḷ</i>) means ‘grace’ and the suffix உம் (<i>um</i>) means ‘also’ or ‘even’ (or in this context it can be taken to be a poetic expletive and therefore devoid of meaning), so அருளும் (<i>aruḷum</i>) means ‘grace also’ or just ‘grace’. வேணும் (<i>vēṇum</i>) means ‘required’, ‘needed’, ‘necessary’ or ‘indispensable’, and the intensifying suffix ஏ (<i>ē</i>) when appended to a verb means ‘certainly’, ‘definitely’ or ‘actually’, so வேணுமே (<i>vēṇumē</i>) means ‘is certainly necessary’. Why did he append உம் (<i>um</i>) to அருள் (<i>aruḷ</i>) and what did he imply thereby? Since உம் (<i>um</i>) means ‘also’, it implies in addition to something else, so what else is required?<br>
<br>
What is necessary along with grace is willingness and effort on our part. We must be willing to look within and we must try to do so, because grace will never impose itself on us. It will not force us to look within unless we want to do so. If we want to look within, we will try to do so, and we will do so with the full support of grace, but if we do not have sufficient liking even to try to look within, we are thereby closing the door of our heart on grace. Grace is always available to give us all the help and support we need, but we must be willing to accept its help by trying patiently and persistently to look within. If we are not willing to make any effort to look within, we are thereby refusing the help that grace is always offering us. By attending to anything other than ourself instead of at least trying to attend to ourself, we are obstructing the flow of grace, preventing it from gushing forth from our heart. Therefore we must be willing to yield ourself to grace, which we can do only by trying more and more to be self-attentive.<br>
<br>
<a name="ny12"></a>This is what Bhagavan implies in the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para12">twelfth paragraph</a> of <i>Nāṉ Ār?</i> by firstly assuring us that grace in the form of <i>guru</i> will certainly save us and will never forsake us, but by then adding the important caveat that we must nevertheless play our part by unfailingly following the path that he has shown us, namely this simple path of self-investigation and self-surrender:<br>
<blockquote>கடவுளும் குருவும் உண்மையில் வேறல்லர். புலிவாயிற் பட்டது எவ்வாறு திரும்பாதோ, அவ்வாறே குருவினருட்பார்வையிற் பட்டவர்கள் அவரால் ரக்ஷிக்கப்படுவரே யன்றி யொருக்காலும் கைவிடப்படார்; எனினும், குரு காட்டிய வழிப்படி தவறாது நடக்க வேண்டும்.<br>
<br>
<i>kaḍavuḷ-um guru-v-um uṇmaiyil vēṟallar. puli-vāyil paṭṭadu evvāṟu tirumbādō, avvāṟē guruviṉ-aruḷ-pārvaiyil paṭṭavargaḷ avarāl rakṣikka-p-paḍuvarē y-aṉḏṟi y-oru-k-kāl-um kaiviḍa-p-paḍār; eṉiṉum, guru kāṭṭiya vaṙi-p-paḍi tavaṟādu naḍakka vēṇḍum</i>.<br>
<br>
God and <i>guru</i> are in truth not different. Just as what has been caught in the jaws of a tiger will not return, so those who have been caught in the look [or glance] of <i>guru</i>’s grace will never be forsaken but will surely be saved by him; nevertheless, it is necessary to walk unfailingly in accordance with the path that <i>guru</i> has shown.</blockquote>
However, we should not claim credit for whatever willingness we have to look within or for whatever effort we make to do so, because even our willingness and effort are only the fruit of his grace. Grace is not something that comes from outside ourself but is <i>ātma-svarūpa</i>, the very nature of ourself as we actually are, so it is what is always shining within us as our own being, ‘I am’, and hence it works from within us and through us. Though it always exists and shines within us as ourself, we can be aware of its nature and experience its influence only to the extent to which our mind is purified and clarified.<br>
<br>
<a name="apad10"></a>The impurities in our mind are our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, under whose sway we are constantly rushing outwards, so to the extent to which we allow ourself to be swayed by them, we are thereby looking away from ourself at other things, and hence we fail to recognise the presence of grace in our heart. The more we look within, however, the more we will recognise its presence and experience its magnetic influence, which is always drawing our mind inwards to face itself, and which will eventually feed on us, swallowing and absorbing us entirely in itself as itself, when our mind is thereby sufficiently purified and ripened, as he describes beautifully in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/11/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-16.html#apad10">verse 10</a> of <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Padigam</i>:<br>
<blockquote>பார்த்தனன் புதுமை யுயிர்வலி காந்த<br>
பருவத மொருதர மிதனை<br>
யோர்த்திடு முயிரின் சேட்டையை யொடுக்கி<br>
யொருதன தபிமுக மாக<br>
வீர்த்ததைத் தன்போ லசலமாச் செய்தவ்<br>
வின்னுயிர் பலிகொளு மிஃதென்<br>
னோர்த்துய்மி னுயிர்கா ளுளமதி லொளிரிவ்<br>
வுயிர்க்கொலி யருணமா கிரியே.<br>
<br>
<i>pārttaṉaṉ pudumai yuyirvali kānta<br>
paruvata morudara midaṉai<br>
yōrttiḍu muyiriṉ cēṭṭaiyai yoḍukki<br>
yorutaṉa dabhimukha māha<br>
vīrttadait taṉpō lacalamāc ceydav<br>
viṉṉuyir balikoḷu miḵdeṉ<br>
ṉōrttuymi ṉuyirgā ḷuḷamadi loḷiriv<br>
vuyirkkoli yaruṇamā giriyē</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> பார்த்தனன் புதுமை, உயிர் வலி காந்த பருவதம். ஒருதரம் இதனை ஓர்த்திடும் உயிரின் சேட்டையை ஒடுக்கி, ஒரு தனது அபிமுகம் ஆக ஈர்த்து, அதை தன் போல் அசலமா செய்து, அவ் இன் உயிர் பலி கொளும். இஃது என்! ஓர்த்து உய்மின், உயிர்காள், உளம் அதில் ஒளிர் இவ் உயிர் கொலி அருண மா கிரியே.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>pārttaṉaṉ pudumai, uyir vali kānta paruvatam. orudaram idaṉai ōrttiḍum uyiriṉ cēṭṭaiyai oḍukki, oru taṉadu abhimukham-āha īrttu, adai taṉ pōl acalamā seydu, a-vv-iṉ uyir bali koḷum. iḵdu eṉ! ōrttu uymiṉ, uyirgāḷ, uḷam adil oḷir i-vv-uyir koli aruṇa mā giriyē</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>அன்வயம்:</b> பார்த்தனன் புதுமை, உயிர் வலி காந்த பருவதம். இதனை ஒருதரம் ஓர்த்திடும் உயிரின் சேட்டையை ஒடுக்கி, ஒரு தனது அபிமுகம் ஆக ஈர்த்து, அதை தன் போல் அசலமா செய்து, அவ் இன் உயிர் பலி கொளும். இஃது என்! உயிர்காள், உளம் அதில் ஒளிர் இவ் உயிர் கொலி அருண மா கிரியே ஓர்த்து உய்மின்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Anvayam</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>pārttaṉaṉ pudumai, uyir vali kānta paruvatam. idaṉai orudaram ōrttiḍum uyiriṉ cēṭṭaiyai oḍukki, oru taṉadu abhimukham-āha īrttu, adai taṉ pōl acalamā seydu, a-vv-iṉ uyir bali koḷum. iḵdu eṉ! uyirgāḷ, uḷam adil oḷir i-vv-uyir koli aruṇa mā giriyē ōrttu uymiṉ</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> I have seen a wonder, the magnetic hill that seizes the soul. Subduing the mischievous activity of the soul who thinks of it once, pulling to face towards itself, the one, and making it motionless like itself, it accepts that sweet soul as sacrificial offering. What this is! O souls, be saved thinking of the great Aruna Hill, this killer of the soul, who shines in the heart.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> I have seen a wonder, the magnetic hill that seizes [or forcibly attracts] the soul. Subduing the mischievous [outward-flowing mental] activity of the soul who thinks of it once, pulling [dragging or attracting] [that soul] [inwards] to be <i>taṉadu abhimukham</i> [facing towards itself], the one [unique and peerless] [infinite pure awareness that shines within the heart as ‘I’], and [thereby] making it <i>acala</i> [motionless] like itself, it accepts [and consumes] that sweet [spiritually ripened and pure] soul as <i>bali</i> [food offered in sacrifice]. What [a wonder] this is! O souls, be saved [by] thinking of the great Aruna Hill, this killer of the soul, who shines in the heart [as the heart, namely the fundamental awareness of being, ‘I am’].</blockquote>
Therefore whatever love we have to look deep within ourself to see ourself as we actually are and whatever effort we make to do so are entirely the fruit of grace. In other words, it is grace alone that shines within us as the love and effort to look within and thereby to know and to be what we always actually are. Therefore though the suffix உம் (<i>um</i>) in அருளும் (<i>aruḷum</i>) can be taken to mean ‘also’, in which case ‘அருளும் வேணுமே’ (<i>aruḷum vēṇumē</i>) would mean ‘Grace also is certainly necessary’, in this context it is arguably more appropriate to take உம் (<i>um</i>) to be a poetic expletive and therefore devoid of meaning, in which case ‘அருளும் வேணுமே’ (<i>aruḷum vēṇumē</i>) would mean simply ‘Grace is certainly necessary’, thereby implying that nothing other than grace is required.<br>
<br>
Both of these interpretations are actually appropriate, because if we take ‘அருளும் வேணுமே’ (<i>aruḷum vēṇumē</i>) to mean ‘Grace also is certainly necessary’, it implies the need for us to cooperate with grace by yielding ourself to its inward pull instead of rushing outwards to attend to anything other than ourself, whereas if we take it to mean just ‘Grace is certainly necessary’, it implies that nothing other than grace is required, because even our yielding ourself to grace by patiently and persistently trying to be self-attentive is itself the working of grace in our heart.<br>
<br>
In order for us as ego to turn our entire attention back within and thereby to see and to be what we always actually are, wholehearted and all-consuming love is required, because we cannot survive for a moment as ego without constantly grasping things other than ourself, so it is the very nature of ourself as ego to have strong <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, inclinations to cling to other things. Therefore without all-consuming love to know and to be what we actually are we will never be willing to surrender ourself completely by clinging to ourself so firmly that we subside and merge forever in our mere being, ‘I am’.<br>
<br>
Since this wholehearted and all-consuming love to know and to be what we actually are is contrary to the very nature of ourself as ego, it cannot come from ego but only from grace, which is the very nature of ourself as we actually are. This is why Bhagavan ends this song on <i>ātma-vidyā</i>, the art and science of knowing ourself as we actually are, by emphasising the all-important role played by grace: ‘அருளும் வேணுமே’ (<i>aruḷum vēṇumē</i>). ‘Grace is certainly necessary’.<br>
<br>
<a name="av4a"></a>However, since grace is our own real nature (<i>ātma-svarūpa</i>), it is always shining in our heart as our own being, ‘I am’, so all that is necessary on our part is for us to avail ourself of its ever-available help by yielding ourself to its inward pull, which we can do with its help by trying our best to be ever more self-attentive. To the extent to which we are thus self-attentive under the sway of grace, we will thereby subside back within and just be as we actually are, resting without the least action of mind, speech or body, so as he said in the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2023/11/anma-viddai-verse-4-self-investigation.html">previous verse</a>, ‘எம் மார்க்கம் அதனினும் இம் மார்க்கம் மிக்கு எளிது’ (<i>e-m-mārggam-adaṉiṉum i-m-mārggam mikku eḷidu</i>), ‘more than whatever path, this path is exceedingly easy’.<br>
<br>
Therefore, ‘ஐயே, அதி சுலபம், ஆன்ம வித்தை, ஐயே, அதி சுலபம்!’ (<i>aiyē, ati sulabham, āṉma-viddai, aiyē, ati sulabham!</i>), ‘Ah, extremely easy, <i>ātma-vidyā</i>, ah, extremely easy!’<br>
<br>
<a name="love"></a><b>12. If we cultivate and nurture love in our heart to know and to be what we actually are, infinite and eternal happiness, which is what we always actually are, will shine forth</b><br>
<br>
Though our willingness or love to look within is a manifestation of the grace that is always shining in our heart as our own real nature, we as ego experience it as if it were our own, so it is necessary for us to nurture it, as Bhagavan implies in the third sentence of this fifth verse of <i>Āṉma-Viddai</i>: ‘அன்பு பூணுமே’ (<i>aṉbu pūṇumē</i>), ‘Be adorned with love’. அன்பு (<i>aṉbu</i>) means love and பூணுமே (<i>pūṇumē</i>) is an intensified form of பூணும் (<i>pūṇum</i>), which is a respectful imperative form of பூண் (<i>pūṇ</i>), which means put on, wear, be adorned with, be yoked with, be possessed of or undertake, so ‘அன்பு பூணுமே’ (<i>aṉbu pūṇumē</i>) is a poetic way of saying that we should cultivate and nurture love in our heart.<br>
<br>
The love he refers to here is the love to know and to be what we actually are, and though this love is our real nature, we seem to have separated ourself from it by rising as ego. However, we never truly separate ourself from it, because what we actually are is infinite happiness, so it always shines in us as our liking to be happy. Since our liking to be happy is the driving force within every volitional inclination (<i>vāsanā</i>), and since <i>vāsanās</i> are the seeds that sprout as likes, dislikes, desires, aversions, attachments, hopes, fears and so on, all such forms of volition are just distortions of our fundamental love to be happy, which in its pure and pristine form is love to know and to be what we actually are.<br>
<br>
So long as we experience even the slightest liking or disliking for anything other than ourself, we are thereby directing our attention away from ourself towards that other thing, so this is a misdirection of our fundamental love to be happy. Therefore the love we need to cultivate and nurture is the love to direct our entire attention back towards ourself alone. The seed of such love has already been sown in our heart by grace, and grace alone can nurture and nourish it, enabling it to grow strong and take complete possession of us. However, we must cooperate with grace by trying more and more to be self-attentive, because it is through our willingness and effort to be self-attentive that grace nurtures and nourishes this love.<br>
<br>
Grace is <i>cit-śakti</i>, the power of awareness, so whatever we attend to is nourished by grace, in the sense that the more we attend to anything, the more that thing will loom large in our mind. We can see this from our everyday experience. The more we allow our mind to dwell on anything, the more significant and important that thing will seem to be. Therefore if, instead of attending to anything other than ourself, we attend only to our own being, ‘I am’, our being will shine with increasing clarity and prominence, and the more we cling firmly to being self-attentive, the more our love to be self-attentive will grow in strength and intensity.<br>
<br>
Therefore being self-attentive is the key to open the door of our heart and thereby to allow grace to draw us back within and devour us in the infinite light of its love, which is the fullness of eternal happiness, as Bhagavan implies in the final sentence of this verse: ‘இன்பு தோணுமே’ (<i>iṉbu tōṇumē</i>), ‘Happiness will certainly appear’.<br>
<br>
Infinite and eternal happiness is what we actually are, so by rising as ego and thereby seemingly limiting ourself as the extent of a body, we seem to have separated ourself from such happiness, and hence it seems to us to be at best just a far-off dream, if not a downright impossibility. As ego we are always aware of ourself as ‘I am this body’, so as such we can never be aware of ourself as we actually are, and without being aware of ourself as we actually are we cannot experience the infinite happiness that we actually are. Therefore what stands between us and unlimited happiness is only ego, so to enjoy such happiness all we need do is eradicate ego.<br>
<br>
Since ego is just a false awareness of ourself, being awareness of ourself as ‘I am this body’, it can be eradicated only by our being aware of ourself as we actually are, and we can be aware of ourself thus only by turning our entire attention back within to see ourself alone, as Bhagavan explains in this verse. Therefore when we turn back and look deep within ourself with intense love born of his grace, we will see what we actually are, thereby eradicating the veil of self-ignorance (<i>avidyā</i>) called ego, whereupon the infinite and eternal happiness that we actually are will shine forth as the sole reality.<br>
<br>
Therefore, ‘ஐயே, அதி சுலபம், ஆன்ம வித்தை, ஐயே, அதி சுலபம்!’ (<i>aiyē, ati sulabham, āṉma-viddai, aiyē, ati sulabham!</i>), ‘Ah, extremely easy, <i>ātma-vidyā</i>, ah, extremely easy!’Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-7560848795526336672023-11-08T16:38:00.006+00:002024-02-02T16:06:50.705+00:00Āṉma-Viddai verse 4: self-investigation is the easiest of all paths, because it is not doing but just being<a name="av4"></a>In continuation of four articles on <i>Āṉma-Viddai</i> that I posted here previously, namely <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/01/anma-viddai-tamil-text-transliteration.html"><i>Āṉma-Viddai</i>: Tamil text, transliteration and translation</a>, <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/02/anma-viddai-verse-1-thought-is-what.html"><i>Āṉma-Viddai</i> verse 1: thought is what causes the appearance of the unreal body and world</a>, <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2023/05/anma-viddai-verse-2-thought-i-am-this.html"><i>Āṉma-Viddai</i> verse 2: the thought ‘I am this body’ is what supports all other thoughts</a> and <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2023/07/anma-viddai-verse-3-knowledge-of-all.html"><i>Āṉma-Viddai</i> verse 3: knowledge of all other things is caused by ignorance of ourself</a>, in this article I will explain and discuss the meaning and implications of the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/01/anma-viddai-tamil-text-transliteration.html#av4">fourth verse</a>:<br><a name='more'></a>
<blockquote>கன்மா திகட்டவிழ சென்மா திநட்டமெழ<br>
வெம்மார்க் கமதனினு மிம்மார்க் கமிக்கெளிது<br>
சொன்மா னததனுவின் கன்மா திசிறிதின்றிச்<br>
சும்மா வமர்ந்திருக்க வம்மா வகத்திலான்ம —<br>
சோதியே; நிதானு பூதியே; இராது பீதியே;<br>
இன்பவம் போதியே. (ஐயே)<br>
<br>
<i>kaṉmā dikaṭṭaviṙa jeṉmā dinaṭṭameṙa<br>
vemmārg gamadaṉiṉu mimmārg gamikkeḷidu<br>
soṉmā ṉadadaṉuviṉ kaṉmā disiṟidiṉḏṟic<br>
cummā vamarndirukka vammā vahattilāṉma —<br>
jyōtiyē; nitāṉu bhūtiyē; irādu bhītiyē;<br>
iṉbavam bhōdhiyē</i>. (<i>aiyē</i>)<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> கன்மாதி கட்டு அவிழ, சென்மாதி நட்டம் எழ, எம் மார்க்கம் அதனினும் இம் மார்க்கம் மிக்கு எளிது. சொல் மானத தனுவின் கன்மாதி சிறிது இன்றி சும்மா அமர்ந்து இருக்க, அம்மா, அகத்தில் ஆன்ம சோதியே; நித அனுபூதியே; இராது பீதியே; இன்ப அம்போதியே. (ஐயே, அதி சுலபம், ...)<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>kaṉma-ādi kaṭṭu aviṙa, jeṉma-ādi naṭṭam eṙa, e-m-mārggam-adaṉiṉum i-m-mārggam mikku eḷidu. sol māṉada taṉuviṉ kaṉma-ādi siṟidu iṉḏṟi summā amarndu irukka, ammā, ahattil āṉma-jyōtiyē; nita aṉubhūtiyē; irādu bhītiyē; iṉba ambhōdhiyē</i>. (<i>aiyē, ati sulabham, ...</i>)<br>
<br>
<b>அன்வயம்:</b> கன்மாதி கட்டு அவிழ, சென்மாதி நட்டம் எழ, எம் மார்க்கம் அதனினும் இம் மார்க்கம் மிக்கு எளிது. மானத சொல் தனுவின் கன்மாதி சிறிது இன்றி சும்மா அமர்ந்து இருக்க, அம்மா, அகத்தில் ஆன்ம சோதியே; நித அனுபூதியே; பீதியே இராது; இன்ப அம்போதியே. (ஐயே, அதி சுலபம், ...)<br>
<br>
<b><i>Anvayam</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>kaṉma-ādi kaṭṭu aviṙa, jeṉma-ādi naṭṭam eṙa, e-m-mārggam-adaṉiṉum i-m-mārggam mikku eḷidu. māṉada sol taṉuviṉ kaṉma-ādi siṟidu iṉḏṟi summā amarndu irukka, ammā, ahattil āṉma-jyōtiyē; nita aṉubhūtiyē; bhītiyē irādu; iṉba ambhōdhiyē</i>. (<i>aiyē, ati sulabham, ...</i>)<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> For the bonds beginning with action to be untied, to rise from the devastation beginning with birth, more than whatever path, this path is what is exceedingly easy. When one just is, resting without the least action of mind, speech or body, ah, in the heart the light of oneself alone. The eternal experience. Fear does not exist. The ocean of bliss alone. (Ah, extremely easy, ...)<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> For the bonds beginning with <i>karma</i> [that is, the bonds of action and of all that results from it] to be untied, and to rise [or be resurrected] from the devastation beginning with birth [that is, to transcend and become free from the miseries of embodied existence, which begins with birth and ends with death], more than whatever [other] path, this path [of <i>ātma-vicāra</i>] is what is exceedingly easy. When one just is, resting [calmly as pure awareness] without the least <i>karma</i> [action] of mind, speech or body, ah, in [one’s] heart the light of oneself alone [will shine forth clearly as ‘I am I’]. [Having thereby drowned and lost oneself (namely ego) forever in this perfectly peaceful and infinitely clear state of pure awareness, it will be clear that this is one’s] eternal experience. Fear does not [or will not] exist. The ocean of [infinite] bliss alone [will remain]. ([Therefore] ah, extremely easy, <i>ātma-vidyā</i>, ah, extremely easy!)</blockquote>
<b><i>Padavurai</i></b> (word-explanation): கன்மாதி (<i>kaṉmādi</i>): action-beginning, what begins with action, beginning with action, action and so on {a compound of two words: <i>kaṉma</i>, a Tamil form of the Sanskrit word <i>karma </i>, ‘action’; and <i>ādi</i>, ‘beginning’, which at the end of a compound means ‘what begins with’, ‘beginning with’, ‘and so on’ or ‘and such like’} | கட்டு (<i>kaṭṭu</i>): bond, tie, binding | அவிழ (<i>aviṙa</i>): to be loosened, to be untied, to be opened, to soften, to melt {infinitive of <i>aviṙ</i>, used here to express purpose: ‘for the bonds to be untied’} | சென்மாதி (<i>jeṉmādi</i>): birth-beginning, what begins with birth, beginning with birth, birth and so on {a compound of two words: <i>jeṉma</i>, a Tamil form of the Sanskrit word <i>janma</i>, ‘birth’; and <i>ādi</i>, ‘beginning’} | நட்டம் (<i>naṭṭam</i>): loss, ruin, devastation, destruction {a Tamil noun formed of the Sanskrit past participle <i>naṣṭa</i>, ‘lost’, ‘ruined’, ‘spoilt’, ‘destroyed’} | எழ (<i>eṙa</i>): to rise, to ascend, to arise, to rise from, to come back to life, to be revived, to be resurrected {infinitive of <i>eṙu</i>, used here to express purpose} | எ (<i>e</i>): what, which {interrogative prefix, used here in the sense of ‘whatever’, ‘whatsoever’ or ‘any’} | மார்க்கம் (<i>mārggam</i>): path, track, road, way, means {a Tamil form of the Sanskrit word <i>mārga</i>} | அதனினும் (<i>adaṉiṉum</i>): than that, rather than that, more than that {a comparative form of the distal demonstrative pronoun <i>adu</i>, ‘that’, appended here to <i>e-m-mārggam</i> to form a compound meaning ‘than whatever path’ and implying ‘rather [or more] than any other path whatsoever’} | இ (<i>i</i>): this {proximal demonstrative prefix} | மார்க்கம் (<i>mārggam</i>): path | மிக்கு (<i>mikku</i>): very, exceedingly, extremely | எளிது (<i>eḷidu</i>): what is easy || சொல் (<i>sol</i>): word, speech | மானத (<i>māṉada</i>): mind | தனுவின் (<i>taṉuviṉ</i>): of body {<i>sol-māṉada-taṉuviṉ</i> is a genitive (sixth case) form of the compound <i>sol-māṉada-taṉu</i>, ‘speech-mind-body’, so it means ‘of mind, speech or body’} | கன்மாதி (<i>kaṉmādi</i>): action-beginning, what begins with action, action and so on {a compound of two words: <i>kaṉma</i>, ‘action’; and <i>ādi</i>, ‘beginning’; but in this context <i>kaṉmādi</i> implies ‘action of any kind’ or ‘any action whatsoever’} | சிறிது (<i>siṟidu</i>): what is small, what is slight, the least | இன்றி (<i>iṉḏṟi</i>): without | சும்மா (<i>summā</i>): just, merely, quietly, silently, calmly, peacefully, restfully, leisurely, without rising, without doing {adverb} | அமர்ந்து (<i>amarndu</i>): resting, reposing, settling, abiding, remaining {adverbial participle} | இருக்க (<i>irukka</i>): when one is {literally ‘to be’, an infinitive that is here used idiomatically to mean ‘when one is’} | அம்மா (<i>ammā</i>): ah {exclamation} | அகத்தில் (<i>ahattil</i>): in the heart {locative (seventh case) form of <i>aham</i>, ‘inside’, ‘heart’, ‘home’} | ஆன்ம (<i>āṉma</i>): oneself {a Tamil form of <i>ātma</i>, which is the form <i>ātman</i> takes when used as the first word in a compound} | சோதியே (<i>jōtiyē</i>): light alone {an intensified form of <i>jōti</i>, a Tamil form of <i>jyōti</i>, ‘light’} || நித (<i>nita</i>): constant, continuous, perpetual, eternal, everlasting {a Tamil form of <i>nitya</i>} | அனுபூதியே (<i>aṉubhūtiyē</i>): experience, awareness, knowledge {an intensified form of <i>anubhūti</i>} || இராது (<i>irādu</i>): is not, does not exist {third person singular tenseless negative of <i>iru</i>, ‘be’ or ‘exist’} | பீதியே (<i>bhītiyē</i>): fear {an intensified form of <i>bhīti</i>} || இன்ப (<i>iṉba</i>): happiness, bliss, joy | அம்போதியே (<i>ambhōdhiyē</i>): ocean alone {an intensified form of <i>ambhōdhi</i>, ‘ocean’}.<br>
<ol>
<li><a href="#untie">We can untie ourself from the bonds of <i>karma</i> and <i>saṁsāra</i> only by eradicating the root of them, namely ego, and we can eradicate ego only by investigating and knowing what we actually are</a></li>
<li><a href="#ego">The root cause of both the bonds beginning with <i>karma</i> and the devastation beginning with birth is ego, because so long as we rise and stand as ego we are aware of ourself as ‘I am this body’ and consequently we seem to be born and to die, and in this state of embodied existence we seem to be the doer of <i>karma</i> and the experiencer of its fruit</a></li>
<li><a href="#being">We can know what we actually are just by being as we actually are, without rising as ego to do even the slightest action by mind, speech or body</a></li>
<li><a href="#nasa">What Bhagavan implies by ‘just being, resting without the least action of mind, speech or body’ is not <i>manōlaya</i> (temporary dissolution of mind) but only <i>manōnāśa</i> (annihilation of mind)</a></li>
<li><a href="#self-attentiveness">We need to cling to self-attentiveness so firmly that we do not allow ourself to be swayed even to the slightest extent by any <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, because only then will we dissolve in <i>manōnāśa</i>, thereby remaining forever without the least action of mind, speech or body</a></li>
<li><a href="#seeds">We will truly be ‘without the least <i>karma</i> of mind, speech or body’ only when all the seeds of <i>karma</i>, namely <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, are completely eradicated along with their root, namely ego</a></li>
<li><a href="#atma-jyoti">When one just is, resting without the least action of mind, speech or body, ah, in the heart the light of oneself alone will shine forth clearly as ‘I am I’</a></li>
<li><a href="#attention">To know ourself as the light of pure awareness, which is the eternal experience of infinite happiness devoid of even the slightest trace of any fear, we do not need to do anything at all, but just be as we always actually are, with our entire attention fixed firmly and unshakeably on ourself alone</a></li>
</ol>
<a name="untie"></a><b>1. We can untie ourself from the bonds of <i>karma</i> and <i>saṁsāra</i> only by eradicating the root of them, namely ego, and we can eradicate ego only by investigating and knowing what we actually are</b><br>
<br>
<a name="av-pallavi"></a>In the first sentence of this verse Bhagavan explicitly confirms the central import of this song, which Muruganar expressed in the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/01/anma-viddai-tamil-text-transliteration.html#av-pallavi"><i>pallavi</i></a>, namely that knowing oneself is extremely easy. Why it is so easy is explained by him implicitly in each of the five verses, and in this verse he explains this somewhat more explicitly.<br>
<br>
We seem to be bound by <i>karma</i> and to be consequently immersed in the devastating state of repeatedly being born and dying only because we have risen as ego and thereby mistake ourself to be a body, which is born, engages in action (<i>karma</i>) and dies, so since ego is just a false awareness of ourself, we will cease rising as ego only when we know ourself as we actually are. Therefore to free ourself from the bonds of <i>karma</i> and thereby to rise up from the devastation of birth and death we need to be aware of ourself as we actually are, and to be aware of ourself as we actually are all we need do is to keenly investigate ourself by turning our entire attention within to face ourself alone, thereby withdrawing it from everything else.<br>
<br>
One reason, therefore, why this path is much easier than any other path is that this is the only direct means by which we can know ourself as we actually are. Whatever other path we may follow, it cannot enable us to know what we actually are until and unless it leads us to this path, because we cannot know what we actually are without investigating ourself keenly enough, just as we cannot see what an object is without looking at it carefully enough.<br>
<br>
That is, since self-investigation (<i>ātma-vicāra</i>) is the only means by which we can know ourself as we actually are, the easiest means by which we can know ourself as we actually are is to focus all our interest, attention and effort on investigating ourself, rather than wasting them on trying to follow any other path, which can at best only lead us sooner or later to this path. If we follow any other path, we are wasting valuable time, effort and attention that we could put to much better use by following this path, as he implies in the first sentence of this verse: ‘கன்மாதி கட்டு அவிழ, சென்மாதி நட்டம் எழ, எம் மார்க்கம் அதனினும் இம் மார்க்கம் மிக்கு எளிது’ (<i>kaṉma-ādi kaṭṭu aviṙa, jeṉma-ādi naṭṭam eṙa, e-m-mārggam-adaṉiṉum i-m-mārggam mikku eḷidu</i>), ‘For the bonds beginning with action to be untied, to rise from the devastation beginning with birth, more than whatever path, this path is what is exceedingly easy’.<br>
<br>
The first clause of this first sentence, ‘கன்மாதி கட்டு அவிழ’ (<i>kaṉma-ādi kaṭṭu aviṙa</i>), means ‘the bonds beginning with <i>karma</i> to be untied [loosened or opened]’, or in more idiomatic English, ‘for the bonds beginning with <i>karma</i> to be untied’. What this implies is for us to unravel and free ourself from the ties that bind us to action and all that results from it, namely the whole of <i>saṁsāra</i>, the continuous cycle of births and deaths and all that it entails. We become entangled in these bonds as soon as we rise as ego, because we cannot rise, stand or flourish as ego without grasping things other than ourself, and grasping anything other than ourself is an action, so the very nature of ego is to bind itself to <i>karma</i> and <i>saṁsāra</i>. The first thing we grasp when we rise as ego is a body, a form consisting of five sheaths, and we continue grasping such a form so long as we stand as ego, because as ego we always experience ourself as ‘I am this body’, so whatever actions are done by these five sheaths are experienced by us as actions done by us.<br>
<br>
<a name="un25"></a>Therefore, since we have created the bonds of <i>karma</i> and <i>saṁsāra</i> by rising as ego and since we sustain them by continuing to stand and flourish as ego, we can free ourself from them only by permanently ceasing to rise as ego. We rise, stand and flourish as ego by attending to anything other than ourself, as Bhagavan implies in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un25">verse 25</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>:<br>
<blockquote>உருப்பற்றி யுண்டா முருப்பற்றி நிற்கு<br>
முருப்பற்றி யுண்டுமிக வோங்கு — முருவிட்<br>
டுருப்பற்றுந் தேடினா லோட்டம் பிடிக்கு<br>
முருவற்ற பேயகந்தை யோர்.<br>
<br>
<i>uruppaṯṟi yuṇḍā muruppaṯṟi niṟku<br>
muruppaṯṟi yuṇḍumiha vōṅgu — muruviṭ<br>
ṭuruppaṯṟun tēḍiṉā lōṭṭam piḍikku<br>
muruvaṯṟa pēyahandai yōr</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> உரு பற்றி உண்டாம்; உரு பற்றி நிற்கும்; உரு பற்றி உண்டு மிக ஓங்கும்; உரு விட்டு, உரு பற்றும்; தேடினால் ஓட்டம் பிடிக்கும். உரு அற்ற பேய் அகந்தை. ஓர்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>uru paṯṟi uṇḍām; uru paṯṟi niṟkum; uru paṯṟi uṇḍu miha ōṅgum; uru viṭṭu, uru paṯṟum; tēḍiṉāl ōṭṭam piḍikkum. uru aṯṟa pēy ahandai. ōr</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Grasping form it comes into existence; grasping form it stands; grasping and feeding on form it grows abundantly; leaving form, it grasps form. If seeking, it will take flight. The formless phantom ego. Investigate.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Grasping form [that is, projecting and perceiving the form of a body (composed of five sheaths) as itself] it comes into existence; 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 seeking [that is, if it seeks to know what it actually is by keenly investigating 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]. [Such is the nature of this] formless phantom ego. [Therefore] investigate [it] [or know thus].</blockquote>
<a name="uu16"></a>Since we rise, stand and flourish as ego by attending to anything other than ourself, can we cease rising and standing as ego simply by not attending to anything other than ourself? Whenever we cease attending to anything other than ourself, as we do every day when we fall asleep, we do subside back into our source, namely our own real nature (<i>ātma-svarūpa</i>), but such subsidence is only a temporary dissolution of mind (<i>manōlaya</i>) and not annihilation of mind (<i>manōnāśa</i>). In order to eradicate ego, therefore, we not only need to cease attending to anything other than ourself but also need to attend keenly to ourself, as Bhagavan implies in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu16">verse 16</a> of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i>:<br>
<blockquote>வெளிவிட யங்களை விட்டு மனந்தன்<br>
னொளியுரு வோர்தலே யுந்தீபற<br>
வுண்மை யுணர்ச்சியா முந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>veḷiviḍa yaṅgaḷai viṭṭu maṉantaṉ<br>
ṉoḷiyuru vōrdalē yundīpaṟa<br>
vuṇmai yuṇarcciyā mundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> வெளி விடயங்களை விட்டு மனம் தன் ஒளி உரு ஓர்தலே உண்மை உணர்ச்சி ஆம்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>veḷi viḍayaṅgaḷai viṭṭu maṉam taṉ oḷi-uru ōrdalē uṇmai uṇarcci ām</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Leaving external phenomena, the mind knowing its own form of light is alone real awareness.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Leaving [or letting go of] [awareness of any] external <i>viṣayas</i> [namely phenomena of every kind, all of which are external in the sense that they are other than and hence extraneous to oneself], the mind knowing its own form of light [namely the light of pure awareness, which is its real nature and what illumines it, enabling it to be aware both of itself and of other things] is alone real awareness [true knowledge or knowledge of reality].</blockquote>
The reason why we cannot eradicate ego by any means other than self-investigation is that ego is a false awareness of ourself, being what is always aware of itself as ‘I am this body’, so it cannot be eradicated by any means other than our being aware of ourself as we actually are, namely as ‘I am I, and nothing other than I’, and we cannot be aware of ourself as ourself alone by any means other than being so keenly self-attentive that we thereby cease to be aware of anything other than ourself. Therefore, since we can untie ourself from the bonds of <i>karma</i> and <i>saṁsāra</i> only by eradicating the root of them, namely ego, and since we can eradicate ego only by investigating and knowing what we actually are, this path of self-investigation is by default a much easier means ‘for the bonds beginning with action to be untied, [and for us] to rise from the devastation beginning with birth’ than any other path whatsoever, because no other path is an adequate means to eradicate ego.<br>
<br>
<a name="ego"></a><b>2. The root cause of both the bonds beginning with <i>karma</i> and the devastation beginning with birth is ego, because so long as we rise and stand as ego we are aware of ourself as ‘I am this body’ and consequently we seem to be born and to die, and in this state of embodied existence we seem to be the doer of <i>karma</i> and the experiencer of its fruit</b><br>
<br>
The second clause of this first sentence, ‘சென்மாதி நட்டம் எழ’ (<i>jeṉma-ādi naṭṭam eṙa</i>), ‘to rise from the devastation beginning with birth’, in which சென்மாதி (<i>jeṉma-ādi</i>), ‘beginning with birth’, implies everything entailed in embodied existence or <i>saṁsāra</i>, the continuous cycle of birth and death, and நட்டம் (<i>naṭṭam</i>) means loss, damage, injury, ruin, destruction or devastation, being a Tamil form of the Sanskrit word नष्ट (<i>naṣṭa</i>), which as an adjective means lost, disappeared, dead, perished, destroyed, spoiled, damaged, deteriorated, corrupted or wasted, and as a noun means loss, disappearance, destruction, devastation, deterioration or corruption. Therefore ‘சென்மாதி நட்டம்’ (<i>jeṉma-ādi naṭṭam</i>) implies the devastating and miserable state of <i>saṁsāra</i>, in which we have seemingly lost the infinite happiness that is our real nature by rising as ego, the corrupted awareness ‘I am this body’, and எழ (<i>eṙa</i>), which literally means to rise or ascend, and can also mean to awaken, revive, be resuscitated or return to life, implies to rise up or extricate ourself from this devastating state of <i>saṁsāra</i>, which we can do only by waking up to our own real nature (<i>svarūpa</i>).<br>
<br>
‘கன்மாதி கட்டு’ (<i>kaṉma-ādi kaṭṭu</i>), ‘the bonds beginning with <i>karma</i>’, and ‘சென்மாதி நட்டம்’ (<i>jeṉma-ādi naṭṭam</i>), ‘the devastation beginning with birth’, are intimately related, because <i>karma</i> and birth are both fundamental features of <i>saṁsāra</i>, and each entails the other, because the fruits of <i>karma</i> give rise to repeated births and deaths, and by being born we continue to ensnare ourself in doing <i>karma</i> and experiencing its fruits. The root cause of both the bonds beginning with <i>karma</i> and the devastation beginning with birth is ego, because so long as we rise and stand as ego we are aware of ourself as ‘I am this body’ and consequently we seem to be born and to die, and in this state of embodied existence we seem to be the doer of <i>karma</i> and the experiencer of its fruit.<br>
<br>
<a name="being"></a><b>3. We can know what we actually are just by being as we actually are, without rising as ego to do even the slightest action by mind, speech or body</b><br>
<br>
Therefore the reasons why self-investigation is the easiest means to untie ourself from the bonds beginning with <i>karma</i> are equally well the reasons why it is the easiest means for us to rise from the devastation beginning with birth. I have already explained some of these reasons above, but another reason is implied by Bhagavan in the second sentence of this verse: ‘சொல் மானத தனுவின் கன்மாதி சிறிது இன்றி சும்மா அமர்ந்து இருக்க, அம்மா, அகத்தில் ஆன்ம சோதியே’ (<i>sol māṉada taṉuviṉ kaṉma-ādi siṟidu iṉḏṟi summā amarndu irukka, ammā, ahattil āṉma-jyōtiyē</i>), ‘When one just is, resting without the least action of mind, speech or body, ah, in the heart the light of oneself alone [will remain, existing and shining as ‘I am I’]’.<br>
<br>
Self-investigation is the easiest means for us to untie the bonds beginning with <i>karma</i> and to rise from the devastation beginning with birth not only because it is the only means by which we can do so, but also because it is in itself much easier than any other spiritual practice, since it does not entail any doing or action (<i>karma</i>), but is the state of just being as we always actually are without rising as ego to do anything at all. That is, we can investigate and know what we actually are only by being what we actually are, because what we actually are is pure awareness, which always knows itself just by being itself, and which never does anything whatsoever.<br>
<br>
<a name="uu26"></a>As pure awareness we never know anything other than ourself, ‘I am’, so what knows anything other than ourself is only ourself as ego. So long as we know anything other than ourself, therefore, we have risen and are standing as ego, and hence we can remain as pure awareness only by being so keenly self-attentive that we thereby cease being aware of anything other than ourself. Knowing (or being aware of) anything other than ourself is an action, because it entails a movement of our mind or attention away from ourself towards that other thing, whereas knowing ourself is not an action but just being, because it does not entail even the slightest movement of our attention away from ourself, as Bhagavan implies in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu26">verse 26</a> of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i>:<br>
<blockquote>தானா யிருத்தலே தன்னை யறிதலாந்<br>
தானிரண் டற்றதா லுந்தீபற<br>
தன்மய நிட்டையீ துந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>tāṉā yiruttalē taṉṉai yaṟidalān<br>
tāṉiraṇ ḍaṯṟadā lundīpaṟa<br>
taṉmaya niṭṭhaiyī dundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> தான் ஆய் இருத்தலே தன்னை அறிதல் ஆம், தான் இரண்டு அற்றதால். தன்மய நிட்டை ஈது.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>tāṉ-āy iruttal-ē taṉṉai aṟidal ām, tāṉ iraṇḍu aṯṟadāl. taṉmaya niṭṭhai īdu</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>அன்வயம்:</b> தான் இரண்டு அற்றதால், தான் ஆய் இருத்தலே தன்னை அறிதல் ஆம். ஈது தன்மய நிட்டை.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Anvayam</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>tāṉ iraṇḍu aṯṟadāl, tāṉ-āy iruttal-ē taṉṉai aṟidal ām. īdu taṉmaya niṭṭhai</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Being oneself alone is knowing oneself, because oneself is devoid of two. This is <i>tanmaya-niṣṭhā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Being oneself [that is, being as one actually is without rising to know anything else] alone is knowing oneself, because oneself [one’s real nature] is devoid of two [that is, devoid of the fundamental duality of subject and object, knower and thing known, and also devoid of any possibility of being divided as two selves, one self as a subject to know the other self as an object]. This is <i>tanmaya-niṣṭhā</i> [the state of being firmly fixed or established as ‘that’ (<i>tat</i>), the one infinite reality called <i>brahman</i>].</blockquote>
What he describes here as ‘தான் ஆய் இருத்தல்’ (<i>tāṉ-āy iruttal</i>), ‘being as oneself’ or ‘being oneself’, is what he describes in more detail in this second sentence of verse 4 of <i>Āṉma-Viddai</i> as ‘சொல் மானத தனுவின் கன்மாதி சிறிது இன்றி சும்மா அமர்ந்து இருத்தல்’ (<i>sol māṉada taṉuviṉ kaṉma-ādi siṟidu iṉḏṟi summā amarndu iruttal</i>), ‘just being, resting without the least action of mind, speech or body’.<br>
<br>
இருக்க (<i>irukka</i>) is the infinitive of the verb இரு (<i>iru</i>), which means exist, be or remain, so in this context it means ‘when one is’ or ‘when one remains’, because in Tamil the infinitive is often used to express a condition in the sense of ‘when’. Therefore ‘சொல் மானத தனுவின் கன்மாதி சிறிது இன்றி சும்மா அமர்ந்து இருக்க’ (<i>sol māṉada taṉuviṉ kaṉma-ādi siṟidu iṉḏṟi summā amarndu irukka</i>), ‘when one just is, resting without the least action of mind, speech or body’, is a conditional clause in which the main verb, இருக்க (<i>irukka</i>), ‘when one is’, is qualified by three adverbials, namely ‘சொல் மானத தனுவின் கன்மாதி சிறிது இன்றி’ (<i>sol māṉada taṉuviṉ kaṉma-ādi siṟidu iṉḏṟi</i>), ‘without the least action of mind, speech or body’, சும்மா (<i>summā</i>), ‘just’, and அமர்ந்து (<i>amarndu</i>), ‘resting’.<br>
<br>
<a name="ny06"></a>Of these three adverbials, perhaps the most significant is சும்மா (<i>summā</i>), which is an adverb that means just, merely, quietly, silently, calmly, peacefully, restfully, leisurely, without rising and without doing. ‘சும்மா இருத்தல்’ (<i>summā iruttal</i>) or ‘சும்மா இருப்பது’ (<i>summā iruppadu</i>) therefore means ‘just being’ in the sense of calmly and silently being without doing anything at all, so it implies just being as we actually are without rising as ego even to the slightest extent, as Bhagavan makes clear in the following portion of the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para06">sixth paragraph</a> of <i>Nāṉ Ār?</i>:<br>
<blockquote>மனத்தை வெளிவிடாமல் ஹிருதயத்தில் வைத்துக்கொண்டிருப்பதற்குத்தான் ‘அகமுகம்’ அல்லது ‘அந்தர்முகம்’ என்று பெயர். ஹ்ருதயத்திலிருந்து வெளிவிடுவதற்குத்தான் ‘பகிர்முக’ மென்று பெயர். இவ்விதமாக மனம் ஹ்ருதயத்திற் றங்கவே, எல்லா நினைவுகளுக்கும் மூலமான நான் என்பது போய் எப்பொழுது முள்ள தான் மாத்திரம் விளங்கும். நான் என்னும் நினைவு கிஞ்சித்து மில்லா விடமே சொரூபமாகும். அதுவே ‘மௌன’ மெனப்படும். இவ்வாறு சும்மா விருப்பதற்குத்தான் ‘ஞான திருஷ்டி’ என்று பெயர். சும்மா விருப்பதாவது மனத்தை ஆன்மசொரூபத்தில் லயிக்கச் செய்வதே.<br>
<br>
<i>maṉattai veḷiviḍāmal hirudayattil vaittu-k-koṇḍiruppadaṟku-t-tāṉ ‘ahamukam’ alladu ‘antarmukham’ eṉḏṟu peyar. hrudayattilirundu veḷiviḍuvadaṟku-t-tāṉ ‘bahirmukham’ eṉḏṟu peyar. i-v-vidham-āha maṉam hrudayattil taṅgavē, ellā niṉaivugaḷukkum mūlam-āṉa nāṉ eṉbadu pōy eppoṙudum uḷḷa tāṉ māttiram viḷaṅgum. nāṉ eṉṉum niṉaivu kiñcittum illā v-iḍam-ē sorūpam āhum. adu-v-ē ‘mauṉam’ eṉa-p-paḍum. ivvāṟu summā v-iruppadaṟku-t-tāṉ ‘ñāṉa-diruṣṭi’ eṉḏṟu peyar. summā v-iruppadāvadu maṉattai āṉma-sorūpattil layikka-c ceyvadē.</i><br>
<br>
The name ‘<i>ahamukham</i>’ [facing inside or facing I] or ‘<i>antarmukham</i>’ [facing inside] is only for [or refers only to] keeping the mind in the heart [that is, keeping one’s mind or attention fixed firmly on the fundamental awareness ‘I am’, which is the core or heart of ego, the adjunct-conflated awareness ‘I am this body’] without letting [it go] out [towards anything else whatsoever]. The name ‘<i>bahirmukham</i>’ [facing outside] is only for [or refers only to] letting [it go] out from the heart [that is, letting one’s mind move outwards, away from ‘I am’ towards anything else]. Only when the mind remains [firmly fixed] in the heart in this way, will what is called ‘I’ [namely ego], which is the <i>mūlam</i> [root, foundation, cause or origin] for all thoughts, depart and <b>oneself</b>, who always exists, alone shine. Only the place where the thought called ‘I’ [namely ego] does not exist even a little is <i>svarūpa</i> [one’s ‘own form’ or real nature, meaning ourself as we actually are]. That alone is called ‘<i>mauna</i>’ [silence]. The name ‘<i>jñāna-dṛṣṭi</i>’ [‘knowledge-seeing’, seeing through the eye of real knowledge or pure awareness] is only for [or refers only to] just being in this way. What just being (<i>summā-v-iruppadu</i>) is is only making the mind dissolve [disappear or die] in <i>ātma-svarūpa</i> [the real nature of oneself].</blockquote>
What he implies here is that சும்மா இருப்பது (<i>summā iruppadu</i>), ‘just being’, is the state in which ego has dissolved completely and forever in <i>ātma-svarūpa</i> (ourself as we actually are) without leaving even the slightest trace, and that we can achieve this permanent dissolution or eradication of ego only by keeping our mind or attention fixed firmly in the heart, namely our fundamental awareness ‘I am’, which is the very core or centre of ourself, by means of <i>ahamukham</i>, which means ‘facing inside’ or ‘facing I’ and therefore implies being keenly self-attentive.<br>
<br>
அமர்ந்து (<i>amarndu</i>) implies much the same as சும்மா (<i>summā</i>), because it is an adverbial participle that means resting, reposing, abiding, remaining, settling or becoming still or tranquil, so ‘சும்மா அமர்ந்து இருத்தல்’ (<i>summā amarndu iruttal</i>) means ‘just being, resting’ or ‘being, just resting’ and implies calmly, quietly and peacefully being as we actually are, without rising as ego to do anything at all. The implication of these two adverbials, சும்மா (<i>summā</i>) and அமர்ந்து (<i>irukka</i>), is further emphasised by the adverbial clause that precedes them, namely ‘சொல் மானத தனுவின் கன்மாதி சிறிது இன்றி’ (<i>sol māṉada taṉuviṉ kaṉma-ādi siṟidu iṉḏṟi</i>), ‘without the least <i>karma</i> [action] of mind, speech or body’, so ‘சொல் மானத தனுவின் கன்மாதி சிறிது இன்றி சும்மா அமர்ந்து இருத்தல்’ (<i>sol māṉada taṉuviṉ kaṉma-ādi siṟidu iṉḏṟi summā amarndu iruttal</i>), ‘just being, resting without the least action of mind, speech or body’, is a more elaborate description of சும்மா இருப்பது (<i>summā iruppadu</i>), the state of just being as we actually are by not rising as ego.<br>
<br>
So long as we rise and stand as ego, we experience these three instruments of action, namely the mind, speech and body, as if they were ourself, so whatever actions these instruments may do are experienced by us as actions done by ourself. Therefore in order to be without the least action of mind, speech or body most effectively, completely and permanently, we need to cease rising as ego, and we will cease rising as ego only to the extent to which we hold fast to being self-attentive.<br>
<br>
<a name="nasa"></a><b>4. What Bhagavan implies by ‘just being, resting without the least action of mind, speech or body’ is not <i>manōlaya</i> (temporary dissolution of mind) but only <i>manōnāśa</i> (annihilation of mind)</b><br>
<br>
Whenever we allow our attention to move away from ourself towards anything else whatsoever, that movement is a mental activity, and mental activities give rise to activities of speech and body. Therefore we can avoid being entangled in any kind of <i>karma</i> (action, activity or doing) only to the extent to which we do not allow our attention to move away from ourself towards anything else. However, though not allowing it to move towards anything else is necessary, it is not sufficient, because as I explained above, merely ceasing to attend to anything else without attending to ourself would result in <i>manōlaya</i> (temporary dissolution of mind), which is a state of being without the least action of mind, speech or body, but is not the eternally action-free state of being that Bhagavan refers to in this verse.<br>
<br>
Sleep is a state of <i>manōlaya</i>, so since the mind is absent in sleep, it is a state in which we remain without the least action of mind, speech or body, but we cannot eradicate ego by remaining in sleep or in any other state of <i>manōlaya</i>, such as swoon, coma, general anaesthesia or <i>kēvala nirvikalpa samādhi</i>, because in such states ego has already subsided and dissolved back into its source, albeit only temporarily, so in its absence it cannot be annihilated. To illustrate this, Bhagavan used to tell a story of a <i>yōgi</i> who lived on the banks of the Ganga and was adept at immersing himself in <i>kēvala nirvikalpa samādhi</i> by means of <i>prāṇāyāma</i> and other <i>yōga</i> practices. One day when he woke up from <i>samādhi</i> he felt thirsty, so he asked his disciple to fetch a cup of water from the river, but before his disciple returned he again immersed himself in <i>samādhi</i>, and this time he immersed himself so deeply that he did not wake up for three hundred years. When he finally woke up, he asked angrily ‘Where is my water?’, not knowing that his disciple had passed away hundreds of years earlier and that the river had changed its course and was now several miles away. As Bhagavan pointed out, what this story illustrates is that even the most superficial thought in the mind, in this case the desire for water, which was the last thought in his mind before he subsided in <i>samādhi</i> and the first thought that appeared when he awoke from it, is not destroyed no matter how long one may remain in <i>kēvala nirvikalpa samādhi</i> or any other state of <i>laya</i>, so when even such a superficial thought is not destroyed, that indicates that the inclinations (<i>vāsanās</i>) that give rise to thoughts are likewise not destroyed or weakened even to the slightest extent in such a state.<br>
<br>
The seeds from which all thoughts or mental activities (<i>vṛttis</i>) sprout are <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, inclinations (<i>vāsanās</i>) to attend to and experience objects or phenomena (<i>viṣayas</i>), so thoughts will not cease permanently until all <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> are destroyed. The root of all <i>vāsanās</i> is ego, because they are its inclinations, and since it is the nature of ego to have <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, they cannot be destroyed entirely until ego itself is eradicated. However, in order to eradicate ego, it is necessary for us to weaken our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> to a considerable extent, because so long as they are strong, we will not be willing to be so keenly self-attentive that we subside completely and lose ourself forever in our source and substance, namely our fundamental awareness ‘I am’.<br>
<br>
Since <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> are our inclinations, they have no strength of their own, so whatever strength they seem to have is strength that we have given them. To the extent to which we allow ourself to be swayed by any <i>viṣaya-vāsanā</i>, we are thereby giving it strength, so we can weaken them only by not allowing ourself to be swayed by them. To the extent to which we cling firmly to self-attentiveness, we are thereby not allowing ourself to be swayed by any <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, so the most effective means to weaken and eventually eradicate all <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> is to patiently and persistently practise being self-attentive. Therefore self-attentiveness is not just the only means by which we can annihilate ego, but is also the most effective means to weaken its <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> and thereby make ourself willing to be so keenly self-attentive that we thereby surrender ourself entirely and dissolve forever back into our source.<br>
<br>
Since <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> are ego’s inclinations, they seem to exist only when we rise and stand as ego, namely in waking and dream, so we can weaken them only in waking and dream, and not in sleep or any other state of <i>manōlaya</i>. This is why we cannot weaken them in <i>kēvala nirvikalpa samādhi</i>, and why Bhagavan pointed out that we therefore cannot gain any spiritual benefit whatsoever by remaining in such <i>samādhi</i> or any other state of <i>manōlaya</i> even for hundreds of years, as he illustrated by narrating the story of the <i>yōgi</i> asking for water as soon as he woke up after being immersed for three hundred years in <i>kēvala nirvikalpa samādhi</i>.<br>
<br>
<a name="uu13"></a><a name="uu14"></a>Therefore he used to warn those who were inclined to practise <i>prāṇāyāma</i> and other <i>yōga</i> techniques that they should take care not to subside in <i>manōlaya</i> as a result of such practices, and advised them that though they could use such practices to gain a certain degree of mental calmness, they could gain lasting benefit from such calmness only if they use it as a favourable condition to turn their attention back within to investigate who am I. This is what he implied in verses <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu13">13</a> and <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu14">14</a> of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i>:<br>
<blockquote>இலயமு நாச மிரண்டா மொடுக்க<br>
மிலயித் துளதெழு முந்தீபற<br>
வெழாதுரு மாய்ந்ததே லுந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>ilayamu nāśa miraṇḍā moḍukka<br>
milayit tuḷadeṙu mundīpaṟa<br>
veṙāduru māyndadē lundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> இலயமும் நாசம் இரண்டு ஆம் ஒடுக்கம். இலயித்து உளது எழும். எழாது உரு மாய்ந்ததேல்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>ilayam-um nāśam iraṇḍu ām oḍukkam. ilayittu uḷadu eṙum. eṙādu uru māyndadēl</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>அன்வயம்:</b> ஒடுக்கம் இலயமும் நாசம் இரண்டு ஆம். இலயித்து உளது எழும். உரு மாய்ந்ததேல் எழாது.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Anvayam</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>oḍukkam ilayam-um nāśam iraṇḍu ām. ilayittu uḷadu eṙum. uru māyndadēl eṙādu</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Dissolution is two: <i>laya</i> and <i>nāśa</i>. What is lying down will rise. If form dies, it will not rise.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Dissolution [complete subsidence or cessation of ego or mind] is [of] two [kinds]: <i>laya</i> [temporary dissolution] and <i>nāśa</i> [permanent dissolution or annihilation]. What is lying down [or dissolved in <i>laya</i>] will rise. If [its] form dies [in <i>nāśa</i>], it will not rise.<br>
<br>
ஒடுக்க வளியை யொடுங்கு முளத்தை<br>
விடுக்கவே யோர்வழி யுந்தீபற<br>
வீயு மதனுரு வுந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>oḍukka vaḷiyai yoḍuṅgu muḷattai<br>
viḍukkavē yōrvaṙi yundīpaṟa<br>
vīyu madaṉuru vundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> ஒடுக்க வளியை ஒடுங்கும் உளத்தை விடுக்கவே ஓர் வழி, வீயும் அதன் உரு.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>oḍukka vaḷiyai oḍuṅgum uḷattai viḍukka-v-ē ōr vaṙi, vīyum adaṉ uru</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>அன்வயம்:</b> வளியை ஒடுக்க ஒடுங்கும் உளத்தை ஓர் வழி விடுக்கவே, அதன் உரு வீயும்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Anvayam</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>vaḷiyai oḍukka oḍuṅgum uḷattai ōr vaṙi viḍukka-v-ē, adaṉ uru vīyum</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Only when one sends the mind, which will become calm when one restrains the breath, on the investigating path will its form perish.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Only when one sends the mind, which will become calm when one restrains the breath, on <i>ōr vaṙi</i> [the investigating path or one path, namely the path of self-investigation] will its form perish.</blockquote>
ஓர் (<i>ōr</i>) is both the root of a verb that means ‘investigate’, ‘examine attentively’ or ‘know’, and an adjective that means ‘one’, so ‘ஓர் வழி’ (<i>ōr vaṙi</i>) means both ‘the investigating path’ and ‘the one path’, and hence it refers to the path of self-investigation, which is the one and only means to eradicate ego and thereby achieve <i>manōnāśa</i> (annihilation of mind). Therefore ‘உளத்தை ஓர் வழி விடுத்தல்’ (<i>uḷattai ōr vaṙi viḍuttal</i>), ‘sending the mind on the investigating path [or the one path]’, means sending the mind on the path of self-investigation, so it implies directing one’s attention back towards oneself in order to see who am I.<br>
<br>
The mind cannot be sent on this path of self-investigation if it has dissolved in <i>laya</i>, because in <i>laya</i> there is no mind to send on this path, so if one practices breath-restraint (<i>prāṇāyāma</i>) in order to restrain the mind, as soon as the mind has become relatively calm one should take care to direct it (the mind or attention) back towards oneself before it dissolves in <i>laya</i>. If we cling to self-attentiveness firmly enough, we will thereby avoid being swayed by our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> to think of anything other than ourself, and we will also avoid dissolving in <i>laya</i>. Only if we let go of our hold on self-attentiveness can our mind either be carried away by other thoughts or be dissolved in <i>laya</i>.<br>
<br>
<a name="ny08"></a>The aim of <i>prāṇāyāma</i> and other <i>yōga</i> practices is stated by Patanjali in <i>Yōga Sūtra</i> 1.2: ‘योगश्चित्तवृत्तिनिरोधः’ (<i>yōgaś citta-vṛtti-nirōdhaḥ</i>), ‘<i>yōga</i> is <i>nirōdha</i> [restraint, curbing, stopping or prevention] of <i>citta-vṛttis</i> [modifications, activities or thoughts of the mind]’. However, if we stop all mental activity by any means other than self-investigation (<i>ātma-vicāra</i>), the resulting state will be just <i>manōlaya</i> (temporary dissolution of mind) and not <i>manōnāśa</i> (permanent dissolution or annihilation), so sooner or later the mind will rise again and wander under the sway of its <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, as Bhagavan points out in the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para08">eighth paragraph</a> of <i>Nāṉ Ār?</i>:<br>
<blockquote>மனம் அடங்குவதற்கு விசாரணையைத் தவிர வேறு தகுந்த உபாயங்களில்லை. மற்ற உபாயங்களினால் அடக்கினால் மனம் அடங்கினாற்போ லிருந்து, மறுபடியும் கிளம்பிவிடும். பிராணாயாமத்தாலும் மன மடங்கும்; ஆனால் பிராண னடங்கியிருக்கும் வரையில் மனமு மடங்கியிருந்து, பிராணன் வெளிப்படும்போது தானும் வெளிப்பட்டு வாசனை வயத்தா யலையும். […] ஆகையால் பிராணாயாமம் மனத்தை யடக்க சகாயமாகுமே யன்றி மனோநாசஞ் செய்யாது.<br>
<br>
<i>maṉam aḍaṅguvadaṟku vicāraṇaiyai-t tavira vēṟu tahunda upāyaṅgaḷ-illai. maṯṟa upāyaṅgaḷiṉāl aḍakkiṉāl maṉam aḍaṅgiṉāl-pōl irundu, maṟupaḍiyum kiḷambi-viḍum. pirāṇāyāmattāl-um maṉam aḍaṅgum; āṉāl pirāṇaṉ aḍaṅgi-y-irukkum varaiyil maṉam-um aḍaṅgi-y-irundu, pirāṇaṉ veḷi-p-paḍum-bōdu tāṉ-um veḷi-p-paṭṭu vāsaṉai vayattāy alaiyum.</i> […] <i>āhaiyāl pirāṇāyāmam maṉattai y-aḍakka sahāyam-āhum-ē y-aṉḏṟi maṉōnāśam seyyādu</i>.<br>
<br>
For the mind to cease [settle, subside, yield, be subdued, be still or disappear], except <i>vicāraṇā</i> [self-investigation] there are no other adequate means. If made to cease [subside or disappear] by other means, the mind remaining [for a while] as if it had ceased, will again rise up [sprout, emerge or start]. Even by <i>prāṇāyāma</i> [breath-restraint] the mind will cease [subside or disappear]; however, so long as <i>prāṇa</i> [life, as manifested in breathing and other physiological processes] remains subsided mind will also remain subsided, [and] when <i>prāṇa</i> emerges it will also emerge and wander about under the sway of [its] <i>vāsanās</i> [inclinations or propensities]. […] Therefore <i>prāṇāyāma</i> is just an aid to restrain the mind [or to make it (temporarily) cease, subside or disappear], but will not bring about <i>manōnāśa</i> [annihilation of the mind].</blockquote>
Though Bhagavan says that <i>prāṇāyāma</i> is an aid to restrain the mind, it is not a necessary aid, because it can help to annihilate the mind only in the manner that he implies in verse 14 of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i>, namely by calming the mind and thereby preparing it to be sent on the path of self-investigation, but no such aid is actually required, because self-investigation itself is the most effective means to calm the mind. If our mind is restless or agitated, we can calm it most quickly and effectively by turning our attention back towards ourself, thereby bypassing the need for any aid such as <i>prāṇāyāma</i>.<br>
<br>
Though <i>manōlaya</i> is a state in which we remain without the least action of mind, speech or body, it is only a temporary state from which the mind will rise again and wander under the sway of its <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>. Moreover, since the mind and its <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> are completely absent in <i>manōlaya</i>, they are not weakened even to the slightest extent no matter how long we may remain in <i>manōlaya</i>. Therefore <i>manōlaya</i> is not the state that Bhagavan refers to in the fourth verse of <i>Āṉma-Viddai</i> when he says ‘சொல் மானத தனுவின் கன்மாதி சிறிது இன்றி சும்மா அமர்ந்து இருக்க’ (<i>sol māṉada taṉuviṉ kaṉma-ādi siṟidu iṉḏṟi summā amarndu irukka</i>), ‘When one just is, resting without the least action of mind, speech or body’.<br>
<br>
It is only in the state of <i>manōnāśa</i> that <i>ātma-jyōti</i>, the infinite light of pure awareness, which is ourself as we actually are, will shine forth in our heart as our eternal experience (<i>nitya anubhūti</i>), and that we can thereby rest forever without the least action of mind, speech or body, so what Bhagavan implies when he says ‘சொல் மானத தனுவின் கன்மாதி சிறிது இன்றி சும்மா அமர்ந்து இருக்க, அம்மா, அகத்தில் ஆன்ம சோதியே; நித அனுபூதியே’ (<i>sol māṉada taṉuviṉ kaṉma-ādi siṟidu iṉḏṟi summā amarndu irukka, ammā, ahattil āṉma-jyōtiyē; nita aṉubhūtiyē</i>), ‘When one just is, resting without the least action of mind, speech or body, ah, in the heart <i>ātma-jyōti</i> [the light of oneself] alone [will shine forth]; [this is] <i>nitya anubhūti</i> [the eternal experience]’, is that we should try to bring about <i>manōnāśa</i>, which we can do only by means of self-investigation (<i>ātma-vicāra</i>).<br>
<br>
<a name="av1"></a>Therefore what he implies here by ‘சிறிது’ (<i>siṟidu</i>), which means ‘what is small’ or ‘what is slight’ and which in this context implies ‘the smallest’, ‘the slightest’ or ‘the least’, is not that all action should cease just temporarily but that it should cease in such a way that it never revives even to the slightest extent, as he indicated by the words ‘அணுவும் உய்யாது’ (<i>aṇuvum uyyādu</i>), ‘without reviving even an iota’, in the second sentence of <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/02/anma-viddai-verse-1-thought-is-what.html">verse 1</a> of this song: ‘பொய் மை ஆர் நினைவு அணுவும் உய்யாது ஒடுக்கிடவே, மெய் ஆர் இதய வெளி வெய்யோன் சுயம் ஆன்மா விளங்குமே’ (<i>poy mai ār niṉaivu aṇuvum uyyādu oḍukkiḍavē, mey ār idaya veḷi veyyōṉ suyam āṉmā viḷaṅgumē</i>), ‘When unreal darkness-pervaded thought is dissolved without reviving even an iota, in the reality-pervaded heart-space oneself, the sun [of pure awareness], will certainly shine by oneself’.<br>
<br>
<a name="self-attentiveness"></a><b>5. We need to cling to self-attentiveness so firmly that we do not allow ourself to be swayed even to the slightest extent by any <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, because only then will we dissolve in <i>manōnāśa</i>, thereby remaining forever without the least action of mind, speech or body</b><br>
<br>
As I explained above, attending to anything other than ourself is a mental activity, whereas attending to ourself is not a mental activity but a cessation of all mental activity, because to the extent to which we attend to ourself, we as ego will thereby subside, and since ego is the doer of all mental activity, its mental activity will subside along with it. If we cease attending to anything else without attending to ourself, we will thereby subside in <i>manōlaya</i>, whereas if we attend to ourself so keenly that we thereby cease being aware of anything else whatsoever, we will subside forever in <i>manōnāśa</i>. Therefore it is only to the extent to which we hold fast to being self-attentive that we come close to being without the least action of mind, speech or body in the sense that Bhagavan means in this verse.<br>
<br>
Whenever we allow our attention to move away from ourself towards anything else, we do so under the sway of our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, because everything other than ourself is a <i>viṣaya</i> (an object or phenomenon), so <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> are our inclinations (<i>vāsanās</i>) to attend to and experience such things. Therefore we need to cling to self-attentiveness so firmly that we do not allow ourself to be swayed even to the slightest extent by any <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, because only then will we dissolve in <i>manōnāśa</i>, thereby remaining forever without the least action of mind, speech or body.<br>
<br>
Since <i>vāsanās</i> are our own volitional inclinations or likings, whenever we allow ourself to be swayed by any particular <i>vāsanā</i>, we do so because we want to be swayed by it, so we can cling to self-attentiveness only to the extent to which we love to be self-attentive. Love to be self-attentive is what is called <i>sat-vāsanā</i>, the inclination or liking to attend only to our own being (<i>sat</i>) and thereby to be as we actually are. To the extent that our <i>sat-vāsanā</i> is strengthened, our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> will be weakened, and vice versa, because these two types of <i>vāsanā</i> are opposite inclinations. Whereas <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> are inclinations to go outwards and engage in activities (<i>pravṛtti</i>) in order to experience phenomena (<i>viṣayas</i>) of various kinds, <i>sat-vāsanā</i> is the inclination just to withdraw back within (<i>nivṛtti</i>) in order to be aware of nothing other than our own being (<i>sat</i>).<br>
<br>
<a name="ny10"></a><a name="ny11"></a>In order to strengthen our <i>sat-vāsanā</i> and thereby weaken all our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, we need to try patiently and persistently to be self-attentive. Even if at first we are able to be self-attentive only for a few moments now and then, so long as we persevere in trying we are moving in the right direction, because we are thereby gradually strengthening our <i>sat-vāsanā</i>. No matter how strong our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> may seem to be, we can weaken and eventually eradicate all of them if we persevere in trying to be self-attentive as much as we can, as Bhagavan assures us in the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para10">tenth</a> and <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para11">eleventh</a> paragraphs of <i>Nāṉ Ār?</i>:<br>
<blockquote>தொன்றுதொட்டு வருகின்ற விஷயவாசனைகள் அளவற்றனவாய்க் கடலலைகள் போற் றோன்றினும் அவையாவும் சொரூபத்யானம் கிளம்பக் கிளம்ப அழிந்துவிடும். அத்தனை வாசனைகளு மொடுங்கி, சொரூபமாத்திரமா யிருக்க முடியுமா வென்னும் சந்தேக நினைவுக்கு மிடங்கொடாமல், சொரூபத்யானத்தை விடாப்பிடியாய்ப் பிடிக்க வேண்டும். ஒருவன் எவ்வளவு பாபியாயிருந்தாலும், ‘நான் பாபியா யிருக்கிறேனே! எப்படிக் கடைத்தேறப் போகிறே’ னென்றேங்கி யழுதுகொண்டிராமல், தான் பாபி என்னு மெண்ணத்தையு மறவே யொழித்து சொரூபத்யானத்தி லூக்க முள்ளவனாக விருந்தால் அவன் நிச்சயமா யுருப்படுவான்.<br>
<br>
<i>toṉḏṟutoṭṭu varugiṉḏṟa viṣaya-vāsaṉaigaḷ aḷavaṯṟaṉavāy-k kaḍal-alaigaḷ pōl tōṉḏṟiṉum avai-yāvum sorūpa-dhyāṉam kiḷamba-k kiḷamba aṙindu-viḍum. attaṉai vāsaṉaigaḷum oḍuṅgi, sorūpa-māttiram-āy irukka muḍiyumā v-eṉṉum sandēha niṉaivukkum iḍam koḍāmal, sorūpa-dhyāṉattai viḍā-p-piḍiyāy-p piḍikka vēṇḍum. oruvaṉ evvaḷavu pāpiyāy irundālum, ‘nāṉ pāpiyāy irukkiṟēṉē; eppaḍi-k kaḍaittēṟa-p pōkiṟēṉ’ eṉḏṟēṅgi y-aṙudu-koṇḍirāmal, tāṉ pāpi eṉṉum eṇṇattaiyum aṟavē y-oṙittu sorūpa-dhyāṉattil ūkkam uḷḷavaṉāha v-irundāl avaṉ niścayamāy uru-p-paḍuvāṉ</i>.<br>
<br>
Even though <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, which come from time immemorial, rise in countless numbers like ocean-waves, they will all be destroyed when <i>svarūpa-dhyāna</i> [self-attentiveness or contemplation on one’s own real nature] increases and increases [in depth and intensity]. Without giving room even to the doubting thought ‘So many <i>vāsanās</i> ceasing [or being dissolved], is it possible to be only as <i>svarūpa</i> [my own real nature]?’ it is necessary to cling tenaciously to <i>svarūpa-dhyāna</i>. However great a sinner one may be, if instead of lamenting and weeping ‘I am a sinner! How am I going to be saved?’ one completely rejects the thought that one is a sinner and is zealous [or steadfast] in self-attentiveness, one will certainly be reformed [transformed into what one actually is].<br>
<br>
மனத்தின்கண் எதுவரையில் விஷயவாசனைக ளிருக்கின்றனவோ, அதுவரையில் நானா ரென்னும் விசாரணையும் வேண்டும். நினைவுகள் தோன்றத் தோன்ற அப்போதைக்கப்போதே அவைகளையெல்லாம் உற்பத்திஸ்தானத்திலேயே விசாரணையால் நசிப்பிக்க வேண்டும். அன்னியத்தை நாடாதிருத்தல் வைராக்கியம் அல்லது நிராசை; தன்னை விடாதிருத்தல் ஞானம். உண்மையி லிரண்டு மொன்றே. முத்துக்குளிப்போர் தம்மிடையிற் கல்லைக் கட்டிக்கொண்டு மூழ்கிக் கடலடியிற் கிடைக்கும் முத்தை எப்படி எடுக்கிறார்களோ, அப்படியே ஒவ்வொருவனும் வைராக்கியத்துடன் தன்னுள் ளாழ்ந்து மூழ்கி ஆத்மமுத்தை யடையலாம். ஒருவன் தான் சொரூபத்தை யடையும் வரையில் நிரந்தர சொரூப ஸ்மரணையைக் கைப்பற்றுவானாயின் அதுவொன்றே போதும். கோட்டைக்குள் எதிரிக ளுள்ளவரையில் அதிலிருந்து வெளியே வந்துகொண்டே யிருப்பார்கள். வர வர அவர்களையெல்லாம் வெட்டிக்கொண்டே யிருந்தால் கோட்டை கைவசப்படும்.<br>
<br>
<i>maṉattiṉgaṇ edu-varaiyil viṣaya-vāsaṉaigaḷ irukkiṉḏṟaṉavō, adu-varaiyil nāṉ-ār eṉṉum vicāraṇai-y-um vēṇḍum. niṉaivugaḷ tōṉḏṟa-t tōṉḏṟa appōdaikkappōdē avaigaḷai-y-ellām uṯpatti-sthāṉattilēyē vicāraṇaiyāl naśippikka vēṇḍum. aṉṉiyattai nāḍādiruttal vairāggiyam alladu nirāśai; taṉṉai viḍādiruttal ñāṉam. uṇmaiyil iraṇḍum oṉḏṟē. muttu-k-kuḷippōr tam-m-iḍaiyil kallai-k kaṭṭi-k-koṇḍu mūṙki-k kaḍal-aḍiyil kiḍaikkum muttai eppaḍi eḍukkiṟārgaḷō, appaḍiyē o-vv-oruvaṉum vairāggiyattuḍaṉ taṉṉuḷ ḷ-āṙndu mūṙki ātma-muttai y-aḍaiyalām. oruvaṉ tāṉ sorūpattai y-aḍaiyum varaiyil nirantara sorūpa-smaraṇaiyai-k kai-p-paṯṟuvāṉ-āyiṉ adu-v-oṉḏṟē pōdum. kōṭṭaikkuḷ edirigaḷ uḷḷa-varaiyil adilirundu veḷiyē vandu-koṇḍē y-iruppārgaḷ. vara vara avargaḷai-y-ellām veṭṭi-k-koṇḍē y-irundāl kōṭṭai kaivaśa-p-paḍum</i>.<br>
<br>
As long as <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> exist within the mind, so long is the investigation who am I necessary. As and when thoughts appear, then and there it is necessary to annihilate them all by <i>vicāraṇā</i> [investigation or keen self-attentiveness] in the very place from which they arise. Not attending to anything other [than oneself] is <i>vairāgya</i> [dispassion or detachment] or <i>nirāśā</i> [desirelessness]; not leaving [or letting go of] oneself is <i>jñāna</i> [true knowledge or real awareness]. In truth [these] two [<i>vairāgya</i> and <i>jñāna</i>] are just one. Just as pearl-divers, tying stones to their waists and sinking, pick up pearls that are found at the bottom of the ocean, so each one, sinking deep within oneself with <i>vairāgya</i> [freedom from desire to be aware of anything other than oneself], may attain <i>ātma-muttu</i> [the self-pearl, meaning the pearl that is one’s own real nature]. If one clings fast to uninterrupted <i>svarūpa-smaraṇa</i> [self-remembrance] until one attains <i>svarūpa</i> [one’s own real nature, namely oneself as one actually is], that alone is sufficient. So long as enemies [namely <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>] are within the fortress [namely one’s heart], they will be continuously coming out from it. If one is continuously cutting down [or destroying] all of them as and when they come, the fortress will [eventually] be captured.</blockquote>
Therefore, though it may seem to us that it is not possible to be so keenly self-attentive that we thereby remain peacefully as we actually are without the least action of mind, speech or body, if we persevere tenaciously in trying to be self-attentive as much as possible, we will thereby eventually strengthen our <i>sat-vāsanā</i> and weaken our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> to such an extent that we are able to be so keenly self-attentive that we cease to be aware of anything else whatsoever and thereby dissolve forever back into our own real nature (<i>svarūpa</i>), which is <i>sat-cit</i>, our fundamental awareness of our own being, ‘I am’. This state of permanent dissolution in our source and substance, ‘I am’, alone is liberation (<i>mukti</i> or <i>mōkṣa</i>), eradication of ego, annihilation of mind (<i>manōnāśa</i>) and destruction of all <i>vāsanās</i> (<i>vāsanākṣaya</i>).<br>
<br>
<a name="seeds"></a><b>6. We will truly be ‘without the least <i>karma</i> of mind, speech or body’ only when all the seeds of <i>karma</i>, namely <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, are completely eradicated along with their root, namely ego</b><br>
<br>
<a name="uu02"></a>All <i>vāsanās</i> can be destroyed only when their root, namely ego, is eradicated, because it is the nature of ego to have <i>vāsanās</i>, and until all <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> are destroyed we cannot be truly said to be without action (<i>karma</i>), because <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> are the seeds that cause us to fall in the great ocean of action, as Bhagavan implies in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu02">verse 2</a> of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i>:<br>
<blockquote>வினையின் விளைவு விளிவுற்று வித்தாய் <br>
வினைக்கடல் வீழ்த்திடு முந்தீபற <br>
வீடு தரலிலை யுந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>viṉaiyiṉ viḷaivu viḷivuṯṟu vittāy <br>
viṉaikkaḍal vīṙttiḍu mundīpaṟa<br>
vīḍu taralilai yundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> வினையின் விளைவு விளிவு உற்று வித்தாய் வினை கடல் வீழ்த்திடும். வீடு தரல் இலை.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>viṉaiyiṉ viḷaivu viḷivu uṯṟu vittāy viṉai-kaḍal vīṙttiḍum. vīḍu taral ilai</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> The fruit of action perishing, as seed it causes to fall in the ocean of action. It is not giving liberation.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> The fruit of [any] action will perish [when it is experienced as a part of <i>prārabdha</i>], [but the consequences of doing that action will remain] as a seed [a <i>karma-vāsanā</i> or inclination to do the same kind of action] [and such seeds are what] cause [one] to fall in the ocean of action. [Therefore] it [action or <i>karma</i>] does not give liberation.</blockquote>
What he refers to here as வித்து (<i>vittu</i>), ‘seed’, are <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, and how they cause us to fall in the ocean of action is that whenever we allow ourself to be swayed by any <i>viṣaya-vāsanā</i>, our attention is thereby directed away from ourself towards something else, and that movement of our attention away from ourself is the beginning of all mental activities, which are what prompt us to act by speech and body. Since <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> are therefore the seeds under whose sway we act by mind, speech and body, they are also called <i>karma-vāsanās</i>, inclinations to do actions (<i>karmas</i>). That is, since we do actions in order to experience <i>viṣayas</i> of one kind or another, our inclinations to experience <i>viṣayas</i> are what makes us inclined to do <i>karmas</i>.<br>
<br>
If a wild fire burns down all the trees in a forest, it will have destroyed the forest only if it has destroyed not only all the trees but also all the seeds of those trees, because if the seeds survive the fire, the forest will regrow from them. Likewise, we can put a permanent end to all <i>karma</i> only by destroying all <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, because so long as they survive, they will continue to immerse us in the ocean of action. Until all <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> are completely erased, the only respite we can have from doing <i>karma</i> is in sleep and other states of <i>manōlaya</i>, but such respite is not real freedom from action, because sooner or later we will rise from <i>manōlaya</i> along with all our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, under whose sway we will continue doing <i>karma</i>. Therefore we will truly be ‘சொல் மானத தனுவின் கன்மாதி சிறிது இன்றி’ (<i>sol māṉada taṉuviṉ kaṉma-ādi siṟidu iṉḏṟi</i>), ‘without the least <i>karma</i> of mind, speech or body’, only when all the seeds of <i>karma</i>, namely <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, are completely eradicated along with their root, namely ego.<br>
<br>
<a name="una30"></a>In this context Bhagavan often referred to <i>Yōga Vāsiṣṭha</i> 5.56.13-14, so Muruganar recorded the meaning of these two verses as explained by Bhagavan in verses 1133 and 1134 of <a href="http://happinessofbeing.com/guru_vachaka_kovai.html"><i>Guru Vācaka Kōvai</i></a>, which Bhagavan then condensed as one verse, which is now verse 30 of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu Anubandham</i>:<br>
<blockquote>சேய்மையுளஞ் சென்றுகதை கேட்பார்போல் வாதனைக<br>
டேய்மனஞ்செய் துஞ்செய்யா தேயவைக — டோய்மனஞ்செய்<br>
தின்றேனுஞ் செய்ததே யிங்கசைவற் றுங்கனவிற்<br>
குன்றேறி வீழ்வார் குழி.<br>
<br>
<i>sēymaiyuḷañ ceṉḏṟukadai kēṭpārpōl vādaṉaiga<br>
ṭēymaṉañcey duñceyyā dēyavaiga — ṭōymaṉañcey<br>
diṉḏṟēṉuñ ceydadē yiṅgasaivaṯ ṟuṅgaṉaviṯ<br>
kuṉḏṟēṟi vīṙvār kuṙi.</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> சேய்மை உளம் சென்று கதை கேட்பார் போல், வாதனைகள் தேய் மனம் செய்தும் செய்யாதே. அவைகள் தோய் மனம் செய்து இன்று ஏனும், செய்ததே; இங்கு அசைவு அற்றும் கனவில் குன்று ஏறி வீழ்வார் குழி.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>sēymai uḷam seṉḏṟu kadai kēṭpār pōl, vādaṉaigaḷ tēy maṉam seydum seyyādē. avaigaḷ tōy maṉam seydu iṉḏṟu ēṉum, seydadē; iṅgu asaivu aṯṟum kaṉavil kuṉḏṟu ēṟi vīṙvār kuṙi.</i><br>
<br>
<b>அன்வயம்:</b> உளம் சேய்மை சென்று கதை கேட்பார் போல், வாதனைகள் தேய் மனம் செய்தும் செய்யாதே. அவைகள் தோய் மனம் செய்து இன்று ஏனும், செய்ததே; இங்கு அசைவு அற்றும் கனவில் குன்று ஏறி குழி வீழ்வார்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Anvayam</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>uḷam sēymai seṉḏṟu kadai kēṭpār pōl, vādaṉaigaḷ tēy maṉam seydum seyyādē. avaigaḷ tōy maṉam seydu iṉḏṟu ēṉum, seydadē; iṅgu asaivu aṯṟum kaṉavil kuṉḏṟu ēṟi kuṙi vīṙvār.</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Like one who hears a story, the mind going far away, the mind in which <i>vāsanās</i> have been erased is not doing even though doing. The mind that those soak is actually doing even though not doing; even though movement has ceased here, in dream climbing a hill one falls in a pit<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Like one who [seemingly] hears a story [even though their] mind [is actually] going far away [and therefore not hearing the story at all], the mind in which [all] <i>vāsanās</i> have been erased is not [actually] doing [any action at all] even though [in the view of others it seems] doing [any number of actions]. [On the other hand] the mind that those soak [that is, the mind that is soaked with <i>vāsanās</i>] is actually doing [action] even though [it is seemingly] not doing [any action], [just as] even though movement has ceased here [that is, even though in the waking world one seems to be lying without movement in bed], in dream climbing a hill one falls in a pit.</blockquote>
<a name="dec98note"></a>God makes our mind, speech and body do whatever actions they need to do in order for us to experience our <i>prārabdha</i>, but while experiencing our <i>prārabdha</i> we also generally do actions by mind, speech and body under the sway of our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, as Bhagavan implies in the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2020/08/praising-or-disparaging-others-is.html#dec98note">note that he wrote for his mother</a> in December 1898:<br>
<blockquote>அவரவர் பிராரப்தப் பிரகாரம் அதற்கானவன் ஆங்காங்கிருந் தாட்டுவிப்பன். என்றும் நடவாதது என் முயற்சிக்கினும் நடவாது; நடப்ப தென்றடை செய்யினும் நில்லாது. இதுவே திண்ணம். ஆகலின் மௌனமா யிருக்கை நன்று.<br>
<br>
<i>avar-avar prārabdha-p prakāram adaṟkāṉavaṉ āṅgāṅgu irundu āṭṭuvippaṉ. eṉḏṟum naḍavādadu eṉ muyaṟcikkiṉum naḍavādu; naḍappadu eṉ taḍai seyyiṉum nillādu. iduvē tiṇṇam. āhaliṉ mauṉamāy irukkai naṉḏṟu</i>.<br>
<br>
In accordance with their-their <i>prārabdha</i>, he who is for that being there-there will cause to dance [that is, in accordance with the destiny (<i>prārabdha</i>) of each individual, he who is for that (namely God or <i>guru</i>, who ordains their destiny) being in the heart of each of them will make them act]. What will never happen will not happen whatever effort one makes [to make it happen]; what will 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.</blockquote>
So long as we rise and stand as ego, we cannot avoid experiencing whatever we are destined to experience, and we cannot experience anything that we are not destined to experience, but as he implies in the second and third sentences of this note, we are free to want both to avoid experiencing what we are destined to experience and to experience what we are not destined to experience, and we are also free to try to do so. It is under the sway of our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> that we want to experience certain things and to avoid experiencing certain other things, and that we do actions accordingly, and whatever actions we do under the sway of our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> are <i>āgāmya</i>, whether or not they happen to be in accordance with <i>prārabdha</i>.<br>
<br>
Whatever is done by a person in whom ego has been eradicated along with all its <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> are actions that that person is made to do by God, so the doer of those actions is only God, and hence in verse 30 of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu Anubandham</i> Bhagavan says: ‘வாதனைகள் தேய் மனம் செய்தும் செய்யாதே’ (<i>vādaṉaigaḷ tēy maṉam seydum seyyādē</i>), ‘the mind in which <i>vāsanās</i> have been erased is not doing even though doing’. However, until ego has been eradicated, it is the doer of whatever actions it does through mind, speech or body under the sway of its <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, and its sense of doership (<i>kartṛtva-buddhi</i>) is not limited only to the actions it does, because it includes whatever it does not do, as he implies when he says: ‘அவைகள் தோய் மனம் செய்து இன்று ஏனும், செய்ததே’ (<i>avaigaḷ tōy maṉam seydu iṉḏṟu ēṉum, seydadē</i>), ‘the mind that they [namely <i>vāsanās</i>] soak is actually doing even though not doing’.<br>
<br>
That is, so long as we rise and stand as ego, we consequently experience the mind, speech and body as ourself, so when any or all of these three instruments are active, our experience is ‘I am doing these actions’, and when they are not doing any actions, our experience is ‘I am doing nothing’. For example, if we are sitting with our eyes closed trying to do nothing by mind, speech or body, our experience will be ‘I am sitting without thinking or saying anything’, because we still identify ourself as the body that is sitting and the mind and speech that are seemingly not doing anything. Hence our doership persists whether we are doing anything or nothing, and so long as it persists we are doing even when we are doing nothing.<br>
<br>
Therefore the state in which we are truly just being without the least action of mind, speech or body is only the state in which we remain without ever rising as ego even to the slightest extent, so this alone is the state that he describes as ‘சொல் மானத தனுவின் கன்மாதி சிறிது இன்றி சும்மா அமர்ந்து இருத்தல்’ (<i>sol māṉada taṉuviṉ kaṉma-ādi siṟidu iṉḏṟi summā amarndu iruttal</i>), ‘just being, resting without the least action of mind, speech or body’, in the second sentence of this fourth verse of <i>Āṉma-Viddai</i>, and as ‘மௌனமா யிருக்கை’ (<i>mauṉamāy irukkai</i>), ‘silently being’ or ‘being silent’, in the final sentence of the note he wrote for his mother: ‘ஆகலின் மௌனமா யிருக்கை நன்று’ (<i>āhaliṉ mauṉamāy irukkai naṉḏṟu</i>), ‘Therefore silently being is good’.<br>
<br>
<a name="un25a"></a>Our rising as ego is itself an action. It is the first action, and the root of all other actions. Our standing (remaining or enduring) as ego is likewise an action, because as Bhagavan points out in <a href="#un25">verse 25</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>, we cannot rise or stand as ego without ‘grasping form’, which means attending to and experiencing things other than ourself. Knowing other things is therefore the very nature of ego, so as long as we have risen and are standing as ego, we cannot remain for a moment without doing action. That is, attending to, experiencing or knowing anything other than ourself is an action, because it is a departure from our natural state of just being as we actually are, in which we know nothing other than ourself, so since we cannot remain as ego without constantly knowing things other than ourself, as ego we can never just be without doing any action. Therefore in order to just be without the least action of mind, speech or body, we must cease knowing anything other than ourself, and in order to cease knowing anything other than ourself, we must cease rising and standing as ego.<br>
<br>
In order to achieve this state in which we never rise as ego even to the slightest extent and thereby remain without the least action of mind, speech or body, all we need do is to persevere in trying to be so keenly and steadily self-attentive that we thereby cease to be aware of anything else whatsoever. To whatever extent we are self-attentive, to that extent ego subsides and we thereby come close to just being without the least action of mind, speech or body, and our self-attentiveness will increase in keenness, depth and clarity the more we persevere in this simple practice, so we just need to continue persevering until eventually ego merges forever in its source and substance, namely pure being-awareness (<i>sat-cit</i>), which is our fundamental awareness of our own existence, ‘I am’.<br>
<br>
<a name="atma-jyoti"></a><b>7. When one just is, resting without the least action of mind, speech or body, ah, in the heart the light of oneself alone will shine forth clearly as ‘I am I’</b><br>
<br>
When by persistent practice we finally manage to be so keenly self-attentive that ego is dissolved forever in <i>manōnāśa</i>, all its <i>vāsanās</i> will thereby be erased, and what will then remain shining is only the infinite light of pure awareness, which is what we always actually are, as he implies in this second sentence of the fourth verse of <i>Āṉma-Viddai</i>: ‘சொல் மானத தனுவின் கன்மாதி சிறிது இன்றி சும்மா அமர்ந்து இருக்க, அம்மா, அகத்தில் ஆன்ம சோதியே’ (<i>sol māṉada taṉuviṉ kaṉma-ādi siṟidu iṉḏṟi summā amarndu irukka, ammā, ahattil āṉma-jyōtiyē</i>), ‘When one just is, resting without the least action of mind, speech or body, ah, in the heart the light of oneself alone [will remain shining as ‘I am I’]’.<br>
<br>
‘ஆன்ம சோதி’ (<i>āṉma-jyōti</i>) means ‘self-light’ or ‘light of oneself’ in the sense ‘the light that is oneself’, so it implies the light of pure awareness, which is what we actually are. The suffix ஏ (<i>ē</i>) is an intensifier that implies alone, actually or certainly, so ‘ஆன்ம சோதியே’ (<i>āṉma-jyōtiyē</i>) means ‘the light of oneself alone’. Since there is no explicit verb in the main clause of this sentence, ‘அம்மா, அகத்தில் ஆன்ம சோதியே’ (<i>ammā, ahattil āṉma-jyōtiyē</i>), it implies ‘ah, in the heart the light of oneself alone [will exist]’ or ‘ah, in the heart the light of oneself alone [will remain shining]’, but it can also be interpreted as ‘ah, in the heart the light of oneself alone [will shine forth clearly as ‘I am I’]’, and this latter implication seems to be the most appropriate one when we consider this clause along with the parallel clause in each of the other four verses, because the implication of all these clauses is that when we investigate ourself keenly enough, our real nature will shine forth spontaneously as ‘I am I’ (meaning as awareness of oneself as oneself alone).<br>
<br>
That is, the parallel clauses in the other four verses are: ‘மெய் ஆர் இதய வெளி வெய்யோன் சுயம் ஆன்மா விளங்குமே’ (<i>mey ār idaya veḷi veyyōṉ suyam āṉmā viḷaṅgumē</i>), ‘in the heart-space, which is real, oneself, the sun [of pure awareness], will certainly shine by oneself [spontaneously or of one’s own accord]’, in the first verse; ‘நினைவுகள் போய், குகை உள் ‘நான் நான்’ என ஆன்ம ஞானமே தானாய் திகழும்’ (<i>niṉaivugaḷ pōy, guhai uḷ ‘nāṉ nāṉ’ eṉa āṉma-ñāṉamē tāṉāy tihaṙum</i>), ‘thoughts ceasing, in the cave <i>ātma-jñāna</i> [pure self-awareness] alone will shine spontaneously [or as oneself] as ‘I am I’ [that is, as awareness of oneself as oneself alone]’, in the second verse; ‘தன் உள் ஆன்ம ப்ரகாசமே மின்னும்’ (<i>taṉ uḷ āṉma-prakāśamē miṉṉum</i>), ‘within oneself <i>ātma-prakāśa</i> [the shining, clarity or light of oneself] alone will flash forth’, in the third verse; and ‘அண்ணாமலை என் ஆன்மா காணுமே’ (<i>aṇṇāmalai eṉ āṉmā kāṇumē</i>), ‘oneself, which is called Annamalai, will certainly be seen’, in the final verse. <br>
<br>
<a name="attention"></a><b>8. To know ourself as the light of pure awareness, which is the eternal experience of infinite happiness devoid of even the slightest trace of any fear, we do not need to do anything at all, but just be as we always actually are, with our entire attention fixed firmly and unshakeably on ourself alone</b><br>
<br>
In the next sentence of this fourth verse Bhagavan says, ‘நித அனுபூதியே’ (<i>nita aṉubhūtiyē</i>), ‘The eternal experience’, thereby implying that ‘ஆன்ம சோதி’ (<i>āṉma-jyōti</i>), the light of pure awareness that shines forth when we are so keenly self-attentive that ego dissolves forever and we thereby remain without the least action of mind, speech or body, is our eternal experience (<i>nitya anubhūti</i>). That is, though we seem to be aware of ourself as something other than pure awareness so long as we rise and stand as ego, when we know ourself as we actually are, we will know that we are never anything other than pure awareness, because we are immutable and are therefore never affected even in the least by the appearance of ego and all other things, which seem to exist only in the view of ego and not at all in the clear view of pure awareness.<br>
<br>
In the fourth sentence he says ‘இராது பீதியே’ (<i>irādu bhītiyē</i>), ‘Fear does not [or will not] exist’, because desire and fear can arise only in a state in which something other than ourself seems to exist, but in the light of pure awareness, which is our eternal experience, it is clear that nothing other than ourself could ever exist or even seem to exist. So long as we rise and stand as ego, fear is inevitable, so if we want to be free of fear, all we need to do is to investigate and know what we ourself actually are.<br>
<br>
Finally in the fifth sentence he says ‘இன்ப அம்போதியே’ (<i>iṉba ambhōdhiyē</i>), ‘The ocean of bliss alone’, thereby implying that when we know ourself as the light of pure awareness, ‘I am’, it will be clear that ego and all its desires and fears never actually existed at all, so what will then remain is only the infinite ocean of bliss, which is what we always actually are.<br>
<br>
In order to know ourself as the light of pure awareness, which is the eternal experience of infinite happiness devoid of even the slightest trace of any fear, we do not need to do anything at all, but just be as we always actually are, with our entire attention fixed firmly and unshakeably on ourself alone. Therefore knowing ourself is extremely easy, ah, extremely easy.<br>
<br>
If it seems at all difficult for us to know and to be what we always actually are, that is because we do not yet have all-consuming love to know and to be what we actually are, and we lack such love because we still have so much liking to know and experience things other than ourself, and hence we are unwilling to let go of all such things. We can clearly see such lack of willingness whenever we try to be self-attentive, because instead of keeping our entire attention fixed firmly on ourself alone, we willingly allow it to be frequently distracted away towards other things under the sway of our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>.<br>
<br>
Therefore we can cultivate the requisite love only by patiently and persistently trying to be self-attentive, bringing our attention back to ourself whenever it is diverted away towards anything else. If we persevere in this simple practice, we will eventually dissolve forever back into pure awareness, whereupon we will see for ourself how extremely easy this <i>ātma-vidyā</i> actually is.Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-16684106901720224232023-07-27T20:09:00.016+01:002024-02-03T21:24:21.537+00:00Āṉma-Viddai verse 3: knowledge of all other things is caused by ignorance of ourself<a name="av3"></a>In continuation of three articles on <i>Āṉma-Viddai</i> that I posted here previously, namely <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/01/anma-viddai-tamil-text-transliteration.html"><i>Āṉma-Viddai</i>: Tamil text, transliteration and translation</a>, <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/02/anma-viddai-verse-1-thought-is-what.html"><i>Āṉma-Viddai</i> verse 1: thought is what causes the appearance of the unreal body and world</a> and <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2023/05/anma-viddai-verse-2-thought-i-am-this.html"><i>Āṉma-Viddai</i> verse 2: the thought ‘I am this body’ is what supports all other thoughts</a>, in this article I will explain and discuss the meaning and implications of the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/01/anma-viddai-tamil-text-transliteration.html#av3">third verse</a>:<br><a name='more'></a>
<blockquote>தன்னை யறிதலின்றிப் பின்னை யெதறிகிலென்<br>
றன்னை யறிந்திடிற்பின் னென்னை யுளதறிய<br>
பின்ன வுயிர்களில பின்ன விளக்கெனுமத்<br>
தன்னைத் தனிலுணர மின்னுந் தனுளான்ம —<br>
ப்ரகாசமே; அருள் விலாசமே; அக விநாசமே;<br>
இன்ப விகாசமே. (ஐயே)<br>
<br>
<i>taṉṉai yaṟidaliṉḏṟip piṉṉai yedaṟihileṉ<br>
ḏṟaṉṉai yaṟindiḍiṟpiṉ ṉeṉṉai yuḷadaṟiya<br>
bhiṉṉa vuyirgaḷila bhiṉṉa viḷakkeṉumat<br>
taṉṉait taṉiluṇara miṉṉun taṉuḷāṉma —<br>
prakāśamē; aruḷ vilāsamē; aha vināśamē;<br>
iṉba vikāsamē</i>. (<i>aiyē</i>)<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> தன்னை அறிதல் இன்றி, பின்னை எது அறிகில் என்? தன்னை அறிந்திடில், பின் என்னை உளது அறிய? பின்ன உயிர்களில் அபின்ன விளக்கு எனும் அத் தன்னை தனில் உணர, மின்னும் தன் உள் ஆன்ம ப்ரகாசமே. அருள் விலாசமே, அக விநாசமே, இன்ப விகாசமே. (ஐயே, அதி சலபம், ...)<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>taṉṉai aṟidal iṉḏṟi, piṉṉai edu aṟihil eṉ? taṉṉai aṟindiḍil, piṉ eṉṉai uḷadu aṟiya? bhiṉṉa uyirgaḷil abhiṉṉa viḷakku eṉum a-t-taṉṉai taṉil uṇara, miṉṉum taṉ uḷ āṉma-prakāśamē. aruḷ vilāsamē, aha vināśamē, iṉba vikāsamē</i>. (<i>aiyē, ati sulabham, ...</i>)<br>
<br>
<b>அன்வயம்:</b> தன்னை அறிதல் இன்றி, பின்னை எது அறிகில் என்? தன்னை அறிந்திடில், பின் அறிய என்னை உளது? பின்ன உயிர்களில் அபின்ன விளக்கு எனும் அத் தன்னை தனில் உணர, தன் உள் ஆன்ம ப்ரகாசமே மின்னும். அருள் விலாசமே, அக விநாசமே, இன்ப விகாசமே. (ஐயே, அதி சலபம், ...)<br>
<br>
<b><i>Anvayam</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>taṉṉai aṟidal iṉḏṟi, piṉṉai edu aṟihil eṉ? taṉṉai aṟindiḍil, piṉ aṟiya eṉṉai uḷadu? bhiṉṉa uyirgaḷil abhiṉṉa viḷakku eṉum a-t-taṉṉai taṉil uṇara, taṉ uḷ āṉma-prakāśamē miṉṉum. aruḷ vilāsamē, aha vināśamē, iṉba vikāsamē</i>. (<i>aiyē, ati sulabham, ...</i>)<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Without knowing oneself, if one knows whatever else, what? If one has known oneself, then what exists to know? When one knows in oneself that self, which is the undivided light in separate sentient beings, within oneself the shining of oneself alone will flash forth. The shining forth of grace; the annihilation of ego; the blossoming of happiness. (Ah, extremely easy, ...)<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Without knowing oneself, if one knows whatever else, [so] what? [That is, how can such knowledge be reliable, so how can it have any real value?] If one has known oneself, then what [else] exists to know? When one knows in oneself that self [one’s real nature], which is the undivided light [the light that shines without <i>bhinna</i>: division, separation, difference or distinction] in separate [divided, different or distinct] sentient beings [or souls], within oneself <i>ātma-prakāśa</i> [the shining, clarity or light of oneself] alone will flash forth [like lightening]. [This is] <i>aruḷ-vilāsa</i> [the shining forth, amorous play or beauty of grace], <i>aha-vināśa</i> [the annihilation of ego], <i>iṉba-vikāsa</i> [the blossoming of happiness]. ([Therefore] ah, extremely easy, <i>ātma-vidyā</i>, ah, extremely easy!)</blockquote>
<b><i>Padavurai</i></b> (word-explanation): தன்னை (<i>taṉṉai</i>): oneself {accusative (second case) form of the generic pronoun <i>tāṉ</i>, referring here to ourself as we actually are} | அறிதல் (<i>aṟidal</i>): knowing {verbal noun} | இன்றி (<i>iṉḏṟi</i>): without | பின்னை (<i>piṉṉai</i>): after, further, more, besides {thereby implying ‘else’ or ‘other’} | எது (<i>edu</i>): which thing, what, whatever {<i>piṉṉai edu</i> literally means ‘what thing further’, thereby implying ‘anything else’ or ‘anything other [than oneself]’} | அறிகில் (<i>aṟihil</i>): if knowing {implying ‘if one knows’} | என் (<i>eṉ</i>): what {interrogative pronoun, used here in the sense of ‘so what?’, thereby implying ‘what is the use or value [of such knowledge]?’} || தன்னை (<i>taṉṉai</i>): oneself {as explained above} | அறிந்திடில் (<i>aṟindiḍil</i>): if knowing {implying ‘if one has known’} | பின் (<i>piṉ</i>): after, subsequently, then | என்னை (<i>eṉṉai</i>): what | உளது (<i>uḷadu</i>): is, exists {a poetic abbreviation of <i>uḷḷadu</i>, which in this case is the neuter third person singular form of <i>uḷ</i>, a tenseless verb that means to be or to exist} | அறிய (<i>aṟiya</i>): to know {infinitive of <i>aṟi</i>} || பின்ன (<i>bhiṉṉa</i>): divided, separate, different, distinct {<i>bhiṉṉam</i> is a Tamil form of the Sanskrit <i>bhinna</i>, which means broken, split, torn apart, divided, separated, different, distinct or other, and <i>bhiṉṉa</i> is the form that <i>bhiṉṉam</i> takes when used as the first word in a compound} | உயிர்களில் (<i>uyirgaḷil</i>): in living beings, sentient beings, souls {locative (seventh case) form of <i>uyirgaḷ</i>, the plural form of <i>uyir</i>} | அபின்ன (<i>abhiṉṉa</i>): undivided, not separate, not different, not distinct {<i>abhiṉṉam</i> is a Tamil form of the Sanskrit <i>abhinna</i>, which means unbroken, undivided, not separated, not different or not other, and <i>abhiṉṉa</i> is the form that <i>abhiṉṉam</i> takes when used as the first word in a compound} | விளக்கு (<i>viḷakku</i>): light, lamp | எனும் (<i>eṉum</i>): called, which is called {adjectival participle, in this case implying ‘which is’} | அ (<i>a</i>): that {distal demonstrative prefix} | தன்னை (<i>taṉṉai</i>): self {accusative (second case) form of the generic pronoun <i>tāṉ</i>, referring here to ourself as we actually are} | தனில் (<i>taṉil</i>): in oneself {locative (seventh case) form of the generic pronoun <i>tāṉ</i>} | உணர (<i>uṇara</i>): when one knows {literally ‘to know’ or ‘to be aware’, an infinitive that is here used idiomatically to mean ‘when [one] knows’} | மின்னும் (<i>miṉṉum</i>): will shine, flash, flash forth [like lightening] | தனுள் (<i>taṉ</i>): within oneself {<i>taṉ</i> is the inflectional base of the generic pronoun <i>tāṉ</i> (and also the form it takes when used as the first word in a compound), and <i>uḷ</i> is both a word that means ‘inside’ or ‘within’ and a locative (seventh case) ending meaning specifically ‘inside’ or ‘within’} | ஆன்ம (<i>āṉma</i>): self- {the form <i>āṉmā</i> takes when used as the first word in a compound, <i>āṉmā</i> being a Tamil form of the Sanskrit <i>ātmā</i>, the nominative (first case) singular form of <i>ātman</i>, which in this case refers to ourself as we actually are} | ப்ரகாசமே (<i>prakāśamē</i>): shining alone {<i>prakāśam</i> is a Tamil form of the Sanskrit <i>prakāśa</i>, which means ‘shining’, ‘brightness’, ‘clarity’ or ‘light’, and the suffix <i>ē</i> is an intensifier that here implies ‘only’ or ‘alone’} || அருள் (<i>aruḷ</i>): grace, compassion, kindness, tenderness, love, benevolence {a Tamil equivalent of the Sanskrit terms <i>karuṇā</i>, <i>kṛpā</i> and <i>anugraha</i>} | விலாசமே (<i>vilāsamē</i>): shining forth, appearance, manifestation, amorous play, playfulness, flirtatiousness, seductiveness, enjoyment, beauty {an intensified form of <i>vilāsam</i>, a Tamil form of the Sanskrit <i>vilāsa</i>} | அக (<i>aha</i>): I, ego {the form <i>aham</i> takes in Tamil when used as the first word in a compound} | விநாசமே (<i>vināśamē</i>): complete destruction, utter annihilation {an intensified form of <i>vināśam</i>, a Tamil form of the Sanskrit <i>vināśa</i>, an intensified form of <i>nāśa</i>, ‘destruction’ or ‘annihilation’} | இன்ப (<i>iṉba</i>): happiness, joy, bliss {the form <i>iṉbam</i> takes when used as the first word in a compound} | விகாசமே (<i>vikāsamē</i>): blossoming, blooming, expanding, opening {an intensified form of <i>vikāsam</i>, a Tamil form of the Sanskrit <i>vikāsa</i>}.<br>
<ol>
<li><a href="#seem"> We are not what we now seem to be, so how can we know that anything else is what it seems to be?</a></li>
<li><a href="#sleep"> We exist and are aware of our existence in sleep, so we cannot be anything we were not aware of then</a></li>
<li><a href="#ourself"> Before trying to know anything else, we should first try to know what we ourself actually are, and we cannot know what we actually are by attending to anything other than ourself</a></li>
<li><a href="#un04"> <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i> verse 4: forms or phenomena seem to exist only because we as ego mistake ourself to be the form of a body</a></li>
<li><a href="#un09"> <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i> verse 9: the triad of knower, knowing and known depends upon the knower, namely ego, which will cease to exist as such when it knows what it actually is</a></li>
<li><a href="#unrealise"> We do not need to realise what is real, but only to unrealise what is unreal, meaning that we do not need to gain any new knowledge but just to relinquish all wrong knowledge</a></li>
<li><a href="#un10"> <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i> verse 10: real awareness is only awareness that is aware of ourself as we actually are, which is the reality of ego, the one to whom all knowledge and ignorance about other things appear</a></li>
<li><a href="#un11"> <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i> verse 11: when we know ourself as we actually are, knowledge and ignorance about everything else will cease to exist</a></li>
<li><a href="#un12"> <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i> verse 12: since we as we actually are shine without any other thing to know, we alone are real awareness</a></li>
<li><a href="#uu27"> <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> verse 27: real awareness is devoid of both knowledge and ignorance of anything other than itself, because there is nothing other than itself for it either to know or to not know</a></li>
<li><a href="#un12a"> Though the real awareness that we actually are is completely devoid of both knowledge and ignorance of any other thing, it is not a void (<i>śūnya</i>) but infinitely full (<i>pūrṇa</i>), being the fullness of <i>sat-cit-ānanda</i></a></li>
<li><a href="#un13"> <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i> verse 13: being aware of many things is ignorance, which is unreal, but even this ignorance does not exist except as ourself, the one real awareness</a></li>
<li><a href="#un14"> <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i> verse 14: when we as ego investigate our own reality, ego will thereby cease to exist, and all its knowledge of the seeming existence of everything else will cease to exist along with it</a></li>
<li><a href="#knowledge"> Knowledge or awareness of anything other than ourself is not real, because when we know ourself as we actually are, nothing other than ourself exists for us to know</a></li>
<li><a href="#light"> When one knows in oneself that self, which is the light that shines without separation in separate sentient beings, within oneself the shining of oneself alone will flash forth</a></li>
<li><a href="#grace"> The flashing forth of ourself as the light of pure awareness is the shining forth of grace, the annihilation of ego and the blossoming of happiness</a></li>
</ol>
<a name="seem"></a><b>1. We are not what we now seem to be, so how can we know that anything else is what it seems to be?</b><br>
<br>
If we do not know the colour of the glasses we are wearing, or whether we are wearing clear or coloured glasses, or even whether we are wearing any glasses at all, we will not be able to reliably judge the colour of the objects we are seeing. If we are wearing red glasses, everything will appear to be varying shades of red, and if we are wearing green glasses, everything will appear to be varying shades of green. Even if we are not wearing any glasses, but are suffering from jaundice, whether with or without our knowledge, everything will appear to be varying shades of yellow.<br>
<br>
Likewise, if we do not know the reality of ourself (that is, if we do not know what we actually are as opposed to what we now seem to be), we cannot know the reality of anything else we know, which means that we cannot know whether whatever else we may know is actually real or just an illusory appearance. This is why Bhagavan asks rhetorically in the first sentence of this verse, ‘தன்னை அறிதல் இன்றி, பின்னை எது அறிகில் என்?’ (<i>taṉṉai aṟidal iṉḏṟi, piṉṉai edu aṟihil eṉ?</i>), ‘Without knowing oneself, if one knows whatever else, [so] what?’, thereby implying that whatever knowledge we may have of anything other than ourself is unreliable and of no real consequence if we do not even know what we ourself actually are.<br>
<br>
<a name="un05a"></a>If we do not know whether we are what we seem to be, how can we know whether anything else is as it seems to be? Now we seem to be a person, a <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un05">bundle of five sheaths</a>, namely a physical body, life, mind, intellect and will, but is this what we actually are? The person we seem to be appears in waking and dream, albeit with a different body in each such state, but disappears in sleep, but we are clearly aware of our own existence, ‘I am’, in all these three states. The ‘I’ that slept is the same ‘I’ that is now in this state we take to be waking and that is sometimes in another state that we call dream, but this ‘I’ seems to be a person in only two of these three states.<br>
<br>
In sleep we are aware of nothing other than our own existence, whereas in waking and dream we are aware not only of our existence, ‘I am’, but also of an identity, ‘I am this person’. Since we exist and are aware of our existence in sleep without being aware of this identity or of the person whom we now identify as ourself, this person cannot be what we actually are. That is, if this person were what we actually are, we could never be aware of ourself without being aware of this person, so since we were aware of our existence in sleep, which is a state in which we were not aware of this person, this identity ‘I am this person’ is false, even though it now seems to us to be true.<br>
<br>
<a name="sleep"></a><b>2. We exist and are aware of our existence in sleep, so we cannot be anything we were not aware of then</b><br>
<br>
Some people object to this, arguing that we were not aware of anything in sleep, so it is not correct to say that we were aware of our existence then. It is true that we were not aware of any phenomena in sleep, not even of the passing of time, but we were nevertheless aware of our own existence, because if we were not aware of our existence while we were asleep, we would not now be so clearly aware of having been in a state in which we were not aware of anything else. That is, if we were not aware of our existence in sleep (in other words, if we were not aware of being in that state, in which we were not aware of anything else), we would not now be aware that we were ever in such a state, so what we would now be aware of experiencing would be a seemingly uninterrupted succession of alternating states of waking and dream without any gap between them. Therefore, since we are now clearly aware of having experienced frequent gaps between alternating states of waking and dream, gaps that we call sleep, in which we were not aware of anything other than ourself, we must not only have existed in such gaps but must also have been aware of existing then. In other words, if sleep were a state in which we were not aware of our existence, we would not now be aware of ever having existed in such a state.<br>
<br>
Therefore we can logically conclude that we were certainly aware of our existence while we were asleep, and no one who considers this carefully and deeply enough can reasonably doubt that this is the case. Moreover, to the extent that we practise being self-attentive in waking or dream, it will become clear to us, no matter how faintly at first, that our own existence, ‘I am’, is distinct from the appearance of all phenomena, including the person we seem to be (not only the physical body of this person but also all its other components, namely life, mind, intellect and will), and to the extent that it thereby becomes clear to us that we are distinct from all phenomena, it will also become clear to us that we did exist and were aware of our existence in the absence of all phenomena in sleep.<br>
<br>
Therefore, since we existed and were aware of our existence in sleep, what we actually are cannot be anything that we were not aware of then, so since we were then aware of nothing other than our own mere existence, what we actually are can only be this pure existence, bereft of everything else, including all the adjuncts (<i>upādhis</i>) that we now mistake ourself to be. As this pure existence, which shone alone in sleep, we were aware ‘I am’, but were not aware of anything else whatsoever, so the nature of this pure existence is pure awareness, awareness that is just aware without being aware of anything other than its own existence, ‘I am’, and hence what we actually are is just pure existence-awareness (<i>sat-cit</i>), which is what we are always aware of as our own being, ‘I am’, not only in sleep but also in waking and dream.<br>
<br>
<a name="ourself"></a><b>3. Before trying to know anything else, we should first try to know what we ourself actually are, and we cannot know what we actually are by attending to anything other than ourself</b><br>
<br>
Therefore, though we now seem to be a particular person, who consists of a physical body, life, mind, intellect and will, neither this person nor any of its components can be what we actually are, because in sleep we were not aware of any of these things, but were aware only of our own simple existence, ‘I am’. Hence, since we are now aware of ourself as if we were this person, it is clear that we are aware of ourself as something other than what we actually are, so our present knowledge of ourself is a false knowledge. Since we do not even know what we ourself actually are, how can any of our knowledge about anything else be reliable?<br>
<br>
That is, whatever knowledge we may have about anything other than ourself is obtained by us through the filter of our erroneous knowledge of ourself, so when we do not know what we ourself actually are, we cannot claim to have true or reliable knowledge about anything else whatsoever. In other words, when our knowledge about ourself is so confused and erroneous, our knowledge about everything else must be equally or even more confused and erroneous, as Bhagavan implies in the first sentence of this verse by asking rhetorically: ‘தன்னை அறிதல் இன்றி, பின்னை எது அறிகில் என்?’ (<i>taṉṉai aṟidal iṉḏṟi, piṉṉai edu aṟihil eṉ?</i>), ‘Without knowing oneself, if one knows whatever else, what [reliability, consequence or value does such knowledge have]?’<br>
<br>
Therefore before trying to know anything else, we should first try to know what we ourself actually are, and we cannot know what we actually are by attending to anything other than ourself, so we should stop directing our attention outwards (away from ourself towards anything else) and should instead direct it inwards (back towards ourself alone). No matter how many spiritual, philosophical or scientific texts we may study, or how many times we may listen to the words of the <i>sadguru</i> or others, we cannot know what we actually are except by turning our attention back within to face ourself alone. The words of our <i>sadguru</i>, Bhagavan Ramana, are useful precisely because they are constantly directing us, reminding us and encouraging us to turn our attention back within to investigate what we actually are, and other texts are useful only if and to the extent that they do likewise.<br>
<br>
<a name="un04"></a><b>4. <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i> verse 4: forms or phenomena seem to exist only because we as ego mistake ourself to be the form of a body</b><br>
<br>
One of the many ways in which Bhagavan has impressed upon us the need for us to know ourself as we actually are before we can know the truth of anything else is by pointing out that whatever is perceived derives its nature from what perceives it, so the nature of the perceived will always be in certain fundamental respects the same as the nature of the perceiver. This is the metaphysical and epistemological principle that he teaches us in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un04">verse 4</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>:<br>
<blockquote>உருவந்தா னாயி னுலகுபர மற்றா<br>
முருவந்தா னன்றே லுவற்றி — னுருவத்தைக் <br>
கண்ணுறுதல் யாவனெவன் கண்ணலாற் காட்சியுண்டோ<br>
கண்ணதுதா னந்தமிலாக் கண்.<br>
<br>
<i>uruvandā ṉāyi ṉulahupara maṯṟā<br>
muruvandā ṉaṉḏṟē luvaṯṟi — ṉuruvattaik<br>
kaṇṇuṟudal yāvaṉevaṉ kaṇṇalāṯ kāṭciyuṇḍō<br>
kaṇṇadutā ṉantamilāk kaṇ</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> 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.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>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</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>அன்வயம்:</b> 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.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Anvayam</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>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</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> 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.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> 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 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].</blockquote>
Here he uses the term ‘கண்’ (<i>kaṇ</i>), ‘eye’, as a metaphor for awareness, in the sense of what is aware, and that awareness is ourself. What we actually are is infinite awareness, as he implies in the last sentence of this verse, ‘கண் அது தான் அந்தமிலா கண்’ (<i>kaṇ adu tāṉ antam-ilā kaṇ</i>), ‘The eye is oneself, the infinite eye’, and being infinite means being formless, because every form is a limitation of one kind or another, and whatever is limited is a form in the sense that he uses the term ‘உருவம்’ (<i>uruvam</i>) or ‘உரு’ (<i>uru</i>), ‘form’, in this and other verses of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i> and elsewhere. Therefore, in accordance with the principle that he implies in the previous sentence, ‘கண் அலால் காட்சி உண்டோ?’ (<i>kaṇ alāl kāṭci uṇḍō?</i>), ‘Can what is seen be otherwise than the eye?’, as infinite and hence formless awareness we are never aware of anything finite and hence of any forms, as he implies in the second and third sentences by asking rhetorically: ‘உருவம் தான் அன்றேல், உவற்றின் உருவத்தை கண் உறுதல் யாவன்? எவன்?’ (<i>uruvam tāṉ aṉḏṟēl, uvaṯṟiṉ uruvattai kaṇ uṟudal yāvaṉ? evaṉ?</i>), ‘If oneself is not a form, who can see their forms? How [to see their forms]?’.<br>
<br>
<a name="un05b"></a>Therefore, as he implies in the first sentence of this verse, ‘உருவம் தான் ஆயின், உலகு பரம் அற்று ஆம்’ (<i>uruvam tāṉ āyiṉ, ulahu param aṯṟu ām</i>), ‘If oneself is a form, the world and God will be likewise’, we seem to be aware of forms only when we rise as ego and consequently mistake ourself to be a body, which is a form composed of five sheaths (as he says in the next verse, namely <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un05">verse 5</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>). Hence all forms or phenomena seem to exist only because we have risen as ego, thereby projecting and attaching ourself to the form of a body as if it were ‘I’.<br>
<br>
All forms are therefore just an illusory appearance, and they seem to exist only in the view of ourself as ego. When we do not rise as ego, they do not seem to exist, so what then shines is only what alone actually exists, namely ourself as infinite awareness. Therefore, since everything other than ourself seems to exist only when we rise as ego, and since we do not rise as ego when we know ourself as we actually are, in the second sentence of this third verse of <i>Āṉma-Viddai</i> he asks rhetorically, ‘தன்னை அறிந்திடில், பின் என்னை உளது அறிய?’ (<i>taṉṉai aṟindiḍil, piṉ eṉṉai uḷadu aṟiya?</i>), ‘If one has known oneself, then what exists to know?’, thereby implying that there is nothing else for us to know once we have known ourself.<br>
<br>
<a name="un04a"></a><a name="un05c"></a><a name="av2"></a>Everything other than ourself (in other words, every object or phenomenon) is a form of one kind or another, and as he points out in verses <a href="#un04">4</a> and <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un05">5</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>, we are aware of forms (objects or phenomena) only when we mistake ourself to be a body, which is a form consisting of five sheaths (namely a physical body, the life or physiological processes that animate it, and the mind, intellect and will that operate within it as if they were integral parts of it). Therefore the subject that is aware of all objects is what is aware of itself as ‘I am this body’, namely ourself as ego, and without this subject no objects would seem to exist, as he implied in the first clause of the previous verse, namely <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2023/05/anma-viddai-verse-2-thought-i-am-this.html">verse 2</a> of <i>Āṉma-Viddai</i>: “‘ஊன் ஆர் உடல் இதுவே நான் ஆம்’ எனும் நினைவே நானா நினைவுகள் சேர் ஓர் நார் எனும் அதனால்” (<i>‘ūṉ ār uḍal iduvē nāṉ ām’ eṉum niṉaivē nāṉā niṉaivugaḷ sēr ōr nār eṉum adaṉāl</i>), “Since the thought ‘this, the body composed of flesh, itself is I’ alone is the one thread on which [all] the various thoughts are strung”.<br>
<br>
Since the appearance or seeming existence of objects depends upon our present false awareness of ourself as ‘I am this body’, their appearance is just a mental construct, so according to Bhagavan all objects, forms or phenomena are just thoughts, meaning that they are all just mental impressions or mental phenomena. Since they seem to exist only in the view of ourself as ego, ego is the one thread on which their seeming existence is strung, like the thread that binds flowers together to form a garland, or the string that links gems together to form a necklace.<br>
<br>
<a name="un09"></a><b>5. <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i> verse 9: the triad of knower, knowing and known depends upon the knower, namely ego, which will cease to exist as such when it knows what it actually is</b><br>
<br>
All our knowledge of anything other than ourself entails these two factors: the subject or knower (<i>pramātā</i>), namely ourself as ego, which is what is always aware of itself as ‘I am this body’, and the object or what is known (<i>pramēya</i>). However, there is also one other factor that is required for us to know anything other than ourself, namely a means of knowing (<i>pramāṇa</i>), such as seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, feeling, perceiving, experiencing, remembering, understanding, inferring or believing any testimony that we suppose to be reliable. Between these three factors, which are called <i>tripuṭī</i> in Sanskrit and <i>muppuḍi</i> in Tamil, there is a chain of dependency, because without a means of knowing there could not be anything known, and without a knower there could not be either a means of knowing or anything known, so the first link in the chain is the knower, the second is the means of knowing and the third is whatever is known, the latter being what the knower knows by any appropriate means of knowing. Of these three factors, therefore, the most fundamental is the knower, and on it the other two factors depend, as Bhagavan points out in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un09">verse 9</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>:<br>
<blockquote>இரட்டைகண் முப்புடிக ளென்றுமொன்று பற்றி<br>
யிருப்பவா மவ்வொன்றே தென்று — கருத்தினுட்<br>
கண்டாற் கழலுமவை கண்டவ ரேயுண்மை<br>
கண்டார் கலங்காரே காண்.<br>
<br>
<i>iraṭṭaigaṇ muppuḍiga ḷeṉḏṟumoṉḏṟu paṯṟi<br>
yiruppavā mavvoṉḏṟē teṉḏṟu — karuttiṉuṭ<br>
kaṇḍāṯ kaṙalumavai kaṇḍava rēyuṇmai<br>
kaṇḍār kalaṅgārē kāṇ</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> இரட்டைகள் முப்புடிகள் என்றும் ஒன்று பற்றி இருப்பவாம். அவ் ஒன்று ஏது என்று கருத்தின் உள் கண்டால், கழலும் அவை. கண்டவரே உண்மை கண்டார்; கலங்காரே. காண்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>iraṭṭaigaḷ muppuḍigaḷ eṉḏṟum oṉḏṟu paṯṟi iruppavām. a-vv-oṉḏṟu ēdu eṉḏṟu karuttiṉ-uḷ kaṇḍāl, kaṙalum avai. kaṇḍavarē uṇmai kaṇḍār; kalaṅgārē. kāṇ</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>அன்வயம்:</b> இரட்டைகள் முப்புடிகள் என்றும் ஒன்று பற்றி இருப்பவாம். அவ் ஒன்று ஏது என்று கருத்தின் உள் கண்டால், அவை கழலும். கண்டவரே உண்மை கண்டார்; கலங்காரே. காண்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Anvayam</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>iraṭṭaigaḷ muppuḍigaḷ eṉḏṟum oṉḏṟu paṯṟi iruppavām. a-vv-oṉḏṟu ēdu eṉḏṟu karuttiṉ-uḷ kaṇḍāl, avai kaṙalum. kaṇḍavarē uṇmai kaṇḍār; kalaṅgārē. kāṇ</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Dyads and triads exist always holding one thing. If one sees within the mind what that one thing is, they will slip off. Only those who have seen have seen the reality. They will not be confused. See.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Dyads [pairs of opposites, such as existence and non-existence, life and death, awareness and non-awareness, knowledge and ignorance, happiness and unhappiness, good and bad, liberation and bondage] and triads [the <i>tripuṭī</i> or three factors of transitive knowledge or awareness, namely <i>jñātā</i> or <i>pramātā</i> (the knower or subject, namely ego), <i>jñāna</i> or <i>pramāṇa</i> (knowing or the means of knowing, such as seeing, hearing, perceiving, experiencing, inferring or believing reliable testimony) and <i>jñēya</i> or <i>pramēya</i> (whatever is known, namely objects, phenomena, facts, theories and so on)] exist [by] always holding [or depending on] one thing [namely ego, the knower, 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 slip off [run away or disappear] [implying that they will cease to exist, because their support and foundation, namely 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. They will not be confused [by ever again seeing anything else at all]. See [what is real in this way by seeing within the mind what that one thing is that rises as ‘I’ to know all other things].</blockquote>
What he refers to here as இரட்டைகள் (<i>iraṭṭaigaḷ</i>), ‘pairs’ or ‘dyads’, are pairs of opposites, such as existence and non-existence, life and death, awareness and non-awareness, knowledge and ignorance, happiness and unhappiness, good and bad, or liberation and bondage, and since these are all <i>pramēya</i> (things that are known), they are included among the third of the three factors that constitute <i>tripuṭī</i>, which are what he refers to here as முப்புடிகள் (<i>muppuḍigaḷ</i>), ‘triads’ or the trio of knower, knowing and known. As I explained above, all means of knowing and everything that is known depends on the knower, because without the knower there could not be either any means of knowing or anything known, and the knower of all things other than ourself is only ourself as ego. Therefore in the first sentence of this verse, ‘இரட்டைகள் முப்புடிகள் என்றும் ஒன்று பற்றி இருப்பவாம்’ (<i>iraṭṭaigaḷ muppuḍigaḷ eṉḏṟum oṉḏṟu paṯṟi iruppavām</i>), ‘Dyads and triads exist always holding one thing’, what he refers to as ஒன்று (<i>oṉḏṟu</i>), ‘one thing’ or ‘the one’, is ourself as ego.<br>
<br>
We seem to be ego only so long as we are attending to anything other than ourself, so if, instead of attending to anything else, we keenly attend to ourself alone, we as ego will subside and dissolve back into the source from which we arose, namely ourself as pure awareness, and since ego is the one thing on which the entire structure of dyads and triads is built, they too will cease to exist along with ego, as Bhagavan implies in the second sentence of this verse: ‘அவ் ஒன்று ஏது என்று கருத்தின் உள் கண்டால், கழலும் அவை’ (<i>a-vv-oṉḏṟu ēdu eṉḏṟu karuttiṉ-uḷ kaṇḍāl, kaṙalum avai</i>), ‘If one sees within the mind what that one thing is, they will slip off’.<br>
<br>
Only when we have thus seen the cessation (or to be more precise, the non-existence) of all dyads and triads have we seen what alone is real, namely ourself as pure awareness, and having thus seen ourself as we actually are, we will never be confused by seeing anything else at all, as he implies in the final sentences of this verse: ‘கண்டவரே உண்மை கண்டார்; கலங்காரே. காண்’ (<i>kaṇḍavarē uṇmai kaṇḍār; kalaṅgārē. kāṇ</i>), ‘Only those who have seen have seen the reality. They will not be confused. See’.<br>
<br>
In this context ‘கண்டவரே’ (<i>kaṇḍavarē</i>), ‘only those who have seen’, can be interpreted in two slightly different but complementary ways. Either we can take it to mean only those who have seen within the mind what that one thing (namely ego) is, in which case ‘கண்டவரே உண்மை கண்டார்’ (<i>kaṇḍavarē uṇmai kaṇḍār</i>), ‘Only those who have seen have seen the reality’, would imply that those who have seen what ego actually is have seen that it is just pure awareness, which alone is what is real. Or we can take it to mean only those who have seen what remains when dyads and triads have slipped off, in which case this sentence would imply that those who have seen what remains when they have slipped off have seen that it is just pure awareness, which alone is what is real.<br>
<br>
Whereas knowledge of anything other than ourself entails this triad of knower, means of knowing and whatever is known, knowledge of ourself entails no such triad but only one thing, namely ourself, because in self-knowledge we alone are not only both what knows and what is known but also the means of knowing, since what we actually are is just pure awareness, and pure awareness knows itself just by being itself. Since we are always ourself and never anything other than ourself, we always know ourself and are never ignorant of ourself.<br>
<br>
<a name="unrealise"></a><b>6. We do not need to realise what is real, but only to unrealise what is unreal, meaning that we do not need to gain any new knowledge but just to relinquish all wrong knowledge</b><br>
<br>
Why then is it said that as ego we are ignorant of ourself and therefore need to achieve knowledge of ourself: <i>ātma-jñāna</i> or <i>ātma-vidyā</i>? What is called self-ignorance, <i>ajñāna</i> or <i>avidyā</i>, is not actually an absence or lack of self-knowledge, but only a distortion of self-knowledge, because though we always know ourself, we now know ourself as if we were something other than what we actually are, namely a body consisting of five sheaths, all of which are <i>jaḍa</i> (non-aware). This is why Bhagavan taught us that <i>ajñāna</i> or <i>avidyā</i> (ignorance in the sense of self-ignorance) is nothing other than ego, the false awareness that is always aware of itself as ‘I am this body’.<br>
<br>
True self-knowledge (<i>ātma-jñāna</i> or <i>ātma-vidyā</i>) is just our fundamental awareness of our own existence, ‘I am’, so since self-ignorance (<i>ajñāna</i> or <i>avidyā</i>) is just the false awareness ‘I am this body’, even when we are self-ignorant we do not cease to know ourself. Therefore, in order to know ourself as we actually are, we do not need to acquire any knowledge that we do not already possess, but just need to get rid of the wrong knowledge (or false awareness) ‘I am this body’, which we as ego have now superimposed upon our ever-shining correct knowledge (or real awareness) ‘I am’.<br>
<br>
As Bhagavan sometimes used to say humorously when pointing out that the popular English term ‘self-realisation’ is actually a misnomer: we ourself are always real, so there is no need for us to realise ourself; the problem is that we have now realised what is unreal, namely the body and world, so all that is required is for us to unrealise the unreal, and then what is real alone will remain existing and shining as it always is.<br>
<br>
<a name="un09a"></a>So how can we unrealise the unreal? The unreal seems to be real only because we give it a semblance of reality by attending to it, so to unrealise it all we need to do is to attend only to what is actually real, namely ourself as the pure awareness ‘I am’. In other words, the unreal seems to be clinging to us only because we are clinging to it, so if we cling only to ourself and thereby cease clinging to anything else at all, everything else will drop off and we alone will remain shining just as ‘I am’, as we always actually are. This is what he implies in the second sentence of the above verse (verse 9 of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>): ‘அவ் ஒன்று ஏது என்று கருத்தின் உள் கண்டால், கழலும் அவை’ (<i>a-vv-oṉḏṟu ēdu eṉḏṟu karuttiṉ-uḷ kaṇḍāl, kaṙalum avai</i>), ‘If one sees within the mind what that one thing [namely ego] is, they [namely the dyads and triads] will slip off’.<br>
<br>
<a name="av1"></a>Attending to anything other than ourself is what is called thinking or mental activity (<i>citta-vṛtti</i>), so what is called ‘thought’ is just attention to and consequent awareness of anything other than ourself. So long as we allow our attention to move away from ourself towards anything else, that outward-going movement (<i>pravṛtti</i>) of our attention is what gives rise to the appearance or seeming existence of all other things, so as long as we continue indulging ourself in attending to anything other than ourself we are perpetuating the seeming existence and reality of such things. Therefore if we attend only to ourself and thereby put an end to all thinking, the appearance and seeming reality of all other things will be dissolved along with all the thoughts that it consists of, as Bhagavan implied in the first two sentences of the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/02/anma-viddai-verse-1-thought-is-what.html">first verse</a> of <i>Āṉma-Viddai</i>: ‘மெய் ஆய் நிரந்தரம் தான் ஐயாது இருந்திடவும், பொய் ஆம் உடம்பு உலகம் மெய்யா முளைத்து எழும். பொய் மை ஆர் நினைவு அணுவும் உய்யாது ஒடுக்கிடவே, மெய் ஆர் இதய வெளி வெய்யோன் சுயம் ஆன்மா விளங்குமே’ (<i>mey āy nirantaram tāṉ aiyādu irundiḍavum, poy ām uḍambu ulaham meyyā muḷaittu eṙum. poy mai ār niṉaivu aṇuvum uyyādu oḍukkiḍavē, mey ār idaya veḷi veyyōṉ suyam āṉmā viḷaṅgumē</i>), ‘Though oneself incessantly and indubitably exists as real, the body and world, which are unreal, arise sprouting as real. When thought, which is composed of unreal darkness, is dissolved in such a manner that it does not revive even an iota, in the heart-space, which is real, oneself, the sun, will shine by oneself’. Therefore we can unrealise the unreal only by attending to what alone is actually real, namely our own existence, ‘I am’, the bright sun of pure awareness, which is the infinite space called ‘heart’.<br>
<br>
<a name="un10"></a><b>7. <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i> verse 10: real awareness is only awareness that is aware of ourself as we actually are, which is the reality of ego, the one to whom all knowledge and ignorance about other things appear</b><br>
<br>
Since self-ignorance (<i>avidyā</i>) is not an absence of the one real knowledge, ‘I am’, but just a seeming distortion of it, it is not actually ignorance but just an erroneous knowledge or false awareness. Self-knowledge and self-ignorance are therefore not a dyad or pair of opposites, because even in the midst of self-ignorance self-knowledge continues to shine as ‘I am’, albeit seemingly (in the view of ourself as ego) mixed and conflated with adjuncts as ‘I am this body’, so self-knowledge exists and shines eternally, independent of and untouched by the appearance or disappearance of self-ignorance. Hence, when Bhagavan talks about the dyad of knowledge and ignorance in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un10">verse 10</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>, the knowledge and ignorance he is referring to is not knowledge and ignorance of ourself but only knowledge and ignorance of other things:<br>
<blockquote>அறியாமை விட்டறிவின் றாமறிவு விட்டவ்<br>
வறியாமை யின்றாகு மந்த — வறிவு<br>
மறியா மையுமார்க்கென் றம்முதலாந் தன்னை<br>
யறியு மறிவே யறிவு.<br>
<br>
<i>aṟiyāmai viṭṭaṟiviṉ ḏṟāmaṟivu viṭṭav<br>
vaṟiyāmai yiṉḏṟāhu manda — vaṟivu<br>
maṟiyā maiyumārkkeṉ ḏṟammudalān taṉṉai<br>
yaṟiyu maṟivē yaṟivu</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> அறியாமை விட்டு, அறிவு இன்று ஆம்; அறிவு விட்டு, அவ் அறியாமை இன்று ஆகும். அந்த அறிவும் அறியாமையும் ஆர்க்கு என்று அம் முதல் ஆம் தன்னை அறியும் அறிவே அறிவு.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>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</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> 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.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> 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 [or for whom] are that knowledge and ignorance [of other things], is [real] knowledge [or awareness].</blockquote>
Any state in which we are aware of phenomena (anything other than ourself) is just a dream, and whatever phenomena we are aware of in a dream do not exist independent of our awareness of them. Since they appear and disappear in our awareness, phenomena are just a temporary appearance, so our knowledge or awareness of them is always preceded and followed by ignorance or non-awareness of them. Therefore knowledge of anything other than ourself cannot exist without prior and subsequent ignorance of it, as Bhagavan implies in the first sentence of this verse: ‘அறியாமை விட்டு, அறிவு இன்று ஆம்’ (<i>aṟiyāmai viṭṭu, aṟivu iṉḏṟu ām</i>), ‘Leaving [or without] ignorance, knowledge does not exist’.<br>
<br>
Since nothing exists except in our awareness, any particular thing exists (or to be more precise, seems to exist) only so long as we are aware of it in some way or other (whether directly by perceiving it or indirectly by remembering it, inferring it, supposing it, imagining it or knowing about it in any other way such as by belief or hearsay), and hence it does not exist at all before we become aware of it or after we cease to be aware of it. Therefore, since we cannot be said to be ignorant of something that does not exist, our prior and subsequent ignorance of something exists only so long as we know or are aware of that thing, as Bhagavan implies in the second sentence of this verse: ‘அறிவு விட்டு, அவ் அறியாமை இன்று ஆகும்’ (<i>aṟivu viṭṭu, a-vv-aṟiyāmai iṉḏṟu āhum</i>), ‘Leaving [or without] knowledge, that ignorance does not exist’.<br>
<br>
To whom do all such knowledge and ignorance appear? In other words, in whose view do they seem to exist? Only in the view of ourself as ego, because it is only when we rise and stand as ego, namely in waking or dream, that knowledge and ignorance of anything other than ourself seem to exist. When we do not rise or stand as ego, such as in sleep, neither knowledge nor ignorance of anything else seems to exist at all. Our supposed ignorance or non-awareness of all other things in sleep seems to exist only from the perspective of ourself as ego in waking and dream, because while we are actually asleep or in any other state of <i>manōlaya</i> (temporary dissolution of mind), nothing else seems to exist either for us to know or to be ignorant of.<br>
<br>
We seem to be ego only so long as we are aware of anything other than ourself, so if instead of attending to anything else we attend only to ourself, who now seems to be ego, we will thereby subside and dissolve back into the source from which we arose, namely ourself as pure awareness, and what will then remain shining all alone is only ourself as pure awareness, namely the adjunct-free awareness ‘I am’, which is what we always actually are. Being aware of ourself thus as just pure awareness is alone real awareness or true knowledge, as Bhagavan points out in the final sentence of this verse: ‘அந்த அறிவும் அறியாமையும் ஆர்க்கு என்று அம் முதல் ஆம் தன்னை அறியும் அறிவே அறிவு’ (<i>anda aṟivum aṟiyāmaiyum ārkku eṉḏṟu a-m-mudal ām taṉṉai aṟiyum aṟivē aṟivu</i>), ‘Only the knowledge [or awareness] that knows [the reality of] oneself, who is the first, as to whom are that knowledge and ignorance, is knowledge [or awareness]’. What he implies by saying this is that real awareness is only awareness that is aware of ourself as we actually are, namely as pure awareness, which is the reality of ego, who is the first thing to arise, and that we can be aware of ourself thus only by investigating ego, who is the one to whom all knowledge and ignorance about other things appears.<br>
<br>
<a name="un11"></a><b>8. <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i> verse 11: when we know ourself as we actually are, knowledge and ignorance about everything else will cease to exist</b><br>
<br>
Since being aware of ourself alone is real awareness, being aware of anything else is not real awareness but only ignorance, as Bhagavan says explicitly in the next verse, namely <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un11">verse 11</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>:<br>
<blockquote>அறிவுறுந் தன்னை யறியா தயலை<br>
யறிவ தறியாமை யன்றி — யறிவோ<br>
வறிவயற் காதாரத் தன்னை யறிய<br>
வறிவறி யாமை யறும்.<br>
<br>
<i>aṟivuṟun taṉṉai yaṟiyā dayalai<br>
yaṟiva daṟiyāmai yaṉḏṟi — yaṟivō<br>
vaṟivayaṟ kādhārat taṉṉai yaṟiya<br>
vaṟivaṟi yāmai yaṟum</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> அறிவு உறும் தன்னை அறியாது அயலை அறிவது அறியாமை; அன்றி அறிவோ? அறிவு அயற்கு ஆதார தன்னை அறிய, அறிவு அறியாமை அறும்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>aṟivu-uṟum taṉṉai aṟiyādu ayalai aṟivadu aṟiyāmai; aṉḏṟi aṟivō? aṟivu ayaṟku ādhāra taṉṉai aṟiya, aṟivu aṟiyāmai aṟum</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> 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.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> 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 <i>ādhāra</i> [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].</blockquote>
The full force and implication of the conjunction அன்றி (<i>aṉḏṟi</i>), which means ‘besides’, ‘except’ or in some cases ‘but only’, is often difficult to convey in English, particularly when it is used in an interrogative sentence such as ‘அன்றி அறிவோ?’ (<i>aṉḏṟi aṟivō?</i>), ‘besides, is it knowledge?’. In this case, when Bhagavan says ‘அயலை அறிவது அறியாமை; அன்றி அறிவோ?’ (<i>ayalai aṟivadu aṟiyāmai; aṉḏṟi aṟivō?</i>), ‘knowing other things is ignorance; besides, is it knowledge?’, what he clearly and emphatically implies is that knowing other things is not knowledge but only ignorance.<br>
<br>
<a name="ny07"></a><a name="un13a"></a>Why does he say this? The reason is simple. As he says in the first sentence of the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para07">seventh paragraph</a> of <i>Nāṉ Ār?</i>, ‘யதார்த்தமா யுள்ளது ஆத்மசொரூப மொன்றே’ (<i>yathārtham-āy uḷḷadu ātma-sorūpam oṉḏṟē</i>), ‘What actually exists is only <i>ātma-svarūpa</i> [the real nature (<i>svarūpa</i>) of oneself (<i>ātman</i>)]’, and in the first sentence of <a href="#un13">verse 13</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>, ‘ஞானம் ஆம் தானே மெய்’ (<i>ñāṉam ām tāṉē mey</i>), ‘Oneself, who is <i>jñāna</i> [pure awareness], alone is real’, so nothing other than ourself is real. Though other things seem to exist when we are aware of them, they do not actually exist, so they are just an illusory appearance, and hence being aware of them is not real knowledge but only ignorance.<br>
<br>
Though he qualifies this statement that knowing other things is ignorance by adding before it an adverbial clause, ‘அறிவு உறும் தன்னை அறியாது’ (<i>aṟivu-uṟum taṉṉai aṟiyādu</i>), ‘not knowing oneself, who knows’, which implies ‘not knowing ourself as we actually are, which is the reality of ourself as ego, who is what knows all other things’, this is not intended to limit the meaning of the main statement but to enhance it by contrasting our abundant knowledge of other things with the sad fact that we do not even know what we ourself actually are. That is, ‘அறிவு உறும் தன்னை அறியாது, அயலை அறிவது அறியாமை’ (<i>aṟivu-uṟum taṉṉai aṟiyādu, ayalai aṟivadu aṟiyāmai</i>), ‘Not knowing oneself, who knows, knowing other things is ignorance’, does not imply that knowing other things is ignorance only if we do not know ourself, because we know other things only when (and because) we do not know ourself as we actually are.<br>
<br>
To clarify and emphasise this, in the next sentence he points out that knowledge and ignorance about everything other than ourself will cease to exist when we know ourself as we actually are, thereby implying that we seem to have knowledge and ignorance about other things only because we do not know what we ourself actually are: ‘அறிவு அயற்கு ஆதார தன்னை அறிய, அறிவு அறியாமை அறும்’ (<i>aṟivu ayaṟku ādhāra taṉṉai aṟiya, aṟivu aṟiyāmai aṟum</i>), ‘When one knows oneself, the support for knowledge and the other, knowledge and ignorance will cease’.<br>
<br>
‘அறிவு அயற்கு ஆதாரம்’ (<i>aṟivu ayaṟku ādhāram</i>), ‘the support for knowledge and the other [namely ignorance]’, is ego, because it is only in the view of ourself as ego that knowledge and ignorance about other things seem to exist, so when he says ‘அறிவு அயற்கு ஆதார தன்னை அறிய’ (<i>aṟivu ayaṟku ādhāra taṉṉai aṟiya</i>), ‘when one knows oneself, the support for knowledge and the other’, what he implies is ‘When one knows the reality of ego, who is the support for knowledge and ignorance’. We seem to be ego only so long as we are not aware of ourself as we actually are, so when we know what we actually are ego will cease to exist, and since ego is the <i>ādhāra</i> (support, foundation, ground or container) for knowledge and ignorance about all other things, when it ceases to exist they will cease along with it, as he says in the final clause of this sentence: ‘அறிவு அறியாமை அறும்’ (<i>aṟivu aṟiyāmai aṟum</i>), ‘knowledge and ignorance will cease’.<br>
<br>
<a name="un12"></a><b>9. <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i> verse 12: since we as we actually are shine without any other thing to know, we alone are real awareness</b><br>
<br>
Therefore real awareness is only pure awareness, which means awareness that is completely devoid of even the slightest knowledge or ignorance of anything other than itself, because nothing other than itself actually exists for it either to know or to not know, as Bhagavan clearly implies in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un12">verse 12</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>:<br>
<blockquote>அறிவறி யாமையு மற்றதறி வாமே<br>
யறியும துண்மையறி வாகா — தறிதற்<br>
கறிவித்தற் கன்னியமின் றாயவிர்வ தாற்றா<br>
னறிவாகும் பாழன் றறி.<br>
<br>
<i>aṟivaṟi yāmaiyu maṯṟadaṟi vāmē<br>
yaṟiyuma duṇmaiyaṟi vāhā — daṟitaṟ<br>
kaṟivittaṟ kaṉṉiyamiṉ ḏṟāyavirva dāṯṟā<br>
ṉaṟivāhum pāṙaṉ ḏṟaṟi</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> அறிவு அறியாமையும் அற்றது அறிவு ஆமே. அறியும் அது உண்மை அறிவு ஆகாது. அறிதற்கு அறிவித்தற்கு அன்னியம் இன்றாய் அவிர்வதால், தான் அறிவு ஆகும். பாழ் அன்று. அறி.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>aṟivu aṟiyāmaiyum aṯṟadu aṟivu āmē. aṟiyum adu uṇmai aṟivu āhādu. aṟidaṟku aṟivittaṟku aṉṉiyam iṉḏṟāy avirvadāl, tāṉ aṟivu āhum. pāṙ aṉḏṟu. aṟi</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> 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.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> What is devoid of knowledge and ignorance [about anything other than itself] is actually <i>aṟivu</i> [knowledge or awareness]. That which knows [or is aware of] [anything other than itself] [namely ego] is not real <i>aṟivu</i> [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] <i>aṟivu</i> [knowledge or awareness]. One is not void [emptiness, desolation, nothingness or non-existence]. Know [or be aware].</blockquote>
Since ego is just a false awareness of ourself (an awareness of ourself as something other than what we actually are), it will cease to exist when we are aware of ourself as we actually are, and since it is the <i>ādhāra</i> or support for both knowledge and ignorance about all other things, when it ceases to exist they will cease along with it. What will then remain is only pure awareness, which is awareness that is therefore completely devoid of both knowledge and ignorance about all other things, and this alone is real awareness or true knowledge, as he implies in the first sentence of this verse: ‘அறிவு அறியாமையும் அற்றது அறிவு ஆமே’ (<i>aṟivu aṟiyāmaiyum aṯṟadu aṟivu āmē</i>), ‘What is devoid of <i>aṟivu</i> [knowledge] and <i>aṟiyāmai</i> [ignorance] is actually <i>aṟivu</i> [knowledge or awareness]’.<br>
<br>
As he said in the previous verse, knowing or being aware of anything other than ourself is not real knowledge or awareness but only ignorance. From this we can infer that ego, which alone is what knows or is aware of all other things, is likewise not real awareness (<i>cit</i>) but only a semblance of awareness (<a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2018/05/the-ego-is-sole-cause-creator-source.html#cidabhasa"><i>cidābhāsa</i></a>), as he implies in the second sentence of this verse: ‘அறியும் அது உண்மை அறிவு ஆகாது’ (<i>aṟiyum adu uṇmai aṟivu āhādu</i>), ‘That which knows [or is aware of] [anything other than itself] is not real <i>aṟivu</i> [knowledge or awareness]’.<br>
<br>
Therefore, since real awareness is not what knows or is aware of anything other than itself, it must be what knows or is aware of nothing other than itself, and this is what he implies in the third sentence of this verse: ‘அறிதற்கு அறிவித்தற்கு அன்னியம் இன்றாய் அவிர்வதால், தான் அறிவு ஆகும்’ (<i>aṟidaṟku aṟivittaṟku aṉṉiyam iṉḏṟāy avirvadāl, tāṉ aṟivu āhum</i>), ‘Since [the real nature of oneself] shines without another for knowing or for causing to know [or causing to be known], oneself is [real] <i>aṟivu</i> [knowledge or awareness]’. That is, in the clear view of ourself as we actually are, nothing other than ourself exists for us to know, cause to know or cause to be known, so we alone exist and shine without even the slightest trace of any knowledge or ignorance of anything else, and hence we alone are real awareness.<br>
<br>
<a name="uu27"></a><b>10. <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> verse 27: real awareness is devoid of both knowledge and ignorance of anything other than itself, because there is nothing other than itself for it either to know or to not know</b><br>
<br>
The fact that real awareness is devoid of both knowledge and ignorance of anything other than itself, because there is nothing other than itself for it either to know or to not know, is also stated by Bhagavan in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu27">verse 27</a> of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i>:<br>
<blockquote>அறிவறி யாமையு மற்ற வறிவே<br>
யறிவாகு முண்மையீ துந்தீபற<br>
வறிவதற் கொன்றிலை யுந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>aṟivaṟi yāmaiyu maṯṟa vaṟivē<br>
yaṟivāhu muṇmaiyī dundīpaṟa<br>
vaṟivadaṟ koṉḏṟilai yundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> அறிவு அறியாமையும் அற்ற அறிவே அறிவு ஆகும். உண்மை ஈது. அறிவதற்கு ஒன்று இலை.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>aṟivu aṟiyāmai-y-um aṯṟa aṟivē aṟivu āhum. uṇmai īdu. aṟivadaṟku oṉḏṟu ilai</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>அன்வயம்:</b> அறிவு அறியாமையும் அற்ற அறிவே அறிவு ஆகும். ஈது உண்மை. அறிவதற்கு ஒன்று இலை.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Anvayam</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>aṟivu aṟiyāmai-y-um aṯṟa aṟivē aṟivu āhum. īdu uṇmai. aṟivadaṟku oṉḏṟu ilai</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Only knowledge that is devoid of knowledge and ignorance is knowledge. This is real. There is not anything for knowing.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Only knowledge [in the sense of awareness] that is devoid of knowledge and ignorance [of anything other than oneself] is [real] knowledge [or awareness]. This [alone] is [what is] real [or true], [because in the clear view of oneself as pure awareness] there is not anything [other than oneself for one either] to know [or to not know].</blockquote>
What we actually are is only pure awareness, in the clear view of which there is nothing else for us either to know or not know, so as such we are devoid not only of any knowledge or awareness of anything other than ourself but also of any ignorance of any such thing. Therefore pure awareness alone is real awareness. Being aware of anything other than ourself is not real awareness but only ignorance, because nothing other than ourself actually exists, so when we know anything else, what we are knowing is only a mental fabrication (<i>kalpanā</i>), just like everything we know in a dream.<br>
<br>
<a name="un12a"></a><b>11. Though the real awareness that we actually are is completely devoid of both knowledge and ignorance of any other thing, it is not a void (<i>śūnya</i>) but infinitely full (<i>pūrṇa</i>), being the fullness of <i>sat-cit-ānanda</i></b><br>
<br>
Since real awareness is thus completely devoid of even the slightest knowledge or ignorance of anything else, in some philosophical systems, such as certain forms of Buddhism, it is said to be <i>śūnya</i> (empty, void or non-existent), but Bhagavan repudiates this idea by saying in the fourth sentence of <a href="#un12">verse 12</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>, ‘பாழ் அன்று’ (<i>pāṙ aṉḏṟu</i>), ‘It is not <i>pāṙ</i> [emptiness, voidness, barrenness, desolation, nothingness or non-existence]’, thereby implying that though what we actually are is awareness that is completely devoid of even the slightest awareness or ignorance of anything else whatsoever, we are not therefore a void, because we are the only thing that actually exists, so we are the one infinite whole or <i>pūrṇa</i>, the fullness of <i>sat-cit-ānanda</i>: pure existence (<i>sat</i>), pure awareness (<i>cit</i>) and pure happiness (<i>ānanda</i>).<br>
<br>
That is, emptiness (<i>śūnyatā</i>) is an inherently dualistic concept, because a thing can be said to be empty or void only if there is something other than itself that it does not contain, so since other things seem to exist only in the view of ourself as ego, it is only from the perspective of ego that awareness devoid of knowledge and ignorance of all other things seems to be emptiness or a void. In the clear view of ourself as we actually are, however, what actually exists is only ourself as pure awareness, so nothing other than ourself exists at all, and hence there can be no such thing as <i>śūnyatā</i>: emptiness, voidness or nothingness.<br>
<br>
Moreover, <i>śūnya</i> means not only ‘empty’ or ‘void’ but also ‘non-existent’, so the one real awareness that we actually are is not <i>śūnya</i> not only in the sense of ‘empty’ or ‘void’ but also in the sense of ‘non-existent’, because it alone is what actually exists, so it is <i>uḷḷadu</i> (what exists) or <i>sat</i> (pure existence), and hence it is the very antithesis of non-existence, and could never become non-existent.<br>
<br>
<a name="un13"></a><b>12. <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i> verse 13: being aware of many things is ignorance, which is unreal, but even this ignorance does not exist except as ourself, the one real awareness</b><br>
<br>
To emphasise the fact that nothing other than ourself actually exists, so there is nothing of which we could ever be empty, he begins the next verse, namely <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un13">verse 13</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>, by saying ‘ஞானம் ஆம் தானே மெய்’ (<i>ñāṉam ām tāṉē mey</i>), ‘Oneself, who is <i>jñāna</i> [pure awareness], alone is real’:<br>
<blockquote>ஞானமாந் தானேமெய் நானாவா ஞானமஞ்<br>
ஞானமாம் பொய்யாமஞ் ஞானமுமே — ஞானமாந்<br>
தன்னையன்றி யின்றணிக டாம்பலவும் பொய்மெய்யாம்<br>
பொன்னையன்றி யுண்டோ புகல்.<br>
<br>
<i>ñāṉamān tāṉēmey nāṉāvā ñāṉamañ<br>
ñāṉamām poyyāmañ ñāṉamumē — ñāṉamān<br>
taṉṉaiyaṉḏṟi yiṉḏṟaṇiga ḍāmpalavum poymeyyām<br>
poṉṉaiyaṉḏṟi yuṇḍō puhal</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> 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.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>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</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> 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; do they exist except as gold, which is real? Say.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Oneself, who is <i>jñāna</i> [knowledge or awareness], alone is real. Awareness that is manifold [namely the mind, whose root, namely ego, is the awareness that sees the one as many] is <i>ajñāna</i> [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; do they exist except as gold, which is real? Say. [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.]</blockquote>
What he means by ‘real’ (<i>mey</i>) is what actually exists, and what he means by ‘unreal’ (<i>poy</i>) is what does not actually exist even if it seems to exist. What actually exists is only ourself as pure awareness (<i>jñāna</i>), as he points out in the first sentence of this verse: ‘ஞானம் ஆம் தானே மெய்’ (<i>ñāṉam ām tāṉē mey</i>), ‘Oneself, who is <i>jñāna</i>, alone is real’.<br>
<br>
Since we alone are what actually exists, knowing anything other than ourself is knowing what does not actually exist as if it does exist, so it is not real awareness or true knowledge but only ignorance, as he implies in the second sentence of this verse: ‘நானாவாம் ஞானம் அஞ்ஞானம் ஆம்’ (<i>nāṉā-v-ām ñāṉam aññāṉam ām</i>), ‘<i>jñāna</i> [awareness or knowledge] that is <i>nānā</i> [manifold, diverse, various or different] is <i>ajñāna</i> [ignorance]’. Since we alone exist, there is nothing other than ourself for us to know, so when we know what seem to be other things, it is ourself alone that we are knowing as all those other things. In other words, we, the one awareness, seemingly become a subject knowing ourself as many objects, so this seeming division of ourself into a subject and many diverse objects or phenomena is what Bhagavan describes here as ‘நானாவாம் ஞானம்’ (<i>nāṉā-v-ām ñāṉam</i>), ‘awareness that is <i>nānā</i> [manifold or diverse]’.<br>
<br>
<a name="ut12"></a>To understand more clearly what he means by ‘நானாவாம் ஞானம்’ (<i>nāṉā-v-ām ñāṉam</i>), ‘awareness that is manifold’, it is helpful to consider how he expressed it in the original version of this verse, which is now <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2018/11/everything-depends-for-its-seeming.html#ut12">verse 12</a> of <i>Upadēśa Taṉippākkaḷ</i>:<br>
<blockquote>ஞானமொன் றேயுண்மை நானாவாய்க் காண்கின்ற<br>
ஞானமன்றி யின்றாமஞ் ஞானந்தான் — ஞானமாந்<br>
தன்னையன்றி யின்றணிக டாம்பலவும் பொய்மெய்யாம்<br>
பொன்னையன்றி யுண்டோ புகல்.<br>
<br>
<i>ñāṉamoṉ ḏṟēyuṇmai nāṉāvāyk kāṇgiṉḏṟa<br>
ñāṉamaṉḏṟi yiṉḏṟāmañ ñāṉandāṉ — ñāṉamān<br>
daṉṉaiyaṉḏṟi yiṉḏṟaṇiga ḍāmbalavum boymeyyām<br>
poṉṉaiyaṉḏṟi yuṇḍō puhal</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> ஞானம் ஒன்றே உண்மை. நானாவாய் காண்கின்ற ஞானம் அன்றி இன்று ஆம் அஞ்ஞானம் தான் ஞானம் ஆம் தன்னை அன்றி இன்று. அணிகள் தாம் பலவும் பொய்; மெய் ஆம் பொன்னை அன்றி உண்டோ? புகல்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>ñāṉam oṉḏṟē uṇmai. nāṉā-v-āy kāṇgiṉḏṟa ñāṉam aṉḏṟi iṉḏṟu ām aññāṉam tāṉ ñāṉam ām taṉṉai aṉḏṟi iṉḏṟu. aṇigaḷ tām palavum poy; mey ām poṉṉai aṉḏṟi uṇḍō? puhal</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Awareness alone is real. Ignorance, which does not exist except as awareness that sees as many, itself does not exist except as oneself, who is awareness. All the many ornaments are unreal; do they exist except as gold, which is real? Say.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> <i>Jñāna</i> [pure awareness] alone is real. <i>Ajñāna</i> [ignorance], which does not exist except as [or is not other than] <i>jñāna</i> [awareness] that sees [the one real <i>jñāna</i>] as <i>nānā</i> [manifold or diverse], itself does not exist except as [besides, apart from or as other than] oneself, who is [real] awareness. All the many ornaments are unreal; do they exist except as gold, which is real? Say.</blockquote>
What he implies by saying ‘நானாவாய் காண்கின்ற ஞானம் அன்றி இன்று ஆம் அஞ்ஞானம்’ (<i>nāṉā-v-āy kāṇgiṉḏṟa ñāṉam aṉḏṟi iṉḏṟu ām aññāṉam</i>), ‘<i>ajñāna</i> [ignorance], which does not exist except as <i>jñāna</i> [awareness] that sees as <i>nānā</i> [manifold or diverse]’, is that <i>ajñāna</i> is nothing other than ego, which is the awareness that sees the one as many. That is, since what actually exists is only one, namely ourself as pure awareness, knowing, seeing or being aware of this one as many is ignorance. In other words, knowing ourself, the one indivisible and immutable pure awareness, which alone is real, as a subject knowing diverse objects or phenomena is the primal ignorance (<i>mūla avidyā</i>), which is the root cause of all other forms of ignorance, so this is what he implies in verse 13 of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i> by saying: ‘நானாவாம் ஞானம் அஞ்ஞானம் ஆம்’ (<i>nāṉā-v-ām ñāṉam aññāṉam ām</i>), ‘awareness that is <i>nānā</i> [manifold or diverse] is <i>ajñāna</i> [ignorance]’.<br>
<br>
Therefore awareness of multiplicity, which means awareness of anything other than ourself, is not real awareness but just ignorance (<i>ajñāna</i>). Though such ignorance does not actually exist, it seems to exist, so what is it that seems to be this ignorance? It cannot be anything other than ourself as pure awareness, because nothing else actually exists, as he implies in the third sentence of this verse: ‘பொய் ஆம் அஞ்ஞானமுமே ஞானம் ஆம் தன்னை அன்றி இன்று’ (<i>poy ām aññāṉamumē ñāṉam ām taṉṉai aṉḏṟi iṉḏṟu</i>), ‘Even ignorance, which is unreal, does not exist except as oneself, who is <i>jñāna</i> [pure awareness]’.<br>
<br>
To explain this, he gives an analogy: ‘அணிகள் தாம் பலவும் பொய்; மெய் ஆம் பொன்னை அன்றி உண்டோ?’ (<i>aṇigaḷ tām palavum poy; mey ām poṉṉai aṉḏṟi uṇḍō?</i>), ‘All the many ornaments are unreal; do they exist except as gold, which is real?’ The reason he says that ornaments are unreal is because they have no existence of their own, since they borrow their seeming existence from the relatively more real existence of gold. In other words, their existence is entirely dependent on the existence of the gold of which they are made. Without that gold, they would not exist, as he implies by asking rhetorically: ‘மெய் ஆம் பொன்னை அன்றி உண்டோ?’ (<i>mey ām poṉṉai aṉḏṟi uṇḍō?</i>), ‘do they exist except as gold, which is real?’<br>
<br>
<a name="uu18"></a>This is the case with all forms, because no form can exist independent of the substance of which it is made, so all forms are unreal. Since all forms exist only in the view of ourself as ego, they are all just mental fabrications, so the substance of which they are all made is mind. The mind consists of two elements, namely the subject and all objects. The subject is ego, the thought called ‘I’, whereas objects are all the other thoughts that constitute the mind. Since all other thoughts are known only by ego, they could not exist independent of ego, so what the mind essentially is is only ego, as Bhagavan points out in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu18">verse 18</a> of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i>: <br>
<blockquote>எண்ணங்க ளேமனம் யாவினு நானெனு<br>
மெண்ணமே மூலமா முந்தீபற<br>
யானா மனமென லுந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>eṇṇaṅga ḷēmaṉam yāviṉu nāṉeṉu<br>
meṇṇamē mūlamā mundīpaṟa<br>
yāṉā maṉameṉa lundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> எண்ணங்களே மனம். யாவினும் நான் எனும் எண்ணமே மூலம் ஆம். யான் ஆம் மனம் எனல்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>eṇṇaṅgaḷ-ē maṉam. yāviṉ-um nāṉ eṉum eṇṇam-ē mūlam ām. yāṉ ām maṉam eṉal</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>அன்வயம்:</b> எண்ணங்களே மனம். யாவினும் நான் எனும் எண்ணமே மூலம் ஆம். மனம் எனல் யான் ஆம்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Anvayam</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>eṇṇaṅgaḷ-ē maṉam. yāviṉ-um nāṉ eṉum eṇṇam-ē mūlam ām. maṉam eṉal yāṉ ām</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Thoughts alone are mind. Of all, the thought called ‘I’ alone is the root. What is called mind is ‘I’. <br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Thoughts alone are mind [or the mind is only thoughts]. Of all [thoughts], the thought called ‘I’ alone is the <i>mūla</i> [the root, base, foundation, origin, source or cause]. [Therefore] what is called mind is [essentially just] ‘I’ [namely ego, the root thought called ‘I’].</blockquote>
<a name="un26"></a>Therefore, since all forms are just thoughts, in the sense that they are just mental impressions, their substance is mind, and the substance of mind is ego, so ego is ultimately the one substance of which all forms are made, as Bhagavan implies when he says ‘அகந்தையே யாவும் ஆம்’ (<i>ahandai-y-ē yāvum ām</i>), ‘Ego itself is everything’, in the third sentence of <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un26">verse 26</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>:<br>
<blockquote>அகந்தையுண் டாயி னனைத்துமுண் டாகு<br>
மகந்தையின் றேலின் றனைத்து — மகந்தையே<br>
யாவுமா மாதலால் யாதிதென்று நாடலே<br>
யோவுதல் யாவுமென வோர்.<br>
<br>
<i>ahandaiyuṇ ḍāyi ṉaṉaittumuṇ ḍāhu<br>
mahandaiyiṉ ḏṟēliṉ ḏṟaṉaittu — mahandaiyē<br>
yāvumā mādalāl yādideṉḏṟu nāḍalē<br>
yōvudal yāvumeṉa vōr</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> அகந்தை உண்டாயின், அனைத்தும் உண்டாகும்; அகந்தை இன்றேல், இன்று அனைத்தும். அகந்தையே யாவும் ஆம். ஆதலால், யாது இது என்று நாடலே ஓவுதல் யாவும் என ஓர்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>ahandai uṇḍāyiṉ, aṉaittum uṇḍāhum; ahandai iṉḏṟēl, iṉḏṟu aṉaittum. ahandai-y-ē yāvum ām. ādalāl, yādu idu eṉḏṟu nāḍal-ē ōvudal yāvum eṉa ōr</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> 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.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> If ego [the false awareness ‘I am this body’] comes into existence, everything [all forms or 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].</blockquote>
<a name="un25"></a>But what is ego? As he says in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un25">verse 25</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>, it is just ‘உருவற்ற பேய்’ (<i>uru-v-aṯṟa pēy</i>), a ‘formless demon [phantom or evil spirit]’. It is formless because it has no form of its own, so it cannot come into existence without grasping a body (in the sense of a form consisting of five sheaths, namely a physical body, life, mind, intellect and will) as if it were itself, and it is a phantom because it has no substance of its own, so it could not seem to exist without borrowing its substance (its existence and its awareness) from the one real substance (<i>vastu</i> or <i>poruḷ</i>), namely pure existence-awareness (<i>sat-cit</i>), which is ourself as we actually are.<br>
<br>
Since ego is what he refers to as ‘நானாவாம் ஞானம்’ (<i>nāṉā-v-ām ñāṉam</i>), ‘awareness that is manifold’, in the second sentence of verse 13 of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>, it is also what he refers to as ‘அஞ்ஞானம்’ (<i>aññāṉam</i>), ‘ignorance’, in the third sentence: ‘பொய் ஆம் அஞ்ஞானமுமே ஞானம் ஆம் தன்னை அன்றி இன்று’ (<i>poy ām aññāṉamumē ñāṉam ām taṉṉai aṉḏṟi iṉḏṟu</i>), ‘Even ignorance, which is unreal, does not exist except as oneself, who is <i>jñāna</i> [pure awareness]’. Therefore what he implies in this sentence is that just as gold ornaments do not exist except as gold, their substance, ego, which is unreal, being just the false awareness that sees the one real substance as many names and forms, does not exist except as our real nature, its substance, which is the one real awareness called <i>sat-cit</i>, which is what shines as our fundamental awareness of our own existence, ‘I am’.<br>
<br>
<a name="un14"></a><b>13. <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i> verse 14: when we as ego investigate our own reality, ego will thereby cease to exist, and all its knowledge of the seeming existence of everything else will cease to exist along with it</b><br>
<br>
<a name="ny05"></a>The real awareness that we actually are is one, infinite and indivisible, so it alone is what actually exists, and hence in its clear view there is nothing other than itself for it to know. However, whenever we rise as ego, we seemingly limit ourself as the form of a body, and hence numerous other things seem to exist, so the one real awareness now seems to have been divided as a subject, namely ego, and numerous objects, namely all other things. Ego, the subject or knower, is the first person, ‘I’, and all other things, which are objects known by ego, are second and third persons. Therefore in the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para05">fifth paragraph</a> of <i>Nāṉ Ār?</i> Bhagavan says, ‘தன்மை தோன்றிய பிறகே முன்னிலை படர்க்கைகள் தோன்றுகின்றன; தன்மை யின்றி முன்னிலை படர்க்கைக ளிரா’ (<i>taṉmai tōṉḏṟiya piṟahē muṉṉilai paḍarkkaigaḷ tōṉḏṟugiṉḏṟaṉa; taṉmai y-iṉḏṟi muṉṉilai paḍarkkaigaḷ irā</i>), ‘Only after the first person [namely ego, the primal thought called ‘I’] appears do second and third persons [namely all other things] appear; without the first person second and third persons do not exist’, and in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un14">verse 14</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i> he says:<br>
<blockquote>தன்மையுண்டேன் முன்னிலைப டர்க்கைக டாமுளவாந்<br>
தன்மையி னுண்மையைத் தானாய்ந்து — தன்மையறின்<br>
முன்னிலைப டர்க்கை முடிவுற்றொன் றாயொளிருந்<br>
தன்மையே தன்னிலைமை தான்.<br>
<br>
<i>taṉmaiyuṇḍēṉ muṉṉilaipa ḍarkkaiga ḍāmuḷavān<br>
taṉmaiyi ṉuṇmaiyait tāṉāyndu — taṉmaiyaṟiṉ<br>
muṉṉilaipa ḍarkkai muḍivuṯṟoṉ ḏṟāyoḷirun<br>
taṉmaiyē taṉṉilaimai tāṉ</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> தன்மை உண்டேல், முன்னிலை படர்க்கைகள் தாம் உள ஆம். தன்மையின் உண்மையை தான் ஆய்ந்து தன்மை அறின், முன்னிலை படர்க்கை முடிவு உற்று, ஒன்றாய் ஒளிரும் தன்மையே தன் நிலைமை தான்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>taṉmai uṇḍēl, muṉṉilai paḍarkkaigaḷ tām uḷa-v-ām. taṉmaiyiṉ uṇmaiyai tāṉ āyndu taṉmai aṟiṉ, muṉṉilai paḍarkkai muḍivu uṯṟu, oṉḏṟāy oḷirum taṉmaiyē taṉ nilaimai tāṉ</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> 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.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> 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.</blockquote>
தன்மை (<i>taṉmai</i>), ‘the first person’, is ego, which is what is always aware of itself as ‘I am this body’, so it is a false awareness of ourself, whereas ‘தன்மையின் உண்மை’ (<i>taṉaiyiṉ uṇmai</i>), ‘the reality of the first person’, is the real awareness ‘I am’, bereft of all adjuncts such as ‘this body’. This real awareness ‘I am’ is what exists and shines as our own existence in all our three states, waking, dream and sleep, but whereas it exists and shines alone in sleep, in waking and dream it seems (in the view of ourself as ego) to be mixed and conflated with adjuncts as ‘I am this body’. However, even when we rise and stand as ego, the first person, and are consequently aware of ourself as ‘I am this body’, we do not cease to be aware ‘I am’, so this fundamental and ever-existing awareness ‘I am’ alone is the reality of ego, the unreal first person or subject.<br>
<br>
Since second and third persons seem to exist only in the view of ourself as this first person, so long as we continue to attend to and know any second or third persons, namely anything other than ourself, we are thereby nourishing and sustaining the seeming existence of ourself as ego, and consequently the seeming existence of all other things, as Bhagavan implies in the first sentence of this verse: ‘தன்மை உண்டேல், முன்னிலை படர்க்கைகள் தாம் உளவாம்’ (<i>taṉmai uṇḍēl, muṉṉilai paḍarkkaigaḷ tām uḷa-v-ām</i>), ‘If the first person exists, second and third persons will exist’.<br>
<br>
However, instead of attending to any second or third persons, if we attend only to our fundamental awareness ‘I am’, which is the sole reality of the first person, this unreal first person, namely ego, will thereby cease to exist, and hence all second or third persons, namely everything other than ourself, will likewise cease to exist, and what will then remain shining as one, undivided by the appearance of these three persons (namely the subject and all objects), is the real nature of ourself, as he explains in the second sentence of this verse: ‘தன்மையின் உண்மையை தான் ஆய்ந்து தன்மை அறின், முன்னிலை படர்க்கை முடிவு உற்று, ஒன்றாய் ஒளிரும் தன்மையே தன் நிலைமை தான்’ (<i>taṉmaiyiṉ uṇmaiyai tāṉ āyndu taṉmai aṟiṉ, muṉṉilai paḍarkkai muḍivu uṯṟu, oṉḏṟāy oḷirum taṉmaiyē taṉ nilaimai tāṉ</i>), ‘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’.<br>
<br>
Therefore, as he implies not only in this verse but in so many other verses of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i> cited above, knowledge or awareness of the seeming existence of anything other than ourself appears only in the view of ourself as ego, the unreal first person, which is what is always aware of itself as ‘I am this body’, and we seem to be ego only when we are not aware of ourself as we actually are, namely <i>sat-cit</i>, the pure existence-awareness ‘I am’, which is the reality of this unreal first person, so when we as ego investigate our own reality and thereby become aware of ourself as we actually are, ego will thereby cease to exist, and all its knowledge of the seeming existence of everything else will cease to exist along with it.<br>
<br>
<a name="knowledge"></a><b>14. Knowledge or awareness of anything other than ourself is not real, because when we know ourself as we actually are, nothing other than ourself exists for us to know</b><br>
<br>
The reason I have discussed all these verses in so much detail here is that they explain exactly why he says and what he implies by saying in the first two sentences of this third verse of <i>Āṉma-Viddai</i>: ‘தன்னை அறிதல் இன்றி, பின்னை எது அறிகில் என்? தன்னை அறிந்திடில், பின் என்னை உளது அறிய?’ (<i>taṉṉai aṟidal iṉḏṟi, piṉṉai edu aṟihil eṉ? taṉṉai aṟindiḍil, piṉ eṉṉai uḷadu aṟiya?</i>), ‘Without knowing oneself, if one knows whatever else, [so] what? If one has known oneself, then what [else] exists to know?’<br>
<br>
<a name="un11a"></a>As he says in the first two lines of <a href="#un11">verse 11</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>, ‘அறிவு உறும் தன்னை அறியாது, அயலை அறிவது அறியாமை; அன்றி அறிவோ?’ (<i>aṟivu-uṟum taṉṉai aṟiyādu, ayalai aṟivadu aṟiyāmai; aṉḏṟi aṟivō?</i>), ‘Not knowing oneself, who knows, knowing other things is ignorance; except [that], is it knowledge?’, because nothing other than ourself actually exists, so all other things are just an illusory appearance. This is why he asks rhetorically in the first sentence of this third verse of <i>Āṉma-Viddai</i>: ‘தன்னை அறிதல் இன்றி, பின்னை எது அறிகில் என்?’ (<i>taṉṉai aṟidal iṉḏṟi, piṉṉai edu aṟihil eṉ?</i>), ‘Without knowing oneself, if one knows whatever else, [so] what?’, thereby implying that knowledge or awareness of anything other than ourself is of no real value or consequence at all, because it is not real, being just a mental fabrication (<i>kalpanā</i>).<br>
<br>
<a name="un11b"></a>And as he says in the last two lines of the same verse (namely verse 11 of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>), ‘அறிவு அயற்கு ஆதார தன்னை அறிய, அறிவு அறியாமை அறும்’ (<i>aṟivu ayaṟku ādhāra taṉṉai aṟiya, aṟivu aṟiyāmai aṟum</i>), ‘When one knows oneself, the support for knowledge and the other [namely ignorance], knowledge and ignorance will cease’, because knowledge and ignorance about everything other than ourself exists only in the view of ourself as ego, and since ego is just a false awareness of ourself (that is, an awareness of ourself as something other than what we actually are), it will cease to exist as soon as we know ourself as we actually are, and hence knowledge and ignorance about everything else will cease to exist along with it. This is why he asks rhetorically in the second sentence of this third verse of <i>Āṉma-Viddai</i>: ‘தன்னை அறிந்திடில், பின் என்னை உளது அறிய?’ (<i>taṉṉai aṟindiḍil, piṉ eṉṉai uḷadu aṟiya?</i>), ‘If one has known oneself, then what [else] exists to know?’, thereby implying that when we know ourself as we actually are, nothing other than ourself exists for us to know.<br>
<br>
<a name="light"></a><b>15. When one knows in oneself that self, which is the light that shines without separation in separate sentient beings, within oneself the shining of oneself alone will flash forth</b><br>
<br>
So long as we are aware of anything other than ourself, there seem to be many different things, some of which seem to be sentient and others of which seem to be insentient, and all these things seem to be separate from each other. However, when we know ourself as we actually are, all separation will disappear, and what will then remain shining is ourself alone, because what seemed to be many different things is only ourself, which is the one infinite and indivisible whole, as Bhagavan implies in the next sentence of this verse: ‘பின்ன உயிர்களில் அபின்ன விளக்கு எனும் அத் தன்னை தனில் உணர, மின்னும் தன் உள் ஆன்ம ப்ரகாசமே’ (<i>bhiṉṉa uyirgaḷil abhiṉṉa viḷakku eṉum a-t-taṉṉai taṉil uṇara, miṉṉum taṉ uḷ āṉma-prakāśamē</i>), ‘When one knows in oneself that self, which is the light [that shines] without separation in separate sentient beings, within oneself the shining of oneself alone will flash forth’.<br>
<br>
பின்னம் (<i>bhinnam</i>) means broken, divided, separated, distinct or different, and அபின்னம் (<i>abhinnam</i>) means the opposite, namely undivided or not separated, so ‘பின்ன உயிர்களில் அபின்ன விளக்கு’ (<i>bhiṉṉa uyirgaḷil abhiṉṉa viḷakku</i>) means ‘the undivided light in separate sentient beings’ or ‘the light [that shines] without separation [or division] in separate sentient beings’, implying the one indivisible light of pure awareness, which shines as ‘I am’ in the heart of every உயிர் (<i>uyir</i>), ‘soul’ or ‘sentient being’. Since we as ego always identify a body as ‘I’, and since we see many other bodies that seem to be as sentient as this body seems to be, in our view each separate body seems to be a separate ‘I’, so it appears to us that there are many distinct ‘I’s. However, what shines as ‘I’ in each living body is only the one real ‘I’, which is indivisible, so it is only because this one ‘I’ seems to be reflected in many separate bodies that it seems as if there were many separate ‘I’s.<br>
<br>
So long as we are aware of ourself as a body, we seem to be separate from every other body, but if we investigate ourself keenly enough we will be aware of ourself as we actually are, namely the one infinite and indivisible light of pure awareness, which is what always shines within ourself as our fundamental awareness of our own existence, ‘I am’. When we thus know ourself as this pure ‘I am’, which is the one infinite and indivisible light of awareness that shines without the slightest division or separation in all the seemingly divided and separate sentient beings, all the seeming divisions and distinctions will be swallowed in the infinite brightness of that light, which will shine forth like a flash of lightening, as Bhagavan implies in this sentence: ‘பின்ன உயிர்களில் அபின்ன விளக்கு எனும் அத் தன்னை தனில் உணர, மின்னும் தன் உள் ஆன்ம ப்ரகாசமே’ (<i>bhiṉṉa uyirgaḷil abhiṉṉa viḷakku eṉum a-t-taṉṉai taṉil uṇara, miṉṉum taṉ uḷ āṉma-prakāśamē</i>), ‘When one knows in oneself that self, which is the undivided light in separate sentient beings, within oneself the shining of oneself alone will flash forth’.<br>
<br>
As he implies by saying ‘அபின்ன விளக்கு எனும் அத் தன்னை’ (<i>abhiṉṉa viḷakku eṉum a-t-taṉṉai</i>), ‘that self, which is the undivided light’, we ourself are the undivided light of pure awareness, so to know that light as it is we need to know ourself as we actually are, and to know ourself as we actually are we need to look deep within ourself, thereby withdrawing our attention from everything else. That is, we who need to know ourself as we actually are are ego, the adjunct-conflated awareness ‘I am this body’, so within this adjunct-conflated awareness we need to know the fundamental awareness ‘I am’, which is what we actually are, and hence this is what he means by saying ‘அத் தன்னை தனில் உணர’ (<i>a-t-taṉṉai taṉil uṇara</i>), ‘When one knows in oneself that self’.<br>
<br>
What he refers to here as ‘ஆன்ம ப்ரகாசம்’ (<i>āṉma-prakāśam</i>), ‘the shining of oneself’, is the same light that he referred to in the previous clause as ‘அபின்ன விளக்கு’ (<i>abhiṉṉa viḷakku</i>), ‘the undivided light’, namely the one infinite and indivisible light of pure awareness, ‘I am’. Since the primary meaning of the verb மின்னு (<i>miṉṉu</i>) is to emit lightening, and a secondary meaning of it is to flash or shine forth, what he means by saying ‘மின்னும் தன் உள் ஆன்ம ப்ரகாசமே’ (<i>miṉṉum taṉ uḷ āṉma-prakāśamē</i>), ‘within oneself the shining of oneself alone will flash forth’, is that clear awareness of ourself as we actually are, namely as ‘I am I’, will flash forth within ourself like lightening as soon as we know ourself as we actually are.<br>
<br>
Since this light of pure awareness shines clearly as ‘I am’ without the least distinction in each and every distinct soul or sentient being, it is equally available to each one of us, and since we can investigate and know it as it is just by attending to it keenly within ourself, knowing it can never actually be difficult, so ‘ஐயே, அதி சுலபம், ஆன்ம வித்தை, ஐயே, அதி சுலபம்!’ (<i>aiyē, ati sulabham, āṉma-viddai, aiyē, ati sulabham!</i>), ‘Ah, extremely easy, <i>ātma-vidyā</i> [knowing oneself, this light of pure awareness], ah, extremely easy’.<br>
<br>
Since this light of pure awareness, which is what shines clearly in each one of us as our own being, ‘I am’, is alone what actually exists, it is the real nature (<i>svarūpa</i>) not only of ourself but also of God and <i>guru</i>, and since by its very nature it makes itself so easily accessible to all of us, its shining within us as ‘I am’ is grace. As Bhagavan used to say, God is always abundantly gracious to us, because he is always shining in us as our own very existence, ‘I am’, but we are not gracious to him, because instead of yielding ourself to the inward pull of his grace by lovingly attending to him in our heart, we resist that inward pull by rising as ego and rushing outwards under the sway of our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> (inclinations to seek happiness in <i>viṣayas</i>, objects or phenomena), attending to anything other than ourself. Therefore in order to avail ourself of his ever-available grace, all we need do is turn within to know (or be attentively aware of) ‘பின்ன உயிர்களில் அபின்ன விளக்கு எனும் அத் தன்னை தனில்’ (<i>bhiṉṉa uyirgaḷil abhiṉṉa viḷakku eṉum a-t-taṉṉai taṉil</i>), ‘in oneself that self, which is the [one] undivided light [of pure awareness, ‘I am’, that shines equally and impartially] in [all] separate sentient beings’.<br>
<br>
<a name="grace"></a><b>16. The flashing forth of ourself as the light of pure awareness is the shining forth of grace, the annihilation of ego and the blossoming of happiness</b><br>
<br>
He then concludes this verse by saying ‘அருள் விலாசமே, அக விநாசமே, இன்ப விகாசமே’ (<i>aruḷ vilāsamē, aha vināśamē, iṉba vikāsamē</i>), ‘The shining forth of grace; the annihilation of ego; the blossoming of happiness’, thereby implying that this flashing forth of the shining of oneself (<i>ātma-prakāśam</i>), the indivisible light (<i>abhiṉṉa viḷakku</i>) of pure awareness, as soon as we know ourself as such, is itself the shining forth of grace (<i>aruḷ vilāsamē</i>), the annihilation of ego (<i>aha vināśamē</i>) and the blossoming of happiness (<i>iṉba vikāsamē</i>).<br>
<br>
அருள் (<i>aruḷ</i>) means <i>karuṇā</i>, <i>kṛpā</i>, <i>anugraha</i>, grace, compassion, kindness, tenderness, love or benevolence, which is the very nature of God, <i>guru</i> and <i>ātma-svarūpa</i> (ourself as we actually are), and விலாசம் (<i>vilāsam</i>) means shining forth, appearance, manifestation, amorous play, playfulness, flirtatiousness, seductiveness, enjoyment or beauty. In this context the primary meaning of ‘அருள் விலாசமே’ (<i>aruḷ vilāsamē</i>) is ‘the shining forth [or manifestation] of grace’, because the shining of ourself as the indivisible and immutable light of pure awareness, ‘I am’, is itself grace, so the shining forth of ourself as pure awareness is the shining forth of grace as it actually is. ‘அருள் விலாசமே’ (<i>aruḷ vilāsamē</i>) can also be taken to mean either ‘the beauty of grace’, in the sense that the full beauty of grace will become clear to us only when we know ourself as we actually are, or ‘the amorous play of grace’, in the sense that our shining forth as ‘I am I’ is the culmination of the all-loving play of grace, which has been lovingly and tirelessly attracting, leading and guiding us on our journey back home to knowing and being what we always actually are, namely the pristine awareness ‘I am’.<br>
<br>
That is, though grace shines eternally in our heart as the clear light of pure awareness, ‘I am’, and though it is not only always pulling our mind inwards, but also (by just being as it is) it is constantly working in its own infinitely subtle way to purify our mind in order to make us willing to yield ourself to its inward pull, it is only when we surrender ourself to it completely by turning within with heart-melting and all-consuming love, thereby allowing it to pull us back into the innermost depth of our heart, that it will finally swallow us entirely in its infinitely clear and bright light of pure awareness. This swallowing of us entirely, thereby making us one with itself, is therefore what Bhagavan describes here as ‘அருள் விலாசமே’ (<i>aruḷ vilāsamē</i>), ‘the shining forth of grace’, ‘the beauty of grace’ or ‘the amorous play of grace’.<br>
<br>
In the compound term ‘அக விநாசமே’ (<i>aha vināśamē</i>), அக (<i>aha</i>) is the form that அகம் (<i>aham</i>) takes in Tamil as the first word in a compound, and in this context it means ‘I’ in the sense of ego. விநாசம் (<i>vināśam</i>) is an intensified form of நாசம் (<i>nāśam</i>), which means destruction or annihilation, so ‘அக விநாசமே’ (<i>aha vināśamē</i>) means the complete and utter annihilation or eradication of ego. That is, since ego is just a false awareness of ourself, because as ego we are always wrongly aware of ourself as ‘I am this body’, which is not what we actually are, it will be eradicated as soon as we become aware of ourself as we actually are, namely as ‘I am I’. However, even to say that it will be eradicated or annihilated is not quite correct, because when we know ourself as we actually are, we will know that we are eternal and immutable, and have therefore never risen as ego at all, so what is called the eradication or annihilation of ego is actually just the clear recognition that no such thing as ego ever existed at all.<br>
<br>
If we look carefully enough at what seems to be a snake, we will see that it is actually just a rope and was therefore never a snake. Metaphorically we can describe this as the death or destruction of the snake, but it is not literally the death or destruction of anything, because what was always there, namely the rope, is not affected in the least and therefore remains as it always was without undergoing any change at all. Likewise, if we who now mistake ourself to be ego investigate or attend to ourself keenly enough, we will see that we are actually just pure awareness and were never ego. Metaphorically we can describe this as the death, destruction, annihilation or eradication of ego, but it is not literally the death, destruction, annihilation or eradication of anything, because what we actually are is not affected in the least and therefore remains as it always is without ever undergoing any change whatsoever, since we are eternal and immutable. Therefore what is called the annihilation of ego is such a complete annihilation that ego is not only eradicated for all time to come but eternally, which includes and transcends all times, past, present and future, as Bhagavan implies by saying not just ‘அக நாசமே’ (<i>aha nāśamē</i>), the annihilation of ego, but ‘அக விநாசமே’ (<i>aha vināśamē</i>), the complete and utter annihilation of ego.<br>
<br>
இன்பம் (<i>iṉbam</i>) means happiness, joy, bliss, pleasantness or sweetness, and விகாசம் (<i>vikāsamē</i>) means blossoming or opening, so ‘இன்ப விகாசமே’ (<i>iṉba vikāsamē</i>) means the blossoming of happiness, because only when grace shines forth as our own real nature, the clear awareness ‘I am I’, thereby annihilating ego, the adjunct-conflated and therefore clouded awareness ‘I am this body’, will we experience the infinite happiness that we always actually are.<br>
<br>
<a name="ny01"></a>As Bhagavan says in the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para01">first paragraph</a> of <i>Nāṉ Ār?</i>:<br>
<blockquote>சகல ஜீவர்களும் துக்கமென்ப தின்றி எப்போதும் சுகமாயிருக்க விரும்புவதாலும், யாவருக்கும் தன்னிடத்திலேயே பரம பிரிய மிருப்பதாலும், பிரியத்திற்கு சுகமே காரண மாதலாலும், மனமற்ற நித்திரையில் தின மனுபவிக்கும் தன் சுபாவமான அச் சுகத்தை யடையத் தன்னைத் தானறிதல் வேண்டும். அதற்கு <b>நானார் என்னும் ஞான விசாரமே முக்கிய சாதனம்.</b><br>
<br>
<i>sakala jīvargaḷum duḥkham eṉbadu iṉḏṟi eppōdum sukham-āy irukka virumbuvadālum, yāvarukkum taṉ-ṉ-iḍattil-ē-y-ē parama piriyam iruppadālum, piriyattiṟku sukham-ē kāraṇam ādalālum, maṉam aṯṟa niddiraiyil diṉam aṉubhavikkum taṉ subhāvam-āṉa a-c-sukhattai y-aḍaiya-t taṉṉai-t tāṉ aṟidal vēṇḍum. adaṟku <b>nāṉ ār eṉṉum ñāṉa-vicāram-ē mukkhiya sādhaṉam</b></i>.<br>
<br>
Since all sentient beings like [love or want] to be always happy without what is called misery, since for everyone the greatest love is only for oneself, and since happiness alone is the cause for love, [in order] to obtain that happiness, which is one’s own nature, which one experiences daily in [dreamless] sleep, which is devoid of mind, oneself knowing oneself is necessary. For that, <b><i>jñāna-vicāra</i></b> [awareness-investigation] <b>called ‘who am I’ alone is the principal means</b>.</blockquote>
In order to recognise ourself as infinite and eternal happiness, we need to know ourself as we actually are, and to know ourself as we actually are, all we need do is just investigate our fundamental awareness ‘I am’ by being keenly self-attentive. Since we are always clearly aware ‘I am’, nothing can be easier than just attending to this awareness ‘I am’, as Bhagavan explains in the next verse, so ‘ஐயே, அதி சுலபம், ஆன்ம வித்தை, ஐயே, அதி சுலபம்!’ (<i>aiyē, ati sulabham, āṉma-viddai, aiyē, ati sulabham!</i>), ‘Ah, extremely easy, <i>ātma-vidyā</i>, ah, extremely easy’.Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-16308083405163090262023-05-16T05:30:00.022+01:002024-03-13T15:01:58.971+00:00Āṉma-Viddai verse 2: the thought ‘I am this body’ is what supports all other thoughts<a name="av2"></a>In continuation of two articles that I posted here in January and February of last year, <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/01/anma-viddai-tamil-text-transliteration.html"><i>Āṉma-Viddai</i>: Tamil text, transliteration and translation</a> and a detailed explanation of the first verse, <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/02/anma-viddai-verse-1-thought-is-what.html"><i>Āṉma-Viddai</i> verse 1: thought is what causes the appearance of the unreal body and world</a>, in this article I will explain and discuss the meaning and implications of the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/01/anma-viddai-tamil-text-transliteration.html#av2">second verse</a>:<br><a name='more'></a>
<blockquote>ஊனா ருடலிதுவே நானா மெனுநினைவே<br>
நானா நினைவுகள்சே ரோர்நா ரெனுமதனா<br>
னானா ரிடமெதென்றுட் போனா னினைவுகள்போய்<br>
நானா னெனக்குகையுட் டானாய்த் திகழுமான்ம — <br>
ஞானமே; இதுவே மோனமே; ஏக வானமே;<br>
இன்பத் தானமே. (ஐயே)<br>
<br>
<i>ūṉā ruḍaliduvē nāṉā meṉuniṉaivē<br>
nāṉā niṉaivugaḷsē rōrnā reṉumadaṉā<br>
ṉāṉā riḍamedeṉḏṟuṭ pōṉā ṉiṉaivugaḷpōy<br>
nāṉā ṉeṉakkuhaiyuṭ ṭāṉāyt tihaṙumāṉma —<br>
ñāṉamē; iduvē mōṉamē; ēka vāṉamē;<br>
iṉbat tāṉamē</i>. (<i>aiyē</i>)<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> ‘ஊன் ஆர் உடல் இதுவே நான் ஆம்’ எனும் நினைவே நானா நினைவுகள் சேர் ஓர் நார் எனும் அதனால், ‘நான் ஆர் இடம் எது?’ [அல்லது, ‘நான் ஆர்? இடம் எது?’] என்று உள் போனால், நினைவுகள் போய், ‘நான் நான்’ என குகை உள் தானாய் திகழும் ஆன்ம ஞானமே. இதுவே மோனமே, ஏக வானமே, இன்ப தானமே. (ஐயே, அதி சுலபம், ...)<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>‘ūṉ ār uḍal iduvē nāṉ ām’ eṉum niṉaivē nāṉā niṉaivugaḷ sēr ōr nār eṉum adaṉāl, nāṉ ār iḍam edu eṉḏṟu uḷ pōṉāl, niṉaivugaḷ pōy, ‘nāṉ nāṉ’ eṉa guhai uḷ tāṉāy tihaṙum āṉma-ñāṉamē. iduvē mōṉamē, ēka vāṉamē, iṉba-tāṉamē</i>. (<i>aiyē, ati sulabham, ...</i>)<br>
<br>
<b>அன்வயம்:</b> ‘ஊன் ஆர் உடல் இதுவே நான் ஆம்’ எனும் நினைவே நானா நினைவுகள் சேர் ஓர் நார் எனும் அதனால், ‘நான் ஆர் இடம் எது?’ (அல்லது, ‘நான் ஆர்? இடம் எது?’) என்று உள் போனால், நினைவுகள் போய், குகை உள் ‘நான் நான்’ என ஆன்ம ஞானமே தானாய் திகழும். இதுவே மோனமே, ஏக வானமே, இன்ப தானமே. (ஐயே, அதி சுலபம், ...)<br>
<br>
<b><i>Anvayam</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>‘ūṉ ār uḍal iduvē nāṉ ām’ eṉum niṉaivē nāṉā niṉaivugaḷ sēr ōr nār eṉum adaṉāl, nāṉ ār iḍam edu eṉḏṟu uḷ pōṉāl, niṉaivugaḷ pōy, guhai uḷ ‘nāṉ nāṉ’ eṉa āṉma-ñāṉamē tāṉāy tihaṙum. iduvē mōṉamē, ēka vāṉamē, iṉba-tāṉamē</i>. (<i>aiyē, ati sulabham, ...</i>)<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Since the thought ‘this, the body composed of flesh, itself is I’ alone is the one thread to which the various thoughts are joined, if one goes within thus: what is the place from which I spread out, thoughts ceasing, in the cave <i>ātma-jñāna</i> alone will shine spontaneously as ‘I am I’. This alone is silence, the one space, the abode of bliss. (Ah, extremely easy, ...)<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Since the thought ‘this, the body composed of flesh, itself is I’ alone is the one thread to which [all] the various thoughts are joined [or on which they are all strung together], if one goes within [investigating] what is the place from which I spread out [or: who am I, what is [my] place], [all] thoughts [including the root thought, ‘I am this body’] will cease [or depart], and in the cave [of one’s heart] <i>ātma-jñāna</i> [pure self-awareness] alone will shine spontaneously [or as oneself] as ‘I am I’ [that is, as awareness of oneself as oneself alone]. This alone is silence, the one space [of pure awareness], the abode of bliss. ([Therefore] ah, extremely easy, <i>ātma-vidyā</i>, ah, extremely easy!).</blockquote>
<b><i>Padavurai</i></b> (word-explanation): ஊன் (<i>ūṉ</i>): flesh, meat | ஆர் (<i>ār</i>): become full, pervade, spread over, abide {the root of this verb, used here as an adjectival participle, so <i>ūṉ-ār</i> means ‘flesh-pervaded’ and implies ‘composed of flesh’ or ‘fleshy’} | உடல் (<i>uḍal</i>): body | இதுவே (<i>iduvē</i>): this alone {<i>idu</i> is a proximal demonstrative pronoun, ‘this’, referring here to <i>uḍal</i> (body), and the suffix <i>ē</i> is an intensifier that here implies ‘only’ or ‘alone’} | நான் (<i>nāṉ</i>): I {nominative (first case) singular form of the first person pronoun} | ஆம் (<i>ām</i>): is | எனும் (<i>eṉum</i>): saying, which says {adjectival participle, which in this case serves the same function as inverted commas in English} | நினைவே (<i>niṉaivē</i>): thought alone {<i>niṉaivu</i> means ‘thought’ and the suffix <i>ē</i> is an intensifier that here implies ‘only’ or ‘alone’} | நானா (<i>nāṉā</i>): various, different, diverse, manifold, many {a Tamil form of the Sanskrit <i>nānā</i>} | நினைவுகள் (<i>niṉaivugaḷ</i>): thoughts {plural of <i>niṉaivu</i>} | சேர் (<i>sēr</i>): join, connect {the root of this verb, used here as an adjectival participle meaning ‘which joins [the various thoughts] together’ or ‘to which [they] are joined’, thereby implying ‘on which [they] are strung together’} | ஓர் (<i>ōr</i>): one | நார் (<i>nār</i>): fibre, thread, string, rope, cord | எனும் (<i>eṉum</i>): which says {adjectival participle} | அதனால் (<i>adaṉāl</i>): by that, because of that, since {instrumental (third case) form of the distal demonstrative pronoun, <i>adu</i>, ‘that’, so <i>eṉum adaṉāl</i> literally means ‘by that which says’, thereby implying ‘because of that which says’ or simply ‘since’} | நான் (<i>nāṉ</i>): I | ஆர் (<i>ār</i>): spread out {the root of this verb, used here as an adjectival participle, so <i>nāṉ ār</i> means ‘from which I spread out’, implying ‘from which I rise’; alternatively, <i>ār</i> can here be taken to be an interrogative pronoun meaning ‘who’, in which case <i>nāṉ ār</i> means ‘who am I?’} | இடம் (<i>iḍam</i>): place {as he often did, Bhagavan here uses <i>iḍam</i>, ‘place’, metaphorically to refer to the source from which ego rises and in which it is always rooted, namely <i>sat-cit</i>, pure being-awareness, ‘I am’} | எது (<i>edu</i>): what {interrogative pronoun} | என்று (<i>eṉḏṟu</i>): thus {literally ‘saying’, an adverbial participle that generally serves the same function as ‘that’, ‘thus’, ‘as’ or inverted commas in English, or <i>iti</i> in Sanskrit, and which in this context implies ‘investigating’} | உள் (<i>uḷ</i>): inside, within | போனால் (<i>pōṉāl</i>): if going {conditional form of the verb <i>pō</i>, here implying ‘if [one] goes’} | நினைவுகள் (<i>niṉaivugaḷ</i>): thoughts {plural of <i>niṉaivu</i>} | போய் (<i>pōy</i>): going, departing, leaving, perishing {adverbial participle} | நான் (<i>nāṉ</i>): I | நான் (<i>nāṉ</i>): I {<i>nāṉ nāṉ</i> means ‘I am I’, just as <i>nāṉ idu</i> means ‘I am this’ and <i>nāṉ ār</i> means ‘I am who?’} | என (<i>eṉa</i>): as {literally ‘to say’, an infinitive that is often used in the sense of the adverbial participle <i>eṉḏṟu</i>, ‘saying’, which generally serves the same function as ‘that’, ‘thus’, ‘as’ or inverted commas in English} | குகை (<i>guhai</i>): cave | உள் (<i>uḷ</i>): inside, within | தானாய் (<i>tāṉāy</i>): spontaneously {<i>tāṉ</i> is a generic pronoun that means ‘oneself’ or ‘itself’, and <i>āy</i> is an adverbial participle that means ‘being’ or ‘as’, so <i>tāṉāy</i> literally means ‘being [or as] oneself [or itself]’, but here implies ‘by itself’ or ‘spontaneously’} | திகழும் (<i>tihaṙum</i>): shines | ஆன்ம (<i>āṉma</i>): self- {the form <i>āṉmā</i> takes when used as the first word in a compound, <i>āṉmā</i> being a Tamil form of the Sanskrit <i>ātmā</i>, the nominative (first case) singular form of <i>ātman</i>, which in this context refers to ourself as we actually are} | ஞானமே (<i>ñāṉamē</i>): awareness alone {<i>ñāṉam</i> is a Tamil form of the Sanskrit <i>jñāna</i>, which means ‘knowledge’ or ‘awareness’, and the suffix <i>ē</i> is an intensifier that can be taken to mean ‘only’, ‘alone’, ‘indeed’ or ‘certainly’} || இதுவே (<i>iduvē</i>): this alone {<i>idu</i> is a proximal demonstrative pronoun, ‘this’, referring here to <i>āṉma-ñāṉam</i> (awareness of ourself as we actually are), and the suffix <i>ē</i> is an intensifier that here implies ‘only’ or ‘alone’} | மோனமே (<i>mōṉamē</i>): silence {<i>mōṉam</i> is a Tamil form of the Sanskrit <i>mauna</i>, and here the intensifying suffix <i>ē</i> has no specific meaning} | ஏக (<i>ēka</i>): one | வானமே (<i>vāṉamē</i>): space | இன்ப (<i>iṉba</i>): happiness, joy, bliss {the form <i>iṉbam</i> takes when used as the first word in a compound} | தானமே (<i>tāṉamē</i>): place, abode {<i>tāṉam</i> is a Tamil form of the Sanskrit <i>sthāna</i>, and here the intensifying suffix <i>ē</i> has no specific meaning}.<br>
<ol>
<li><a href="#ego">Ego, the thought that is aware of itself as ‘I am this body’, is the one thread on which all other thoughts are strung</a></li>
<li><a href="#investigation">If we go within investigating the source from which we have spread out, ego and all other thoughts will cease</a></li>
<li><a href="#un25"><i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i> verse 25: the nature of ourself as ego is to rise, stand and flourish to the extent that we attend to anything other than ourself, but to subside and dissolve back within to the extent that we attend to ourself alone</a></li>
<li><a href="#atma-jnana">When ego and all other thoughts cease as a result of our going within investigating the source from which we have spread out, <i>ātma-jñāna</i> will shine spontaneously as ‘I am I’</a></li>
<li><a href="#identity">Our real identity is not ‘I am this’ or ‘I am that’ but only ‘I am I’, so though statements such as ‘I am <i>brahman</i>’ are useful as preliminary teachings, the ultimate teaching about our real identity is just ‘I am I’</a></li>
<li><a href="#practical">Not only is ‘I am I’ the ultimate teaching about our real identity, but it is also the most practical teaching, because to keep our attention fixed firmly on ourself alone we should not think that we are anything other than ‘I’</a></li>
<li><a href="#brahman">God or <i>brahman</i> is what shines eternally in our heart as ‘I am I’, so when we are aware of ourself as we actually are we will not be aware of ourself as ‘I am <i>brahman</i>’ or ‘I am God’ but only as ‘I am I’</a></li>
<li><a href="#porul">When we investigate ‘I am’, the source from which we have risen as ego, ego will die, and what will then shine forth as ‘I am I’ is our real nature, which is the one real substance (<i>poruḷ</i>), the infinite whole (<i>pūrṇa</i>)</a></li>
<li><a href="#recognition">The clear recognition ‘I am I’ is both the path and the goal, because the deeper we go in the practice of self-investigation, the more clearly we recognise that we are nothing other than ‘I’, and when this recognition becomes perfectly clear, that is awareness of ourself as we actually are</a></li>
<li><a href="#vs01-1"><i>Vicāra Saṅgraham</i> section 1.1: if we keenly investigate what it is that shines as ‘I’, we will experience a <i>sphurippu</i> or fresh clarity of self-awareness as ‘I am I’, and if we hold on to that without letting go, it will thoroughly annihilate ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’</a></li>
<li><a href="#ny05"><i>Nāṉ Ār?</i> paragraph 5: thinking ‘I, I’ or ‘I am I’ can help us to become familiar with being self-attentive, but in order to sink deep within ourself we need to stop thinking even such thoughts</a></li>
<li><a href="#sahaja">When we recognise that the clear awareness ‘I am I’ is not anything new but what is eternal and therefore natural (<i>sahaja</i>), that is what he describes as the subsidence, cessation or extinguishing of <i>sphuraṇa</i></a></li>
<li><a href="#tanetan">‘தானே தான்’ (<i>tāṉē tāṉ</i>), ‘oneself alone is oneself’, means that what we actually are is only ourself, which is beginningless, infinite and undivided <i>sat-cit-ānanda</i></a></li>
<li><a href="#sat-cit-ananda">Clear self-awareness (<i>ātma-jñāna</i>), which shines forth spontaneously as ‘I am I’ when all thoughts cease, is <i>sat-cit-ānanda</i>: the silence of pure being, the one space of pure awareness and the abode of infinite happiness</a></li>
</ol>
<a name="ego"></a><b>1. Ego, the thought that is aware of itself as ‘I am this body’, is the one thread on which all other thoughts are strung</b><br>
<br>
<a name="un05"></a>As I explained <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/02/anma-viddai-verse-1-thought-is-what.html#un05">while discussing the previous verse</a>, ego is the false awareness ‘I am this body’ (meaning that it is what is aware of itself as if it were a particular body), but what Bhagavan means by ‘body’ in this context is not just the physical body but the entire person consisting of five ‘sheaths’, namely the physical body, life, mind, intellect and will, as he makes clear in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un05">verse 5</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>. However, as ego we experience all these five sheaths collectively as ourself, and since we are always aware of ourself as one, not many, it seems to us that each of these five is a part of ourself, and that we are therefore partly a physical body, partly the life that animates that body, partly a mind, partly an intellect and partly a will.<br>
<br>
In this order, each of these five sheaths is subtler than the previous one, so our will is the subtlest and our physical body is the grossest. Being the grossest, the physical body seems to us to be the outermost of these five sheaths, and being the subtlest, our will seems to be the innermost of them, and hence it is often referred to as our heart, meaning the centremost and most intimate part of the person whom we seem to be. As the outermost of the five sheaths, the physical body seems to be the container in which the other four sheaths reside.<br>
<br>
That is, though our will (<i>cittam</i>) consists of inclinations (<i>vāsanās</i>), which are the seeds from which the other four sheaths (and everything else) sprout, and though it is therefore called the <i>kāraṇa śarīra</i> or ‘causal body’, whenever it appears it does so along with the other four sheaths, and like the intellect, mind and life it seems to be contained within whatever physical body we currently experience as ourself. Therefore we never experience ourself as any of these five sheaths without experiencing ourself as all of them.<br>
<br>
This is why Bhagavan generally refers to our identification with all the five sheaths as the thought called ‘I am this body’, and why he refers to it in this verse as “‘ஊன் ஆர் உடல் இதுவே நான் ஆம்’ எனும் நினைவு” (<i>‘ūṉ ār uḍal iduvē nāṉ ām’ eṉum niṉaivu</i>), “the thought called ‘this, the body composed of flesh, itself is I’”. That is, though the term ‘ஊன் ஆர் உடல்’ (<i>ūṉ ār uḍal</i>), ‘the body composed of flesh’, obviously refers to the physical body, by implication it also refers to the other four sheaths, because we are never aware of ourself as a physical body without simultaneously being aware of ourself as the life, mind, intellect and will that seem to be contained within it and to animate it.<br>
<br>
Whenever we rise and stand as ego we are aware of ourself as if we were a body consisting of five sheaths, so this false awareness ‘I am this body’ is the very nature of ego, and it is what Bhagavan sometimes refers to as the thought called ‘I’ or the thought called ‘I am this body’, or in this case as the thought called ‘ஊன் ஆர் உடல் இதுவே நான் ஆம்’ (<i>ūṉ ār uḍal iduvē nāṉ ām</i>), ‘this, the body composed of flesh, itself is I’. So why does he call this false awareness a thought?<br>
<br>
According to him everything other than pure awareness, which is our fundamental awareness of our own existence, ‘I am’, is just a thought, being a mental fabrication (<i>manō-kalpanā</i>) and therefore mental in nature. The first mental fabrication and the root of all other mental fabrications is ego, which is this false awareness ‘I am this body’, so it is a thought (<i>niṉaivu</i>) in the broad sense in which he uses this term.<br>
<br>
<a name="un24"></a>No thought is other than ego’s awareness of it, so its awareness of anything other than pure awareness is a thought, and since ego is that which is aware of itself as something other than pure awareness, it is itself a thought. However, unlike all other thoughts, which are <i>jaḍa</i> (devoid of awareness) and therefore not aware of anything, ego is aware both of itself and all other things. That is, as Bhagavan explains in of <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un24">verse 24</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>, ego is what is called <i>cit-jaḍa-granthi</i>, the knot (<i>granthi</i>) formed by the seeming entanglement of pure awareness (<i>cit</i>) with a body, which is non-aware (<i>jaḍa</i>), so it contains within itself an element of pure awareness. However, in ego pure awareness is seemingly distorted and obscured by being mixed and conflated with a body and other thoughts, and hence it is sometimes described as ‘<i>cidābhāsa</i>’, a semblance (or reflected image) of awareness, thereby indicating that it is not real awareness, even though it could not seem to exist if it were not supported by pure awareness, which is its source, substance, reality, foundation and essence.<br>
<br>
Since all other thoughts, which means everything else other than pure awareness, seem to exist only in the view of ourself as ego, none of them could exist without ego, and hence Bhagavan says that ego is the root of all other thoughts, and in this verse he describes it as ‘நானா நினைவுகள் சேர் ஓர் நார்’ (<i>nāṉā niṉaivugaḷ sēr ōr nār</i>), ‘the one thread on which [all] the various [or many] thoughts are strung [or joined]’. If we cut the root of a plant, the plant will die, and if we cut the string that holds the beads of a necklace together, the necklace will be destroyed. Likewise, if we eradiate ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’, everything else will cease to exist along with it.<br>
<br>
<a name="investigation"></a><b>2. If we go within investigating the source from which we have spread out, ego and all other thoughts will cease</b><br>
<br>
This first clause, “‘ஊன் ஆர் உடல் இதுவே நான் ஆம்’ எனும் நினைவே நானா நினைவுகள் சேர் ஓர் நார் எனும் அதனால்” (<i>‘ūṉ ār uḍal iduvē nāṉ ām’ eṉum niṉaivē nāṉā niṉaivugaḷ sēr ōr nār eṉum adaṉāl</i>), “Since the thought ‘this, the body composed of flesh, itself is I’ alone is the one thread on which [all] the various thoughts are strung”, ends with அதனால் (<i>adaṉāl</i>), which literally means ‘by that’, and which at the beginning of a clause would mean ‘therefore’, but at the end of a clause, as in this case, means ‘since’ or ‘because’. This word therefore indicates the logical connection between this clause and the rest of the sentence, namely that what is stated in this first clause is a reason for what is stated in the subsequent clauses. That is, the reason why thoughts will cease if we go within investigating ourself, the source from which ego rises, is that to the extent to which we attend to ourself, ego will thereby subside, and when we attend to ourself so keenly that we are thereby aware of ourself as we actually are, ego will cease to exist, and hence all other thoughts will cease to exist along with it.<br>
<br>
<a name="av1"></a>Therefore the only means to bring about the permanent dissolution of all thoughts that he referred to in the second sentence of the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/02/anma-viddai-verse-1-thought-is-what.html">previous verse</a> is to eradicate ego, because ego is the first thought and root of all other thoughts, so the means to eradicate ego is explained by him in the next clause of the first sentence of this verse: ‘நான் ஆர் இடம் எது என்று உள் போனால்’ (<i>nāṉ ār iḍam edu eṉḏṟu uḷ pōṉāl</i>), ‘if one goes within [investigating] what is the place from which I spread out’. That is, since ego is a false aware of ourself (an awareness of ourself as something other than what we actually are), we can eradicate it only by being aware of ourself as we actually are, and we can be aware of ourself as we actually are only by attending to ourself so keenly that we thereby cease to be aware of anything else whatsoever. It is such keen self-attentiveness that Bhagavan describes in this clause, because to the extent that we are keenly self-attentive, we will thereby sink deep within until eventually we dissolve and merge forever in the source from which we rose, namely the pure, fundamental and ever-existing awareness ‘I am’.<br>
<br>
‘நான் ஆர் இடம் எது’ (<i>nāṉ ār iḍam edu</i>) can be interpreted in two ways, because ஆர் (<i>ār</i>) is both the root of a verb, which in this context means to spread out, and an interrogative pronoun meaning ‘who’. If we take it to be a verb, it is acting here as an adjectival or relative participle, so ‘நான் ஆர் இடம் எது’ (<i>nāṉ ār iḍam edu</i>) means ‘what is the place from which I spread out’. Alternatively, if we take it to be an interrogative pronoun, ‘நான் ஆர், இடம் எது’ (<i>nāṉ ār, iḍam edu</i>) means ‘who am I, what is [my] place’. In either case, இடம் (<i>iḍam</i>), ‘place’, is used metaphorically to refer to the source from which ‘I’ rises and the ground on which it stands, and this source or ground is nothing other than our own real nature (<i>ātma-svarūpa</i>), which is the fundamental awareness that always shines within us as our own being, ‘I am’.<br>
<br>
Bhagavan sometimes described self-investigation (<i>ātma-vicāra</i>) as investigating who or what I am, and at other times he described it as investigating the place from which I rise, but these are just two alternative ways of describing exactly the same practice, because we ourself are the ‘place’ or source from which we rise as ego. Just as what seems to be a snake is an illusory appearance, because what it actually is is just a harmless rope, ego is an illusory appearance, because what it actually is is just pure awareness, which is our real nature. The rope is both what the snake actually is and the thing or source from which it appeared. Likewise, pure awareness is both what ego actually is (its substance or real nature) and the ‘place’ (the thing or source) from which it appeared.<br>
<br>
In order to see that the snake is actually just a rope we need to look at it very carefully. Likewise, in order to see that we, who now seem to be this form-grasping phantom-like demon called ego, are actually just pure awareness we need to attend to ourself very keenly. Attending to ourself thus is self-investigation, which we can describe either as investigating what we, this ego, actually are, or equally well as investigating the place or source from which we have appeared or risen. Therefore in this clause, ‘நான் ஆர் இடம் எது என்று உள் போனால்’ (<i>nāṉ ār iḍam edu eṉḏṟu uḷ pōṉāl</i>), ‘if one goes within [investigating] what is the place from which I spread out’, it does not matter whether we interpret ‘நான் ஆர் இடம் எது’ (<i>nāṉ ār iḍam edu</i>) to mean ‘what is the place from which I spread out’ or ‘ who am I [and] what is the place [from which I appear]’, because the ‘place’ or source from which we appear, rise or spread out is itself what we actually are.<br>
<br>
<a name="un26a"></a> In the phrase ‘நான் ஆர் இடம்’ (<i>nāṉ ār iḍam</i>), ‘the place from which I spread out’, there are two implications of the verb ஆர் (<i>ār</i>), ‘spread out’, because ‘நான் ஆர் இடம்’ (<i>nāṉ ār iḍam</i>) implies firstly the source from which ego rises, and secondly the source from which it then immediately spreads out as all other thoughts. That is, all other thoughts (which means all phenomena, since all phenomena are just thoughts in the sense of mental phenomena) are just an expansion of ego, because what ego sees as all other thoughts is itself alone, as Bhagavan implies in <a href="#un26">verse 26</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i> by saying ‘அகந்தையே யாவும் ஆம்’ (<i>ahandai-y-ē yāvum ām</i>), ‘Ego itself is everything’. In other words, ego is the substance that appears as all other thoughts, because they appear and disappear only in the view of ourself as ego, so they have no existence independent of ego. They borrow their seeming existence from the seeming existence of ourself as ego, and ego borrows its seeming existence from the real existence of ourself as we actually are, namely <i>sat-cit</i>, pure being-awareness, which is the ‘place’ or source from which it rises. Therefore, as soon as we rise as ego, we immediately spread out as the appearance of all other thoughts or phenomena.<br>
<br>
If we go within by keenly investigating ourself, the source from which we have risen as ego (and then spread out as all other thoughts), and the ground that underlies and supports the appearance of ourself as ego, the thought ‘I am this body’ (namely ego), which is the first thought and the root of all other thoughts, will cease to exist, and hence all other thoughts will cease along with it, as he implies in the second and third clauses of this first sentence: ‘நான் ஆர் இடம் எது என்று உள் போனால், நினைவுகள் போய்’ (<i>nāṉ ār iḍam edu eṉḏṟu uḷ pōṉāl, niṉaivugaḷ pōy</i>), ‘if one goes within [investigating] what is the place from which I spread out, thoughts ceasing’. That is, in this context the adverbial clause ‘நினைவுகள் போய்’ (<i>niṉaivugaḷ pōy</i>), ‘thoughts ceasing’, implies that all thoughts, including the root thought ‘I am this body’, will cease forever when we as ego go within deeply enough by investigating our own being, ‘I am’, which is both our source and substance, meaning that it is the source from which we have risen and the one real substance that we actually are.<br>
<br>
<a name="un25"></a><b>3. <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i> verse 25: the nature of ourself as ego is to rise, stand and flourish to the extent that we attend to anything other than ourself, but to subside and dissolve back within to the extent that we attend to ourself alone</b><br>
<br>
Therefore implied in these two clauses, ‘நான் ஆர் இடம் எது என்று உள் போனால், நினைவுகள் போய்’ (<i>nāṉ ār iḍam edu eṉḏṟu uḷ pōṉāl, niṉaivugaḷ pōy</i>), ‘if one goes within [investigating] what is the place from which I spread out, thoughts ceasing’, is what is not only one of the most fundamental and essential principles of Bhagavan’s teachings, but also the one that is of greatest practical significance, namely that we rise, stand and flourish as ego to the extent that we attend to anything other than ourself, but subside back within to the extent that we attend only to our own being, ‘I am’, so if we sink deep within by attending to our being sufficiently keenly, we will thereby dissolve and merge in it forever, never to rise again, and everything else (namely all thoughts or phenomena) will cease to exist along with us. This principle is implied by him in many of his verses and oral teachings, particularly in <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>, but it is expressed by him most clearly, succinctly and comprehensively in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un25">verse 25</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>:<br>
<blockquote>உருப்பற்றி யுண்டா முருப்பற்றி நிற்கு<br>
முருப்பற்றி யுண்டுமிக வோங்கு — முருவிட்<br>
டுருப்பற்றுந் தேடினா லோட்டம் பிடிக்கு<br>
முருவற்ற பேயகந்தை யோர்.<br>
<br>
<i>uruppaṯṟi yuṇḍā muruppaṯṟi niṟku<br>
muruppaṯṟi yuṇḍumiha vōṅgu — muruviṭ<br>
ṭuruppaṯṟun tēḍiṉā lōṭṭam piḍikku<br>
muruvaṯṟa pēyahandai yōr</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> உரு பற்றி உண்டாம்; உரு பற்றி நிற்கும்; உரு பற்றி உண்டு மிக ஓங்கும்; உரு விட்டு, உரு பற்றும். தேடினால் ஓட்டம் பிடிக்கும். உரு அற்ற பேய் அகந்தை. ஓர்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>uru paṯṟi uṇḍām; uru paṯṟi niṟkum; uru paṯṟi uṇḍu miha ōṅgum; uru viṭṭu, uru paṯṟum. tēḍiṉāl ōṭṭam piḍikkum. uru aṯṟa pēy ahandai. ōr</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Grasping form it 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. [Such is the nature of this] formless demon ego. Investigate.</blockquote>
Since ego is ‘உருவற்ற பேய்’ (<i>uru-v-aṯṟa pēy</i>), a ‘formless demon [phantom or evil spirit]’, whatever forms it grasps are things other than itself, so ‘உருப்பற்றி’ (<i>uru-p-paṯṟi</i>), ‘grasping form’, implies grasping things other than itself. However, being a formless spirit, it has no means to grasp such things other than in its awareness, so in this context ‘பற்றி’ (<i>paṯṟi</i>), ‘grasping’, implies attending to and thereby being aware of. Therefore the first four sentences of this verse, ‘உரு பற்றி உண்டாம்; உரு பற்றி நிற்கும்; உரு பற்றி உண்டு மிக ஓங்கும்; உரு விட்டு, உரு பற்றும்’ (<i>uru paṯṟi uṇḍām; uru paṯṟi niṟkum; uru paṯṟi uṇḍu miha ōṅgum; uru viṭṭu, uru paṯṟum</i>), ‘Grasping form it comes into existence; grasping form it stands; grasping and feeding on form it grows abundantly; leaving form, it grasps form’, imply that the very nature of ego is to grasp forms, which means to attend to and be aware of things other than itself, namely objects or phenomena of one kind or another. Without grasping forms or phenomena, it cannot come into existence, endure or flourish, so they are the food on which it must constantly feed itself in order to survive.<br>
<br>
In other words, we seem to be ego, this false awareness that is always aware of itself as ‘I am this body’, only so long as we are attending to anything other than ourself, so by attending to such things we are nourishing and perpetuating this illusory phantom called ego. How then can we eradicate ego? Only by attending to ourself alone, as Bhagavan implies in the fifth sentence of this verse, which is its logical conclusion: ‘தேடினால் ஓட்டம் பிடிக்கும்’ (<i>tēḍiṉāl ōṭṭam piḍikkum</i>), ‘If sought, it will take flight’.<br>
<br>
Though the passive conditional clause ‘if sought’ is the clearest way to translate the conditional participle ‘தேடினால்’ (<i>tēḍiṉāl</i>) in this context, a more accurate translation of it would be ‘if seeking’, because it is not actually passive but active, though in this case it has neither an explicit subject nor an explicit object. So what is the implied subject and implied object of this conditional participle? In other words, what is to seek and what is to be sought? What is to be sought is ego, or rather, the reality of ego (that is, what ego actually is when it is divested of all its adjuncts), and what is to seek it is likewise ego, which means ourself as ego. Therefore what ‘தேடினால்’ (<i>tēḍiṉāl</i>), ‘if seeking’ or ‘if sought’, implies is ‘if we as ego seek the reality of ourself’, or in other words, ‘if we investigate ourself by keenly attending to ourself in order to see what we actually are’.<br>
<br>
ஓட்டம் (<i>ōṭṭam</i>) is a noun that means ‘running’, ‘fleeing’ or ‘flight’ (not in the sense of ‘flying’ but in the sense of ‘fleeing’ or ‘running away’), and பிடிக்கும் (<i>piḍikkum</i>) is the neuter third person singular future or predictive form of the verb பிடி (<i>piḍi</i>), which means to grasp, seize, catch, take or resort to, so ஓட்டம்பிடி (<i>ōṭṭam-piḍi</i>) is a compound term that means to take flight, flee or run away, and hence ‘ஓட்டம்பிடிக்கும்’ (<i>ōṭṭam-piḍikkum</i>) means ‘it will take flight’, ‘it will flee’ or ‘it will run away’, in which ‘it’ refers to ego. Therefore ‘தேடினால் ஓட்டம் பிடிக்கும்’ (<i>tēḍiṉāl ōṭṭam piḍikkum</i>), ‘If sought, it will take flight’, implies that if we attend only to ego to see its underlying reality, it will run away, meaning that it will subside back within and dissolve in the pure awareness ‘I am’, which is its source and underlying reality.<br>
<br>
Thus, whereas the first four sentences of this verse imply that the very nature of ego is to always grasp things other than itself, this fifth sentence implies that if instead of grasping any other thing it tries to grasp itself alone, it will thereby subside and dissolve back into its source, which is what we actually are. In other words, we seem to be ego so long as we attend to and thereby experience anything other than ourself, but if instead we turn our attention back towards ourself to see what we actually are, we will see that there is actually no such thing as ego at all, because what seemed to be ego was only ourself as we always actually are, namely <i>sat-cit</i>, pure being-awareness, ‘I am’. Or to put it even more simply, we seem to be ego only so long as we are looking elsewhere, because if we look at ourself carefully enough, we will not see any such thing as ego at all. What we will see in its place is only its underlying reality, namely <i>ātma-svarūpa</i>, the real nature of ourself, which is pure, infinite, indivisible and immutable being-awareness (<i>sat-cit</i>), which is eternally free of adjuncts (<i>upādhis</i>) and therefore never aware of itself as anything other than ‘I am I’.<br>
<br>
Since the nature of ego is to flourish so long as its existence is taken for granted, but to run away when it is investigated, Bhagavan used to illustrate this by telling a story about a wayfarer who posed as a bridegroom’s friend. In earlier times in India a wedding celebration typically lasted five days. It would take place in the village of the bride, whose family would host the family and friends of the bridegroom. One day a wayfarer noticed preparations for a wedding in a village and saw the party of the bridegroom approaching, so he decided that this would be a good opportunity for him to feast and enjoy himself for five days. As the bridegroom’s party entered the village he joined them, and when they came near the bride’s house, he entered ahead of them and started to give instructions to her party as if he were a representative of the bridegroom’s party. He then welcomed the bridegroom’s party as if he belonged to the bride’s party, so each party mistook him to be an important member of the other party and honoured him accordingly. In this way he enjoyed himself for five days, bossing over both parties and taking full advantage of the respect they showed him, but when the celebrations were drawing to a close and the guests were leaving, the close relatives of the bride and bridegroom were finally able to sit down together to discuss various matters. A relative of the bride then asked who the very helpful young friend of the bridegroom was, but the bridegroom’s relatives replied that they did not know him and thought that he was a friend or relative of the bride’s family. Seeing that they were beginning to investigate who he was, the wayfarer quietly slipped away, so when they looked for him he was nowhere to be found, and that was the last they ever saw of him. Likewise, so long as we do not investigate who or what this ego actually is, it will boss over us and take full advantage of our ignorance and gullibility, but if we investigate it carefully enough, it will just slip away, never to be found or to appear again.<br>
<br>
Another story that Bhagavan sometimes told to illustrate this was as follows: A <i>sādhu</i> (religious mendicant) lived in an old dilapidated <i>maṇḍapam</i> (open pillared hall built for use during temple festivals) outside a village. Once a day he would go to the village to beg his food, which he would bring back to the <i>maṇḍapam</i>, and after eating half of it he would keep the other half in his begging bowl to eat the next morning. One morning he woke up and found his bowl was empty, so he understood that it must have been eaten by someone while he was sleeping. The next night, therefore, he wanted to remain vigilant in order to catch the thief, but he was eventually overcome by sleep, and after a while he was woken by a slurping sound. Opening his eyes he saw a dog was licking the food from his bowl, but as soon as the dog noticed him looking at it, it ran away. Therefore the next night he was determined to be more vigilant. He lay down with his eyes closed as if he were sleeping, but listened intently for any sound. After a while he heard the soft sound of the dog approaching, so he opened his eyes. Seeing that he was looking at it, the dog stopped, waiting for him to close his eyes, but since he continued looking at it, it gradually began to slip away. The following night he was again vigilant, looking out for the dog’s arrival, so when the dog cautiously entered the <i>maṇḍapam</i>, it saw that it was being watched, so it stopped and then slowly began to retreat. The next night it did not even enter the <i>maṇḍapam</i> but peered in from outside, and seeing that it was again being watched, it slipped away. Each successive night it was more cautious and stayed further away from the <i>maṇḍapam</i>, but seeing that it was being watched every time, it eventually stopped coming.<br>
<br>
Such is the nature of ego. If we do not watch it vigilantly, it will rise and play havoc with us, but if we merely watch it, it will subside and take flight. Being very gentle natured, the <i>sādhu</i> never tried to chase the dog away, but simply looked at it, and his mere look was sufficient to make it retreat and run away. Ego rises, stands and flourishes to the extent to which we attend to anything other than ourself, but like the dog withdrawing because it is being watched, ego will withdraw and sink back into its source to the extent to which we vigilantly attend to it. Therefore curbing the rising of ego and eventually vanquishing it entirely is extremely easy, provided that we have sufficient love to do so. All we have to do is just to be vigilantly self-attentive, watching ourself carefully to prevent ourself rising as ego.<br>
<br>
Another analogy I often use to illustrate this is the nature of a young rabbit, who likes to come out of its burrow to play, but knows that being outside is potentially dangerous, because predators such as foxes may try to catch and kill it. Therefore when no one is watching it, it will happily play about outside, but as soon as it notices that it is being watched, it will return to its burrow for safety. If it is being watched from a distance, it will remain outside but close to its burrow, but the closer the watching eyes approach, the more it will retreat back to its burrow, and when it is being watched closely, it will withdraw into its burrow and wait there until the danger has passed.<br>
<br>
Likewise, ego likes to rise and run outwards to play about in the world of phenomena, but it can do so only so long as it is not being watched, so if we keep a watchful eye on it (that is, on ourself, who now seem to be ego), its rising and restless activity will thereby be curbed. To the extent that we watch it carefully, it will thereby sink back within, so the more keenly we watch it, the more it will retreat back towards its source, like the rabbit retreating back towards its burrow. Even when we are not watching it so keenly that it sinks back deep inside and thereby merges completely in its source, we can at least curb the speed and enthusiasm with which it rushes outwards by trying to watch it as much as we can. Watching it is not at all difficult, so the only obstacle that prevents us from doing so is our enthusiasm for going outwards and consequent lack of willingness to watch ourself.<br>
<br>
The bridegroom’s spurious friend, the hungry dog and the playful young rabbit are each analogous to ego, because like ego they will each run away when they are investigated or watched. However, each of these three is something other than the one who is investigating or watching it, whereas ego is itself the one who needs to investigate or watch itself. That is, when we look carefully at ego to see what it actually is, we are not looking at an object but only at ourself, who now seem to be ego. In other words, it is we as ego who need to investigate ourself by being keenly self-attentive, because though ego is not what we actually are, it is not anything other than what we actually are. The rope is not a snake, but the snake is nothing other than the rope, so if we look at the snake carefully enough, it will in effect run away, because we will see that it is not actually a snake but only a rope. Likewise, what we actually are is not ego, but ego is nothing other than what we actually are, namely <i>sat-cit</i>, so if we (who now seem to be ego) look at ego carefully enough, it will in effect run away, because we will see that we are not actually ego but only <i>sat-cit</i>.<br>
<br>
<a name="un26"></a> Since ego will run away (meaning that it will cease to exist) when we attend to ourself keenly enough, and since everything else (all other thoughts, namely all forms, objects or phenomena) seems to exist only in the view of ourself as ego, when ego ceases to exist as a result of our vigilant self-investigation, everything else will cease to exist along with it, as Bhagavan implies in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un26">verse 26</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>:<br>
<blockquote>அகந்தையுண் டாயி னனைத்துமுண் டாகு<br>
மகந்தையின் றேலின் றனைத்து — மகந்தையே<br>
யாவுமா மாதலால் யாதிதென்று நாடலே<br>
யோவுதல் யாவுமென வோர்.<br>
<br>
<i>ahandaiyuṇ ḍāyi ṉaṉaittumuṇ ḍāhu<br>
mahandaiyiṉ ḏṟēliṉ ḏṟaṉaittu — mahandaiyē<br>
yāvumā mādalāl yādideṉḏṟu nāḍalē<br>
yōvudal yāvumeṉa vōr</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> அகந்தை உண்டாயின், அனைத்தும் உண்டாகும்; அகந்தை இன்றேல், இன்று அனைத்தும். அகந்தையே யாவும் ஆம். ஆதலால், யாது இது என்று நாடலே ஓவுதல் யாவும் என ஓர்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>ahandai uṇḍāyiṉ, aṉaittum uṇḍāhum; ahandai iṉḏṟēl, iṉḏṟu aṉaittum. ahandai-y-ē yāvum ām. ādalāl, yādu idu eṉḏṟu nāḍal-ē ōvudal yāvum eṉa ōr</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> 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 [ego] is alone is giving up everything.</blockquote>
This is why he says in the second and third clauses of the first sentence of this second verse of <i>Āṉma-Viddai</i>: ‘நான் ஆர் இடம் எது என்று உள் போனால், நினைவுகள் போய்’ (<i>nāṉ ār iḍam edu eṉḏṟu uḷ pōṉāl, niṉaivugaḷ pōy</i>), ‘if one goes within [investigating] what is the place from which I spread out, thoughts ceasing’. That is, since ego, which is the first thought, namely the thought ‘I am this body’, will cease to exist when we investigate ourself (the source from which we have risen as ego and spread out as everything else) keenly enough, all other thoughts will cease to exist along with it, so investigating ourself entails giving up not only ego but also everything else.<br>
<br>
<a name="atma-jnana"></a><b>4. When ego and all other thoughts cease as a result of our going within investigating the source from which we have spread out, <i>ātma-jñāna</i> will shine spontaneously as ‘I am I’</b><br>
<br>
When all thoughts cease along with their root, namely ego, which is the thought ‘I am this body’, what will then remain shining is only pure self-awareness (<i>ātma-jñāna</i>), which is always aware of itself as it actually is, namely as ‘I am only I’, as Bhagavan implies in the main clause of this first sentence: “நான் ஆர் இடம் எது என்று உள் போனால், நினைவுகள் போய், ‘நான் நான்’ என குகை உள் தானாய் திகழும் ஆன்ம ஞானமே” (<i>nāṉ ār iḍam edu eṉḏṟu uḷ pōṉāl, niṉaivugaḷ pōy, ‘nāṉ nāṉ’ eṉa guhai uḷ tāṉāy tihaṙum āṉma-ñāṉamē</i>), “if one goes within [investigating] what is the place from which I spread out, thoughts ceasing, in the cave <i>ātma-jñāna</i> alone will shine spontaneously as ‘I am I’”.<br>
<br>
Here குகை (<i>guhai</i>), ‘cave’, is a metaphor for the heart, the innermost core of ourself, and ‘ஆன்ம ஞானம்’ (<i>āṉma-ñāṉam</i>) is a Tamil form of the Sanskrit term ‘आत्म ज्ञान’ (<i>ātma-jñāna</i>), which means self-knowledge or self-awareness in the sense of the pure adjunct-free awareness of our own existence, ‘I am’. Though <i>ātma-jñāna</i> is always clearly shining within us as ‘I am’, in the view of ourself as ego it seems to be obscured, because instead of being aware of ourself as just ‘I am’, we are now aware of ourself as ‘I am this body’. In other words, though we always know <i>that I am</i>, we do not know <i>what I am</i>, which means that we know our existence but not our real identity.<br>
<br>
Whether we know our real identity or not, we always know our own existence as ‘I am’, so what we now need to know is our real identity, because only when we know our real identity (that is, when we know ourself as we actually are) will this false identification ‘I am this body’ be eradicated. This is why we need to investigate what we actually are, because only by investigating ourself can we know ourself as we actually are.<br>
<br>
What we actually are is only ourself and nothing else, so our real identity is only ‘I am I’ and not ‘I am this’ or ‘I am that’. As Bhagavan often explained, what is aware of itself as ‘I am this’ or ‘I am that’ is only ego, whereas our real nature is always aware of itself just as ‘I am I’. This is why he says in this sentence that if we sink deep within by investigating ourself, thoughts will cease (thereby implying that the primal thought ‘I am this body’ will cease to exist along with all other thoughts) and <i>ātma-jñāna</i> will shine forth within the cave of our heart as ‘I am I’ (that is, as awareness of ourself as ourself alone).<br>
<br>
<a name="identity"></a><b>5. Our real identity is not ‘I am this’ or ‘I am that’ but only ‘I am I’, so though statements such as ‘I am <i>brahman</i>’ are useful as preliminary teachings, the ultimate teaching about our real identity is just ‘I am I’</b><br>
<br>
This fact that our real identity is not ‘I am this’ or ‘I am that’ but only ‘I am I’ is one of the fundamental and most important principles of his teachings, but unfortunately it has been obscured in most English books on his teachings, because in such books the statements ‘நான் நான்’ (<i>nāṉ nāṉ</i>) and ‘अहम् अहम्’ (<i>aham aham</i>), both of which mean ‘I am I’, have in most cases been misinterpreted and wrongly translated as ‘I-I’, which does not convey any clear meaning at all. As far as I am aware the only English book that was published in Bhagavan’s bodily lifetime in which ‘நான் நான்’ (<i>nāṉ nāṉ</i>) or ‘अहम् अहम्’ (<i>aham aham</i>) was correctly interpreted as ‘I am I’ is <a href="http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Maha-Yoga-or-the-Upanishadic-Lore.pdf"><i>Maha Yoga</i></a>, in the ninth chapter of which (2002 edition, page 150) Lakshmana Sarma wrote:<br>
<blockquote>the mind becomes reduced to the state of pure Consciousness and begins to shine steadily in its pure form, as the formless ‘I’; the Sage calls this formless Consciousness the ‘I am I’ to distinguish it from the ego-sense which has the form of ‘I am this (body)’;</blockquote>
In a sentence such as ‘A is B’, A is the subject, ‘is’ is a copula and B is the subject complement, and in such a sentence in English a copula is generally required, but in many languages, including Tamil and Sanskrit, the copula in such a sentence is not required (a linguistic feature known as ‘zero copula’), because it is implied by the presence of a subject and complement with no verb, so in a sentence such as ‘A B’ the copula would be understood. For example, ‘நான் இது’ (<i>nāṉ idu</i>) means ‘I am this’, ‘நான் அது’ (<i>nāṉ adu</i>) means ‘I am that’, and ‘நானார்?’ (<i>nāṉ ār?</i>) means ‘I am who?’, even though there is no explicit copula (no verb that means ‘am’) in any of these sentences, because it is implicit in each of them. Likewise, ‘நான் நான்’ (<i>nāṉ nāṉ</i>) means ‘I am I’, because the copula is implicit in all such sentences.<br>
<br>
The reason why Bhagavan often referred to the Biblical statement in which God reveals his real identity by saying ‘I am that I am’ (<i>Exodus</i> 3.13) is that ‘I am I’ is what he took this statement to mean (the exact meaning of the original Hebrew is not entirely clear, so it can be and has been interpreted in a variety of different ways, but one possible interpretation of it is ‘I am is what I am’ or ‘I am is who I am’, which implies the same as ‘I am I’, and the aptness of this interpretation is confirmed by the next sentence, in which God tells Moses to say ‘I am has sent me to you’). This is why he sometimes said that this Biblical statement is the greatest of all the <i>mahāvākyas</i> (great statements that proclaim our real identity), thereby implying that it is a more apt expression of our real identity than any of the four <i>mahāvākyas</i> of the Vedas, namely ‘प्रज्ञानं ब्रह्म’ (<i>prajñānaṁ brahma</i>), ‘pure awareness is <i>brahman</i>’ (<i>Aitareya Upaniṣad</i> 3.3), ‘अयम् आत्मा ब्रह्म’ (<i>ayam ātmā brahma</i>), ‘this self is <i>brahman</i>’ (<i>Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad</i> 2), ‘तत् त्वम् असि’ (<i>tat tvam asi</i>), ‘that you are’ (<i>Chāndōgya Upaniṣad</i> 6.8.7), and ‘अहं ब्रह्मास्मि’ (<i>ahaṁ brahmāsmi</i>), ‘I am <i>brahman</i>’ (<i>Br̥hadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad</i> 1.4.10).<br>
<br>
So long as we are looking for something called <i>brahman</i> or God outside ourself, we need to be told that <i>brahman</i> or God is nothing other than ourself, because then only will we stop looking outside and instead turn our attention back within to investigate ourself alone, so this is the purpose and aim of each of the four <i>mahāvākyas</i> of the Vedas. However, we need to be reminded that we are <i>brahman</i> only so long as we still have a tendency to think of <i>brahman</i> as anything other than ourself. Once we have understood and are firmly convinced that we are <i>brahman</i>, we will understand that since the word ‘<i>brahman</i>’ refers to nothing other than ‘I’, the implication of statements such as ‘I am <i>brahman</i>’ is just ‘I am I’.<br>
<br>
<a name="un36"></a>That is, the word ‘<i>brahman</i>’ becomes redundant once we truly understand that it means nothing other than ‘I’, because ‘I’ is the most direct and natural way for us to refer to ourself. Why should we continue to think or talk about <i>brahman</i> once we have understood that there is no such thing as <i>brahman</i> other than ‘I’? If we are not yet sufficiently convinced that we are <i>brahman</i>, it may be helpful to remind ourself that we are <i>brahman</i> or that <i>brahman</i> is ourself, but once we are firmly convinced that <i>brahman</i> is nothing other than ‘I’, we will stop thinking about <i>brahman</i> as if it were anything other than ourself and will instead try to attend only to ‘I’.<br>
<br>
As Bhagavan says in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un36">verse 36</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>:<br>
<blockquote>நாமுடலென் றெண்ணினல நாமதுவென் றெண்ணுமது<br>
நாமதுவா நிற்பதற்கு நற்றுணையே — யாமென்று<br>
நாமதுவென் றெண்ணுவதே னான்மனித னென்றெணுமோ<br>
நாமதுவா நிற்குமத னால்.<br>
<br>
<i>nāmuḍaleṉ ḏṟeṇṇiṉala nāmaduveṉ ḏṟeṇṇumadu<br>
nāmaduvā niṟpadaṟku naṯṟuṇaiyē — yāmeṉḏṟu<br>
nāmaduveṉ ḏṟeṇṇuvadē ṉāṉmaṉida ṉeṉḏṟeṇumō<br>
nāmaduvā niṟkumada ṉāl</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> 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.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>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</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>அன்வயம்:</b> 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?<br>
<br>
<b><i>Anvayam</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>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?</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> 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’?<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> If we think that we are a body, thinking ‘No [we are not this body], we are that [<i>brahman</i>]’ 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.]</blockquote>
If we think that we are a donkey or a monkey, it may be helpful to remind ourself, ‘No, I am neither a donkey nor a monkey, I am a human being’, but if we know that we are human, there is no need for us to think ‘I am human’. Likewise, if we think we are anything other than <i>brahman</i>, it may be helpful for us to remind ourself, ‘No, I am only <i>brahman</i> and not anything else’, but once we have understood that we are nothing other than <i>brahman</i> and that <i>brahman</i> is nothing other than ourself, there is no need for us to think ‘I am <i>brahman</i>’.<br>
<br>
Indeed, there is no need for us to think about anything other than ‘I’, so even the thought or idea of <i>brahman</i> becomes redundant, because in our understanding it has been correctly and effectively replaced by ‘I’. If we want to think about <i>brahman</i>, all we need do is to attend only to ‘I’. Attending to anything other than ‘I’, even to the thought of <i>brahman</i>, is not meditating on <i>brahman</i> but on something else, because there is no <i>brahman</i> other than ‘I’.<br>
<br>
So long as we rise as ego, we are consequently aware of ourself as ‘I am this body’ and are also aware of the seeming existence of things other than ‘I’, so we are not aware of ourself as we actually are, namely as that which alone exists, and hence we are not aware of <i>brahman</i> as it is, namely as ourself alone. Therefore for us <i>brahman</i> is just an idea, just one thought among many other thoughts, so if we think ‘I am <i>brahman</i>’ we are identifying ourself with a mere idea and not with <i>brahman</i> as it actually is, because we do not know <i>brahman</i> as it actually is. <br>
<br>
When we are aware of ourself as we actually are, we will not be aware of ourself as ‘I am <i>brahman</i>’ but only as ‘I am I’ (in other words, we will be aware of ourself as ourself alone), because it will then be clear to us that nothing other than ourself actually exists, so there is no such thing as <i>brahman</i> other than ‘I’. Therefore though statements such as ‘I am <i>brahman</i>’ are useful as preliminary teachings, the ultimate teaching about our real identity is not ‘I am <i>brahman</i>’ but just ‘I am I’, because what we actually are is nothing other than ‘I’.<br>
<br>
<a name="practical"></a><b>6. Not only is ‘I am I’ the ultimate teaching about our real identity, but it is also the most practical teaching, because to keep our attention fixed firmly on ourself alone we should not think that we are anything other than ‘I’</b><br>
<br>
Not only is ‘I am I’ the ultimate teaching about our real identity, but it is also the most practical teaching, because once we have clearly understood that we are nothing other than ‘I’, we will have no inclination to think about or investigate anything else. So long as we think ‘I am <i>brahman</i>’, our attention is liable to be diverted away from ourself towards the idea of <i>brahman</i>, so to keep our attention fixed firmly on ourself alone we should not think that we are anything other than ‘I’.<br>
<br>
This is why Bhagavan used the statement ‘நான் நான்’ (<i>nāṉ nāṉ</i>) or ‘अहम् अहम्’ (<i>aham aham</i>), ‘I am I’, so frequently to point out what we actually are, and why we can conclude without the least shadow of doubt that this is indeed the <i>Ramaṇa mahāvākya</i>: the great statement (<i>mahāvākya</i>) by which he proclaimed our real identity, and which lies at the very heart of his teachings and pervades all of them, in many cases explicitly and in other cases implicitly. That is, the reason he emphasised this <i>mahāvākya</i>, ‘I am I’, rather than any other <i>mahāvākya</i> such as ‘अहं ब्रह्मास्मि’ (<i>ahaṁ brahmāsmi</i>), ‘I am <i>brahman</i>’, or any equivalent such as ‘शिवोऽहम्’ (<i>śivō’ham</i>), ‘I am Siva’, or ‘सोऽहम्’ (<i>sō’ham</i>), ‘I am he’, is that the principal and ultimate aim of all his teachings is that we should focus our entire attention only on ‘I’ and not allow ourself to be distracted by anything else, not even by the thought of <i>brahman</i> or God, because what <i>brahman</i> or God actually is is nothing other than ‘I’, and still more importantly, what we ourself actually are is nothing other than ‘I’. Since nothing other than ‘I’ is real, and since we ourself are nothing other than ‘I’, we can know what is real and what we actually are only by attending to ‘I’ and not by attending to anything else whatsoever, so he never tired of reminding us that what we are is only ‘I’: ‘நான் நான்’ (<i>nāṉ nāṉ</i>), ‘अहम् अहम्’ (<i>aham aham</i>), ‘I am I’.<br>
<br>
<a name="brahman"></a><b>7. God or <i>brahman</i> is what shines eternally in our heart as ‘I am I’, so when we are aware of ourself as we actually are we will not be aware of ourself as ‘I am <i>brahman</i>’ or ‘I am God’ but only as ‘I am I’</b><br>
<br>
<a name="vcm-mang"></a>For example, in the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2021/08/is-anything-other-than-ourself.html#c3152668321375599761"><i>maṅgalam</i> verse</a> that he wrote for his Tamil translation of <i>Vivēkacūḍāmaṇi</i> he implies that the means to eradicate ego, which is the root ignorance (<i>mūla avidyā</i>) ‘I am this body’, is to remain always joyfully fixed in the feet or state of God, who is what shines eternally in our heart as ‘I am I’:<br>
<blockquote>அகமெனு மூல வவித்தை யகன்றிட<br>
வகமக மாக வல்லும் பகலற<br>
வகமொளி ராத்ம தேவன் பதத்தினி<br>
லகமகிழ் வாக வனிசம் ரமிக்கவே.<br>
<br>
<i>ahameṉu mūla vaviddai yahaṉḏṟiḍa<br>
vahamaha māha vallum pahalaṟa<br>
vahamoḷi rātma dēvaṉ padattiṉi<br>
lahamahiṙ vāha vaṉiśam ramikkavē</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> அகம் எனும் மூல அவித்தை அகன்றிட ‘அகம் அகம்’ ஆக அல்லும் பகல் அற அகம் ஒளிர் ஆத்ம தேவன் பதத்தினில் அக மகிழ்வு ஆக அனிசம் ரமிக்கவே.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>aham eṉum mūla aviddai ahaṉḏṟiḍa ‘aham aham’ āha allum pahal aṟa aham oḷir ātma dēvaṉ padattiṉil aha mahiṙvu āha aṉiśam ramikkavē</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> For the root ignorance called ‘I’ to depart, may we always delight as inner joy in the feet of <i>ātma-dēva</i>, who shines without night and day in the heart as ‘I am I’.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> So that the <i>mūla avidyā</i> [root or original ignorance] called ‘I’ [ego] may depart, may we always delight as inner joy in the feet [or state] of <i>ātma-dēva</i> [the shining one or God, who is oneself], who shines without night and day in the heart as ‘I am I’.</blockquote>
<a name="hkm"></a>He refers to our real nature here as <i>ātma-dēva</i> because देव (<i>dēva</i>) or தேவன் (<i>dēvaṉ</i>) means ‘the shining one’, being derived from the verbal root दिव् (<i>div</i>), which means ‘to shine’, so God is called <i>dēva</i> because he is the real nature of ourself (<i>ātma-svarūpa</i>), which is what shines in our heart timelessly and immutably as ‘I am I’ without ever appearing or disappearing and without ever waxing or waning. This <i>ātma-dēva</i> is what is otherwise called <i>brahman</i>, so in the first two lines of the verse ‘हृदय कुहर मध्ये’ (<i>hṛdaya kuhara madhyē</i>) he sings:<br>
<blockquote>हृदय कुहर मध्ये केवलं ब्रह्म मात्रं<br>
ह्यहमह मिति साक्षा दात्मरू पेण भाति।<br>
<br>
<i>hṛdaya kuhara madhyē kēvalaṁ brahma mātraṁ<br>
hyahamaha miti sākṣā dātmarū pēṇa bhāti</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>पदच्छेद:</b> हृदय कुहर मध्ये केवलम् ब्रह्म मात्रम् हि ‘अहम् अहम्’ इति साक्षात् आत्म रूपेण भाति.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēda</i></b> (word-separation): <i>hṛdaya kuhara madhyē kēvalam brahma mātram hi ‘aham aham’ iti sākṣāt ātma rūpēṇa bhāti </i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> In the centre of the heart-cave solitarily <i>brahman</i> alone shines clearly in the form of oneself as ‘I am I’.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> In the centre of the heart-cave solitarily <i>brahman</i> alone shines clearly [directly or immediately] in the form of oneself as ‘I am I’ [that is, as awareness of oneself as oneself alone].</blockquote>
<a name="una08"></a>In this context केवलम् (<i>kēvalam</i>) is an adverb that means ‘solitarily’, so it implies that <i>brahman</i> is ‘one only without a second’ (<i>ēkam ēva advitīyam</i>), as Bhagavan also implied in the first two lines of his Tamil translation of this verse, namely verse 8 of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu Anubandham</i>, in which he translated ‘केवलम् ब्रह्म मात्रम्’ (<i>kēvalam brahma mātram</i>), ‘solitarily <i>brahman</i> alone’, as ‘ஏகம் ஆம் பிரம்ம மாத்ரம்’ (<i>ēkam ām birammam mātram</i>), ‘<i>brahman</i>, which is the one, alone’:<br>
<blockquote>இதயமாங் குகையி னாப்ப ணேகமாம் பிரம்ம மாத்ர<br>
மதுவக மகமா நேரே யவிர்ந்திடு மான்மா வாக.<br>
<br>
<i>idayamāṅ guhaiyi ṉāppa ṇēkamām biramma mātra<br>
maduvaha mahamā nērē yavirndiḍu māṉmā vāha</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> இதயம் ஆம் குகையின் நாப்பண் ஏகம் ஆம் பிரம்மம் மாத்ரம் அது ‘அகம் அகம்’ ஆ நேரே அவிர்ந்திடும் ஆன்மாவாக.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>idayam ām guhaiyiṉ nāppaṇ ēkam ām birammam mātram adu ‘aham aham’ ā nērē avirndiḍum āṉmā-v-āha </i>.<br>
<br>
<b>அன்வயம்:</b> இதயம் ஆம் குகையின் நாப்பண் ஏகம் ஆம் பிரம்மம் மாத்ரம் அது ‘அகம் அகம்’ ஆ ஆன்மாவாக நேரே அவிர்ந்திடும்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Anvayam</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>idayam ām guhaiyiṉ nāppaṇ ēkam ām birammam mātram adu ‘aham aham’ ā āṉmā-v-āha nērē avirndiḍum </i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> In the centre of the cave that is the heart <i>brahman</i>, which is the one, alone shines directly as oneself as ‘I am I’.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> In the centre of the cave that is the heart <i>brahman</i>, which is the one [without a second], alone shines directly as oneself as ‘I am I’ [that is, as awareness of oneself as oneself alone].</blockquote>
<i>Brahman</i> alone shines directly as oneself in the sense that it is what we always actually are, but <i>brahman</i> is not aware of itself as ‘I am <i>brahman</i>’ but only as ‘I am I’, because in its clear view it alone is what actually exists, so it is aware of itself as nothing other than itself, namely as ‘I am I’. Therefore, since <i>brahman</i> alone is what we actually are, when we are aware of ourself as we actually are we will not be aware of ourself as ‘I am <i>brahman</i>’ but only as ‘I am I’, as Bhagavan implies not only in this <a href="#av2">second verse</a> of <i>Āṉma-Viddai</i> but also in <a href="#uu20">verse 20</a> of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> and <a href="#un30">verse 30</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>.<br>
<br>
<a name="porul"></a><b>8. When we investigate ‘I am’, the source from which we have risen as ego, ego will die, and what will then shine forth as ‘I am I’ is our real nature, which is the one real substance (<i>poruḷ</i>), the infinite whole (<i>pūrṇa</i>)</b><br>
<br>
<a name="uu19"></a>That is, as ego we are always aware of ourself as ‘I am this body’, but when we investigate ourself keenly enough we will be aware of ourself as we actually are, so we will thereby cease to be aware of ourself as ‘I am this’ or ‘I am that’ and will instead be aware of ourself as ‘I am just I’ (that is, ‘I am nothing other than myself’). In other words, ego will be eradicated as soon as we see what we actually are by means of self-investigation, as Bhagavan implies in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu19">verse 19</a> of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i>:<br>
<blockquote>நானென் றெழுமிட மேதென நாடவுண்<br>
ணான்றலை சாய்ந்திடு முந்தீபற<br>
ஞான விசாரமி துந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>nāṉeṉ ḏṟeṙumiḍa mēdeṉa nāḍavuṇ<br>
ṇāṉḏṟalai sāyndiḍu mundīpaṟa<br>
ñāṉa vicārami dundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> நான் என்று எழும் இடம் ஏது என நாட உள், நான் தலைசாய்ந்திடும். ஞான விசாரம் இது.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>nāṉ eṉḏṟu eṙum iḍam ēdu eṉa nāḍa uḷ, nāṉ talai-sāyndiḍum. ñāṉa-vicāram idu</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>அன்வயம்:</b> நான் என்று எழும் இடம் ஏது என உள் நாட, நான் தலைசாய்ந்திடும். இது ஞான விசாரம்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Anvayam</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>nāṉ eṉḏṟu eṙum iḍam ēdu eṉa uḷ nāḍa, nāṉ talai-sāyndiḍum. idu ñāṉa-vicāram</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> When one investigates within what the place is from which one rises as ‘I’, ‘I’ will die. This is awareness-investigation.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> When one investigates within [or inwardly investigates] what the place is from which one [or it] rises as ‘I’ [ego or mind], ‘I’ will die. This is <i>jñāna-vicāra</i> [investigation of awareness].</blockquote>
What he refers to here as ‘நான் என்று எழும் இடம்’ (<i>nāṉ eṉḏṟu eṙum iḍam</i>), ‘the place from which one rises as I’ or ‘the place from which it rises as I’, is our real nature (<i>ātma-svarūpa</i>), which is what always shines within us as our fundamental awareness of our own existence, ‘I am’, so investigating this ‘place’ means keenly attending only to this awareness ‘I am’, which is why he calls this investigation <i>jñāna-vicāra</i>, which means ‘awareness-investigation’. When we attend to this fundamental awareness ‘I am’ keenly enough, our attention will thereby be withdrawn from everything else, so we will then be aware of nothing other than ourself. This state in which we are aware of nothing other than ourself is the state of pure awareness (<i>śuddha caitanya</i>), which is what we actually are, so since ego is just the adjunct-conflated awareness ‘I am this body’, as soon as we thus experience ourself just as the pure adjunct-free awareness ‘I am’, ego will thereby be eradicated, as he implies by saying ‘நான் தலைசாய்ந்திடும்’ (<i>nāṉ talai-sāyndiḍum</i>), which literally means ‘I will be head-bent’, but which is a colloquial way of saying ‘I will die’.<br>
<br>
<a name="uu20"></a>What we actually are is <i>sat-cit</i> (existence-awareness), which is our fundamental awareness of our own existence, ‘I am’, so when we are aware of ourself as we actually are, we will be aware of ourself just as ‘I am I’, as he implies in the next verse, namely <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu20">verse 20</a> of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i>:<br>
<blockquote>நானொன்று தானத்து நானானென் றொன்றது<br>
தானாகத் தோன்றுமே யுந்தீபற<br>
தானது பூன்றமா முந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>nāṉoṉḏṟu thāṉattu nāṉāṉeṉ ḏṟoṉḏṟadu<br>
tāṉāhat tōṉḏṟumē yundīpaṟa<br>
tāṉadu pūṉḏṟamā mundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> ‘நான்’ ஒன்று தானத்து ‘நான் நான்’ என்று ஒன்று அது தானாக தோன்றுமே. தான் அது பூன்றம் ஆம்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>‘nāṉ’ oṉḏṟu thāṉattu ‘nāṉ nāṉ’ eṉḏṟu oṉḏṟu adu tāṉāha tōṉḏṟumē. tāṉ adu pūṉḏṟam ām</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>அன்வயம்:</b> ‘நான்’ ஒன்று தானத்து ‘நான் நான்’ என்று ஒன்று அது தானாக தோன்றுமே. அது தான் பூன்றம் ஆம்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Anvayam</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>‘nāṉ’ oṉḏṟu thāṉattu ‘nāṉ nāṉ’ eṉḏṟu oṉḏṟu adu tāṉāha tōṉḏṟumē. adu tāṉ pūṉḏṟam ām</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> In the place where ‘I’ merges, that, the one, appears spontaneously as ‘I am I’. That itself is the whole.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> In the place where ‘I’ [namely ego, the false awareness ‘I am this’] merges, that, the one, appears spontaneously [or as oneself] as ‘I am I’ [that is, as awareness of oneself as oneself alone]. That itself [or that, oneself] is <i>pūṉḏṟam</i> [<i>pūrṇa</i>: the infinite whole or entirety of what is].</blockquote>
‘நான் ஒன்று தானம்’ (<i>nāṉ oṉḏṟu thāṉam</i>), ‘the place where ‘I’ merges’, is the place from which it rose, namely our fundamental awareness of our own existence, ‘I am’, so when ego merges there, we will cease to be aware of ourself as ‘I am this body’ and will instead be aware of ourself just as ‘I am I’. What thus appears spontaneously as ‘I am I’ is our real nature (<i>ātma-svarūpa</i>), which is what is also called <i>brahman</i> and which, being ‘one only without a second’ (<i>ēkam ēva advitīyam</i>), is the infinite whole (<i>pūrṇa</i>), other than which nothing actually exists, as Bhagavan implies when he says: ‘நான் நான் என்று ஒன்று அது தானாக தோன்றுமே. தான் அது பூன்றம் ஆம்’ (<i>nāṉ nāṉ eṉḏṟu oṉḏṟu adu tāṉāha tōṉḏṟumē. tāṉ adu pūṉḏṟam ām</i>), ‘that, the one, appears spontaneously as ‘I am I’. That itself is the whole’.<br>
<br>
<a name="us20"></a>Likewise in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/03/upadesa-sarah-sanskrit-text.html#us20">verse 20</a> of <i>Upadēśa Sāram</i>, which is his Sanskrit translation of this verse, he says:<br>
<blockquote>अहमि नाशभा ज्यहम हंतया ।<br>
स्फुरति हृत्स्वयं परम पूर्णसत् ॥<br>
<br>
<i>ahami nāśabhā jyahama haṁtayā</i> ।<br>
<i>sphurati hṛtsvayaṁ parama pūrṇasat</i> ॥<br>
<br>
<b>पदच्छेद:</b> अहमि नाशभाजि अहम् अहंतया स्फुरति हृत् स्वयम्. परम पूर्ण सत्.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēda</i></b> (word-separation): <i>ahami nāśa-bhāji ahaṁ ahaṁtayā sphurati hṛt svayaṁ. parama pūrṇa sat</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> On ‘I’ undergoing annihilation, the heart shines forth spontaneously as ‘I am I’. The supreme whole reality.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> When ‘I’ [ego] is annihilated, the heart [the real nature of oneself] shines forth spontaneously as ‘<i>aham aham</i>’ [‘I am I’]. [This is] <i>parama pūrṇa sat</i> [the supreme whole existence, being or reality].</blockquote>
<a name="un30"></a>Though he says in the Tamil original of this verse that the one whole appears spontaneously as ‘I am I’, and in the Sanskrit version that it shines forth spontaneously as ‘I am I’, it actually shines eternally without ever appearing or disappearing, so it is only relative to the disappearance of ego that it seems to appear or shine forth, just as the sun, which is always shining brightly in the sky, seems to appear or shine forth when the clouds that were concealing it are blown aside. This is why he says in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un30">verse 30</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i> that though it appears, it is not ego but the real substance, which is the whole:<br>
<blockquote>நானா ரெனமனமுண் ணாடியுள நண்ணவே<br>
நானா மவன்றலை நாணமுற — நானானாத்<br>
தோன்றுமொன்று தானாகத் தோன்றினுநா னன்றுபொருள்<br>
பூன்றமது தானாம் பொருள்.<br>
<br>
<i>nāṉā reṉamaṉamuṇ ṇāḍiyuḷa naṇṇavē<br>
nāṉā mavaṉḏṟalai nāṇamuṟa — nāṉāṉāt<br>
tōṉḏṟumoṉḏṟu tāṉāhat tōṉḏṟiṉunā ṉaṉḏṟuporuḷ<br>
pūṉḏṟamadu tāṉām poruḷ</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> 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.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>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</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>அன்வயம்:</b> 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.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Anvayam</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>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</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> 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.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> 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’ [that is, as awareness of oneself as oneself alone]. Though it appears, it is not ‘I’ [namely ego]. It is <i>poruḷ-pūṉḏṟam</i> [the entire substance, whole reality or <i>pūrṇa-vastu</i>, which is eternal and unchanging], the <i>poruḷ</i> [substance or <i>vastu</i>] that is oneself.</blockquote>
The first clause of this verse, ‘நான் ஆர் என மனம் உள் நாடி உளம் நண்ணவே’ (<i>nāṉ ār eṉa maṉam uḷ nāḍi uḷam naṇṇavē</i>), ‘As soon as the mind reaches the heart inwardly investigating who am I’, implies that when we investigate ourself keenly enough and thereby turn the full 180 degrees back towards ourself and hence away from everything else, the mind will sink into the innermost depth of our being and merge there in the heart, the fundamental awareness ‘I am’, which is the source from which it rose. The next clause, ‘நான் ஆம் அவன் தலை நாணம் உற’ (<i>nāṉ ām avaṉ talai nāṇam uṟa</i>), literally means ‘when he who is ‘I’ suffers head-shame’ but is a colloquial way of saying ‘when he who is ‘I’ dies’, thereby implying that ego will die as soon as it reaches the heart by inwardly investigating who am I. The main clause of this first sentence is the third one, ‘நான் நான் ஆ தோன்றும் ஒன்று தானாக’ (<i>nāṉ nāṉ ā tōṉḏṟum oṉḏṟu tāṉāha</i>), “one thing appears spontaneously as ‘I am I’”, in which ஒன்று (<i>oṉḏṟu</i>) is a noun that means ‘one’, so it can mean either ‘one thing’ or ‘the one’, implying the one thing that is actually real, and தானாக (<i>tāṉāha</i>) can mean either ‘spontaneously’ or ‘as oneself’.<br>
<br>
Though he says that one thing appears spontaneously as ‘I am I’, in the next sentence he adds, ‘தோன்றினும், நான் அன்று’ (<i>tōṉḏṟiṉum, nāṉ aṉḏṟu</i>), ‘Though it appears, it is not I’, thereby implying that it is not ego, which is the ‘I’ that appears in waking and dream and disappears in sleep. So if it is not this appearing and disappearing ‘I’, what is it? He answers this in the third and final sentence, ‘பொருள் பூன்றம் அது, தான் ஆம் பொருள்’ (<i>poruḷ-pūṉḏṟam adu, tāṉ ām poruḷ</i>), ‘It is <i>poruḷ-pūṉḏṟam</i> [the whole substance or <i>pūrṇa-vastu</i>], the substance that is oneself’.<br>
<br>
<a name="un07"></a>The nature of the one real substance (<i>poruḷ</i> or <i>vastu</i>), which is the infinite whole (<i>pūṉḏṟam</i> or <i>pūrṇa</i>), is explained by him in the second sentence of <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un07">verse 7</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>: ‘உலகு அறிவு தோன்றி மறைதற்கு இடன் ஆய் தோன்றி மறையாது ஒளிரும் பூன்றம் ஆம் அஃதே பொருள்’ (<i>ulahu aṟivu tōṉḏṟi maṟaidaṟku iḍaṉ-āy tōṉḏṟi maṟaiyādu oḷirum pūṉḏṟam ām aḵdē poruḷ</i>), ‘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 awareness [the awareness that perceives the world, namely ego or mind] is <i>poruḷ</i> [the real substance or <i>vastu</i>], which is <i>pūṉḏṟam</i> [the infinite whole or <i>pūrṇa</i>]’. Since the பூன்றம் ஆம் பொருள் (<i>pūṉḏṟam ām poruḷ</i>), ‘the substance, which is the whole’, shines without appearing or disappearing, why does he say in verse 30 that it appears spontaneously as ‘I am I’?<br>
<br>
It does not actually appear, but so long as we rise as ego, from the perspective of ourself as ego our real identity, namely ‘I am I’, seems to be obscured by the false awareness ‘I am this body’, so when we investigate ourself keenly enough and thereby see ourself as we actually are, our real identity ‘I am I’ seems to appear anew, but as soon as it appears it ceases to seem new, because we recognise it to be our eternal and ever undiminished awareness of ourself as ourself alone. In other words, what momentarily appeared as if it were a new and fresh clarity of self-awareness (<a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/search/label/aha%E1%B9%81-sphura%E1%B9%87a"><i>sphuraṇa</i></a>) is instantly recognised to be what is natural (<i>sahaja</i>), being what we always actually are.<br>
<br>
<a name="recognition"></a><b>9. The clear recognition ‘I am I’ is both the path and the goal, because the deeper we go in the practice of self-investigation, the more clearly we recognise that we are nothing other than ‘I’, and when this recognition becomes perfectly clear, that is awareness of ourself as we actually are</b><br>
<br>
<a name="us20a"></a>This recognition that what seemed to appear afresh is actually our real nature (<i>ātma-svarūpa</i>) is what Bhagavan sometimes described as the subsidence, cessation, pacification or extinguishing of <i>sphuraṇa</i>. The Sanskrit term <a href="https://sanskritdictionary.com/?q=sphuraṇa">स्फुरण</a> (<i>sphuraṇa</i>) and its Tamil equivalent ஸ்புரிப்பு (<i>sphurippu</i>) are both nouns derived from the Sanskrit verb <a href="https://sanskritdictionary.com/?q=sphur">स्फुर्</a> (<i>sphur</i>), which means to shine, be clear, be evident or make itself known in any way, and which is particularly used in the sense of shine forth, shine with a fresh clarity or appear afresh, and it is in this sense that he uses it in <a href="#us20">verse 20</a> of <i>Upadēśa Sāram</i> when he says ‘अहम् अहंतया स्फुरति हृत् स्वयम्’ (<i>aham ahaṁtayā sphurati hṛt svayaṁ</i>), “the heart shines forth spontaneously as ‘I am I’”.<br>
<br>
The Tamil form of स्फुर् (<i>sphur</i>) is <a href="https://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/tamil-lex_query.py?qs=ஸ்புரி&searchhws=yes&matchtype=default">ஸ்புரி</a> (<i>sphuri</i>) or more commonly <a href="https://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/tamil-lex_query.py?qs=புரி&searchhws=yes&matchtype=default">புரி</a> (<i>puri</i>), which means to shine, manifest, be clear, strike one’s mind or be understood. For example, to say ‘I understand’ in Tamil one would say ‘எனக்குப் புரியும்’ (<i>eṉakku-p puriyum</i>), meaning ‘it is clear to me’. Therefore he uses the nouns स्फुरण (<i>sphuraṇa</i>) and ஸ்புரிப்பு (<i>sphurippu</i>) to refer to the shining forth or fresh clarity of self-awareness.<br>
<br>
Since there are different degrees of clarity, he uses these terms to refer both to the partial degrees of clarity that we experience from the time we begin to practise self-investigation and to the full clarity that shines forth when ego is finally annihilated, so whenever he uses the terms <i>sphuraṇa</i> or <i>sphurippu</i> we need to understand from the context whether he is referring to partial or full clarity of self-awareness, and likewise when he uses the verbs <i>sphur</i> or <i>sphuri</i> we need to understand from the context whether he is referring to a partial shining forth or to the full and final shining forth of ourself as ‘I am I’. Even when he is referring only to a partial degree of clarity experienced during practice, he says that it shines forth as ‘I am I’ (meaning that it shines forth as awareness of ourself as ourself alone), because to the extent to which we attend to ourself it becomes clear to us that we are nothing other than ourself, the fundamental awareness that always shines within us as ‘I’.<br>
<br>
The reason he uses terms such as <i>sphuraṇa</i>, <i>sphurippu</i> and ‘I am I’ to refer both to the partial degree of clarity that we experience to the extent to which we go deep in the practice of being self-attentive and to the infinite clarity that shines forth when ego is annihilated is that the clear recognition ‘I am I’ (recognition of ourself as ourself alone) is both the path and the goal, the means and the end. The deeper we go in the practice of self-investigation, the more clearly we recognise that we are nothing other than ourself, ‘I am just I’, and when this recognition becomes perfectly clear, that is awareness of ourself as we actually are, so ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’, is thereby eradicated forever.<br>
<br>
<a name="un30a"></a><a name="uu20a"></a><a name="us20b"></a><a name="uu21"></a>As soon as it is eradicated, what seemed till then to be a new and fresh clarity of self-awareness (<i>sphuraṇa</i>), which had been gradually growing clearer until it finally swallowed us entirely in its all-consuming effulgence, is recognised to be natural (<i>sahaja</i>), being what Bhagavan calls ‘பொருள் பூன்றம்’ (<i>poruḷ-pūṉḏṟam</i>), ‘the whole substance’ or <i>pūrṇa-vastu</i>, and ‘தான் ஆம் பொருள்’ (<i>tāṉ ām poruḷ</i>), ‘the substance that is oneself’ or <i>ātma-vastu</i>, in <a href="#un30">verse 30</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>, ‘பூன்றம்’ (<i>pūṉḏṟam</i>), ‘the whole’, in <a href="#uu20">verse 20</a> of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> and ‘परम पूर्ण सत्’ (<i>parama pūrṇa sat</i>), ‘the supreme whole existence [being or reality]’, in <a href="#us20">verse 20</a> of <i>Upadēśa Sāram</i>, so it is what we always actually are, as he clearly implies in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu21">verse 21</a> of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i>:<br>
<blockquote>நானெனுஞ் சொற்பொரு ளாமது நாளுமே<br>
நானற்ற தூக்கத்து முந்தீபற<br>
நமதின்மை நீக்கத்தா லுந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>nāṉeṉuñ coṯporu ḷāmadu nāḷumē<br>
nāṉaṯṟa tūkkattu mundīpaṟa<br>
namadiṉmai nīkkattā lundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> நான் எனும் சொல் பொருள் ஆம் அது நாளுமே, நான் அற்ற தூக்கத்தும் நமது இன்மை நீக்கத்தால்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>nāṉ eṉum sol poruḷ ām adu nāḷumē, nāṉ aṯṟa tūkkattum namadu iṉmai nīkkattāl</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>அன்வயம்:</b> நான் அற்ற தூக்கத்தும் நமது இன்மை நீக்கத்தால், நான் எனும் சொல் பொருள் நாளுமே அது ஆம்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Anvayam</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>nāṉ aṯṟa tūkkattum namadu iṉmai nīkkattāl, nāṉ eṉum sol poruḷ nāḷumē adu ām</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> That is at all times the substance of the word called ‘I’, because of the exclusion of our non-existence even in sleep, which is devoid of ‘I’.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> That [the one that appears as ‘I am I’, namely pure awareness, which is our real nature] is at all times the substance [or true import] of the word called ‘I’, because of the exclusion of our non-existence [that is, because we do not become non-existent] even in sleep, which is devoid of ‘I’ [namely ego].</blockquote>
We are always clearly aware of ourself as ‘I’, not only in waking and dream, when we rise and stand as ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’, but also in sleep, when we remain just as ‘I am’ without rising as ‘I am this’ or ‘I am that’, so what we actually are is only the pure adjunct-free awareness ‘I’. Therefore, since we are never anything other than ‘I’, the clear awareness of ourself as ‘I am I’ (in other words, awareness of ourself as ourself alone) is always the true import of the word ‘I’. In other words, it is what the word ‘I’ actually refers to.<br>
<br>
<a name="vs01-1"></a><b>10. <i>Vicāra Saṅgraham</i> section 1.1: if we keenly investigate what it is that shines as ‘I’, we will experience a <i>sphurippu</i> or fresh clarity of self-awareness as ‘I am I’, and if we hold on to that without letting go, it will thoroughly annihilate ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’</b><br>
<br>
In order to begin to recognise with ever-increasing clarity that we are nothing other than that fundamental awareness that always shines in our heart as ‘I’ (which is what Bhagavan means whenever he says ‘I am I’), all we need do is patiently and persistently hold fast to being self-attentive, as he explains in the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2014/07/a-paradox-sphurana-means-shining-or.html#vs01-1">first subsection of section 1</a> of <i>Vicāra Saṅgraham</i>, in which he describes the practice of self-investigation and the resulting <i>sphurippu</i> or fresh clarity of self-awareness that appears silently as ‘I am I’, which he says we should then try to hold on to without leaving it:<br>
<blockquote>ஸர்வ ஜீவர்களுக்கும் சுபாவமாய், நான் போனேன், வந்தேன், இருந்தேன், செய்தேனென, எல்லா விஷயங்களிலும் நானென்று ஒரு போதம் தோற்றுகிறதல்லவா? அது ஏதென்று விசாரிக்கில், போதல் முதலிய தொழில்கள் தேகத்தினவே யன்றி வேறின்மையால், தேகமே நானென்றன்றோ சொல்லுவதாய்த் தோற்றுகிறது. தேகமோ பிறந்ததற்கு முன் இல்லாததாலும், பஞ்ச பூதாத்மகமானதாலும், சுழுத்தியில் இல்லாமையாலும், பிணமாய்ப் போவதாலும், அதை நானென்னும் போதமாகச் சொல்லகூடுமா? கூடாதே. இப்படி தேகத்தைக் குறித்து அவாந்தரமாய், நானென்றெழும் போதமே தற்போதமென்றும், அகங்காரமென்றும், அவித்தையென்றும், மாயையென்றும், மலமென்றும், ஜீவனென்றும், பலவிதமாய்ச் சொல்லப்படுகிறது. இதைப்பற்றி விசாரியா திருக்கலாமா? விசாரிப்பதற்கல்லவா சகல சாஸ்திரங்களும் ஏற்பட்டு அத்தற்போத நாசமே முத்தி யென்று கோஷிக்கின்றன. விசாரிப்பதெப்படி? என்னில், கட்டை முதலிய போலும் ஜடமான இச்சரீரம், நானென்று ஸ்புரித்துவழங்கி வருமா? வராதே. ஆதலால், பிணமான தேகத்தைப் பிணம் போலவே இருத்தி, வாக்காலும் நானென்று சொல்லாமலிருந்து, இப்போது நானென விளங்குவது எதுவென்று கூர்மையாய் விசாரித்தால், அப்போது ஹிருதயத்தில், நான் நான் என்று சத்தமில்லாமல், தனக்குத்தானே ஓர் வித ஸ்புரிப்பு மாத்திரம் தோன்றும். அதனை விடாது சும்மா இருந்தால், தேகம் நானென்னும் அகங்காரரூப ஜீவபோதத்தை முற்றிலும் நாசமாக்கி, கர்ப்பூரத்திற் பற்றிய நெருப்புப்போல், தானும் சாந்தமாய்விடும். இதுவே மோக்ஷமென்று பெரியோர்களாலும் சுருதிகளாலும் சொல்லப்படுகிறது.<br>
<br>
<i>sarva jīvargaḷukkum subhāvamāy, nāṉ pōṉēṉ, vandēṉ, irundēṉ, seydēṉ-eṉa, ellā viṣayaṅgaḷilum nāṉ-eṉḏṟu oru bōdham tōṯṟugiṟadallavā? adu ēdeṉḏṟu vicārikkil, pōdal mudaliya toṙilgaḷ dēhattiṉavē y-aṉḏṟi vēṟiṉmaiyāl, dēhamē nāṉ-eṉḏṟaṉḏṟō solluvadāy-t tōṯṟugiṟadu. dēhamō piṟandadaṟku muṉ illādadālum, pañca bhūtātmakam-āṉadālum, suṙuttiyil illāmaiyālum, piṇamāy-p pōvadālum, adai nāṉ-eṉṉum bōdham-āha c colla-kūḍumā? kūḍādē. ippaḍi dēhattai-k kuṟittu avāntaram-āy, nāṉ-eṉḏṟeṙum bōdhamē taṯbōdham-eṉḏṟum, ahaṅkāram-eṉḏṟum, avittai-y-eṉḏṟum, māyai-y-eṉḏṟum, malam-eṉḏṟum, jīvaṉ-eṉḏṟum, pala-vidham-āy-c collappaḍugiṟadu. itai-p-paṯṟi vicāriyādu-irukkalāmā? vicārippadaṯkallavā sakala śāstiraṅgaḷum ēṯpaṭṭu a-t-taṯbōdha nāśamē mutti y-eṉḏṟu ghōṣikkiṉḏṟaṉa. vicārippadu eppadi? eṉṉil, kaṭṭai mudaliya pōlum jaḍam-āṉa i-c-śarīram, nāṉ-eṉḏṟu sphurittu vaṙaṅgi varumā? varādē. ādalāl, piṇamāṉa dēhattai-p piṇam pōla-v-ē irutti, vākkālum nāṉ-eṉḏṟu sollāmal-irundu, ippōdu nāṉ-eṉa viḷaṅguvadu edu-v-eṉḏṟu kūrmaiyāy vicārittāl, appōdu hirudayattil, nāṉ nāṉ eṉḏṟu sattam-illāmal, taṉakku-t-tāṉē ōr vidha sphurippu māttiram tōṉḏṟum. adaṉai viḍādu summā irundāl, dēham nāṉ-eṉṉum ahaṅkāra-rūpa jīva-bōdhattai muṯṟilum nāśam-ākki, karppūrattil paṯṟiya neruppu-p-pōl, tāṉ-um śāntam-āy-viḍum. iduvē mōkṣam-eṉḏṟu periyōrgaḷālum śurutigaḷālum sollappaḍugiṟadu.</i><br>
<br>
For all sentient beings one awareness naturally appears as ‘I’ in all matters, such as ‘I went’, ‘I came’, ‘I remained’, ‘I did’, does it not? If one considers why that is, since activities such as going do not exist separately but only in association with a body, it appears to be saying, does it not, that the body itself is ‘I’. But since the body did not exist before being born, since it is composed of the five elements, since it does not exist in sleep, and since it will depart as a corpse, is it appropriate to speak of it as the awareness ‘I’? It is not appropriate. The awareness that rises as ‘I’ referring to the body in this way, being intermediate [appearing as a link between real awareness and the body, being distinct from both but partaking of the nature of each of them], alone is what is called variously as <i>tat-bōdham</i> [a term that literally means ‘awareness of that’ but that is often used in the sense of egotism, which is awareness of oneself as a particular thing, distinct from all other things], <i>ahaṁkāra</i> [ego], <i>avidyā</i> [ignorance], <i>māyā</i> [the power of self-deception or delusion, namely the mind], <i>malam</i> [impurity] and <i>jīva</i> [soul]. Is it proper [for us] to remain without investigating about this? For investigating [that is, for prompting and encouraging us to investigate this false awareness that rises as ‘I’ mistaking itself to be a body], is it not, all <i>śāstras</i> [spiritual texts] have come into existence and proclaimed that annihilation of that <i>tat-bōdham</i> alone is <i>mukti</i> [liberation]. How to investigate? If one asks, [the reply is:] does this body, which is <i>jaḍa</i> [non-aware] like a block of wood, come shining and behaving as ‘I’? It does not come [as ‘I’]. Therefore, making the corpse-body remain as a corpse, and being without uttering ‘I’ even by word [or speech, whether physically or mentally], if one keenly investigates what it is that now shines as ‘I’, then in [one’s] heart a kind of <i>sphurippu</i> [a fresh clarity] alone will appear itself to itself [oneself to oneself] without sound as ‘I am I’ [that is, as awareness of oneself as oneself alone]. Without leaving [abandoning or letting go of] that [the fresh clarity that shines as ‘I am I’], if one just is, it will completely annihilate the <i>jīva-bōdha</i> [sense of individuality] in the form of <i>ahaṁkāra</i> [ego], which is called [or is aware of itself as] ‘the body is I’, and [then], like fire that catches on camphor, it will itself also be extinguished. This alone is said by sages and sacred texts to be <i>mōkṣa</i> [liberation].</blockquote>
As he explains here, if we keenly investigate what it is that shines as ‘I’, we will experience a <i>sphurippu</i> (<i>sphuraṇa</i>) or fresh clarity of self-awareness as ‘I am I’ (in other words, a fresh clarity of awareness of ourself as ourself alone), and we should then try to hold on to that <i>sphurippu</i> without letting go of it, because if we do so it will thoroughly annihilate ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’.<br>
<br>
<a name="ny05"></a><b>11. <i>Nāṉ Ār?</i> paragraph 5: thinking ‘I, I’ or ‘I am I’ can help us to become familiar with being self-attentive, but in order to sink deep within ourself we need to stop thinking even such thoughts</b><br>
<br>
In this context some people ask whether he was referring to this practice of firmly holding the <i>sphuraṇa</i> ‘I am I’ when he wrote in the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para05">fifth paragraph</a> of <i>Nāṉ Ār?</i>, ‘நான், நான் என்று கருதிக்கொண்டிருந்தாலுங்கூட அவ்விடத்திற் கொண்டுபோய் விட்டுவிடும்’ (<i>nāṉ, nāṉ eṉḏṟu karudi-k-koṇḍirundāluṅ-gūḍa a-vv-iḍattil koṇḍu-pōy viṭṭu-viḍum</i>), “Even if one continues thinking ‘I, I’, it will take and leave [one] in that place [namely the heart or core of ourself, which is the source from which we have risen as ego]”, but there are two problems with this suggestion.<br>
<br>
Firstly, what he said in this passage of <i>Vicāra Saṅgraham</i> is ‘அதனை விடாது சும்மா இருந்தால்’ (<i>adaṉai viḍādu summā irundāl</i>), ‘Not letting go of that, if one just is’, in which ‘அதனை’ (<i>adaṉai</i>), ‘that’, refers to <i>sphuraṇa</i>, the fresh clarity that appears as ‘I am I’ when we keenly investigate what it is that shines as ‘I’; விடாது (<i>viḍādu</i>) means not leaving, abandoning or letting go of; and ‘சும்மா இருந்தால்’ (<i>summā irundāl</i>) means ‘if one just is’, thereby implying that we should just be without rising as ego to do anything. Therefore what he implies in this clause is that we should attend to this <i>sphuraṇa</i> so keenly and firmly that we do not allow our attention to be diverted away towards anything else, because attending to anything other than ourself is an action and hence the very antithesis of just being (<i>summā iruppadu</i>), so he did not mean that we should merely think ‘I am I’ (since thinking anything is an action) but that we should attend keenly to the awareness that always shines as ‘I am I’, but that we had formerly overlooked because, until we began to turn our attention back within to face ourself alone, we were mistakenly aware of ourself as ‘I am this body’.<br>
<br>
Secondly, the fact that in this sentence of <i>Nāṉ Ār?</i> a comma is generally printed after the first ‘நான்’ (<i>nāṉ</i>) indicates that what he meant by ‘நான், நான் என்று கருதிக்கொண்டிருந்தாலுங்கூட’ (<i>nāṉ, nāṉ eṉḏṟu karudi-k-koṇḍirundāluṅ-gūḍa</i>), “Even if one continues thinking ‘I, I’”, is mental repetition or <i>mānasika japa</i> of ‘I’ rather than continuously thinking ‘I am I’. However, though a comma has been printed after the first ‘நான்’ (<i>nāṉ</i>) in this sentence since at least as far back as the first edition of <i>Śrī Ramaṇa Nūṯṟiraṭṭu</i> (his collected works in Tamil), which was published in 1931, he did not actually write a comma after this first ‘நான்’ (<i>nāṉ</i>) in what is perhaps his original handwritten manuscript of the essay version of <i>Nāṉ Ār?</i>, a facsimile copy of which was printed on pages 43-7 of the <a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/ramanafiles/mountainpath/1993%20Aradhana.pdf">June 1993 issue</a> of <a href="https://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/resource_centre/publications/mountain-path"><i>The Mountain Path</i></a>, so there is a possibility that he intended to leave the clause ‘நான் நான் என்று கருதிக்கொண்டிருந்தாலுங்கூட’ (<i>nāṉ nāṉ eṉḏṟu karudi-k-koṇḍirundāluṅ-gūḍa</i>) open to be interpreted either as “Even if one continues thinking ‘I, I’” or as “Even if one continues thinking ‘I am I’”. In either case, what he implied in this sentence is that continuously thinking ‘I, I’ or ‘I am I’ can be a powerful aid to help us to direct our attention back within to face ourself and to keep it fixed on ourself, just as continuously thinking of a name of God can help one to keep one’s mind fixed on him.<br>
<br>
That is, since any word generally refers to something, when we think of a word it brings to our mind whatever it refers to, so for example the noun ‘mango’ brings a particular fruit to our mind and the verb ‘run’ brings a particular action to our mind. Likewise, since the pronoun ‘I’ refers to ourself, the mere thought of the word ‘I’ brings ourself to our mind, so the benefit of thinking ‘I, I’, ‘I am, I am’ or ‘I am I’ is that it can help us to turn our attention back to ourself and thereby to become familiar with being self-attentive.<br>
<br>
<a name="un29"></a>However, once we have become familiar with being self-attentive, it is no longer necessary for us to continue thinking such words, and sooner or later, in order to go deep in the practice of being self-attentive, we need to stop thinking anything at all, because though they refer only to ourself, even such words can become an unnecessary distraction, as he implies in the above passage of <i>Vicāra Saṅgraham</i> by the clause ‘வாக்காலும் நானென்று சொல்லாமலிருந்து’ (<i>vākkālum nāṉ-eṉḏṟu sollāmal-irundu</i>), “being without uttering ‘I’ even by word [or speech, whether physically or mentally]”, in the sentence, ‘ஆதலால், பிணமான தேகத்தைப் பிணம் போலவே இருத்தி, வாக்காலும் நானென்று சொல்லாமலிருந்து, இப்போது நானென விளங்குவது எதுவென்று கூர்மையாய் விசாரித்தால், அப்போது ஹிருதயத்தில், நான் நான் என்று சத்தமில்லாமல், தனக்குத்தானே ஓர் வித ஸ்புரிப்பு மாத்திரம் தோன்றும்’ (<i>ādalāl, piṇamāṉa dēhattai-p piṇam pōla-v-ē irutti, vākkālum nāṉ-eṉḏṟu sollāmal-irundu, ippōdu nāṉ-eṉa viḷaṅguvadu edu-v-eṉḏṟu kūrmaiyāy vicārittāl, appōdu hirudayattil, nāṉ nāṉ eṉḏṟu sattam-illāmal, taṉakku-t-tāṉē ōr vidha sphurippu māttiram tōṉḏṟum</i>), “Therefore, making the corpse-body remain as a corpse, and being without uttering ‘I’ even by word [or speech, whether physically or mentally], if one keenly investigates what it is that now shines as ‘I’, then in [one’s] heart a kind of <i>sphurippu</i> [a fresh clarity] alone will appear itself to itself [oneself to oneself] without sound as ‘I am I’”, and also by the first clause in the first sentence of <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un29">verse 29</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>, “‘நான்’ என்று வாயால் நவிலாது, உள் ஆழ் மனத்தால் ‘நான்’ என்று எங்கு உந்தும் என நாடுதலே ஞான நெறி ஆம்” (<i>‘nāṉ’ eṉḏṟu vāyāl navilādu, uḷ āṙ maṉattāl ‘nāṉ’ eṉḏṟu eṅgu undum eṉa nāḍudal-ē ñāṉa-neṟi ām</i>), “Not saying ‘I’ by mouth, investigating by an inward sinking mind where one rises as ‘I’ alone is the path of <i>jñāna</i> [knowledge or pure awareness]”. Though in these two cases he uses the terms ‘வாக்காலும்’ (<i>vākkālum</i>), ‘even by word [speech, voice or mouth]’, and ‘வாயால்’ (<i>vāyāl</i>), ‘by mouth [word, speech or voice]’, both of which mean by mouth or speech, they also mean by word, so they imply not only uttered by speech but also uttered by mind, because in order to sink deep within ourself we need to keenly focus our entire attention on ourself alone and not allow it to be distracted even to the slightest extent by anything else whatsoever, not even by the word ‘I’ or the affirmation ‘I am I’, whether uttered by speech or by mind.<br>
<br>
<a name="sahaja"></a><b>12. When we recognise that the clear awareness ‘I am I’ is not anything new but what is eternal and therefore natural (<i>sahaja</i>), that is what he describes as the subsidence, cessation or extinguishing of <i>sphuraṇa</i></b><br>
<br>
<a name="appala3"></a>To the extent that we keenly attend to what shines within us as ‘I’ we will thereby experience the fresh clarity of self-awareness (clear awareness of ourself as ourself alone) that Bhagavan describes as the <i>sphuraṇa</i> or <i>sphurippu</i> that appears or shines forth as ‘I am I’, so our aim should be to attend to ourself more and more keenly and persistently and thereby not let go of this <i>sphuraṇa</i>. This practice of holding the <i>sphuraṇa</i> ‘I am I’ firmly in our heart by calmly and incessantly facing inwards is what he describes metaphorically in the first two lines of <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2021/11/appala-pattu-appalam-song-tamil-text.html#appala3">verse 3</a> of <i>Appaḷa Pāṭṭu</i> as pounding the ingredients of an <i>appaḷam</i> (the principal ingredient in this metaphorical <i>appaḷam</i> being ego, the <i>dēhābhimāna</i> or false identification ‘I am this body’) with a pestle in a stone mortar:<br>
<blockquote>கன்னெஞ்சி னானா னென்று கலங்காம<br>
லுண்முக வுலக்கையா லோயா திடித்து<br>
<br>
<i>kaṉṉeñji ṉāṉā ṉeṉḏṟu kalaṅgāma<br>
luṇmukha vulakkaiyā lōyā diḍittu</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> கல் நெஞ்சில் ‘நான் நான்’ என்று கலங்காமல் உள் முக உலக்கையால் ஓயாது இடித்து, […]<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>kal neñjil ‘nāṉ nāṉ’ eṉḏṟu kalaṅgāmal uḷ-mukha ulakkaiyāl ōyādu iḍittu,</i> […]<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> By the pestle of facing inwards without being agitated, incessantly pounding as ‘I am I’ in the heart-stone, […]<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> By [means of] the pestle of <i>uḷ-mukha</i> [the practice of facing inwards] without being agitated [or confused] [by allowing one’s attention to be distracted away from oneself under the sway of one’s <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>], incessantly pounding [ego, the <i>dēhābhimāna</i> or false identification ‘I am this body’] [by recognising oneself as] as ‘I am I’ [the fresh degree of clarity (<i>sphuraṇa</i>) of self-awareness that shines in one’s heart as ‘I am I’ (that is, as awareness of oneself as oneself alone) to the extent that one keenly, calmly and steadily faces inwards to see who am I] in the heart-stone [the pure heart or mind that is imbued with steadfast <i>titikșā</i> (endurance, forbearance and patience), which is unshakably firm like a stone mortar], […]</blockquote>
The practice of facing inwards in order to see ourself as ourself alone, ‘I am I’, which he compares here to pounding the ingredients of an <i>appaḷam</i> with a pestle in a stone mortar, is what he compares in the above passage of <i>Vicāra Saṅgraham</i> to allowing a piece of camphor to be burnt and consumed by fire. If fire catches hold of a piece of camphor and is left undisturbed, it will continue burning until it has consumed the camphor completely, whereupon it will itself subside and be extinguished. Likewise, when the fire of <i>sphuraṇa</i> is ignited in our heart by our keenly investigating what it is that always shines as ‘I’, if we hold on to it without allowing our attention to be distracted away towards anything else, it will continue burning until it has consumed ego entirely along with all its <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> (inclinations to attend to anything other than itself), whereupon it will itself subside and be extinguished.<br>
<br>
<a name="vs06"></a>In this passage of <i>Vicāra Saṅgraham</i>, after saying ‘தானும் சாந்தமாய்விடும்’ (<i>tāṉ-um śāntam-āy-viḍum</i>), ‘it [the <i>sphuraṇa</i>] will itself also be pacified [subside or be extinguished]’, he begins the next sentence saying, ‘இதுவே மோக்ஷம்’ (<i>iduvē mōkṣam</i>), ‘This alone is <i>mōkṣa</i> [liberation]’, and likewise in the sixth section of <i>Vicāra Saṅgraham</i> he says: ‘இவ்வித ஸ்புரிப்பு அடங்கின ஸூக்ஷ்மமான இடமே துரியாதீதம்’ (<i>i-v-vidha sphurippu aḍaṅgiṉa sūkṣmam-āṉa iḍamē turiyātītam</i>), ‘only the subtle place in which this kind of <i>sphurippu</i> subsides [or ceases] is <i>turiyātītam</i> [the transcendent state called ‘the fourth’, which is our natural state or <i>sahaja sthiti</i>]’. What exactly does he mean when he says that the <i>sphurippu</i> will cease, subside or be pacified or extinguished? In what sense will it cease or be extinguished?<br>
<br>
As I explained above, what he means by the term <i>sphuraṇa</i> or <i>sphurippu</i> is the fresh clarity of self-awareness that shines forth as ‘I am I’ (that is, as awareness of ourself as ourself alone) when we turn our attention back towards ourself. The more keenly we attend to ourself, the more clearly the <i>sphuraṇa</i> will shine, and when we attend to ourself so keenly that we thereby cease to be aware of anything other than ourself, ego will instantly be swallowed by the perfect clarity of pure awareness, after which that clarity ‘I am I’ alone will remain shining eternally and without limit as ourself. Therefore when he says that the <i>sphuraṇa</i> will subside, cease or be extinguished, he does not mean that the clarity itself will subside or cease but only that its newness and freshness will subside and cease. In other words, the clarity of what we actually are, namely ‘I am I’, will cease to seem new or something that was not previously clear, because it will be clear that it is <i>sahaja</i>, our own real nature, and therefore our eternal and ever-undiminished awareness of ourself as ourself.<br>
<br>
That is, when we know ourself as we actually are, we will see that the only thing that has ever actually existed is ‘I’, so we cannot ever have been anything other than that. In other words, I am only I, and I have never been and could never be anything other than I. Therefore though ‘I am I’ seems at first to be a <i>sphuraṇa</i>, a new and fresh clarity of self-awareness, it is actually not a new awareness but our eternal awareness of ourself as we always actually are. When we recognise this, namely that the clear awareness ‘I am I’ is not anything new but what is eternal and therefore natural (<i>sahaja</i>), that is what he describes as the subsidence, cessation, pacification or extinguishing of <i>sphuraṇa</i>.<br>
<br>
<a name="tanetan"></a><b>13. ‘தானே தான்’ (<i>tāṉē tāṉ</i>), ‘oneself alone is oneself’, means that what we actually are is only ourself, which is beginningless, infinite and undivided <i>sat-cit-ānanda</i></b><br>
<br>
<a name="appala4"></a>Therefore the closest we can come to expressing the ultimate truth about ourself accurately in words is not to say ‘अहं ब्रह्मास्मि’ (<i>ahaṁ brahmāsmi</i>), ‘I am <i>brahman</i>’, but only to say ‘अहम् अहम्’ (<i>aham aham</i>) or ‘நான் நான்’ (<i>nāṉ nāṉ</i>), ‘I am I’. However, what is important is not the words themselves, but the truth that is conveyed by such words, namely that we are nothing other than ourself, which is <i>sat-cit</i>, the fundamental awareness (<i>cit</i>) of our own existence (<i>sat</i>), which is what always shines within us as ‘I am’, so Bhagavan also expressed this truth using other words that conveyed the same meaning, such as ‘தானே தான்’ (<i>tāṉē tāṉ</i>), ‘oneself alone is oneself’. For example, in the last line of the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2021/11/appala-pattu-appalam-song-tamil-text.html#appala4">fourth and last verse</a> of <i>Appaḷa Pāṭṭu</i> he implies that the purpose of making the metaphorical ‘தன்மய அப்பளம்’ (<i>taṉmaya appaḷam</i>), ‘the <i>appaḷam</i> composed of that [<i>brahman</i>]’, is to eat it, and to eat it means ‘தானே தான் ஆக புஜிக்க’ (<i>tāṉē tāṉ āha bhujikka</i>), “to enjoy [or experience] as ‘oneself alone is oneself’”.<br>
<br>
<a name="aamm43"></a>Likewise in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/03/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-payiram.html#aamm43">verse 43</a> of <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> he says that ‘தானே தான்’ (<i>tāṉē tāṉ</i>), ‘oneself alone is oneself’, alone is தத்துவம் (<i>tattuvam</i>), the reality:<br>
<blockquote>தானே தானே தத்துவ மிதனைத்<br>
தானே காட்டுவா யருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>tāṉē tāṉē tattuva mitaṉait<br>
tāṉē kāṭṭuvā yaruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> தானே தானே தத்துவம். இதனை தானே காட்டுவாய் அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>tāṉē tāṉē tattuvam. itaṉai tāṉē kāṭṭuvāy aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, oneself alone, oneself alone is the reality. Show this yourself.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, oneself alone, oneself alone [as <i>sat-cit</i>, the pure awareness ‘I am’] is <i>tattva</i> [what is real]. [By the self-shining light of your real nature, which is itself that <i>tattva</i>] may you yourself show this [to me].<br>
<br>
<b>Alternative interpretation:</b> Arunachala, ‘oneself alone is oneself’ [‘I alone am I’] alone is what is real. May you yourself show this [to me].</blockquote>
தான் (<i>tāṉ</i>) means oneself (or depending upon the context, myself, yourself, himself, herself or itself) and the suffix ஏ (<i>ē</i>) is an intensifier that implies alone, indeed or itself, so தானே (<i>tāṉē</i>) means ‘oneself alone’. Therefore the first sentence of this verse, ‘தானே தானே தத்துவம்’ (<i>tāṉē tāṉē tattuvam</i>), can be interpreted in two ways: it can mean either ‘oneself alone, oneself alone is the reality’, in which ‘தானே தானே’ (<i>tāṉē tāṉē</i>), ‘oneself alone, oneself alone’, is taken to be a repetition for emphasis, or ‘“oneself alone is oneself” alone is the reality’, in which ‘தானே தான்’ (<i>tāṉē tāṉ</i>), ‘oneself alone is oneself’, is taken to be a separate clause that serves as the subject of the sentence. These two interpretations are equally valid and complement each other, because whereas the first just emphasises that we ourself are the sole reality, the second further emphasises that what we ourself actually are is nothing other than ourself, ‘I alone am I’, and implies that awareness of ourself as ourself alone is itself the reality, because nothing other than ourself actually exists.<br>
<br>
<a name="sat-cit-ananda"></a><b>14. Clear self-awareness (<i>ātma-jñāna</i>), which shines forth spontaneously as ‘I am I’ when all thoughts cease, is <i>sat-cit-ānanda</i>: the silence of pure being, the one space of pure awareness and the abode of infinite happiness</b><br>
<br>
In this <a href="#av2">second verse</a> of <i>Āṉma-Viddai</i>, after concluding the first sentence by saying that if we go within investigating ourself, thought will cease and in the cave of our heart <i>ātma-jñāna</i> (awareness of ourself as we actually are) alone will shine spontaneously as ‘I am I’, in the second sentence Bhagavan says ‘இதுவே மோனமே, ஏக வானமே, இன்ப தானமே’ (<i>iduvē mōṉamē, ēka vāṉamē, iṉba-tāṉamē</i>), ‘This alone is silence, the one space, the abode of bliss’. That is, <i>ātma-jñāna</i>, which is awareness of ourself as we actually are, namely as ‘I am I’, is our real nature, so it alone will remain when we investigate ourself so keenly that ego is eradicated and along with it all other thoughts cease forever. Therefore, since nothing other than <i>ātma-jñāna</i>, the pure awareness ‘I am I’, will then exist, it is infinite and eternal silence (<i>mauna</i>), the silence of pure being. It is also ‘the one space’ (<i>ēka vāṉam</i>), because it is ‘one only without a second’ (<i>ēkam ēva advitīyam</i>), and is therefore the infinite and empty space of pure awareness. Not only is it மோனமே (<i>mōṉamē</i>), the silence of pure being (<i>sat</i>), and ஏக வானமே (<i>ēka vāṉamē</i>), the one space of pure awareness (<i>cit</i>), but also the place of pure happiness (<i>ānanda</i>), so he concludes this verse by saying that it is இன்ப தானமே (<i>iṉba-tāṉamē</i>), ‘the place [or abode] of bliss’.<br>
<br>
<a name="uu28"></a>In other words, our real nature (<i>ātma-svarūpa</i>), which is what shines eternally as ‘I am I’, is pure being-awareness-happiness (<i>sat-cit-ānanda</i>), which is beginningless (<i>anādi</i>), infinite (<i>ananta</i>) and undivided (<i>akhaṇḍa</i>), as he says in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu28">verse 28</a> of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i>:<br>
<blockquote>தனாதியல் யாதெனத் தான்றெரி கிற்பின்<br>
னனாதி யனந்தசத் துந்தீபற<br>
வகண்ட சிதானந்த முந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>taṉādiyal yādeṉat tāṉḏṟeri hiṟpiṉ<br>
ṉaṉādi yaṉantasat tundīpaṟa<br>
vakhaṇḍa cidāṉanda mundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> தனாது இயல் யாது என தான் தெரிகில், பின் அனாதி அனந்த சத்து அகண்ட சித் ஆனந்தம்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>taṉādu iyal yādu eṉa tāṉ terihil, piṉ aṉādi aṉanta sattu akhaṇḍa cit āṉandam</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>அன்வயம்:</b> தான் தனாது இயல் யாது என தெரிகில், பின் அனாதி அனந்த அகண்ட சத்து சித் ஆனந்தம்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Anvayam</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>tāṉ taṉādu iyal yādu eṉa terihil, piṉ aṉādi aṉanta akhaṇḍa sattu cit āṉandam</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> If one knows what the nature of oneself is, then beginningless, endless and unbroken existence-awareness-happiness.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> If one knows what the nature of oneself is, then [what will remain existing and shining is only] <i>anādi</i> [beginningless], <i>ananta</i> [endless, limitless or infinite] and <i>akhaṇḍa</i> [unbroken, undivided or unfragmented] <i>sat-cit-ānanda</i> [existence-awareness-happiness].</blockquote>
In order for us to experience ourself thus as beginningless, infinite and undivided <i>sat-cit-ānanda</i>, we just need to know what our real nature actually is, and to know this all that is required is for us to go deep within ourself by keenly investigating our fundamental awareness ‘I am’, which is the source from which we have risen and spread out as ego, the adjunct-conflated awareness ‘I am this body’. Therefore, since nothing can be easier than just being attentively aware of what alone always exists and shines clearly, namely ‘I am’, ‘ஐயே, அதி சுலபம், ஆன்ம வித்தை, ஐயே, அதி சுலபம்!’ (<i>aiyē, ati sulabham, āṉma-viddai, aiyē, ati sulabham!</i>), ‘Ah, extremely easy, <i>ātma-vidyā</i>, ah, extremely easy’.<br>
<br>
<a name="av3"></a>Since he emphasises in the first two verses of this song, <i>Āṉma-Viddai</i>, that in order for us to know ourself as we actually are and thereby to experience the infinite happiness that is our own real nature, all thoughts must cease in such a way that they never rise again, and since all thoughts are about things other than ourself, in the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/01/anma-viddai-tamil-text-transliteration.html#av3">next verse</a> he points out firstly that there is no real value in knowing anything other than ourself, particularly when we do not even know what we ourself actually are, and secondly that when we do know ourself as we actually are, nothing else will exist for us to know.Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-68332291129371667682023-02-08T16:02:00.005+00:002023-08-29T08:17:25.699+01:00Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai verse 21This is the twenty-first in a series of articles that I hope to write on <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>, Bhagavan willing, the completed ones being <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/articles.html#aamm">listed here</a>.<br><a name='more'></a>
<br>
<a name="aamm21"></a><b>Verse 21:</b><br>
<blockquote>கெஞ்சியும் வஞ்சியாய்க் கொஞ்சமு மிரங்கிலை<br>
யஞ்சலென் றேயரு ளருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>keñjiyum vañjiyāyk koñjamu miraṅgilai<br>
yañjaleṉ ḏṟēyaru ḷaruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> கெஞ்சியும் வஞ்சியாய் கொஞ்சமும் இரங்கிலை. ‘அஞ்சு அல்’ என்றே அருள் அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>keñjiyum vañjiyāy koñjamum iraṅgilai. ‘añju al’ eṉḏṟē aruḷ aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, though begging, being a cheat not feeling even the slightest pity. Be gracious saying ‘fear not’.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, though [I have been] begging [beseeching or entreating] [you] [so piteously that it would melt even a stone], being [like] a cheat [fraud or deceiver] [you] do not feel [or show] even the slightest pity [for me]. [At least now] be gracious saying ‘fear not’.</blockquote>
<b>Explanation:</b> கெஞ்சி (<i>keñji</i>) is an adverbial participle that means ‘begging’, ‘beseeching’ or ‘entreating’, with the implied connotation of doing so humbly and piteously, and when appended to an adverbial participle like this, the suffix உம் (<i>um</i>) means ‘though’ or ‘although’, so கெஞ்சியும் (<i>keñji-y-um</i>) means ‘though begging’, and in this context implies ‘though [I am] begging’ or ‘though [I have been] begging’.<br>
<br>
வஞ்சி (<i>vañji</i>) is a noun that is used here in the sense of வஞ்சகன் (<i>vañjakaṉ</i>), which means a cheat, fraud, deceiver, rogue or cunning person, and ஆய் (<i>āy</i>) is an adverbial participle that means ‘being’ or ‘as’, so வஞ்சியாய் (<i>vañji-y-āy</i>) means ‘being a cheat’ or ‘as a cheat’, which in this context implies ‘like a cheat’. As Muruganar explains, though the implied meaning is ‘வஞ்சி போல்’ (<i>vañji-pōl</i>), ‘like a cheat’, instead of saying that, in accordance with the rest of this clause, namely ‘கொஞ்சமும் இரங்கிலை’ (<i>koñjamum iraṅgilai</i>), ‘not feeling even the slightest pity’, he says emphatically ‘வஞ்சியாய்’ (<i>vañji-y-āy</i>), ‘being a cheat’ or ‘as a cheat’.<br>
<br>
கொஞ்சம் (<i>koñjam</i>) means ‘a little’ or ‘a small amount’, and in this context the suffix உம் (<i>um</i>) means ‘even’, so கொஞ்சமும் (<i>koñjam-um</i>) means ‘even a little’, ‘even the least’ or ‘even the slightest’. இரங்கு (<i>iraṅgu</i>) is a verb that means to feel pity, condescend or be compassionate, and இரங்கிலை (<i>iraṅgilai</i>) is a negative form of it, so it means ‘not feeling pity’ or ‘not showing compassion’. There is no explicit subject in this clause, and this negative form does not identify the subject, but since this is addressed to Arunachala, the implied subject is ‘you’. Therefore ‘கொஞ்சமும் இரங்கிலை’ (<i>koñjamum iraṅgilai</i>), which is the main clause of this sentence, means ‘not feeling even the least pity’ or ‘not showing even the least compassion’, but implies ‘[you] do not feel even the slightest pity [for me]’ or ‘[you remain unmoved] without showing even the least compassion [for me]’.<br>
<br>
The entire sentence, ‘கெஞ்சியும், வஞ்சியாய் கொஞ்சமும் இரங்கிலை’ (<i>keñjiyum, vañjiyāy koñjamum iraṅgilai</i>), therefore means ‘Though begging, being a cheat not feeling even the slightest pity’, which implies ‘Though [I have been] begging [you], being [like] a cheat [you remain unmoved] without feeling [or showing] even the slightest pity [for me]’. To convey the full spirit and implication of ‘கெஞ்சியும்’ (<i>keñjiyum</i>), ‘though begging’, in his பொழிப்புரை (<i>poṙippurai</i>) or explanatory paraphrase for this verse Muruganar wrote ‘கல்லுங் கசிந்துருக யானுன்னை எவ்வளவோ கெஞ்சியும்’ (<i>kalluṅ kasindu uruha yāṉ uṉṉai evvaḷō keñjiyum</i>), which means ‘though I am begging however much to soften and melt even a stone’. Though Bhagavan is begging him so piteously that it would melt even a stone, Arunachala seems to remain unmoved, like a cheat who has stolen the heart of a young girl and then abandoned her, showing no pity for her at all.<br>
<br>
Besides ‘being a cheat’ or ‘as a cheat’, வஞ்சியாய் (<i>vañjiyāy</i>) can also be interpreted in two other ways. Firstly, besides being an adverbial participle that means ‘being’ or ‘as’, ஆய் (<i>āy</i>) is also the second person singular pronominal suffix, and composite nouns are formed in Tamil by adding such suffixes to adjectives, adjectival participles or nouns. Therefore when ஆய் (<i>āy</i>) in this sense is added to a noun, it produces a vocative (or eighth case) form of that noun, so ‘வஞ்சியாய்’ (<i>vañjiyāy</i>) can be interpreted as addressing Arunachala as ‘you cheat’ or ‘you fraud’. When interpreted in this sense, ‘கெஞ்சியும், வஞ்சியாய், கொஞ்சமும் இரங்கிலை’ (<i>keñjiyum, vañjiyāy, koñjamum iraṅgilai</i>) means ‘Though [I have been] begging [you], you cheat, [you] do not feel even the slightest pity [for me]’.<br>
<br>
Secondly, besides meaning a cheat, fraud, deceiver, rogue or cunning person, வஞ்சி (<i>vañji</i>) also means both a woman and வஞ்சிக்கொடி (<i>vañji-k-koḍi</i>) or common rattan, a species of climbing palm. Like all climbing plants, common rattan depends on other plants or structures for support, so in this context it can be taken to be an analogy for a devotee who depends wholly upon God for support. Therefore ‘கெஞ்சியும் வஞ்சியாய் கொஞ்சமும் இரங்கிலை’ (<i>keñjiyum vañjiyāy koñjamum iraṅgilai</i>) can be taken to imply ‘வஞ்சியாய் கெஞ்சியும், கொஞ்சமும் இரங்கிலை’ (<i>vañjiyāy keñjiyum, koñjamum iraṅgilai</i>), ‘Though as a woman [who am like a tender climbing plant, depending wholly on you for support] [I have been] begging [you], [you] do not feel even the slightest pity [for me]’.<br>
<br>
<a name="aamm03"></a>Whether we take வஞ்சியாய் (<i>vañjiyāy</i>) to mean ‘being a cheat’, ‘you cheat’ or ‘as a woman [who am like a tender climbing plant, depending wholly on you for support]’, this sentence is a <i>nindā-stuti</i>, an abusive, vilifying or rebuking praise or adoration, similar in spirit to verses such as 4 to 6 and 9 to 12. In <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/04/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-3.html">verse 3</a> he sang:<br>
<blockquote>அகம்புகுந் தீர்த்துன் னககுகை சிறையா<br>
யமர்வித்த தென்கொ லருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>ahambuhun dīrttuṉ ṉahaguhai siṟaiyā<br>
yamarvitta deṉko laruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> அகம் புகுந்து ஈர்த்து உன் அக குகை சிறையாய் அமர்வித்தது என் கொல் அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>aham puhundu īrttu uṉ aha guhai siṟaiyāy amarvittadu eṉ kol aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, entering the mind, carrying away, keeping captive in the cave of your heart is what!<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, entering [my] mind [or home], [forcibly] carrying [me] away [dragging me out or attracting me to yourself], [you have been] keeping [me] captive in the cave of your heart. What [a wonder of your grace this is]!</blockquote>
<a name="aamm04"></a>Having stolen the heart of his devotee and thereby abducted her from her former home in this world, Arunachala should not cheat her now by neglecting, abandoning or rejecting her, so in the next verse, namely <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/04/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-4.html">verse 4</a>, she pleads with him:<br>
<blockquote>ஆருக் காவெனை யாண்டனை யகற்றிடி<br>
லகிலம் பழித்திடு மருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>āruk kāveṉai yāṇḍaṉai yahaṯṟiḍi<br>
lakhilam baṙittiḍu maruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> ஆருக்கா எனை ஆண்டனை? அகற்றிடில் அகிலம் பழித்திடும் அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>ārukkā eṉai āṇḍaṉai? ahaṯṟiḍil akhilam paṙittiḍum aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, for whom did you take charge of me? If rejecting, the whole world will blame.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, for whom [or for whose sake] did you take charge of me? If [you] reject [banish or abandon] [me], the whole world will blame [ridicule or revile] [you].</blockquote>
<a name="aamm05"></a>If Arunachala is to escape such blame, he should unite her with himself in eternal oneness so that neither can ever again leave the other, as she beseeches him in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/04/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-5.html">verse 5</a>:<br>
<blockquote>இப்பழி தப்புனை யேனினைப் பித்தா<br>
யினியார் விடுவா ரருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>ippaṙi tappuṉai yēṉiṉaip pittā<br>
yiṉiyār viḍuvā raruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> இப் பழி தப்பு. உனை ஏன் நினைப்பித்தாய்? இனி யார் விடுவார்? அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>i-p-paṙi tappu. uṉai ēṉ niṉaippittāy? iṉi yār viḍuvār? aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, escape this blame. Why did you cause to think of you? Now who will leave?<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, escape this blame. Why did you make [me] think of you? Now [or henceforth] who will [or can] leave [or let go]? [You cannot leave or let go of me, and I cannot leave or let go of you.]</blockquote>
<a name="aamm06"></a>If he does not unite her with himself in eternally inseparable oneness, will such heartlessness befit his grace, which is so much greater than even the love of a mother for her new-born child? Therefore she rebukes him in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/04/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-6.html">verse 6</a>:<br>
<blockquote>ஈன்றிடு மன்னையிற் பெரிதருள் புரிவோ<br>
யிதுவோ வுனதரு ளருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>īṉḏṟiḍu maṉṉaiyiṟ peridaruḷ purivō<br>
yiduvō vuṉadaru ḷaruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> ஈன்றிடும் அன்னையில் பெரிது அருள் புரிவோய், இதுவோ உனது அருள் அருணாசலா?<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>īṉḏṟiḍum aṉṉaiyil peridu aruḷ purivōy, iduvō uṉadu aruḷ aruṇācalā?</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, you who bestow kindness greater than the mother who gave birth, is this your kindness?<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, you who bestow <i>aruḷ</i> [grace, love, affection, kindness, solicitude and compassion] greater than [that given by] the mother who gave birth [to one], is this your <i>aruḷ</i>?</blockquote>
<a name="aamm07"></a>In subsequent verses she continues to pray to him in so many ways, but all with the same underlying implication that he should annihilate her as ego, thereby making her eternally one with himself. In <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/06/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-7.html">verse 7</a> she acknowledges that Arunachala is not entirely to blame for her present condition, because she is still cheating him by allowing her mind to run back to the world, from which he has rescued her, but her mind runs out in this manner because such is its nature, so it is his responsibility to sit firmly upon it so that it does not do so:<br>
<blockquote>உனையே மாற்றி யோடா துளத்தின்மே<br>
லுறுதியா யிருப்பா யருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>uṉaiyē māṯṟi yōḍā duḷattiṉmē<br>
luṟudiyā yiruppā yaruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> உனை ஏமாற்றி ஓடாது உளத்தின் மேல் உறுதியாய் இருப்பாய் அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>uṉai ēmāṯṟi ōḍādu uḷattiṉ mēl uṟudiyāy iruppāy aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, may you be firmly on the mind so that it does not run, deceiving you.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, may you be [remain, sit down, be seated or be enthroned] firmly on [my] mind so that it does not run [out towards other things under the sway of its <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>], deceiving [or cheating on] you [like a promiscuous wife].</blockquote>
<a name="aamm08"></a>The nature of her mind is to run outwards and roam about the world in search of happiness because he has not yet revealed himself to her in her heart in the fullness of his real nature, which is the infinite and eternal beauty of pure happiness and love, so in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/07/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-8.html">verse 8</a> she begs him:<br>
<blockquote>ஊர்சுற் றுளம்விடா துனைக்கண் டடங்கிட<br>
வுன்னழ கைக்காட் டருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>ūrsuṯ ṟuḷamviḍā duṉaikkaṇ ḍaḍaṅgiḍa<br>
vuṉṉaṙa haikkāṭ ṭaruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> ஊர் சுற்று உளம் விடாது உனை கண்டு அடங்கிட, உன் அழகை காட்டு அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>ūr suṯṟu uḷam viḍādu uṉai kaṇḍu aḍaṅgiḍa, uṉ aṙahai kāṭṭu aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, so that seeing you uninterruptedly the mind, which roams about the world, subsides, show your beauty.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, so that seeing [or looking at] you uninterruptedly [my] mind, which [by its very nature] roams [incessantly] about the world [under the sway of its <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>], subsides [settles, submits or ceases entirely and forever] [in you] [thereby being brought under the sway of your grace], show [me] your beauty [the infinite beauty of your real nature, which is unlimited, unalloyed and unceasing happiness].</blockquote>
<a name="aamm09"></a>Unable to bear her separation from him any longer, in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/07/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-9.html">verse 9</a> she again rebukes him, questioning his manliness (meaning his grace) and challenging him to prove it by destroying her (meaning her seemingly separate existence as ego) immediately, here and now, thereby uniting her with himself in ever-inseparable oneness:<br>
<blockquote>எனையழித் திப்போ தெனைக்கல வாவிடி<br>
லிதுவோ வாண்மை யருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>eṉaiyaṙit tippō deṉaikkala vāviḍi<br>
liduvō vāṇmai yaruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> எனை அழித்து இப்போது எனை கலவாவிடில், இதுவோ ஆண்மை அருணாசலா?<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>eṉai aṙittu ippōdu eṉai kalavāviḍil, iduvō āṇmai aruṇācalā?</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, if not now uniting me, destroying me, is this manliness?<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, now [that I am willing to surrender myself entirely to you], if [you] do not unite me [with yourself in inseparable oneness], [thereby] destroying me [destroying my ‘virginity’, namely my separate existence as ego], is this [your] manliness?</blockquote>
<a name="aamm10"></a>Since Arunachala seems to remain unmoved by her urgent pleas, her mind continues to be dragged out towards the world by her <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> (inclinations to seek happiness in <i>viṣayas</i>, objects or phenomena), so she continues to rebuke him in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/08/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-10.html">verse 10</a>:<br>
<blockquote>ஏனிந்த வுறக்க மெனைப்பிற ரிழுக்க<br>
விதுவுனக் கழகோ வருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>ēṉinda vuṟakka meṉaippiṟa riṙukka<br>
viduvuṉak kaṙahō varuṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> ஏன் இந்த உறக்கம், எனை பிறர் இழுக்க? இது உனக்கு அழகோ அருணாசலா?<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>ēṉ inda uṟakkam, eṉai piṟar iṙukka? idu uṉakku aṙahō aruṇācalā?</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, why this sleep, when others are dragging me? Is this beauty for you?<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, why this [pretended] sleep [seeing what is happening to me but remaining unconcerned, as if you did not see it, like one who is asleep], when others [who have no right over me, namely <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, which rise as likes, dislikes, desires, fears and so on] are dragging [attracting or alluring] me [outwards, away from you, my rightful lord]? Is this beauty [befitting or becoming] for you?</blockquote>
<a name="aamm11"></a>In the same way she further rebukes him in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/08/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-11.html">verse 11</a> for his seeming indifference to her plight and desperate need for his help and protection, and for his consequent neglect of her when she needs him most:<br>
<blockquote>ஐம்புலக் கள்வ ரகத்தினிற் புகும்போ<br>
தகத்தினீ யிலையோ வருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>aimbulak kaḷva rahattiṉiṟ puhumbō<br>
dahattiṉī yilaiyō varuṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> ஐம் புல கள்வர் அகத்தினில் புகும் போது, அகத்தில் நீ இலையோ அருணாசலா?<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>aim pula kaḷvar ahattiṉil puhum pōdu, ahattil nī ilaiyō aruṇācalā?</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, when the five sense-thieves enter the heart, are you not in the heart?<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, when the five sense-thieves [namely <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, which are the seeds that sprout as desires for the pleasures that are seemingly derived from the five kinds of sense-objects] enter [my] heart [to steal my attention away from you], are you not in [my] heart? [So why do you not protect me from them?]</blockquote>
<a name="aamm12"></a>How could she be in such a desperate situation, unable to resist the powerful pull of her <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, which have entered her heart like thieves to steal her attention away from him, if he did not permit it, turning a blind eye to what is happening to her? Since he is unique and peerless in every respect, could there be any power greater than him that could prevent him from protecting her by making her one with himself? Indeed, since he is the one and only existing reality, who else could enter her heart in the guise of these thieves? Therefore in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/09/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-12.html">verse 12</a> she accuses him, saying that this is all his trick or deception:<br>
<blockquote>ஒருவனா முன்னை யொளித்தெவர் வருவா<br>
ருன்சூ தேயிது வருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>oruvaṉā muṉṉai yoḷittevar varuvā<br>
ruṉsū dēyidu varuṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> ஒருவன் ஆம் உன்னை ஒளித்து எவர் வருவார்? உன் சூதே இது அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>oruvaṉ ām uṉṉai oḷittu evar varuvār? uṉ sūdē idu aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, hiding you, who are the one, who can come? This is only your trick.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, hiding [from] you, who are the one [the only one who actually exists], who can come [into my heart]? This [the entry of the five sense-thieves in my heart] is only [or certainly] your trick.</blockquote>
<a name="aamm13"></a>But who is she to question him? If he chooses to trick and deceive her in this manner, he alone can know why he does so. Who is she to understand him and his ways? Since he is <i>brahman</i>, the ultimate reality, the only thing that actually exists, the one real substance denoted by the sacred syllable <i>ōm</i>, for him there is nothing that is equal, similar or superior, so no one other than himself can know him or understand him, as she sings in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/09/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-13.html">verse 13</a>:<br>
<blockquote>ஓங்கா ரப்பொரு ளொப்புயர் வில்லோ<br>
யுனையா ரறிவா ரருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>ōṅkā rapporu ḷoppuyar villō<br>
yuṉaiyā raṟivā raruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> ஓங்கார பொருள், ஒப்பு உயர்வு இல்லோய், உனை யார் அறிவார் அருணாசலா?<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>ōṅkāra poruḷ, oppu uyarvu illōy, uṉai yār aṟivār aruṇācalā?</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, substance of <i>ōṁkāra</i>, you for whom there is not equal or superior, who can know you?<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, [inner and ultimate] substance [reality, import or referent] of <i>ōṁkāra</i> [the sacred syllable <i>ōm</i>], you for whom there is not [anything or anyone] equal [or similar] or superior, who [other than yourself] can know you [as you actually are]?</blockquote>
<a name="aamm14"></a>Since he cannot be known by anyone other than himself, we can know him only by being him, and to be him we must give ourself wholly to him by subsiding back within, dissolving in him, the source from which we have risen, the womb from which we were born as ego. However, since we are powerless without him, even surrendering ourself to him is possible only by his grace, so we can surrender ourself to him, handing over complete charge and care of ourself to him, only to the extent to which he pulls us back within and thereby takes charge of us as his own. Therefore in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/10/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-14.html">verse 14</a> she declares her complete dependence on him, saying that it is his duty to take charge of her, bestowing his grace upon her like a mother, who showers her love and care upon her own child:<br>
<blockquote>ஔவைபோ லெனக்குன் னருளைத் தந்தெனை<br>
யாளுவ துன்கட னருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>auvaipō leṉakkuṉ ṉaruḷait tandeṉai<br>
yāḷuva duṉkaḍa ṉaruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> ஔவை போல் எனக்கு உன் அருளை தந்து, எனை ஆளுவது உன் கடன் அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>auvai pōl eṉakku uṉ aruḷai tandu, eṉai āḷuvadu uṉ kaḍaṉ aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, like a mother, giving me your grace, taking charge of me is your duty.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, like a mother, giving me your <i>aruḷ</i> [grace, love, affection, kindness and compassion], taking charge of me [as your own] is your duty [obligation or responsibility].</blockquote>
<a name="aamm15"></a>Since he is the eye to the eye, meaning that he is the one original and only real awareness, which is the light that shines within the mind as its own reality, ‘I am’, illumining it and thereby enabling it to see or know all other things, and since he sees without eyes, meaning that he sees himself, the one reality of all things, without the need for any mind to see the appearance of anything, he cannot be seen or known as he actually is by anything other than himself. Therefore we can see him as he actually is only when he sees us in such a way that we are thereby enabled to see ourself as he sees us, namely as himself alone, as she implies by praying in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/10/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-15.html">verse 15</a>:<br>
<blockquote>கண்ணுக்குக் கண்ணாய்க் கண்ணின்றிக் காணுனைக்<br>
காணுவ தெவர்பா ரருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>kaṇṇukkuk kaṇṇāyk kaṇṇiṉḏṟik kāṇuṉaik<br>
kāṇuva devarpā raruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> கண்ணுக்கு கண் ஆய் கண் இன்றி காண் உனை காணுவது எவர்? பார் அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>kaṇṇukku kaṇ āy kaṇ iṉḏṟi kāṇ uṉai kāṇuvadu evar? pār aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, who can see you, who, being the eye to the eye, sees without eyes? See.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, who can [by means of what eye] see you, who, being the eye to the eye [the real awareness that illumines the seeming awareness called mind, just as the sun illumines the moon], sees without eyes [that is, who sees (the reality of) everything without seeing (the appearance of) anything]? See [me] [so that I may see you by seeing myself as you see me].</blockquote>
<a name="aamm16"></a>Since she recognises that she cannot surrender herself to him or see him as he actually is without his grace, in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/11/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-16.html">verse 16</a> she prays to him to attract her to himself and thereby to unite her eternally with his real nature, illustrating her complete dependence on him by comparing herself to a piece of iron, which is wholly dependent on a magnet to attract it to itself and thereby unite it with itself, bestowing upon it its own magnetic nature so that it remains forever one with itself:<br>
<blockquote>காந்த மிரும்புபோற் கவர்ந்தெனை விடாமற்<br>
கலந்தெனோ டிருப்பா யருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>kānta mirumbupōṟ kavarndeṉai viḍāmaṟ<br>
kalandeṉō ḍiruppā yaruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> காந்தம் இரும்பு போல் கவர்ந்து எனை, விடாமல் கலந்து எனோடு இருப்பாய் அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>kāntam irumbu pōl kavarndu eṉai, viḍāmal kalandu eṉōḍu iruppāy aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>அன்வயம்:</b> காந்தம் இரும்பு போல் எனை கவர்ந்து, விடாமல் கலந்து எனோடு இருப்பாய் அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Anvayam</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>kāntam irumbu pōl eṉai kavarndu, viḍāmal kalandu eṉōḍu iruppāy aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, like a magnet iron, forcibly seizing me, uniting without leaving, may you be with me.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, like a magnet [grasping] iron [by its natural power of attraction], forcibly seizing [grasping, captivating or attracting] me [by the captivating power of your grace], uniting [me with yourself] without [ever] leaving [or letting go of] [me], may you be [eternally one] with me.</blockquote>
<a name="aamm17"></a>Since she wants nothing but to give herself wholly to him and thereby be made by him eternally one with himself, and since she knows that this is possible only by his infinitely abundant grace, which is his <i>svarūpa</i> (his own very nature), in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/11/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-17.html">verse 17</a> she prays for nothing other than his grace, begging him:<br>
<blockquote>கிரியுரு வாகிய கிருபைக் கடலே<br>
கிருபைகூர்ந் தருளுவா யருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>giriyuru vāhiya kirupaik kaḍalē<br>
kirupaikūrn daruḷuvā yaruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> கிரி உரு ஆகிய கிருபை கடலே, கிருபை கூர்ந்து அருளுவாய் அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>giri uru āhiya kirupai kaḍalē, kirupai kūrndu aruḷuvāy aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, ocean of grace, which is the form of a hill, being abundantly gracious may you bestow grace.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, [who shine in the heart as the infinite] ocean of grace [or compassion], which is [what is seen outside as] the form of [this great] hill, being abundantly [or intensely] gracious [or compassionate] may you bestow grace [upon me in whatever way you wish, knowing it to be what is best for me, and may you thereby annihilate me, devouring me completely in the infinite light of your grace].</blockquote>
<a name="aamm18"></a>Since she is painfully aware of her own lowness and unfitness to be united with him, the one supreme and all-pervading reality, but since at the same time she knows that even her own lowness and unfitness can never be an obstacle to his grace, because he can destroy her and consequently her lowness in an instant, making them completely non-existent, in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/12/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-18.html">verse 18</a> she humbly begs him:<br>
<blockquote>கீழ்மே லெங்குங் கிளரொளி மணியென்<br>
கீழ்மையைப் பாழ்செய் யருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>kīṙmē leṅguṅ kiḷaroḷi maṇiyeṉ<br>
kīṙmaiyaip pāṙcey yaruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> கீழ் மேல் எங்கும் கிளர் ஒளி மணி, என் கீழ்மையை பாழ் செய் அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>kīṙ mēl eṅgum kiḷar oḷi maṇi, eṉ kīṙmaiyai pāṙ sey aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, gem of light that shines below, above and everywhere, annihilate my lowness.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, gem of light [the infinitely precious light of pure awareness, ‘I am’] that shines below, above and everywhere [that is, that shines within me at all times and in all states, whether my mind is in a low state of impurity and immaturity or an elevated state of purity and maturity], [by drawing my mind inwards to see you as you actually are] annihilate my baseness [the darkness of my self-ignorance, which is what rises as ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’].</blockquote>
<a name="aamm19"></a>Since the lowness or baseness that she refers to here is ego together with all its <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, and since the role and responsibility of <i>guru</i>, who shines in the form of Arunachala, is to eradicate these defects entirely and thereby take complete charge of his devotees, she prays to him in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/12/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-19.html">verse 19</a>:<br>
<blockquote>குற்றமுற் றறுத்தெனைக் குணமாய்ப் பணித்தாள்<br>
குருவுரு வாயொளி ரருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>kuṯṟamuṯ ṟaṟutteṉaig guṇamāyp paṇittāḷ<br>
guruvuru vāyoḷi raruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> குற்றம் முற்று அறுத்து எனை குணம் ஆய் பணித்து ஆள், குரு உரு ஆய் ஒளிர் அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>kuṯṟam muṯṟu aṟuttu eṉai guṇam āy paṇittu āḷ, guru-v-uru-v-āy oḷir aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, who shine as the form of <i>guru</i>, eradicating defects completely, making me as virtue, take charge.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, who shine as the form of <i>guru</i>, eradicating [removing or cutting off] [all my] defects completely [namely all my <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> along with ego, their root] and making me as [one who is endowed with every] <i>guṇa</i> [virtue or good quality] [especially <i>sadguṇa</i>, the ultimate virtue of just being as I actually am without ever rising as ego even to the slightest extent], take charge [of me as your very own so that I may never again fall prey to the evil demon-ego and its horde of <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>].</blockquote>
<a name="aamm20"></a>Until ego is eradicated completely, its <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> will remain to a greater or lesser extent, so it will always be susceptible to coming under their sway, thereby falling prey to the cruel snares of worldly attractions, which seem to offer so much but deliver so little besides disappointment and anguish, so in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2023/01/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-20.html">verse 20</a> she begs him to graciously unite her with himself in order to protect her eternally from ever again becoming ensnared in the cruelty of such attractions:<br>
<blockquote>கூர்வாட் கண்ணியர் கொடுமையிற் படாதருள்<br>
கூர்ந்தெனைச் சேர்ந்தரு ளருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>kūrvāṭ kaṇṇiyar koḍumaiyiṟ paḍādaruḷ<br>
kūrndeṉaic cērndaru ḷaruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> கூர் வாள் கண்ணியர் கொடுமையில் படாது, அருள் கூர்ந்து எனை சேர்ந்து அருள் அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>kūr vāḷ kaṇṇiyar koḍumaiyil paḍādu, aruḷ kūrndu eṉai sērndu aruḷ aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, so as not to become ensnared in the cruelty of those with sharp sword-eyes, being intensely compassionate be gracious uniting me.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, so as not [to allow me] to become ensnared in the cruelty of those with [alluring] eyes [that pierce one’s heart like] a sharp sword, being intensely [or abundantly] compassionate be gracious [by] uniting me [with yourself].</blockquote>
It was he who first raised hope of salvation in her heart by entering her former home, the mind, and drawing her back within towards his home, the heart, and since then she has been piteously begging him in so many ways to complete the task he began by immediately annihilating her completely, thereby uniting her forever with himself. In spite of all her heart-melting prayers, if he still does not take pity on her by making her eternally one with himself, she has every right to call him ‘வஞ்சி’ (<i>vañji</i>), a cheat, fraud or deceiver. How can it be right for him to cheat her by ignoring all her piteous pleadings in such a heartless and uncaring manner? Therefore in this verse she prays to him once again: “கெஞ்சியும் வஞ்சியாய் கொஞ்சமும் இரங்கிலை. ‘அஞ்சு அல்’ என்றே அருள் அருணாசலா” (<i>keñjiyum vañjiyāy koñjamum iraṅgilai. ‘añju al’ eṉḏṟē aruḷ aruṇācalā</i>), “Arunachala, though [I have been] begging [you] [so piteously that it would melt even a stone], being a cheat [fraud or deceiver] [you remain unmoved] without feeling [or showing] even the slightest pity [for me]. [At least now] be gracious saying ‘fear not’”. <br>
<br>
அஞ்சு (<i>añju</i>) is a verb that means to fear, and being the root of this verb, it is used here as an imperative, and அல் (<i>al</i>) is a negative particle, so ‘அஞ்சு அல்’ (<i>añju al</i>), which is coalesced euphonically as ‘அஞ்சல்’ (<i>añjal</i>), means ‘fear not’. என்றே (<i>eṉḏṟē</i>) is an intensified form of the quotative adverbial participle என்று (<i>eṉḏṟu</i>), and in this context it means ‘saying’ as well as serving the same function that enclosing the preceding word or words in inverted commas would serve in English. அருள் (<i>aruḷ</i>) is both a verb that means to be gracious or to give graciously and a noun that means grace, but in this context it is used as a verb in the imperative sense ‘be gracious’. Therefore ‘அஞ்சல் என்றே அருள்’ (<i>añjal eṉḏṟē aruḷ</i>) is a prayer for reassurance that means ‘Be gracious saying [or assuring me]: Fear not’.<br>
<br>
That is, even if for some reason best known to himself Arunachala does not answer all her prayers by immediately annihilating her separate existence as ego or <i>jīva</i>, thereby making her eternally one with himself, rather than continuing to seem indifferent to her plight and therefore unmoved by all her prayers, he should at least be gracious enough to say ‘Fear not’, thereby reassuring her that he does indeed care for her and will certainly annihilate her in due course, whenever he sees fit to do so.<br>
<br>
<a name="aamm11a"></a>So regarding what does she want him to say ‘Fear not’? What is it that she now fears, and from the fear of which she beseeches him to protect her? All this time what she has been fearing above all else is coming under the powerful sway of her <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, which like thieves are constantly attempting to drag her mind out towards the world, thereby in effect separating her from him, her rightful lord and master, who shines eternally in her heart as <i>ātma-svarūpa</i>, the real nature of both himself and herself. The cruelty of these <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, which are what he referred to in <a href="#aamm11">verse 11</a> as ‘ஐம் புலக் கள்வர்’ (<i>aim pula kaḷvar</i>), ‘the five sense-thieves’, are what she has been praying to him to protect her from in so many of these verses, so in this verse she prays to him at least to say ‘Fear not’, thereby reassuring her that he will certainly protect her from ever again becoming ensnared in their cruelty by destroying them completely along with their root, namely herself as ego.<br>
<br>
<a name="aamm22"></a>But when she has been piteously begging him in so many ways, why does he seem to remain unmoved, showing not even the least pity for her, like a heartless cheat who has deceived a young girl, taking advantage of her by seemingly offering her his love, but then turning away from her and paying no heed to her heart-melting pleas? As she says in the next verse, he is renowned for giving unasked, so why in her case is he not giving anything even when asked in such a desperate, anguished and heart-melting manner?<br>
<br>
As Bhagavan taught us, ‘<i>bhakti</i> is the mother of <i>jñāna</i>’, meaning that love is the mother of true knowledge, namely awareness of ourself as we actually are, because only when our stone-like heart melts and dissolves in all-consuming love for him, our own real nature, will we finally be freed from desire for anything other than him and therefore be willing to surrender ourself entirely to him. Until we are thereby willing to give ourself entirely to him without even the slightest reservation or hesitation, he will not force himself upon us, so his grace works deep within our heart by steadily arousing and nurturing such love in us until we are consumed by it entirely.<br>
<br>
Therefore, though he outwardly seems to be unmoved by the intense yearning and heart-melting prayers of his devotee, his seeming indifference to her is actually one of the means by which he is nurturing the growth of the requisite love in her heart. The more desperately she pleads with him, the more pure love in the form of <i>sat-vāsanā</i> (inclination to cling to her own being and thereby just to be as she actually is), which is the true mark of his grace, will surge forth from deep within her, welling up in her heart and thereby cleansing it of all its residual impurities in the form of her <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>.<br>
<br>
As Muruganar points out, this is what is known in Tamil as ‘மறக்கருணை’ (<i>maṟa-k-karuṇai</i>), a term that literally means heroic, warlike, hostile, angry, violent, murderous or destructive grace, implying grace that is harsh but purifying, waging war on and annihilating all the impurities in the heart of the devotee, as opposed to ‘அறக்கருணை’ (<i>aṟa-k-karuṇai</i>), ‘righteous [kind or gentle] grace’. That is, Arunachala, who is the infinite ocean of grace, will not stop at anything in his single-minded mission to save his devotee, so he will use both harsh and gentle measures, whichever is necessary and most effective at each given moment, to achieve his aim of purifying her heart and making her wholeheartedly willing to surrender herself entirely to him, allowing him thereby to devour her completely, thus making her eternally one with himself.<br>
<br>
<b>Video discussion:</b> <a href="https://youtu.be/TarbU6dXrtQ"><i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> verse 21</a><br>
<br>
<div style="text-align:center"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/TarbU6dXrtQ" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-61051817666388686842023-01-27T18:02:00.003+00:002023-02-02T20:02:19.599+00:00Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai verse 20This is the twentieth in a series of articles that I hope to write on <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>, Bhagavan willing, the completed ones being <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/articles.html#aamm">listed here</a>.<br><a name='more'></a>
<br>
<a name="aamm20"></a><b>Verse 20:</b><br>
<blockquote>கூர்வாட் கண்ணியர் கொடுமையிற் படாதருள்<br>
கூர்ந்தெனைச் சேர்ந்தரு ளருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>kūrvāṭ kaṇṇiyar koḍumaiyiṟ paḍādaruḷ<br>
kūrndeṉaic cērndaru ḷaruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> கூர் வாள் கண்ணியர் கொடுமையில் படாது, அருள் கூர்ந்து எனை சேர்ந்து அருள் அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>kūr vāḷ kaṇṇiyar koḍumaiyil paḍādu, aruḷ kūrndu eṉai sērndu aruḷ aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, so as not to become ensnared in the cruelty of those with sharp sword-eyes, being intensely compassionate be gracious uniting me.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, so as not [to allow me] to become ensnared in the cruelty of those with [alluring] eyes [that pierce one’s heart like] a sharp sword, being intensely [or abundantly] compassionate be gracious [by] uniting me [with yourself].<br>
<br>
<b>Alternative interpretation 1:</b> Arunachala, so as not [to allow me] to become ensnared in the cruelty of [<i>māyā</i>, which attracts, tempts, enchants and deludes the mind like] those with [alluring but malicious] eyes [that pierce one’s heart like] a sharp sword, being intensely [or abundantly] compassionate be gracious [by] uniting me [with yourself].<br>
<br>
<b>Alternative interpretation 2</b> [when கண்ணியர் (<i>kaṇṇiyar</i>) is taken to mean ‘those with nets’ instead of ‘those with eyes’]: Arunachala, so as not [to allow me] to become ensnared in the cruelty of those [wicked people who deceive, ensnare and exploit others with cunning words and other strategies, like hunters who deceive, ensnare and kill animals] with nets and sharp swords, being intensely [or abundantly] compassionate be gracious [by] uniting me [with yourself].<br>
<br>
<b>Alternative interpretation 3:</b> Arunachala, so as not [to allow me] to become ensnared in the cruelty of those with eyes [that lack compassion and kindness and are instead filled with malice] [and who, not caring about the anguish I feel due to my separation from you, gossip about me, taunt me and make fun of me, speaking unkind words about me or to me that pierce my aching heart like] a sharp sword, being intensely [or abundantly] compassionate be gracious [by] uniting me [with yourself].</blockquote>
<b>Explanation:</b> As I will explain later, this is a verse for which various different meanings have been proposed, particularly by Muruganar, but I will start by discussing the most obvious and straightforward meaning of it. கூர் (<i>kūr</i>) is an adjective that in this context means ‘sharp’ or ‘pointed’, and வாள் (<i>vāḷ</i>) is a noun that means ‘sword’, so ‘கூர் வாள்’ (<i>kūr vāḷ</i>) means ‘sharp sword’. கண் (<i>kaṇ</i>) is a noun that means ‘eye’, and கண்ணியர் (<i>kaṇṇiyar</i>) is a personal noun formed from it, so it means ‘those who have eyes’ or ‘those with eyes’. ‘கூர் வாள் கண்ணியர்’ (<i>kūr vāḷ kaṇṇiyar</i>) therefore means ‘those with sharp sword-eyes’, which implies ‘those with sharp sword-like eyes’, or more specifically, ‘those with [alluring] eyes [that pierce one’s heart like] a sharp sword’.<br>
<br>
கண்ணியர் (<i>kaṇṇiyar</i>), ‘those with eyes’, does not refer specifically to any gender, so though from a male perspective ‘கூர் வாள் கண்ணியர்’ (<i>kūr vāḷ kaṇṇiyar</i>), ‘those with sharp sword-eyes’, suggests women with seductive eyes, from a female perspective it can equally well imply men with seductive eyes. That is, though it is well known that women have the ability to attract and seduce men by looking at them in an alluring manner, it is also a fact that men can attract and seduce women by looking at them in a certain way that indicates interest in them.<br>
<br>
If a man looks at a woman or a woman looks at a man with seductive intent, and if they do so not out of genuine love but in order to take advantage of them or to use them in a particular way without caring for their welfare or feelings, they can cause them great harm and hurt, both emotionally and in other ways. For example, a man can seduce a woman for sexual pleasure, but may later abandon her when she becomes pregnant, and either a man or a woman can seduce the other for the sake of their money or some other material or social advantage, and may later abandon them when they have achieved their aim. Exploiting another person in such a way is extremely cruel, and such cruelty is what Bhagavan refers to in the next word, கொடுமை (<i>koḍumai</i>), which means cruelty, tyranny, inhumanity, crookedness, harshness, viciousness, wickedness or injustice.<br>
<br>
கொடுமையில் (<i>koḍumaiyil</i>) is a locative (or seventh case) form of கொடுமை (<i>koḍumai</i>), so it means ‘in the cruelty’, and படாது (<i>paḍādu</i>) is a negative adverbial participle of the verb படு (<i>paḍu</i>), which has a wide range of meanings, but in this context படாது (<i>paḍādu</i>) means ‘not being caught’ or ‘not becoming ensnared’, and here it is used in the sense of ‘so as not to be caught [or become ensnared]’, thereby implying ‘so that I am not caught [or do not become ensnared]’. Therefore ‘கூர் வாள் கண்ணியர் கொடுமையில் படாது’ (<i>kūr vāḷ kaṇṇiyar koḍumaiyil paḍādu</i>) is an adverbial clause that means ‘not being caught in the cruelty of those with sharp sword-eyes’, which implies ‘so that I am not caught [or do not become ensnared] in the cruelty of those with [seductive] eyes [that pierce one’s heart like] a sharp sword’.<br>
<br>
அருள் (<i>aruḷ</i>) is both a noun and a verb, but in this verse the first அருள் (<i>aruḷ</i>) is a noun that means divine grace, kindness, compassion, benevolence or love, and கூர்ந்து (<i>kūrndu</i>) is an adverbial participle that means being abundant, sharp, keen or intense, so ‘அருள் கூர்ந்து’ (<i>aruḷ kūrndy</i>) means ‘being abundantly gracious’ or ‘being intensely compassionate’. எனை (<i>eṉai</i>) is a poetic abbreviation of என்னை (<i>eṉṉai</i>), the accusative (or second case) form of the first person singular pronoun, so it means ‘me’. சேர்ந்து (<i>sērndu</i>) is an adverbial participle that means joining or uniting, so ‘எனை சேர்ந்து’ (<i>eṉai sērndu</i>) means ‘joining me’ or ‘uniting me’, which in this context can imply either or both of two meanings, namely ‘joining me [as my supremely powerful ally, protecting and supporting me in this battle against the cruel temptation of those who seek to allure me with their seductive eyes]’ and ‘uniting me [in inseparable oneness with yourself, thereby safeguarding me eternally from these and all other kinds of temptation]’. The final அருள் (<i>aruḷ</i>) is a verb that means ‘be gracious [kind, compassionate or benevolent]’, and being the root or basic form of this verb, it is used here as an imperative. Therefore ‘அருள் கூர்ந்து எனை சேர்ந்து அருள்’ (<i>aruḷ kūrndu eṉai sērndu aruḷ</i>), which is the main clause of this sentence, means ‘being intensely compassionate be gracious uniting [or joining] me’, which implies ‘being intensely [or abundantly] compassionate be gracious [by] uniting me [with yourself] [or joining me as my ally]’.<br>
<br>
The entire verse, ‘கூர் வாள் கண்ணியர் கொடுமையில் படாது, அருள் கூர்ந்து எனை சேர்ந்து அருள் அருணாசலா’ (<i>kūr vāḷ kaṇṇiyar koḍumaiyil paḍādu, aruḷ kūrndu eṉai sērndu aruḷ aruṇācalā</i>), therefore means ‘Arunachala, so as not to become ensnared in the cruelty of those with sharp sword-eyes, being intensely compassionate be gracious uniting me’, which implies ‘Arunachala, so as not [to allow me] to become ensnared in the cruelty of those with [alluring] eyes [that pierce one’s heart like] a sharp sword, being intensely [or abundantly] compassionate be gracious [by] uniting me [with yourself]’. This is the simple and straightforward meaning that is clearly implied by this verse, but other interpretations of it are also possible.<br>
<br>
Firstly, we can broaden the implication of ‘கூர் வாள் கண்ணியர்’ (<i>kūr vāḷ kaṇṇiyar</i>), ‘those with sharp sword-eyes’, by interpreting it to be a metaphorical description of <i>māyā</i>, the mind, which is the power of self-delusion that draws our attention outwards, away from ourself as we actually are, by attracting, tempting, enchanting, deluding and seducing us with all its deceptive allurements, like cruelly malicious people with alluring eyes that pierce our heart like a sharp sword. When we interpret these words in this metaphorical sense, this verse implies: ‘Arunachala, so as not [to allow me] to become ensnared in the cruelty of [<i>māyā</i>, which attracts, tempts, enchants and deludes the mind like] those with [alluring but malicious] eyes [that pierce one’s heart like] a sharp sword, being intensely [or abundantly] compassionate be gracious [by] uniting me [with yourself]’.<br>
<br>
Whether we interpret the meaning of ‘கூர் வாள் கண்ணியர்’ (<i>kūr vāḷ kaṇṇiyar</i>), ‘those with sharp sword-eyes’, literally or figuratively, the reason we are attracted and deceived by the cruel allurements of the world is to be found within ourself in the form of our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>: inclinations to seek happiness in <i>viṣayas</i> (objects or phenomena), which are all things other than ourself. That is, if we did not have such inclinations (<i>vāsanās</i>), which are what rise in us in the form of our likes, dislikes, desires, aversions, attachments, hopes, fears and so on, there would be nothing outside ourself that could attract, tempt or seduce us.<br>
<br>
Therefore though on the surface Bhagavan is referring in this verse to the cruelty of worldly allurements, the cruelty he is actually referring to is by implication the cruelty of our own <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, under whose sway alone we fall prey to any kind of worldly allurement. Since the problem lies within ourself, therefore, the solution to it must be found within ourself. Why do we come under the sway of our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> and thereby fall prey to worldly allurements? When we are asleep we are not under their sway, whereas in waking and dream we are, so what is the fundamental difference between sleep on the one hand and waking and dream of the other hand? In sleep we do not rise as ego, whereas in waking and dream we have risen as ego, so we come under the sway of <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> only when we rise and stand as ego. Therefore the ultimate cause of our falling prey to the cruelty of any kind of worldly allurement (any allurement of <i>māyā</i>) is our rising as ego, so eradication of ego is the only solution that will save us from ever again falling prey to any such cruelty.<br>
<br>
Therefore what Bhagavan is ultimately praying for in all the prayer verses of <i>Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> is eradication of ego, because ego alone is the root cause of all problems and sufferings, and hence its eradication is the only permanent solution to all of them. He expresses this prayer in this verse by singing ‘அருள் கூர்ந்து எனை சேர்ந்து அருள் அருணாசலா’ (<i>aruḷ kūrndu eṉai sērndu aruḷ aruṇācalā</i>), ‘Arunachala, being intensely compassionate, be gracious [by] joining [or uniting] me [in inseparable oneness with yourself]’. That is, Arunachala is <i>ātma-svarūpa</i>, the real nature of ourself, so we seem to be separated from him only because we have risen as ego, and hence ‘எனை சேர்ந்து’ (<i>eṉai sērndu</i>), ‘joining me’ or ‘uniting me’, implies ‘restoring me to my real state of inseparable oneness with yourself by eradicating this ego’.<br>
<br>
The other possible interpretations of this verse are ones that were given by Muruganar, and the reason he gave these meanings was that he did not feel comfortable with the most obvious meaning given above, because this <i>Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> is sung from the perspective of a young girl, the devotee, praying for imperishable union with her beloved Lord, Arunachala, so a prayer made from an exclusively male perspective (as he took the obvious meaning to be) would be out of place in it. Therefore, since கண்ணி (<i>kaṇṇi</i>) means a net, which is so called because each hole in it is like a கண் (<i>kaṇ</i>), ‘eye’, instead of taking கண்ணியர் (<i>kaṇṇiyar</i>) to mean ‘those with eyes’ he took it to mean ‘those with nets’, so instead of interpreting ‘கூர் வாள் கண்ணியர்’ (<i>kūr vāḷ kaṇṇiyar</i>) to mean ‘those with sharp sword[-like] eyes’, which would naturally suggest women with seductive eyes, he took it to mean ‘those with sharp swords and nets’, implying ruthless manipulators who, like hunters who catch birds, fish or other wild animals in nets and then kill them with sharp swords, beguile innocent people with sweet words and by other such means, thereby ensnaring them in a web of deception, and then cruelly exploit them for their own selfish ends, regardless of the suffering that they thereby inflict upon them.<br>
<br>
Therefore, if we take கண்ணியர் (<i>kaṇṇiyar</i>) to mean ‘those with nets’, the implied meaning of this verse, ‘கூர் வாள் கண்ணியர் கொடுமையில் படாது, அருள் கூர்ந்து எனை சேர்ந்து அருள் அருணாசலா’ (<i>kūr vāḷ kaṇṇiyar koḍumaiyil paḍādu, aruḷ kūrndu eṉai sērndu aruḷ aruṇācalā</i>), is: ‘Arunachala, so as not [to allow me] to become ensnared in the cruelty of those [wicked people who deceive, ensnare and exploit others with cunning words and other strategies, like hunters who deceive, ensnare and kill animals] with nets and sharp swords, being intensely [or abundantly] compassionate be gracious [by] uniting me [with yourself]’.<br>
<br>
There are of course many different kinds of people in this world who seek to deceive, ensnare and exploit others with cunning words and other strategies, and they are not all equally wicked. Some of them are particularly evil, such as certain political leaders and autocrats who have sacrificed the lives of millions of innocent people at the altar of their vile political (and often quasi-religious) ideologies, whereas others may even be well-intentioned people who have first deceived themselves and who therefore genuinely believe that all their attempts to ensnare others with various kinds of deceptive words and strategies are just for the good of those they seek to beguile.<br>
<br>
For those of us who aspire to follow the spiritual path, the kind of deceiver we are most likely to fall prey to are would-be <i>gurus</i>, spiritual guides or preachers of fabricated religious doctrines, and as Ramakrishna Paramahamsa said, anyone who falls prey to such an inadequately qualified <i>guru</i> is like a large frog caught by a small water-snake. The frog cannot escape from the jaws of the snake, and the snake cannot swallow the frog, so both have to suffer. Likewise, those who are enthralled by a false <i>guru</i> of any kind cannot escape from their clutches, and the <i>guru</i> cannot eradicate their ego, so both have to suffer in <i>māyā</i>. The real <i>guru</i> is not a person but only that which is always shining in our heart as our own reality, namely Arunachala, so it is only by his grace shining clearly in our heart, giving us the clarity of <i>vivēka</i> (discrimination, discernment or the ability to distinguish what is true from what is false) to see through the deceptions of any false <i>guru</i>, that we can be saved from falling prey to the cruel snares of such deceivers.<br>
<br>
Except for the fact that this interpretation proposed by Muruganar does not refer specifically to people with beguiling eyes, in its overall implication it is close to the most obvious meaning of this verse, which I discussed earlier, because according to both interpretations Bhagavan is praying to be saved from falling prey to the cruelty of wicked people who seek to charm and deceive others for their own selfish ends, and who in doing so lead the minds of their victims astray by luring them outwards, tempting them with the illusory prospect of finding happiness in things other than their own being, ‘I am’. We can therefore combine the implications of these two meanings by saying that the eyes of wicked women or men who seek to seduce us (or of false <i>gurus</i> who seek to deceive us) are like the nets that hunters use to catch their prey, and that once we are caught in such a net of deception it is impossible for us, in spite of all the suffering it inflicts upon us, to extract ourself from it without the abundant grace of Arunachala. Moreover, this is true not only of the cruel deception of sexual allurement (or of the allurement of any false spiritual or religious teaching, or of any divisive and unjust political ideology) but of all the countless other types of allurement by which <i>māyā</i> draws our attention outwards, away from our own being, ‘I am’.<br>
<br>
Though Muruganar made it clear that he was not in favour of interpreting ‘கூர் வாள் கண்ணியர்’ (<i>kūr vāḷ kaṇṇiyar</i>) to mean ‘those [women] with sharp sword[-like] eyes’, because it seemed incongruous in the context of this marriage garland (<i>maṇa mālai</i>) sung from the perspective of a young girl, in the first appendix to his commentary (<i>virutti-y-urai</i>) he considered an important fact pointed out by another devotee, Dr Srinivasa Rao, that reconciled this seeming incongruity, so I will now explain this briefly in my own words:<br>
<br>
In many <i>bhakti</i> traditions God is considered to be the only male (<i>puruṣa</i>) and all <i>jīvas</i> are considered to be female (<i>prakṛti</i>), and it was with this devotional attitude (<i>bhāva</i>) that Bhagavan sang <i>Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>. However, though as a <i>jīva</i> we are female from a spiritual perspective, as a body we may nevertheless be male from a physical perspective, because whenever we rise and stand as <i>jīva</i> or ego, we always experience ourself as ‘I am this body’, and whatever body we thereby take ourself to be may be either female or male. If we experience ourself as a male body, we will generally be sexually attracted to female bodies, and likewise, if we experience ourself as a female body, we will generally be sexually attracted to male bodies. Since the allurement that Bhagavan refers to when he sang ‘கூர் வாள் கண்ணியர் கொடுமையில் படாது’ (<i>kūr vāḷ kaṇṇiyar koḍumaiyil paḍādu</i>), ‘not becoming [or so that I do not become] ensnared in the cruelty of those with sharp sword[-like] eyes’, is sexual attraction, it is physical, so praying to be saved from falling prey to the cruelty or viciousness of such a physical allurement does not actually clash in any way with the fact that this song was sung from the perspective of a devotee who considers herself to be spiritually female, no matter whether the body by whose limitations and nature she is currently bound happens to be female or male.<br>
<br>
In another part of the same appendix Muruganar also discussed another interpretation for this verse suggested by a close friend of his and renowned Tamil scholar, Chengalvaraya Pillai. That is, besides meaning cruelty, tyranny, inhumanity, crookedness, harshness, viciousness, wickedness or injustice, கொடுமை (<i>koḍumai</i>) can also mean slander or any harsh or unkind words, so ‘கூர் வாள் கண்ணியர் கொடுமையில் படாது, அருள் கூர்ந்து எனை சேர்ந்து அருள் அருணாசலா’ (<i>kūr vāḷ kaṇṇiyar koḍumaiyil paḍādu, aruḷ kūrndu eṉai sērndu aruḷ aruṇācalā</i>) can also be taken to imply: ‘Arunachala, so as not [to allow me] to become ensnared in the cruelty of those with eyes [that lack compassion and kindness and are instead filled with malice] [and who, not caring about the anguish I feel due to my separation from you, gossip about me, taunt me and make fun of me, speaking unkind words about me or to me that pierce my aching heart like] a sharp sword, being intensely [or abundantly] compassionate be gracious [by] uniting me [with yourself]’. That is, the devotee is pining for union with her beloved Lord, but other girls, who lack kindness and compassion, may either spread false rumours about her, such as telling others that her Lord has abandoned her forever and never really cared about her, or taunt her saying these and other such cruel words, which pierce her tender and already anguished heart like sharp swords, so she prays to her Lord, Arunachala, pleading with him to be gracious by uniting her with himself, thereby saving her from falling prey to the cruelty of having to hear such vicious words.<br>
<br>
However, though the wording of this verse does give room for these alternative meanings, and though they are also appropriate interpretations, the simplest and most obvious meaning of it is the one that takes ‘கூர் வாள் கண்ணியர்’ (<i>kūr vāḷ kaṇṇiyar</i>) to mean ‘those with sharp sword[-like] eyes’. Nevertheless, ever since Muruganar suggested that கண்ணியர் (<i>kaṇṇiyar</i>) could be taken to mean ‘those with nets’ instead of ‘those with eyes’, there was disagreement among devotees about which of these two meanings is most appropriate. Some argued that ‘those with nets’ is more appropriate, firstly because Bhagavan sang <i>Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> from the perspective of a girl seeking eternal union with her beloved Lord, Arunachala, and secondly because he would never show aversion towards or speak disparagingly about women or any other group of people, whereas others argued that ‘those with eyes’ is more appropriate because it is the most obvious and straightforward meaning and because ‘those with nets’ seemed to be a far-fetched and forced interpretation. However, Bhagavan indicated his approval for both these meanings, as illustrated by the following two incidents, which I was told by Sadhu Om.<br>
<br>
One day a lady devotee was sitting in his presence weeping, and seeing her, he kindly asked her why she was weeping. With her head bowed down she replied, ‘Bhagavan, I no longer want to continue living in this body’, so he asked why she had all of a sudden developed such an aversion, to which she replied, ‘I was thinking previously that though ancient sages have sung disparagingly about women, at least you would not have any such aversion for us, but now I have come to know that even you have shown such aversion’. Hearing this, he asked with surprise, ‘What, when have I ever shown aversion towards women?’, in reply to which she sobbed all the more, asking with anguish, ‘Did you not sing “கூர் வாள் கண்ணியர்” [<i>kūr vāḷ kaṇṇiyar</i>: ‘those with sharp sword-eyes’]?’. ‘Why do you think these words refer to you?’ he replied, ‘They refer only to wicked women’, and then consoled her further by adding they are equally applicable to wicked men who try to seduce good-natured women.<br>
<br>
On another occasion some devotees who thought that taking ‘கூர் வாள் கண்ணியர்’ (<i>kūr vāḷ kaṇṇiyar</i>) to mean ‘those with sharp swords and nets’, as Muruganar did in his commentary on this verse, was an excessively forced interpretation and therefore inappropriate, expressed their opinion to Bhagavan and asked him what he thought about it, he replied, ‘The meaning may aptly be taken in that way also’, thereby implying that though this may not be the principal meaning of this verse, it is nevertheless a perfectly acceptable interpretation.<br>
<br>
When asked, Bhagavan would often explain the meaning of texts such as <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>, <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> and <i>Āṉma-Viddai</i>, and if he was asked whether a certain interpretation of any such verse was correct, he would sometimes point out if it was not, but he always declined to explain the meaning of <i>Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> when asked to do so. For instance, once when he was asked by some devotees from a village to explain its meaning, he replied, ‘It is sufficient if one just recites it. That itself is its meaning’, thereby implying that these verses have their own intrinsic power, so they will have a beneficial effect on anyone who recites or even hears them, whether they understand the meaning of them or not.<br>
<br>
Since Bhagavan would never explain the meaning of <i>Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>, several devotees asked Muruganar to do so, but while he was accordingly writing his Tamil commentary (<i>virutti-y-urai</i>) he was not sure which of several possible meanings to give for some verses, so he asked Bhagavan what meaning he intended, to which he replied, ‘Whoever composed it has now gone. If you ask me, I would have to break my head to give some meaning, so you may as well break your head to decide whatever meaning you consider to be suitable’, thereby giving his blessings to Muruganar to interpret each verse as he saw fit. By implication, the same freedom of interpretation that he thereby gave to Muruganar, he also gave to each of his devotees.<br>
<br>
Whereas each verse of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i> and other such <i>upadēśa</i> texts is intended to have a precise and definite meaning, so any contrary interpretation would be incorrect, the verses of <i>Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> are not intended to have any such fixed meaning, because it is a devotional text, so what the most appropriate meaning is for each verse will depend upon the current state of mind of each devotee. Though one particular meaning may appeal to us when we are in one state of mind, another meaning may appeal to us when we are in another state of mind. Likewise, a meaning that may appeal to one devotee may not appeal to another. This is why Bhagavan was careful to avoid defining the meaning of any of these verses, and instead left it to each one of us to see for ourself what meaning or meanings each verse suggests to us whenever we read, recite or meditate upon it.<br>
<br>
Therefore, though taking the meaning of ‘கூர் வாள் கண்ணியர் கொடுமையில் படாது’ (<i>kūr vāḷ kaṇṇiyar koḍumaiyil paḍādu</i>) to be ‘so as not to be caught [or become ensnared] in the cruelty of those with [seductive] eyes [that pierce one’s heart like] a sharp sword’ may not appeal to all devotees, it is the meaning that appeals most to many devotees, because whenever we rise and stand as ego and are therefore aware of ourself as ‘I am this body’, it is natural for us to experience sexual desire, and among all our countless <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, the <i>vāsanā</i> that sprouts as such desire is one of the strongest and most deeply rooted. Because it is so intimately and intrinsically tied to the very nature of ego, our <i>dēhābhimāna</i> (identification with and attachment to a body as ‘I’), it can only be eradicated by eradication of ego. Even if or when we are protected from it by divine grace, so that it does not rise to the surface of our mind, so long as we rise and stand as ego it is always lying in our heart in seed form waiting to raise its ugly head whenever it is aroused by any cause, whether internal or external.<br>
<br>
<a name="aamm19"></a>Since all <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> are what Bhagavan referred to collectively as ‘குற்றம்’ (<i>kuṯṟam</i>) or ‘defect’ in the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/12/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-19.html">previous verse</a>, and since this is one of our strongest and most deeply rooted <i>vāsanās</i>, immediately after implying in that verse that it is only by the grace of <i>guru</i> that all such defects can be eradicated along with their root, namely ego, in this verse it is appropriate that he prayed to Arunachala, who shines in the heart as the ‘form’ or real nature of <i>guru</i>, to save him from being ensnared in the cruelty of this particularly strong <i>vāsanā</i> by graciously joining him as an all-powerful ally and uniting him with himself in inseparable oneness, thereby eradicating ego along with all its <i>vāsanās</i>.<br>
<br>
Though we can take ‘கூர் வாள் கண்ணியர் கொடுமை’ (<i>kūr vāḷ kaṇṇiyar koḍumai</i>), ‘the cruelty of those with sharp sword-eyes’, to be a metaphor for the cruelty of all the numerous allurements of <i>māyā</i>, it refers most specifically to the cruelty of sexual allurement. The reason we fall prey to the cruelty of any type of allurement is our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, which are our inclinations to seek happiness in anything other than our own being, so in the case of the cruelty of sexual allurement, we are liable to fall prey to it because of the strong <i>vāsanā</i> of sexual desire. Therefore the கொடுமை (<i>koḍumai</i>) or cruelty that Bhagavan is referring to here is not just the cruelty of people who exploit the sexual desire of others for their own selfish aims, but is more fundamentally the cruel torment of sexual desire itself.<br>
<br>
<a name="ny14"></a>Like all other desires, sexual desire torments us cruelly because, as Bhagavan says in the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para14">fourteenth paragraph</a> of <i>Nāṉ Ār?</i>:<br>
<blockquote>சுகமென்பது ஆத்மாவின் சொரூபமே; சுகமும் ஆத்மசொரூபமும் வேறன்று. ஆத்மசுகம் ஒன்றே யுள்ளது; அதுவே ஸத்யம். பிரபஞ்சப்பொருள் ஒன்றிலாவது சுகமென்பது கிடையாது. அவைகளிலிருந்து சுகம் கிடைப்பதாக நாம் நமது அவிவேகத்தால் நினைக்கின்றோம். மனம் வெளியில் வரும்போது துக்கத்தை யனுபவிக்கிறது. உண்மையில் நமது எண்ணங்கள் பூர்த்தியாகும்போதெல்லாம் அது தன்னுடைய யதாஸ்தானத்திற்குத் திரும்பி ஆத்மசுகத்தையே யனுபவிக்கிறது.<br>
<br>
<i>sukham-eṉbadu ātmāviṉ sorūpamē; sukhamum ātma-sorūpamum vēṟaṉḏṟu. ātma-sukham oṉḏṟē y-uḷḷadu; aduvē satyam. pirapañca-p-poruḷ oṉḏṟil-āvadu sukham-eṉbadu kiḍaiyādu. avaigaḷilirundu sukham kiḍaippadāha nām namadu avivēkattāl niṉaikkiṉḏṟōm. maṉam veḷiyil varum-pōdu duḥkhattai y-aṉubhavikkiṟadu. uṇmaiyil namadu eṇṇaṅgaḷ pūrtti-y-āhum-pōdellām adu taṉṉuḍaiya yathāsthāṉattiṟku-t tirumbi ātma-sukhattaiyē y-aṉubhavikkiṟadu.</i><br>
<br>
What is called <i>sukha</i> [happiness or satisfaction] is only the <i>svarūpa</i> [own real nature] of <i>ātmā</i> [oneself]; <i>sukha</i> and <i>ātma-svarūpa</i> [the own real nature of oneself] are not different. <i>Ātma-sukha</i> [happiness that is oneself] alone exists; that alone is real. What is called <i>sukha</i> [happiness or satisfaction] is not found [obtained or available] in even one of the objects of the world. We think that happiness is obtained from them because of our <i>avivēka</i> [lack of judgement, discrimination or ability to distinguish what is real from what is a mere appearance]. When the mind comes out [from <i>ātma-svarūpa</i>], it experiences <i>duḥkha</i> [dissatisfaction or unhappiness]. In truth, whenever our thoughts [wishes or hopes] are fulfilled, it [the mind] turning back to its proper place [namely the heart, our real nature, which is the source from which it rose] experiences only <i>ātma-sukha</i> [happiness that is oneself].</blockquote>
That is, gratification of any desire, particularly a desire as strong as sexual desire, seems to give us pleasure only because it gives us a temporary relief from the cruel torment of that desire. Very quickly, however, the desire will return to torment us again, and the more we gratify any desire, the stronger it will become and hence the more it will torment us. In the case of many desires, therefore, we can weaken them by refraining from gratifying them, but the nature of sexual desire is such that it creates fantasies in our mind, so even if we refrain from gratifying it physically, it can nevertheless strengthen itself by tempting us to dwell on such fantasies, because dwelling on them is a subtle form of gratification, and though it is not at all a satisfactory gratification, it is nevertheless like pouring petrol on a fire, so it tends to strengthen the desire even more than physical gratification does. Therefore, though any desire that we may harbour will thereby torment us cruelly, there are very few desires that can torment us as cruelly and relentlessly as sexual desire.<br>
<br>
Sexual desire is therefore one of the cruellest and most powerful weapons in the armoury of <i>māyā</i>, and it directly reinforces the very root of <i>māyā</i>, namely ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’. If the body we take ourself to be is a male body, we will in most cases be sexually attracted to female bodies, and likewise if the body we take ourself to be is a female body, we will in most cases be sexually attracted to male bodies. Sadhu Om used to illustrate this with the analogy of a magnet, in which all the particles are aligned in such a way that one end will be its north pole and the other its south pole. Just as opposite poles are attracted to each other, bodies of opposite gender are generally attracted to each other. Just as the only point in a magnet that is completely free of the influence of any magnetic attraction is its very centre, the only place in which we can remain completely free of the influence of any sexual attraction is the heart, the very centre of ourself. Remaining in the heart means not rising as ego, because as soon as we rise as ego we grasp either a male or a female body as ‘I am this body’, and thereby we fall prey to the cruel torment of sexual attraction.<br>
<br>
This verse is therefore a very apt prayer for anyone who has ever experienced the cruel torment of sexual desire, or of any other kind of desire, because, since the very nature of ego is to be repeatedly and cruelly tormented by desire in general and sexual desire in particular, eradication of ego is the only means by which we can be freed eternally from even the slightest possibility of ever again falling prey to such cruelty, and ego can be eradicated only when Arunachala graciously unites us in eternal and immutable oneness with himself.<br>
<br>
<b>Video discussion:</b> <a href="https://youtu.be/Y9iKdEjaLEY"><i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> verse 20</a><br>
<br>
<div style="text-align:center"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Y9iKdEjaLEY" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-15341876517345503452022-12-24T08:10:00.005+00:002023-01-27T18:46:21.628+00:00Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai verse 19This is the nineteenth in a series of articles that I hope to write on <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>, Bhagavan willing, the completed ones being <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/articles.html#aamm">listed here</a>.<br><a name='more'></a>
<br>
<a name="aamm19"></a><b>Verse 19:</b><br>
<blockquote>குற்றமுற் றறுத்தெனைக் குணமாய்ப் பணித்தாள்<br>
குருவுரு வாயொளி ரருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>kuṯṟamuṯ ṟaṟutteṉaig guṇamāyp paṇittāḷ<br>
guruvuru vāyoḷi raruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> குற்றம் முற்று அறுத்து எனை குணம் ஆய் பணித்து ஆள், குரு உரு ஆய் ஒளிர் அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>kuṯṟam muṯṟu aṟuttu eṉai guṇam āy paṇittu āḷ, guru-v-uru-v-āy oḷir aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, who shine as the form of <i>guru</i>, eradicating defects completely, making me as virtue, take charge.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, who shine as the form of <i>guru</i>, eradicating [removing or cutting off] [all my] defects completely [namely all my <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> along with ego, their root] and making me as [one who is endowed with every] <i>guṇa</i> [virtue or good quality] [especially <i>sadguṇa</i>, the ultimate virtue of just being as I actually am without ever rising as ego even to the slightest extent], take charge [of me as your very own so that I may never again fall prey to the evil demon-ego and its horde of <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>].</blockquote>
<b>Explanation:</b> குற்றம் (<i>kuṯṟam</i>) means a defect, blemish, flaw, fault, imperfection or impurity, and though it is singular in form, in this context it is plural in sense, because it is used here as a collective noun referring to all defects. முற்று (<i>muṯṟu</i>) is both a verb that means to ripen, mature, be fully grown, be fulfilled, come to an end, finish or complete, and a noun that means what is complete, completeness, perfection, ripeness, maturity, completion or end, but here it is used in the sense of the adverb முற்றும் (<i>muṯṟum</i>), which means completely, wholly or entirely. அறுத்து (<i>aṟuttu</i>) is an adverbial participle that means severing, removing, cutting off, rooting out, eradicating or making non-existent, so ‘குற்றம் முற்று அறுத்து’ (<i>kuṯṟam muṯṟu aṟuttu</i>) is an adverbial clause that means ‘eradicating defects completely’.<br>
<br>
The first defect and root of all other defects is our rising as ego, the <i>dēhātma-buddhi</i> or false awareness ‘I am this body’, because by rising thus we seemingly separate ourself from our own real nature (<i>ātma-svarūpa</i>), which is the infinite, immutable and eternally blemishless perfection that exists and shines as <i>sat-cit</i>, pure being and pure awareness, ‘I am’. Without ego, no other defect or imperfection could exist, and so long as ego exists, other defects and imperfections are inevitable, so defects cannot be eradicated completely until and unless ego itself is eradicated. Therefore ‘குற்றம் முற்று அறுத்து’ (<i>kuṯṟam muṯṟu aṟuttu</i>), ‘eradicating defects completely’, implies ‘eradicating all my defects completely along with ego, the root and parent of each and every one of them’.<br>
<br>
<a name="ny10"></a>All other defects originate from ego in the form of its <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> (inclinations to seek happiness in things other than itself), because <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> are the subtle seeds that sprout as other defects. In the absence of ego, as in sleep, no <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> seem to exist, and hence no defects seem to exist, but as soon as we rise as ego in waking or dream, <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> begin rising in countless numbers like ocean waves (as Bhagavan says in the first sentence of the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para10">tenth paragraph</a> of <i>Nāṉ Ār?</i>), and to the extent to which we allow ourself to be swayed by them, they thereby give rise to all kinds of defects. We can curb the rising of defects, therefore, only to the extent to which we refrain from being swayed by the <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> that give rise to them, and since the very nature of ourself as ego is to be constantly swayed by our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, we cannot permanently avoid being swayed by any <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> whatsoever until and unless ego, their root and progenitor, is eradicated completely. ‘குற்றம் முற்று அறுத்து’ (<i>kuṯṟam muṯṟu aṟuttu</i>), ‘eradicating defects completely’, therefore implies eradicating ego completely, and thereby eradicating all its <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> and consequent defects.<br>
<br>
As Bhagavan often used to say, therefore, ego is the ஆதிக் குற்றம் (<i>ādi-k-kuṯṟam</i>), the original defect, or what in Christianity is called ‘the original sin’, because it is the sinner, without whom no other sin could exist. Therefore we are truly ‘born in sin’, because ego is the source of both birth and death, and until ego is eradicated we will continue to be born and to die in one body after another. Hence, to be free not only of all sin but also of the disease of birth and death, we as ego must die by knowing and being what we always actually are, namely <i>sat-cit-ānanda</i>, the one eternal, indivisible and immutable infinitude of pure being, pure awareness and pure happiness, which is eternally untainted and untouched by even the slightest trace of birth, death or any sin whatsoever.<br>
<br>
எனை (<i>eṉai</i>) is a poetic abbreviation of என்னை (<i>eṉṉai</i>), the accusative (or second case) form of the first person singular pronoun, so it means ‘me’. குணம் (<i>guṇam</i>) is a Tamil form of the Sanskrit noun गुण (<i>guṇa</i>), which means a quality of any kind, particularly a good quality or virtue, or more generally any property, attribute or characteristic, but in this context it is used to refer to a குணவான் (<i>guṇavāṉ</i>), one who is endowed with goodness or all good qualities. ஆய் (<i>āy</i>) is an adverbial participle that means ‘being’, ‘becoming’ or ‘as’, and பணித்து (<i>paṇittu</i>) is an adverbial participle that means ‘declaring’, ‘ordering’ or ‘giving’, but in this context implies ‘making’, so ‘எனை குணம் ஆய் பணித்து’ (<i>eṉai guṇam āy paṇittu</i>) literally means ‘making me as <i>guṇa</i> [goodness or virtue]’, but implies ‘making me as one who is endowed with goodness’.<br>
<br>
Just as in this context ‘குற்றம்’ (<i>kuṯṟam</i>) or ‘defect’ implies all kinds of <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, which are the seeds that sprout in the form of likes, dislikes, desires, aversions, attachments, hopes, fears and so on, under whose sway we rush outwards and wander about seeking happiness in things other than our own being, ‘குணம்’ (<i>guṇam</i>) or ‘virtue’ implies <i>sat-vāsanā</i>, the inclination or liking to subside back within by clinging fast to our own being, ‘I am’, and thereby just being as we always actually are. Since <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> are the inclinations that pull our attention outwards whereas <i>sat-vāsanā</i> is the inclination that pulls it back within, they are two opposing forces, so to the extent that <i>sat-vāsanā</i> is strengthened, <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> will be weakened, and hence it is by nurturing <i>sat-vāsanā</i> in our heart that the grace of Arunachala gradually weakens and eventually eradicates all our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>. When he first sows this seed called <i>sat-vāsanā</i> in our heart, it is just a slight inclination to subside back into our being, but as we yield ourself more and more to its sway by trying to turn back within and surrender ourself, it gradually grows into a stronger and stronger liking, and eventually grows into an all-consuming love to know and to be what we always actually are. Therefore ‘எனை குணம் ஆய் பணித்து’ (<i>eṉai guṇam āy paṇittu</i>), ‘making me as virtue’, implies this process by which Arunachala nurtures <i>sat-vāsanā</i> in our heart to such an extent that it consumes us entirely, transforming us into himself.<br>
<br>
<a name="ny19"></a>Among <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, some are more agreeable (<i>śubha</i>) while others are more disagreeable (<i>aśubha</i>), and as Bhagavan says in the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para19">nineteenth paragraph</a> of <i>Nāṉ Ār?</i>:<br>
<blockquote>நல்ல மன மென்றும் கெட்ட மன மென்று மிரண்டு மனங்களில்லை. மன மொன்றே. வாசனைகளே சுப மென்றும் அசுப மென்று மிரண்டுவிதம். மனம் சுபவாசனை வயத்தாய் நிற்கும்போது நல்ல மன மென்றும், அசுபவாசனை வயத்தாய் நிற்கும்போது கெட்டமன மென்றும் சொல்லப்படும்.<br>
<br>
<i>nalla maṉam eṉḏṟum keṭṭa maṉam eṉḏṟum iraṇḍu maṉaṅgaḷ illai. maṉam oṉḏṟē. vāsaṉaigaḷē śubham eṉḏṟum aśubham eṉḏṟum iraṇḍu vidam. maṉam śubha-vāsaṉai vayattāy niṟgum-bōdu nalla maṉam eṉḏṟum, aśubha-vāsaṉai vayattāy niṟgum-bōdu keṭṭa maṉam eṉḏṟum solla-p-paḍum.</i><br>
<br>
There are not two minds, namely a good mind and a bad mind. Mind is only one. Only <i>vāsanās</i> [inclinations] are of two kinds, namely <i>śubha</i> [agreeable, virtuous or good] and <i>aśubha</i> [disagreeable, wicked, harmful or bad]. When mind is under the sway of <i>śubha vāsanās</i> it is said to be a good mind, and when it is under the sway of <i>aśubha vāsanās</i> a bad mind.</blockquote>
Therefore, when a person is seen to have good qualities and to behave in a virtuous manner, that is because their mind is predominantly under the sway of <i>śubha vāsanās</i>, whereas when a person is seen to have bad qualities and to behave in a selfish or unrighteous manner, that is because their mind is predominantly under the sway of <i>aśubha vāsanās</i>. However, even <i>śubha vāsanās</i> are <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, albeit less harmful ones than <i>aśubha vāsanās</i>.<br>
<br>
To the extent that <i>sat-vāsanā</i> grows strong, taking hold of our mind more and more, our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> will thereby be weakened, but as they grow weaker, the ones that lose their strength most rapidly are any residual <i>aśubha vāsanās</i>, so whatever <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> remain in a mind that is predominantly under the sway of <i>sat-vāsanā</i> will be ones that are relatively <i>śubha</i> in nature. In other words, the more strongly we are inclined to subside back within, the more good qualities will manifest in our outward behaviour because of the <i>śubha</i> nature of our residual <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>. Therefore, though <i>sat-vāsanā</i> is the inclination just to subside back within and remain as pure being instead of rising as ego to go outwards, it will be reflected outwardly as a predominance of <i>śubha vāsanās</i>, which will manifest in the behaviour of mind, speech and body as good qualities or virtues of all kinds.<br>
<br>
Just as ego is the source and abode of every குற்றம் (<i>kuṯṟam</i>), defect or bad quality, the state of egolessness, in which we have subsided back within under the sway of <i>sat-vāsanā</i> and thereby merged forever in our own being, ‘I am’, is the source and abode of every குணம் (<i>guṇam</i>), virtue or good quality, because our real nature is completely and eternally devoid of all defects, so when ego is eradicated, all defects and badness will be eradicated along with it, and hence any quality that remains in its absence can only be the quality of goodness. Only one who is completely devoid of ego, therefore, is one who is truly endowed with goodness or all good qualities, so since in this context ‘குணம்’ (<i>guṇam</i>), ‘the quality of goodness’ or ‘good quality’, is used in the sense of ‘குணவான்’ (<i>guṇavāṉ</i>), ‘one who is endowed with goodness [or good qualities]’, it implies ‘one who is devoid of ego’. Therefore, just as ‘குற்றம் முற்று அறுத்து’ (<i>kuṯṟam muṯṟu aṟuttu</i>), ‘eradicating defects completely’, implies ‘eradicating ego along with all its defects’, ‘எனை குணம் ஆய் பணித்து’ (<i>eṉai guṇam āy paṇittu</i>), ‘making me as <i>guṇa</i> [goodness]’, implies ‘making me be egoless and thereby endowed with all goodness’.<br>
<br>
The verb குணமா (<i>guṇamā</i>), which is a compound of the noun குணம் (<i>guṇam</i>) and the verb ஆ (<i>ā</i>), meaning ‘be’ or ‘become’, means ‘become good’, ‘be cured’, ‘be healed’ or ‘be restored to health’, so குணமாய் (<i>guṇamāy</i>) is an adverbial participle that means ‘being healed’ or ‘being restored’, and hence ‘எனை குணமாய் பணித்து’ (<i>eṉai guṇamāy paṇittu</i>) also means ‘making me be healed’ or ‘making me be restored’. Since ego is the primal disease and the root of all other diseases, ‘making me be healed’ or ‘making me be restored’ implies ‘making me be devoid of ego and thereby restored to my natural and healthy state of pure being, which is devoid of all defects and hence the abode of all good qualities’.<br>
<br>
<a name="una13"></a>Eradication of ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’ (<i>dēhātma-bhāva</i> or <i>dēhātma-buddhi</i>), is the sum and substance of all good qualities, as Bhagavan implies in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-second-and-third-paragraphs-of-nan.html#c2731626085356457388">verse 13</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu Anubandham</i>:<br>
<blockquote>தானந் தவம்வேள்வி தன்மம்யோ கம்பத்தி<br>
வானம் பொருள்சாந்தி வாய்மையருள் — மோனநிலை<br>
சாகாமற் சாவறிவு சார்துறவு வீடின்பந்<br>
தேகான்ம பாவமற றேர்.<br>
<br>
<i>dāṉan tavamvēḷvi dhaṉmamyō gambhatti<br>
vāṉam poruḷśānti vāymaiyaruḷ — mōṉanilai<br>
sāhāmaṟ sāvaṟivu sārtuṟavu vīḍiṉban<br>
dēhāṉma bhāvamaṟa ṟēr</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> தானம், தவம், வேள்வி, தன்மம், யோகம், பத்தி, வானம், பொருள், சாந்தி, வாய்மை, அருள், மோனம், நிலை, சாகாமல் சாவு, அறிவு, சார் துறவு, வீடு, இன்பம் தேகான்ம பாவம் அறல்; தேர்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>dāṉam, tavam, vēḷvi, dhaṉmam, yōgam, bhatti, vāṉam, poruḷ, śānti, vāymai, aruḷ, mōṉam, nilai, sāhāmal sāvu, aṟivu, sār tuṟavu, vīḍu, iṉbam dēhāṉma bhāvam aṟal; tēr</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>அன்வயம்:</b> தேகான்ம பாவம் அறல் தானம், தவம், வேள்வி, தன்மம், யோகம், பத்தி, வானம், பொருள், சாந்தி, வாய்மை, அருள், மோனம், நிலை, சாகாமல் சாவு, அறிவு, சார் துறவு, வீடு, இன்பம்; தேர்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Anvayam</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>dēhāṉma bhāvam aṟal dāṉam, tavam, vēḷvi, dhaṉmam, yōgam, bhatti, vāṉam, poruḷ, śānti, vāymai, aruḷ, mōṉam, nilai, sāhāmal sāvu, aṟivu, sār tuṟavu, vīḍu, iṉbam; tēr</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> The awareness ‘the body is myself’ being severed is giving, austerity, sacrifice, righteousness, union, devotion, space, substance, peace, truth, grace, silence, firmness, death without dying, awareness, accomplished renunciation, liberation and happiness; know.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Know that <i>dēhātma-bhāva</i> [ego, the false awareness ‘this body is myself’] being severed [ceasing, perishing or being destroyed] is <i>dāna</i> [giving or charity], <i>tapas</i> [austerity or asceticism], <i>vēḷvi</i> [sacrifice, offering, sacrificial fire or <i>yāga</i>], <i>dharma</i> [righteousness], <i>yōga</i> [meditation or union], <i>bhakti</i> [devotion or love], <i>vāṉam</i> [space, implying either the space of pure awareness or heaven], <i>poruḷ</i> [the real substance or <i>vastu</i>], <i>śānti</i> [peace], <i>vāymai</i> [truth], <i>aruḷ</i> [grace], <i>mauna</i> [silence], <i>nilai</i> [firmness, stability, permanence or <i>niṣṭhā</i>], death without dying, <i>aṟivu</i> [pure awareness, knowledge or <i>jñāna</i>], accomplished renunciation, liberation and happiness.</blockquote>
Of all <i>guṇas</i>, good qualities or virtues, the greatest is <i>sadguṇa</i>, the quality of <i>sat</i>, pure being, which is the source and sum total of all other <i>guṇas</i>. Though pure being, ‘I am’, is what we always actually are, our nature as such seems to be obscured when we rise as ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’, thereby going outwards and becoming entangled with doing instead of just being as we actually are. Therefore <i>sadguṇa</i> is the ultimate virtue of சும்மா விருப்பது (<i>summā v-iruppadu</i>), ‘just being’, which means being as we always actually are without ever rising as ego even to the slightest extent to know anything other than ourself or to do any action. Hence ‘எனை குணம் ஆய் பணித்து’ (<i>eṉai guṇam āy paṇittu</i>), ‘making me as <i>guṇa</i>’, implies ‘making me be endowed with <i>sadguṇa</i>, establishing me in my natural state of pure being and thereby preventing me rising ever again as ego’.<br>
<br>
<a name="ny06"></a>Just being thus without ever rising as ego is our real nature (<i>svarūpa</i>), as Bhagavan explains in the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para06">sixth paragraph</a> of <i>Nāṉ Ār?</i>:<br>
<blockquote>இவ்விதமாக மனம் ஹ்ருதயத்திற் றங்கவே, எல்லா நினைவுகளுக்கும் மூலமான நான் என்பது போய் எப்பொழுது முள்ள <b>தான்</b> மாத்திரம் விளங்கும். நான் என்னும் நினைவு கிஞ்சித்து மில்லா விடமே சொரூபமாகும். அதுவே ‘மௌன’ மெனப்படும். இவ்வாறு சும்மா விருப்பதற்குத்தான் ‘ஞான திருஷ்டி’ என்று பெயர். சும்மா விருப்பதாவது மனத்தை ஆன்மசொரூபத்தில் லயிக்கச் செய்வதே.<br>
<br>
<i>i-v-vidham-āha maṉam hrudayattil taṅgavē, ellā niṉaivugaḷukkum mūlam-āṉa nāṉ eṉbadu pōy eppoṙudum uḷḷa <b>tāṉ</b> māttiram viḷaṅgum. nāṉ eṉṉum niṉaivu kiñcittum illā v-iḍam-ē sorūpam āhum. adu-v-ē ‘mauṉam’ eṉa-p-paḍum. ivvāṟu summā v-iruppadaṟku-t-tāṉ ‘ñāṉa-diruṣṭi’ eṉḏṟu peyar. summā v-iruppadāvadu maṉattai āṉma-sorūpattil layikka-c ceyvadē.</i><br>
<br>
In this way when the mind remains [firmly fixed] in the heart, what is called ‘I’ [namely ego], which is the root [foundation, cause or origin] of all thoughts, will depart and <b>oneself</b>, who always exists, alone will shine. Only the place where the thought called ‘I’ [namely ego] does not exist even a little is <i>svarūpa</i> [one’s own real nature]. That alone is called ‘<i>mauna</i>’ [silence]. Only to [the state of] just being in this way [does] the name ‘<i>jñāna-dṛṣṭi</i>’ [‘knowledge-seeing’, experiencing true knowledge or real awareness] [refer]. What just being (<i>summā-v-iruppadu</i>) is is only making the mind dissolve [disappear or die] in <i>ātma-svarūpa</i> [the real nature of oneself].</blockquote>
What he refers to here as ‘ஹ்ருதயம்’ (<i>hrudayam</i>), ‘the heart’, ‘எப்பொழுது முள்ள <b>தான்</b>’ (<i>eppoṙudum uḷḷa <b>tāṉ</b></i>), ‘<b>oneself</b>, who always exists’, ‘சொரூபம்’ (<i>sorūpam</i>), ‘one’s own real nature’, ‘மௌனம்’ (<i>mauṉam</i>), ‘silence’, and ‘ஆன்மசொரூபம்’ (<i>āṉma-sorūpam</i>), ‘the real nature of oneself’, is Arunachala, who is always shining within us as our own being. Since the nature of ourself as ego is to always rise and go outwards, it is only by his grace that we can be drawn back within and thereby fixed firmly in him, as him.<br>
<br>
<a name="aluvadu"></a>As I explained in more detail in earlier articles in this series, namely in the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/04/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-4.html#aluvadu">first six paragraphs</a> of my explanation of <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/04/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-4.html">verse 4</a> and in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/10/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-14.html#aluvadu">these paragraphs</a> of my explanation of <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/10/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-14.html">verse 14</a>, ஆள் (<i>āḷ</i>) is a verb for which there is no adequate English equivalent, because it combines within itself two principal meanings, namely on one hand to rule, govern, control or manage, and on the other hand to cherish, care for, take care of or take loving responsibility for the welfare and protection of, so I generally translate it as ‘to take charge’, in the sense that a caring adult may take charge of an orphaned child, meaning that they lovingly take full responsibility for the welfare, care, protection and upbringing of the child, but it can also be translated as ‘to take possession of’ or ‘take as one’s own’, in the sense that a bridegroom takes his bride as his own, meaning that he takes full responsibility for loving, protecting and taking care of her in every way. ஆள் (<i>āḷ</i>) is the root of this verb, so it is used here as an imperative, and hence it is a prayer meaning ‘take charge’, ‘take possession’ or ‘take as your own’.<br>
<br>
To the extent to which we rise and stand as ego, we thereby submit ourself to the sway of our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, so we can subside back within only to the extent to which we cling firmly to self-attentiveness and thereby refrain from being swayed by them. Therefore, when Bhagavan prays ‘ஆள்’ (<i>āḷ</i>), ‘take charge’, what he implies is that, instead of allowing us to remain under the sway of our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, Arunachala should bring us entirely under the sway of his grace by drawing us back within and absorbing us completely into himself, as himself, thereby not allowing us to ever rise again even to the slightest extent as ego. <br>
<br>
ஆள் (<i>āḷ</i>) is the main verb of this sentence, and it is preceded by two adverbial clauses, ‘குற்றம் முற்று அறுத்து’ (<i>kuṯṟam muṯṟu aṟuttu</i>), ‘eradicating defects completely’, and ‘எனை குணம் ஆய் பணித்து’ (<i>eṉai guṇam āy paṇittu</i>), ‘making me as <i>guṇa</i> [virtue or good quality]’, so excluding the address to Arunachala, which forms the rest of this verse, the entire sentence, ‘குற்றம் முற்று அறுத்து எனை குணம் ஆய் பணித்து ஆள்’ (<i>kuṯṟam muṯṟu aṟuttu eṉai guṇam āy paṇittu āḷ</i>), means ‘eradicating defects completely, making me as <i>guṇa</i>, take charge’ and implies ‘eradicating [all my] defects completely [along with ego, their root] and making me as [one who is endowed with every] <i>guṇa</i> [virtue or good quality], take charge [of me as your very own]’. By adding these two adverbial clauses before the main prayer ‘ஆள்’ (<i>āḷ</i>), ‘take charge’, Bhagavan implies that Arunachala takes charge of us as his own by completely eradicating all our defects, namely ego along with all its <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, and thereby making us endowed with the supreme virtue of egolessness, which is the source and sum total of all other virtues and good qualities.<br>
<br>
That is, Arunachala is always ready to take charge of us, but he will never force himself upon us, so he will take charge of us only when we are wholeheartedly willing to hand over charge of ourself unreservedly to him, which means surrendering ourself entirely to him by ceasing to rise as ego. However, since the nature of ourself as ego is to rise and go outwards, constantly dwelling on things other than ourself, surrendering ourself by ceasing to rise and go outwards is contrary to the very nature of ego, so it is only by the infinite grace of Arunachala that we can become willing to surrender ourself to him. Therefore it is only he who can eradicate all our defects along with ego, their root, thereby endowing us with the supreme virtue of never rising again as ego, and by doing so he takes complete charge of us, as Bhagavan implies in this verse.<br>
<br>
‘குற்றம் முற்று அறுத்தல்’ (<i>kuṯṟam muṯṟu aṟuttal</i>), ‘eradicating defects completely’, ‘எனை குணம் ஆய் பணித்தல்’ (<i>eṉai guṇam āy paṇittal</i>), ‘making me as [one endowed with] <i>guṇa</i>’, and ‘ஆளுதல்’ (<i>āḷudal</i>), ‘taking charge’, are not three separate actions or processes but are just three ways of describing one and the same process, namely the eradication of ego. Since ego is the first defect and the root of all other defects, eradication of ego alone is the complete eradication of all defects. Likewise, being the source and abode of all defects, ego is the very antithesis of <i>guṇa</i> in the sense in which this term is used here, namely goodness or virtue, so being egoless alone is real goodness or virtue, and hence eradication of ego alone is making us be endowed with such goodness. Since the very nature of ourself as ego is to constantly roam about outside among <i>viṣayas</i> (objects or phenomena) under the sway of our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, and since we are swayed by such <i>vāsanās</i> only because we willingly allow ourself to be swayed by them, by rising and standing as ego we are in effect taking charge of ourself instead of allowing Arunachala to take charge of us, so it is only by eradicating ego with our wholehearted consent that he can take complete charge of us, bringing us wholly under the sway of his grace.<br>
<br>
So long as we enthusiastically rise as ego and rush outwards to experience <i>viṣayas</i>, we do so under the sway of our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, which are what Bhagavan refers to in this verse as ‘குற்றம்’ (<i>kuṯṟam</i>) or ‘defects’, so it is only by weakening our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> and the hold that they have over us that Arunachala gradually brings us under the sway of his grace. The means by which he weakens our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> is by sowing and nurturing in our heart the seed of love to attend to our own being, ‘I am’, and thereby to subside back within and dissolve in it, and this seed of love is what is called <i>sat-vāsanā</i>, which is what he refers to in this verse as ‘குணம்’ (<i>guṇam</i>), ‘goodness’ or ‘virtue’. To the extent to which the light of his grace shines clearly in our heart, this <i>sat-vāsanā</i> will grow strong and flourish, and all <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> will thereby be weakened and shrivel up, losing their ability to sprout as likes, dislikes, desires, attachments, fears and so on, like seeds that are roasted in a fire or left out to dry up in the blazing heat of the sun. As <i>sat-vāsanā</i> grows stronger by his grace, under its sway we will be increasingly inclined to look deep within ourself, and the more we look deep within, the more clearly we will see the light of his grace shining in our heart as our own being, ‘I am’, thereby nourishing and strengthening <i>sat-vāsanā</i> still further.<br>
<br>
<a name="aamm69"></a>Therefore when Bhagavan sings ‘குற்றம் முற்று அறுத்து எனை குணம் ஆய் பணித்து ஆள்’ (<i>kuṯṟam muṯṟu aṟuttu eṉai guṇam āy paṇittu āḷ</i>), ‘eradicating defects completely, making me as virtue, take charge’, he is praying to Arunachala to complete this process of taking charge of us by nurturing the supreme virtue of <i>sat-vāsanā</i> in our heart to such an extent that it eradicates all our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> entirely along with ego, their root. Exactly the same prayer is also implied in verse 69:<br>
<blockquote>பூமண மாமனம் பூரண மணங்கொளப்<br>
பூரண மணமரு ளருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>bhūmaṇa māmaṉam pūraṇa maṇaṅgoḷap<br>
pūraṇa maṇamaru ḷaruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> பூ மணம் ஆம் மனம் பூரண மணம் கொள பூரண மணம் அருள் அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>bhū maṇam ām maṉam pūraṇa maṇam koḷa pūraṇa maṇam aruḷ aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, for mind, which is world-fragrance, to acquire <i>pūrṇa</i>-fragrance, graciously give <i>pūrṇa</i>-union.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, so that [my] mind, which is [still pervaded by and polluted with] world-fragrance [namely <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, inclinations to experience phenomena, which are what constitute the world], [instead] acquires <i>pūrṇa</i>-fragrance [namely <i>sat-vāsanā</i>, the inclination to know and to be nothing other than <i>sat</i>, pure being, which is <i>pūrṇa</i>, the one infinite whole], graciously give [me] <i>pūrṇa</i>-union [namely union with yourself, the one infinite whole, which is the real and eternal state of <i>jīva-brahma-aikya</i>, oneness of <i>jīva</i> and <i>brahman</i>].</blockquote>
மணம் (<i>maṇam</i>) is a noun that means not only union or marriage but also fragrance, aroma, scent, smell or odour, so பூமணம் (<i>bhū-maṇam</i>) means ‘world-fragrance’ or ‘world-odour’, which is a metaphorical way of referring to <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, inclinations to seek happiness in phenomena, because வாசனை (<i>vāsanai</i>), which is a Tamil form of the Sanskrit word वासना (<i>vāsanā</i>), means not only inclination but also fragrance, smell or perfume. Therefore ‘பூமணம் ஆம் மனம்’ (<i>bhū maṇam ām maṉam</i>), ‘mind, which is world-fragrance’, implies ‘mind, which consists of <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>’ or ‘mind, which is still filled and polluted with <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>’.<br>
<br>
பூரணம் (<i>pūraṇam</i>) is a Tamil form of the Sanskrit word पूर्ण (<i>pūrṇa</i>), which means what is full, whole, complete or entire, and therefore implies the one infinite and indivisible whole, namely <i>brahman</i>, which is <i>sat-cit</i>, pure being and pure awareness, ‘I am’. Therefore the first ‘பூரண மணம்’ (<i>pūraṇa maṇam</i>) in this verse means ‘<i>pūrṇa</i>-fragrance’, which implies <i>sat-vāsanā</i>, the inclination to turn back within and thereby subside and dissolve in our own being, ‘I am’, whereas the second ‘பூரண மணம்’ (<i>pūraṇa maṇam</i>) means ‘<i>pūrṇa</i>-union’ or ‘<i>pūrṇa</i>-marriage’, which implies union with Arunachala, who is <i>pūrṇa</i>, the one infinite whole.<br>
<br>
Since Arunachala is the one infinite whole, other than which nothing can exist, he is what we always actually are, so union with him means remaining as we actually are without ever rising as ego, and hence this alone is the state in which he has taken complete charge of us, which is what Bhagavan prays for in this nineteenth verse of <i>Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>. Therefore in both these two verses, 19 and 69, he is by implication praying for the complete eradication of all <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, the flourishing of <i>sat-vāsanā</i>, and our consequent merging as one with Arunachala by surrendering ourself entirely to him, thereby allowing him to take complete charge of us.<br>
<br>
Completely eradicating all our defects, namely ego along with all its <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, sowing and nurturing in our heart the supreme virtue of <i>sat-vāsanā</i>, under whose sway we as ego willingly subside back within and dissolve in and as our mere being, and thereby taking complete charge of us, is the real role and purpose of <i>guru</i>, and is possible only by its grace, as Bhagavan implies by concluding this verse addressing Arunachala as ‘குருவுருவாய் ஒளிர் அருணாசலா’ (<i>guru-v-uru-v-āy oḷir aruṇācalā</i>), ‘Arunachala, who shine as the form of <i>guru</i>’. குரு (<i>guru</i>) is a word of Sanskrit origin that has now passed into English, because it is a word for which there is no adequate equivalent in English or other European languages. It is often used in the sense of a teacher, instructor, mentor or guide, but in a deeper spiritual context it means so much more than any such terms, because the real <i>guru</i> is the light that removes the fundamental darkness of ignorance, namely ego. As Bhagavan explained, <i>guru</i> is the light of pure awareness that always shines in our heart as our own being, ‘I am’, but because our nature as ego is to face outwards, away from ourself, in the case of most of us it is necessary for <i>guru</i> to appear outside in human form in order to teach us to turn back within.<br>
<br>
Only in the case of very rare and highly mature souls is it not necessary for <i>guru</i> to appear in human form, because the mind of such a soul is already so strongly inclined to go inwards that no instructions in words are necessary, since they are able to understand the silent teaching that exists and shines eternally in the heart of each and every one of us. The young Venkataraman was such a soul, so mere remembrance of Arunachala was sufficient to turn his mind inward and immerse it in the infinite silence of pure being, thereby transforming him into the form of our <i>guru</i>, Bhagavan Ramana. For him, therefore, Arunachala alone was the form of <i>guru</i>, as he clearly reveals in this verse.<br>
<br>
உரு (<i>uru</i>) means form, so குருவுரு (<i>guru-v-uru</i>) [in which ‘v’ is a glide added for euphonic purposes] means ‘<i>guru</i>-form’ or ‘the form of <i>guru</i>’, implying both the outward form in which <i>guru</i> appears and the real ‘form’ or <i>svarūpa</i> of <i>guru</i>, which is what is always shining in our heart as our own being, ‘I am’. As we saw above, ஆய் (<i>āy</i>) is an adverbial participle that means ‘being’, ‘becoming’ or ‘as’, so ‘குருவுருவாய்’ (<i>guru-v-uru-v-āy</i>) means ‘being the form of <i>guru</i>’ or ‘as the form of <i>guru</i>’. ஒளிர் (<i>oḷir</i>) is the root of a verb that means to shine, but it is used here in the sense of the adjectival (or relative) participle ஒளிரும் (<i>oḷirum</i>), which means ‘shining’, ‘which shines’ or ‘who shine’, and அருணாசலா (<i>aruṇācalā</i>) is a vocative (or eighth case) form of அருணாசலன் (<i>aruṇācalaṉ</i>), which is a personal form of அருணாசலம் (<i>aruṇācalam</i>), so ‘குருவுருவாய் ஒளிர் அருணாசலா’ (<i>guru-v-uru-v-āy oḷir aruṇācalā</i>) is an address to him as ‘Arunachala, who shine as the form of [my] <i>guru</i>’.<br>
<br>
Though <i>guru</i> can appear outwardly in physical form, usually in human form but in the case of Bhagavan in the form of this great hill, Arunachala, what <i>guru</i> actually is is not physical but only <i>ātma-svarūpa</i>, the real nature of ourself, which is <i>sat-cit</i>, the one pure being-awareness that always shines in our heart as ‘I am’. Therefore, though the physical form of <i>guru</i> has a role to play, particularly as the vehicle through which its teachings are conveyed to us in words, the grace of <i>guru</i> is in no way limited to its physical form, because its real teaching is the infinite silence of pure being, which is the light of pure awareness that always exists and shines in our heart as ‘I am’, so it is not necessary for us ever to be in the physical presence of <i>guru</i> in order for us to receive its grace, teachings and guidance.<br>
<br>
<a name="aa1"></a>This is illustrated by the life of Bhagavan. Though he lived fifty-four years in the physical presence of his <i>guru</i>, Arunachala, that was after Arunachala had taken complete charge of him by drawing his mind back within and thereby swallowing him in the infinite light of its grace. Before that he had never in this life been in the physical presence of Arunachala, but the mere thought of Arunachala was sufficient to prepare him to be drawn within and merge back into Arunachala, who was always shining in his heart as his own <i>svarūpa</i>. As he sang in the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/03/after-annihilation-of-ego-no-i-can-rise.html#aa1">first verse</a> of <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Aṣṭakam</i>, ‘அறிவு அறு கிரி என அமர்தரும். அம்மா, அதிசயம் இதன் செயல் அறி அரிது ஆர்க்கும். அறிவு அறு சிறு வயது அது முதல் அருணாசலம் மிக பெரிது என அறிவின் இலங்க’ (<i>aṟivu aṟu giri eṉa amardarum. ammā, atiśayam idaṉ seyal aṟi aridu ārkkum. aṟivu aṟu siṟu vayadu adu mudal aruṇācalam miha peridu eṉa aṟiviṉ ilaṅga</i>), ‘It sits calmly as a hill [seemingly] bereft of awareness [or knowledge], [but] ah, its action [namely the extremely subtle action of its grace] is pre-eminent [or wonderful], difficult for anyone to understand. Though from [my] young age, [when I was] bereft of knowledge, Arunachalam shone in [my] awareness [or mind] as what is exceedingly great’, so the silent presence of Arunachala in his heart as his own <i>svarūpa</i> is what eventually drew his mind inwards so deeply that it absorbed him into itself as itself.<br>
<br>
Therefore, when he addresses Arunachala in this verse as ‘குருவுருவாய் ஒளிர் அருணாசலா’ (<i>guru-v-uru-v-āy oḷir aruṇācalā</i>), ‘Arunachala, who shine as the form of [my] <i>guru</i>’, what he refers to as ‘குருவுரு’ (<i>guru-v-uru</i>), ‘the form of <i>guru</i>’, is not just the form of this divine hill, but is in a deeper sense his own real nature (<i>svarūpa</i>), which is the real and eternally shining form of his <i>guru</i>, Arunachala. Just as Arunachala was always shining in his heart as his own <i>svarūpa</i>, preparing his mind to draw it back within, it is always shining in the heart of each and every one of us, gradually preparing us in order to eventually draw us back within and thereby absorb us into itself, as itself.<br>
<br>
Therefore, just as being in the physical presence of his <i>guru</i> was not necessary in the case of Bhagavan, being in his physical presence is not necessary in the case of most of us either. If we would be benefited by being in his physical presence, that opportunity will be given to us by his infinite grace as part of our <i>prārabdha</i> (fate or destiny), so if it is not given to us, that means that it is not necessary. What is necessary for most of us is that we should carefully study his teachings, reflect deeply on their meaning and implications, and most importantly of all, that we should put them into practice by trying our best to turn back within and thereby surrendering ourself entirely to him, allowing him to take complete charge of us by eradicating all our defects, including ego, their root, and thereby bestowing upon us the supreme virtue of egolessness.<br>
<br>
Though the light of his grace is shining eternally in our heart as our own fundamental awareness, ‘I am’, and though it is always working tirelessly to draw our mind back within, so long as we willingly allow ourself to be swayed by our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, we are thereby obstructing the work of his grace by resisting its inward pull instead of yielding ourself entirely to it. Since the very nature of ourself as ego is to be constantly swayed by our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, the only power that can sow and nurture the seed of <i>sat-vāsanā</i> in our heart, thereby taking complete charge of us by making us willing to surrender ourself entirely to its inward pull, is the grace of <i>guru</i>, the real nature of ourself (<i>ātma-svarūpa</i>), which is what shines outwardly both in the form of this divine hill, Arunachala, and in human form as Bhagavan Ramana. Let us therefore surrender ourself to its inward pull by patiently and persistently trying our best to cling fast to our own being, ‘I am’, thereby subsiding back within, where he is always waiting to devour us as soon as we give ourself entirely to him.<br>
<br>
<b>Video discussion:</b> <a href="https://youtu.be/vX5TwsbAbIU"><i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> verse 19</a><br>
<br>
<div style="text-align:center"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vX5TwsbAbIU" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-87899093458855212022-12-07T07:41:00.008+00:002022-12-11T20:16:14.487+00:00Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai verse 18This is the eighteenth in a series of articles that I hope to write on <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>, Bhagavan willing, the completed ones being <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/articles.html#aamm">listed here</a>.<br><a name='more'></a>
<br>
<a name="aamm18"></a><b>Verse 18:</b><br>
<blockquote>கீழ்மே லெங்குங் கிளரொளி மணியென்<br>
கீழ்மையைப் பாழ்செய் யருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>kīṙmē leṅguṅ kiḷaroḷi maṇiyeṉ<br>
kīṙmaiyaip pāṙcey yaruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> கீழ் மேல் எங்கும் கிளர் ஒளி மணி, என் கீழ்மையை பாழ் செய் அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>kīṙ mēl eṅgum kiḷar oḷi maṇi, eṉ kīṙmaiyai pāṙ sey aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, gem of light that shines below, above and everywhere, annihilate my lowness.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, gem of light [the infinitely precious light of pure awareness, ‘I am’] that shines below, above and everywhere [that is, that shines within me at all times and in all states, whether my mind is in a low state of impurity and immaturity or an elevated state of purity and maturity], [by drawing my mind inwards to see you as you actually are] annihilate my baseness [the darkness of my self-ignorance, which is what rises as ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’].</blockquote>
<b>Explanation:</b> கீழ் (<i>kīṙ</i>) is a noun that means what is below, beneath, down, low or at the bottom, and it is also used as an adjective meaning low and an adverb meaning below or down. By extension it also means a defect, blemish or fault, and what is base or inferior. மேல் (<i>mēl</i>) is likewise a noun that is also used as an adjective and an adverb, but it means the opposite of கீழ் (<i>kīṙ</i>), namely what is above, over, up or high. எங்கும் (<i>eṅgum</i>) is an adverb that means everywhere, and கிளர் (<i>kiḷar</i>) is the root of a verb that means to shine, but it is used here in the sense of an adjectival (or relative) participle, கிளரும் (<i>kiḷarum</i>), ‘which shines’ or ‘that shines’. ஒளி (<i>oḷi</i>) is a noun that means light, and மணி (<i>maṇi</i>) is a noun that means gem, jewel or precious stone, so ‘ஒளி மணி’ (<i>oḷi maṇi</i>) means ‘gem of light’. Though மணி (<i>maṇi</i>) is the nominative (or first case) form of this noun, it is used here in the sense of the vocative (or eighth case), so ‘கீழ் மேல் எங்கும் கிளர் ஒளி மணி’ (<i>kīṙ mēl eṅgum kiḷar oḷi maṇi</i>) is an address to Arunachala that literally means ‘gem of light that shines below, above and everywhere’.<br>
<br>
However, though literally கீழ் (<i>kīṙ</i>) and மேல் (<i>mēl</i>) mean respectively ‘below’ and ‘above’, they are used here metaphorically to refer to ‘those who are low’ and ‘those who are high’, in the sense of ‘those whose mind is in a low state of impurity and spiritual immaturity’ and ‘those whose mind is in an elevated state of purity and spiritual maturity’. Therefore ‘கீழ் மேல் எங்கும் கிளர் ஒளி மணி’ (<i>kīṙ mēl eṅgum kiḷar oḷi maṇi</i>) implies both ‘gem of light that shines in all <i>jīvas</i> [sentient beings], both those whose mind is in a low state of impurity and those whose mind is in an elevated state of purity’ and ‘gem of light that shines within me at all times and in all states, whether my mind is in a low state of impurity or an elevated state of purity’.<br>
<br>
In this context ஒளி (<i>oḷi</i>), ‘light’, implies the light of pure awareness, and மணி (<i>maṇi</i>), ‘gem’, implies not only something that is bright and shiny, but also something of great value, something that is to be treasured and not neglected or disregarded as if it were of little significance or importance. ‘ஒளி மணி’ (<i>oḷi maṇi</i>), ‘gem of light’, therefore implies the infinitely precious light of pure awareness, which is what is always shining in the heart of each and every one of us as our own being, ‘I am’, but which we generally neglect and pay little attention to, because we are more interested in attending to and experiencing things other than ourself.<br>
<br>
The term ‘மணி’ (<i>maṇi</i>), ‘gem’, can also refer to விண்மணி (<i>viṇ-maṇi</i>), ‘the sky-gem’, meaning the sun, so ‘ஒளி மணி’ (<i>oḷi maṇi</i>), ‘gem of light’, also implies <i>jñāna-sūrya</i>, the infinitely bright sun of pure awareness (<i>jñāna</i>), which shines eternally in the infinite space of the heart. In the darkness of night, the moon reflects the light of the sun, thereby illumining objects on earth. Likewise, in the darkness of self-ignorance, the mind reflects the light of the sun of pure awareness, thereby illumining the appearance of phenomena. So long as we look outwards, away from ourself, we perceive the appearance of phenomena in the dim light reflected by the mind, but we fail to recognise the real nature of the source of that light, which is always shining within us as our own being, ‘I am’. However if, instead of looking outwards at things other than ourself, we turn back within to look at ourself alone, we will thereby see the sun of pure awareness shining eternally within us, and thus the reflected light of the mind will merge in and be swallowed by its source, the original light of pure awareness, like the moonlight merging in and being swallowed by sunlight in daytime.<br>
<br>
எங்கும் (<i>eṅgum</i>), ‘everywhere’, implies not only in all places, in all times, in all states and in all <i>jīvas</i>, but also both inside and outside, because the light of pure awareness is not only what shines within us as our own being, ‘I am’, but also what shines outside as all other things, ‘below, above and everywhere’, because it is ‘one only without a second’ (<i>ēkam ēva advitīyam</i>), meaning it is the only thing that actually exists, so nothing that seems to exists can be anything other than it. That is, all other things borrow their seeming existence from the one real existence, which is Arunachala, the ‘ஒளி மணி’ (<i>oḷi maṇi</i>) or ‘gem of light’ that exists and shines in all as all.<br>
<br>
<a name="apr2"></a>The subtlest among the five elements is space, because it is not only the one element in which all the other elements and everything composed of them are contained, but also the one element that equally pervades and is contained within all of them. Subtler than physical space (<i>bhūtākāśa</i>), however, is the mind-space (<i>manākāśa</i>), because it is not only the one space in which the entire physical space and all the other elements and everything composed of them are contained, but also the one space that equally pervades and is contained within all of them, since they are all phenomena that appear only in its view, and hence they have no existence independent of it. Even subtler than the mind-space, however, is Arunachala, the infinite space of pure awareness (<i>cidākāśa</i>), because it is the one ultimate and eternal space in which the mind and everything else appear, stand and disappear, as Bhagavan says in <a href="https://youtu.be/nl5Xfm2Bp4s">verse 2</a> of <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Pañcaratnam</i>:<br>
<blockquote>சித்திரமா மிஃதெல்லாஞ் செம்மலையே நின்பாலே<br>
யுத்திதமாய் நின்றே யொடுங்கிடுமா — னித்தியமு<br>
நானென் றிதய நடித்திடுவை யாலுன்பேர்<br>
தானிதய மென்றிடுவர் தாம்.<br>
<br>
<i>cittiramā miḵdellāñ cemmalaiyē niṉbālē<br>
yuttidamāy niṉḏṟē yoḍuṅgiḍumā — ṉittiyamu<br>
nāṉeṉ ḏṟidaya naḍittiḍuvai yāluṉpēr<br>
tāṉidaya meṉḏṟiḍuvar tām</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> சித்திரம் ஆம் இஃது எல்லாம், செம் மலையே, நின்பாலே உத்திதமாய் நின்றே ஒடுங்கிடும் ஆல். நித்தியமும் நான் என்று இதயம் நடித்திடுவையால், உன் பேர் தான் இதயம் என்றிடுவர் தாம்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>cittiram ām iḵdu ellām, sem malaiyē, niṉbālē uttidamāy niṉḏṟē oḍuṅgiḍum āl. nittiyamum nāṉ eṉḏṟu idayam naḍittiḍuvaiyāl, uṉ pēr tāṉ idayam eṉḏṟiḍuvar tām</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>அன்வயம்:</b> செம் மலையே, சித்திரம் ஆம் இஃது எல்லாம் நின்பாலே உத்திதமாய் நின்றே ஒடுங்கிடும் ஆல். நித்தியமும் நான் என்று இதயம் நடித்திடுவையால், தாம் உன் பேர் தான் இதயம் என்றிடுவர்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Anvayam</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>sem malaiyē, cittiram ām iḵdu ellām niṉbālē uttidamāy niṉḏṟē oḍuṅgiḍum āl. nittiyamum nāṉ eṉḏṟu idayam naḍittiḍuvaiyāl, tām uṉ pēr tāṉ idayam eṉḏṟiḍuvar</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Red Hill, all this, which is a picture, arises, stands and subsides only in you. Since you dance eternally in the heart as ‘I’, they say your name itself is heart.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Red Hill [Arunachala], all this [the entire world-appearance], which is a [mental] picture, arises, stands and subsides [along with ego, the knower of it all] only in you. Since you dance eternally in the heart as ‘I’, they [namely sages and sacred texts] say your name itself is heart.</blockquote>
Just as space exists and shines in everything that is contained within it, Arunachala exists and shines in everything, as everything, because it is the only thing that actually exists, and hence it alone is the one real substance (<i>poruḷ</i> or <i>vastu</i>) that appears as all other things. Arunachala is therefore the one eternal, all-pervading and infinitely bright ‘கீழ் மேல் எங்கும் கிளர் ஒளி மணி’ (<i>kīṙ mēl eṅgum kiḷar oḷi maṇi</i>), ‘gem of light that shines below, above and everywhere’.<br>
<br>
However, though it is Arunachala alone that appears (shines) as all other things (namely as ego, the subject or knower, and as all phenomena, the objects or things known by it), so long as we see Arunachala as all these things we are not seeing him as he actually is, because what he actually is is only the one infinite, eternal, immutable and indivisible space of <i>sat-cit-ānanda</i>, pure being, pure awareness and pure happiness, and not either ego or the multitude of diverse phenomena known by it. In order to see him as he actually is, therefore, we need to see him only as our own being, ‘I am’, and not as anything other than ourself.<br>
<br>
Ego is <i>māyā</i>, and the nature of <i>māyā</i> is not to hide our real nature entirely, but only to conceal it by making it appear to be something other than what it actually is, just as the harmless nature of a rope is concealed when it appears to be a snake. By its <i>āvaraṇa-śakti</i> or power of veiling, <i>māyā</i> first conceals what we actually are by making us appear to be a body consisting of five sheaths (the physical body, life, mind, intellect and will), and consequently by its <i>vikṣēpa-śakti</i> or power of dispersal it scatters our attention outwards to see ourself, the one thing that actually exists, as a multitude of other phenomena, all of which (including the body we mistake ourself to be) are confined within the limits of time and space. However, even though the real nature of ourself (<i>ātma-svarūpa</i>), which is Arunachala, is in this way seemingly obscured in the view of ourself as ego, it never ceases to shine clearly in our heart as our own being, our fundamental awareness ‘I am’.<br>
<br>
This clear shining of Arunachala as ‘I am’ is never affected in the least by the state of our mind. Whether our mind is in a low state of impurity or an elevated state of purity, he always shines within us as ‘I am’ without ever undergoing any change whatsoever. However, as ego we experience this pure and immutable awareness ‘I am’ mixed and conflated with adjuncts as ‘I am this body’, and this adjunct-conflated awareness is what is affected by the state of our mind. The more impure our mind is, the more dense and indisputably real this adjunct-conflated awareness ‘I am this body’ seems to be, and consequently the more strongly we will be inclined to look outwards, away from our fundamental awareness ‘I am’. Conversely, the purer our mind is, the less dense and more dream-like this adjunct-conflated awareness will seem to be, and consequently the less strongly we will be inclined to look outwards, and the more willing we will be to look inwards to see what we actually are.<br>
<br>
The impurities that cloud and pollute the mind are its <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> (inclinations to seek happiness in <i>viṣayas</i>: objects or phenomena), but the root of all these <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> is ego, whose inclinations they are, and whose nature it is to have such inclinations. The denser and stronger our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> are, therefore, the more impure our mind is, and consequently the lower or more base its state is. In this verse, therefore, கீழ்மை (<i>kīṙmai</i>), ‘lowness’ or ‘baseness’, refers on the surface to our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, but more deeply to ego, the root of all such <i>vāsanās</i>.<br>
<br>
That is, the Tamil suffix -மை (<i>-mai</i>) means the same as the English suffix -ness, so since கீழ் (<i>kīṙ</i>) means low or base, கீழ்மை (<i>kīṙmai</i>) means lowness or baseness, and கீழ்மையை (<i>kīṙmaiyai</i>) is an accusative (or second case) form of it. என் (<i>eṉ</i>) is the inflectional base and a genitive (or sixth case) form of the first person singular pronoun, so it means ‘my’, and hence ‘என் கீழ்மையை’ (<i>eṉ kīṙmaiyai</i>) means ‘my lowness’ or ‘my baseness’. As explained above, in this context கீழ்மை (<i>kīṙmai</i>), ‘lowness’ or ‘baseness’, implies ego, the darkness of self-ignorance (<i>avidyā</i>), which rises and stands as the false awareness ‘I am this body’, thereby obscuring the real nature of our being, ‘I am’, making it appear to be something other than what it actually is. Since we rise as ego only by <i>pramāda</i>, negligence or forgetfulness of our real nature, and since we thereby fall down, so to speak, from our real nature, the lofty state of <i>sat-cit-ānanda</i>, pure being, pure awareness and pure happiness, கீழ்மை (<i>kīṙmai</i>), ‘lowness’ or ‘baseness’, is an apt description of ego.<br>
<br>
Since ego is the darkness of self-ignorance that seemingly conceals our real nature as <i>sat-cit-ānanda</i>, it can only be dispelled by the light of true knowledge, which is awareness of ourself as we actually are, as Bhagavan implies in this verse by praying to Arunachala, the ‘ஒளி மணி’ (<i>oḷi maṇi</i>), ‘gem of light’, namely the light of pure awareness, to annihilate ‘என் கீழ்மை’ (<i>eṉ kīṙmai</i>), ‘my lowness’ or ‘my baseness’. பாழ் (<i>pāṙ</i>) is a noun that means destruction, devastation, barrenness, emptiness, void, nothingness or non-existence, and செய் (<i>sey</i>) is the root and an imperative form of a verb that means to do, make, cause, create or accomplish, so பாழ்செய் (<i>pāṙ-sey</i>) means ‘cause destruction’, ‘make non-existent’ or ‘annihilate’. Therefore ‘என் கீழ்மையைப் பாழ்செய்’ (<i>eṉ kīṙmaiyai-p pāṙ-sey</i>) is a prayer that means ‘annihilate my lowness’ or ‘destroy my baseness’, and that implies ‘annihilate ego, this base darkness of self-ignorance, which obscures my real nature, thereby making me seem to be a defective individual’.<br>
<br>
As Bhagavan often explained, what actually exists must always exist, because if something does not always exist, it is not intrinsically existent, so it must borrow its existence from something else. Therefore whatever exists at one time but not at another time does not actually exist even when it seems to exist. In accordance with this simple ontological principle, what actually exists can never be made non-existent, so anything that can be made non-existent does not actually exist but merely seems to exist. In other words, only what is actually non-existent can be made non-existent. Therefore, since பாழ்செய் (<i>pāṙ-sey</i>) means ‘make non-existent’, by praying ‘என் கீழ்மையைப் பாழ்செய்’ (<i>eṉ kīṙmaiyai-p pāṙ-sey</i>), ‘make my baseness non-existent’, he implies that our கீழ்மை (<i>kīṙmai</i>), ‘lowness’ or ‘baseness’, namely ego and all its <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, are always actually non-existent, even when they seem to exist.<br>
<br>
Since ego does not actually exist, all the phenomena (<i>viṣayas</i>) known by it also do not actually exist. What actually exists is only Arunachala, the infinite light of pure awareness, which is the real nature of ourself (<i>ātma-svarūpa</i>), so all phenomena derive their seeming existence only from the seeming existence of ourself as ego, in whose view alone they seem to exist, and ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’, derives its seeming existence (and its seeming awareness) only from <i>sat-cit</i>, which is Arunachala, the one real existence and awareness, ‘I am’.<br>
<br>
Since Arunachala alone is what actually exists, and since ego (the subject) and phenomena (all objects) do not actually exist, seeing ourself as ego and consequently knowing a multitude of phenomena is seeing what alone actually exists as what is actually non-existent. In other words, by seeing ourself as ego and consequently seeing innumerable other things we are seeing the existent as non-existent and the non-existent as existent. This is why Bhagavan describes our rising and standing as ego as கீழ்மை (<i>kīṙmai</i>), ‘lowness’ or ‘baseness’, and therefore prays to Arunachala, the one real existence and awareness (<i>sat-cit</i>), to make this non-existent but seemingly existent baseness non-existent, as it always actually is.<br>
<br>
Since we seem to be ego only when we attend to and are therefore aware of anything other than ourself (namely any objects or phenomena), ego cannot be destroyed so long as we continue to attend to such things. Since our real nature (our actual existence or being) is pure awareness, which means awareness that is not aware of anything other than itself, and since ego is awareness of ourself as anything other than pure awareness, we can annihilate ego only by seeing ourself as we actually are, namely as pure awareness, ‘I am’. Therefore, in order to see ourself as we actually are and thereby surrender ourself entirely to Arunachala, our own real nature, we need to turn our entire attention back within to see ourself alone.<br>
<br>
Though it is Arunachala alone who shines everywhere, at all times, in all places and in all states, as all things, what he actually is is not all these many things but only one thing, namely pure being-awareness (<i>sat-cit</i>), which is what shines eternally and immutably in our heart as our own being, ‘I am’. Therefore, seeing him as all these many other things is not seeing him as he actually is. Seeing him as the one immutable and indivisible light of pure awareness, ‘I am’, which is not anything other than ourself, alone is seeing him as he actually is.<br>
<br>
In other words, since he alone actually exists, we cannot be anything other than him, so seeing him as ourself alone is truly seeing him. Seeing him as anything other than ourself is therefore கீழ்மை (<i>kīṙmai</i>), ‘lowness’ or ‘baseness’, whereas seeing him as the one infinite and indivisible whole by seeing him as nothing other than ourself alone is மேன்மை (<i>mēṉmai</i>), highness, loftiness and true greatness. Therefore in order to annihilate our lowness and thereby elevate us by restoring us to our natural state, namely the lofty state of inseparable oneness with him, by the light of his grace, which is the light of pure awareness, Arunachala must draw our attention back within to make us see him shining in our heart as our own being, ‘I am’.<br>
<br>
That is, though Arunachala always exists and shines in our heart as the precious light of pure awareness, ‘I am’, which is what Bhagavan describes here as ‘ஒளி மணி’ (<i>oḷi maṇi</i>), the ‘gem of light’, he does not thereby destroy the darkness of our self-ignorance so long as we persist in looking outwards, seeing things other than ourself and never looking back within to see what we ourself actually are. Therefore, in order to annihilate our baseness, he needs to shine in our heart in such a way that he thereby draws our attention back within, like a magnet drawing iron to itself, so that we see him shining within us as our own pure being, ‘I am’.<br>
<br>
<a name="muruganar"></a>In his பொழிப்புரை (<i>poṙippurai</i>) or explanatory paraphrase of this verse Muruganar explained its implication as:<br>
<blockquote>கீழோர் மேலோ ராகிய எல்லா ரிதயங்களிலு மொப்ப (யாதொரு பேதமு மின்றி) அந்தரியாமியா யிருந்தொளிர்கின்ற சுயம்பிரகாச சுத்த ஸச்சித்தான அருணாசல சிவமணியே! இதயத்தில் விளங்கி என் னவிச்சையிருளை (நின் னருளொளியால்) அழிவு செய்தருள்.<br>
<br>
<i>kīṙōr mēlōr āhiya ellār idayaṅgaḷilum oppa (yādoru bhēdamum iṉḏṟi) antariyāmi-y-āy irundoḷirgiṉḏṟa suyampirakāśa suddha saccittāṉa aruṇācala śiva-maṇiyē! idayattil viḷaṅgi eṉ ṉ-aviccai-y-iruḷai (niṉ ṉ-aruḷ-oḷiyāl) aṙivu seydaruḷ.</i><br>
<br>
Arunachala Siva-gem, who are <i>svayamprakāśa suddha sat-cit</i> [self-shining pure being-awareness], which exists and shines as <i>antaryāmi</i> [the indwelling Lord or controller] equally (without any difference whatsoever) in the hearts of all, who are [both] low ones and high ones! Shining in [my] heart, bestow grace, destroying the darkness of my <i>avidyā</i> [ignorance] (by the light of your grace).</blockquote>
<a name="aamm49"></a>By rising as ego, we have in effect fallen down from our natural state of pure being-awareness (<i>suddha sat-cit</i>), so this fallen state of ego is what Bhagavan refers to in this verse as ‘என் கீழ்மை’ (<i>eṉ kīṙmai</i>), ‘my lowness’ or ‘my baseness’. Since pure being-awareness is the infinitely precious ‘கீழ் மேல் எங்கும் கிளர் ஒளி மணி’ (<i>kīṙ mēl eṅgum kiḷar oḷi maṇi</i>), ‘gem of light that shines below, above and everywhere’, falling down from it is the most abject poverty, so this abject poverty can be destroyed only by Arunachala, the precious gem of light, who is the sublime treasure of divine grace that is ever shining in our heart, as Bhagavan implies not only in this verse but also in verse 49:<br>
<blockquote>தேடா துற்றநற் றிருவரு ணிதியகத்<br>
தியக்கந் தீர்த்தரு ளருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>tēḍā duṯṟanaṯ ṟiruvaru ṇidhiyahat<br>
tiyakkan tīrttaru ḷaruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> தேடாது உற்ற நல் திருவருள் நிதி, அக தியக்கம் தீர்த்து அருள் அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>tēḍādu uṯṟa nal tiruvaruḷ nidhi, aha tiyakkam tīrttu aruḷ aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, sublime treasure of divine grace found without seeking, be gracious, destroying mental delusion.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, sublime [infinitely benevolent and bountiful] treasure of divine grace found without seeking, be gracious, destroying [ending or terminating] [my] mental delusion [namely ego, the primal delusion ‘I am this body’] [and thereby removing my poverty, this state of being seemingly separate from you, my own real nature].</blockquote>
<a name="aamm19"></a>What he describes in this forty-ninth verse as ‘அகத் தியக்கம் தீர்த்தல்’ (<i>aha-t-tiyakkam tīrttal</i>), ‘destroying [my] mental delusion’, which can also be interpreted as ‘அகத்து இயக்கம் தீர்த்தல்’ (<i>ahattu iyakkam tīrttal</i>), ‘destroying [ending or terminating] the movement [or activity] of [my] mind’ or ‘destroying [ending or terminating] the stirring [or rising] of ego’, and what he describes in this eighteenth verse as ‘என் கீழ்மையை பாழ் செய்தல்’ (<i>eṉ kīṙmaiyai-p pāṙ-seydal</i>), ‘annihilating my baseness’ or ‘making my baseness non-existent’, is also what he describes in the next verse, namely <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2020/08/praising-or-disparaging-others-is.html#aamm19">verse 19</a>, as ‘குற்றம் முற்று அறுத்தல்’ (<i>kuṯṟam muṯṟu aṟuttal</i>), ‘eradicating [my] defects completely’:<br>
<blockquote>குற்றமுற் றறுத்தெனைக் குணமாய்ப் பணித்தாள்<br>
குருவுரு வாயொளி ரருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>kuṯṟamuṯ ṟaṟutteṉaig guṇamāyp paṇittāḷ<br>
guruvuru vāyoḷi raruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> குற்றம் முற்று அறுத்து எனை குணம் ஆய் பணித்து ஆள், குரு உரு ஆய் ஒளிர் அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>kuṯṟam muṯṟu aṟuttu eṉai guṇam āy paṇittu āḷ, guru-v-uru-v-āy oḷir aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, who shine as the form of <i>guru</i>, eradicating defects completely and making me as virtue, take charge.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, who shine as the form of <i>guru</i>, eradicating [removing or cutting off] [all my] defects completely [namely all my <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> along with ego, their root] and making me as [one who is endowed with every] <i>guṇa</i> [virtue or good quality] [especially <i>sadguṇa</i>, the ultimate virtue of just being as I actually am without ever rising as ego even to the slightest extent], take charge [of me as your very own so that I may never again fall prey to the evil demon-ego and its horde of <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>].</blockquote>
What he refers to here as குற்றம் (<i>kuṯṟam</i>), ‘defect’, ‘fault’ or ‘blemish’, is what he refers to in this eighteenth verse as ‘என் கீழ்மை’ (<i>eṉ kīṙmai</i>), ‘my lowness’ or ‘my baseness’, and since the root of all defects, like the root of all lowness or baseness, is only ego, ‘குற்றம் முற்று அறுத்து’ (<i>kuṯṟam muṯṟu aṟuttu</i>), ‘eradicating [my] defects completely’, implies eradicating ego along with all its defects, namely its horde of <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, because defects cannot be eradicated completely without their root being eradicated along with them.<br>
<br>
Therefore what Bhagavan is ultimately praying for in so many ways in this <i>Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> is only the eradication of ego, because our rising as ego is the greatest of all defects, the most abject of all poverties and the basest of all basenesses, since it alone is what seemingly separates us from Arunachala (the gem of light that is always shining in our heart as our own being, ‘I am’), thereby causing us to fall from our natural state of oneness with him.<br>
<br>
<b>Video discussion:</b> <a href="https://youtu.be/ft-vRvwa1B4"><i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> verse 18</a><br>
<br>
<div style="text-align:center"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ft-vRvwa1B4" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-35449511932507066322022-11-25T08:08:00.004+00:002023-02-07T09:19:18.441+00:00Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai verse 17This is the seventeenth in a series of articles that I hope to write on <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>, Bhagavan willing, the completed ones being <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/articles.html#aamm">listed here</a>.<br><a name='more'></a>
<br>
<a name="aamm17"></a><b>Verse 17:</b><br>
<blockquote>கிரியுரு வாகிய கிருபைக் கடலே<br>
கிருபைகூர்ந் தருளுவா யருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>giriyuru vāhiya kirupaik kaḍalē<br>
kirupaikūrn daruḷuvā yaruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> கிரி உரு ஆகிய கிருபை கடலே, கிருபை கூர்ந்து அருளுவாய் அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>giri uru āhiya kirupai kaḍalē, kirupai kūrndu aruḷuvāy aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, ocean of grace, which is the form of a hill, being abundantly gracious may you bestow grace.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, [who shine in the heart as the infinite] ocean of grace [or compassion], which is [what is seen outside as] the form of [this great] hill, being abundantly [or intensely] gracious [or compassionate] may you bestow grace [upon me in whatever way you wish, knowing it to be what is best for me, and may you thereby annihilate me, devouring me completely in the infinite light of your grace].</blockquote>
<b>Explanation:</b> கிரி (<i>giri</i>) is a Sanskrit word that means hill or mountain; உரு (<i>uru</i>) means form; and ஆகிய (<i>āhiya</i>) is an adjectival (or relative) participle that means ‘which is’; so ‘கிரியுருவாகிய’ (<i>giri-y-uru-v-āhiya</i>) or ‘கிரி உரு ஆகிய’ (<i>giri uru āhiya</i>) means ‘which is the form of a hill’. கிருபை (<i>kirupai</i>) is a Tamil form of the Sanskrit word कृपा (<i>kṛpā</i>), which means grace, compassion, kindness, tenderness, solicitude or benevolence; and கடலே (<i>kaḍalē</i>) is the vocative (or eighth case) form of கடல் (<i>kaḍal</i>), which means sea or ocean; so ‘கிருபைக் கடலே’ (<i>kirupai-k-kaḍalē</i>) is an address to Arunachala as ‘ocean of grace [or compassion]’. Therefore ‘கிரியுரு வாகிய கிருபைக் கடலே’ (<i>giri-y-uru-v-āhiya kirupai-k-kaḍalē</i>) is an address to him as ‘ocean of grace, which is the form of a hill’, and by addressing him thus, Bhagavan implies that though in the gross outward-looking view of the mind Arunachala appears in the physical form of a mountain of solid rock, he is actually an ocean of tender and compassionate grace, as can be seen only by an extremely subtle inward-looking awareness.<br>
<br>
Describing Arunachala as an ‘ocean […] which is the form of a hill’ is what is known in Tamil as a விரோதாலங்காரம் (<i>virōdhālaṅkāram</i>) or in Sanskrit as a विरोधालंकार (<i>virōdhālaṁkāra</i>), which literally means a ‘conflicting [contradictory or antithetical] adornment’, and which is used to describe an incongruous figure of speech, or what would be called a ‘mixed metaphor’ in English. Though mixed metaphors often occur unintentionally and with awkward effect, Bhagavan deliberately used this mixed metaphor to convey a very deep and subtle meaning.<br>
<br>
The nature of a mountain and the nature of an ocean are contrary in so many respects. A mountain is made of rock, which is solid and hard, whereas an ocean is made of water, which is fluid and soft. A mountain is unmoving (<i>acala</i>), unwavering, actionless and steady, whereas an ocean is constantly in motion, wavering, active and unsteady. A mountain is silent and orderly, whereas an ocean tends to be noisy and chaotic. Why then did Bhagavan use these seemingly contradictory metaphors to describe Arunachala and his grace?<br>
<br>
Arunachala and his grace are one, because grace is his very nature, as Bhagavan implies here by describing him as ‘கிருபைக் கடல்’ (<i>kirupai-k-kaḍal</i>), ‘the ocean of grace’, so whatever may be said of Arunachala may equally well be said of his grace, and <i>vice versa</i>. Though he is actually beyond all qualities, from the perspective of ourself as ego he combines within himself certain qualities similar to a mountain and certain qualities similar to an ocean, even in cases where their qualities are seemingly quite opposite. He can be said to be both solid and fluid; hard and soft; unmoving in his real nature, yet constantly moved by his love and compassion for all; actionless, yet constantly active in bestowing his grace; eternally silent, yet through his silence proclaiming the truth louder and more clearly than it could ever be conveyed in words.<br>
<br>
<a name="ny15"></a>How can he combine within himself such contradictory qualities? Let us take for example his அருட்செயல் (<i>aruḷ-seyal</i>), the doing or action of his grace. Though it is described as a ‘doing’ (<i>seyal</i>), because it has a subtle yet tremendous effect on us, whether or to what extent we are aware of it or not, it is what Bhagavan would call ‘doing without doing’, because grace is the very nature of Arunachala, so the action of his grace (<i>aruḷ-seyal</i>) happens by his merely being as he always actually is without his ever doing anything. As Bhagavan says in the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para15">fifteenth paragraph</a> of <i>Nāṉ Ār?</i>, it all happens ‘ஈசன் சன்னிதான விசேஷ மாத்திரத்தால்’ (<i>īśaṉ saṉṉidhāṉa-viśēṣa-māttirattāl</i>), ‘by just [or nothing more than] the special nature of the presence of God’.<br>
<br>
<a name="aa7"></a>In this context the primary idea behind the metaphorical use of the word ‘ocean’ is to convey the sense of vastness and pervasiveness, but whereas the vastness and pervasiveness of a physical ocean is limited, being contained within boundaries, the vastness and pervasiveness of ‘கிருபைக் கடல்’ (<i>kirupai-k-kaḍal</i>), ‘the ocean of grace’, is unbounded and therefore infinite, as Bhagavan indicates explicitly in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2021/06/the-nature-of-ego-and-its-visaya.html#aa7">verse 7</a> of <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Aṣṭakam</i>, which he concludes by saying, ‘இதய மன்று அகம் அசலமா நடமிடும் அருணமலை எனும் எலை அறும் அருள் ஒளிக் கடலே’ (<i>idaya-maṉḏṟu aham acalamā naḍam-iḍum aruṇamalai eṉum elai-aṟum aruḷ oḷi-k kaḍalē</i>), ‘Only the boundless ocean of the light of grace called Arunamalai, who dances motionlessly in the court of the heart’, thereby implying that when we keenly investigate ourself, the source from which we rose as ego, the thought called ‘I’, and when the dream of multiplicity thereby ceases to exist, what will then exist and shine is ‘only the boundless [or infinite] ocean of the light of grace called Arunamalai [Aruna Hill], who [eternally] dances motionlessly [as ‘I am only I’] in the court of the heart’.<br>
<br>
<a name="aamm27"></a><a name="apr1"></a>The metaphor ‘ocean’ also implies something of tremendous power, a power that is potentially extremely destructive in its effect. Just as an ocean can kill and wreak havoc when its power is unleashed by a storm or a tsunami, when the full power of ‘அருணமலை எனும் எலை அறும் அருள் ஒளிக் கடல்’ (<i>aruṇamalai eṉum elai-aṟum aruḷ oḷi-k kaḍal</i>), ‘the boundless ocean of the light of grace called Arunamalai’, is unleashed, it will eradicate ego and thereby render everything else completely and eternally non-existent, as Bhagavan implies by addressing Arunachala in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/04/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-3.html#aamm27">verse 27</a> of <i>Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> as ‘சகலமும் விழுங்கும் கதிர் ஒளி இன’ (<i>sakalamum viṙuṅgum kadir oḷi iṉa</i>), ‘sun of bright light [the light of grace, which is pure awareness] that swallows everything’, and in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2019/10/can-we-as-ego-ever-experience-pure.html#apr1">verse 1</a> of <i>Pañcaratnam</i> as ‘விரி கதிரால் யாவும் விழுங்கும் அருணகிரி பரமான்மாவே’ (<i>viri kadirāl yāvum viṙuṅgum aruṇagiri paramāṉmāvē</i>), ‘<i>paramātmā</i>, Arunagiri, who swallow everything by [your] spreading rays [of pure awareness]’.<br>
<br>
A physical ocean consists of water, and though water can seem soft and gentle to touch, it is extremely powerful. Even when its full power is not unleashed, given time even a seemingly gentle flow or dripping of water can gradually erode and shape even the hardest of rocks, and the water of the ocean can gradually corrode iron, reducing it to a powder of rust. Likewise is the power of grace. Even when its full power is not yet unleashed, given time it will gradually but unfailingly erode and shape the rock-like edifice of ego and its <i>vāsanās</i> (volitional inclinations), the seeds that sprout as likes, dislikes, desires, attachments, fears and so on, reducing their density and thereby making way for the light of clarity to shine forth from within to illumine the mind with clear <i>vivēka</i> (discernment, discrimination or the ability to distinguish what is real from what is unreal), enabling us to recognise with steadily increasing clarity the unsatisfactory nature of whatever semblance of happiness we have hitherto been seeking to obtain from <i>viṣayas</i> (objects or phenomena) of any kind whatsoever. Thus grace gradually corrodes all the iron-like defences that we as ego have built around ourself in the dark form of a dense fog of <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> (inclinations to seek happiness in <i>viṣayas</i>), thereby making us increasingly willing to surrender ourself entirely by turning our attention back within to face ourself alone. Only when grace has thereby made us sufficiently willing to surrender ourself completely will its full power be unleashed, rising from within as the infinite clarity of pure awareness, thereby swallowing us forever within itself.<br>
<br>
Just as grace is comparable in these respects to the waters of an ocean, in other respects it is comparable to a mighty mountain. Like a mountain it is hard, firm and unrelenting, sometimes seeming to be harsh and unmerciful in its treatment of us, giving us the fruits of our past <i>karmas</i> in such a way that will be most conducive to our spiritual development, as if it did not care about all the suffering that we must inevitably undergo in experiencing those fruits until we are willing to surrender ourself entirely to it. Like a mountain it is also steady and unmoving, existing and shining forever in our heart as our own immutable being, ‘I am’, unaffected by all the turmoil of the mind that seemingly surrounds it, just as a mountain is not affected by a storm that rages around it.<br>
<br>
Most importantly of all, like a mountain it is eternally silent, just being as it is without ever doing anything. Though it is steadily transforming us, working hard within us to rectify all our <i>vāsanās</i>, and for that purpose making us experience the most appropriate fruits for our past <i>karmas</i>, it does all this without ever actually doing anything, but just by the power of its mere being, which is itself infinite love. Therefore, though grace seems to do so much, its real nature is infinite silence, the silence of pure being, and it will reveal its silent nature to us only to the extent to which — by its silent power — we turn within and thereby surrender ourself to it.<br>
<br>
<a name="ut27"></a>As Bhagavan says in verse 27 of <i>Upadēśa Taṉippākkaḷ</i>:<br>
<blockquote>மௌனமுள் ளெழுமொரு மொழியரு ணிலையே.<br>
<br>
<i>mauṉamuḷ ḷeṙumoru moṙiyaru ṇilaiyē.</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> மௌனம் உள் எழும் ஒரு மொழி அருள் நிலையே.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>mauṉam uḷ eṙum oru moṙi aruḷ nilaiyē.</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Silence is the very nature of grace, the one language that rises within.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Silence is the very nature [or actual state] of grace, the one [single, non-dual, unique, unequalled and incomparable] language that rises within [eternally surging forth as the clear light of pure awareness, ‘I am’, waiting to swallow the mind as soon as it turns back within].</blockquote>
<a name="unm1"></a>thereby implying that the infinite silence of pure being, which is the very nature of both Arunachala and his grace, is the one and only real language, because it is our real nature, and therefore it alone has the power to reveal our real nature to us by drawing our attention back within, thereby making us know and be what we always actually are. That is, since our real nature (<i>ātma-svarūpa</i>) is beyond the reach of thought or word, meaning that it cannot be grasped by the mind or expressed in words, as Bhagavan implies in the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#unm1">first <i>maṅgalam</i> verse</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>, ‘உள்ள பொருள் உள்ளல் அற உள்ளத்தே உள்ளதால்’ (<i>uḷḷa-poruḷ uḷḷal-aṟa uḷḷattē uḷḷadāl</i>), ‘Since the existing substance exists in the heart without thought’, it cannot be revealed by anything other than itself, and since it is the silence of pure being, it can reveal itself only in and through that silence. In other words, it can reveal itself to us only by drawing us back within and thereby absorbing us back into its real state of pure silent being.<br>
<br>
<a name="aamm31"></a>Thoughts and words are the very antithesis of the silence of pure being, which is our real nature, because they can occur only in the state in which we have risen as ego, thereby seemingly forsaking our natural state of pure being, so it is only in the infinite silence in which all thoughts and words have ceased to exist along with their root, namely ego, the first of all thoughts, that our real nature will shine forth as it is, as Bhagavan implies in verse 31 of <i>Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>:<br>
<blockquote>சுகக்கடல் பொங்கச் சொல்லுணர் வடங்கச்<br>
சும்மா பொருந்திடங் கருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>sukhakkaḍal poṅgac colluṇar vaḍaṅgac<br>
cummā porundiḍaṅ garuṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> சுக கடல் பொங்க, சொல் உணர்வு அடங்க, சும்மா பொருந்திடு அங்கு அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>sukha kaḍal poṅga, sol uṇarvu aḍaṅga, summā porundiḍu aṅgu aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, the ocean of joy to surge forth, speech and mind to subside, just settle down there.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, so that the ocean of joy [your real nature] surges forth [within me], and so that speech and mind [thereby] subside [or cease] [completely], just [silently, calmly, leisurely, motionlessly or without activity] settle down [be seated, be majestically enthroned or be united (with me)] [as the silence of pure being] there [in my heart].</blockquote>
Therefore, as Bhagavan says, ‘மௌனம் உள் எழும் ஒரு மொழி அருள் நிலையே’ (<i>mauṉam uḷ eṙum oru moṙi aruḷ nilaiyē</i>), ‘Silence is the very nature of grace, the one language that rises within’. This is why Arunachala, the infinite ocean of grace (<i>kirupai-k-kaḍal</i>), though all-pervading and ever-present, graciously shines in this physical world as the silent form of this great hill in order to attract our outward-looking mind towards it, like a magnet attracting iron, and thereby to silently and stealthily turn us back within to see its real nature shining in our heart as our own being, ‘I am’. <br>
<br>
<a name="aa2"></a>That is, Arunachala is <i>mauna-svarūpa</i>, the one whose very nature is silence, so it is to reveal his real nature through silence that he stands as a hill on earth, as Bhagavan explains in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2019/03/is-it-possible-to-have-direct-but.html#aa2">verse 2</a> of <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Aṣṭakam</i>:<br>
<blockquote>கண்டவ னெவனெனக் கருத்தினு ணாடக்<br>
கண்டவ னின்றிட நின்றது கண்டேன்<br>
கண்டன னென்றிடக் கருத்தெழ வில்லை<br>
கண்டில னென்றிடக் கருத்தெழு மாறென்<br>
விண்டிது விளக்கிடு விறலுறு வோனார்<br>
விண்டிலை பண்டுநீ விளக்கினை யென்றால்<br>
விண்டிடா துன்னிலை விளக்கிட வென்றே<br>
விண்டல மசலமா விளங்கிட நின்றாய்.<br>
<br>
<i>kaṇḍava ṉevaṉeṉak karuttiṉu ṇāḍak<br>
kaṇḍava ṉiṉḏṟiḍa niṉḏṟadu kaṇḍēṉ<br>
kaṇḍaṉa ṉeṉḏṟiḍak karutteṙa villai<br>
kaṇḍila ṉeṉḏṟiḍak karutteṙu māṟeṉ<br>
viṇḍidu viḷakkiḍu viṟaluṟu vōṉār<br>
viṇḍilai paṇḍunī viḷakkiṉai yeṉḏṟāl<br>
viṇḍiṭā duṉṉilai viḷakkiḍa veṉḏṟē<br>
viṇḍala macalamā viḷaṅgiḍa niṉḏṟāy</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> கண்டவன் எவன் என கருத்தின் உள் நாட, கண்டவன் இன்றிட நின்றது கண்டேன். ‘கண்டனன்’ என்றிட கருத்து எழ இல்லை; ‘கண்டிலன்’ என்றிட கருத்து எழுமாறு என்? விண்டு இது விளக்கிடு விறல் உறுவோன் ஆர், விண்டு இலை பண்டு நீ விளக்கினை என்றால்? விண்டிடாது உன் நிலை விளக்கிட என்றே விண் தலம் அசலமா விளங்கிட நின்றாய்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>kaṇḍavaṉ evaṉ eṉa karuttiṉ uḷ nāḍa, kaṇḍavaṉ iṉḏṟiḍa niṉḏṟadu kaṇḍēṉ. ‘kaṇḍaṉaṉ’ eṉḏṟiḍa karuttu eṙa illai; ‘kaṇḍilaṉ’ eṉḏṟiḍa karuttu eṙum-āṟu eṉ? viṇḍu idu viḷakkiḍu viṟal uṟuvōṉ ār, viṇḍu ilai paṇḍu nī viḷakkiṉai eṉḏṟāl? viṇḍiḍādu uṉ nilai viḷakkiḍa eṉḏṟē viṇ ṭalam acalamā viḷaṅgiḍa niṉḏṟāy</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>அன்வயம்:</b> கண்டவன் எவன் என கருத்தின் உள் நாட, கண்டவன் இன்றிட நின்றது கண்டேன். ‘கண்டனன்’ என்றிட கருத்து எழ இல்லை; ‘கண்டிலன்’ என்றிட கருத்து எழுமாறு என்? பண்டு நீ விண்டு இலை விளக்கினை என்றால், விண்டு இது விளக்கிடு விறல் உறுவோன் ஆர்? விண்டிடாது உன் நிலை விளக்கிட என்றே விண் தலம் அசலமா விளங்கிட நின்றாய்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Anvayam</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>kaṇḍavaṉ evaṉ eṉa karuttiṉ uḷ nāḍa, kaṇḍavaṉ iṉḏṟiḍa niṉḏṟadu kaṇḍēṉ. ‘kaṇḍaṉaṉ’ eṉḏṟiḍa karuttu eṙa illai; ‘kaṇḍilaṉ’ eṉḏṟiḍa karuttu eṙum-āṟu eṉ? paṇḍu nī viṇḍu ilai viḷakkiṉai eṉḏṟāl, viṇḍu idu viḷakkiḍu viṟal uṟuvōṉ ār? viṇḍiḍādu uṉ nilai viḷakkiḍa eṉḏṟē viṇ ṭalam acalamā viḷaṅgiḍa niṉḏṟāy</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> When investigated within the mind who the seer is, I saw what remained when the seer became non-existent. The mind did not rise to say ‘I saw’; in what way could the mind rise to say ‘I did not see’? Who is one who has the power to elucidate this speaking, when in ancient times you elucidated without speaking? Only to elucidate your state without speaking, you stood shining as a sky-earth-hill.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> When [the seer] investigated within the mind [to see] who the seer is, I saw what remained when the seer [thereby] became non-existent. The mind did not rise to say ‘I saw’, [so] in what way could the mind rise to say ‘I did not see’? Who is one who has the power to elucidate this [by] speaking, when in ancient times [even] you [as Dakshinamurti] elucidated [it] without speaking [but only through your natural state of infinite silence]? Only to elucidate your state [of silent and motionless pure being, which is pure awareness, ‘I am’] without speaking, you stood shining as a hill [or shining motionlessly] [extending from] earth [to] sky [though actually beyond the limits of both].</blockquote>
After addressing Arunachala as ‘கிரியுரு வாகிய கிருபைக் கடலே’ (<i>giri-y-uru-v-āhiya kirupai-k-kaḍalē</i>), ‘ocean of grace, which is the form of a hill’, Bhagavan then prays ‘கிருபை கூர்ந்து அருளுவாய்’ (<i>kirupai kūrndu aruḷuvāy</i>), ‘being abundantly [or intensely] gracious may you bestow grace’, thereby implying that in accordance with his nature as the all-abundant ocean of grace, Arunachala should consume him in the fullness of his grace.<br>
<br>
As explained earlier, கிருபை (<i>kirupai</i>) is a Tamil form of the Sanskrit word कृपा (<i>kṛpā</i>), which means grace, and கூர்ந்து (<i>kūrndu</i>) is an adverbial participle that means being abundant, excessive or intense, so ‘கிருபை கூர்ந்து’ (<i>kirupai kūrndu</i>) is an adverbial clause that literally means ‘grace being abundant [excessive or intense]’ and that therefore implies ‘being abundantly [excessively or intensely] gracious [or compassionate]’. அருளுவாய் (<i>aruḷuvāy</i>) is a second person singular future form of the verb அருள் (<i>aruḷ</i>) or அருளு (<i>aruḷu</i>), which means to be gracious, to give graciously or to bestow grace, so அருளுவாய் (<i>aruḷuvāy</i>) literally means ‘you will bestow grace [or be gracious]’, but it is used here in the sense of the optative, அருளுவாயாக (<i>aruḷuvāyāha</i>), so in this sense it means ‘may you bestow grace [or be gracious]’. Therefore this prayer, ‘கிருபை கூர்ந்து அருளுவாய்’ (<i>kirupai kūrndu aruḷuvāy</i>), means ‘being abundantly [or intensely] gracious may you bestow [your] grace [upon me]’.<br>
<br>
When people pray to God, they generally pray to him to bestow his grace in a particular way, to fulfil a desire or to remove a difficulty, but praying to him in this way is foolish, because he alone knows what is truly good for us and for all concerned, and we are often mistaken in believing that a certain thing is good for us or for those we care about. Therefore, by praying to Arunachala in this verse to bestow his grace without asking him to bestow it in any particular way, Bhagavan is by implication teaching us that whenever we pray, we should pray to him to bestow his grace in any way he wishes, knowing that whatever he wishes alone is what is ultimately good for us.<br>
<br>
<a name="apad02"></a><a name="anmm7"></a>As he implies in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-role-of-grace-in-all-that-ego.html#c2296089042011884473">verse 2</a> of <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Padigam</i>, ‘நின் இட்டம் என் இட்டம்; இன்பு அது எற்கு’ (<i>niṉ iṭṭam eṉ iṭṭam; iṉbu adu eṟku</i>), ‘Your <i>iṣṭam</i> [will, wish, desire or liking] is my <i>iṣṭam</i>; that is happiness for me’, true prayer is not asking God for this or that, but only surrendering our own will entirely, knowing that his will alone is what is truly good for us. If at all we are to pray for anything specific, it should only be for ever-increasing love for him, as he teaches us to pray in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/04/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-4.html#anmm7">verse 7</a> of <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Navamaṇimālai</i>: ‘எண்ணம் எதுவோ அது செய்வாய். கண்ணே, உன்றன் கழல் இணையில் காதல் பெருக்கே தருவாயே’ (<i>eṇṇam eduvō adu seyvāy. kaṇṇē, uṉḏṟaṉ kaṙal iṇaiyil kādal perukkē taruvāyē</i>), ‘Whatever be [your] thought [or wish], do that. [My] eye [my most beloved, my own awareness], just give [me] only a flood [overflow, fullness, abundance, surge or increasing intensity] of love for your pair of feet’.<br>
<br>
<a name="aamm101"></a><a name="apad02a"></a>When he prays ‘கிருபை கூர்ந்து அருளுவாய்’ (<i>kirupai kūrndu aruḷuvāy</i>), ‘being abundantly [or intensely] gracious may you bestow [your] grace [upon me]’, he is by implication praying for love, because grace is the infinite love that Arunachala has for us as himself. That is, since Arunachala alone is what actually exists, he is what we actually are, so he does not know us as anything other than himself, and hence he loves us as himself. Infinite love is therefore his very nature, so he and his love are one, as Bhagavan implies by describing him as ‘அன்புரு’ (<i>aṉburu</i>), ‘the form of love’ (<i>aṉbu-uru</i>), in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/04/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-3.html#aamm101">verse 101</a> of <i>Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> and <a href="https://youtu.be/bwS7dF6s9Ko">verse 2</a> of <i>Padigam</i>, and hence the infinite love that is himself is what we experience as his grace. Therefore ‘அருளுவாய்’ (<i>aruḷuvāy</i>), ‘may you bestow [your] grace [upon me]’ or ‘may you give [me] [your] grace’, implies ‘may you graciously bestow your love on me’, ‘may you graciously give me the same love for you that you have for me’ or ‘may you graciously enable me to love you as myself, just as you love me as yourself’.<br>
<br>
Since Arunachala is the real nature of ourself (<i>ātma-svarūpa</i>), and since grace is his very nature, his grace is not anything other than ourself, but is ourself as we actually are. Therefore when we pray to him to bestow his grace on us, we are actually praying to him to restore us to our own real nature, or in other words, to transform us from this unreal ego-nature back into what we always actually are, namely himself.<br>
<br>
By rising as ego, we seemingly separate ourself from our own real nature, so Arunachala and his grace seem to be other than ourself, and hence we pray to him to give us his grace, as if it were something that we are now lacking. However, since his grace is himself, and since he is the one infinite whole, we are actually always fully immersed in his grace, as his grace, and can never be separated from it. Nevertheless, in the limited and distorted view of ourself as ego, grace seems to be separate from us and therefore limited, so as ego we can never experience it as the infinite whole that it actually is. In order to experience it as it actually is, therefore, we need to experience it not as something other than ourself but as our own very self, our real nature.<br>
<br>
This is the significance and implication of the adverbial clause ‘கிருபை கூர்ந்து’ (<i>kirupai kūrndu</i>), ‘being abundantly gracious’, ‘being excessively gracious’ or ‘being intensely gracious’. His grace is always infinitely abundant and intense, but we fail to see it as such so long as we see it as other than ourself, so ‘கிருபை கூர்ந்து’ (<i>kirupai kūrndu</i>), ‘being abundantly gracious’, implies that his grace should shine in our heart in such a way that we are able to recognise its infinitely abundant nature by seeing it as nothing other than our own being, ‘I am’.<br>
<br>
<a name="aamm18"></a>As Bhagavan often used to say, grace is the infinite and eternal light of pure awareness, which is always shining as ‘I am’ in the hearts of all sentient beings (<i>jīvas</i>). Since it is the original light that illumines the mind, enabling it to know all other things, and since all other things, including all time and space, exist and shine only in the light of the mind, which is a dim reflection of this original light of pure awareness, ‘I am’, it is infinite, eternal and all-pervading, and hence Bhagavan describes it in this verse as ‘கிருபைக் கடல்’ (<i>kirupai-k-kaḍal</i>), ‘the ocean of grace’. Being all-pervading and therefore omnipresent, it shines equally, impartially and without any distinctions in all times, in all places, and in all <i>jīvas</i>, irrespective of their state of mind, whether it be low or high, impure or pure, and hence he describes it as ‘கீழ் மேல் எங்கும் கிளர் ஒளி மணி’ (<i>kīṙ mēl eṅgum kiḷar oḷi maṇi</i>), ‘gem of light that shines below, above and everywhere’, in the next verse, namely <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2019/08/is-any-external-help-required-for-us-to.html#aamm18">verse 18</a>:<br>
<blockquote>கீழ்மே லெங்குங் கிளரொளி மணியென்<br>
கீழ்மையைப் பாழ்செய் யருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>kīṙmē leṅguṅ kiḷaroḷi maṇiyeṉ<br>
kīṙmaiyaip pāṙcey yaruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> கீழ் மேல் எங்கும் கிளர் ஒளி மணி, என் கீழ்மையை பாழ் செய் அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>kīṙ mēl eṅgum kiḷar oḷi maṇi, eṉ kīṙmaiyai pāṙ sey aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, gem of light that shines below, above and everywhere, annihilate my lowness.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, gem of light [the infinitely precious light of pure awareness, ‘I am’] that shines below, above and everywhere [that is, that shines within me at all times and in all states, whether my mind is in a low state of impurity and immaturity or an elevated state of purity and maturity], [by drawing my mind inwards to see you as you actually are] annihilate my baseness [the darkness of my self-ignorance, which is what rises as ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’].</blockquote>
Just as an ocean will accept and absorb into itself all the rivers and streams that flow into it, no matter how clean or dirty they may be, Arunachala, the infinite ocean of grace, will bestow his abundant grace on every <i>jīva</i> who approaches him seeking it, and will thereby eventually absorb each of them into himself, no matter how pure or impure they may be. However, whereas the ocean will cleanse the water of a river by absorbing it into itself, as itself, Arunachala will first cleanse us by his grace and thereby absorb us into himself, as himself, because only when we are wholeheartedly willing to surrender ourself entirely to him will he consume us, and we will be wholeheartedly willing to surrender ourself only when we have been cleansed to a considerable extent of the dirt of <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, which cloud our mind with a dense fog of desires and attachments, thereby making us unwilling to surrender ourself.<br>
<br>
Therefore, though Bhagavan does not specifically ask for anything other than grace in this verse, by the way he has carefully worded this prayer he implies so much about the nature of grace, and hence about what he means by praying for grace. By addressing Arunachala as ‘கிரியுரு வாகிய கிருபைக் கடலே’ (<i>giri-y-uru-v-āhiya kirupai-k-kaḍalē</i>), ‘ocean of grace, which is the form of a hill’, he implies that Arunachala is grace itself, the infinitely abundant fullness of grace, so in asking him to give him grace, he is implicitly asking him to give himself. However, since Arunachala is the one infinite whole, other than which nothing can exist, he cannot be anything other than ourself, so he is our own real nature, the pure awareness that shines eternally in our heart as our own being, ‘I am’. Therefore, since his grace is always shining within us as ‘I am’, what is it that he is to give us that we do not already have?<br>
<br>
Though his grace is what is always shining within us as our own being, ‘I am’, we have not yet allowed it to consume us, because we persistently turn our attention away from our being towards the appearance of other things, so in order to make us willing to surrender ourself entirely to it, it needs to shine within us in a special manner, thereby drawing our attention back within to see it with unwavering love, like a magnet drawing a piece of iron towards itself. This shining within us in a special manner is what Bhagavan implies by praying ‘கிருபை கூர்ந்து அருளுவாய் அருணாசலா’ (<i>kirupai kūrndu aruḷuvāy aruṇācalā</i>), ‘Arunachala, being abundantly [or intensely] gracious may you bestow [your] grace [upon me]’.<br>
<br>
That is, though his grace is always shining clearly within us as our own fundamental awareness ‘I am’, it is nevertheless obscured by our rising as ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’, so though we are always clearly aware of our being as ‘I am’, our real identity as nothing other this this being, ‘I am I’, is seemingly obscured by the false identity ‘I am this body’. Therefore, in order to dispel this false identity, he needs to be abundantly gracious by drawing our attention back within to lovingly see him shining in our heart as our real identity, ‘I am I’, so this clear shining of himself in our heart as ‘I am I’ is what Bhagavan implies by the adverbial clause ‘கிருபை கூர்ந்து’ (<i>kirupai kūrndu</i>), ‘being abundantly gracious’.<br>
<br>
His clearly shining in our heart as our real identity, ‘I am I’, is what Bhagavan called <i>aham-sphurippu</i> or <i>aham-sphuraṇa</i>, the clear shining of ‘I’. Though he is always clearly shining in our heart as ‘I am I’, we fail to see him as such so long as we continue looking away from ourself towards other things, so in order to make us see him clearly shining in ourself as ourself, ‘I am I’, he needs to draw us back to look deep and lovingly within ourself. This is therefore what Bhagavan is implicitly praying for when he sings ‘கிருபை கூர்ந்து அருளுவாய் அருணாசலா’ (<i>kirupai kūrndu aruḷuvāy aruṇācalā</i>), ‘Arunachala, being abundantly [or intensely] gracious may you bestow [your] grace [upon me]’.<br>
<br>
<b>Video discussion:</b> <a href="https://youtu.be/wjrzaeiq2tg"><i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> verse 17</a><br>
<br>
<div style="text-align:center"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wjrzaeiq2tg" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-77517624224427837952022-11-09T16:26:00.004+00:002023-01-22T17:43:38.465+00:00Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai verse 16This is the sixteenth in a series of articles that I hope to write on <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>, Bhagavan willing, the completed ones being <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/articles.html#aamm">listed here</a>.<br><a name='more'></a>
<br>
<a name="aamm16"></a><b>Verse 16:</b><br>
<blockquote>காந்த மிரும்புபோற் கவர்ந்தெனை விடாமற்<br>
கலந்தெனோ டிருப்பா யருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>kānta mirumbupōṟ kavarndeṉai viḍāmaṟ<br>
kalandeṉō ḍiruppā yaruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> காந்தம் இரும்பு போல் கவர்ந்து எனை, விடாமல் கலந்து எனோடு இருப்பாய் அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>kāntam irumbu pōl kavarndu eṉai, viḍāmal kalandu eṉōḍu iruppāy aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>அன்வயம்:</b> காந்தம் இரும்பு போல் எனை கவர்ந்து, விடாமல் கலந்து எனோடு இருப்பாய் அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Anvayam</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>kāntam irumbu pōl eṉai kavarndu, viḍāmal kalandu eṉōḍu iruppāy aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, like a magnet iron, forcibly seizing me, uniting without leaving, may you be with me.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, like a magnet [grasping] iron [by its natural power of attraction], forcibly seizing [grasping, captivating or attracting] me [by the captivating power of your grace], uniting [me with yourself] without [ever] leaving [or letting go of] [me], may you be [eternally one] with me.</blockquote>
<b>Explanation:</b> As in many of the previous and subsequent verses, in this verse Bhagavan clearly implies that it is only by the power of Arunachala’s grace that we can surrender ourself completely to him by turning our entire attention back within to see him as he actually is, namely as our own real nature, shining in our heart as our fundamental awareness ‘I am’, and thereby merge forever as one with him.<br>
<br>
<a name="aamm12"></a>For example, in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/09/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-12.html#aamm12">verse 12</a> he implies that since Arunachala is the only one who actually exists, the ‘one only without a second’ (<i>ēkam ēva advitīyam</i>), if the five sense-thieves enter our heart, this must be only his trick. In this context his ‘சூது’ (<i>sūdu</i>) or ‘trick’ implies <i>māyā</i>, which is the power that deceives and allures our mind, drawing it out towards the deceptive attractions of the world of sense-impressions, so the implication in verse 12 is that since Arunachala alone actually exists, the power of <i>māyā</i> is his power and therefore subservient to him, so it is only by the power of his grace that we can escape the snares and delusions of his <i>māyā</i>. That is, since <i>āvaraṇa</i> (covering, veiling or concealing), which is the primary and most fundamental power of <i>māyā</i>, is nothing but ego or mind, the false awareness ‘I am this body’, our very nature as ego is to be always deluded by <i>māyā</i> (both by its primary power, <i>āvaraṇa</i>, and consequently by its concomitant secondary power, <i>vikṣēpa</i> or scattering, which disperses our mind as innumerable thoughts, which are what constitute both the internal and the external worlds of phenomena), so without the intervention of Arunachala, who is our own real nature (<i>ātma-svarūpa</i>), we as ego will never be either willing or able to escape the clutches of <i>māyā</i>.<br>
<br>
<a name="aamm13"></a>Likewise in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/09/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-13.html#aamm13">verse 13</a> he implies that being the only one who actually exists, Arunachala is the true import or referent of <i>ōṁkāra</i> (the sacred syllable <i>ōm</i>) and therefore that for which there is nothing equal, similar or superior, so he cannot be known by anyone other than himself. The implication, therefore, is that we cannot know him except by being him, so as ego we can never know him as he actually is, and hence we need to surrender ourself entirely to him, thereby allowing ourself to be devoured by him. However, we will be willing to surrender ourself only when we have all-consuming love for him alone, but since the nature of ourself as ego is to always be attached to other things, having all-consuming love for him alone is contrary to our ego-nature, so such love can come from him alone.<br>
<br>
<a name="aamm14"></a>Therefore in the next verse, namely <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/10/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-14.html#aamm14">verse 14</a>, he prays to Arunachala, saying that it is his duty like a mother to give him his grace and thereby to take charge of him as his very own. Since his grace is the infinite love that he has for each one of us as himself, ‘giving grace’ implies giving us the same love for him that he has for us, namely love for him as our own real nature. Since it is only by such love given by him that we will be willing to give ourself wholly to him, and since he will not take complete charge of us as his very own until we are willing to give ourself wholly to him, the implication is that it is only by his giving us his grace in the form of all-consuming love for him that he can discharge his motherly duty to take complete charge of us.<br>
<br>
<a name="aamm15"></a>Then in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/10/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-15.html#aamm15">verse 15</a> he gives us another reason why we as ego can never see him or know him as he actually is. That is, the nature of ourself as ego is to always look outwards, so we can only see things other than ourself, just as the eye can only see objects other than itself and can never see itself. Arunachala is not anything other than ourself, but is the ‘eye to the eye’, meaning that it is the light of pure awareness, ‘I am’, which shines within the mind or ego, giving us as ego the light of awareness by which we see all other things. Since the nature of ourself as ego is to always see ourself as an object, namely a body consisting of five sheaths (a physical body, life, mind, intellect and will), and consequently to see other objects, ranging from gross to subtle (corresponding to each of the five sheaths), as ego we can never see ourself as we actually are. What we actually are is Arunachala, so though we as ego cannot see him, he always sees us as we actually are, namely as himself, and he sees us thus without any ‘eye’ or instrument of sight, but just by being himself, because he is pure awareness, which always knows itself not by an act of knowing but just by being itself. Therefore in verse 15 Bhagavan asked rhetorically, ‘கண்ணுக்கு கண் ஆய் கண் இன்றி காண் உனை காணுவது எவர்?’ (<i>kaṇṇukku kaṇ āy kaṇ iṉḏṟi kāṇ uṉai kāṇuvadu evar?</i>), ‘Who can see you, who, being the eye to the eye, sees without eyes?’, thereby implying that no one other than himself can see him as he actually is.<br>
<br>
<a name="un25"></a>Does this mean then that we can never see him as he actually is? No, it simply means that as ego we can never see him as he actually is, but since he is what we actually are, we can see him just by being as we actually are instead of rising as ego. But how can we cease rising as ego and thereby remain as we actually are? Nothing that we can do as ego can enable us to cease rising as ego, but instead of trying to do anything as ego, we can cease rising just by turning our entire attention back within and thereby subsiding back into Arunachala, the source from which we have risen. That is, as Bhagavan says in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un25">verse 25</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>, ego is ‘உருவற்ற பேய்’ (<i>uru-v-aṯṟa pēy</i>), a ‘formless phantom’ or ‘formless evil spirit’, and ‘உரு பற்றி உண்டாம்; உரு பற்றி நிற்கும்; உரு பற்றி உண்டு மிக ஓங்கும்; உரு விட்டு, உரு பற்றும்’ (<i>uru paṯṟi uṇḍām; uru paṯṟi niṟkum; uru paṯṟi uṇḍu miha ōṅgum; uru viṭṭu, uru paṯṟum</i>), ‘Grasping form it comes into existence; grasping form it stands; grasping and feeding on form it grows abundantly; leaving form, it grasps form’, so the nature of ourself as ego is to be constantly ‘grasping form’, which means grasping things other than ourself, and by grasping such things we are doing actions. However, in the same verse he then says, ‘தேடினால் ஓட்டம் பிடிக்கும்’ (<i>tēḍiṉāl ōṭṭam piḍikkum</i>), ‘If sought, it will take flight’, thereby implying that if we as ego seek (investigate or attend to) ourself, we will ‘take flight’ or run away, meaning that we will subside and dissolve back into the source from which we rose, namely our own being, ‘I am’, which is Arunachala. Therefore, whereas grasping or attending to anything other than ourself is an action done by us as ego, attending to ourself is not an action but a cessation not only of all action but also of ego, the doer of all action. This is why Bhagavan often said that we need not do anything but should just be as we actually are, meaning that we should just attend to ourself and thereby subside back into our own being, which is what always shines as our fundamental awareness ‘I am’.<br>
<br>
However, since the very nature of ourself as ego is to always grasp or attend to things other than ourself, how are we to attend to ourself? We attend to other things under the sway of our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, our volitional inclinations to experience <i>viṣayas</i> (objects or phenomena), which are the seeds that sprout as likes, dislikes, desires, aversions, attachments, fears and so on, so it is only under the sway of love to surrender ourself completely that we can attend to ourself. But from where is such love to come? It cannot come from ourself as ego, because as ego our nature is to always desire things other than ourself, so it can come only from ourself as we actually are, namely from Arunachala.<br>
<br>
In other words, it can be given to us only by his grace, which is why Bhagavan ends verse 15 with a single word of prayer, ‘பார்’ (<i>pār</i>), which means ‘see’ or ‘look’, thereby implying that Arunachala should look at us with his அருட்கண் (<i>aruḷ-kaṇ</i>), the eye of his grace. Since his grace is the infinite love that he has for us as himself, his looking at us with his eye of grace is his giving us the love to turn back and look deep within ourself in order to see him as he is seeing us, namely as one indivisible whole, in which there is not even the slightest trace of any separation between him and us.<br>
<br>
Thus in these four verses, 12 to 15, as in so many other verses of <i>Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>, Bhagavan clearly implies that without the grace of Arunachala we as ego can never be saved from ourself. We of course must be willing to yield ourself to his grace by trying to turn back within to see him shining in our heart as our own being, ‘I am’, but even to be willing to do so we require his grace. The onus is therefore on him. If he does not attract us as a magnet attracts iron, what can we do by ourself to escape the clutches of his <i>māyā</i>? Even the thought that we should escape her clutches, let alone the desire to do so, would not occur to us but for his grace. So powerful is the deceptive allurement of <i>māyā</i> in all her myriad forms that we will continue revelling in her charms for endless lives, as we have been doing till now, in spite of all the suffering and misery that she causes us along the way, until he looks at us with his eye of grace, thereby attracting us back to himself.<br>
<br>
Therefore, in continuation of these earlier verses, in this sixteenth verse he prays to Arunachala to attract him as a magnet attracts iron, without ever letting go of him. காந்தம் (<i>kāntam</i>) means magnet, இரும்பு (<i>irumbu</i>) means iron, and போல் (<i>pōl</i>) is a particle of comparison that means ‘like’, ‘similar to’ or ‘as’, so ‘காந்தம் இரும்பு போல்’ (<i>kāntam irumbu pōl</i>) means ‘magnet iron like’, thereby implying ‘as a magnet attracts iron’. கவர்ந்து (<i>kavarndu</i>) is an adverbial participle that means seizing, catching, grasping, taking by force, capturing, stealing, plundering, attracting, charming, captivating or taking control of, and எனை (<i>eṉai</i>) is a poetic abbreviation of என்னை (<i>eṉṉai</i>), the accusative (or second case) form of the first person singular pronoun, so it means ‘me’, and hence ‘கவர்ந்து எனை’ (<i>kavarndu eṉai</i>), or in normal prose order, ‘எனை கவர்ந்து’ (<i>eṉai kavarndu</i>), means ‘attracting me’ or ‘forcibly seizing me’. Therefore ‘காந்தம் இரும்பு போல் கவர்ந்து எனை’ (<i>kāntam irumbu pōl kavarndu eṉai</i>) means ‘forcibly seizing me like a magnet iron’, thereby implying ‘attracting [or forcibly seizing] me as a magnet attracts [or forcibly seizes] iron’.<br>
<br>
விடாமல் (<i>viḍāmal</i>) is a negative adverbial participle that means ‘not leaving’ or ‘not letting go’, and கலந்து (<i>kalandu</i>) is an adverbial participle that means joining, uniting, mixing, combining or being absorbed, so ‘விடாமல் கலந்து’ (<i>viḍāmal kalandu</i>) means ‘uniting without leaving’ and implies ‘uniting [me with yourself] without [ever] leaving [or letting go of] [me]’. எனோடு (<i>eṉōḍu</i>) is a sociative (a particular mode of the third case) form of the first person singular pronoun, so it means ‘with me’, and இருப்பாய் (<i>iruppāy</i>) is the second person singular future form of இரு (<i>iru</i>), ‘be’, ‘exist’ or ‘remain’, so it literally means ‘you will be’, but it is used here in the sense of the optative, இருப்பாயாக (<i>iruppāyāha</i>), so it means ‘may you be’. Therefore ‘எனோடு இருப்பாய்’ (<i>eṉōḍu iruppāy</i>) means ‘may you be with me’, and in this context it implies ‘may you be [eternally one] with me’. Thus ‘விடாமல் கலந்து எனோடு இருப்பாய்’ (<i>viḍāmal kalandu eṉōḍu iruppāy</i>) means ‘uniting without leaving, may you be with me’, thereby implying ‘uniting [me with yourself] without [ever] leaving [or letting go of] [me], may you be [eternally one] with me’, and the whole verse, ‘காந்தம் இரும்பு போல் கவர்ந்து எனை, விடாமல் கலந்து எனோடு இருப்பாய் அருணாசலா’ (<i>kāntam irumbu pōl kavarndu eṉai, viḍāmal kalandu eṉōḍu iruppāy aruṇācalā</i>), means ‘Arunachala, like a magnet iron, forcibly seizing me, uniting without leaving, may you be with me’, thereby implying ‘Arunachala, like a magnet [grasping] iron [by its natural power of attraction], forcibly seizing [grasping, captivating or attracting] me [by the captivating power of your grace], uniting [me with yourself] without [ever] leaving [or letting go of] [me], may you be [eternally one] with me’.<br>
<br>
<a name="apad10"></a>Arunachala is a supremely powerful magnet, and his very nature is to forcefully attract and catch hold of ego, the soul or <i>jīva</i>, just as the nature of a physical magnet is to forcefully attract and catch hold of any piece of iron. Though in the outward looking view of ourself as this body-bound ego he appears in the form of a hill, his real nature (<i>svarūpa</i>) is always shining in our heart as our own being, ‘I am’, so his nature as the divine magnet is not only to attract us to his outward form, but more importantly is to attract and pull us inwards to face his <i>svarūpa</i>, the one and only reality, and thereby to devour us, as Bhagavan explains in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/03/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-payiram.html#apad10">verse 10</a> of <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Padigam</i>:<br>
<blockquote>பார்த்தனன் புதுமை யுயிர்வலி காந்த<br>
பருவத மொருதர மிதனை<br>
யோர்த்திடு முயிரின் சேட்டையை யொடுக்கி<br>
யொருதன தபிமுக மாக<br>
வீர்த்ததைத் தன்போ லசலமாச் செய்தவ்<br>
வின்னுயிர் பலிகொளு மிஃதென்<br>
னோர்த்துய்மி னுயிர்கா ளுளமதி லொளிரிவ்<br>
வுயிர்க்கொலி யருணமா கிரியே.<br>
<br>
<i>pārttaṉaṉ pudumai yuyirvali kānta<br>
paruvata morudara midaṉai<br>
yōrttiḍu muyiriṉ cēṭṭaiyai yoḍukki<br>
yorutaṉa dabhimukha māha<br>
vīrttadait taṉpō lacalamāc ceydav<br>
viṉṉuyir balikoḷu miḵdeṉ<br>
ṉōrttuymi ṉuyirgā ḷuḷamadi loḷiriv<br>
vuyirkkoli yaruṇamā giriyē</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> பார்த்தனன் புதுமை, உயிர் வலி காந்த பருவதம். ஒருதரம் இதனை ஓர்த்திடும் உயிரின் சேட்டையை ஒடுக்கி, ஒரு தனது அபிமுகம் ஆக ஈர்த்து, அதை தன் போல் அசலமா செய்து, அவ் இன் உயிர் பலி கொளும். இஃது என்! ஓர்த்து உய்மின், உயிர்காள், உளம் அதில் ஒளிர் இவ் உயிர் கொலி அருண மா கிரியே.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>pārttaṉaṉ pudumai, uyir vali kānta paruvatam. orudaram idaṉai ōrttiḍum uyiriṉ cēṭṭaiyai oḍukki, oru taṉadu abhimukham āha īrttu, adai taṉ pōl acalamā seydu, a-vv-iṉ uyir bali koḷum. iḵdu eṉ! ōrttu uymiṉ, uyirgāḷ, uḷam adil oḷir i-vv-uyir koli aruṇa mā giriyē</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>அன்வயம்:</b> பார்த்தனன் புதுமை, உயிர் வலி காந்த பருவதம். இதனை ஒருதரம் ஓர்த்திடும் உயிரின் சேட்டையை ஒடுக்கி, ஒரு தனது அபிமுகம் ஆக ஈர்த்து, அதை தன் போல் அசலமா செய்து, அவ் இன் உயிர் பலி கொளும். இஃது என்! உயிர்காள், உளம் அதில் ஒளிர் இவ் உயிர் கொலி அருண மா கிரியே ஓர்த்து உய்மின்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Anvayam</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>pārttaṉaṉ pudumai, uyir vali kānta paruvatam. idaṉai orudaram ōrttiḍum uyiriṉ cēṭṭaiyai oḍukki, oru taṉadu abhimukham āha īrttu, adai taṉ pōl acalamā seydu, a-vv-iṉ uyir bali koḷum. iḵdu eṉ! uyirgāḷ, uḷam adil oḷir i-vv-uyir koli aruṇa mā giriyē ōrttu uymiṉ</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> I have seen a wonder, the magnetic hill that seizes the soul. Subduing the mischievous activity of the soul who thinks of it once, pulling to face towards itself, the one, and making it motionless like itself, it accepts that sweet soul as sacrificial offering. What this is! O souls, be saved thinking of the great Aruna Hill, this killer of the soul, who shines in the heart.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> I have seen a wonder, the magnetic hill that seizes [or forcibly attracts] the soul. Subduing the mischievous [outward-flowing mental] activity of the soul who thinks of it once, pulling [dragging or attracting] [that soul] [inwards] to be <i>taṉadu abhimukham</i> [facing towards itself], the one [unique and peerless] [infinite pure awareness that shines within the heart as ‘I’], and [thereby] making it <i>acala</i> [motionless] like itself, it accepts [and consumes] that sweet [spiritually ripened and pure] soul as <i>bali</i> [food offered in sacrifice]. What [a wonder] this is! O souls, be saved [by] thinking of the great Aruna Hill, this killer of the soul, who shines in the heart [as the heart, namely the fundamental awareness of being, ‘I am’].</blockquote>
Though Arunachala appears outwardly in the form of a hill, he is actually our own being, our fundamental awareness ‘I am’, so unlike an ordinary magnet, his magnetic power of attraction does not depend upon physical proximity. He catches us in the web of his grace just by making us think of him. If by his grace we think of him even once, he will begin to subdue our <i>cēṣṭā</i> (the <i>pravṛtti</i> or outward-going activity of our mind) by drawing our attention back within to face towards himself, the one who alone actually exists, shining eternally in our heart as ‘I am’. Thus he will make us motionless (<i>acala</i>) like himself, and then he will feed upon us, thereby absorbing us into himself, as himself.<br>
<br>
This is how his magnetic power of attraction works. It pulls us back within to face him in our heart, where he is always waiting to devour us as soon as we see him as he actually is, namely as the real nature of ourself (<i>ātma-svarūpa</i>). However, to see him thus we need to be willing to look deep within ourself and thereby surrender ourself entirely to him, so with our whole heart we need to cry out to him in prayer as Bhagavan does in this verse: ‘காந்தம் இரும்பு போல் கவர்ந்து எனை, விடாமல் கலந்து எனோடு இருப்பாய் அருணாசலா’ (<i>kāntam irumbu pōl kavarndu eṉai, viḍāmal kalandu eṉōḍu iruppāy aruṇācalā</i>), ‘Arunachala, like a magnet [grasping] iron [by its natural power of attraction], forcibly seizing [or attracting] me [by the captivating power of your grace], uniting [me with yourself] without [ever] leaving [or letting go of] [me], may you be [eternally one] with me’.<br>
<br>
Being insentient (<i>jaḍa</i>), iron is powerless to resist the pull of a magnet, whereas ego is not <i>jaḍa</i> but a form of awareness, albeit not real awareness (<i>cit</i>) but only a semblance of awareness (<i>cidābhāsa</i>), so as ego we are free to resist the magnetic pull of Arunachala. That is, though by his grace he is always pulling our attention inwards to face him as he actually is, under the sway of our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> we resist his pull by rushing outwards, constantly attending to anything other than ourself. Therefore we must be willing to yield ourself to his inward pull by trying our best to hold on to him in our heart, and hence this prayer.<br>
<br>
As Bhagavan often used to say, ‘<i>bhakti</i> is the mother of <i>jñāna</i>’, and this is very clearly illustrated in this verse. Since Arunachala attracts and pulls us to himself by arousing love for him in our heart, the first clause of this verse, ‘காந்தம் இரும்பு போல் கவர்ந்து எனை’ (<i>kāntam irumbu pōl kavarndu eṉai</i>), ‘attracting [or grasping] me like a magnet [attracting or grasping] iron’, is a prayer for true, all-consuming love (<i>bhakti</i>) for him, and the result of such <i>bhakti</i> is <i>jñāna</i>, the state of pure awareness, in which we have merged in him and remain inseparably one with him, as implied in the rest of this verse, ‘விடாமல் கலந்து எனோடு இருப்பாய் அருணாசலா’ (<i>viḍāmal kalandu eṉōḍu iruppāy aruṇācalā</i>), ‘uniting [me with yourself] without [ever] leaving [or letting go of] [me], may you be [eternally one] with me, Arunachala’. That is, we cannot remain firmly and unshakably fixed as pure awareness (<i>jñāna</i>) without having all-consuming love (<i>bhakti</i>) for him, and since infinite love is his real nature, whatever love we may have for him can come only from him, so we need him to arouse love for him in our heart by attracting and pulling us inwards, towards him, like a magnet attracting a piece of iron towards itself.<br>
<br>
<a name="uu24"></a>Just as iron is the one substance that constitutes both a magnet and an ordinary piece of iron, <i>sat-cit</i> (pure being, which is pure awareness, ‘I am’) is the one substance (<i>poruḷ</i> or <i>vastu</i>) of both Arunachala and ourself, as Bhagavan implies in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu24">verse 24</a> of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i>:<br>
<blockquote>இருக்கு மியற்கையா லீசசீ வர்க<br>
ளொருபொரு ளேயாவ ருந்தீபற<br>
வுபாதி யுணர்வேவே றுந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>irukku miyaṟkaiyā līśajī varga<br>
ḷoruporu ḷēyāva rundīpaṟa<br>
vupādhi yuṇarvēvē ṟundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> இருக்கும் இயற்கையால் ஈச சீவர்கள் ஒரு பொருளே ஆவர். உபாதி உணர்வே வேறு.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>irukkum iyaṟkaiyāl īśa-jīvargaḷ oru poruḷē āvar. upādhi-uṇarvē vēṟu</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> By existing nature, God and soul are just one substance. Only adjunct-awareness is different.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> By [their] existing nature [that is, because the real nature of each of them is what actually exists (<i>uḷḷadu</i>), which is pure awareness (<i>uṇarvu</i>)], God and soul are just one <i>poruḷ</i> [real substance or <i>vastu</i>]. Only awareness of [their] adjuncts is [what makes them seem] different [that is, whereas the soul (<i>jīva</i>) is aware of itself as a certain set of adjuncts, namely the five sheaths that constitute whatever person it currently seems to be, and consequently attributes certain other adjuncts to God, God always remains just as pure awareness, in the clear view of which no adjuncts exist at all].</blockquote>
The difference between a magnet and an ordinary piece of iron is that the magnetic particles of iron in a magnet are all aligned to face in one direction, allowing its magnetic nature to manifest, whereas the magnetic particles in an ordinary piece of iron are scattered to face in many directions, thereby obscuring its magnetic nature. Likewise, the difference between Arunachala (who is God) and ourself (the <i>jīva</i>) is that, being pure awareness, Arunachala is always facing inwards, towards itself alone, because in its clear view nothing other than itself exists, so there is nothing else (nothing external to itself) that it could ever face or attend to, whereas the attention of ourself as ego is always scattered outwards (away from ourself) under the sway of our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> to face in many different directions, thereby obscuring our real nature as pure awareness.<br>
<br>
However, when a magnet attracts and grasps an ordinary piece of iron, holding it firmly without leaving it, the ordinary piece of iron will also become a magnet, because all its magnetic particles will be aligned by the magnet to face in one direction, namely towards the magnet itself. Likewise, if we are attracted and pulled by Arunachala towards himself, our entire attention will be drawn back within to face our real nature, which is Arunachala himself, and thus we will merge in him, becoming one with him in such a way that we will never be able to leave or be separated from him.<br>
<br>
If the ordinary piece of iron is separated from the magnet, it will lose its temporarily induced magnetism, but it can become a permanent magnet by being persistently stroked against the magnet in one direction, because such unidirectional stroking will permanently align all its magnetic particles to face in one direction. Likewise, until we are attracted to Arunachala so strongly that we merge and become one with him, if we persistently try to turn our entire attention in just one direction, namely towards ourself alone, our mind and heart will thereby be gradually purified and realigned in such a way that we are ever more strongly attracted and pulled towards him, and thus we will become fit to merge in him, as him, thereby remaining forever inseparably one with him.<br>
<br>
How strongly a piece of iron is attracted and pulled towards a magnet depends on how pure it is. If it is pure iron, it will be strongly attracted, whereas if it is rusty or consists predominantly of other impurities, it will barely be affected at all by the magnet’s power of attraction. Likewise, how strongly we are attracted and pulled inwards by the magnetic attraction of Arunachala depends on how pure our mind is. The purer our mind, the more strongly we will be attracted and drawn to him in our heart, whereas if our mind is very impure, we will feel little or no attraction towards him. The impurities in our mind are our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, and the stronger they are the more strongly we will be inclined to rush outwards and roam about outside seeking happiness in <i>viṣayas</i> (objects or phenomena), and the less we will be inclined to turn back within to seek happiness in our own being, ‘I am’, which is the real nature (<i>svarūpa</i>) of Arunachala. Therefore it is only to the extent that our mind is purified by the weakening of our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> that we will be attracted by Arunachala to look deep within our heart to see him shining there as ourself.<br>
<br>
So how is our mind to be purified? It can be purified only by his grace, because his grace is the light of pure awareness that is always shining in our heart as our own being, ‘I am’, so he alone can give us the clarity to recognise that happiness does not exist in any other thing but only in ourself. Therefore, even when our mind is extremely impure, being clouded by a dense fog of <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, he gradually works within us over the course of many lives to weaken our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> by making us repeatedly see the unsatisfactory nature of whatever fleeting happiness we seem to get from things other than ourself. As our inclinations (<i>vāsanās</i>) to seek happiness in other things (<i>viṣayas</i>) are thereby gradually weakened, our mind is consequently purified, enabling the clarity born of his grace to shine ever more brightly in our heart, and this clarity is what makes us fit to be pulled inwards by his magnetic power of attraction.<br>
<br>
In order to attract iron to itself, a magnet need not do anything, but just has to be as it is, because its very nature is to attract iron. Likewise, to attract us to itself, Arunachala need not do anything, but just has to be as it is, because its very nature is to attract us. It attracts us because its being and our being are one, so it is ourself as we actually are, and our very nature is to love ourself more than we could ever love any other thing. However, so long as we rise as ego, we mistake ourself to be a body, and hence we do not recognise Arunachala as ourself. Therefore, mistaking him to be something other than ourself, we are unable to experience the full power of his magnetic attraction.<br>
<br>
The nature of ourself as ego is to be attracted only to those things that we believe will make us happy. When our mind is clouded by a dense fog of <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, we lack the inner clarity (the clarity of <i>vivēka</i>: correct judgement or ability to distinguish what is real from what is unreal) to recognise that happiness exists only within ourself, and therefore we wrongly believe that we can obtain it from things other than ourself, namely from the objects or phenomena of the world. Therefore it is only to the extent to which our mind is purified that we will begin to recognise that happiness does not actually exist in anything other than ourself, and it is only to the extent that we recognise this that we will be attracted to look deep within ourself. In other words, since Arunachala is our own being, ‘I am’, we will be able to experience the inward-pulling power of his magnetic attraction only to the extent that our mind is cleansed of its <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, whose nature is to drive our attention outwards to seek happiness in things other than ourself.<br>
<br>
So long as our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> (inclinations to seek happiness in things other than ourself) are still relatively strong, in order to avoid being swayed by them we need to cling firmly to him in our heart, where he is always shining as our own being, ‘I am’. This state in which we cling firmly to him is compared to a baby monkey (<i>markaṭa</i>) clinging firmly to its mother for safety and protection, so clinging in this way is called <i>markaṭa-nyāya</i>, the ‘monkey principle’ or ‘monkey method’.<br>
<br>
However, as we go deeper in the practice of self-investigation and self-surrender, our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> are thereby gradually weakened and our <i>sat-vāsanā</i> (inclination to seek happiness only in our own being) is correspondingly strengthened, and thus deep inner clarity, which is the nature of ourself as pure awareness, shines forth with ever-increasing brightness, by the light of which we are able to recognise more and more clearly that the inward pull of his grace is far more powerful than our own efforts to cling to him could ever be. As a result of this clarity, therefore, our inclination and ability to yield ourself wholly to him and thereby to depend entirely upon his grace becomes stronger and stronger. This state in which we depend entirely upon him is compared to a baby cat (<i>mārjāla</i>), who cannot hold on to its mother and who therefore depends entirely upon her to protect it and carry it to safety, so depending on his grace in this way is called <i>mārjāla-nyāya</i>, the ‘cat principle’ or ‘cat method’.<br>
<br>
<a name="gvk696"></a>So long as we are not able to surrender ourself entirely to Arunachala, we need to cling to him in our heart as firmly as we can, but as we thereby gain greater clarity and recognise the inadequacy of our own efforts to cling to him, we gradually become fit to transition from the <i>markaṭa-nyāya</i> (monkey method) to the <i>mārjāla-nyāya</i> (cat method). Regarding this Bhagavan said, as recorded by Muruganar in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2016/03/why-is-it-necessary-to-make-effort-to.html#gvk696">verse 696</a> of <i>Guru Vācaka Kōvai</i>:<br>
<blockquote>ஈசனருட் பூட்கையா லெம்முயல்வு மின்றியே<br>
மாசறுமார்ச் சால மரபினாற் — பாசமற<br>
இம்மையிலே ஞானசித்தி யெய்தினோர் மர்க்கடம்போ<br>
லம்மையிலே யாட்செய் தவர்.<br>
<br>
<i>īśaṉaruṭ pūṭkaiyā lemmuyalvu miṉḏṟiyē<br>
māsaṟumārj jāla marapiṉāṟ — pāśamaṟa<br>
immaiyilē ñāṉasiddhi yeydiṉōr markkaṭambō<br>
lammaiyilē yāṭcey tavar</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> ஈசன் அருள் பூட்கையால் எம்முயல்வும் இன்றியே மாசு அறு மார்ச்சால மரபினால் பாசம் அற இம்மையிலே ஞான சித்தி எய்தினோர் மர்க்கடம் போல் அம்மையிலே ஆள் செய்தவர்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>īśaṉ aruḷ pūṭkaiyāl e-m-muyalvum iṉḏṟiyē māsu aṟu mārjjāla marapiṉāl pāśam aṟa immaiyilē ñāṉa siddhi eydiṉōr markkaṭam pōl ammaiyilē āḷ seydavar</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Those who have attained <i>jñāna-siddhi</i> in this very life, when attachment has ceased, by the power of God’s grace without any effort by the blemishless cat method, would have practised devotion in former lives like a monkey.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Those who have attained <i>jñāna-siddhi</i> [accomplishment of self-knowledge] in this very life, when attachment has ceased, by the power of God’s grace without [making] any effort [or endeavouring to do any spiritual practice] by the blemishless [baby] cat method [namely by depending entirely upon his grace, like a kitten depending on its mother to come and carry it to safety], would have practised devotion [or strived as a slave or devotee] in former lives like a [baby] monkey [which clings firmly to its mother for safety and protection].</blockquote>
As Bhagavan implies by saying this, in order to gain the strength of <i>bhakti</i> (love to surrender ourself completely to Arunachala) and <i>vairāgya</i> (freedom from desire for anything else) that is required for us to yield ourself to him without rising to know or do anything else (knowing clearly that he will certainly do everything that is necessary to save us when we surrender ourself in such a manner to him, like a kitten who depends entirely upon its mother to protect and safeguard it), over the course of many lives we need to persistently practise clinging tenaciously to him in our heart, like a baby monkey who clings tenaciously to its mother for safety and protection. By such tenacious monkey-style devotion we will gradually gain the maturity to recognise clearly that all our efforts to cling firmly to self-attentiveness can only lead us to the point where we subside within, thereby losing all inclination to rise and go outwards to know anything other than ourself or to do anything whatsoever, and that it is only when we reach such a point of complete surrender that his grace will rise from within as the infinitely clear light of pure awareness, thereby pulling us back into the heart, like a magnet pulling a needle towards itself, and completely absorbing us into itself, as itself, in such a way that we can never leave it.<br>
<br>
Therefore, the more we cling tenaciously to self-attentiveness and thereby subside deep within, the more clearly we will recognise the inadequacy of our own efforts, and the more willing we will consequently become to yield ourself to him and thereby to depend entirely on his grace, like a kitten depending on its mother. It is in such a state of transition from monkey-style devotion to kitten-style surrender that the prayer expressed by Bhagavan in this sixteenth verse of <i>Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> will well up in our heart: ‘By my repeated efforts to cling to you like a baby monkey clinging to its mother, I have discovered that I do not have sufficient strength to cling to you uninterruptedly, without ever leaving you, so like a kitten depending on its mother to carry it to safety, I depend on you to pull me to you, like a magnet pulling a piece of iron to itself, and thereby to unite me with yourself without ever letting go of me, so that you may be forever one with me’.<br>
<br>
<b>Video discussion:</b> <a href="https://youtu.be/KaK1Cq4Glnw"><i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> verse 16</a><br>
<br>
<div style="text-align:center"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KaK1Cq4Glnw" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-52576816379175880602022-10-27T15:30:00.009+01:002023-10-14T20:13:37.396+01:00Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai verse 15This is the fifteenth in a series of articles that I hope to write on <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>, Bhagavan willing, the completed ones being <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/articles.html#aamm">listed here</a>.<br><a name='more'></a>
<br>
<a name="aamm15"></a><b>Verse 15:</b><br>
<blockquote>கண்ணுக்குக் கண்ணாய்க் கண்ணின்றிக் காணுனைக்<br>
காணுவ தெவர்பா ரருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>kaṇṇukkuk kaṇṇāyk kaṇṇiṉḏṟik kāṇuṉaik<br>
kāṇuva devarpā raruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> கண்ணுக்கு கண் ஆய் கண் இன்றி காண் உனை காணுவது எவர்? பார் அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>kaṇṇukku kaṇ āy kaṇ iṉḏṟi kāṇ uṉai kāṇuvadu evar? pār aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, who can see you, who, being the eye to the eye, sees without eyes? See.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, who can [by means of what eye] see you, who, being the eye to the eye [the real awareness that illumines the seeming awareness called mind, just as the sun illumines the moon], sees without eyes [that is, who sees (the reality of) everything without seeing (the appearance of) anything]? See [me] [so that I may see you by seeing myself as you see me].</blockquote>
<b>Explanation:</b> கண் (<i>kaṇ</i>) means ‘eye’, and கண்ணுக்கு (<i>kaṇṇukku</i>) is the locative (or seventh case) singular form of it, so it means ‘to eye’ or ‘for eye’. ஆய் (<i>āy</i>) is an adverbial participle that means ‘being’ or ‘as’, so ‘கண்ணுக்கு கண் ஆய்’ (<i>kaṇṇukku kaṇ āy kaṇ</i>) means ‘being the eye to [or for] the eye’ or ‘as the eye to [or for] the eye’.<br>
<br>
The ‘eye’ to which Arunachala is the eye is the mind or ego, which is the ‘eye’ that sees the world through the bodily eye and other senses. To understand that this is what Bhagavan means here, consider the fact that a telescope is an ‘eye’ through which we can see distant objects, and a microscope is an ‘eye’ through which we can see minute objects, but neither of these artificial eyes can actually see anything, because they are <i>jaḍa</i> (devoid of awareness). What sees through them is the eye of flesh, the bodily organ of sight, so this eye of flesh is the eye to all other artificial eyes such as telescopes and microscopes. However, even the eye of flesh and other sense organs do not actually see or perceive anything, because they are also <i>jaḍa</i>, just like a telescope or microscope. What sees the physical world through the eyes and other sense organs is only the mind, so even though the eyes are open, if the mind is not looking through them (whether because it is asleep, preoccupied with other thoughts, looking within or for any other reason), they do not see anything. Only when the mind is looking out through them is anything seen through them, and likewise with the other sense organs, so the mind is the eye to the eyes, the ear to the ears and so on.<br>
<br>
<a name="un06"></a>Since all objects of sight and other sense impressions are known only by the mind, they seem to exist only in its view, so they do not exist independent of it, as Bhagavan says in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un06">verse 6</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>:<br>
<blockquote>உலகைம் புலன்க ளுருவேறன் றவ்வைம்<br>
புலனைம் பொறிக்குப் புலனா — முலகைமன<br>
மொன்றைம் பொறிவாயா லோர்ந்திடுத லான்மனத்தை<br>
யன்றியுல குண்டோ வறை.<br>
<br>
<i>ulahaim pulaṉga ḷuruvēṟaṉ ḏṟavvaim<br>
pulaṉaim poṟikkup pulaṉā — mulahaimaṉa<br>
moṉḏṟaim poṟivāyā lōrndiḍuda lāṉmaṉattai<br>
yaṉḏṟiyula kuṇḍō vaṟai</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> உலகு ஐம் புலன்கள் உரு; வேறு அன்று. அவ் ஐம் புலன் ஐம் பொறிக்கு புலன் ஆம். உலகை மனம் ஒன்று ஐம் பொறிவாயால் ஓர்ந்திடுதலால், மனத்தை அன்றி உலகு உண்டோ? அறை.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>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</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> 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, is there a world besides the mind? Say.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> 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, is there [any] world besides [excluding, if not for, apart from, other than or without] the mind? Say.</blockquote>
<a name="av5"></a>Since the five sense organs are parts of the physical body, which is itself a part of the physical world, and since they seem to exist only in the view of the mind, like the rest of the world they do not exist independent of the mind. Like all other objects of knowledge, they are <i>jaḍa</i> (devoid of awareness), so they do not know anything, and hence they are merely the windows through which the mind perceives the rest of the physical world. This is why Bhagavan describes the mind as ‘விண் ஆதிய விளக்கும் கண் ஆதிய பொறிக்கும் கண்’ (<i>viṇ ādiya viḷakkum kaṇ ādiya poṟikkum kaṇ</i>), ‘the eye to [or for] the sense organs beginning with eyes, which illumine what begins with space [namely the physical world, which is composed of the five elements: space, air, fire, water and earth]’, in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/01/anma-viddai-tamil-text-transliteration.html#av5">verse 5</a> of <i>Āṉma-Viddai</i>:<br>
<blockquote>விண்ணா தியவிளக்குங் கண்ணா தியபொறிக்குங்<br>
கண்ணா மனக்கணுக்குங் கண்ணாய் மனவிணுக்கும்<br>
விண்ணா யொருபொருள்வே றெண்ணா திருந்தபடி<br>
யுண்ணா டுளத்தொளிரு மண்ணா மலையெனான்மா —<br>
காணுமே; அருளும் வேணுமே; அன்பு பூணுமே;<br>
இன்பு தோணுமே. (ஐயே)<br>
<br>
<i>viṇṇā diyaviḷakkuṅ kaṇṇā diyapoṟikkuṅ<br>
kaṇṇā maṉakkaṇukkuṅ kaṇṇāy maṉaviṇukkum<br>
viṇṇā yoruporuḷvē ṟeṇṇā dirundapaḍi<br>
yuṇṇā ḍuḷattoḷiru maṇṇā malaiyeṉāṉmā —<br>
kāṇumē; aruḷum vēṇumē; aṉbu pūṇumē;<br>
iṉbu tōṇumē</i>. (<i>aiyē</i>)<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> விண் ஆதிய விளக்கும் கண் ஆதிய பொறிக்கும் கண் ஆம் மனக் கணுக்கும் கண் ஆய், மன விணுக்கும் விண் ஆய் ஒரு பொருள் வேறு எண்ணாது இருந்தபடி உள் நாடு உளத்து ஒளிரும் அண்ணாமலை என் ஆன்மா காணுமே. அருளும் வேணுமே. அன்பு பூணுமே. இன்பு தோணுமே. (ஐயே, அதி சுலபம், ...)<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>viṇ ādiya viḷakkum kaṇ ādiya poṟikkum kaṇ ām maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ āy, maṉa-viṇukkum viṇ āy oru poruḷ vēṟu eṇṇādu irundapaḍi uḷ nāḍu uḷattu oḷirum aṇṇāmalai eṉ āṉmā kāṇumē. aruḷum vēṇumē. aṉbu pūṇumē. iṉbu tōṇumē</i>. (<i>aiyē, ati sulabham, ...</i>)<br>
<br>
<b>அன்வயம்:</b> வேறு எண்ணாது இருந்தபடி உள் நாடு உளத்து, விண் ஆதிய விளக்கும் கண் ஆதிய பொறிக்கும் கண் ஆம் மனக் கணுக்கும் கண் ஆய், மன விணுக்கும் விண் ஆய் ஒளிரும் ஒரு பொருள் அண்ணாமலை என் ஆன்மா காணுமே. அருளும் வேணுமே. அன்பு பூணுமே. இன்பு தோணுமே. (ஐயே, அதி சுலபம், ...)<br>
<br>
<b><i>Anvayam</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>vēṟu eṇṇādu irundapaḍi uḷ nāḍu uḷattu, viṇ ādiya viḷakkum kaṇ ādiya poṟikkum kaṇ ām maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ āy, maṉa-viṇukkum viṇ āy oḷirum oru poruḷ aṇṇāmalai eṉ āṉmā kāṇumē. aruḷum vēṇumē. aṉbu pūṇumē. iṉbu tōṇumē</i>. (<i>aiyē, ati sulabham, ...</i>)<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> In the heart that investigates within, as it is without thinking of anything other, oneself, which is called Annamalai, the one substance, which shines as the eye to the mind-eye, which is the eye to the sense organs beginning with eyes, which illumine what begins with space, and as the space to the mind-space, will certainly be seen. Grace also is certainly necessary. Be adorned with love. Happiness will certainly appear. (Ah, extremely easy, ...)<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> In the <i>uḷḷam</i> [heart or mind] that investigates within, [just being] as it is without thinking of anything other [than itself], <i>ātmā</i> [oneself], which is called Annamalai, the one <i>poruḷ</i> [real substance], which shines as the eye to the mind-eye, which is the eye to the [five] sense organs beginning with eyes, which illumine [the five elements] beginning with space, and as the space to the mind-space, will certainly be seen. [For one to see oneself as one actually is] grace also is certainly necessary. [In order to be a suitable receptacle to imbibe grace, one should] be adorned with [bound by or possessed of] love [for seeing and thereby just being as one actually is]. [Infinite] happiness will [then] certainly appear [or be experienced]. ([Therefore] ah, extremely easy, <i>ātma-vidyā</i>, ah, extremely easy!)</blockquote>
The mind is able to perceive the world through the windows of the eyes and other sense organs because it is endowed with awareness. However, it is not real awareness (<i>cit</i>) but only a semblance of awareness (<i>cidābhāsa</i>), because real awareness is not aware of anything other than what actually exists, namely itself. Since the nature of the mind is to always know itself as ‘I am this body’ and consequently to know the appearance of numerous other objects, which do not actually exist but merely seem to exist in its view, it is an awareness that knows what does not exist as if it existed, so it is not real awareness, even though it seems to be.<br>
<br>
The awareness that is called mind or ego, therefore, is like the light of the moon. The moon does not have any light of its own, but since it reflects the light of the sun, it seems to be luminous, and by its reflected light it illumines other things in the darkness of night. Likewise, the mind does not have any light of its own, but since it reflects the light of pure awareness, it seems to shine as awareness, and by its reflected light of awareness it illumines and knows the appearance of <i>viṣayas</i> (objects or phenomena) in the darkness of its self-ignorance.<br>
<br>
Since the mind is able to perceive the world through the eyes and other sense organs only because it is endowed with a semblance of awareness, and since it is endowed with such awareness only because it is illumined by the original light of pure awareness, which is Arunachala, he describes Arunachala (Annamalai) in the above verse as ‘விண் ஆதிய விளக்கும் கண் ஆதிய பொறிக்கும் கண் ஆம் மனக் கணுக்கும் கண் ஆய், மன விணுக்கும் விண் ஆய் ஒளிரும் ஒரு பொருள் அண்ணாமலை என் ஆன்மா’ (<i>viṇ ādiya viḷakkum kaṇ ādiya poṟikkum kaṇ ām maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ āy, maṉa-viṇukkum viṇ āy oḷirum oru poruḷ aṇṇāmalai eṉ āṉmā</i>), ‘<i>ātmā</i> [oneself, here implying ourself as we actually are], which is called Annamalai, the one <i>poruḷ</i> [real substance], which shines as the eye to the mind-eye, which is the eye to the [five] sense organs beginning with eyes, which illumine what begins with space [namely the world, which is composed of the five elements], and as the space to the mind-space’.<br>
<br>
Since the world seems to exist only in the view of the mind, just like the world we see in a dream, the space within which physical space (<i>bhūtākāśa</i>) appears and is therefore contained is the mind-space (<i>manākāśa</i> or <i>cittākāśa</i>), and since pure awareness alone is what actually exists, the mind cannot be anything other than pure awareness, just as an illusory snake is nothing other than a rope, so the space within which the mind-space appears (albeit only in its own view) and is therefore contained is the infinite space of pure awareness (<i>cidākāśa</i>), which is Arunachala. This is why he describes Arunachala as ‘மன விணுக்கும் விண்’ (<i>maṉa-viṇukkum viṇ</i>), ‘the space to [or for] the mind-space’.<br>
<br>
Likewise, since the light that illumines the appearance of the world is the semblance of awareness (<i>cidābhāsa</i>) called mind or ego, just as the light reflected by the moon illumines objects on earth in the darkness of night, he describes the mind as ‘விண் ஆதிய விளக்கும் கண் ஆதிய பொறிக்கும் கண்’ (<i>viṇ ādiya viḷakkum kaṇ ādiya poṟikkum kaṇ</i>), ‘the eye to [or for] the sense organs beginning with eyes, which illumine what begins with space’, and since the light of awareness that illumines the mind, enabling it to know the appearance of the world through the eyes and other sense organs, is pure awareness, ‘I am’, which is what is called Arunachala, he describes Arunachala as ‘கண் ஆதிய பொறிக்கும் கண் ஆம் மனக் கணுக்கும் கண்’ (<i>kaṇ ādiya poṟikkum kaṇ ām maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ</i>), ‘the eye to [or for] the mind-eye, which is the eye to [or for] the sense organs beginning with eyes’.<br>
<br>
When he describes the mind as ‘கண் ஆதிய பொறிக்கும் கண் ஆம் மனக் கண்’ (<i>kaṇ ādiya poṟikkum kaṇ ām maṉa-k-kaṇ</i>), ‘the mind-eye, which is the eye to [or for] the sense organs beginning with eyes’, he implies that the mind is the ‘eye’ or awareness that knows the world through the five senses, but when he says ‘மனக் கணுக்கும் கண் ஆய் ஒளிரும் ஒரு பொருள் அண்ணாமலை என் ஆன்மா’ (<i>maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ āy oḷirum oru poruḷ aṇṇāmalai eṉ āṉmā</i>), ‘<i>ātmā</i> [oneself], which is called Annamalai, the one <i>poruḷ</i> [real substance], which shines as the eye to [or for] the mind-eye’, he does not intend to imply that Arunachala knows either the mind or the world through the mind, but only that Arunachala is the real ‘eye’ or awareness that lends its light to the mind, thereby enabling it to know everything else.<br>
<br>
<a name="un04"></a>All the phenomena that constitute the world are forms of one kind or another, and we see forms only when we mistake ourself to be one among them, as he points out in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un04">verse 4</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>:<br>
<blockquote>உருவந்தா னாயி னுலகுபர மற்றா<br>
முருவந்தா னன்றே லுவற்றி — னுருவத்தைக் <br>
கண்ணுறுதல் யாவனெவன் கண்ணலாற் காட்சியுண்டோ<br>
கண்ணதுதா னந்தமிலாக் கண்.<br>
<br>
<i>uruvandā ṉāyi ṉulahupara maṯṟā<br>
muruvandā ṉaṉḏṟē luvaṯṟi — ṉuruvattaik<br>
kaṇṇuṟudal yāvaṉevaṉ kaṇṇalāṯ kāṭciyuṇḍō<br>
kaṇṇadutā ṉantamilāk kaṇ</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> 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.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>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</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> 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.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> 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 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].</blockquote>
We seem to be a form only when we rise and stand as ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’, so the implication of the first sentence of this verse, ‘உருவம் தான் ஆயின், உலகு பரம் அற்று ஆம்’ (<i>uruvam tāṉ āyiṉ, ulahu param aṯṟu ām</i>), ‘If oneself is a form, the world and God will be likewise’, is that whenever we rise and stand as ego, we consequently see the world and God as forms. Likewise, the implication of the rhetorical questions he asks in the next two sentences, ‘உருவம் தான் அன்றேல், உவற்றின் உருவத்தை கண் உறுதல் யாவன்? எவன்?’ (<i>uruvam tāṉ aṉḏṟēl, uvaṯṟiṉ uruvattai kaṇ uṟudal yāvaṉ? evaṉ?</i>), ‘If oneself is not a form, who can see their forms? How [to do so]?’, is that whenever we do not rise and stand as ego, we cannot see any forms, because the seer or knower of all forms, namely ego, is not then present. Thus he points out a fundamental philosophical principle, namely that the nature of what is seen cannot be otherwise than the nature of what sees it, as he implies by asking rhetorically in the next sentence ‘கண் அலால் காட்சி உண்டோ?’ (<i>kaṇ alāl kāṭci uṇḍō?</i>), ‘Can the seen be otherwise than the eye?’<br>
<br>
Here he uses ‘கண்’ (<i>kaṇ</i>), ‘eye’, as a metaphor for awareness, so if the awareness that sees sees itself as a form, as ego does, it will only see forms, whereas if it sees itself as devoid of form, as pure awareness does, it will not see any forms, and hence it will see nothing other than itself. In other words, it will shine as one, undivided by the appearance of forms. Therefore, as he implies in the last sentence, ‘கண் அது தான், அந்தம் இலா கண்’ (<i>kaṇ adu tāṉ, antam-ilā kaṇ</i>), ‘The eye is oneself, the infinite eye’, the real ‘eye’ or awareness is only ourself as we actually are, namely as infinite and hence formless awareness. That is, all forms are finite, so being infinite, real awareness is devoid of forms, and hence it can never know any forms.<br>
<br>
Therefore when he describes Arunachala as ‘மனக் கணுக்கும் கண்’ (<i>maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ</i>), ‘the eye to [or for] the mind-eye’, in <a href="#av5">verse 5</a> of <i>Āṉma-Viddai</i>, and as ‘கண்ணுக்கு கண்’ (<i>kaṇṇukku kaṇ</i>), ‘the eye to [or for] the eye’, in this fifteenth verse of <i>Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>, he does not mean either that Arunachala sees any forms (any objects or phenomena) or that it sees the mind (the subject or ego, the knower of all forms), but only that it is the original light of pure awareness, which is what illumines the mind, enabling it to see all forms.<br>
<br>
The fact that Arunachala does not see either the mind or the world as anything other than itself is also implied in the next group of words in this verse of <i>Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>, namely ‘கண் இன்றி காண் உனை’ (<i>kaṇ iṉḏṟi kāṇ uṉai</i>), ‘you, who sees without eyes’. கண் (<i>kaṇ</i>) means ‘eye’, and இன்றி (<i>iṉḏṟi</i>) means ‘without’, so ‘கண் இன்றி’ (<i>kaṇ iṉḏṟi</i>) means ‘without eye’ or ‘without eyes’. காண் (<i>kāṇ</i>) is the root of a verb that means to see, but by poetic licence it is used here in the sense of the adjectival or relative participle காணும் (<i>kāṇum</i>), ‘which sees’ or ‘who sees’. உனை (<i>uṉai</i>) is a poetic abbreviation of உன்னை (<i>uṉṉai</i>), the accusative (or second case) form of the second person singular pronoun, ‘you’, so ‘காண் உனை’ (<i>kāṇ uṉai</i>) means ‘you, who sees’. What then does he mean by saying that Arunachala ‘sees without eyes’?<br>
<br>
Firstly, ‘seeing without eyes’ means seeing without any means or instrument of seeing, so how is such seeing possible? It would not be possible for anything other than Arunachala, but it is possible for him, because he is the original eye, the eye that gives sight to the mind, which in turn gives sight to the eyes. Without the sight or awareness given to it by him, the mind could not see or know anything, because it would be <i>jaḍa</i> (devoid of awareness), since it has no awareness of its own. Whatever awareness it seems to have is awareness that it borrows from him, since he is the original light of awareness, which is what shines within the mind as its fundamental awareness, ‘I am’. Therefore the mind does not shine by its own light but only by his light, whereas he shines eternally by his own light, the light that is his own being, ‘I am’, so he never needs any other light to illumine himself or see himself. In other words, he is self-shining (<i>svayam-prakāśa</i>), because he is the original light of pure awareness, which is the light that illumines the mind and all other lights, which are objects known by the mind. Therefore he sees without eyes because he sees whatever there is to see by the light of his own being (<i>sat</i>), which is pure awareness (<i>cit</i>).<br>
<br>
Secondly, ‘கண் இன்றி’ (<i>kaṇ iṉḏṟi</i>), ‘without eyes’, implies not only without physical eyes or other sense organs, but also without any mind, which is the ‘eye’ that sees the appearance of a physical world through the eye and other sense organs. Since Arunachala does not have eyes of any kind other than himself, in what sense is it said that he sees? Since he does not see with physical eyes or other sense organs, he does not see any physical forms or phenomena, and since he does not see with the mind-eye (the eye that is called mind or ego), he does not see any mental forms or phenomena. In other words, he does not see forms or phenomena of any kind whatsoever, nor does he see the mind or ego, which is what sees all forms or phenomena, because the mind or ego is just the false awareness ‘I am this body’, whereas Arunachala is the pure awareness ‘I am’, which is always aware of itself as ‘I am I’, meaning that it is never aware of itself as anything other than itself.<br>
<br>
Since he sees without eyes of any kind other than pure awareness, what does he see? Since he does not see either objects (forms or phenomena) or the subject (mind or ego), he sees nothing other than himself. However, since he alone is what actually exists, he sees all that there is to see, so he is all-seeing or all-knowing. Since nothing other than him actually exists, whatever else may seem to exist is just a false appearance, so it cannot actually be anything other than him. That is, he himself is what seems to be all other things (both the subject and all objects), just as a rope is what seems to be a snake.<br>
<br>
So long as we see a rope as a snake, we do not see it as it actually is, and when we see it as it actually is, namely as a rope, we will no longer see it as a snake. Likewise, so long as we see the one thing that actually exists, namely Arunachala, who is our own real nature (<i>ātma-svarūpa</i>), as a multitude of forms or phenomena (objects or things known) and as the mind or ego (the subject or knower of such things), we do not see it as it actually is, and when we see it as it actually is, namely as the one infinite, eternal, immutable and indivisible pure awareness, ‘I am’, we will no longer see it as anything else.<br>
<br>
<a name="uu26"></a>Since Arunachala does not see anything other than himself, his sight or awareness is always one and undivided, unlike the mind, whose sight or awareness is always divided as the three elements known as <i>tripuṭī</i>, namely itself as the seer or knower (<i>pramātā</i>), whatever it sees or knows (<i>pramēya</i>) and the means (<i>pramāṇa</i>) by which it sees or knows that thing. Being pure awareness, Arunachala alone is both what knows and what it knows, and it itself is also the means by which it knows itself, because it knows itself just by being itself, as Bhagavan points out in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu26">verse 26</a> of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i>: ‘தான் ஆய் இருத்தலே தன்னை அறிதல் ஆம், தான் இரண்டு அற்றதால்’ (<i>tāṉ-āy iruttal-ē taṉṉai aṟidal ām, tāṉ iraṇḍu aṯṟadāl</i>), ‘Being oneself alone is knowing oneself, because oneself is devoid of two’.<br>
<br>
That is, since Arunachala, who is <i>ātma-svarūpa</i>, the real nature of ourself, is immutably and indivisibly one, he can never be divided as two things, one as a subject to know the other as an object, so he does not see or know himself as an object but as himself alone. And since he is pure awareness, being aware of himself is his very nature, so he sees himself merely by being himself, and hence he does not need any means or instrument (<i>pramāṇa</i>) other than himself to see himself. This is why Bhagavan says that he sees ‘கண் இன்றி’ (<i>kaṇ iṉḏṟi</i>), ‘without eyes’. An eye is a means or instrument by which one sees things other than oneself, but being pure awareness, Arunachala does not need any eye other than himself to see himself, nor does he need any eye to see anything other than himself, because there is nothing other than himself for him to see, since he alone is what actually exists.<br>
<br>
Although he can never see anything other than himself, he himself is what seems (in the self-ignorant view of ourself as mind or ego) to be all other things, so he is actually seeing all other things merely by seeing himself as he actually is. That is, though he does not see the <i>appearance</i> of anything else, he sees the <i>reality</i> of everything else, because he sees everything else as it actually is, namely as himself, the one infinite and indivisible whole. This is what Bhagavan often used to describe as ‘seeing without seeing’ or ‘knowing without knowing’, because by always seeing the one reality of everything without ever seeing any appearance of multiplicity, Arunachala sees everything without seeing anything. In this sense, therefore, he is omniscient (<i>sarvajña</i>). He knows us and everything else infinitely better than we know ourself, because whereas we know ourself as a subject knowing innumerable objects, he knows us as we actually are, namely as himself, the one thing that alone actually exists.<br>
<br>
When we as mind or ego know any object or phenomenon, our knowing it is a mental activity, an action of knowing, so mental activity or thought is the ‘eye’ or means by which we see or know things other than ourself. Without such an eye (that is, without any thought or mental activity) we cannot see or know anything other than ourself, but Arunachala sees everything without any such eye. In other words, for us as mind seeing or knowing is an action or doing, whereas he sees everything without doing anything, but just by being as he is. How is this so?<br>
<br>
Since he alone is what actually exists, his existence alone is real existence. The existence of the mind and all other things is not real but just an appearance, a seeming existence, because they borrow their seeming existence from his real existence or being, which is their source and substance, just as an illusory snake borrows its seeming existence from the relatively more ‘real’ existence of a rope, its source and substance, or as gold ornaments borrow their seeming existence from the relatively more ‘real’ existence of gold, their source and substance.<br>
<br>
Why is it said that Arunachala alone actually exists? For the simple reason that what actually exists must always exist, and since he is <i>ātma-svarūpa</i>, the real nature of ourself, which is what shines eternally and immutably as our fundamental awareness, ‘I am’, he alone is what always exists. As Bhagavan often explained, whatever exists at one time but not at another time does not actually exist even when it seems to exist. Why? Because whatever comes into existence or ceases to exist is not intrinsically existent, since existence is something that it gains and loses. Since it gains existence at one time and loses it at another time, it must derive its existence from something other than itself, so its existence is just a derived or borrowed existence, not an existence that belongs intrinsically to itself. Therefore, since it has no existence of its own, it does not actually exist even when it seems to exist.<br>
<br>
<a name="bgs09"></a>This is why Bhagavan Krishna says in the <i>Bhagavad Gītā</i> 2.16 that there is no existence for what does not exist and no non-existence for what does exist, thereby implying that what does not actually exist can never come into existence, and what does actually exist can never cease to exist, so whatever seems to come into existence or to cease to exist does not actually exist even when it seems to exist. This is one of the key principles of <i>advaita</i> and of Bhagavan Ramana’s teachings, so he translated this verse into Tamil as <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2021/08/is-anything-other-than-ourself.html#bgs09">verse 9</a> of <i>Bhagavad Gītā Sāram</i>:<br>
<blockquote>இல்லா ததனுக் கிருப்பில்லை யுள்ளதனுக்<br>
கில்லாமை யென்ப திலையெனவே — யில்லதுள<br>
தென்னு மிரண்டி னியல்பிதுதாங் கண்டார்மெய்<br>
தன்னை யறிந்த தவர்.<br>
<br>
<i>illā dadaṉuk kiruppillai yuḷḷadaṉuk<br>
killāmai yeṉba dilaiyeṉavē — yilladuḷa<br>
deṉṉu miraṇḍi ṉiyalbidudāṅ kaṇḍārmey<br>
taṉṉai yaṟinda tavar</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> இல்லாததனுக்கு இருப்பு இல்லை. உள்ளதனுக்கு இல்லாமை என்பது இலை. எனவே இல்லது உளது என்னும் இரண்டின் இயல்பு இதுதான் கண்டார் மெய்தன்னை அறிந்த தவர்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>illādadaṉukku iruppu illai. uḷḷadaṉukku illāmai eṉbadu ilai. eṉavē illadu uḷadu eṉṉum iraṇḍiṉ iyalbu idudāṉ kaṇḍār meytaṉṉai aṟinda tavar</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> For what does not exist there is no existence. For what does exist there is not what is called non-existence. Therefore, those who have seen that this itself is the nature of the two called what does not exist and what exists are ascetics who have known the reality.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> For <i>illādadu</i> [what does not exist] there is no existence [at any time]. For <i>uḷḷadu</i> [what does exist] there is not [at any time] what is called non-existence. Therefore, those who have seen that this itself is the nature of the two called <i>illadu</i> [what does not exist] and <i>uḷḷadu</i> [what exists] are ascetics who have known the reality [or who have known themself, the reality].</blockquote>
If something seems to exist at one time and not at another time, its existence and its non-existence are a pair of opposites, so like all pairs of opposites, they are not real, and hence they seem to exist only in the view of ourself as mind or ego. However, as pointed out in this verse, for what actually exists (<i>uḷḷadu</i>) there is no such thing as non-existence, so it transcends all such pairs of opposites, and hence it is the existence that is beyond both existence and non-existence. In other words, it is absolute, unconditional and unqualified existence.<br>
<br>
<a name="uu23"></a>This absolute existence is what is called Arunachala, and since it alone is what actually exists, there cannot be any awareness other than it to know it, so it itself is awareness, as Bhagavan points out in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu23">verse 23</a> of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i>:<br>
<blockquote>உள்ள துணர வுணர்வுவே றின்மையி<br>
னுள்ள துணர்வாகு முந்தீபற<br>
வுணர்வேநா மாயுள முந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>uḷḷa duṇara vuṇarvuvē ṟiṉmaiyi <br>
ṉuḷḷa duṇarvāhu mundīpaṟa<br>
vuṇarvēnā māyuḷa mundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> உள்ளது உணர உணர்வு வேறு இன்மையின், உள்ளது உணர்வு ஆகும். உணர்வே நாமாய் உளம்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>uḷḷadu uṇara uṇarvu vēṟu iṉmaiyiṉ, uḷḷadu uṇarvu āhum. uṇarvē nām-āy uḷam</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Because of the non-existence of other awareness to be aware of what exists, what exists is awareness. Awareness alone exists as we.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Because of the non-existence of [any] awareness other [than what exists] to be aware of what exists, what exists (<i>uḷḷadu</i>) is awareness (<i>uṇarvu</i>). Awareness alone exists as we [that is, the awareness that actually exists, namely pure awareness, which is awareness that is aware of nothing other than itself, is what we actually are].</blockquote>
If awareness were other than what exists, it would be a non-existent awareness, and hence no awareness at all. Likewise, if what exists were other than awareness, it would not shine or be known, because it would not know itself and there could not be any awareness other than it to know it. Therefore what exists is awareness, so it exists and shines by the light that is itself, its own being.<br>
<br>
What exists must therefore always exist, which means not only that it must exist at all times, but more importantly that it must exist whether or not time seems to exist, because it must exist independent of the appearance or disappearance of time. It must also be immutable, because whatever changes or is liable to change would not be exactly the same thing after it changes as it was before it changed. And finally, it must be self-shining (<i>svayam-prakāśa</i>), which means that it must shine by the light of its own being, which is awareness.<br>
<br>
The only thing that meets each and all of these three criteria — eternal, unchanging and self-shining — is our own being, ‘I am’, which is what is called Arunachala. Everything else is impermanent, liable to change, and shines only in the view of the mind, which itself shines only by the light of awareness that it borrows from ‘I am’. In the absence of the mind, as in sleep, nothing other than ‘I am’ exists or shines, so everything else depends for its seeming existence upon the mind, in whose view alone it seems to exist, and the mind depends for its seeming existence and awareness upon the one real existence-awareness (<i>sat-cit</i>), namely Arunachala, who exists and shines eternally and immutably by his own light as ‘I am’.<br>
<br>
Since Arunachala alone exists, there is no existence other than him, so what seems to be the existence of other things is actually only his existence. Therefore he alone is what exists and shines (in the view of the mind) as all other things, so since he knows himself just by being himself, he knows everything just by being himself. It is only in this sense that he is described as <i>sarva-sākṣi</i> (the witness of all) and <i>jīva-sākṣi</i> (the witness of the <i>jīva</i>, namely ourself as ego or mind). As Bhagavan explained, when God is said to be <i>sākṣi</i>, the ‘witness’, <i>sākṣi</i> means <i>sannidhi</i> (presence). Since his presence is his being or existence, this means that when terms such as <i>sarva-sākṣi</i> and <i>jīva-sākṣi</i> are applied to God they imply that he is the one real existence (<i>sat</i> or <i>uḷḷadu</i>) that appears as the seeming existence of <i>jīva</i> and everything else. Therefore these terms are not intended to imply that he knows the appearance of anything, because the appearance of anything is unreal and therefore does not exist in his clear view, but only that he knows the actual existence of everything, because their existence is his own existence, and he knows his own existence by just being that. This is why Bhagavan says ‘கண் இன்றி காண் உனை’ (<i>kaṇ iṉḏṟi kāṇ uṉai</i>), ‘you, who sees without eyes’, because without ever seeing the appearance of anything (which is unreal), he sees the actual existence of everything (which alone is real) just by being as he always is.<br>
<br>
<a name="aamm13"></a>In <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/09/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-13.html#aamm13">verse 13</a> Bhagavan asked rhetorically, ‘ஓங்கார பொருள், ஒப்பு உயர்வு இல்லோய், உனை யார் அறிவார் அருணாசலா?’ (<i>ōṅkāra poruḷ, oppu uyarvu illōy, uṉai yār aṟivār aruṇācalā?</i>), ‘Arunachala, substance [reality, import or referent] of <i>ōṁkāra</i> [the sacred syllable <i>ōm</i>], you for whom there is not [anything or anyone] equal [or similar] or superior, who can know you?’, thereby implying that no one other than himself can know him as he actually is, and likewise in this fifteenth verse he asks rhetorically, ‘கண்ணுக்கு கண் ஆய் கண் இன்றி காண் உனை காணுவது எவர்?’ (<i>kaṇṇukku kaṇ āy kaṇ iṉḏṟi kāṇ uṉai kāṇuvadu evar?</i>), ‘Who can see you, who, being the eye to the eye, sees without eyes?’, thereby implying that no one other than himself can see him as he actually is, because he alone is what actually exists.<br>
<br>
காணுவது (<i>kāṇuvadu</i>) is a participial noun that means ‘seeing’ and எவர் (<i>evar</i>) is an interrogative pronoun that means ‘which person?’, ‘which people?’ or ‘who?’, so ‘உனை காணுவது எவர்?’ (<i>uṉai kāṇuvadu evar?</i>) literally means ‘seeing you who?’, which implies ‘who can see you?’. In this context ‘see you’ implies ‘see you as you actually are’, and since this question is rhetorical, it implies that no one other than Arunachala can see him as he actually is. What he actually is is pure awareness, or as Muruganar expresses it in his commentary on this verse, ‘சுத்தசைதன்ய சொரூபம்’ (<i>śuddha-caitanya svarūpam</i>), ‘that whose very nature is pure awareness’ (or ‘our own real nature, [which is] pure awareness’), so he cannot be known as he actually is by anything other than himself, because pure awareness can never be an object of awareness. That is, it cannot be an object known by mind or ego, so we can know it only by being it, and by being it we cease to be mind or ego and remain as we actually are, which is Arunachala, so what knows him is only he himself.<br>
<br>
Since he is <i>ātma-svarūpa</i>, the real nature of ourself, if we want to see him as he actually is we must try to see ourself as we actually are, but since we seem to be ego or mind only so long as we are seeing things other than ourself, if we turn back within keenly enough to see what we actually are, we will thereby subside and dissolve back into the source from which we rose, namely Arunachala. Sunlight reflected from a mirror may be useful for seeing objects inside a dark cave, but instead of directing that reflected light into the cave to see other things, if we direct it back towards the sun, the source from which it originated, what will happen to it? It will be swallowed by the bright light of the sun, thereby losing itself in its source. Likewise, the reflected light of awareness called mind or ego may seem to be useful for knowing the appearance of other things in the darkness of its self-ignorance, but instead of directing this reflected light outwards to see other things, if we direct it back within ourself to see the source from which it originated, it will be swallowed by the bright light of pure awareness, thereby losing itself in its source. In other words, if we try to see Arunachala as he actually is, shining in our heart as the light of pure awareness, which illumines us as mind, enabling us to know other things, we will thereby be swallowed by him, dissolving in him forever.<br>
<br>
<a name="un21"></a><a name="un22"></a>Being swallowed by him in this way alone is truly seeing him as he actually is, as Bhagavan implies in the final two sentences of <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un21">verse 21</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>, ‘தலைவன் காணல் எவன்? ஊண் ஆதல் காண்’ (<i>talaivaṉ kāṇal evaṉ? ūṇ ādal kāṇ</i>), ‘How to see God? Becoming food is seeing’, and as he explains in more detail in the next verse, namely <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un22">verse 22</a>:<br>
<blockquote>மதிக்கொளி தந்தம் மதிக்கு ளொளிரு<br>
மதியினை யுள்ளே மடக்கிப் — பதியிற்<br>
பதித்திடுத லன்றிப் பதியை மதியான்<br>
மதித்திடுத லெங்ஙன் மதி.<br>
<br>
<i>matikkoḷi tandam matikku ḷoḷiru<br>
matiyiṉai yuḷḷē maḍakkip — patiyiṯ<br>
padittiḍuda laṉḏṟip patiyai matiyāṉ<br>
madittiḍuda leṅṅaṉ madi</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> மதிக்கு ஒளி தந்து, அம் மதிக்குள் ஒளிரும் மதியினை உள்ளே மடக்கி பதியில் பதித்திடுதல் அன்றி, பதியை மதியால் மதித்திடுதல் எங்ஙன்? மதி.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>matikku oḷi tandu, a-m-matikkuḷ oḷirum matiyiṉai uḷḷē maḍakki patiyil padittiḍudal aṉḏṟi, patiyai matiyāl madittiḍudal eṅṅaṉ? madi</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>அன்வயம்:</b> மதிக்கு ஒளி தந்து, அம் மதிக்குள் ஒளிரும் பதியில் மதியினை உள்ளே மடக்கி பதித்திடுதல் அன்றி, பதியை மதியால் மதித்திடுதல் எங்ஙன்? மதி.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Anvayam</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>matikku oḷi tandu, a-m-matikkuḷ oḷirum patiyil matiyiṉai uḷḷē maḍakki padittiḍudal aṉḏṟi, patiyai matiyāl madittiḍudal eṅṅaṉ? madi</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> 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? Consider.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Except by turning [bending or folding] <i>mati</i> [the mind or intellect] back within [and thereby] completely immersing [embedding or fixing] it in <i>pati</i> [the Lord or God, namely Arunachala], 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? Consider.</blockquote>
Therefore in order to see Arunachala as he actually is, we need to lose ourself completely and forever in him, so what ends up seeing him is only himself, who is eternally seeing himself, and not us as the mind or ego who set out to see him. In other words, we can see him as he actually is only by being as he actually is, and we cannot be as he actually is without ceasing to rise as ego. Hence in order to see him as he actually is, we must be wholeheartedly willing to surrender ourself entirely to him.<br>
<br>
Since our nature as ego is to always seek happiness in things other than ourself, as ego we are perpetually plagued by likes, dislikes, desires and attachments for other things, so we will not be wholeheartedly willing to surrender ourself entirely to him until we have all-consuming love for him as he actually is, namely as our own real nature (<i>ātma-svarūpa</i>), which is pure awareness. From where can such all-consuming love for him come? It cannot come from ourself as ego, because as ego our nature is to always desire things other than ourself, whereas he is not anything other than ourself but only ourself as we actually are. Therefore all-consuming love for him can come only from him. Unless and until he looks at us with his eye of grace, thereby giving us the all-consuming love that is required for us to look within to see ourself as he sees us, namely as himself alone, which is what we always actually are, we will never be willing to give up all desire for anything other than ourself and thereby surrender ourself entirely to him.<br>
<br>
This is why Bhagavan ends this verse with a single word of prayer, ‘பார்’ (<i>pār</i>), which means ‘see’ or ‘look’, and which in this context implies ‘see me’ or ‘look at me’. Only by Arunachala looking at us can we look at him and see him as he actually is, namely as our own being, ‘I am’. Just as the reflection of our face in a mirror cannot look at us unless we look at it, we cannot look at Arunachala unless he looks at us, because he is the one real awareness, of which we as ego or mind are just a reflection. Our looking at our reflection is itself our reflection looking at us. Likewise, his looking at us is itself our looking at him. These are not two separate actions but one and the same.<br>
<br>
However, since he alone is real awareness (<i>cit</i>), whereas we as ego are just a semblance of awareness (<i>cidābhāsa</i>), he alone has the power to make us look at him, and we have no power of our own to make him look at us. The only power by which we can make him look at us is the power of wholehearted and all-consuming love for him, but such love can be given only by him, because the nature of ourself as ego is to love things other than ourself, but not to love our own reality, which is Arunachala, the one infinite existence-awareness (<i>sat-cit</i>), which shines eternally in our heart as our own being, ‘I am’.<br>
<br>
This analogy of our having to look at our reflection in a mirror in order for it to look at us is useful to illustrate why he must look at us in order for us to look at him, but like all analogies it has its limitations. One of these is that though the reflection of our face in a mirror can look here or there (depending of course on where we look), it cannot see anything, because it is <i>jaḍa</i> (devoid of awareness), whereas the mind is a reflection that not only looks at things but also sees them, because it is a form of awareness, albeit not awareness as it actually is. Whereas our face and its reflection in a mirror are two distinct things, pure awareness and the mind are not distinct in the same way, because though they are distinct in appearance, they are not distinct in substance, just as a rope and the snake it seems to be are distinct in appearance but not in substance. That is, pure awareness, which is Arunachala, is what is always shining in the mind, illumining it and thereby enabling it to be aware of itself and other things. Therefore if the mind looks within itself to see the source from which it derives its light of awareness, it will merge and dissolve forever in its source, namely pure awareness, because it was never actually anything other than that, just as the seeming snake was never actually anything other than the rope.<br>
<br>
Whatever we may be doing or experiencing, and whatever may be the state of our mind, Arunachala is always shining clearly within us as our own being and awareness, ‘I am’, so by his infinite grace he is always making himself freely and easily available to us. All we need to do is to turn our attention back towards him to gaze at him with adoration. However, though he is always so easily available to us, we generally fail to pay heed to his presence in our heart, because we are more interested in other things than we are in him. What we require, therefore, is heart-melting love to look at him and thereby see him as he actually is, and his giving such love is his looking at us with his eye of grace. This is therefore what Bhagavan is teaching us to pray for in this verse.<br>
<br>
The eye by which we can see Arunachala is the same eye by which he sees us, namely our own being, because our being or existence is nothing other than his being or existence, which is the one real awareness that shines eternally as ‘I am’. This alone is the real heart, the place where he and we are always one and inseparable. Therefore we can see him as he actually is only by turning our entire attention back within and thereby sinking deep into the heart, our own being, where he is always waiting to embrace and devour us completely. However, to turn and sink back within in this manner requires all-consuming love for him and consequent willingness on our part to surrender ourself wholly to him. He alone can give us such love, and his giving it to us is what is otherwise described as him looking at us with his eye of grace.<br>
<br>
In the clear view of Arunachala we are never anything other than himself, so there is never a moment when he does not see us as himself, but so long as we rise as ego we are constantly looking away from ourself at other things, so we cannot see that he is always in our heart seeing us as we actually are. Therefore, though he is always seeing us, since we are not seeing him but looking elsewhere, it seems to us that he is not seeing us but looking elsewhere, so we pray to him to see us with the eye of his grace.<br>
<br>
Since he is always seeing us, how can he answer this prayer of ours to see us? What can he do that he is not always doing? In order to answer this prayer of ours, all he need do is to draw our mind back within to see him as he actually is, shining eternally in our heart as pure awareness, which is our own being, ‘I am’, because only when we see him thus will we see that he is always seeing us as we actually are, namely as himself.<br>
<br>
So how is he to draw our mind back within to see him as he actually is? He does so by sowing and nurturing the seed of love for him in our heart, because it is only when such love becomes all-consuming, melting our heart like sunlight melting ice, that we will finally be willing to give up everything else and surrender ourself entirely to him by turning our entire attention back within to see him shining in our heart as ourself. His sowing and nurturing such all-consuming love in our heart is therefore the ultimate act of grace (<i>aruḷ-seyal</i>), so from the perspective of ourself as his devotee, this is what we see as him seeing us with his eye of grace.<br>
<br>
Though he is always seeing us, we cannot experience the full benefit of his seeing us until we ourself see him seeing us, because only then will we lose ourself entirely in him, being swallowed by the light of his grace, the all-consuming light of pure awareness, which is always shining in our heart as our own being, ‘I am’. Therefore what Bhagavan implies by this single word of prayer, ‘பார்’ (<i>pār</i>), ‘see’ or ‘look’, is that Arunachala should see us or look at us in such a way that we are made by him to see that he is always seeing us with his அருட்கண் (<i>aruḷ-kaṇ</i>), the eye of his grace, which is himself, the eye of pure awareness, which, being the eye to the eye, sees without eyes.<br>
<br>
<b>Video discussion:</b> <a href="https://youtu.be/BWVuQXoEINM"><i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> verse 15</a><br>
<br>
<div style="text-align:center"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/BWVuQXoEINM" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-8004100102247028822022-10-07T15:50:00.007+01:002022-12-16T13:35:08.291+00:00Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai verse 14This is the fourteenth in a series of articles that I hope to write on <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>, Bhagavan willing, the completed ones being <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/articles.html#aamm">listed here</a>.<br><a name='more'></a>
<br>
<a name="aamm14"></a><b>Verse 14:</b><br>
<blockquote>ஔவைபோ லெனக்குன் னருளைத் தந்தெனை<br>
யாளுவ துன்கட னருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>auvaipō leṉakkuṉ ṉaruḷait tandeṉai<br>
yāḷuva duṉkaḍa ṉaruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> ஔவை போல் எனக்கு உன் அருளை தந்து, எனை ஆளுவது உன் கடன் அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>auvai pōl eṉakku uṉ aruḷai tandu, eṉai āḷuvadu uṉ kaḍaṉ aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, like a mother, giving me your grace, taking charge of me is your duty.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, like a mother, giving me your <i>aruḷ</i> [grace, love, affection, kindness and compassion], taking charge of me [as your own] is your duty [obligation or responsibility].</blockquote>
<b>Explanation:</b> ஔவை (<i>auvai</i>) means a mother, an older or respected woman, or a female ascetic, but in this context its primary meaning is a mother, and போல் (<i>pōl</i>) is a particle of comparison that means ‘like’, ‘similar to’ or ‘as’, so ‘ஔவை போல்’ (<i>auvai pōl</i>) means ‘like a mother’. This comparison to a mother applies not only to the next clause, ‘எனக்கு உன் அருளை தந்து’ (<i>eṉakku uṉ aruḷai tandu</i>), ‘giving me your grace’, but also to the main clause, ‘எனை ஆளுவது உன் கடன்’ (<i>eṉai āḷuvadu uṉ kaḍaṉ</i>), ‘taking charge of me is your duty’.<br>
<br>
எனக்கு (<i>eṉakku</i>) is a dative form of the first person singular pronoun, so it means ‘to me’. உன் (<i>uṉ</i>) is the inflectional base and a genitive form of the second person singular pronoun, so it means ‘your’. அருளை (<i>aruḷai</i>) is the accusative singular form of அருள் (<i>aruḷ</i>), which means more or less the same as the Sanskrit terms <i>karuṇā</i>, <i>kṛpā</i> and <i>anugraha</i>, namely kindness, tenderness, affection, love, solicitude, compassion, benevolence, pity, mercy and divine grace or blessing. தந்து (<i>tandu</i>) is an adverbial participle that means ‘giving’, so ‘எனக்கு உன் அருளை தந்து’ (<i>eṉakku uṉ aruḷai tandu</i>) is an adverbial clause that means ‘giving me your grace’.<br>
<br>
<a name="aluvadu"></a><a name="aamm04"></a>எனை (<i>eṉai</i>) is a poetic abbreviation of என்னை (<i>eṉṉai</i>), the accusative form of the first person singular pronoun, so it means ‘me’. ஆளுவது (<i>āḷuvadu</i>) is a verbal noun (or to be more precise, a neuter third person singular participial noun, but as is often the case, it is used here as a verbal noun) from ஆள் (<i>āḷ</i>), which is an extremely significant verb in Bhagavan’s teachings and one that he uses frequently in its various forms in <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> and other songs of <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Stuti Pañcakam</i> (Five Hymns to Arunachala). As I explained in more detail in the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/04/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-4.html#aluvadu">first six paragraphs</a> of my explanation of <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/04/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-4.html#aamm04">verse 4</a>, ஆள் (<i>āḷ</i>) is a word for which there is no adequate English equivalent, because it combines within itself two principal meanings, namely on one hand to rule, govern, control or manage, and on the other hand to cherish, care for, take care of or take loving responsibility for the welfare and protection of, so I generally translate it as ‘to take charge’, in the sense that a caring adult may take charge of an orphaned child, meaning that they lovingly take full responsibility for the welfare, care, protection and upbringing of the child. It can also be translated as ‘to take possession of’ or ‘take as one’s own’, in the sense that a bridegroom takes his bride as his own, meaning that he takes full responsibility for protecting and taking care of her in every way, so ‘எனை ஆளுவது’ (<i>eṉai āḷuvadu</i>) is a noun phrase that means ‘taking charge of me’ in the sense of ‘lovingly taking care and control of me as your own’.<br>
<br>
In his பொழிப்புரை (<i>poṛippurai</i>), explanatory paraphrase, for this verse Muruganar interprets ‘எனை ஆளுவது’ (<i>eṉai āḷuvadu</i>) as ‘உனது திருவடிக்கு என்னை யுரிமையாக்கிக் கொள்ளுதல்’ (<i>uṉadu tiruvaḍikku eṉṉai y-urimai-y-ākki-k-koḷḷudal</i>), which means ‘making me what belongs to your divine feet’ or ‘making me a possession of your divine feet’. However, உரிமை (<i>urimai</i>) means not only a possession, what is owned or what belongs in the ordinary sense of such terms, because it can also mean wife; அடிமை (<i>aḍimai</i>), a slave or dependant (in the sense that a devotee who is wholly surrendered to God is a slave of his, subservient to him and dependant upon him); கடமை (<i>kaḍamai</i>), duty or obligation (implying in this case one whom Arunachala is obliged to take charge of); love, affection or tenderness (implying here one who by virtue of her surrender is a special target of Arunachala’s love and affection); and liberty or privilege arising from intimacy or friendship (implying here one over whom Arunachala has complete liberty and rights due to the intimacy of their mutual love). Therefore, by paraphrasing ‘எனை ஆளுவது’ (<i>eṉai āḷuvadu</i>) as ‘உனது திருவடிக்கு என்னை யுரிமையாக்கிக் கொள்ளுதல்’ (<i>uṉadu tiruvaḍikku eṉṉai y-urimai-y-ākki-k-koḷḷudal</i>), ‘making me <i>urimai</i> to your divine feet’, Muruganar indicates that all these various meanings of உரிமை (<i>urimai</i>) are implied in this word ஆளுவது (<i>āḷuvadu</i>), ‘taking charge of’ or ‘taking as your own’.<br>
<br>
In his commentary (<i>viḷakkavurai</i>) on this verse Sadhu Om explains the meaning of ஆளுவது (<i>āḷuvadu</i>), ‘taking charge of’ or ‘taking as your own’, and the nature of grace (<i>aruḷ</i>) as follows:<br>
<blockquote>Regarding ‘<i>āḷuvadu</i>’, the devotee being completely fixed [or established] under the rule [reign or sovereignty] of grace, devoid of <i>svatantra</i> [freedom or independence] to rise [as ego] — devoid of any separate existence for herself — is the meaning. This alone is <i>aruḷ</i> [grace]. Since what is called grace is the power that is able to remove the misery of the <i>jīva</i> and to give him the attainment of happiness, getting whatever one prays for is not correct or complete grace. Since <i>duḥkha nivṛtti</i> [cessation of misery] and <i>sukha prāpti</i> [attainment of happiness] can be achieved permanently and completely only in the state in which ego has been annihilated, cessation of separate individuality alone is correct and complete grace. Only for such grace is Sri Bhagavan praying here to Arunachala.</blockquote>
In other words, in this context ‘எனை ஆளுவது’ (<i>eṉai āḷuvadu</i>), ‘taking charge of me’ or ‘taking me as your own’, implies ‘annihilating ego’, ‘devouring me completely’, ‘absorbing me into yourself, as yourself’, ‘making me inseparably and indivisibly one with you’, ‘making me be nothing other than you, as I always am’.<br>
<br>
As mentioned above, உன் (<i>uṉ</i>) means ‘your’, and கடன் (<i>kaḍaṉ</i>) means duty or obligation, so ‘எனை ஆளுவது உன் கடன் அருணாசலா’ (<i>eṉai āḷuvadu uṉ kaḍaṉ aruṇācalā</i>) means ‘Arunachala, taking charge of me is your duty’, thereby implying that it is his duty to complete the work he has started by eradicating ego entirely. Therefore the whole verse, ‘ஔவை போல் எனக்கு உன் அருளை தந்து, எனை ஆளுவது உன் கடன் அருணாசலா’ (<i>auvai pōl eṉakku uṉ aruḷai tandu, eṉai āḷuvadu uṉ kaḍaṉ aruṇācalā</i>) means ‘Arunachala, like a mother, giving me your grace, taking charge of me is your duty’.<br>
<br>
In his explanatory paraphrase (<i>poṛippurai</i>) Muruganar interprets ‘ஔவை போல்’ (<i>auvai pōl</i>), ‘like a mother’, as ‘தாய் தன்னியல்பாகவே தன் பிள்ளைக்கு அருளுமாறுபோல’ (<i>tāy taṉṉiyalpākavē taṉ piḷḷaikku aruḷumāṟupōla</i>), ‘like the manner in which a mother by her very nature is gracious [kind, tender, affectionate, loving and benevolent] to her child’, so this is what he considered to be the principal meaning of this phrase. However, in his commentary (<i>viśēḍavurai</i>) he explained that ‘ஔவை போல்’ (<i>auvai pōl</i>), ‘like a mother’, can also be interpreted to mean ‘ஔவைக்குப் போல்’ (<i>auvaikku-p pōl</i>), ‘like to mother’ or ‘as to mother’, implying ‘as [you did] to [or for] mother’, because in Tamil poetry it is not unusual for case-endings (in this case the fourth or dative case-ending) to be omitted, so when interpreted in this sense it can be taken to mean ‘just as you [in the form of your son, Ganapati] graciously enabled Auvaiyar [an ancient Tamil saint and poetess] to see Kailash’, ‘just as you graciously gave the left half of your body to Uma Devi, the mother of the world [referring to the story of Ardhanarisvara, a form of Siva in which the left half of his body is his divine consort, signifying the oneness of Siva and Sakti, God and his power]’ or ‘just as you graciously gave your divine state to my mother [referring to the fact that Arunachala would later grant liberation to his (Bhagavan’s) mother]’.<br>
<br>
Of these three possible interpretations, the one that is most appropriate in the context of this marriage garland (<i>maṇa mālai</i>) is ‘just as you graciously gave the left half of your body to Uma Devi’, because this is concerning her complete and inseparable union with her beloved Lord Siva, which is the goal that Bhagavan is praying for in this <i>Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>. The other two of these three interpretations are less appropriate, because Bhagavan is not praying to see Kailash, which was the boon that Ganapati granted to Auvaiyar, and because he composed <i>Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> in about 1912, nearly ten years before his mother was granted the divine state of oneness with Arunachala.<br>
<br>
<a name="anmm01"></a>With regard to the story of Ardhanarisvara, in which the Goddess, Uma Devi, attained oneness (<i>aikya</i>) with Lord Siva, Muruganar notes that, as narrated in the Puranas, the form of Siva in which she merged as one is Arunachala, as Bhagavan implies in the second half of <a href="https://youtu.be/9_xUzwEZhlM">verse 1</a> of <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Navamaṇimālai</i>: ‘அசல உருவில் அச் சத்தி ஒடுங்கிட, ஓங்கும் அருணாசலம் என்று அறி’ (<i>acala uruvil a-c-śatti oḍuṅgiḍa, ōṅgum aruṇācalam eṉḏṟu aṟi</i>), ‘Know that when that <i>śakti</i> [the divine mother] subsides back in the motionless form [the fundamental form of Lord Siva], Arunachalam is exalted [that is, in the motionless form of Arunachalam, which rises high above all his other forms, Lord Siva shines exalted in his natural state of pure being]’.<br>
<br>
<a name="aamm06"></a>Regarding the principal and most obvious meaning of ‘ஔவை போல்’ (<i>auvai pōl</i>), namely ‘like a mother’, this verse is reminiscent of <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/04/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-6.html#aamm06">verse 6</a>:<br>
<blockquote>ஈன்றிடு மன்னையிற் பெரிதருள் புரிவோ<br>
யிதுவோ வுனதரு ளருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>īṉḏṟiḍu maṉṉaiyiṟ peridaruḷ purivō<br>
yiduvō vuṉadaru ḷaruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> ஈன்றிடும் அன்னையில் பெரிது அருள் புரிவோய், இதுவோ உனது அருள் அருணாசலா?<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>īṉḏṟiḍum aṉṉaiyil peridu aruḷ purivōy, iduvō uṉadu aruḷ aruṇācalā?</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, you who bestow kindness greater than the mother who gave birth, is this your kindness?<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, you who bestow <i>aruḷ</i> [grace, love, affection, kindness, solicitude and compassion] greater than [that given by] the mother who gave birth [to one], is this your <i>aruḷ</i>?</blockquote>
In both these verses, 6 and 14, Bhagavan refers to the <i>aruḷ</i> (kindness, tenderness, affection, love and solicitude) that a mother naturally gives to her infant child as an analogy to illustrate the incomparable <i>aruḷ</i> (grace) that Arunachala is always showering on each and every one of his children, namely all <i>jīvas</i> (sentient beings). Like all analogies, this analogy has its limitations, in this case because the <i>aruḷ</i> of Arunachala is infinitely greater than that of a mother, so he uses this analogy only because in human relationships the love, affection and solicitude that (as a general rule) a mother naturally has for her child are what comes closest (in certain respects) to the infinite grace of Arunachala.<br>
<br>
<a name="ny15"></a>Though Arunachala is always showering his grace (<i>aruḷ</i>) on all <i>jīvas</i>, we can recognise this only to the extent that we surrender ourself to him, because his grace is extremely subtle, and it does everything that is necessary for us without ever actually doing anything, since it is what we actually are, so its nature is not doing but just being. That is, since he is our own real nature, and since he and his grace are one, his grace is always shining in our heart as our own being, ‘I am’, so it never does anything, but since it is infinite and all-embracing love, it need not do anything, because whatever needs to be done is done by the power of its ‘சன்னிதான விசேஷ மாத்திரம்’ (<i>saṉṉidhāṉa-viśēṣa-māttiram</i>), ‘just the special nature of its presence’, as Bhagavan points out in the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para15">fifteenth paragraph</a> of <i>Nāṉ Ār?</i>. Therefore whenever he prays to Arunachala to give his grace, as he does in so many of these verses of <i>Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>, he does not mean that Arunachala should give us anything that he is not always giving us, but that he should draw our mind back within so that we can see that his grace is ever present in our heart and is always doing everything that is necessary for us, and that all we need do, therefore, is to surrender ourself wholly to him, thereby ceasing to obstruct his grace by rising and dancing as ego.<br>
<br>
Therefore when Bhagavan asks rhetorically in verse 6, ‘இதுவோ உனது அருள்?’ (<i>iduvō uṉadu aruḷ?</i>), ‘is this your grace?’, he is describing the state of a devotee whose mind is being dragged outwards by its multitude of <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> (inclinations to seek happiness in <i>viṣayas</i>: objects or phenomena), which are ‘the five sense-thieves’ (<i>aim-pula-k-kaḷvar</i>), and who therefore fails to recognise that his grace is shining eternally in her heart as her own being, ‘I am’, and is therefore always waiting to embrace her whenever she is willing to surrender herself wholly to it by turning her entire attention back within.<br>
<br>
Whereas in verse 6 Bhagavan implies that showering his grace on all <i>jīvas</i> is the very nature of Arunachala, just as it is the very nature of a mother to shower her love, affection and care on her infant child, in verse 14 he implies that this is not just his nature but also his bounden duty. It is not only the nature but also the duty of a mother to shower her love, affection and care on her infant child, irrespective of the good or bad qualities of the child. Whether her child is healthy or sick, able-limbed or disabled, intelligent or intellectually impaired, calm or tempestuous by nature, it is both her nature and her bounden duty to love it, care for it and protect it. Her obligation to love, care for and protect her healthy, able-limbed, intelligent and good-natured infant is no greater than it would be if he or she were sick, physically or mentally handicapped, or bad-natured. On the contrary, the more sick, disabled or bad-natured her child may be, the greater would be her obligation to shower her love, affection, care and protection on him or her.<br>
<br>
Likewise, when Bhagavan sings in this verse, ‘ஔவை போல் எனக்கு உன் அருளை தந்து, எனை ஆளுவது உன் கடன் அருணாசலா’ (<i>auvai pōl eṉakku uṉ aruḷai tandu, eṉai āḷuvadu uṉ kaḍaṉ aruṇācalā</i>), ‘Arunachala, like a mother, giving me your grace, taking charge of me is your duty’, he implies that it is the bounden duty of Arunachala to shower his grace upon us and thereby to take complete charge of us as his very own, irrespective of how worthy or unworthy we may be. Just because our mind is filled with and clouded by a dense multitude of <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, and consequently always dwelling on worldly thoughts of the very worst kind, his obligation to love, nurture and care for us, and thereby to protect and save us from ourself, is no less than it would be if we were pure in mind and heart. On the contrary, the more impure, immature, sinful and even evil our mind and heart may be, the greater is his obligation to save us from ourself by taking complete charge of us, because he is not only our true mother and father, but also ourself, our very own real nature (<i>ātma-svarūpa</i>).<br>
<br>
Not only is it the bounden duty of Arunachala to love, care for, protect and eventually save all <i>jīvas</i>, it is also his nature to do so, because he is the infinite ocean and space of pure அன்னியமில் அன்பு (<i>aṉṉiyamil aṉbu</i>), otherless love, since he does not see us as other than himself, and hence he loves us — each and every one of us — without any limit as himself. Therefore, though Bhagavan compares the infinite love of Arunachala to the love of a mother for her infant child, he does so only for the sake of illustration, because the love of Arunachala is by its very nature infinitely greater than the love of a mother could ever be.<br>
<br>
However, though it is the very nature of Arunachala to shower his grace upon all of us and thereby to take complete charge of us, he is infinitely patient and will never force himself upon us, so he will not complete his task of eradicating ego until we are whole-heartedly willing to surrender ourself entirely to him. Therefore his grace is always working within our heart, gradually preparing the ground in such a way that we will eventually want nothing else but to give ourself wholly to him by turning our entire attention back within to face him in our heart, where he is shining eternally as our own being, ‘I am’.<br>
<br>
This is why Bhagavan prays to him in this verse, saying it is his bounden duty to complete his அருட்செயல் (<i>aruḷ-seyal</i>), the work of his grace, by taking complete charge of him here and now. That is, though it is his nature to do so, saying that it is also his duty to do so indicates the willingness of the devotee who prays thus to surrender herself wholly to him, because ‘எனை ஆளுவது’ (<i>eṉai āḷuvadu</i>), ‘taking charge of me’ or ‘taking me as your own’, means eradicating ego so thoroughly that we are completely deprived of our freedom to ever rise again as a seemingly separate ‘I’, thereby losing ourself forever in him, as him.<br>
<br>
Being <i>ēkam ēva advitīyam</i>, ‘one only without a second’, Arunachala is not bound by any duty or by anything else whatsoever, but from the perspective of his devotees he is bound by one thing and one thing alone, namely the love for him that he has by his infinite grace planted and nurtured in the heart of each of his devotees. That is, since it is the very nature of Arunachala to always shower his grace on all <i>jīvas</i>, and since the inevitable effect of his ever-showering grace is to eventually arouse love for him in our heart, his very nature as infinite grace thereby creates for him a duty, namely the duty to complete his work of grace (<i>aruḷ-seyal</i>) by annihilating the ego of his devotee, thereby taking complete charge of her as his own, making her eternally one with himself. This is the consummation of the divine marriage of <i>jīva</i> with <i>śiva</i> for which Bhagavan is praying with a melting heart in so many ways throughout this love song, <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>Video discussion:</b> <a href="https://youtu.be/G9qD0tQVndg"><i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> verse 14</a><br>
<br>
<div style="text-align:center"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/G9qD0tQVndg" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-72982131543405747242022-09-23T16:15:00.009+01:002022-10-29T13:02:50.749+01:00Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai verse 13This is the thirteenth in a series of articles that I hope to write on <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>, Bhagavan willing, the completed ones being <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/articles.html#aamm">listed here</a>.<br><a name='more'></a>
<br>
<a name="aamm13"></a><b>Verse 13:</b><br>
<blockquote>ஓங்கா ரப்பொரு ளொப்புயர் வில்லோ<br>
யுனையா ரறிவா ரருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>ōṅkā rapporu ḷoppuyar villō<br>
yuṉaiyā raṟivā raruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> ஓங்கார பொருள், ஒப்பு உயர்வு இல்லோய், உனை யார் அறிவார் அருணாசலா?<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>ōṅkāra poruḷ, oppu uyarvu illōy, uṉai yār aṟivār aruṇācalā?</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, substance of <i>ōṁkāra</i>, you for whom there is not equal or superior, who can know you?<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, [inner and ultimate] substance [reality, import or referent] of <i>ōṁkāra</i> [the sacred syllable <i>ōm</i>], you for whom there is not [anything or anyone] equal [or similar] or superior, who [other than yourself] can know you [as you actually are]?</blockquote>
<b>Explanation:</b> ஓங்காரம் (<i>ōṅkāram</i>) in Tamil or ओंकार (<i>ōṁkāra</i>) in Sanskrit means the syllable ஓம் (<i>ōm</i>) or ओम् (<i>ōm</i>), which is also written as the ligatures ௐ in Tamil and ॐ in Devanagari. This syllable <i>ōm</i> is considered most sacred in all the major religions of Indian origin, namely Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism in all their various forms, and there are many diverse interpretations and explanations of its deep significance and meaning.<br>
<br>
Various possible etymologies have also been proposed for it, including the suggestion that it may originally have been derived from the ancient Dravidian word ஆம் (<i>ām</i>), which still survives in modern Tamil and is a third person singular form of the verb ஆ (<i>ā</i>), ‘to be’, so it means ‘it is’ and is therefore commonly used as a word of affirmation, meaning ‘yes’. If this suggestion is correct, then <i>ōm</i> may originally have signified being or existence (<i>sat</i>), particularly in the sense of what is or what actually exists (<i>uḷḷadu</i>).<br>
<br>
<i>Ōm</i> is traditionally chanted at the beginning of all Vedic hymns and <i>mantras</i>, and in Vedic rituals it is used as an expression of affirmation, confirmation or agreement, but in the <i>Brāhmaṇas</i> it is explained that it is more than just an ordinary affirmation, because whereas other words of affirmation such as <i>tathā</i> are human affirmations, <i>ōm</i> is a divine affirmation (<i>Aitarēya Brāhmaṇa</i> 7.18.13). The meaning and significance of <i>ōm</i> is discussed in much greater detail in several of the <i>Upaniṣads</i>, and though their various explanations differ, they all indicate either explicitly or implicitly that what <i>ōm</i> ultimately refers to is <i>brahman</i>, which is the real nature of ourself (<i>ātma-svarūpa</i>), namely <i>sat-cit</i>, pure being and pure awareness, and some emphasise this by declaring that <i>ōm</i> is <i>brahman</i> itself.<br>
<br>
<a name="mu01-2"></a>One of the deepest explanations of <i>ōm</i> is given in the <i>Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad</i> and elaborated upon by Gaudapada in his <i>Kārikā</i>. This <i>Upaniṣad</i> begins by declaring in its first verse that this syllable <i>ōm</i> is all this (implying everything that seems to exist), that it is all that was (in the past), is (in the present) and will be (in the future), and that it is also <i>trikālātīta</i> (what transcends or is beyond these three times). Then in the second verse it says that all this is <i>brahman</i>, that this <i>ātman</i> (oneself) is <i>brahman</i> (‘<i>ayam ātmā brahma</i>’, ‘This <i>ātman</i> is <i>brahman</i>’, which is one of the four <i>mahāvākyas</i>, the great Vedic statements that declare <i>jīva-brahma-aikya</i>: the oneness of <i>jīva</i> and <i>brahman</i>), and that this <i>ātman</i> is <i>catuṣpāt</i> (which means that it has four <i>pādas</i>: feet or quarters). The juxtaposition of these first two verses clearly implies that <i>ōm</i> is <i>brahman</i>, so whatever is said of <i>ōm</i> can also be said of <i>brahman</i>, and vice versa. Therefore, being all this, <i>brahman</i> is all that is past, present and future, and also what is beyond these three times. Likewise, being all this, <i>ōm</i> is this <i>ātman</i> (oneself), and hence it has four <i>pādas</i>.<br>
<br>
What is meant by saying that this <i>ātman</i> (which is <i>brahman</i> and therefore <i>ōm</i>) has four <i>pādas</i> (feet or quarters) is explained in the subsequent verses, but to understand this explanation with respect to <i>ōm</i> it is necessary to understand how <i>ōm</i> is phonetically analysed. The syllable <i>ōm</i> consists of a long vowel, <i>ō</i>, followed by a mute consonant (namely one that is not followed by a vowel), <i>m</i>. Superficially, therefore, it seems to consist of two distinct units, <i>ō</i> and <i>m</i>, but <i>ō</i> is formed by a smooth and euphonic coalescence of two other vowel sounds, namely <i>a</i> and <i>u</i>, as we can understand by considering how we form these vowel sounds with our lips. That is, we pronounce <i>a</i> (whether a short ‘a’, somewhat like ‘u’ in ‘up’ or ‘utter’, or a long ‘a’, as in ‘after’ or ‘alms’) by allowing the air to pass out through open lips, whereas we pronounce <i>u</i> (as in ‘put’ or ‘pull’) by allowing the air to pass out through lips that are almost closed, and we pronounce <i>ō</i> (as in ‘<i>ōm</i>’ or ‘onus’) by allowing the air to pass out through lips that move from being open to almost closed. Thus the transition from <i>a</i> to <i>u</i> forms <i>ō</i>, so <i>ō</i> is analysed as consisting of two <i>mātrās</i> (measures, moments, durations or units of sound), namely <i>a</i> and <i>u</i>, which are the first two of its four <i>pādas</i>.<br>
<br>
The third <i>mātrā</i> and <i>pāda</i> is <i>m</i>, which is a nasal consonant formed by closing the lips, so the closing of the lips that begins with the pronunciation of <i>ō</i> is completed with the pronunciation of <i>m</i>. Therefore, since we can interpret open lips as representing <i>pravṛtti</i>, rising, activity and outwardness, and closed lips as representing <i>nivṛtti</i>, withdrawal, subsidence and inwardness, one way in which <i>ōm</i> can be interpreted is to say that it represents the transition from <i>pravṛtti</i> to <i>nivṛtti</i>. In other words, in the clear light of Bhagavan’s teachings we can say that <i>ōm</i> represents ego turning within and thereby subsiding back into its source, the infinite silence of <i>sat-cit</i>, pure being-awareness, ‘I am’. Therefore the fourth <i>pāda</i> is <i>amātrā</i> (the absence of any <i>mātrā</i> or unit of sound), which is the silence that remains after the utterance of <i>ōm</i>, and this represents our real nature, which exists and shines eternally as ‘I am’, and which remains alone as infinite silence after <i>manōnāśa</i>, the permanent dissolution of ego and all its progeny.<br>
<br>
<a name="mu03-6"></a>The remaining ten verses of the <i>Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad</i> explain these four <i>pādas</i> in detail, both with respect to this <i>ātman</i> (verses 3 to 7) and with respect to <i>ōm</i> (verses 8 to 12), but a brief summary of its explanation (except for verse 7) will suffice here. Verses 3 and 4 describe the first and second <i>pādas</i> as being the <i>jīva</i> in waking and dream respectively, whereas verses 5 and 6 describe the third <i>pāda</i> as being what remains when the <i>jīva</i> is merged in sleep.<br>
<br>
<a name="mu07"></a>Then verse 7, which is the most significant verse in the whole text, says that what is considered to be the fourth <i>pāda</i> is <i>ātman</i> (oneself), which is what is to be distinguished, discerned or known, thereby implying that it is <i>ātma-svarūpa</i>, the real nature of oneself, and describes it (mostly in negative terms) as being: <i>na antaḥ prajña</i> (not knowing the internal, implying that it is not what knows the internal world, as the world of dream was described in verse 4); <i>na bahiḥ prajña</i> (not knowing the external, implying that it is not what knows the external world, as the world of waking was described in verse 3); <i>na ubhayataḥ prajña</i> (not knowing both, implying that it is not what knows both the internal and the external); <i>na prajñāna-ghana</i> (not the mass of awareness, meaning that it is not the single undifferentiated mass of awareness in which all knowledge of multiplicity has merged and become one in sleep [and from which it will subsequently re-emerge], as implied in verse 5); <i>na prajña</i> (not knowing, implying that it is not something that knows anything at all other than itself); <i>na aprajña</i> (not non-knowing, implying that it is not something that does not know); <i>adṛṣṭa</i> [or in some versions <i>adṛśya</i>] (not seen, implying that it is not something that can be seen or known by anything other than itself); <i>avyavahārya</i> (not something that can be done, practised, transacted, acted upon, used or associated with); <i>agrāhya</i> (not something that can be grasped, conceived or comprehended by the mind or intellect); <i>alakṣaṇa</i> (not something that has any marks or characteristics by which it could be indicated or defined); <i>acintya</i> (not something that can be thought of or conceived); <i>avyapadēśya</i> (not something that can be pointed out, indicated, named, defined or spoken of); <i>ēkātma-pratyaya-sāra</i> (the essence, core or innermost substance revealed by <i>ēkātma-pratyaya</i>, namely deep meditation or contemplation on, and consequent ascertainment, cognition or clear awareness of oneself, the one [implying the one that alone exists without any other]); <i>prapañca-upaśama</i> (calming, pacification, cessation or extinction of <i>prapañca</i> [that which is spread out, namely the world of objects or phenomena, both internal and external], implying that it is absolute silence, which is the one fundamental reality that alone remains when all this appearance, namely the entire world of phenomena, has ceased to exist); <i>śānta</i> (calmed, pacified, subsided or ceased, implying that it is the infinite, eternal and immutable peace that alone remains when ego has ceased together with all its progeny); <i>śiva</i> (auspicious, propitious, favourable, kind, tender, benevolent, gracious, beloved, pleasing, happiness and well-being); <i>advaita</i> (non-dual, implying one only without a second).<br>
<br>
<a name="un12"></a><a name="uu27"></a>Saying that the fourth <i>pāda</i> is neither <i>prajña</i> (knowing) nor <i>aprajña</i> (not knowing) implies the same as Bhagavan implies when he says in the first sentence of <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un12">verse 12</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>, ‘அறிவு அறியாமையும் அற்றது அறிவு ஆமே’ (<i>aṟivu aṟiyāmaiyum aṯṟadu aṟivu āmē</i>), ‘What is devoid of <i>aṟivu</i> [knowledge] and <i>aṟiyāmai</i> [ignorance] is actually <i>aṟivu</i> [knowledge or awareness]’, and in the first sentence of <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu27">verse 27</a> of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i>, ‘அறிவு அறியாமையும் அற்ற அறிவே அறிவு ஆகும்’ (<i>aṟivu aṟiyāmaiyum aṯṟa aṟivē aṟivu āhum</i>), ‘Only <i>aṟivu</i> that is devoid of <i>aṟivu</i> and <i>aṟiyāmai</i> is <i>aṟivu</i>’. What he means in these two verses by ‘அறிவு அறியாமையும்’ (<i>aṟivu aṟiyāmaiyum</i>), ‘knowledge and ignorance’, is knowledge and ignorance about anything other than oneself, so the awareness (<i>aṟivu</i>) that is devoid of such knowledge and ignorance (or knowing and not knowing) is pure awareness, and hence what he implies in these two sentences is that pure awareness alone is real awareness. Why is this so? Because as he goes on to explain in the next two sentences of verse 27 of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i>: ‘உண்மை ஈது. அறிவதற்கு ஒன்று இலை’ (<i>uṇmai īdu. aṟivadaṟku oṉḏṟu ilai</i>), which means ‘This is real. There is not anything for knowing’ and which implies ‘This [alone] is [what is] real [or true], [because in the clear view of oneself as pure awareness] there is not anything [other than oneself for one either] to know [or to not know]’. That is, since nothing other than pure awareness actually exists, there is nothing else either for it to know or for it to not know, so it is completely devoid of both knowledge and ignorance of anything other than itself.<br>
<br>
<a name="uu26"></a>Therefore what is implied in this seventh verse of the <i>Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad</i> is that the fourth <i>pāda</i>, which is <i>ātman</i> (meaning oneself as pure awareness), is not any kind of knowing or not knowing in the normal sense of these terms. Though we as pure awareness always know ourself, our knowing ourself is not a knowing like any other kind of knowing, because knowing anything else is an act of knowing, whereas knowing ourself is not an act of knowing, since we know ourself just by being ourself, as Bhagavan says in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu26">verse 26</a> of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i>:<br>
<blockquote>தானா யிருத்தலே தன்னை யறிதலாந்<br>
தானிரண் டற்றதா லுந்தீபற<br>
தன்மய நிட்டையீ துந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>tāṉā yiruttalē taṉṉai yaṟidalān<br>
tāṉiraṇ ḍaṯṟadā lundīpaṟa<br>
taṉmaya niṭṭhaiyī dundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> தான் ஆய் இருத்தலே தன்னை அறிதல் ஆம், தான் இரண்டு அற்றதால். தன்மய நிட்டை ஈது.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>tāṉ-āy iruttal-ē taṉṉai aṟidal ām, tāṉ iraṇḍu aṯṟadāl. taṉmaya niṭṭhai īdu</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>அன்வயம்:</b> தான் இரண்டு அற்றதால், தான் ஆய் இருத்தலே தன்னை அறிதல் ஆம். ஈது தன்மய நிட்டை.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Anvayam</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>tāṉ iraṇḍu aṯṟadāl, tāṉ-āy iruttal-ē taṉṉai aṟidal ām. īdu taṉmaya niṭṭhai</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Being oneself alone is knowing oneself, because oneself is devoid of two. This is <i>tanmaya-niṣṭhā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Being oneself [that is, being as one actually is without rising to know anything else] alone is knowing oneself, because oneself [one’s real nature] is devoid of two [that is, devoid of the fundamental duality of subject and object, knower and thing known, and also devoid of any possibility of being divided as two selves, one self as a subject to know the other self as an object]. This is <i>tanmaya-niṣṭhā</i> [the state of being firmly fixed or established as ‘that’ (<i>tat</i>), the one infinite reality called <i>brahman</i>].</blockquote>
‘தானாய் இருத்தலே’ (<i>tāṉ-āy iruttalē</i>), ‘being as oneself’ or ‘being oneself’, means being as we actually are, namely as pure awareness, and this is knowing ourself as we actually are, because the nature of pure awareness is to always know itself and nothing other than itself. Therefore all the descriptions of the fourth <i>pāda</i> given in <a href="#mu07">verse 7</a> of the <i>Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad</i> are descriptions of this state of pure awareness, which is our own real nature, so as is said in that verse, the fourth <i>pāda</i> is <i>ātman</i> (ourself), meaning ourself as we actually are, and this is what is to be distinguished, discerned or known.<br>
<br>
<a name="mu08-12"></a>Verses 8 to 11 of the <i>Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad</i> say that this <i>ātman</i> (which was earlier said to have four <i>pādas</i>) is <i>ōm</i>, and that the three <i>mātrās</i> of <i>ōm</i>, namely <i>a</i>, <i>u</i> and <i>m</i>, are respectively the first three of the four <i>pādas</i>, so <i>a</i> is the <i>jīva</i> in waking, <i>u</i> is the <i>jīva</i> in dream, and <i>m</i> is what remains when the <i>jīva</i> is merged in sleep. Finally verse 12 says that the fourth <i>pāda</i> is <i>amātrā</i> (the absence of any <i>mātrā</i> or unit of sound), implying the silence that remains after the utterance of <i>ōm</i>, and that it is indeed both <i>ātman</i> (oneself) and <i>ōṁkāra</i> (the syllable <i>ōm</i>), to which this verse applies some of the same descriptions that were applied to the fourth <i>pāda</i> in verse 7, namely <i>avyavahārya</i> (not what can be acted upon, used or associated with), <i>prapañca-upaśama</i> (cessation of the entire world), <i>śiva</i> (auspicious) and <i>advaita</i> (non-dual). This final verse of the <i>Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad</i> then concludes by saying: ‘<i>saṁviśati ātmanā ātmānam ya ēvam vēda</i>’, ‘Whoever knows such [namely the fourth <i>pāda</i> as the infinite silence that is one’s own real nature] enters [or merges oneself in] oneself by [just being] oneself’.<br>
<br>
By saying that this fourth <i>pāda</i> is both <i>ātman</i> and <i>ōṁkāra</i>, what this final verse implies is that though <i>ātman</i> and <i>ōṁkāra</i> are said to have four <i>pādas</i>, their real nature is only the fourth <i>pāda</i>, so the other three <i>pādas</i> are all unreal. That is, the other three <i>pādas</i> seem to exist only in the view of ourself as ego, whereas in the clear view of ourself as we actually are there is only one <i>pāda</i>, which is what is called ‘the fourth’, and which is the infinite and immutable silence of <i>sat-cit</i>, pure being-awareness, ‘I am’.<br>
<br>
<a name="una32"></a>The term that is used to refer to the fourth <i>pāda</i> in verses 7 and 12 is <i>caturtha</i>, which means ‘the fourth’, but in his <i>Kārikā</i> Gaudapada refers to it as <i>turya</i> (in 1.10-14) and <i>turīya</i> (in 1.15), both of which also mean ‘the fourth’, and these are the terms by which it is generally referred in later literature. However, though it is known as ‘the fourth’, it is not actually the fourth state but the only existing one, as Bhagavan clarifies in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2019/12/are-there-three-states-two-states-or.html#una32">verse 32</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu Anubandham</i>:<br>
<blockquote>நனவு கனவுதுயி னாடுவார்க் கப்பா<br>
னனவு துயிற்றுரிய நாமத் — தெனுமத்<br>
துரிய மதேயுளதாற் றோன்றுமூன் றின்றாற்<br>
றுரிய வதீதந் துணி.<br>
<br>
<i>naṉavu kaṉavuduyi ṉāḍuvārk kappā<br>
ṉaṉavu tuyiṯṟuriya nāmat — teṉumat<br>
turiya madēyuḷadāṯ ṟōṉḏṟumūṉ ḏṟiṉḏṟāṟ<br>
ṟuriya vatītan tuṇi</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> நனவு, கனவு, துயில் நாடுவார்க்கு, அப்பால் நனவுதுயில் ‘துரிய’ நாமத்து எனும். அத் துரியம் அதே உளதால், தோன்றும் மூன்று இன்றால், துரிய அதீதம். துணி.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>naṉavu, kaṉavu, tuyil nāḍuvārkku, appal naṉavu-tuyil ‘turiya’ nāmattu eṉum. a-t-turiyam adē uḷadāl, tōṉḏṟum mūṉḏṟu iṉḏṟāl, turiya atītam. tuṇi</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> For those who experience waking, dream and sleep, waking-sleep, beyond, is called the ‘fourth’. Since that fourth alone exists, since the three that appear do not exist, beyond the ‘fourth’. Be assured.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> For those who experience waking, dream and sleep, waking-sleep [the eternal and immutable state of pure awareness], [which is] beyond [these three], is called <i>turya</i> [or <i>turīya</i>, the ‘fourth’]. Since that <i>turya</i> alone exists, [and] since the three [states] that appear [or seem to exist] do not exist, be assured [that <i>turya</i> is actually] <i>turya-v-atīta</i> [<i>turīyātīta</i>, beyond the ‘fourth’].</blockquote>
That is, some texts use the term ‘<i>turīyātīta</i>’, which literally means ‘beyond the fourth’ or ‘transcending the fourth’, but many people misunderstand and misinterpret this term, claiming that it refers to another state that is beyond <i>turīya</i>, so in this verse Bhagavan clarifies that what is called <i>turīyātīta</i> is actually the same state that is called <i>turīya</i>, and that it is called <i>turīyātīta</i> because it is the only state that actually exists, and hence it transcends not only the other three states but also any need for it to be called ‘the fourth’. Though waking, dream and sleep seem to exist in the deluded view of ego, they do not actually exist, so they are just a false appearance. Therefore the one and only state that actually exists is called ‘the fourth’ (<i>turīya</i>) just as a concession to the deluded view of those who experience the appearance of three other states, and it is called ‘the fourth-transcending’ (<i>turīyātīta</i>) to remind us that it transcends any scope for it to be enumerated as ‘the fourth’.<br>
<br>
In this verse Bhagavan describes what is called ‘the fourth’ (<i>turīya</i>) as ‘நனவுதுயில்’ (<i>naṉavu-tuyil</i>), which means ‘waking-sleep’, like ‘<i>jāgrat-suṣupti</i>’ in Sanskrit, and it is so called because it is the state in which we are eternally and immutably awake to the one and only thing that actually exists, namely our own real nature (<i>ātma-svarūpa</i>), which is <i>sat-cit-ānanda</i>, pure being-awareness-happiness, and asleep to the appearance of multiplicity, which is entirely unreal. Even when we seem to have risen as ego and therefore experience the three unreal states, namely waking, dream and sleep, our real nature is immutable, so we have never actually left this state of waking-sleep, which is our natural state, as we shall discover when we investigate ourself keenly enough to see what we actually are.<br>
<br>
Though the <i>Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad</i> tells us that this <i>ātman</i> (ourself) has four <i>pādas</i>, only one of those <i>pādas</i> is real, and the other three are just an unreal appearance, because they seem to exist only in the view of ourself as ego and not in the view of ourself as we actually are. Since the three <i>mātrās</i> of <i>ōm</i>, namely <i>a</i>, <i>u</i> and <i>m</i>, represent the three unreal <i>pādas</i>, namely waking, dream and sleep respectively, the true import or reality of <i>ōm</i> is not to be found within the syllable <i>ōm</i> itself but only in the one real <i>pāda</i>, namely the <i>amātrā</i> or silence that remains alone after the cessation of the sound <i>ōm</i>, and that is the ground (<i>ādhāra</i>) that underlies and supports the appearance of <i>ōm</i> as a sound.<br>
<br>
As I explained earlier, from the perspective of Bhagavan’s teachings we can infer that what the sound <i>ōm</i> represents is the transition from <i>pravṛtti</i> (rising as ego, facing outwards and engaging in activity) to <i>nivṛtti</i> (facing inwards, thereby withdrawing from all activity and subsiding back into our source, which is the silence of pure awareness, the state of just being as we actually are), so <i>ōm</i> represents the path and the silence in which it ends represents our goal. Whereas the goal is real, the path to it is unreal, because the path is necessary only for ego, which is itself unreal. However, though the path is unreal from the perspective of our real nature (<i>ātma-svarūpa</i>), it seems to be real from the perspective of ourself as ego, and until ego merges back forever in our real nature, the path of turning our attention back within to face ourself alone is absolutely necessary, because it is the only means by which we can merge in our real nature in such a way that we will never rise again.<br>
<br>
There are of course many different ways in which the three <i>mātrās</i> of <i>ōm</i>, namely <i>a</i>, <i>u</i> and <i>m</i>, have been interpreted. As we have seen, the <i>Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad</i> interprets them as representing the three states of waking, dream and sleep. Others interpret them to mean expansion, contraction and cessation (implying the expansion, contraction and cessation of ego and all its progeny, namely phenomena); or the beginning, the middle and the end of all things; or the creation (<i>sṛṣṭi</i>), sustenance (<i>sthiti</i>) and dissolution (<i>saṁhāra</i>) of the world; or Brahma, Visnu and Siva, who are respectively the creator, sustainer and destroyer of the world. However, from the perspective of Bhagavan’s teachings, it seems to me that the most appropriate way to interpret these three <i>mātrās</i> is to say that the natural flow from <i>a</i> to <i>u</i> to <i>m</i> represents the transition from <i>pravṛtti</i> to <i>nivṛtti</i>, which is achieved by us gradually withdrawing our attention from all other things by patiently and persistently trying to turn it back within to see what we ourself actually are, because this is the interpretation that is most closely aligned with the practice of self-investigation (<i>ātma-vicāra</i>) and self-surrender (<i>ātma-samarpaṇa</i>), which is the central focus of his teachings. This is not an interpretation I have heard or read anywhere, but it occurred to me while writing here about how these three <i>mātrās</i> coalesce smoothly and euphonically with a steady closing of the lips to form the sound <i>ōm</i>, and as with all original ideas, explanations or insights that occur to me while thinking, talking or writing about his teachings, I believe it was given only by Bhagavan.<br>
<br>
Having considered the meaning and significance of <i>ōṁkāra</i>, we are now in a better position to appreciate what Bhagavan says about it in this thirteenth verse of <i>Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>, which begins with the compound term ‘ஓங்காரப் பொருள்’ (<i>ōṅkāra-p-poruḷ</i>), ‘substance [reality, import or referent] of <i>ōṁkāra</i>’. This compound is formed of two words, the first of which is ஓங்காரம் (<i>ōṅkāram</i>), which means ‘the syllable <i>ōm</i>’, and the second of which is பொருள் (<i>poruḷ</i>), which is an important word in his teachings and one that has a broad range of meanings. Its principal meaning is the same as <i>vastu</i> in Sanskrit, namely the one real substance, the reality, the only thing that actually exists, and this is the sense in which Bhagavan generally uses it. Like <i>vastu</i>, it is also used to mean a thing, object, entity, property, wealth or subject matter, but unlike <i>vastu</i> it can also mean the meaning or import of a word, the referent or thing that a word refers to or denotes. Therefore ‘ஓங்காரப் பொருள்’ (<i>ōṅkāra-p-poruḷ</i>) means ‘substance of <i>ōṁkāra</i>’ in the sense of the one real substance or reality that the syllable <i>ōm</i> refers to or denotes, namely <i>brahman</i>, which is ourself (<i>ātman</i>) as we actually are, the one indivisible pure awareness called ‘the fourth’ (<i>turīya</i>).<br>
<br>
Though ‘ஓங்காரப் பொருள்’ (<i>ōṅkāra-p-poruḷ</i>), ‘substance of <i>ōṁkāra</i>’, is nominative in form, in this verse it is used in a vocative sense addressed to Arunachala, so what Bhagavan implies here is that Arunachala is the one real substance (<i>poruḷ</i> or <i>vastu</i>) that the syllable <i>ōm</i> refers to, namely <i>brahman</i>, which is the one eternal, infinite, indivisible and immutable pure being-awareness (<i>sat-cit</i>), which is what shines in the heart of each of us as our fundamental awareness, ‘I am’. Since this alone is what actually exists, there is nothing like it, equal to it or superior to it, so he addresses Arunachala next as ‘ஒப்பு உயர்வு இல்லோய்’ (<i>oppu uyarvu illōy</i>), ‘you for whom there is not any equal or superior’.<br>
<br>
ஒப்பு (<i>oppu</i>) means likeness or similarity, and here it implies anything that is equal, similar or like. உயர்வு (<i>uyarvu</i>) means loftiness, height, elevation, eminence or greatness, and here it implies anything that is higher or superior. இல் (<i>il</i>) is a negative that denies existence, and இல்லோய் (<i>illōy</i>) is a second person composite noun, so it means ‘you who are not’ or in this case ‘you for whom there is not’. Therefore ‘ஒப்பு உயர்வு இல்லோய்’ (<i>oppu uyarvu illōy</i>) literally means ‘you for whom there is not anything that is equal, similar or like, nor anything that is higher or superior’, which implies ‘you who are without equal or superior’ or ‘you who are unequalled and unsurpassed’. This is used here as a vocative addressing Arunachala, so it implies that he is that for which there is neither anything that is equal, similar or like, nor anything that is higher or superior. The reason for this is that Arunachala is <i>brahman</i>, which is ‘one only without a second’ (<i>ēkam ēva advitīyam</i>), meaning that it is the only thing that actually exists, so since there is nothing other than Arunachala, how could there be anything that is similar, equal or superior to him?<br>
<br>
Since nothing other than Arunachala actually exists, other than himself, who could ever know him or even comprehend him? Therefore in the main clause of this verse Bhagavan asks: ‘உனை யார் அறிவார் அருணாசலா?’ (<i>uṉai yār aṟivār aruṇācalā?</i>), ‘who can know you, Arunachala?’. உனை (<i>uṉai</i>) is a poetic abbreviation of உன்னை (<i>uṉṉai</i>), the accusative form of the second person singular pronoun, ‘you’; யார் (<i>yār</i>) is an interrogative pronoun that means ‘who?’; and அறிவார் (<i>aṟivār</i>) is a future or predictive third person plural or honorific form of the verb அறி (<i>aṟi</i>), ‘to know’, so it literally means ‘[they] will know’. Therefore ‘உனை யார் அறிவார்?’ (<i>uṉai yār aṟivār?</i>) literally means ‘who will know you?’, but in this context it implies ‘who can know you?’. That is, since Arunachala is pure awareness, how can he ever be known as he actually is by anything or anyone other than himself? Pure awareness can never be an object of awareness, so it cannot be known by anything other than itself.<br>
<br>
<a name="un22"></a>What knows other things is only the mind (namely ego, which is the knowing element of the mind), and the mind is just a reflected form of awareness that shines by borrowing the light of pure awareness. In other words, pure awareness is the original and only real light, and it shines in the mind (which is the adjunct-conflated awareness ‘I am this body’) as its fundamental awareness, ‘I am’, but instead of using this light to know itself as it actually is, namely as pure awareness, the mind misuses it to know the appearance of other things. In order to know itself as pure awareness, the mind must turn its attention back within to face its own fundamental awareness, ‘I am’, but as soon as it knows itself as pure awareness, it ceases to be mind and remains as pure awareness, as Bhagavan implies in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un22">verse 22</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>:<br>
<blockquote>மதிக்கொளி தந்தம் மதிக்கு ளொளிரு<br>
மதியினை யுள்ளே மடக்கிப் — பதியிற்<br>
பதித்திடுத லன்றிப் பதியை மதியான்<br>
மதித்திடுத லெங்ஙன் மதி.<br>
<br>
<i>matikkoḷi tandam matikku ḷoḷiru<br>
matiyiṉai yuḷḷē maḍakkip — patiyiṯ<br>
padittiḍuda laṉḏṟip patiyai matiyāṉ<br>
madittiḍuda leṅṅaṉ madi</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> மதிக்கு ஒளி தந்து, அம் மதிக்குள் ஒளிரும் மதியினை உள்ளே மடக்கி பதியில் பதித்திடுதல் அன்றி, பதியை மதியால் மதித்திடுதல் எங்ஙன்? மதி.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>matikku oḷi tandu, a-m-matikkuḷ oḷirum matiyiṉai uḷḷē maḍakki patiyil padittiḍudal aṉḏṟi, patiyai matiyāl madittiḍudal eṅṅaṉ? madi</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>அன்வயம்:</b> மதிக்கு ஒளி தந்து, அம் மதிக்குள் ஒளிரும் பதியில் மதியினை உள்ளே மடக்கி பதித்திடுதல் அன்றி, பதியை மதியால் மதித்திடுதல் எங்ஙன்? மதி.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Anvayam</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>matikku oḷi tandu, a-m-matikkuḷ oḷirum patiyil matiyiṉai uḷḷē maḍakki padittiḍudal aṉḏṟi, patiyai matiyāl madittiḍudal eṅṅaṉ? madi</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> 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? Consider.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Except by turning [bending or folding] <i>mati</i> [the mind or intellect] back within [and thereby] completely immersing [embedding or fixing] it in <i>pati</i> [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? Consider.</blockquote>
<a name="uk22"></a><a name="un21"></a>பதித்திடுதல் (<i>padittiḍudal</i>) is a verbal noun that means immersing, and in this context it implies that the mind must dissolve and lose itself completely in God, who is the light of pure awareness that always shines in the mind as ‘I am’, thereby giving the mind the light of awareness by which it knows all other things, as Bhagavan implies in the <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/12/upadesa-kalivenba-extended-version-of.html#uk22"><i>kaliveṇbā</i> version</a> of this verse, in which he added the relative clause ‘எவையும் காணும்’ (<i>evaiyum kāṇum</i>), ‘which sees everything’, before the first word of this verse, namely ‘மதிக்கு’ (<i>matikku</i>), ‘to the mind’, thereby indicating that it is the mind alone that sees or knows everything other than itself. Since the very nature of the mind is to always know things other than itself, it cannot know God, who is pure awareness, except by turning back within and thereby immersing itself in him so completely that it loses itself entirely in him, thereby ceasing to be anything other than him. In other words, the mind can know God as he actually is only by becoming food that is swallowed and completely assimilated by him, as he implied in the final sentence of the previous verse, namely <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un21">verse 21</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>: ‘ஊண் ஆதல் காண்’ (<i>ūṇ ādal kāṇ</i>), ‘Becoming food is seeing’.<br>
<br>
Therefore when the mind is devoured by God, namely Arunachala, who is pure awareness, who is it that sees or knows him? It is only himself, because the mind that sought to know him as he actually is had thereby dissolved in him as him, meaning that it has ceased to be anything other than him. Therefore it is Arunachala alone who can know Arunachala, as Bhagavan implies by asking him rhetorically: ‘உனை யார் அறிவார் அருணாசலா?’ (<i>uṉai yār aṟivār aruṇācalā?</i>), ‘who can know you, Arunachala?’.<br>
<br>
<b>Video discussion:</b> <a href="https://youtu.be/Jpn_rhYoGLw"><i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> verse 13</a><br>
<br>
<div style="text-align:center"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Jpn_rhYoGLw" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-61598428779711657072022-09-06T15:50:00.009+01:002022-10-29T13:01:41.519+01:00Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai verse 12This is the twelfth in a series of articles that I hope to write on <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>, Bhagavan willing, the completed ones being <a href="https://www.happinessofbeing.com/articles.html#aamm">listed here</a>.<br><a name='more'></a>
<br>
<a name="aamm12"></a><b>Verse 12:</b><br>
<blockquote>ஒருவனா முன்னை யொளித்தெவர் வருவா<br>
ருன்சூ தேயிது வருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>oruvaṉā muṉṉai yoḷittevar varuvā<br>
ruṉsū dēyidu varuṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> ஒருவன் ஆம் உன்னை ஒளித்து எவர் வருவார்? உன் சூதே இது அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>oruvaṉ ām uṉṉai oḷittu evar varuvār? uṉ sūdē idu aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, hiding you, who are the one, who can come? This is only your trick.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, hiding [from] you, who are the one [the only one who actually exists], who can come [into my heart]? This [the entry of the five sense-thieves in my heart] is only [or certainly] your trick.<br>
<br>
<b>Alternative interpretation 1:</b> Arunachala, hiding [from] you, who are the one [the peerless one, other than whom there is nothing and no one equal or superior, and hence no one who could ever delude or evade you, preventing you from seeing their entry], who can come [into my heart]? This is only [or certainly] your trick.<br>
<br>
<b>Alternative interpretation 2:</b> Arunachala, excluding [or other than] you, who are the one [the only one, other than whom nothing exists], who [else] can come [into my heart]? This is only [or certainly] your trick.<br>
<br>
<b>Alternative interpretation 3:</b> Arunachala, hiding [or concealing] you, who are the one [the only one who actually exists], who can come [into my heart]? This is only [or certainly] your trick.</blockquote>
<b>Explanation:</b> ஒரு (<i>oru</i>) is an adjective that means one, but in some contexts it means unique, special, peerless or incomparable, and ஒருவன் (<i>oruvaṉ</i>) is a masculine personal noun formed from this adjective, so it means someone, a man, a person or one who is peerless, incomparable or unique. In this context it implies either the only one who actually exists (in other words, the one who is <i>ēkam ēva advitīyam</i>, ‘one only without a second’: the one other than whom nothing exists) or the peerless one, other than whom there is nothing and no one equal or superior.<br>
<br>
ஆம் (<i>ām</i>) is an adjectival participle that means ‘which is’ or in this context ‘who is’, and உன்னை (<i>uṉṉai</i>) is the accusative form of the second person singular pronoun, ‘you’, so ‘ஒருவன் ஆம் உன்னை’ (<i>oruvaṉ ām uṉṉai</i>) means ‘you, who are the one’ and implies ‘you, who are the only one who actually exists’ or ‘you, who are the peerless one, other than whom there is nothing and no one equal or superior’. ஒளித்து (<i>oḷittu</i>) is an adverbial participle that means hiding or concealing, so ‘உன்னை ஒளித்து’ (<i>uṉṉai oḷittu</i>) literally means ‘hiding you’, but in this context it implies ‘hiding from you’ or ‘unknown to you’. எவர் (<i>evar</i>) is an interrogative pronoun that means ‘which person?’, ‘which people?’ or ‘who?’, and வருவார் (<i>varuvār</i>) is the third person plural or honorific future or predictive form of the verb வா (<i>vā</i>) or வரு (<i>varu</i>), so it means ‘will come’ but in this context implies ‘can come’, so the first sentence of this verse, ‘ஒருவன் ஆம் உன்னை ஒளித்து எவர் வருவார்?’ (<i>oruvaṉ ām uṉṉai oḷittu evar varuvār?</i>), is a question that literally means ‘Hiding you, who are the one, who will come?’ and that therefore implies: ‘Hiding [from] you, who are the one, who can come [into my heart]?’.<br>
<br>
If we take ஒருவன் (<i>oruvaṉ</i>), ‘the one’, to mean ‘the only one who actually exists’, this question implies: ‘Since you are the only one who actually exists, other than you, who else can come into my heart?’. When it is interpreted thus, ‘உன்னை ஒளித்து’ (<i>uṉṉai oḷittu</i>), ‘hiding you’, has two implications. Firstly, it implies ‘excluding you’ in the sense of ‘other than you’, and secondly it implies ‘concealing you by making you appear in the guise of others, namely the five sense-thieves’. That is, since no one other than Arunachala actually exists, it cannot be anyone other than him who enters our heart in the guise of the five sense-thieves, namely <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, stealing our mind or attention away from him by dragging it outwards to roam about the world, so by appearing in the form of these thieves, he is hiding himself from us.<br>
<br>
<a name="aamm13a"></a>Alternatively, if we take ஒருவன் (<i>oruvaṉ</i>), ‘the one’, to mean ‘the peerless one’, this question implies: ‘Since you are the peerless one, other than whom there is nothing and no one equal or superior, who has the power to enter my heart, concealing their entry from you?’. That is, Arunachala is peerless because he is the eternal sun of pure awareness, which never rises or sets, and by whose light everything else shines, so there is nothing and no one equal or superior to him in any way, as he says in the next verse, namely <a href="#aamm13">verse 13</a>, ‘ஒப்பு உயர்வு இல்லோய்’ (<i>oppu uyarvu illōy</i>), ‘you who are without equal or superior’. Since he is peerless in every respect, there is no one who could ever delude or evade him, preventing him from seeing their entry into our heart, so how is it that these five sense-thieves have entered our heart and are now dragging us outwards, away from him?<br>
<br>
The answer to this is given in the next sentence: ‘உன் சூதே இது அருணாசலா’ (<i>uṉ sūdē idu aruṇācalā</i>), ‘This is only [or certainly] your trick, Arunachala’. உன் (<i>uṉ</i>) is a genitive form of the second person singular pronoun, so it means ‘your’, and சூதே (<i>sūdē</i>) is an intensified form of சூது (<i>sūdu</i>), a Tamil noun derived from the Sanskrit noun द्यूत (<i>dyūta</i>), which means gambling or playing with dice, but is also used figuratively to mean a battle, fight or contest. However, சூது (<i>sūdu</i>) means more than just gambling or playing with dice, because it also means dice, device, means, secret or trick. In this context it is used primarily in the sense of ‘trick’, so ‘உன் சூது’ (<i>uṉ sūdu</i>) means ‘your trick’, and its intensified form ‘உன் சூதே’ (<i>uṉ sūdē</i>) means ‘only your trick’ or ‘certainly your trick’. இது (<i>idu</i>) means ‘this’, referring here to the entering of the five sense-thieves into the heart of the devotee, so ‘உன் சூதே இது’ (<i>uṉ sūdē idu</i>) means ‘This [the entry of the five sense-thieves in my heart] is only [or certainly] your trick’.<br>
<br>
Does Bhagavan think that Arunachala is actually intent on tricking him? No, this is the banter of a lover talking to her beloved, chiding him for allowing her mind to be carried away by the deceptive allurement of the five sense-thieves. Since he is peerless in every respect, these thieves could not have entered her heart without his knowledge and consent, and since he is the only one who actually exists, they must be him in the disguise of thieves, so she playfully concludes that this must be his trick.<br>
<br>
But would Arunachala ever want to trick any of his devotees? Obviously not, because his sole intention is to save us from the delusion of ego and all its progeny, particularly these five sense-thieves, which are the first generation of its progeny. If we are deluded by these thieves, we have no one to blame but ourself. When we rise as ego, we grasp the form of a body as ourself, and consequently we grasp other forms that seem to be presented to us through the doorway of the five senses of this body, and we cannot stand for a moment as ego without constantly grasping forms in this way. Therefore our rising as ego is the root cause of our being deluded by the allurement of these five sense-thieves. This is why the ultimate aim of Arunachala is to eradicate ego and thereby save us from it and all its progeny.<br>
<br>
Why then does he allow us to rise as ego and thereby be deluded by the enticements of the five sense-thieves? Sense-objects have no power of their own to entice us, so we are enticed by them only because of our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>: our inclinations to seek happiness in <i>viṣayas</i> (objects or phenomena). In other words, they delude us only because we are willing to be deluded by them. Because we wrongly believe that we can obtain happiness from sense-objects, we are constantly allowing our attention to be dragged outwards by them, thereby forsaking Arunachala, who is always shining in our heart as our own being, ‘I am’. Therefore, so long as we want to be carried away by the five sense-thieves, Arunachala will not prevent us doing what we want to do.<br>
<br>
This does not mean that he is indifferent to our folly and consequent plight, nor that he is doing nothing about it, but he will not force us against our will. Therefore he works from deep within our heart, gradually rectifying our will, but since it is our will that he is rectifying, he can do so only through us and with our cooperation.<br>
<br>
When we are struggling to avoid being swayed by our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, which are the thieves that drag our attention out towards sense-objects, and when we understand that he is not only peerless but also the only one who actually exists, it may seem to us that all this is only his trick, but it is actually only we who are tricking ourself. The ‘we’ who are both tricking and being tricked is not ourself as we actually are but only ourself as ego. However, since Arunachala is what we actually are, namely <i>sat-cit</i>, the fundamental awareness of being, ‘I am’, which is the reality of ego, he alone has the power to prevent us tricking ourself.<br>
<br>
Since ego is the false awareness that is always aware of itself as ‘I am this body’ and that is consequently aware of the illusory appearance of other things, namely <i>viṣayas</i>, its very nature is to trick itself, so it is only by the grace of Arunachala that we can avoid being tricked by ourself. That is, we can avoid tricking ourself only by clinging to our own reality, ‘I am’, but since the very nature of ourself as ego is to cling to anything other than ourself, we cannot cling to ourself without thereby surrendering ourself, and to surrender ourself requires ego-denying and all-consuming love. Such love cannot come from ourself as ego but only from ourself as we actually are, which is Arunachala.<br>
<br>
Therefore blaming Arunachala for playing the tricks that we as ego are actually playing on ourself, as Bhagavan does in this verse, is a way of praying to him to save us from the web of self-delusion in which we have entangled ourself. Even without our praying for him to do so, he is of course doing not only everything that is necessary but also everything that is possible to save us from this web, but by praying to him in this way we are cooperating with him by willingly giving him our consent to do what he wants to do but which we were previously obstructing him from doing by not yielding ourself to him. In other words, by praying to him with all our heart to do what he wants to do we are attuning our will to his will, and only when our will is perfectly attuned (and hence surrendered) to his will are we thereby refraining from obstructing his will, as we have been doing till now.<br>
<br>
The reason why Bhagavan says ‘உன் சூதே இது அருணாசலா’ (<i>uṉ sūdē idu aruṇācalā</i>), ‘This is only [or certainly] your trick, Arunachala’, can also be explained in another way. What is implied by ‘சூது’ (<i>sūdu</i>), ‘trick’, in this context is <i>māyā</i>, but since he explained that what is called <i>māyā</i> is only ego or mind, why does he refer to it here as ‘உன் சூது’ (<i>uṉ sūdu</i>), ‘your trick’, thereby implying that it is Arunachala’s <i>māyā</i>? To understand this, we need to consider his teachings more deeply.<br>
<br>
<a name="ny07"></a>Arunachala is <i>ātma-svarūpa</i>, the real nature of ourself, and as he says in the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para07">seventh paragraph</a> of <i>Nāṉ Ār?</i>, ‘யதார்த்தமா யுள்ளது ஆத்மசொரூப மொன்றே’ (<i>yathārtham-āy uḷḷadu ātma-sorūpam oṉḏṟē</i>), ‘What actually exists is only <i>ātma-svarūpa</i>’, so Arunachala alone is what actually exists. This is why he describes him in this verse as ‘ஒருவன்’ (<i>oruvaṉ</i>), ‘the one’, thereby implying ‘the only one who actually exists’. Since he alone actually exists, whatever else may seem to exist does not actually exist, and is therefore just an illusory appearance. Everything that seems to be other than Arunachala is therefore a product of <i>māyā</i>, which means <i>yā mā</i>, ‘she who is not’, so like their mother, <i>māyā</i>, all other things do not actually exist but merely seem to exist.<br>
<br>
<a name="aa6"></a>Since <i>māyā</i> and all its progeny seem to exist, even though they do not actually exist, they cannot be anything other than Arunachala, who alone is what actually exists, so it is Arunachala alone who appears in the form of <i>māyā</i> and its progeny, as Bhagavan implies in the first two sentences of <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-role-of-grace-in-all-that-ego.html#aa6">verse 6</a> of <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Aṣṭakam</i>, ‘உண்டு ஒரு பொருள் அறிவு ஒளி உளமே நீ. உளது உனில் அலது இலா அதிசய சத்தி’ (<i>uṇḍu oru poruḷ aṟivu oḷi uḷamē nī. uḷadu uṉil aladu ilā atiśaya śatti</i>), ‘There is only one <i>poruḷ</i> [real substance], you, the heart, the light of awareness. In you exists <i>atiśaya śakti</i> [an extraordinary power], which is not other [than you]’, and as he further confirms in the last sentence of the same verse, ‘அருள் குன்றே, நின்றிட சென்றிட, நினை விட இன்றே’ (<i>aruḷ-kuṉḏṟē, niṉḏṟiḍa seṉḏṟiḍa, niṉai viḍa iṉḏṟē</i>), ‘Hill of grace, let them [namely everything that appears from that <i>atiśaya śakti</i> called <i>māyā</i>] cease or let them go on, they do not exist at all apart from you’.<br>
<br>
<a name="ny04"></a>The <i>atiśaya śakti</i> he refers to here is the same <i>atiśaya śakti</i> he refers to at the beginning of the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para04">fourth paragraph</a> of <i>Nāṉ Ār?</i>, namely the mind (in the sense of ego), which is what is otherwise called <i>māyā</i>. What he says about that <i>atiśaya śakti</i> very succinctly in the verse 6 of <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Aṣṭakam</i> is clarified by what he says about it in the first eight sentences of this fourth paragraph:<br>
<blockquote>மன மென்பது ஆத்ம சொரூபத்தி லுள்ள ஓர் அதிசய சக்தி. அது சகல நினைவுகளையும் தோற்றுவிக்கின்றது. நினைவுகளை யெல்லாம் நீக்கிப் பார்க்கின்றபோது, தனியாய் மனமென் றோர் பொருளில்லை; ஆகையால் நினைவே மனதின் சொரூபம். நினைவுகளைத் தவிர்த்து ஜகமென்றோர் பொருள் அன்னியமா யில்லை. தூக்கத்தில் நினைவுகளில்லை, ஜகமுமில்லை; ஜாக்ர சொப்பனங்களில் நினைவுகளுள, ஜகமும் உண்டு. சிலந்திப்பூச்சி எப்படித் தன்னிடமிருந்து வெளியில் நூலை நூற்று மறுபடியும் தன்னுள் இழுத்துக் கொள்ளுகிறதோ, அப்படியே மனமும் தன்னிடத்திலிருந்து ஜகத்தைத் தோற்றுவித்து மறுபடியும் தன்னிடமே ஒடுக்கிக்கொள்ளுகிறது.<br>
<br>
<i>maṉam eṉbadu ātma-sorūpattil uḷḷa ōr atiśaya śakti. adu sakala niṉaivugaḷaiyum tōṯṟuvikkiṉḏṟadu. niṉaivugaḷai y-ellām nīkki-p pārkkiṉḏṟa-pōdu, taṉi-y-āy maṉam eṉḏṟu ōr poruḷ illai; āhaiyāl niṉaivē maṉadiṉ sorūpam. niṉaivugaḷai-t tavirttu jagam eṉḏṟu ōr poruḷ aṉṉiyam-āy illai. tūkkattil niṉaivugaḷ illai, jagamum illai; jāgra-soppaṉaṅgaḷil niṉaivugaḷ uḷa, jagamum uṇḍu. silandi-p-pūcci eppaḍi-t taṉ-ṉ-iḍam-irundu veḷiyil nūlai nūṯṟu maṟupaḍiyum taṉṉuḷ iṙuttu-k-koḷḷugiṟadō, appaḍiyē maṉamum taṉ-ṉ-iḍattil-irundu jagattai-t tōṯṟuvittu maṟupaḍiyum taṉṉiḍamē oḍukki-k-koḷḷugiṟadu</i>.<br>
<br>
What is called mind is an <i>atiśaya śakti</i> [extraordinary power] that exists in <i>ātma-svarūpa</i> [the real nature of oneself]. It makes all thoughts appear. When one looks, excluding [removing or putting aside] all thoughts, solitarily there is not any such thing as mind; therefore thought alone is the <i>svarūpa</i> [the ‘own form’ or very nature] of the mind. Excluding thoughts, there is not separately any such thing as world. In sleep there are no thoughts, and [consequently] there is also no world; in waking and dream there are thoughts, and [consequently] there is also a world. Just as a spider spins out thread from within itself and again draws it back into itself, so the mind makes the world appear from within itself and again dissolves it back into itself.</blockquote>
As Bhagavan says here, this <i>atiśaya śakti</i> called mind or <i>māyā</i>, which causes the appearance of all other things, like a spider spinning out thread from within itself, exists in <i>ātma-svarūpa</i>, and as he says in the second sentence of verse 6 of <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Aṣṭakam</i>, ‘உளது உனில் அலது இலா அதிசய சத்தி’ (<i>uḷadu uṉil aladu ilā atiśaya śatti</i>), ‘In you exists <i>atiśaya śakti</i> [an extraordinary power], which is not other [than you]’, it is not other than Arunachala, who is <i>ātma-svarūpa</i>, so this is why he refers to it in this twelfth verse of <i>Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> as ‘உன் சூது’ (<i>uṉ sūdu</i>), ‘your trick’. That is, <i>māyā</i> is a சூது (<i>sūdu</i>) or ‘trick’ because it deludes us into seeing the one thing that alone actually exists, namely Arunachala, our own real nature, as all this multiplicity, and it is Arunachala’s trick in the sense that it exists in him and is not other than him, because he alone is what actually exists, so whose else could it be?<br>
<br>
<a name="un13"></a>This is also explained by Bhagavan in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un13">verse 13</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>:<br>
<blockquote>ஞானமாந் தானேமெய் நானாவா ஞானமஞ்<br>
ஞானமாம் பொய்யாமஞ் ஞானமுமே — ஞானமாந்<br>
தன்னையன்றி யின்றணிக டாம்பலவும் பொய்மெய்யாம்<br>
பொன்னையன்றி யுண்டோ புகல்.<br>
<br>
<i>ñāṉamān tāṉēmey nāṉāvā ñāṉamañ<br>
ñāṉamām poyyāmañ ñāṉamumē — ñāṉamān<br>
taṉṉaiyaṉḏṟi yiṉḏṟaṇiga ḍāmpalavum poymeyyām<br>
poṉṉaiyaṉḏṟi yuṇḍō puhal</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> 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.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>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</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> 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; do they exist except as gold, which is real? Say.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Oneself, who is <i>jñāna</i> [pure awareness], alone is real. Awareness that is manifold [namely the mind, whose root, the ego, is the awareness that sees the one as many] is <i>ajñāna</i> [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; do they exist except as gold [their substance], which is real? Say.</blockquote>
That is, though ego or mind, which is the false awareness that sees itself as numerous phenomena, is ignorance and unreal, both it and the many things that it sees itself as are all nothing other than the one real substance, namely <i>ātma-svarūpa</i>, ourself as we actually are, which is pure awareness, just as gold ornaments, though many and diverse in appearance, are all nothing other than gold, which is their one substance. In other words, it is only Arunachala, the one real substance, that appears as the subject, namely ego, and all the objects perceived by it, so all this is only his சூது (<i>sūdu</i>) or ‘trick’.<br>
<br>
<a name="ny04a"></a>However, it is only in the self-ignorant view of ourself as ego that Arunachala appears as all these things, because in the clear view of Arunachala, who is pure awareness, there is no such appearance at all, so this சூது (<i>sūdu</i>) or ‘trick’ of his seems to exist only so long as we rise as ego. When we know ourself as we actually are, namely as pure awareness, ‘I am’, it will be clear to us that there never was any such trick or <i>māyā</i> at all. In other words, we experience the seeming existence of <i>māyā</i> and all its progeny only so long as we are not aware of ourself as we actually are, as Bhagavan confirms in the fourth paragraph of <i>Nāṉ Ār?</i>. That is, after explaining that the mind projects the world from within itself and again dissolves it back into itself, just as a spider spins out thread from within itself and again draws it back into itself, he says:<br>
<blockquote>மனம் ஆத்ம சொரூபத்தினின்று வெளிப்படும்போது ஜகம் தோன்றும். ஆகையால், ஜகம் தோன்றும்போது சொரூபம் தோன்றாது; சொரூபம் தோன்றும் (பிரகாசிக்கும்) போது ஜகம் தோன்றாது.<br>
<br>
<i>maṉam ātma-sorūpattiṉiṉḏṟu veḷippaḍum-pōdu jagam tōṉḏṟum. āhaiyāl, jagam tōṉḏṟum-pōdu sorūpam tōṉḏṟādu; sorūpam tōṉḏṟum (pirakāśikkum) pōdu jagam tōṉḏṟādu</i>.<br>
<br>
When the mind comes out from <i>ātma-svarūpa</i>, the world appears. Therefore when the world appears, <i>svarūpa</i> [one’s own real nature] does not appear; when <i>svarūpa</i> appears (shines), the world does not appear.</blockquote>
<a name="aamm32"></a>That is, so long as we rise as ego and consequently see ourself as all this multiplicity, we are not seeing ourself as we actually are, and when we see ourself as we actually are, namely as pure awareness, which is one, infinite, indivisible and immutable, we will not see ourself as all this multiplicity. Seeing ourself as all this multiplicity is what Bhagavan refers to in this twelfth verse as Arunachala’s சூது (<i>sūdu</i>) or ‘trick’, whereas seeing ourself as the one pure awareness that we actually are is seeing his சோதியுரு (<i>jyōti-y-uru</i>) or ‘form of light’, namely the light of pure awareness, ‘I am’, which is what he actually is. Therefore in verse 32 of <i>Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> he prays:<br>
<blockquote>சூதுசெய் தென்னைச் சோதியா தினியுன்<br>
சோதி யுருக்காட் டருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>sūdusey deṉṉaic cōtiyā tiṉiyuṉ<br>
jyōti yurukkāṭ ṭaruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> சூது செய்து என்னை சோதியாது இனி உன் சோதி உரு காட்டு அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>sūdu seydu eṉṉai śōdhiyādu iṉi uṉ jyōti-y-uru kāṭṭu aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, not testing me doing tricks, now show your form of light.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, without testing [examining or tempting] me [hereafter] [by] doing [or playing] tricks [displaying phenomena, which lure my attention away from you, my real nature] [as you have been doing till now], [at least] now [at this very moment] show [me] your form of light [your real nature, the clear light of pure awareness, ‘I am’].</blockquote>
<a name="aamm13"></a>That is, so long as we do not see his form of light it will seem to us that by his extraordinary power (<i>atiśaya śakti</i>) of <i>māyā</i> Arunachala is playing tricks on us and thereby tempting and testing us, but when he reveals his form of light to us as our own real nature, we will see that what we previously saw as <i>māyā</i> and all its tricks is actually nothing other than his form of light, which alone is what actually exists. In other words, what we are now seeing as all this multiplicity consisting of a subject or knower, namely ego, and all this seemingly endless diversity of objects or phenomena known by it, is actually nothing other than Arunachala, the one indivisible and immutable light of pure awareness. Such is the extraordinary and wonderful power of his <i>māyā</i>, so as Bhagavan asks in the next verse, namely <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2019/11/how-to-merge-in-arunachala-like-river.html#c7345862835187202785">verse 13</a>, other than himself, who can and how to understand him or know him as he actually is?<br>
<blockquote>ஓங்கா ரப்பொரு ளொப்புயர் வில்லோ<br>
யுனையா ரறிவா ரருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>ōṅkā rapporu ḷoppuyar villō<br>
yuṉaiyā raṟivā raruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> ஓங்கார பொருள், ஒப்பு உயர்வு இல்லோய், உனை யார் அறிவார் அருணாசலா?<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>ōṅkāra poruḷ, oppu uyarvu illōy, uṉai yār aṟivār aruṇācalā?</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, substance of <i>ōṁkāra</i>, you for whom there is not equal or superior, who can know you?<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, [inner and ultimate] substance [reality, import or referent] of <i>ōṁkāra</i> [the sacred syllable <i>ōm</i>], you for whom there is not [anything or anyone] equal [or similar] or superior, who [other than yourself] can know you [as you actually are]?</blockquote>
<a name="un21"></a>Since Arunachala is pure awareness, which can never be an object of awareness, he cannot be known by anyone other than himself, so if we aspire to know him as he actually is, we must be willing to give ourself wholly to him, because being devoured by him alone is truly knowing him, as Bhagavan says in the final sentence of <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un21">verse 21</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>: ‘ஊண் ஆதல் காண்’ (<i>ūṇ ādal kāṇ</i>), ‘Becoming food is seeing’. Let us therefore pray to him to cook us well, so that we may become food worthy to be eaten by him, as he has taught us to pray in so many ways in this supreme love song, <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>Video discussion:</b> <a href="https://youtu.be/UiBK7A7ff8o"><i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> verse 12</a><br>
<br>
<div style="text-align:center"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UiBK7A7ff8o" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-56688921687356755802022-08-24T18:03:00.004+01:002022-10-29T13:01:19.691+01:00Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai verse 11This is the eleventh in a series of articles that I hope to write on <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>, Bhagavan willing, the completed ones being <a href="https://www.happinessofbeing.com/articles.html#aamm">listed here</a>.<br><a name='more'></a>
<br>
<a name="aamm11"></a><b>Verse 11:</b><br>
<blockquote>ஐம்புலக் கள்வ ரகத்தினிற் புகும்போ<br>
தகத்தினீ யிலையோ வருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>aimbulak kaḷva rahattiṉiṟ puhumbō<br>
dahattiṉī yilaiyō varuṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> ஐம் புல கள்வர் அகத்தினில் புகும் போது, அகத்தில் நீ இலையோ அருணாசலா?<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>aim pula kaḷvar ahattiṉil puhum pōdu, ahattil nī ilaiyō aruṇācalā?</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, when the five sense-thieves enter the heart, are you not in the heart?<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, when the five sense-thieves [namely <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, which are the seeds that sprout as desires for the pleasures that are seemingly derived from the five kinds of sense-objects] enter [my] heart [to steal my attention away from you], are you not in [my] heart? [So why do you not protect me from them?]</blockquote>
<b>Explanation:</b> ஐந்து (<i>aindu</i>) means five, and in compound with certain nouns it becomes ஐம் (<i>aim</i>). புலன் (<i>pulaṉ</i>) and புலம் (<i>pulam</i>) both mean either a sense-impression (an object perceived through the senses) or a sense organ, but ஐம்புலன் (<i>aim-pulaṉ</i>) and ஐம்புலம் (<i>aim-pulam</i>) both specifically mean the five kinds of sense-impressions or sense-objects, namely sights, sounds, tastes, smells and tactile sensations. Due to our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> (inclinations to seek happiness in objects or phenomena), these five kinds of sense-impressions lure our attention away from our fundamental awareness ‘I am’, which is Arunachala, to whom we rightfully belong, so Bhagavan describes them here as ‘ஐம்புலக் கள்வர்’ (<i>aim-pula-k-kaḷvar</i>), ‘the five sense-thieves’, in which கள்வர் (<i>kaḷvar</i>) is a plural form of கள்வன் (<i>kaḷvaṉ</i>), which means a thief or one who steals, being derived from the verb கள் (<i>kaḷ</i>), which means to weed, pluck, rob, steal or deceive.<br>
<br>
அகத்தினில் (<i>ahattiṉil</i>) is a locative form of அகம் (<i>aham</i>), which in this case is a Tamil word that means inside, mind, heart, house or home, so it means ‘in the mind’, ‘in the heart’ or ‘in the home’, implying ‘in my mind’ or ‘in my heart’. புகும் (<i>puhum</i>) is an adjectival participle of the verb புகு (<i>puhu</i>), which means to reach, enter, go in or come in, and போது (<i>pōdu</i>) is a noun that means time and an adverb that means when, while or during, so ‘அகத்தினில் புகும் போது’ (<i>ahattiṉil puhum pōdu</i>) means ‘when [they] come in [or enter] [my] heart [mind or home]’.<br>
<br>
Like அகத்தினில் (<i>ahattiṉil</i>), அகத்தில் (<i>ahattil</i>) is a locative form of அகம் (<i>aham</i>), so it means ‘in the heart’ or ‘in the home’, implying ‘in my heart, which is your home’. நீ (<i>nī</i>) means ‘you’ and இலையோ (<i>ilaiyō</i>) is an interrogative form of இலை (<i>ilai</i>), a poetic abbreviation of இல்லை (<i>illai</i>), which is a verb that negates existence and therefore in this context means ‘are not’, so ‘அகத்தில் நீ இலையோ?’ (<i>ahattil nī ilaiyō</i>) is a rhetorical question that means ‘are you not in [my] heart?’. As Muruganar points out in his commentary on this verse, the implied meaning of this question, ‘are you not in [my] heart?’, is a double negative, ‘you are not not in [my] heart’, ‘you have never ceased to be in my heart’, which is a very emphatic way of asserting ‘you most certainly are in [my] heart’.<br>
<br>
<a name="uu24"></a>As ego we are always aware of ourself as ‘I am this body’, but what we actually are is only the fundamental awareness ‘I am’, which is Arunachala. He is therefore the heart or reality of ourself, so he is not only always in our heart but is our heart itself. How then can he ever leave our heart even for a moment? Without first being aware of ourself as ‘I am’, how could we ever be aware of ourself as ‘I am this body’? The awareness ‘I am this body’, which is ego, is a false awareness of ourself, because it appears in waking and dream but disappears in sleep, but whether it appears or disappears, we never cease to be aware of ourself as ‘I am’, so this fundamental awareness ‘I am’ in its pure and pristine condition, devoid of all adjuncts (<i>upādhis</i>) such as ‘this’ or ‘that’, is alone what is real, and hence it is the reality and substance not only of ourself but also of Arunachala, as Bhagavan implies in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu24">verse 24</a> of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i>:<br>
<blockquote>இருக்கு மியற்கையா லீசசீ வர்க<br>
ளொருபொரு ளேயாவ ருந்தீபற<br>
வுபாதி யுணர்வேவே றுந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>irukku miyaṟkaiyā līśajī varga<br>
ḷoruporu ḷēyāva rundīpaṟa<br>
vupādhi yuṇarvēvē ṟundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> இருக்கும் இயற்கையால் ஈச சீவர்கள் ஒரு பொருளே ஆவர். உபாதி உணர்வே வேறு.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>irukkum iyaṟkaiyāl īśa-jīvargaḷ oru poruḷē āvar. upādhi-uṇarvē vēṟu</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> By existing nature, God and soul are just one substance. Only adjunct-awareness is different.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> By [their] existing nature [that is, because the real nature of each of them is what actually exists (<i>uḷḷadu</i> or <i>sat</i>), which is pure awareness (<i>uṇarvu</i> or <i>cit</i>)], God and soul are just one substance. Only awareness of [their] adjuncts is [what makes them seem] different [that is, whereas the soul (<i>jīva</i>) is aware of itself as a certain set of adjuncts, namely the five sheaths that constitute whatever person it currently seems to be, and consequently attributes certain other adjuncts to God, God always remains just as pure awareness, in the clear view of which no adjuncts exist at all].</blockquote>
What he refers to here both as ‘இருக்கும் இயற்கை’ (<i>irukkum iyaṟkai</i>), ‘existing nature’, and as ‘ஒரு பொருள்’ (<i>oru poruḷ</i>), ‘one substance’, is <i>sat-cit</i>, pure existence-awareness, which is what always shines in our heart as our fundamental awareness of our own existence, ‘I am’, so this alone is what both Arunachala (God or <i>īśa</i>) and we (ego, soul or <i>jīva</i>) actually are. This is therefore what the word ‘heart’ in its deepest sense means. Arunachala is therefore our heart, the fundamental awareness ‘I am’, so how could he ever leave our heart even for the twinkling of an eye?<br>
<br>
<a name="aamm01"></a>This rhetorical question, ‘அகத்தில் நீ இலையோ அருணாசலா?’ (<i>ahattil nī ilaiyō aruṇācalā</i>), ‘are you not in [my] heart, Arunachala?’, is therefore both a great assurance to us and a powerful reminder that we should always try to lovingly attend to him in our heart as ‘I am’, because though he is always ready to eradicate the ego of each and every one of his devotees, he will not do so until we give our consent by surrendering ourself entirely to him, which we can do only by meditating on him deep in our heart as ‘I am’, as Bhagavan taught us in the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/03/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-payiram.html#aamm01">very first verse</a> of this love song:<br>
<blockquote>அருணா சலமென வகமே நினைப்பவ<br>
ரகத்தைவே ரறுப்பா யருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>aruṇā calameṉa vahamē niṉaippava<br>
rahattaivē raṟuppā yaruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> அருணாசலம் என அகமே நினைப்பவர் அகத்தை வேர் அறுப்பாய் அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>aruṇācalam eṉa ahamē niṉaippavar ahattai vēr aṟuppāy aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, you will eradicate the ego of those who think that Arunachalam is actually ‘I’.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, you will eradicate [or root out] the ego of those who think [deep within the heart or mind] that Arunachalam is actually ‘I’ [or that Arunachalam alone is ‘I’].</blockquote>
Since he alone is the true import of the word ‘I’, he always exists and shines clearly in our heart, even when the five sense-thieves enter it. Why then does he not prevent them? When the owner of a house is present there, will he allow thieves to enter unobstructed to steal anything? If he is lacking in manliness (strength and courage) he may, but Arunachala never lacks manliness, because his ‘manliness’ is அருட்சக்தி (<i>aruḷ-śakti</i>), the supreme power of grace, so he has both the strength and courage to repel all intruders. Or if the owner of the house is asleep, thieves may have the courage to enter stealthily to steal his possessions, but Arunachala is pure awareness, which can never sleep, so when he is eternally present and awake in our heart, why does he allow the five sense-thieves to enter and steal our attention away from him? This question is what Bhagavan implies by asking rebukingly in this verse: ‘ஐம் புல கள்வர் அகத்தினில் புகும் போது, அகத்தில் நீ இலையோ அருணாசலா?’ (<i>aim pula kaḷvar ahattiṉil puhum pōdu, ahattil nī ilaiyō aruṇācalā?</i>), ‘Arunachala, when the five sense-thieves enter [my] heart, are you not in [my] heart?’<br>
<br>
<a name="aamm12"></a>Since he is eternally present in our heart, shining immutably as the ever-unsleeping awareness of being, ‘I am’, and since the supreme power of grace (<i>aruḷ-śakti</i>) is his very nature, who or what could ever enter our heart unknown to him or without his consent? Therefore if others enter to steal our attention away from him, this must be his trickery, as Bhagavan sings in the next verse, namely verse 12:<br>
<blockquote>ஒருவனா முன்னை யொளித்தெவர் வருவா<br>
ருன்சூ தேயிது வருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>oruvaṉā muṉṉai yoḷittevar varuvā<br>
ruṉsū dēyidu varuṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> ஒருவன் ஆம் உன்னை ஒளித்து எவர் வருவார்? உன் சூதே இது அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>oruvaṉ ām uṉṉai oḷittu evar varuvār? uṉ sūdē idu aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, hiding you, who are the one, who can come? This is only your trick.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, hiding [from] you, who are the one [the only one who actually exists], who can come [into my heart]? This [the entry of the five sense-thieves in my heart] is only [or certainly] your trick.</blockquote>
So why does Arunachala play such a trick on us? He has no intention to trick us, but he is our own real nature (<i>ātma-svarūpa</i>) and his power is அருட்சிற்சக்தி (<i>aruḷ-cit-śakti</i>), the power (<i>śakti</i>) of pure awareness (<i>cit</i>), which is grace (<i>aruḷ</i>), so even though we have seemingly limited ourself by rising as ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’, we are never actually anything other than him, and hence within the boundaries of our self-imposed limitations we are free to use his <i>aruḷ-cit-śakti</i> in any way we wish. That is, his <i>aruḷ-cit-śakti</i> is reflected in us as our power of knowing, so whatever we know we know only by means of this power, and our limited ability to know whatever we want to know is what we call our power of attention.<br>
<br>
At each moment we are free to attend either to ourself or to something else. In the past we have misused this freedom by attending to countless other things, namely <i>viṣayas</i> (objects or phenomena), and thereby we have cultivated strong <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, inclinations to attend to and experience things other than ourself. This is why we allow the five sense-thieves to enter our heart, and Arunachala will not prevent them so long as we choose to allow them to enter. His grace works through us by cultivating in our heart the love to attend to ourself, and thus he gradually weans us off our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>. The more we attend to ourself, the weaker our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> become, so he protects us from the deceptive tricks of the five sense-thieves by giving us more and more love to attend to ourself, thereby enabling us to exclude them from our heart.<br>
<br>
The five sense-thieves can enter our heart only when we allow our attention to go out towards them, because our outward-going attention is the only door or opening through which they can enter. As I explained above, what Bhagavan means by the term ‘ஐம்புலக் கள்வர்’ (<i>aim-pula-k-kaḷvar</i>), ‘the five sense-thieves’, is the five kinds of <i>indriya-viṣayas</i> (sense-impressions or sense-objects), namely sights, sounds, tastes, smells and tactile sensations, but though these <i>viṣayas</i> lure our attention away from ourself, the real fault does not lie with the <i>viṣayas</i> themselves but with our <i>vāsanās</i> (inclinations or likings) to attend to and experience them. Therefore, though the term ‘ஐம்புலக் கள்வர்’ (<i>aim-pula-k-kaḷvar</i>), ‘the five sense-thieves’, superficially refers to the <i>viṣayas</i> that we are able to perceive through the windows of our five sense organs, in a deeper sense it is actually a metonym for our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, which are the inclinations under whose sway we allow our attention to be drawn away from ourself towards those <i>viṣayas</i>.<br>
<br>
<a name="un06"></a>In other words, the five sense-thieves are not actually the sense-objects (<i>viṣayas</i>) but our inclinations (<i>vāsanās</i>) to seek happiness in them instead of in ourself, where alone we can actually find the unalloyed, infinite and eternal happiness that we are all naturally and constantly seeking, because it is our very nature. Describing our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> thus as ‘ஐம்புலக் கள்வர்’ (<i>aim-pula-k-kaḷvar</i>), ‘the five sense-thieves’, is appropriate because by their very nature they steal our attention away from ourself, dragging it outwards to seek happiness in the objects of the world, which consists of nothing other than ஐம்புலன்கள் (<i>aim-pulaṉgaḷ</i>), the five kinds of sense-impressions or sense-objects, as Bhagavan says in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un06">verse 6</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>: ‘உலகு ஐம்புலன்கள் உரு; வேறு அன்று’ (<i>ulahu aim-pulaṉgaḷ uru; vēṟu aṉḏṟu</i>), ‘The world is a form of five [kinds of] sense-impressions, not anything else’.<br>
<br>
Since ‘ஐம்புலக் கள்வர்’ (<i>aim-pula-k-kaḷvar</i>), ‘the five sense-thieves’, is a metonym for our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, ‘ஐம்புலக் கள்வர் அகத்தினில் புகும் போது’ (<i>aim-pula-k-kaḷvar ahattiṉil puhum pōdu, ahattil nī ilaiyō aruṇācalā?</i>), ‘when the five sense-thieves enter [my] heart’, is a metaphorical way of saying ‘when these <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> rise in my heart and steal my attention away from you’. Therefore the implied meaning of this verse, ‘ஐம்புலக் கள்வர் அகத்தினில் புகும் போது, அகத்தில் நீ இலையோ அருணாசலா?’ (<i>aim pula kaḷvar ahattiṉil puhum pōdu, ahattil nī ilaiyō aruṇācalā?</i>), ‘Arunachala, when the five sense-thieves enter [my] heart, are you not in [my] heart?’, is: ‘Arunachala, when the five sense-thieves [namely <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, which are the seeds that sprout as desires for the pleasures that are seemingly derived from the five kinds of sense-objects] enter [my] heart [to steal my attention away from you], are you not in [my] heart? [So why do you not protect me from them?]’.<br>
<br>
Arunachala certainly does protect us from these thieves, but he does so in the only way that is effective and permanent, namely by silently sowing in our heart the seed of love to turn within and hold fast to being self-attentive, and by then nurturing this love so that it grows stronger and stronger, until eventually it becomes so strong that it pulls us back into the innermost depth of our heart, where he is waiting to devour us. All this he does through us and from within our own heart, so all we need do is cooperate with him by trying patiently and persistently to be self-attentive as much as we can.<br>
<br>
The more we hold fast to being self-attentive, the more we are thereby preventing the five sense-thieves from entering our heart, but the more we exclude them in this way, the more they will try to enter, because entering our heart to steal our attention away from ourself is their livelihood, without which they cannot survive. By clinging to self-attentiveness, we are depriving them of their livelihood, so they become progressively weaker, but the weaker they become, the more ferociously they will fight for our attention, because our attention is their food, without which they will wither and die.<br>
<br>
<a name="aamm74"></a>Therefore this battle with these sense-thieves, namely our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, will continue raging fiercely in our heart until we surrender ourself entirely to Arunachala by being so keenly and firmly self-attentive that we thereby sink back into the innermost depth of our heart, where he is always waiting to welcome and swallow us. This war between our <i>sat-vāsanā</i> (our love to hold fast to our own being, ‘I am’, and thereby just to be as we actually are) and the vast army of our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> is actually being fought by grace, because grace alone is what appears in our heart as <i>sat-vāsanā</i>, so its fighting this war is what Bhagavan refers to as ‘அருள் போராட்டம்’ (<i>aruḷ-pōrāṭṭam</i>), ‘the warfare of grace’, in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2018/09/like-everything-else-karma-is-created.html#aamm074">verse 74</a> of <i>Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>:<br>
<blockquote>போக்கும் வரவுமில் பொதுவெளி யினிலருட்<br>
போராட் டங்காட் டருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<i>pōkkum varavumil poduveḷi yiṉilaruṭ<br>
pōrāṭ ṭaṅgāṭ ṭaruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> போக்கும் வரவும் இல் பொது வெளியினில் அருள் போராட்டம் காட்டு அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>pōkkum varavum il podu veḷiyiṉil aruḷ-pōrāṭṭam kāṭṭu aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, in the common space devoid of going and coming show the warfare of grace.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, in the common [natural and all-pervading] space devoid of going and coming [namely the heart, the infinite and eternally immutable space of pure awareness, which never goes (ceases to exist) or comes (begins to exist), and in which, having known it as one’s own real nature, one will know that one could never have gone out anywhere or come back] show [me] the warfare of grace [in which you do not cease fighting to save me until you achieve victory, destroying in me the vast army of demons, namely ego and all its <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>].</blockquote>
Until grace is victorious, annihilating ego along with all its <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, this war that it is waging in our heart will not cease. Some wars begin with small skirmishes and minor battles fought infrequently between the opposing sides, but one thing leads to another, so the warfare gradually becomes more fierce and persistent, until it becomes an all-out and unceasing struggle by both sides for total victory. Such is the nature of this war fought by grace in our heart. When grace first draws us into this war by sowing in our heart the seed of love to surrender ourself and thereby to know and to be what we actually are, we begin by fighting rather half-heartedly and intermittently, but as this love that grace is nurturing in our heart grows stronger, we gradually get drawn deeper and deeper into this warfare, trying with ever greater perseverance and intensity to cling firmly to being self-attentive. However, the more we persevere in trying to be self-attentive, the more fiercely our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> fight back, striving to draw our attention away from ourself towards other things, so as we go progressively deeper in this path of self-investigation and self-surrender, this war that is thereby being fought by grace on our behalf against ego and its army of <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> becomes increasingly intense and unceasing.<br>
<br>
<a name="aamm09"></a>This is clearly illustrated by Bhagavan in this <i>Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>, which he sang from the perspective of a very advanced aspirant, namely one who has intense love to surrender herself completely and immediately, as we can see, for example, in verses 7 to 11. In <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/07/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-9.html#aamm09">verse 9</a> she clearly expresses the intensity of her love to be destroyed now, at this very moment, so that she can be inseparably and eternally one with him:<br>
<blockquote>எனையழித் திப்போ தெனைக்கல வாவிடி<br>
லிதுவோ வாண்மை யருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>eṉaiyaṙit tippō deṉaikkala vāviḍi<br>
liduvō vāṇmai yaruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> எனை அழித்து இப்போது எனை கலவாவிடில், இதுவோ ஆண்மை அருணாசலா?<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>eṉai aṙittu ippōdu eṉai kalavāviḍil, iduvō āṇmai aruṇācalā?</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, if not now uniting me, destroying me, is this manliness?<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, now [that I am willing to surrender myself entirely to you], if [you] do not unite me [with yourself in inseparable oneness], [thereby] destroying me [destroying my ‘virginity’, namely ego], is this [your] manliness?</blockquote>
<a name="aamm07"></a>Though her longing to be destroyed immediately is so intense, in the previous two and subsequent two verses she laments the fact that she is still being dragged outwards by her <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, ‘the five sense-thieves’, and under their sway her mind is running outwards and roaming about the world. In <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/06/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-7.html#aamm07">verse 7</a> she prayed:<br>
<blockquote>உனையே மாற்றி யோடா துளத்தின்மே<br>
லுறுதியா யிருப்பா யருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>uṉaiyē māṯṟi yōḍā duḷattiṉmē<br>
luṟudiyā yiruppā yaruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> உனை ஏமாற்றி ஓடாது உளத்தின் மேல் உறுதியாய் இருப்பாய் அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>uṉai ēmāṯṟi ōḍādu uḷattiṉ mēl uṟudiyāy iruppāy aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, may you be firmly on the mind so that it does not run, deceiving you.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, may you be [remain, sit down, be seated or be enthroned] firmly on [my] mind so that it does not run [out towards other things under the sway of its <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>], deceiving [or cheating on] you [like a promiscuous wife].</blockquote>
<a name="aamm08"></a>Likewise in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/07/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-8.html#aamm08">verse 8</a> she prayed:<br>
<blockquote>ஊர்சுற் றுளம்விடா துனைக்கண் டடங்கிட<br>
வுன்னழ கைக்காட் டருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>ūrsuṯ ṟuḷamviḍā duṉaikkaṇ ḍaḍaṅgiḍa<br>
vuṉṉaṙa haikkāṭ ṭaruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> ஊர் சுற்று உளம் விடாது உனை கண்டு அடங்கிட, உன் அழகை காட்டு அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>ūr suṯṟu uḷam viḍādu uṉai kaṇḍu aḍaṅgiḍa, uṉ aṙahai kāṭṭu aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, so that seeing you uninterruptedly the mind, which roams about the world, subsides, show your beauty.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, so that seeing [or looking at] you uninterruptedly [my] mind, which [by its very nature] roams [incessantly] about the world [under the sway of its <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>], subsides [settles, submits or ceases entirely and forever] [in you] [thereby being brought under the sway of your grace], show [me] your beauty [the infinite beauty of your real nature, which is unlimited, unalloyed and unceasing happiness].</blockquote>
<a name="aamm10"></a>After pleading with him in verse 9 to unite her with himself immediately, thereby destroying her, in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/08/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-10.html#aamm10">verse 10</a> she rebukes him for allowing her to be dragged outwards by others, namely <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>:<br>
<blockquote>ஏனிந்த வுறக்க மெனைப்பிற ரிழுக்க<br>
விதுவுனக் கழகோ வருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>ēṉinda vuṟakka meṉaippiṟa riṙukka<br>
viduvuṉak kaṙahō varuṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> ஏன் இந்த உறக்கம், எனை பிறர் இழுக்க? இது உனக்கு அழகோ அருணாசலா?<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>ēṉ inda uṟakkam, eṉai piṟar iṙukka? idu uṉakku aṙahō aruṇācalā?</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, why this sleep, when others are dragging me? Is this beauty for you?<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, why this [pretended] sleep [seeing what is happening to me but remaining unconcerned, as if you did not see it, like one who is asleep], when others [who have no right over me, namely <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, which rise as likes, dislikes, desires, fears and so on] are dragging [attracting or alluring] me [outwards, away from you, my rightful lord]? Is this beauty [befitting or becoming] for you?</blockquote>
And for the same reason she likewise rebukes him in this eleventh verse: ‘ஐம்புலக் கள்வர் அகத்தினில் புகும் போது, அகத்தில் நீ இலையோ அருணாசலா?’ (<i>aim pula kaḷvar ahattiṉil puhum pōdu, ahattil nī ilaiyō aruṇācalā?</i>), ‘Arunachala, when the five sense-thieves [namely <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>] enter [my] heart [to steal my attention away from you], are you not in [my] heart? [So why do you not protect me from them?]’. Therefore, as these five verses illustrate, no matter how intensely we may yearn to surrender ourself completely and immediately, until we are actually destroyed by Arunachala, the clear light of pure awareness, our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> will continue striving to drag our attention outwards, thereby stealing it away from him, to whom it rightfully belongs.<br>
<br>
<a name="ny10"></a><a name="ny11"></a>How we should play our part in this war being fought by grace against ego and its vast army of <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> is clearly explained by Bhagavan in the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para10">tenth</a> and <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para11">eleventh</a> paragraphs of <i>Nāṉ Ār?</i>:<br>
<blockquote>தொன்றுதொட்டு வருகின்ற விஷயவாசனைகள் அளவற்றனவாய்க் கடலலைகள் போற் றோன்றினும் அவையாவும் சொரூபத்யானம் கிளம்பக் கிளம்ப அழிந்துவிடும். அத்தனை வாசனைகளு மொடுங்கி, சொரூபமாத்திரமா யிருக்க முடியுமா வென்னும் சந்தேக நினைவுக்கு மிடங்கொடாமல், சொரூபத்யானத்தை விடாப்பிடியாய்ப் பிடிக்க வேண்டும். ஒருவன் எவ்வளவு பாபியாயிருந்தாலும், ‘நான் பாபியா யிருக்கிறேனே! எப்படிக் கடைத்தேறப் போகிறே’ னென்றேங்கி யழுதுகொண்டிராமல், தான் பாபி என்னு மெண்ணத்தையு மறவே யொழித்து சொரூபத்யானத்தி லூக்க முள்ளவனாக விருந்தால் அவன் நிச்சயமா யுருப்படுவான்.<br>
<br>
<i>toṉḏṟutoṭṭu varugiṉḏṟa viṣaya-vāsaṉaigaḷ aḷavaṯṟaṉavāy-k kaḍal-alaigaḷ pōl tōṉḏṟiṉum avai-yāvum sorūpa-dhyāṉam kiḷamba-k kiḷamba aṙindu-viḍum. attaṉai vāsaṉaigaḷum oḍuṅgi, sorūpa-māttiram-āy irukka muḍiyumā v-eṉṉum sandēha niṉaivukkum iḍam koḍāmal, sorūpa-dhyāṉattai viḍā-p-piḍiyāy-p piḍikka vēṇḍum. oruvaṉ evvaḷavu pāpiyāy irundālum, ‘nāṉ pāpiyāy irukkiṟēṉē; eppaḍi-k kaḍaittēṟa-p pōkiṟēṉ’ eṉḏṟēṅgi y-aṙudu-koṇḍirāmal, tāṉ pāpi eṉṉum eṇṇattaiyum aṟavē y-oṙittu sorūpa-dhyāṉattil ūkkam uḷḷavaṉāha v-irundāl avaṉ niścayamāy uru-p-paḍuvāṉ</i>.<br>
<br>
Even though <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, which come from time immemorial, rise in countless numbers like ocean-waves, they will all be destroyed when <i>svarūpa-dhyāna</i> [self-attentiveness, contemplation on one’s real nature] increases and increases [in depth and intensity]. Without giving room even to the doubting thought ‘So many <i>vāsanās</i> ceasing [or being dissolved], is it possible to be only as <i>svarūpa</i> [my own real nature]?’ it is necessary to cling tenaciously to <i>svarūpa-dhyāna</i>. However great a sinner one may be, if instead of lamenting and weeping ‘I am a sinner! How am I going to be saved?’ one completely rejects the thought that one is a sinner and is zealous [or steadfast] in <i>svarūpa-dhyāna</i>, one will certainly be reformed [transformed into what one actually is].<br>
<br>
மனத்தின்கண் எதுவரையில் விஷயவாசனைக ளிருக்கின்றனவோ, அதுவரையில் நானா ரென்னும் விசாரணையும் வேண்டும். நினைவுகள் தோன்றத் தோன்ற அப்போதைக்கப்போதே அவைகளையெல்லாம் உற்பத்திஸ்தானத்திலேயே விசாரணையால் நசிப்பிக்க வேண்டும். அன்னியத்தை நாடாதிருத்தல் வைராக்கியம் அல்லது நிராசை; தன்னை விடாதிருத்தல் ஞானம். உண்மையி லிரண்டு மொன்றே. முத்துக்குளிப்போர் தம்மிடையிற் கல்லைக் கட்டிக்கொண்டு மூழ்கிக் கடலடியிற் கிடைக்கும் முத்தை எப்படி எடுக்கிறார்களோ, அப்படியே ஒவ்வொருவனும் வைராக்கியத்துடன் தன்னுள் ளாழ்ந்து மூழ்கி ஆத்மமுத்தை யடையலாம். ஒருவன் தான் சொரூபத்தை யடையும் வரையில் நிரந்தர சொரூப ஸ்மரணையைக் கைப்பற்றுவானாயின் அதுவொன்றே போதும். கோட்டைக்குள் எதிரிக ளுள்ளவரையில் அதிலிருந்து வெளியே வந்துகொண்டே யிருப்பார்கள். வர வர அவர்களையெல்லாம் வெட்டிக்கொண்டே யிருந்தால் கோட்டை கைவசப்படும்.<br>
<br>
<i>maṉattiṉgaṇ edu-varaiyil viṣaya-vāsaṉaigaḷ irukkiṉḏṟaṉavō, adu-varaiyil nāṉ-ār eṉṉum vicāraṇai-y-um vēṇḍum. niṉaivugaḷ tōṉḏṟa-t tōṉḏṟa appōdaikkappōdē avaigaḷai-y-ellām uṯpatti-sthāṉattilēyē vicāraṇaiyāl naśippikka vēṇḍum. aṉṉiyattai nāḍādiruttal vairāggiyam alladu nirāśai; taṉṉai viḍādiruttal ñāṉam. uṇmaiyil iraṇḍum oṉḏṟē. muttu-k-kuḷippōr tam-m-iḍaiyil kallai-k kaṭṭi-k-koṇḍu mūṙki-k kaḍal-aḍiyil kiḍaikkum muttai eppaḍi eḍukkiṟārgaḷō, appaḍiyē o-vv-oruvaṉum vairāggiyattuḍaṉ taṉṉuḷ ḷ-āṙndu mūṙki ātma-muttai y-aḍaiyalām. oruvaṉ tāṉ sorūpattai y-aḍaiyum varaiyil nirantara sorūpa-smaraṇaiyai-k kai-p-paṯṟuvāṉ-āyiṉ adu-v-oṉḏṟē pōdum. kōṭṭaikkuḷ edirigaḷ uḷḷa-varaiyil adilirundu veḷiyē vandu-koṇḍē y-iruppārgaḷ. vara vara avargaḷai-y-ellām veṭṭi-k-koṇḍē y-irundāl kōṭṭai kaivaśa-p-paḍum</i>.<br>
<br>
As long as <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> exist within the mind, so long is the investigation who am I necessary. As and when thoughts appear, then and there it is necessary to annihilate them all by <i>vicāraṇā</i> [investigation or keen self-attentiveness] in the very place from which they arise. Not attending to anything other [than oneself] is <i>vairāgya</i> [dispassion or detachment] or <i>nirāśā</i> [desirelessness]; not leaving [or letting go of] oneself is <i>jñāna</i> [true knowledge or real awareness]. In truth [these] two [<i>vairāgya</i> and <i>jñāna</i>] are just one. Just as pearl-divers, tying stones to their waists and sinking, pick up pearls that are found at the bottom of the ocean, so each one, sinking deep within oneself with <i>vairāgya</i> [freedom from desire to be aware of anything other than oneself], may attain <i>ātma-muttu</i> [the pearl that is oneself]. If one clings fast to uninterrupted <i>svarūpa-smaraṇa</i> [self-remembrance] until one attains <i>svarūpa</i> [one’s own real nature], that alone is sufficient. So long as enemies [namely <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>] are within the fortress [namely one’s heart], they will be continuously coming out from it. If one is continuously cutting down [or destroying] all of them as and when they come, the fortress will [eventually] be captured.</blockquote>
To the extent to which we cling firmly to self-attentiveness, we are thereby yielding ourself to his grace, so this is all we need do to cooperate with it in the war it is fighting against our enemy, the army of <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> that has occupied and taken possession of the fortress of our heart. By clinging to self-attentiveness, we are forcing the <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> to come out seeking to gain our attention, which is the food and water they depend upon for their survival, and if we do not allow our attention to be diverted by them away from ourself, we are thereby cutting them down as and when they come out.<br>
<br>
Whenever we find ourself to be too weak to resist being swayed by our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, we can cry out in prayer with a yearning heart as Bhagavan has taught us to in this song, because by praying in this way we are strengthening our love to yield ourself to his grace. Praying to him with a melting heart can therefore be a great aid and support to us in our efforts to cling firmly to self-attentiveness and thereby surrender ourself entirely to him.<br>
<br>
<b>Video discussion:</b> <a href="https://youtu.be/-zh83oUhibQ"><i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> verse 11</a><br>
<br>
<div style="text-align:center"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-zh83oUhibQ" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-43034651811508819142022-08-04T19:10:00.008+01:002022-10-29T13:00:54.671+01:00Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai verse 10This is the tenth in a series of articles that I hope to write on <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>, Bhagavan willing, the completed ones being <a href="https://www.happinessofbeing.com/articles.html#aamm">listed here</a>.<br><a name='more'></a>
<br>
<a name="aamm10"></a><b>Verse 10:</b><br>
<blockquote>ஏனிந்த வுறக்க மெனைப்பிற ரிழுக்க<br>
விதுவுனக் கழகோ வருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>ēṉinda vuṟakka meṉaippiṟa riṙukka<br>
viduvuṉak kaṙahō varuṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> ஏன் இந்த உறக்கம், எனை பிறர் இழுக்க? இது உனக்கு அழகோ அருணாசலா?<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>ēṉ inda uṟakkam, eṉai piṟar iṙukka? idu uṉakku aṙahō aruṇācalā?</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, why this sleep, when others are dragging me? Is this beauty for you?<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, why this [pretended] sleep [seeing what is happening to me but remaining unconcerned, as if you did not see it, like one who is asleep], when others [who have no right over me, namely <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, which rise as likes, dislikes, desires, fears and so on] are dragging [attracting or alluring] me [outwards, away from you, my rightful lord]? Is this beauty [befitting or becoming] for you?</blockquote>
<a name="aamm09a"></a><b>Explanation:</b> Like a young girl who has entrusted herself wholly to the care of her beloved, Bhagavan has surrendered himself entirely to Arunachala, so as he implied in the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/07/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-9.html#aamm09">previous verse</a>, he is now waiting expectantly for Arunachala to destroy him at this very moment, thereby making him one with himself. If, instead of doing so, Arunachala just ignores his prayers, is that manliness? Worse still, if he allows others to drag his devotee away from him, does it befit him?<br>
<br>
If a man is present when others drag his lover away from him, he must either be lacking in manliness or asleep. Since Arunachala is ever present, shining eternally in the heart of all <i>jīvas</i> as their own fundamental awareness, ‘I am’, how can it be appropriate for him to allow others to drag his devotee away from him? Does he lack manliness? No, it cannot be, because his ‘manliness’ is his <i>aruḷ-śakti</i>, the power of his grace, which is his very nature. Then he must be asleep when others drag his devotee away from him. But how can he ever be asleep? Oscillating between waking, dream and sleep is the nature of the mind, but Arunachala is the fundamental awareness ‘I am’, which shines constantly in all three states without ever undergoing any change whatsoever, so he is eternally awake and ever untouched by sleep. If he seems to be sleeping, therefore, his sleep is only a pretended sleep, so if he pretends to sleep when others are dragging his devotee away from him, does this befit him?<br>
<br>
ஏன் (<i>ēṉ</i>) is an interrogative adverb that means ‘why?’, இந்த (<i>inda</i>) is a demonstrative adjective that means ‘this’, and உறக்கம் (<i>uṟakkam</i>) is a noun that means ‘sleep’, so ‘ஏன் இந்த உறக்கம்?’ (<i>ēṉ inda uṟakkam?</i>) means ‘why this sleep?’. எனை (<i>eṉai</i>) is a poetic abbreviation of என்னை (<i>eṉṉai</i>), which is the accusative singular form of the first person pronoun, so it means ‘me’. பிற (<i>piṟa</i>) is a noun that means ‘other things’, and பிறர் (<i>piṟar</i>) is a plural personal form of it, so it means ‘others’, particularly in the sense of outsiders, strangers or aliens: in other words, those who do not belong to one and to whom one does not belong. இழுக்க (<i>iṙukka</i>) is the infinitive form of the verb இழு (<i>iṙu</i>), which means to pull, drag, attract, draw to oneself, suck in, swallow up, engulf, influence, coax or persuade, and as is frequently the case in Tamil, the infinitive is used here to express a condition in the sense of ‘when’, so ‘எனை பிறர் இழுக்க’ (<i>eṉai piṟar iṙukka</i>) means ‘when others are dragging me’. Therefore the first sentence of this verse, ‘ஏன் இந்த உறக்கம், எனை பிறர் இழுக்க?’ (<i>ēṉ inda uṟakkam, eṉai piṟar iṙukka?</i>), means ‘Why this sleep, when others are dragging me?’<br>
<br>
இது (<i>idu</i>) is a demonstrative pronoun that means ‘this’, உனக்கு (<i>uṉakku</i>) is the dative form of the second person singular pronoun, so it means ‘to you’ or ‘for you’, and அழகோ (<i>aṙahō</i>) is an interrogative form of அழகு (<i>aṙahu</i>), ‘beauty’, so it means ‘is it beauty?’. Therefore ‘இது உனக்கு அழகோ?’ (<i>idu uṉakku aṙahō?</i>) literally means ‘is this beauty for you?’, thereby implying ‘is this befitting you?’ or ‘does this become you?’ That is, when others are dragging the mind of his devotee outwards, away from the heart, in which he is residing, does it befit him to remain unconcerned without doing anything to protect his devotee, as if he were asleep?<br>
<br>
<a name="aamm11"></a>In this context ‘பிறர்’ (<i>piṟar</i>), ‘others’, implies <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, which are ego’s inclinations (<i>vāsanās</i>) to seek happiness in <i>viṣayas</i> (objects or phenomena, namely anything other than itself). Though <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> belong to ourself as ego, they are alien to ourself as we actually are, as we will recognise with increasing clarity the more we turn within and thereby surrender ourself to Arunachala, who is ourself as we actually are. That is, so long as we are constantly rushing outwards, believing that happiness can be obtained from things other than ourself, we willingly allow ourself to be swayed by our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> as if they were our friends and quite natural to us, but the more we surrender ourself by turning within and clinging to Arunachala in our heart, the more clearly we will recognise that they are neither our friends nor natural to us, but are actually just thieves, whose nature is to deceive us and thereby rob us of the infinite happiness that is our own real nature, as Bhagavan implies in the next verse, namely verse 11:<br>
<blockquote>ஐம்புலக் கள்வ ரகத்தினிற் புகும்போ<br>
தகத்தினீ யிலையோ வருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>aimbulak kaḷva rahattiṉiṟ puhumpō<br>
dahattiṉī yilaiyō varuṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> ஐம் புல கள்வர் அகத்தினில் புகும் போது, அகத்தில் நீ இலையோ வருணாசலா?<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>aim pula kaḷvar ahattiṉil puhum pōdu, ahattil nī ilaiyō varuṇācalā?</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, when the five sense-thieves enter the heart, are you not in the heart?<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, when the five sense-thieves [namely <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, which are the seeds that sprout as desires for the pleasures that are seemingly derived from the five kinds of sense-objects] enter [my] heart [to steal my attention away from you], are you not in [my] heart? [So why do you not protect me from them?]</blockquote>
This is why in this tenth verse Bhagavan describes these thieves as ‘பிறர்’ (<i>piṟar</i>), ‘others’. Since he has surrendered himself wholly to Arunachala, he belongs only to him, so since the nature of <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> is to drag the mind outwards, away from Arunachala, they are thieves, stealing from him what rightfully belongs only to him. It is therefore his natural duty to protect his devotees by not allowing them to be dragged outwards by any <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> whatsoever.<br>
<br>
Therefore, when <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> are constantly rising and trying to pull our attention away from Arunachala, who exists and shines eternally in our heart as ‘I am’, why is he pretending to sleep, as if he does not care about what is happening to us? As we saw above, his sleep cannot be real, because his very nature is to be eternally awake, so it can only be a pretended sleep, which is why Bhagavan refers to it as ‘இந்த உறக்கம்’ (<i>inda uṟakkam</i>), ‘this sleep’, thereby implying indirectly that it is not a real sleep but just a pretence.<br>
<br>
Since he can never really sleep, why does it seem to us that he is sleeping, as if he does not care in the least about our being dragged away from him by our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>? Though he is eternally awake, he is the infinite space of pure silence, so he is ever motionless (<i>acala</i>), and hence in our view he seems to be asleep. However, his அருட்செயல் (<i>aruḷ-seyal</i>), the action of his grace, is exceedingly subtle, because it is his very nature, which is pure motionless being, so the fact that he seems to be doing nothing does not mean that he is actually doing nothing. He is doing all that is necessary to protect us and to help us turn back within, but he is doing it without doing anything.<br>
<br>
<a name="ny13"></a><a name="ny15"></a>That is, his grace (<i>aruḷ</i>) is the infinite love that he has for us as himself, because he never sees us as anything other than himself, so since love is the supreme power, there can never be any power that is greater than his grace. Since infinite love is what he actually is, it is his very nature, his being, so he and his grace are one and inseparable. Since grace is his being, its nature is not to do anything but just to be as it is. However, by its just being as it is, it does everything that needs to be done, as Bhagavan implied in the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para13">thirteenth paragraph</a> of <i>Nāṉ Ār?</i> when he said, ‘சகல காரியங்களையும் ஒரு பரமேச்வர சக்தி நடத்திக்கொண்டிருகிறபடியால்’ (<i>sakala kāriyaṅgaḷai-y-um oru paramēśvara śakti naḍatti-k-koṇḍirugiṟapaḍiyāl</i>), ‘Since one <i>paramēśvara śakti</i> [supreme ruling power or power of God] is driving all <i>kāryas</i> [whatever needs or ought to be done or to happen]’, and in the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para15">fifteenth paragraph</a> when he said, ‘ஸங்கல்ப ரகிதராயிருக்கும் ஈசன் சன்னிதான விசேஷ மாத்திரத்தால் நடக்கும் முத்தொழில் அல்லது பஞ்சகிருத்தியங்கள்’ (<i>saṅkalpa-rahitar-āy-irukkum īśaṉ saṉṉidhāṉa-viśēṣa-māttirattāl naḍakkum muttoṙil alladu pañcakiruttiyaṅgaḷ</i>), ‘<i>muttoṙil</i> [the threefold function of God, namely the creation, sustenance and dissolution of the world] or <i>pañcakṛtyas</i> [the five functions of God, namely creation, sustenance, dissolution, concealment and grace], which happen by merely [just or nothing more than] the special nature of the presence of God, who is <i>saṁkalpa rahitar</i> [one who is devoid of any desire, volition or intention]’.<br>
<br>
Because he does not see us as anything other than himself, his love for us is not only infinite but also perfectly pure. Pure love need not do anything, because its nature is to attract everything to itself, so by just being itself it draws us unfailingly to itself, and thereby it does everything that needs to be done without actually doing anything. That is, by just being as it is, it not only sows in our heart the seed of love for itself, but also nurtures that seed until it grows so great that it swallows us in itself as itself. This state of it just being as it is is what Bhagavan described in the above portion of the fifteenth paragraph of <i>Nāṉ Ār?</i> as ‘ஈசன் சன்னிதான விசேஷ மாத்திரம்’ (<i>īśaṉ saṉṉidhāṉa-viśēṣa-māttiram</i>), ‘merely [just or nothing more than] the special nature of the presence of God’, because what is called ‘the presence of God’ (<i>īśaṉ saṉṉidhāṉam</i>) is his mere being, which is what is shining eternally in our heart as ‘I am’.<br>
<br>
<a name="ny12"></a>However, though he is doing all that needs to be done by merely being as he is, he will never force us to turn within against our will. Therefore his grace works through us, making us willing to turn within, but we have to cooperate with it by yielding ourself to it, which we can do most effectively and completely by patiently and persistently trying our best to turn within to see what we actually are, as he implied by saying ‘எனினும், குரு காட்டிய வழிப்படி தவறாது நடக்க வேண்டும்’ (<i>eṉiṉum, guru kāṭṭiya vaṙi-p-paḍi tavaṟādu naḍakka vēṇḍum</i>), ‘nevertheless, it is necessary to walk unfailingly in accordance with the path that <i>guru</i> has shown’, in the final sentence of the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para12">twelfth paragraph</a> of <i>Nāṉ Ār?</i>:<br>
<blockquote>கடவுளும் குருவும் உண்மையில் வேறல்லர். புலிவாயிற் பட்டது எவ்வாறு திரும்பாதோ, அவ்வாறே குருவினருட்பார்வையிற் பட்டவர்கள் அவரால் ரக்ஷிக்கப்படுவரே யன்றி யொருக்காலும் கைவிடப்படார்; எனினும், குரு காட்டிய வழிப்படி தவறாது நடக்க வேண்டும்.<br>
<br>
<i>kaḍavuḷ-um guru-v-um uṇmaiyil vēṟallar. puli-vāyil paṭṭadu evvāṟu tirumbādō, avvāṟē guruviṉ-aruḷ-pārvaiyil paṭṭavargaḷ avarāl rakṣikka-p-paḍuvarē y-aṉḏṟi y-oru-k-kāl-um kaiviḍa-p-paḍār; eṉiṉum, guru kāṭṭiya vaṙi-p-paḍi tavaṟādu naḍakka vēṇḍum</i>.<br>
<br>
God and <i>guru</i> are in truth not different. Just as what has been caught in the jaws of a tiger will not return, so those who have been caught in the look [or glance] of <i>guru</i>’s grace will never be forsaken but will surely be saved by him; nevertheless, it is necessary to walk unfailingly in accordance with the path that <i>guru</i> has shown.</blockquote>
However, though it is necessary for us to walk unfailingly in accordance with the path that Bhagavan has shown us, namely the path of self-investigation, which is the culmination of the path of self-surrender, we cannot do so without his help, so when we find ourself being dragged outside by our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> and cannot find in ourself sufficient strength of <i>vivēka</i> (clear discrimination, judgement or discernment), <i>bhakti</i> (love) and <i>vairāgya</i> (dispassion or freedom from desire) to cling fast to self-attentiveness, it is necessary for us to cry out to him in prayer as he has shown us in this verse: ‘ஏன் இந்த உறக்கம், எனை பிறர் இழுக்க? இது உனக்கு அழகோ அருணாசலா?’ (<i>ēṉ inda uṟakkam, eṉai piṟar iṙukka? idu uṉakku aṙahō aruṇācalā?</i>), ‘Why this sleep, when others are dragging me? Is this beauty for you, Arunachala?’<br>
<br>
There is also another implication that Bhagavan alludes to in this verse. So long as we remain awake to our real nature, nothing can pull us out of that state, but as soon as we rise as ego, forgetting our real nature, we fall a prey to <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, which drag our attention outwards. This state in which we seem to have forgotten our real nature is the sleep of self-ignorance, otherwise called <i>māyā</i>, or more specifically, <i>āvaraṇa-śakti</i> (the power of veiling), which is the first and most fundamental of the two powers of <i>māyā</i>. The other power of <i>māyā</i> is <i>vikṣēpa-śakti</i> (the power of scattering, dispersion or dissipation), which is the effect of <i>āvaraṇa</i>. Whereas <i>āvaraṇa</i> is what rises as ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’, because ego is what obscures and veils the real nature of ourself as pure awareness, ‘I am’, <i>vikṣēpa</i> is what rises as ego’s <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, under whose sway its attention is constantly being scattered outwards, giving rise to the appearance of all <i>viṣayas</i> (objects or phenomena).<br>
<br>
Without forgetting our real nature we could not rise as ego, and without rising as ego we could not fall a prey to <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, so <i>āvaraṇa</i> is the fundamental sleep in which the entire dream of <i>saṁsāra</i> takes place. The dreamer of this dream is ourself as ego, and this dream consists of many dreams, in each of which we dream ourself to be a different person, so the entire life of each successive person that we mistake ourself to be is just one of the many dreams that constitute this long dream called <i>saṁsāra</i>.<br>
<br>
In order to put an end to this dream of <i>saṁsāra</i> we need to awaken from the sleep in which it occurs, and since this sleep is just the sleep of self-ignorance (<i>avidyā</i> or <i>ajñāna</i>), we can awaken from it only by being aware of ourself as we actually are. What we actually are is pure awareness (<i>vidyā</i> or <i>jñāna</i>), which is awareness that is aware of nothing other than itself, ‘I am’, so it can never be self-ignorant, and hence what is self-ignorant is only ourself as ego. Since ego is what is always aware of itself as ‘I am this body’, self-ignorance is its very nature, so as Bhagavan pointed out, what is called <i>avidyā</i> or <i>ajñāna</i> is nothing but ego itself. Therefore awakening from the sleep of self-ignorance is what is otherwise called the destruction of ego.<br>
<br>
That is, since ego is the false adjunct-conflated awareness ‘I am this body’, when we as ego turn our attention back within so keenly that we cease to be aware of anything other than our own being, ‘I am’, we will thereby cease to be ego and remain as we always actually are, namely as the real awareness ‘I am’ devoid of all adjuncts. Therefore, if we wish to awaken from this sleep of self-ignorance and the consequent dream of <i>saṁsāra</i>, the only means is to patiently and persistently try to be as keenly and constantly self-attentive as possible until we finally succeed in being so keenly self-attentive that we thereby cease to know or to be anything other than the one fundamental awareness, ‘I am’.<br>
<br>
Therefore, if we view this verse from this perspective, we can interpret the term ‘இந்த உறக்கம்’ (<i>inda uṟakkam</i>), ‘this sleep’, as referring to ego’s sleep of self-ignorance rather than any seeming sleep of Arunachala. That is, ‘ஏன் இந்த உறக்கம், எனை பிறர் இழுக்க? இது உனக்கு அழகோ அருணாசலா?’ (<i>ēṉ inda uṟakkam, eṉai piṟar iṙukka? idu uṉakku aṙahō aruṇācalā?</i>), ‘Why this sleep, when others are dragging me? Is this beauty for you, Arunachala?’, can be taken to imply: ‘Why [do you still allow me to remain in] this sleep [of self-ignorance], when [you know that in this state] others [namely <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>] will be [constantly] dragging me [ever further away from you, my real nature]? Is this beauty [or befitting] for you, Arunachala?’<br>
<br>
So long as we are lost in this sleep of self-ignorance and therefore dreaming this dream of <i>saṁsāra</i>, we are so deluded that we will have no love to know and to be what we actually are until Arunachala sows the seed of such love in our heart. Therefore it is his responsibility to sow this seed in our heart, and having sown it, it is his responsibility to nurture it until it becomes so all-consuming that we are finally willing to surrender ourself wholly to him. We do of course need to cooperate with him by trying our best to be self-attentive as much as we can, but the primary responsibility is his, because he is <i>jñāna-svarūpa</i>, the one whose very nature is pure awareness, so he alone is the light of knowledge that can remove the darkness of our ignorance.<br>
<br>
<a name="aamm09"></a>Therefore, when the devotee whose love is fully ripened <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/07/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-9.html#aamm09">prays to him</a> with a melting heart, ‘எனை அழித்து இப்போது எனை கலவாவிடில், இதுவோ ஆண்மை அருணாசலா?’ (<i>eṉai aṙittu ippōdu eṉai kalavāviḍil, iduvō āṇmai aruṇācalā?</i>), ‘Arunachala, destroying me now, if [you] do not unite me [with yourself in inseparable oneness], is this [your] manliness?’, if he does not destroy her immediately but instead allows her to remain in the sleep of self-ignorance, in which she is dreaming that others are dragging her away from him, her beloved, does this befit him?<br>
<br>
<b>Video discussion:</b> <a href="https://youtu.be/XIsYO1uq0uM"><i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> verse 10</a><br>
<br>
<div style="text-align:center"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XIsYO1uq0uM" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-73852742703097140542022-07-21T13:31:00.010+01:002023-02-08T08:10:52.883+00:00Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai verse 9This is the ninth in a series of articles that I hope to write on <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>, Bhagavan willing, the completed ones being <a href="https://www.happinessofbeing.com/articles.html#aamm">listed here</a>.<br><a name='more'></a>
<br>
<a name="aamm09"></a><b>Verse 9:</b><br>
<blockquote>எனையழித் திப்போ தெனைக்கல வாவிடி<br>
லிதுவோ வாண்மை யருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>eṉaiyaṙit tippō deṉaikkala vāviḍi<br>
liduvō vāṇmai yaruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> எனை அழித்து இப்போது எனை கலவாவிடில், இதுவோ ஆண்மை அருணாசலா?<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>eṉai aṙittu ippōdu eṉai kalavāviḍil, iduvō āṇmai aruṇācalā?</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, if not now uniting me, destroying me, is this manliness?<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, now [that I am willing to surrender myself entirely to you], if [you] do not unite me [with yourself in inseparable oneness], [thereby] destroying me [destroying my ‘virginity’, namely my separate existence as ego], is this [your] manliness?</blockquote>
<b>Explanation:</b> Arunachala is <i>puruṣōttama</i>, the ‘Supreme Person’ or ‘Man par excellence’, and his ஆண்மை (<i>āṇmai</i>), ‘manliness’, is his அருட்சக்தி (<i>aruḷ-śakti</i>), the power of his grace, the ultimate aim and function of which is the destruction of ego. Therefore, by asking rhetorically ‘இதுவோ ஆண்மை அருணாசலா?’ (<i>iduvō āṇmai aruṇācalā?</i>), ‘is this [your] manliness, Arunachala?’, Bhagavan is urging Arunachala to show the full power of his grace by destroying ego and thereby making him eternally and inseparably one with himself.<br>
<br>
ஆண் (<i>āṇ</i>) means ‘male’ or ‘man’ and the suffix -மை (<i>-mai</i>) denotes an abstract quality, condition or state, like ‘-ness’ in English, so the basic meaning of ஆண்மை (<i>āṇmai</i>) is ‘maleness’ or ‘manliness’, but it also implies qualities associated with manliness, such a virility, courage, strength and power. Therefore, since the power (<i>śakti</i>) of Arunachala is his grace, and since grace is his very nature, in this context ஆண்மை (<i>āṇmai</i>), ‘manliness’, is a metaphor for grace, which is the power of his infinite love.<br>
<br>
<a name="aamm06a"></a>இது (<i>idu</i>) means ‘this’, and இதுவோ (<i>iduvō</i>) is an interrogative form of it, so it means ‘is this?’. Therefore ‘இதுவோ ஆண்மை?’ (<i>iduvō āṇmai?</i>) is a question that means ‘is this [your] manliness?’ and that in this context implies ‘is this [your] grace?’, which is the same question that he asked Arunachala in <a href="#aamm06">verse 6</a>, namely ‘இதுவோ உனது அருள்?’ (<i>iduvō uṉadu aruḷ?</i>), ‘is this your grace?’<br>
<br>
As in that verse, in this verse Bhagavan is rebuking Arunachala by asking this question, but his rebuking is an indirect way of pleading with him to complete the work of his grace by annihilating him completely. That this is his intention is made clear in the conditional clause with which he begins this verse, namely ‘எனை அழித்து இப்போது எனை கலவாவிடில்’ (<i>eṉai aṙittu ippōdu eṉai kalavāviḍil</i>), ‘if [you] do not now unite me [with yourself], [thereby] destroying me’.<br>
<br>
<a name="aamm01"></a>எனை (<i>eṉai</i>) is a poetic abbreviation of என்னை (<i>eṉṉai</i>), which is the accusative singular form of the first person pronoun, so it means ‘me’, which in this context refers to ego. அழித்து (<i>aṙittu</i>) is an adverbial participle that means ‘destroying’ or ‘annihilating’, so ‘எனை அழித்து’ (<i>eṉai aṙittu</i>) means ‘destroying me’ or ‘annihilating me’, thereby implying eradicating ego in such a way that it can never rise again. As Bhagavan indicated in the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/03/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-payiram.html#aamm01">first verse</a>, ‘அருணாசலம் என அகமே நினைப்பவர் அகத்தை வேர் அறுப்பாய் அருணாசலா’ (<i>aruṇācalam eṉa ahamē niṉaippavar ahattai vēr aṟuppāy aruṇācalā</i>), ‘Arunachala, you will eradicate the ego of those who think [deep within the heart or mind] that Arunachalam is actually I’, eradication of ego is the sole aim of this love song, and eradicating it is the very nature of Arunachala, so this is what he is implicitly praying for in this verse when he sings ‘எனை அழித்து’ (<i>eṉai aṙittu</i>), ‘destroying me’.<br>
<br>
இப்போது (<i>ippōdu</i>) means ‘now’, ‘at this very moment’, which expresses how eagerly, urgently and intensely he is pining for his own annihilation. Now that he is willing to surrender himself entirely and without the least reservation to Arunachala, Arunachala need not and should not delay even for a moment, but should annihilate him immediately, thereby making him one with himself.<br>
<br>
Only when we are willing to surrender ourself immediately, without a moment’s delay or hesitation, are we truly <i>pakva</i> (ripe, mature or well cooked) enough to be swallowed by him, as Bhagavan clearly demonstrated on that day in Madurai when an intense fear of death suddenly arose in his heart. He did not wait to think about it, or to consult others, or to read any book, but immediately turned his mind inwards to see what this awareness that shines as ‘I’ actually is. What dies is the body, so leaving it as a corpse, he looked deep within himself to see what happens to the awareness ‘I’ when the body dies, and thus he saw that in its pure and pristine condition ‘I’ remains as it always is without being affected in the least by the appearance or disappearance of the body or anything else.<br>
<br>
In other words, by looking within deep enough to see who am I, ego subsides and merges back into the pure ‘I’ like a river merging in the ocean, thereby losing its ego-nature and remaining as its real nature. Losing our ego-nature is what Bhagavan refers to in this verse as ‘எனை அழித்து’ (<i>eṉai aṙittu</i>), ‘destroying me’, and merging back in the pure ‘I’ as the pure ‘I’, which is Arunachala, is what he refers to as ‘எனை கலத்தல்’ (<i>eṉai kalattal</i>), ‘uniting me [with yourself]’ or ‘absorbing me [in yourself]’.<br>
<br>
கலவாவிடில் (<i>kalavāviḍil</i>) is a negative conditional form of கல (<i>kala</i>) or கலவு (<i>kalavu</i>), which means to mix, unite, join, combine, absorb, blend, amalgamate or copulate, and which in a spiritual context is often used to refer to the soul being absorbed in God, so கலவாவிடில் (<i>kalavāviḍil</i>) means ‘if not uniting’ or ‘if not absorbing’. ‘எனை கலவாவிடில்’ (<i>eṉai kalavāviḍil</i>) therefore literally means ‘if not uniting me’ or ‘if not absorbing me’, and in this context implies ‘if [you] do not unite me [with yourself]’ or ‘if [you] do not absorb me [into yourself]’.<br>
<br>
When ego is annihilated, what remains is only Arunachala, who is the real nature of ourself (<i>ātma-svarūpa</i>), so annihilation of ego and being absorbed in him are not two distinct processes but one and the same. We cannot be absorbed in him or united with him without ego thereby being annihilated, and ego cannot be annihilated without our thereby being absorbed in and united with him.<br>
<br>
That is, he is <i>sat-cit</i>, pure being-awareness, which is what exists and shines as our own fundamental awareness ‘I am’, whereas ego is the false adjunct-conflated awareness ‘I am this body’, which is what is called <i>cit-jaḍa-granthi</i>, the knot (<i>granthi</i>) formed by the seeming entanglement of pure awareness (<i>cit</i>) and a body, which is non-aware (<i>jaḍa</i>). Ego is therefore a mixture of what is real and hence permanent and unchanging, namely ‘I am’, and what is unreal and hence impermanent and constantly changing, namely a set of adjuncts called ‘body’, which is a form composed of five sheaths (a physical body, life, mind, intellect and will). He is therefore the reality of ego, so when ego is destroyed or annihilated, its adjuncts cease to exist and what remains is only its reality, the pure awareness ‘I am’, and hence this is the state in which he absorbs us entirely, making us inseparably one with himself.<br>
<br>
Arunachala is always ready to eradicate ego and thereby make us one with himself, but he will not do so until we are willing to give ourself to him wholly and without the least reservation. That Bhagavan was so willing is implied by his use of the word இப்போது (<i>ippōdu</i>), ‘now’, ‘at this very moment’, so by using this word here he is teaching us that our love to be one with Arunachala must be so intense and wholehearted that we are willing to be annihilated by him at this very moment, without any further delay. Therefore, if we have not yet lost ourself entirely in him, that shows that we do not yet have sufficient love to surrender ourself wholly to him here and now.<br>
<br>
How then are we to cultivate and strengthen the love to be annihilated by him? This is the work and responsibility of his grace. Whatever love we now have to surrender ourself to him was sown as a seed and has been carefully nurtured in our heart by his grace, and his grace will not stop nurturing it until it has become so intense and all-consuming that we are finally willing to submit ourself to being annihilated by him immediately.<br>
<br>
<a name="ny13"></a>However, though it is his grace alone that can nurture this love in our heart, it does so through us, because it is our own real nature (<i>ātma-svarūpa</i>), so until we lose ourself entirely in him we have to play our part by trying patiently and persistently to be self-attentive. By being self-attentive we are giving ourself to him, as Bhagavan teaches us in the first sentence of the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para13">thirteenth paragraph</a> of <i>Nāṉ Ār?</i>:<br>
<blockquote>ஆன்மசிந்தனையைத் தவிர வேறு சிந்தனை கிளம்புவதற்குச் சற்று மிடங்கொடாமல் ஆத்மநிஷ்டாபரனா யிருப்பதே தன்னை ஈசனுக் களிப்பதாம்.<br>
<br>
<i>āṉma-cintaṉaiyai-t tavira vēṟu cintaṉai kiḷambuvadaṟku-c caṯṟum iḍam-koḍāmal ātma-niṣṭhāparaṉ-āy iruppadē taṉṉai īśaṉukku aḷippadām</i>.<br>
<br>
Being <i>ātma-niṣṭhāparaṉ</i> [one who is firmly fixed as oneself], giving not even the slightest room to the rising of any <i>cintana</i> [thought] except <i>ātma-cintana</i> [thought of oneself: self-contemplation or self-attentiveness], alone is giving oneself to God.</blockquote>
So the more we love to surrender ourself the more we will cling to self-attentiveness, and the more we cling to self-attentiveness the more our love to surrender ourself to him will grow.<br>
<br>
<a name="aamm03"></a>The <i>nāyaka-nāyakī</i> allusion in this verse is very clear, not only because Bhagavan asks in the main clause ‘இதுவோ ஆண்மை?’ (<i>iduvō āṇmai?</i>), ‘is this [your] manliness?’, but also because he asks this immediately after saying ‘எனை கலவாவிடில்’ (<i>eṉai kalavāviḍil</i>), ‘if [you] do not join [or unite] me [with yourself]’, since one of the meanings of the verb கல (<i>kala</i>) is to join in carnal union. Arunachala is the beloved lord (<i>nāyaka</i>), the hero of this love story, and Bhagavan is a young maiden (<i>nāyakī</i>), the heroine, whose heart he has stolen by entering her mind, which was her home, and enticing her to elope with him to the cave of the heart, which is his home, and there he has been keeping her as a prisoner, as she sang in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/04/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-3.html#aamm03">verse 3</a>:<br>
<blockquote>அகம்புகுந் தீர்த்துன் னககுகை சிறையா<br>
யமர்வித்த தென்கொ லருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>ahampuhun dīrttuṉ ṉahaguhai siṟaiyā<br>
yamarvitta deṉko laruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> அகம் புகுந்து ஈர்த்து உன் அக குகை சிறையாய் அமர்வித்தது என் கொல் அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>aham puhundu īrttu uṉ aha guhai siṟaiyāy amarvittadu eṉ kol aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, entering the mind, carrying away, keeping captive in the cave of your heart is what!<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, entering [my] mind [or home], [forcibly] carrying [me] away [dragging me out or attracting me to yourself], [you have been] keeping [me] captive in the cave of your heart. What [a wonder of your grace this is]!</blockquote>
<a name="aamm04"></a>However, he has not yet completed the task that he thus began. Disappointed by his delay, therefore, she began to fear that he may reject her, so in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/04/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-4.html#aamm04">verse 4</a> she sang:<br>
<blockquote>ஆருக் காவெனை யாண்டனை யகற்றிடி<br>
லகிலம் பழித்திடு மருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>āruk kāveṉai yāṇḍaṉai yahaṯṟiḍi<br>
lakhilam baṙittiḍu maruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> ஆருக்கா எனை ஆண்டனை? அகற்றிடில் அகிலம் பழித்திடும் அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>ārukkā eṉai āṇḍaṉai? ahaṯṟiḍil akhilam paṙittiḍum aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, for whom did you take charge of me? If rejecting, the whole world will blame.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, for whom [or for whose sake] did you take charge of me? If [you] reject [banish or abandon] [me], the whole world will blame [ridicule or revile] [you].</blockquote>
<a name="aamm05"></a>Therefore in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/04/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-5.html#aamm05">verse 5</a> she pleaded with him:<br>
<blockquote>இப்பழி தப்புனை யேனினைப் பித்தா<br>
யினியார் விடுவா ரருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>ippaṙi tappuṉai yēṉiṉaip pittā<br>
yiṉiyār viḍuvā raruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> இப் பழி தப்பு. உனை ஏன் நினைப்பித்தாய்? இனி யார் விடுவார்? அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>i-p-paṙi tappu. uṉai ēṉ niṉaippittāy? iṉi yār viḍuvār? aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, escape this blame. Why did you cause to think of you? Now who will leave?<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, escape this blame. Why did you make [me] think of you? Now [or henceforth] who will [or can] leave [or let go]? [You cannot leave or let go of me, and I cannot leave or let go of you.]</blockquote>
<a name="aamm06"></a>And in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/04/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-6.html#aamm06">verse 6</a> she rebuked him, appealing to his kind-heartedness:<br>
<blockquote>ஈன்றிடு மன்னையிற் பெரிதருள் புரிவோ<br>
யிதுவோ வுனதரு ளருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>īṉḏṟiḍu maṉṉaiyiṟ peridaruḷ purivō<br>
yiduvō vuṉadaru ḷaruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> ஈன்றிடும் அன்னையில் பெரிது அருள் புரிவோய், இதுவோ உனது அருள் அருணாசலா?<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>īṉḏṟiḍum aṉṉaiyil peridu aruḷ purivōy, iduvō uṉadu aruḷ aruṇācalā?</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, you who bestow kindness greater than the mother who gave birth, is this your kindness?<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, you who bestow <i>aruḷ</i> [grace, love, kindness, solicitude and compassion] greater than [that given by] the mother who gave birth [to one], is this your <i>aruḷ</i>?</blockquote>
<a name="aamm07"></a>Since he still did not respond to her prayers by joining her with him in inseparable union, she began to reflect on her own unworthiness, recognising that her mind was still running outwards, back towards her former life in the home where she was born, namely the world of physical and mental phenomena, and that by allowing her mind to run away towards such things she was cheating him in her heart. However, when he has taken charge of her as his own, surely it is his responsibility to be seated firmly on her mind and thereby not allow it to run anywhere, so in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/06/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-7.html#aamm07">verse 7</a> she prayed:<br>
<blockquote>உனையே மாற்றி யோடா துளத்தின்மே<br>
லுறுதியா யிருப்பா யருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>uṉaiyē māṯṟi yōḍā duḷattiṉmē<br>
luṟudiyā yiruppā yaruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> உனை ஏமாற்றி ஓடாது உளத்தின் மேல் உறுதியாய் இருப்பாய் அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>uṉai ēmāṯṟi ōḍādu uḷattiṉ mēl uṟudiyāy iruppāy aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, may you be firmly on the mind so that it does not run, deceiving you..<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, may you be [remain, sit down, be seated or be enthroned] firmly on [my] mind so that it does not run [out towards other things under the sway of its <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>], deceiving [or cheating on] you [like a promiscuous wife].</blockquote>
<a name="aamm08"></a>Why does she still allow her mind to run outwards and roam about in the world under the sway of its old <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>? When he has attracted her to himself and is keeping her so close, how does her former life in the world still hold any attraction for her? It is only because she has not yet been able to recognise and appreciate his beauty in all its fullness, so in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/07/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-8.html#aamm08">verse 8</a> she beseeched him:<br>
<blockquote>ஊர்சுற் றுளம்விடா துனைக்கண் டடங்கிட<br>
வுன்னழ கைக்காட் டருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>ūrsuṯ ṟuḷamviḍā duṉaikkaṇ ḍaḍaṅgiḍa<br>
vuṉṉaṙa haikkāṭ ṭaruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> ஊர் சுற்று உளம் விடாது உனை கண்டு அடங்கிட, உன் அழகை காட்டு அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>ūr suṯṟu uḷam viḍādu uṉai kaṇḍu aḍaṅgiḍa, uṉ aṙahai kāṭṭu aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, so that seeing you uninterruptedly the mind, which roams about the world, subsides, show your beauty.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, so that seeing [or looking at] you uninterruptedly [my] mind, which [by its very nature] roams [incessantly] about the world [under the sway of its <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>], subsides [settles, submits or ceases entirely and forever] [in you] [thereby being brought under the sway of your grace], show [me] your beauty [the infinite beauty of your real nature, which is unlimited, unalloyed and unceasing happiness].</blockquote>
Being unable to bear any longer this tortuous state in which her mind still runs out towards the world and roams about under the sway of its <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, her longing to give herself entirely to him has now become so intense that she pleads with him not to wait a moment longer, but to unite her with himself in inseparable oneness, thereby destroying her once and forever: ‘எனை அழித்து இப்போது எனை கலவாவிடில், இதுவோ ஆண்மை அருணாசலா?’ (<i>eṉai aṙittu ippōdu eṉai kalavāviḍil, iduvō āṇmai aruṇācalā?</i>), ‘Arunachala, now [that I am longing to give myself entirely to you], if [you] do not unite me [with yourself in inseparable oneness], [thereby] destroying me [destroying my ‘virginity’, namely my separate existence as ego], is this [your] manliness?’<br>
<br>
As we have seen, ‘எனை அழித்து’ (<i>eṉai aṙittu</i>) means ‘destroying me’, and in the context of this prayer by the fully ripe (spiritually mature) maiden, namely <i>jīva</i> (the soul), for complete union with her beloved lord, namely <i>śiva</i> (God), it implies ‘destroying my virginity’, in which ‘virginity’ is a metaphor for <i>jīvatvam</i> (‘soulhood’ or individuality, the state of being a <i>jīva</i>), namely ego. In his <i>poṙippurai</i> [explanatory paraphrase] for this verse, therefore, Muruganar paraphrases ‘எனை அழித்து’ (<i>eṉai aṙittu</i>), ‘destroying me’, as ‘என் அகங்காரக் கன்னிமையை அறவே யழித்து’ (<i>eṉ ahaṅkāra-k-kaṉṉimaiyai aṟavē y-aṙittu</i>), ‘completely destroying my ego-virginity’, in which ‘அகங்காரக் கன்னிமை’ (<i>ahaṅkāra-k-kaṉṉimai</i>), ‘ego-virginity’, implies ‘virginity, which is ego’. Just as destruction of her virginity is the price that a virgin must pay in order to be joined in carnal union with her beloved, destruction of its <i>jīvatvam</i> is the price that the <i>jīva</i> must pay in order to be joined in eternal union with <i>śiva</i>, who is its beloved lord, Arunachala.<br>
<br>
In order to merge in and thereby become one with the ocean, a river must give up its river-nature, because so long as it remains as a river, it cannot be one with the ocean. Losing its river-nature, however, is not actually a loss at all, because all it is losing is certain limitations, and by losing those limitations it unites and remains one with the vast ocean. Likewise, destruction of ego is not a real loss, because by its destruction all we are losing is our limitations, and by losing them we remain as Arunachala, the one unlimited whole, which is what we always actually are.<br>
<br>
However, so long as ego, the false identification ‘I am this body’, remains strong, destruction of ego seems to us to be the greatest loss of all. Even the death of the body seems to us to be a great loss, and hence we cling on to this body till its last breath, no matter how much suffering and pain it may be causing us. But however strong our attachment to this body may be, sooner or later we will be forced to let go of it, and when eventually that does happen, it turns out to be just the ending of a dream. The ending of a dream, however, is not the ending of the dreamer, so sooner or later the dreamer will begin dreaming another dream. Therefore the death of whatever body we now take to be ourself is a very trivial loss, because it will just be replaced by another body, like an old worn-out shirt being replaced by a new one.<br>
<br>
This state of dreaming one dream after another will go on indefinitely until the dreamer, namely ego, is willing to surrender itself entirely, thereby allowing itself to be destroyed by the infinite light of pure awareness, ‘I am’, which is the ‘manliness’ or grace of Arunachala. It is only after countless dreams, however, that the dreamer will eventually gain the extreme maturity (<i>pakva</i>) to be wholeheartedly willing to embrace its own destruction.<br>
<br>
Though we will each eventually gain such maturity, we will do so only after dreaming countless lives, so among the countless <i>jīvas</i> (souls) we see in this world, those who are willing to embrace their own destruction at this very moment are very rare indeed. A few among these countless <i>jīvas</i> may be coming close to gaining the required maturity, but even among those few, how many are actually willing to be destroyed now, at this very moment, without even a moment of further delay? Very, very rare indeed are such <i>jīvas</i>, and the foremost among them was the young boy Venkataraman, whose yearning for his own destruction was so intense that at the age of sixteen he cried out in his heart to Arunachala: ‘எனை அழித்து இப்போது எனை கலவாவிடில், இதுவோ ஆண்மை அருணாசலா?’ (<i>eṉai aṙittu ippōdu eṉai kalavāviḍil, iduvō āṇmai aruṇācalā?</i>), ‘Arunachala, destroying me now, if [you] do not unite me [with yourself in inseparable oneness], is this [your] manliness?’<br>
<br>
How could Arunachala refuse such a heartfelt prayer? Therefore he destroyed him then and there, consuming him in the fire of his <i>jñāna</i> (pure awareness) and thereby making him one with himself. What then shone forth through the body that was formerly the abode of Venkataraman was Arunachala himself in the form of Bhagavan Ramana. As Bhagavan Ramana, therefore, Arunachala later sang this love song to himself, expressing in words all the love and longing that was previously shining wordlessly in the extremely pure heart of Venkataraman, the foremost among all his devotees.<br>
<br>
Though he seems to taunt himself in this verse by asking ‘இதுவோ ஆண்மை அருணாசலா?’ (<i>iduvō āṇmai aruṇācalā?</i>), ‘is this [your] manliness, Arunachala?’, these are words of love spoken by the lover to her beloved out of her intense yearning to be one with him, so we should not misconstrue them to mean that Arunachala could ever actually be anything other than manly, because as we saw above, ‘ஆண்மை’ (<i>āṇmai</i>), ‘manliness’, is here a metaphor for the power of his grace, which is the power of his infinite silence, and which is therefore his very nature. That is, Arunachala is <i>śiva</i> (God) and grace is his <i>śakti</i> (power), but since he and his power (<i>śiva</i> and <i>śakti</i>) are indivisibly one, his grace is none other than he himself.<br>
<br>
He himself is grace, and grace itself is he. Therefore he can never fail to be gracious, so as soon as we are willing to give ourself entirely to him, he will certainly destroy us and thereby make us one with himself. He is always willing to destroy us — indeed that is all he has ever wanted — so all that is now lacking is our willingness to be destroyed by him. However, the fact that we have been attracted to this path of self-investigation and self-surrender taught by him shows that he has already sown the seed of such willingness in our heart, and having sown it he is certainly nurturing it. Nevertheless, though he is doing everything necessary to help us, by his grace we must also try our best to help ourself by constantly looking back within to see who am I, thereby willingly sinking back into the cave of our heart, the source from which we have risen, which is where he is always residing like an old lion, waiting to devour us as soon as we enter.<br>
<br>
<b>Video discussion:</b> <a href="https://youtu.be/6FRpdIP2SzI"><i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> verse 9</a><br>
<br>
<div style="text-align:center"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6FRpdIP2SzI" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-57168311552369298352022-07-02T20:26:00.008+01:002022-10-29T13:00:14.550+01:00Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai verse 8This is the eighth in a series of articles that I hope to write on <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>, Bhagavan willing, the completed ones being <a href="https://www.happinessofbeing.com/articles.html#aamm">listed here</a>.<br><a name='more'></a>
<br>
<a name="aamm08"></a><b>Verse 8:</b><br>
<blockquote>ஊர்சுற் றுளம்விடா துனைக்கண் டடங்கிட<br>
வுன்னழ கைக்காட் டருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>ūrsuṯ ṟuḷamviḍā duṉaikkaṇ ḍaḍaṅgiḍa<br>
vuṉṉaṙa haikkāṭ ṭaruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> ஊர் சுற்று உளம் விடாது உனை கண்டு அடங்கிட, உன் அழகை காட்டு அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>ūr suṯṟu uḷam viḍādu uṉai kaṇḍu aḍaṅgiḍa, uṉ aṙahai kāṭṭu aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, so that seeing you uninterruptedly the mind, which roams about the world, subsides, show your beauty.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, so that seeing [or looking at] you uninterruptedly [my] mind, which [by its very nature] roams [incessantly] about the world [under the sway of its <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>], subsides [settles, submits or ceases entirely and forever] [in you] [thereby being brought under the sway of your grace], show [me] your beauty [the infinite beauty of your real nature, which is unlimited, unalloyed and unceasing happiness].</blockquote>
<b>Explanation:</b> ஊர் (<i>ūr</i>) means a place, particularly a place where people live, such as a village, town or city, but in this context it is a metonym for the world as a whole, and also for all the <i>viṣayas</i> (objects or phenomena) that constitute the world. சுற்று (<i>suṯṟu</i>) is a verb that means to revolve, spin, whirl, roam or wander about, and in this case the root of this verb is used in the sense of an adjectival participle that means ‘roaming’ or ‘which roams about’. உளம் (<i>uḷam</i>) is a poetic abbreviation of உள்ளம் (<i>uḷḷam</i>), which means the heart or in this case the mind, so ‘ஊர் சுற்று உளம்’ (<i>ūr suṯṟu uḷam</i>) means ‘the world-roaming mind’ or ‘the mind, which roams about the world’.<br>
<br>
That is, the nature of the mind is to always dwell on things other than itself, namely <i>viṣayas</i> (objects or phenomena), and the totality of all <i>viṣayas</i> is what is called ‘the world’, meaning both the seemingly external world of physical phenomena and the internal world of mental phenomena. Since the mind is fickle and unsteady, it does not dwell for long on any one <i>viṣaya</i> but is constantly wandering from one to another in search of happiness, which it wrongly believes it can obtain from them, so this deeply engrained habit of the mind to wander about, moving perpetually from one <i>viṣaya</i> to another, is what Bhagavan describes here as ‘ஊர் சுற்றுதல்’ (<i>ūr suṯṟudal</i>), roaming or wandering about the world.<br>
<br>
<a name="uu28"></a>Why is it the nature of the mind to roam about the world like this? In this context உள்ளம் (<i>uḷḷam</i>) means the mind in the sense of ego, which is the subject, the knower or experiencer of all <i>viṣayas</i>, and ego is a false awareness of ourself, because whenever we rise as ego we are aware of ourself as ‘I am this body’, which is not what we actually are. What we actually are is <i>sat-cit-ānanda</i>, pure being (<i>sat</i>), pure awareness (<i>cit</i>) and pure happiness (<i>ānanda</i>), which is infinite, eternal, indivisible and immutable, as Bhagavan implies in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu28">verse 28</a> of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i>:<br>
<blockquote>தனாதியல் யாதெனத் தான்றெரி கிற்பின்<br>
னனாதி யனந்தசத் துந்தீபற<br>
வகண்ட சிதானந்த முந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>taṉādiyal yādeṉat tāṉḏṟeri hiṟpiṉ<br>
ṉaṉādi yaṉantasat tundīpaṟa<br>
vakhaṇḍa cidāṉanda mundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> தனாது இயல் யாது என தான் தெரிகில், பின் அனாதி அனந்த சத்து அகண்ட சித் ஆனந்தம்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>taṉādu iyal yādu eṉa tāṉ terihil, piṉ aṉādi aṉanta sattu akhaṇḍa cit āṉandam</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> If one knows what the nature of oneself is, then beginningless, endless and unbroken existence-awareness-happiness.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> If one knows what the [real] nature of oneself is, then [what will remain existing and shining is only] <i>anādi</i> [beginningless], <i>ananta</i> [endless, limitless or infinite] and <i>akhaṇḍa</i> [unbroken, undivided or unfragmented] <i>sat-cit-ānanda</i> [existence-awareness-happiness].</blockquote>
Since we are infinite happiness, when we rise as ego and thereby limit ourself as the extent of a finite body, we seemingly separate ourself from the infinite happiness that we actually are, so we naturally crave to regain such happiness, and we cannot be satisfied with anything less than infinite happiness. However, as a seemingly finite ego, we cannot experience infinite happiness, but can only experience finite semblances of true happiness. Since we have seemingly separated ourself from the true happiness that we actually are, it seems to us to be something other than ourself and to be lacking in ourself, so we seek it outside ourself among <i>viṣayas</i>.<br>
<br>
Since we wrongly believe that happiness can be obtained only from things other than ourself, namely <i>viṣayas</i>, such things seem to be the cause of both our happiness and unhappiness, so we like and desire those things that we believe will make us happy, and we dislike, feel averse to and fear those things that we believe will make us unhappy. Therefore we as ego or mind incessantly roam about the world seeking to obtain or experience whatever we believe will make us happy and seeking to avoid whatever we believe will make us unhappy.<br>
<br>
<a name="ny01"></a>Seeking happiness or satisfaction in this way is the very nature of ourself as ego, but nothing will satisfy us completely or lastingly until we regain our own real nature (<i>svarūpa</i>), which alone is infinite and eternal happiness. Seeking perfect happiness or satisfaction is not wrong, but what is wrong is seeking it in anything other than ourself, because it does not exist in anything other than ourself. Since we ourself are infinite happiness, we can experience such happiness only by being aware of ourself as we actually are, as Bhagavan teaches us in the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para01">first paragraph</a> of <i>Nāṉ Ār?</i>:<br>
<blockquote>சகல ஜீவர்களும் துக்கமென்ப தின்றி எப்போதும் சுகமாயிருக்க விரும்புவதாலும், யாவருக்கும் தன்னிடத்திலேயே பரம பிரிய மிருப்பதாலும், பிரியத்திற்கு சுகமே காரண மாதலாலும், மனமற்ற நித்திரையில் தின மனுபவிக்கும் தன் சுபாவமான அச் சுகத்தை யடையத் தன்னைத் தானறிதல் வேண்டும். அதற்கு <b>நானார் என்னும் ஞான விசாரமே முக்கிய சாதனம்.</b><br>
<br>
<i>sakala jīvargaḷum duḥkham eṉbadu iṉḏṟi eppōdum sukham-āy irukka virumbuvadālum, yāvarukkum taṉ-ṉ-iḍattil-ē-y-ē parama piriyam iruppadālum, piriyattiṟku sukham-ē kāraṇam ādalālum, maṉam aṯṟa niddiraiyil diṉam aṉubhavikkum taṉ subhāvam-āṉa a-c-sukhattai y-aḍaiya-t taṉṉai-t tāṉ aṟidal vēṇḍum. adaṟku <b>nāṉ ār eṉṉum ñāṉa-vicāram-ē mukkhiya sādhaṉam</b></i>.<br>
<br>
Since all sentient beings want [or like] to be always happy without what is called misery, since for everyone the greatest love is only for oneself, and since happiness alone is the cause for love, [in order] to obtain that happiness, which is one’s own <i>svabhāva</i> [nature], which one experiences daily in [dreamless] sleep, which is devoid of mind, oneself knowing oneself is necessary. For that, <b><i>jñāna-vicāra</i></b> [awareness-investigation] <b>called ‘who am I’ alone is the principal means</b>.</blockquote>
We will not stop seeking infinite happiness until we experience it as our own real nature, and until we experience it thus the nature of ourself as ego or mind is to continue seeking it in things other than ourself, so the mind will not cease roaming about the world until we see that we ourself are the infinite and eternal happiness that we are always seeking. Since <i>ātma-svarūpa</i>, the real nature of ourself, is what is called Arunachala, what Bhagavan refers to in this verse as ‘உன் அழகை’ (<i>uṉ aṙahai</i>), ‘your beauty’, meaning the beauty of Arunachala, is infinite happiness, which is the real nature both of Arunachala and of ourself, and which is the only real beauty. Only when the mind sees this real beauty that is Arunachala will it subside and thereby cease roaming about the world in search of happiness outside itself, because having once seen this real beauty it will be unable to let go of it, so it will continue to see it unceasingly and eternally, as Bhagavan implies when he sings: ‘ஊர் சுற்று உளம் விடாது உனை கண்டு அடங்கிட, உன் அழகை காட்டு அருணாசலா’ (<i>ūr suṯṟu uḷam viḍādu uṉai kaṇḍu aḍaṅgiḍa, uṉ aṙahai kāṭṭu aruṇācalā</i>), ‘Arunachala, so that seeing you uninterruptedly the mind, which [by its very nature] roams [incessantly] about the world, subsides [in you], show [me] your beauty’.<br>
<br>
விடாது (<i>viḍādu</i>) is a negative adverbial participle that means ‘not leaving’ or ‘not letting go’, and therefore implies ‘uninterruptedly’ or ‘incessantly’. In this context it applies both to ‘ஊர் சுற்று உளம்’ (<i>ūr suṯṟu uḷam</i>), ‘the world-roaming mind’ or ‘the mind, which roams about the world’, because the nature of the mind is to roam incessantly about the world, and to ‘உனை கண்டு’ (<i>uṉai kaṇḍu</i>), ‘seeing you’, because when the mind once sees the real beauty that is Arunachala, it will be so enchanted and transfixed that it will never be able to leave or let go of that beauty, so it will continue eternally and uninterruptedly seeing or looking at Arunachala.<br>
<br>
உனை (<i>uṉai</i>) is a poetic abbreviation of உன்னை (<i>uṉṉai</i>), an accusative form of the second person singular pronoun, ‘you’, and கண்டு (<i>kaṇḍu</i>) is an adverbial participle that means seeing or looking at, so ‘உனை கண்டு’ (<i>uṉai kaṇḍu</i>) means ‘seeing you’ or ‘looking at you’. A secondary meaning of கண்டு (<i>kaṇḍu</i>) is worshipping or adoring in the sense of gazing at with love and adoration, so in this context loving adoration is implied in the phrase ‘உனை கண்டு’ (<i>uṉai kaṇḍu</i>), which therefore means ‘looking at and seeing you in love and adoration’. This phrase is further qualified by the negative adverbial participle விடாது (<i>viḍādu</i>), ‘not leaving’ or ‘not letting go’, so ‘விடாது உனை கண்டு’ (<i>viḍādu uṉai kaṇḍu</i>) means ‘seeing you without [ever] leaving [or letting go of] [you]’, because when Arunachala shows his beauty we will be so transfixed with wonder and love that we will never again have even the slightest inclination to look away from him towards anything else whatsoever.<br>
<br>
<a name="uu26"></a>Since Arunachala is our own real nature, seeing him is not a case of one thing seeing another thing, but of we ourself seeing ourself. In other words, the real nature of Arunachala cannot be seen or known as an object but only as the reality of ourself, the subject, and we can see it only by being it, because it cannot be seen or known by anything other than itself, as Bhagavan implies in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu26">verse 26</a> of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i>:<br>
<blockquote>தானா யிருத்தலே தன்னை யறிதலாந்<br>
தானிரண் டற்றதா லுந்தீபற<br>
தன்மய நிட்டையீ துந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>tāṉā yiruttalē taṉṉai yaṟidalān<br>
tāṉiraṇ ḍaṯṟadā lundīpaṟa<br>
taṉmaya niṭṭhaiyī dundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> தான் ஆய் இருத்தலே தன்னை அறிதல் ஆம், தான் இரண்டு அற்றதால். தன்மய நிட்டை ஈது.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>tāṉ-āy iruttal-ē taṉṉai aṟidal ām, tāṉ iraṇḍu aṯṟadāl. taṉmaya niṭṭhai īdu</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Being oneself alone is knowing oneself, because oneself is devoid of two. This is <i>tanmaya-niṣṭhā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Being oneself [that is, being as one actually is without rising to know anything else] alone is knowing oneself, because oneself [one’s real nature] is devoid of two [that is, devoid of the fundamental duality of subject and object, knower and thing known, and also devoid of any possibility of being divided as two selves, one self as a subject to know the other self as an object]. This is <i>tanmaya-niṣṭhā</i> [the state of being firmly fixed or established as ‘that’ (<i>tat</i>), the one infinite reality called <i>brahman</i>].</blockquote>
<a name="uu23"></a>Why can we know ourself as we actually are only by being ourself as we actually are, and why is knowing ourself as we actually are alone seeing Arunachala as he actually is? Bhagavan explains this in the previous three verses of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i>. What we actually are is pure awareness (<i>uṇarvu</i> or <i>cit</i>), which alone is what actually exists (<i>uḷḷadu</i> or <i>sat</i>), as he explains in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu23">verse 23</a>:<br>
<blockquote>உள்ள துணர வுணர்வுவே றின்மையி<br>
னுள்ள துணர்வாகு முந்தீபற<br>
வுணர்வேநா மாயுள முந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>uḷḷa duṇara vuṇarvuvē ṟiṉmaiyi <br>
ṉuḷḷa duṇarvāhu mundīpaṟa<br>
vuṇarvēnā māyuḷa mundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> உள்ளது உணர உணர்வு வேறு இன்மையின், உள்ளது உணர்வு ஆகும். உணர்வே நாமாய் உளம்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>uḷḷadu uṇara uṇarvu vēṟu iṉmaiyiṉ, uḷḷadu uṇarvu āhum. uṇarvē nām-āy uḷam</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Because of the non-existence of other awareness to be aware of what exists, what exists is awareness. Awareness alone exists as we.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Because of the non-existence of [any] awareness other [than what exists] to be aware of what exists, what exists (<i>uḷḷadu</i>) is awareness (<i>uṇarvu</i>). Awareness alone exists as we [that is, the awareness that actually exists, namely pure awareness, which is awareness that is aware of nothing other than itself, is what we actually are].</blockquote>
<a name="unm1"></a>Pure awareness knows itself just by being itself, and since it alone is <i>uḷḷadu</i>, what actually exists, there is nothing other than itself for it to know. There is never a moment when it does not know itself, nor any moment when it knows anything other than itself, so it is eternal and immutable. Since it alone is what we actually are, we can know ourself as we actually are only by just being as it is, as Bhagavan implies in the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#unm1">first <i>maṅgalam</i> verse</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>:<br>
<blockquote>உள்ளதல துள்ளவுணர் வுள்ளதோ வுள்ளபொரு<br>
ளுள்ளலற வுள்ளத்தே யுள்ளதா — லுள்ளமெனு<br>
முள்ளபொரு ளுள்ளலெவ னுள்ளத்தே யுள்ளபடி<br>
யுள்ளதே யுள்ள லுணர்.<br>
<br>
<i>uḷḷadala duḷḷavuṇar vuḷḷadō vuḷḷaporu<br>
ḷuḷḷalaṟa vuḷḷattē yuḷḷadā — luḷḷameṉu<br>
muḷḷaporu ḷuḷḷaleva ṉuḷḷattē yuḷḷapaḍi<br>
yuḷḷadē yuḷḷa luṇar</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> உள்ளது அலது உள்ள உணர்வு உள்ளதோ? உள்ள பொருள் உள்ளல் அற உள்ளத்தே உள்ளதால், உள்ளம் எனும் உள்ள பொருள் உள்ளல் எவன்? உள்ளத்தே உள்ளபடி உள்ளதே உள்ளல். உணர்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>uḷḷadu aladu uḷḷa-v-uṇarvu uḷḷadō? uḷḷa-poruḷ uḷḷal-aṟa uḷḷattē uḷḷadāl, uḷḷam eṉum uḷḷa-poruḷ uḷḷal evaṉ? uḷḷattē uḷḷapaḍi uḷḷadē uḷḷal. uṇar</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> 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.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> If <i>uḷḷadu</i> [what is or what exists] were not, would <i>uḷḷa-v-uṇarvu</i> [existing awareness, actual awareness or awareness of what is] exist? [Or: (1) Except as <i>uḷḷadu</i>, does <i>uḷḷa-v-uṇarvu</i> exist? (2) Other than <i>uḷḷadu</i>, is there awareness to think [of it, meditate on it or investigate it]?] Since <i>uḷḷa-poruḷ</i> [the existing substance or reality] exists in the heart without thought, how to [or who can] think of [meditate on or investigate] <i>uḷḷa-poruḷ</i>, which is called <i>uḷḷam</i> [the heart]? Being in the heart as it is [that is, as pure thought-free 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].</blockquote>
உள்ளது (<i>uḷḷadu</i>) means ‘what is’ or ‘what exists’ in the sense of what actually exists, as opposed to what merely seems to exist, and உள்ளபொருள் (<i>uḷḷa-poruḷ</i>) likewise means ‘the existing substance’ or ‘the substance that exists’ in the sense of the substance that actually exists, as opposed to any substance that merely seems to exist, so these two terms both refer to the one real substance (<i>poruḷ</i> or <i>vastu</i>), which is the only thing that actually exists. Since உள்ளது (<i>uḷḷadu</i>) is what exists, there cannot be anything other than it, because anything other than what exists would by definition be non-existent. Therefore, since there cannot be any awareness (<i>uṇarvu</i> or <i>cit</i>) other than what exists (<i>uḷḷadu</i> or <i>sat</i>), what exists cannot be known by any awareness other than itself, so it is itself the awareness that knows itself, as Bhagavan points out in <a href="#uu23">verse 23</a> of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i>.<br>
<br>
Just as awareness could not be other than what exists, what exists could not be other than awareness, because anything other than awareness does not know its own existence, so it exists, or rather seems to exist, only in the view of whatever awareness knows its seeming existence. Anything that exists only in the view of some awareness other than itself does not actually exist, because its existence depends on the existence of whatever awareness knows it, so it does not exist independently. Its existence is therefore not a real existence but just a seeming existence. What actually exists is what is actually aware, and what is actually aware is what actually exists. Existence (<i>sat</i>) and awareness (<i>cit</i>) are therefore one and inseparable.<br>
<br>
Therefore, as Bhagavan says in conclusion to the first sentence of <a href="#uu23">verse 23</a> of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i>: ‘உள்ளது உணர்வு ஆகும்’ (<i>uḷḷadu uṇarvu āhum</i>), ‘what exists is awareness’. That is, awareness is what actually exists, and nothing other than awareness exists at all. Anything other than awareness merely seems to exist, but does not actually exist. All other things seem to exist only in the view of ego, which itself does not actually exist, because it appears in waking and dream but disappears in sleep. Anything that appears and disappears does not actually exist even when it seems to exist, because what actually exists must always exist and can therefore never cease to exist.<br>
<br>
Ego seems to exist and to be aware of other things only because it is illumined by its own reality, namely the one real awareness, which is what alone actually exists. The awareness that actually exists is pure awareness, which is aware of nothing other than its own existence, ‘I am’, so it alone is the reality of ego, the false awareness that is always aware of itself not just as ‘I am’ but as ‘I am this body’. Without the real awareness ‘I am’, the false awareness ‘I am this body’ could not seem to exist.<br>
<br>
When Bhagavan says in the final sentence of <a href="#uu23">verse 23</a> of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i>, ‘உணர்வே நாமாய் உளம்’ (<i>uṇarvē nām-āy uḷam</i>), ‘Awareness alone exists as we’, what he means by ‘நாம்’ (<i>nām</i>), ‘we’, is not ourself as ego but only ourself as we actually are, namely the fundamental awareness ‘I am’, which is the sole reality underlying the seeming existence of ego, just as a rope is the reality underlying the seeming existence of an illusory snake.<br>
<br>
Since what exists is awareness, it does not exist as an object, and therefore cannot be known as an object, so it does not exist outside ourself but only in the innermost depth of our heart, beyond the range of thought, as Bhagavan points out in the first clause of the second sentence of the <a href="#unm1">first <i>maṅgalam</i> verse</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>: ‘உள்ள பொருள் உள்ளல் அற உள்ளத்தே உள்ளதால்’ (<i>uḷḷa-poruḷ uḷḷal-aṟa uḷḷattē uḷḷadāl</i>), ‘Since the existing substance exists in the heart without thought’. How then can we think of it, meditate upon it, investigate it or know it? Only by just being as it is, as Bhagavan says in the third sentence: ‘உள்ளத்தே உள்ளபடி உள்ளதே உள்ளல்’ (<i>uḷḷattē uḷḷapaḍi uḷḷadē uḷḷal</i>), ‘Being in the heart as it is alone is thinking [of it]’.<br>
<br>
உள்ளல் (<i>uḷḷal</i>) means thinking, remembering, meditating or investigating, but we obviously cannot literally think of or meditate on that which is beyond the range of thought. If we try to think of it, what we are actually thinking of is only an idea of it and not it as it actually is. Therefore, when Bhagavan says that being in the heart as it is alone is thinking of it, he is using the term ‘உள்ளல்’ (<i>uḷḷal</i>) in a metaphorical sense, and what he implies by saying this is that being in the heart as it is alone is knowing it as it is.<br>
<br>
The heart is not just the place where உள்ளபொருள் (<i>uḷḷa-poruḷ</i>), ‘the existing substance’, exists, but is உள்ளபொருள் (<i>uḷḷa-poruḷ</i>) itself, as he indicates by saying ‘உள்ளம் எனும் உள்ளபொருள் உள்ளல் எவன்?’ (<i>uḷḷam eṉum uḷḷa-poruḷ uḷḷal evaṉ?</i>), ‘how to [or who can] think of <i>uḷḷa-poruḷ</i>, which is called <i>uḷḷam</i> [the heart]?’. Since உள்ளபொருள் (<i>uḷḷa-poruḷ</i>), ‘the existing substance’, is ourself as we actually are, ‘உள்ளத்தே உள்ளபடி உள்ளதே’ (<i>uḷḷattē uḷḷapaḍi uḷḷadē</i>), ‘only being in the heart as it is’, means being as we actually are, namely as pure awareness, which is devoid of thought. Therefore, since pure awareness is awareness that is aware of nothing other than its own being, ‘I am’, we can be as it is only by being so keenly self-attentive that we cease to be aware of anything other than our own being, ‘I am’.<br>
<br>
<a name="uu24"></a>So how does this help us to understand the deep implication of the clause ‘விடாது உனை கண்டு’ (<i>viḍādu uṉai kaṇḍu</i>), ‘seeing you without [ever] leaving [or letting go of] [you]’? ‘உனை கண்டு’ (<i>uṉai kaṇḍu</i>), ‘seeing you’, means seeing Arunachala, and Arunachala is God, who is what we actually are, as Bhagavan explains in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu24">verse 24</a> of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i>:<br>
<blockquote>இருக்கு மியற்கையா லீசசீ வர்க<br>
ளொருபொரு ளேயாவ ருந்தீபற<br>
வுபாதி யுணர்வேவே றுந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>irukku miyaṟkaiyā līśajī varga<br>
ḷoruporu ḷēyāva rundīpaṟa<br>
vupādhi yuṇarvēvē ṟundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> இருக்கும் இயற்கையால் ஈச சீவர்கள் ஒரு பொருளே ஆவர். உபாதி உணர்வே வேறு.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>irukkum iyaṟkaiyāl īśa-jīvargaḷ oru poruḷē āvar. upādhi-uṇarvē vēṟu</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> By existing nature, God and soul are just one substance. Only adjunct-awareness is different.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> By [their] existing nature [that is, because the real nature of each of them is what actually exists (<i>uḷḷadu</i>), which is pure awareness (<i>uṇarvu</i>)], God and soul are just one substance. Only awareness of [their] adjuncts is [what makes them seem] different.</blockquote>
What he refers to here as ‘இருக்கும் இயற்கை’ (<i>irukkum iyaṟkai</i>), ‘existing nature’ or ‘being nature’, is the real nature of both Arunachala and ourself, which is pure being, so this is what he refers to in the <a href="#unm1">first <i>maṅgalam</i> verse</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i> as உள்ளது (<i>uḷḷadu</i>), ‘what exists’, and as உள்ளபொருள் (<i>uḷḷa-poruḷ</i>), ‘the existing substance’ or ‘substance that exists’. In other words, our இருக்கும் இயற்கை (<i>irukkum iyaṟkai</i>), ‘existing nature’, is what we actually are, so this is the ‘ஒரு பொருள்’ (<i>oru poruḷ</i>), the ‘one substance’, that he says is both God (<i>īśa</i>) and soul (<i>jīva</i>). Therefore, since Arunachala is what he refers to here as ஈச (<i>īśa</i>) or God, and we are what he refers to as சீவ (<i>jīva</i>) or soul, what he implies here is that our real nature as pure being, ‘I am’, is the one real substance (<i>poruḷ</i> or <i>vastu</i>), which is what both Arunachala and ourself actually are.<br>
<br>
Why then do we seem to be something other than the one existing substance (<i>uḷḷa-poruḷ</i>), which is Arunachala? In other words, why are we not aware of ourself as Arunachala? The answer to this is provided by Bhagavan in the second sentence of this verse: ‘உபாதி உணர்வே வேறு’ (<i>upādhi-uṇarvē vēṟu</i>), ‘Only adjunct-awareness is different’. That is, when we rise as ego or <i>jīva</i>, we cease to be aware of ourself as just ‘I am’, which is our இருக்கும் இயற்கை (<i>irukkum iyaṟkai</i>), ‘existing nature’, and are instead aware of ourself as ‘I am this body’, which is our rising nature. The body, which is a form consisting of five sheaths, namely the physical body, life, mind, intellect and will, is an adjunct (<i>upādhi</i>), so our awareness of ourself as ‘I am this body’ is what he refers to here as ‘உபாதி உணர்வு’ (<i>upādhi-uṇarvu</i>), ‘adjunct-awareness’.<br>
<br>
<a name="uu25"></a>Since we mistake ourself to be one set of adjuncts, we take Arunachala to be another set of adjuncts, but since he is never aware of himself as anything other than pure being-awareness (<i>sat-cit</i>), he is never aware of any adjuncts at all. He therefore never sees us as anything other than himself, so if we are to see him as he actually is, which is as he sees himself, all we need to do is to see ourself without adjuncts, as Bhagavan says in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu25">verse 25</a> of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i>:<br>
<blockquote>தன்னை யுபாதிவிட் டோர்வது தானீசன்<br>
றன்னை யுணர்வதா முந்தீபற<br>
தானா யொளிர்வதா லுந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>taṉṉai yupādhiviṭ ṭōrvadu tāṉīśaṉ<br>
ḏṟaṉṉai yuṇarvadā mundīpaṟa<br>
tāṉā yoḷirvadā lundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> தன்னை உபாதி விட்டு ஓர்வது தான் ஈசன் தன்னை உணர்வது ஆம், தானாய் ஒளிர்வதால்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>taṉṉai upādhi viṭṭu ōrvadu tāṉ īśaṉ taṉṉai uṇarvadu ām, tāṉ-āy oḷirvadāl</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Knowing oneself leaving aside adjuncts is itself knowing God, because of shining as oneself.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Knowing [or being aware of] oneself without adjuncts is itself knowing God, because [God is what is always] shining as oneself [one’s own real nature, namely pure awareness, which is oneself without any adjuncts].</blockquote>
When we rise and stand as ego, we are always aware of ourself as a set of adjuncts, namely a body consisting of five sheaths, so ‘தன்னை உபாதி விட்டு ஓர்வது’ (<i>taṉṉai upādhi viṭṭu ōrvadu</i>), ‘knowing oneself leaving aside adjuncts’, means knowing ourself as we actually are and thereby ceasing to rise as ego. Therefore what Bhagavan implies in this verse is that we cannot know God as he actually is without knowing ourself as we actually are, because he is what we actually are, and we cannot know ourself as we actually are without ceasing to rise as ego, because whenever we rise as ego we know ourself as a set of adjuncts (<i>upādhis</i>), ‘I am this body’, which is not what we actually are.<br>
<br>
This is why he says in this eighth verse of <i>Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>: ‘உளம் விடாது உனை கண்டு அடங்கிட’ (<i>uḷam viḍādu uṉai kaṇḍu aḍaṅgiḍa</i>), ‘so that seeing you uninterruptedly the mind subsides [settles, submits or ceases entirely and forever]’. அடங்கிட (<i>aḍaṅgiḍa</i>) is the infinitive form of அடங்கிடு (<i>aḍaṅgiḍu</i>), which is a compound of two verbs, அடங்கு (<i>aḍaṅgu</i>), which means to yield, submit, be subdued, shrink, settle, subside, cease or disappear, and இடு (<i>iḍu</i>), which in this context serves as an auxiliary verb that intensifies whichever verb it is appended to, so அடங்கிட (<i>aḍaṅgiḍa</i>) means to subside, settle, submit or cease entirely and forever. Here the infinitive is used in the sense of ‘in order to’ or ‘so that’, so ‘உளம் அடங்கிட’ (<i>uḷam aḍaṅgiḍa</i>) means ‘in order for the mind to subside’ or ‘so that the mind subsides [settles, submits or ceases entirely and forever]’.<br>
<br>
Arunachala is <i>ātma-svarūpa</i>, the real nature of ourself, whereas the mind is what we seem to be so long as we attend to anything other than ourself. Whenever we rise as mind we are aware of ourself as ‘I am this body’ and we are consequently aware of other things, so the mind is a false awareness of ourself, and hence it will cease to exist only when we are aware of ourself as we actually are. In other words, in order to make the mind subside in such a way that it will never rise again we need to see ourself as we actually are, and seeing ourself as we actually are is what Bhagavan refers to here as ‘உனை கண்டு’ (<i>uṉai kaṇḍu</i>), ‘seeing you’, because ‘உனை’ (<i>uṉai</i>), ‘you’, here refers to Arunachala, who is ourself as we actually are.<br>
<br>
<a name="un25"></a>In this context ‘உனை கண்டு’ (<i>uṉai kaṇḍu</i>), ‘seeing you’, does not mean seeing Arunachala in name and form because the nature of ego or mind is to rise, stand and flourish by attending to forms, but to subside and dissolve back into its source only by attending to itself, as Bhagavan implies in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un25">verse 25</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>:<br>
<blockquote>உருப்பற்றி யுண்டா முருப்பற்றி நிற்கு<br>
முருப்பற்றி யுண்டுமிக வோங்கு — முருவிட்<br>
டுருப்பற்றுந் தேடினா லோட்டம் பிடிக்கு<br>
முருவற்ற பேயகந்தை யோர்.<br>
<br>
<i>uruppaṯṟi yuṇḍā muruppaṯṟi niṟku<br>
muruppaṯṟi yuṇḍumiha vōṅgu — muruviṭ<br>
ṭuruppaṯṟun tēḍiṉā lōṭṭam piḍikku<br>
muruvaṯṟa pēyahandai yōr</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> உரு பற்றி உண்டாம்; உரு பற்றி நிற்கும்; உரு பற்றி உண்டு மிக ஓங்கும்; உரு விட்டு, உரு பற்றும்; தேடினால் ஓட்டம் பிடிக்கும். உரு அற்ற பேய் அகந்தை. ஓர்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>uru paṯṟi uṇḍām; uru paṯṟi niṟkum; uru paṯṟi uṇḍu miha ōṅgum; uru viṭṭu, uru paṯṟum; tēḍiṉāl ōṭṭam piḍikkum. uru aṯṟa pēy ahandai. ōr</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Grasping form it 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. The formless phantom ego. Investigate.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Grasping form [that is, grasping the form of a body (composed of five sheaths) as itself] it comes into existence; 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, it grasps [another] form. If sought [that is, if it seeks, examines or investigates itself], it will take flight. [Such is the nature of this] formless phantom [fiend, demon or evil spirit] ego. [Therefore] investigate [it] [or know thus].</blockquote>
However, this does not mean that there is no benefit in seeing the name or form of Arunachala, because its name and form have a special power to turn our attention back within to see what we actually are, which alone is his real form (<i>svarūpa</i>). Nevertheless, the mind will not subside in such a way that it will never rise again until we turn back within, away from all names and forms, to see him as he actually is, namely as <i>ātma-svarūpa</i>, the real nature of ourself.<br>
<br>
<a name="un08"></a>Moreover, there is another reason why we can conclude that Bhagavan is not referring here to seeing Arunachala in name and form. That is, ‘விடாது உனை கண்டு’ (<i>viḍādu uṉai kaṇḍu</i>), ‘seeing you without [ever] leaving [or letting go of] [you]’, does not mean seeing him in name and form because what sees names and forms is only ego, which rises in waking and dream but subsides in sleep, so even if ego could see his name or form uninterruptedly in the waking and dream states, it would leave or let go of them whenever it falls asleep. Seeing Arunachala in name and form is therefore not seeing him in reality, as Bhagavan implies in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un08">verse 8</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>:<br>
<blockquote>எப்பெயரிட் டெவ்வுருவி லேத்தினுமார் பேருருவி<br>
லப்பொருளைக் காண்வழிய தாயினுமம் — மெய்ப்பொருளி<br>
னுண்மையிற்ற னுண்மையினை யோர்ந்தொடுங்கி யொன்றுதலே<br>
யுண்மையிற் காண லுணர்.<br>
<br>
<i>eppeyariṭ ṭevvuruvi lēttiṉumār pēruruvi<br>
lapporuḷaik kāṇvaṙiya dāyiṉumam — meypporuḷi<br>
ṉuṇmaiyiṯṟa ṉuṇmaiyiṉai yōrndoḍuṅgi yoṉḏṟudalē<br>
yuṇmaiyiṯ kāṇa luṇar</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> 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.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>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</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>அன்வயம்:</b> 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.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Anvayam</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>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</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> 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.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Whoever worships [it] in whatever form giving [it] whatever name, that is the way to see that [nameless and formless] <i>poruḷ</i> [the real substance, namely <i>brahman</i>, 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 <i>poruḷ</i>, becoming one [with it] alone is seeing [it] in reality. Know [or be aware].</blockquote>
<a name="un20"></a>Since Arunachala is the one real substance (<i>mey-p-poruḷ</i> or <i>sat-vastu</i>), it is what Bhagavan refers to in this verse as ‘தன் உண்மை’ (<i>taṉ uṇmai</i>), the ‘reality of oneself’, so seeing the reality of ourself by investigating what we actually are is alone seeing him in reality. Since all names and forms are mental fabrications, instead of seeing him as the reality of ourself, seeing him in name and form is not seeing him as he actually is but is only seeing a mental image, as Bhagavan says in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un20">verse 20</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>:<br>
<blockquote>காணுந் தனைவிட்டுத் தான்கடவு ளைக்காணல்<br>
காணு மனோமயமாங் காட்சிதனைக் — காணுமவன்<br>
றான்கடவுள் கண்டானாந் தன்முதலைத் தான்முதல்போய்த்<br>
தான்கடவு ளன்றியில தால்.<br>
<br>
<i>kāṇun taṉaiviṭṭut tāṉkaḍavu ḷaikkāṇal<br>
kāṇu maṉōmayamāṅ kāṭcitaṉaik — kāṇumavaṉ<br>
ḏṟāṉkaḍavuḷ kaṇḍāṉān taṉmudalait tāṉmudalpōyt<br>
tāṉkaḍavu ḷaṉḏṟiyila dāl</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b>: 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.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>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</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>அன்வயம்:</b> 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.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Anvayam</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>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</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> 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.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Leaving [letting go of, neglecting, ignoring or not investigating] oneself [namely ego], who sees [all 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 [namely ego], is one who has seen God, because oneself [one’s real nature], [which alone is what remains] when oneself [namely ego], the origin [root or foundation of all other things], goes, is not other than God.</blockquote>
<a name="un21"></a>Since ego is a false awareness of ourself, an awareness of ourself as something other than what we actually are, so long as we rise and stand as ego, we cannot see ourself as we actually are, and hence we cannot see Arunachala as he actually is. Therefore, as soon as we see ourself as we actually are, ego will subside in such a way that it will never rise again, so Bhagavan concludes <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un21">verse 21</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i> by saying ‘ஊண் ஆதல் காண்’ (<i>ūṇ ādal kāṇ</i>), ‘Becoming food is seeing’, thereby implying that eradication of ego alone is seeing Arunachala:<br>
<blockquote>தன்னைத்தான் காண றலைவன் றனைக்காண<br>
லென்னும்பன் னூலுண்மை யென்னையெனின் — றன்னைத்தான்<br>
காணலெவன் றானொன்றாற் காணவொணா தேற்றலைவற்<br>
காணலெவ னூணாதல் காண்.<br>
<br>
<i>taṉṉaittāṉ kāṇa ṯalaivaṉ ḏṟaṉaikkāṇa<br>
leṉṉumpaṉ ṉūluṇmai yeṉṉaiyeṉiṉ — ḏṟaṉṉaittāṉ<br>
kāṇalevaṉ ḏṟāṉoṉḏṟāṯ kāṇavoṇā dēṯṟalaivaṯ<br>
kāṇaleva ṉūṇādal kāṇ</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> ‘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.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>‘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</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>அன்வயம்:</b> ‘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.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Anvayam</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>‘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</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> 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.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> 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.]</blockquote>
Seeing ourself bereft of adjuncts is alone seeing Arunachala as he actually is, and since ego is ourself mixed and conflated with adjuncts, it is eradicated as soon as we see ourself bereft of adjuncts, so only when we as ego have been swallowed by Arunachala are we truly seeing him. This is what Bhagavan implies by saying ‘ஊண் ஆதல் காண்’ (<i>ūṇ ādal kāṇ</i>), ‘Becoming food is seeing’, in this verse, and also what he implies in this eighth verse of <i>Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> when he says ‘உளம் விடாது உனை கண்டு அடங்கிட’ (<i>uḷam viḍādu uṉai kaṇḍu aḍaṅgiḍa</i>), ‘so that seeing you uninterruptedly the mind subsides [settles, submits or ceases entirely and forever]’.<br>
<br>
The mind cannot see Arunachala as he really is without subsiding so thoroughly that it can never rise again, so who is it that sees him uninterruptedly? He alone sees himself, because he can never be an object of sight or awareness, so he can never be seen by anything other than himself. Therefore we can see him only by being him, and we can be him only by being swallowed by him, so ‘ஊண் ஆதல் காண்’ (<i>ūṇ ādal kāṇ</i>), ‘Becoming food [to him] is [alone] seeing [him as he actually is]’.<br>
<br>
<a name="aamm09"></a>Subsiding in such a way that we become food to Arunachala and therefore never rise again is what Bhagavan refers to as ‘எனை அழித்து’ (<i>eṉai aṙittu</i>), ‘destroying me’ or ‘annihilating me’, at the beginning of the next verse, namely verse 9 of <i>Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>:<br>
<blockquote>எனையழித் திப்போ தெனைக்கல வாவிடி<br>
லிதுவோ வாண்மை யருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>eṉaiyaṙit tippō deṉaikkala vāviḍi<br>
liduvō vāṇmai yaruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> எனை அழித்து இப்போது எனை கலவாவிடில், இதுவோ ஆண்மை அருணாசலா?<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>eṉai aṙittu ippōdu eṉai kalavāviḍil, iduvō āṇmai aruṇācalā?</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, if not now uniting me, destroying me, is this manliness?<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, now [that I am willing to surrender myself entirely to you], if [you] do not unite me [with yourself in inseparable oneness], [thereby] destroying me [destroying my ‘virginity’, namely ego], is this [your] manliness?</blockquote>
Since Arunachala is not an object of perception and can therefore never be seen as such, we can see him only by being him, and we can be him only when he destroys us and thereby makes us one with himself. So long as we rise and stand as ego, we seem to be separate from him and hence we cannot see him as he actually is, so in order for us to see him as he sees himself, our separate existence as ego needs to be eradicated, and this eradication of ego is what he refers to in verse 8 as ‘உளம் அடங்கிட’ (<i>uḷam aḍaṅgiḍa</i>), ‘for the mind to subside [or cease]’ or ‘so that the mind subsides [or ceases]’, and in verse 9 as ‘எனை அழித்து’ (<i>eṉai aṙittu</i>), ‘destroying me’. Only when ego is thus destroyed will we be united with Arunachala in our natural and eternal state of inseparable oneness with him, and only when we are one with him are we seeing him as he actually is.<br>
<br>
We can therefore see him only by surrendering ourself to him entirely, and we will be willing to surrender ourself to him entirely only when we have all-consuming love for him. Such all-consuming love is our real nature, but so long as we rise and stand as ego we seem to lack such love, and hence our mind wanders ceaselessly around the world seeking happiness in things other than ourself. We will therefore cease wandering about outside and surrender ourself entirely to him only when he attracts us to him in such a way that we are consumed entirely by intense love for him.<br>
<br>
We wander about among the <i>viṣayas</i> (objects or phenomena) that constitute the world because in our clouded and befuddled state of self-ignorance we are under the wrong impression that we can obtain happiness from them, and hence we are constantly swayed this way and that by our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> (inclinations to seek happiness in them). Therefore it is only when Arunachala makes us see that happiness is our own real nature that we will be willing to look within so keenly that we will thereby cease seeing anything else and see him alone as our own real nature.<br>
<br>
This is therefore what Bhagavan teaches us to pray for in this verse. Arunachala making us see that happiness is our own real nature is what he implies by praying ‘உன் அழகை காட்டு அருணாசலா’ (<i>uṉ aṙahai kāṭṭu aruṇācalā</i>), ‘Arunachala, show your beauty’. உன் (<i>uṉ</i>) is the inflectional base of the second person singular pronoun, and when used on its own it represents the genitive case, so it means ‘your’. அழகை (<i>aṙahai</i>) is the accusative form of அழகு (<i>aṙahu</i>), which means ‘beauty’, and காட்டு (<i>kāṭṭu</i>) is a transitive verb that means ‘show’, ‘disclose’, ‘reveal’ or ‘cause to see’, being a causative form of காண் (<i>kāṇ</i>), ‘see’, so ‘உன் அழகை காட்டு’ (<i>uṉ aṙahai kāṭṭu</i>) means ‘show your beauty’ or ‘make [me] see your beauty’.<br>
<br>
What Bhagavan means by ‘உன் அழகு’ (<i>uṉ aṙahu</i>), ‘your beauty’, is clearly and beautifully described by Muruganar:<br>
<blockquote>“உன்னழகு” என்றது மாயாவிலாசமாகத் தோன்றி மனத்தை மயக்குகின்ற விஷயங்களுக் கெல்லாம் வியதிரேகமான நிருபாதிக சுயஞ்சோதியாய் நிர்விகற்பமா யிருந்தோளிர்கின்ற சுத்த சைதன்யமான அருணாசலன் சொரூபலாவண்யத்தை.<br>
<br>
<i>“uṉ-ṉ-aṙahu” eṉḏṟadu māyā-vilāsam-āha-t tōṉḏṟi maṉattai mayakkugiṉḏṟa viṣayaṅgaḷukku ellām viyatirēkam-āṉa nirupādhika suyañjyōti-y-āy nirvikaṯpam-āy irundōḷirgiṉḏṟa śuddha caitaṉyam-āṉa aruṇācalaṉ sorūpa-lāvaṇyattai.</i><br>
<br>
What is called “your beauty” is Arunachala’s <i>svarūpa-lāvaṇya</i> [the beauty, loveliness or charm of his real nature], which is <i>śuddha caitanya</i> [pure awareness], which exists and shines without <i>upādhis</i> [adjuncts], being <i>svayaṁjyōti</i> [self-luminous] and <i>nirvikalpa</i> [devoid of change or differences], and which is <i>viyatirēka</i> [antithetical] to all <i>viṣayas</i> [objects or phenomena], which delude the mind, appearing as <i>māyā-vilāsa</i> [the play of <i>māyā</i>].</blockquote>
வியதிரேகம் (<i>viyatirēkam</i>) means what is distinct from and can never co-exist with, and what therefore excludes entirely, so ‘விஷயங்களுக் கெல்லாம் வியதிரேகமான’ (<i>viṣayaṅgaḷukku ellām viyatirēkam-āṉa</i>), ‘which is <i>viyatirēka</i> to all <i>viṣayas</i>’, which is a relative clause describing சுத்த சைதன்யம் (<i>śuddha caitaṉyam</i>), ‘pure awareness’, means that pure awareness is that which is distinct from and can never co-exist with <i>viṣayas</i> (objects or phenomena), and which therefore excludes them entirely.<br>
<br>
Arunachala is always showing us his real beauty, but in order to see what he is showing us we must turn back within to look at it. In other words, his grace is always doing everything that is necessary to draw us back to him, but it will never force us against our will, so we must be willing to co-operate with it by playing our small part, namely persistently trying to turn back within to see the beauty that he is always showing us. Because we are deluded by <i>viṣayas</i>, which are the play of <i>māyā</i>, we continue to roam among them, but if we sincerely wish to free ourself from this delusion, we must try our best to persistently look back within to see the real beauty of Arunachala, which always exists and shines in our heart as pure awareness, ‘I am’, devoid of all <i>upādhis</i> (adjuncts) and therefore devoid also of all <i>vikalpas</i> (changes and differences).<br>
<br>
Though it is necessary for us to co-operate with his grace by persistently trying to look deep within ourself to see him shining in our heart as our fundamental awareness of our own being, ‘I am’, thereby surrendering ourself entirely to him, what motivates us to do so is only his grace, because without his grace we would not have even the slightest inclination to look within or to surrender ourself to him. That is, we will look within only to the extent that we love to know and to be what we actually are, which is Arunachala, so since the nature of the mind is to roam about the world by constantly looking outwards, whatever love we have to look back within does not originate from our mind but only from his grace.<br>
<br>
Therefore, since the very nature of the mind is to roam about the world, searching in vain for happiness in one <i>viṣaya</i> after another, it will be willing to look back within to see Arunachala shining eternally in the heart as ‘I am’ only to the extent that it is drawn within by the all-powerful attraction of his grace. Since the nature of the mind is to constantly seek happiness, and since it will not subside forever until it experiences happiness in its infinite and eternal fullness, it will be drawn to look within only to the extent that it is made to see that the infinite and eternal happiness it is seeking is its own real nature. Therefore, since Arunachala is our own real nature (<i>svarūpa</i>), he alone is the real happiness that we are constantly seeking, so this happiness is what Bhagavan refers to in this verse as his beauty, and this is why he prays: ‘ஊர் சுற்று உளம் விடாது உனை கண்டு அடங்கிட, உன் அழகை காட்டு அருணாசலா’ (<i>ūr suṯṟu uḷam viḍādu uṉai kaṇḍu aḍaṅgiḍa, uṉ aṙahai kāṭṭu aruṇācalā</i>), ‘Arunachala, so that seeing you uninterruptedly the mind, which [by its very nature] roams [incessantly] about the world [under the sway of its <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>], subsides [in you], show [me] your beauty’.<br>
<br>
The mind will not subside and thereby cease roaming about the world in search of happiness until it looks within itself deeply and keenly enough to see the beauty of Arunachala, its own real nature, shining within it as the infinite and eternal fullness of real happiness, and it will not look within until his magnetic attraction draws it within to see his beauty. So which is to come first? Are we to look within to see his beauty, or is he to show us his beauty to make us look within? This is a question that cannot be answered either way, because it is based on an erroneous assumption, namely that our looking within and his showing us his beauty are two distinct things, which they are not. We can see his beauty only by looking within, and he can show us his beauty only by making us look within.<br>
<br>
He is ourself as we actually are, so since he and his grace are never anything other than ourself, it is only through ourself that his grace must work. When we look within, it is his grace that is making us look within, so when we look within deep enough to see his real beauty, it is his grace that is making us see it or showing it to us. So long as we look outwards and thereby roam about among the countless <i>viṣayas</i> that constitute the world, we do so under the sway of our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, but when we look back within to see his real beauty, we do so only under the sway of his grace, which shines in our heart as <i>sat-vāsanā</i>, the love to hold onto ‘I am’, our own being (<i>sat</i>), which is both his beauty (<i>aṙahu</i>) and his real nature (<i>svarūpa</i>).<br>
<br>
It is therefore up to us to choose whether we want to be swayed by our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> or by his grace. The freedom to make this choice is ours by our very nature, and every moment we are exercising this freedom one way or the other. So long as we allow ourself to be swayed by our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, we will continue to roam incessantly about the world, but if instead we yield ourself to the sway of his grace, we will be drawn to look back within to see his beauty shining in our heart as our own real nature, ‘I am’. Therefore, when we pray to him wholeheartedly to show us his beauty so that we may subside back in him, thereby seeing him eternally without ever leaving or letting go of him, we are beginning to yield ourself to him, giving our consent to him to take charge of us entirely.<br>
<br>
<b>Video discussion:</b> <a href="https://youtu.be/X9L0Uakngf4"><i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> verse 8</a><br>
<br>
<div style="text-align:center"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/X9L0Uakngf4" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-68576647114923212152022-06-17T21:18:00.003+01:002022-10-29T12:59:54.060+01:00Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai verse 7This is the seventh in a series of articles that I hope to write on <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>, Bhagavan willing, the completed ones being <a href="https://www.happinessofbeing.com/articles.html#aamm">listed here</a>.<br><a name='more'></a>
<br>
<a name="aamm07"></a><b>Verse 7:</b><br>
<blockquote>உனையே மாற்றி யோடா துளத்தின்மே<br>
லுறுதியா யிருப்பா யருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>uṉaiyē māṯṟi yōḍā duḷattiṉmē<br>
luṟudiyā yiruppā yaruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> உனை ஏமாற்றி ஓடாது உளத்தின் மேல் உறுதியாய் இருப்பாய் அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>uṉai ēmāṯṟi ōḍādu uḷattiṉ mēl uṟudiyāy iruppāy aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, may you be firmly on the mind so that it does not run, deceiving you.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, may you be [remain, sit down, be seated or be enthroned] firmly on [my] mind so that it does not run [out towards other things under the sway of its <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>], deceiving [or cheating on] you [like a promiscuous wife].<br>
<br>
<b>Alternative interpretation 1</b> [when the first two words are split as ‘உனையே மாற்றி’ (<i>uṉaiyē māṯṟi</i>), ‘changing you’, instead of ‘உனை ஏமாற்றி’ (<i>uṉai ēmāṯṟi</i>), ‘deceiving you’ or ‘cheating you’]: Arunachala, may you be [or sit down] firmly on [my] mind so that it does not run [outwards], changing [or transforming] you [by seeing you, who are the one infinite, indivisible and immutable pure awareness, as the numerous objects that constitute both the internal world of mental phenomena and the external world of physical phenomena].<br>
<br>
<b>Alternative interpretation 2</b> [when மாற்றி (<i>māṯṟi</i>) is taken to mean removing, dispelling, repelling or expelling instead of changing, altering or transforming]: Arunachala, may you be [seated] firmly on [the back of this horse, namely my unruly] mind, so that it does not run [away out of control], expelling [or rejecting] you [by throwing you off its back].</blockquote>
<b>Explanation:</b> உனை (<i>uṉai</i>) is a poetic abbreviation of உன்னை (<i>uṉṉai</i>), the accusative form of the second person singular pronoun, ‘you’, and ஏமாற்றி (<i>ēmāṯṟi</i>) is an adverbial participle that means deceiving, cheating, tricking, defrauding or confusing, so ‘உனை ஏமாற்றி’ (<i>uṉai ēmāṯṟi</i>) means ‘deceiving you’ or ‘cheating you’. ஓடாது (<i>ōḍādu</i>) is a negative adverbial participle that means ‘not running’, but in this context it is used in the sense of ‘for not running’ or ‘so that it [the mind] does not run’, so ‘உனை ஏமாற்றி ஓடாது’ (<i>uṉai ēmāṯṟi ōḍādu</i>) means ‘so that it [the mind] does not run deceiving [or cheating] you’.<br>
<br>
உளத்தின் (<i>uḷattiṉ</i>) is an inflected form of உளம் (<i>uḷam</i>), a poetic abbreviation of உள்ளம் (<i>uḷḷam</i>), which means the heart or in this case the mind, and மேல் (<i>mēl</i>) means above, on, upon or on top of, so ‘உளத்தின் மேல்’ (<i>uḷattiṉ mēl</i>) means ‘on the mind’. உறுதி (<i>uṟudi</i>) is a noun that means firmness, strength or stability, and உறுதியாய் (<i>uṟudiyāy</i>) is an adverbial form of it, meaning firmly or steadily. இரு (<i>iru</i>) is a verb that means to be, exist, remain, stay, wait, sink, sit down or be seated, and இருப்பாய் (<i>iruppāy</i>) is a second person singular future form of it, so it means ‘you will be’, but in this case it is used as an optative or polite imperative, so it means ‘may you be’. Therefore ‘உளத்தின் மேல் உறுதியாய் இருப்பாய்’ (<i>uḷattiṉ mēl uṟudiyāy iruppāy</i>) means ‘may you be [or sit down] firmly on [my] mind’, and ‘உனை ஏமாற்றி ஓடாது உளத்தின் மேல் உறுதியாய் இருப்பாய்’ (<i>uṉai ēmāṯṟi ōḍādu uḷattiṉ mēl uṟudiyāy iruppāy</i>) means ‘may you be [or sit down] firmly on [my] mind so that it does not run, deceiving [or cheating] you’.<br>
<br>
The teaching implied in this verse, therefore, is ‘do not run, just be’, so what is meant by ‘running’ and what is meant by ‘being’? In brief, running is the nature of the mind, whereas being is our real nature. That is, in this context ‘running’ means going outwards, away from ourself towards other things, whereas ‘being’ means remaining as we always actually are, resting in the heart without ever going out to do anything or to know anything other than ourself.<br>
<br>
Though this teaching, ‘do not run, just be’, which is addressed to us as mind (meaning as ego), is implied in this verse, it is expressed in the form of a prayer addressed to Arunachala, asking him to be seated firmly upon us so that we do not run outwards, associating with anything other than him, thereby cheating him like a fickle and unfaithful wife cheating on her loving and caring husband by spending her time being intimate with other men. When we run outwards, attending to anything other than ourself, we are being unfaithful to our beloved lord, Arunachala, like a wife associating intimately with other men. Such is the nature of the mind, however, so we cannot just be as we actually are without the grace of Arunachala, because it is only by his grace that we can have sufficient love to cling firmly to our being, ‘I am’, and thereby just be as we actually are.<br>
<br>
Arunachala is our own being, ‘I am’, so his being firmly on our mind and our clinging firmly to our being are not two separate states, but just two different ways of describing the same state. He will not sit down firmly upon us until we are willing to submit ourself entirely to him, but whatever willingness or love we have to submit to him is his grace shining in our heart. Therefore when Bhagavan prays, ‘ஓடாது உளத்தின் மேல் உறுதியாய் இருப்பாய் அருணாசலா’ (<i>ōḍādu uḷattiṉ mēl uṟudiyāy iruppāy aruṇācalā</i>), ‘Arunachala, may you be [seated] firmly on [my] mind so that it does not run [out towards any other thing]’, what he implies is ‘may you shine so clearly and steadily in my heart that my mind is drawn inwards to cling firmly to you with heart-melting love, instead of running outwards in accordance with its fickle and unfaithful nature’.<br>
<br>
<a name="aamm16"></a>Arunachala is always shining clearly and steadily in our heart as our own being, ‘I am’, but we fail to recognise the nature of his being and shining thus because of the outward-running nature of our mind, so he needs to shine within us in such a way that our mind is drawn inwards like a needle being drawn towards a magnet, as Bhagavan prays in verse 16 of <i>Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>:<br>
<blockquote>காந்த மிரும்புபோற் கவர்ந்தெனை விடாமற்<br>
கலந்தெனோ டிருப்பா யருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>kānta mirumbupōṟ kavarndeṉai viḍāmaṟ<br>
kalandeṉō ḍiruppā yaruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> காந்தம் இரும்பு போல் கவர்ந்து எனை, விடாமல் கலந்து எனோடு இருப்பாய் அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>kāntam irumbu pōl kavarndu eṉai, viḍāmal kalandu eṉōḍu iruppāy aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>அன்வயம்:</b> காந்தம் இரும்பு போல் எனை கவர்ந்து, விடாமல் கலந்து எனோடு இருப்பாய் அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Anvayam</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>kāntam irumbu pōl eṉai kavarndu, viḍāmal kalandu eṉōḍu iruppāy aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, forcibly seizing me like a magnet iron, uniting without leaving, may you be with me.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, forcibly seizing [grasping, captivating or attracting] me [by the captivating power of your grace] like a magnet [grasping] iron [by its natural power of attraction], uniting [me with you] without [ever] leaving [or letting go of] [me], may you be [eternally one] with me.</blockquote>
<a name="aamm08"></a>Arunachala being and shining in our heart in such a way that our mind is drawn inwards to see him alone and thereby prevented from running outwards to roam about in the world of objects or phenomena is also what Bhagavan prays for when he sings ‘உன் அழகை காட்டு அருணாசலா’ (<i>uṉ aṙahai kāṭṭu aruṇācalā</i>), ‘Arunachala, show your beauty’, in the next verse, namely verse 8 of <i>Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>:<br>
<blockquote>ஊர்சுற் றுளம்விடா துனைக்கண் டடங்கிட<br>
வுன்னழ கைக்காட் டருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>ūrsuṯ ṟuḷamviḍā duṉaikkaṇ ḍaḍaṅgiḍa<br>
vuṉṉaṙa haikkāṭ ṭaruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> ஊர் சுற்று உளம் விடாது உனை கண்டு அடங்கிட, உன் அழகை காட்டு அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>ūr suṯṟu uḷam viḍādu uṉai kaṇḍu aḍaṅgiḍa, uṉ aṙahai kāṭṭu aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, so that seeing you uninterruptedly the mind, which roams about the world, will subside, show your beauty.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, so that seeing [or looking at] you uninterruptedly [my] mind, which [by its very nature] roams [incessantly] about the world [under the sway of its <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>], will subside [settle, submit or cease entirely and forever] [thereby being brought under the sway of your grace], show [me] your beauty [the infinite beauty of your real nature, which is unlimited, unalloyed and unceasing happiness].</blockquote>
<a name="ny07"></a>Arunachala is <i>ātma-svarūpa</i>, the real nature of ourself, and its nature is just to be, without ever rising to do anything or to know anything other than itself. It is therefore immutable, and hence it is அசல (<i>acala</i>), unmoving. As Bhagavan says in the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para07">seventh paragraph</a> of <i>Nāṉ Ār?</i>, ‘யதார்த்தமா யுள்ளது ஆத்மசொரூப மொன்றே’ (<i>yathārtham-āy uḷḷadu ātma-sorūpam oṉḏṟē</i>), ‘What actually exists is only <i>ātma-svarūpa</i>’, so since nothing other than Arunachala actually exists, it is <i>ēkam ēva advitīyam</i>, ‘one only without a second’, and hence it is infinite and therefore formless.<br>
<br>
<a name="un04"></a>We are therefore never anything other than Arunachala, but when we seemingly rise as ego, we limit ourself as the extent of a body, a form consisting of five sheaths, which we mistake to be ‘I’, so we seem to be something other than Arunachala. Since we have limited ourself as the form of a body, we become aware of the appearance of numerous other forms, all of which seem to be other than ourself, as Bhagavan points out in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un04">verse 4</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>: <br>
<blockquote>உருவந்தா னாயி னுலகுபர மற்றா<br>
முருவந்தா னன்றே லுவற்றி — னுருவத்தைக் <br>
கண்ணுறுதல் யாவனெவன் கண்ணலாற் காட்சியுண்டோ<br>
கண்ணதுதா னந்தமிலாக் கண்.<br>
<br>
<i>uruvandā ṉāyi ṉulahupara maṯṟā<br>
muruvandā ṉaṉḏṟē luvaṯṟi — ṉuruvattaik<br>
kaṇṇuṟudal yāvaṉevaṉ kaṇṇalāṯ kāṭciyuṇḍō<br>
kaṇṇadutā ṉantamilāk kaṇ</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> 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.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>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</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> 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.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> 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 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].</blockquote>
<a name="un25"></a>Since we cannot rise, stand or flourish as ego without first grasping the form of a body as ourself and then grasping other forms as the objects of our experience, the very nature of ourself as ego or mind is to be always grasping forms of one kind or another, whether relatively gross or relatively subtle, and we cannot subside or cease so long as we continue to grasp forms. The only means, therefore, by which we as ego can subside in such a way that we will never rise again is to cling firmly to ourself alone, as Bhagavan implies in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un25">verse 25</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>:<br>
<blockquote>உருப்பற்றி யுண்டா முருப்பற்றி நிற்கு<br>
முருப்பற்றி யுண்டுமிக வோங்கு — முருவிட்<br>
டுருப்பற்றுந் தேடினா லோட்டம் பிடிக்கு<br>
முருவற்ற பேயகந்தை யோர்.<br>
<br>
<i>uruppaṯṟi yuṇḍā muruppaṯṟi niṟku<br>
muruppaṯṟi yuṇḍumiha vōṅgu — muruviṭ<br>
ṭuruppaṯṟun tēḍiṉā lōṭṭam piḍikku<br>
muruvaṯṟa pēyahandai yōr</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> உரு பற்றி உண்டாம்; உரு பற்றி நிற்கும்; உரு பற்றி உண்டு மிக ஓங்கும்; உரு விட்டு, உரு பற்றும்; தேடினால் ஓட்டம் பிடிக்கும். உரு அற்ற பேய் அகந்தை. ஓர்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>uru paṯṟi uṇḍām; uru paṯṟi niṟkum; uru paṯṟi uṇḍu miha ōṅgum; uru viṭṭu, uru paṯṟum; tēḍiṉāl ōṭṭam piḍikkum. uru aṯṟa pēy ahandai. ōr</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Grasping form it 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. The formless phantom ego. Investigate.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Grasping form [namely the form of a body composed of five sheaths] [as itself] it comes into existence; grasping form [that is, holding on to that body as itself] it stands [endures, continues or persists]; grasping and feeding on form [namely other forms or phenomena] it grows [or flourishes] abundantly; leaving [one] form, it grasps [another] form. 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]. [Such is the nature of this] formless phantom [fiend, demon or evil spirit] ego. [Therefore] investigate [it] [or know thus].</blockquote>
Since ego is a formless phantom or evil spirit, whatever forms it grasps are things other than itself, so in this context உரு (<i>uru</i>), ‘form’, means anything other than ego, namely any object or phenomenon. In other words, anything that can be distinguished in any way from any other thing is a form of one kind or another. So long as ego is grasping the form of a body as itself and consequently grasping other forms as its food or nourishment, it endures and flourishes, but since it has no form of its own, if it tries to grasp only itself, it will subside and dissolve back into its source, namely <i>sat-cit</i> (being-awareness), the fundamental awareness of our own being, ‘I am’, as Bhagavan implies by saying: ‘தேடினால் ஓட்டம் பிடிக்கும்’ (<i>tēḍiṉāl ōṭṭam piḍikkum</i>), ‘If sought [that is, if it investigates itself], it will take flight’.<br>
<br>
Since ego cannot rise, stand or flourish without grasping forms, its nature is to have strong inclinations to grasp forms, and these inclinations are what are called <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, inclinations (<i>vāsanās</i>) to seek happiness in <i>viṣayas</i> (objects or phenomena). The nature of ego, therefore, is to constantly run outwards and wander under the sway of its <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, so clinging to our own being, ‘I am’, and thereby being as we actually are, is contrary to the very nature of ourself as ego. However, though it is contrary to our ego-nature, it is our real nature, so it is only by the grace of Arunachala, who is our real nature, that we can be as we actually are.<br>
<br>
It is not by doing anything that Arunachala enables us to be as we actually are, but just by being as he actually is, which is why Bhagavan prays in this verse ‘உளத்தின் மேல் உறுதியாய் இருப்பாய் அருணாசலா’ (<i>uḷattiṉ mēl uṟudiyāy iruppāy aruṇācalā</i>), ‘Arunachala, may you be firmly on [my] mind’. That is, Arunachala is not only pure and infinite being but also pure and infinite love, because he does not see us or anything else as other than himself, so he loves us and everything else as himself. His love is therefore without any limits, so it is just by his existing and shining in our heart as our own real nature that he gives us the love required to cling firmly to him and thereby to be as we actually are.<br>
<br>
Why then do we seem to be devoid of that love, or at least deficient in it? Since he is always existing and shining in our heart as our own being, ‘I am’, should we not always have all-consuming love to cling firmly to him? Yes, we should have, and in reality we do have, but we seem to be lacking such love because we have risen as ego, so under the sway of our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> we allow our mind to run about outside, and hence we overlook his presence in our heart. Therefore, in order to recognise his presence in our heart and thereby be drawn within with all-consuming love for him, we need to try persistently to look within instead of running about outside. The more we look within, the more our love to look within will grow.<br>
<br>
By persistently trying to look within and thereby hold onto our being, ‘I am’, we are yielding ourself to him, and the more we yield ourself to him the less we are obstructing his அருட்செயல் (<i>aruḷ-seyal</i>), the working of his grace. However, it is only his grace that is drawing our mind to face within, so it is only by his grace that we can surrender ourself to him. In other words, it is only by his being seated firmly on our mind that we can be as we actually are and thereby cease forever running about outside, as Bhagavan implies by praying in this verse: ‘உனை ஏமாற்றி ஓடாது உளத்தின் மேல் உறுதியாய் இருப்பாய் அருணாசலா’ (<i>uṉai ēmāṯṟi ōḍādu uḷattiṉ mēl uṟudiyāy iruppāy aruṇācalā</i>), ‘Arunachala, may you be [seated] firmly on [my] mind so that it does not run [about outside], deceiving [or cheating on] you’.<br>
<br>
The first clause of this verse can be interpreted in two ways. The first is as I have explained above, namely to split this clause as ‘உனை ஏமாற்றி’ (<i>uṉai ēmāṯṟi</i>), in which உனை (<i>uṉai</i>) is an accusative form of the second person singular pronoun, ‘you’, and ஏமாற்றி (<i>ēmāṯṟi</i>) is an adverbial participle that means deceiving, cheating or tricking, so ‘உனை ஏமாற்றி’ (<i>uṉai ēmāṯṟi</i>) means ‘deceiving you’, ‘cheating you’ or ‘tricking you’. The alternative interpretation is to split it as ‘உனையே மாற்றி’ (<i>uṉaiyē māṯṟi</i>), in which உனையே (<i>uṉaiyē</i>) is an intensified form of உனை (<i>uṉai</i>), so it means ‘you’ or ‘you yourself’, and மாற்றி (<i>māṯṟi</i>) is a transitive adverbial participle that means changing, altering or transforming, so ‘உனையே மாற்றி’ (<i>uṉaiyē māṯṟi</i>) means ‘changing you’, ‘altering you’ or ‘transforming you’.<br>
<br>
Arunachala is <i>ātma-svarūpa</i>, the real nature of ourself, which is alone what actually exists, and which is therefore infinite, eternal, indivisible and immutable, so it can never actually be changed, altered or transformed in any way, but when we rise as ego and thereby allow our mind to run about outside under the sway of its <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, in the view of ourself as ego we seem to be a subject (a knower) knowing a vast multiplicity of objects or phenomena (things that are known). Therefore, since Arunachala alone is what actually exists, what we are seeing as the subject and the multitude of objects is actually only Arunachala, so by allowing our mind to run about outside we seem to have changed Arunachala into all this.<br>
<br>
It is this seeming transformation of Arunachala, who is <i>ēkam ēva advitīyam</i>, ‘one only without a second’, into all this multiplicity and diversity that Bhagavan refers to in this verse when he sings: ‘உனையே மாற்றி ஓடாது உளத்தின் மேல் உறுதியாய் இருப்பாய் அருணாசலா’ (<i>uṉaiyē māṯṟi ōḍādu uḷattiṉ mēl uṟudiyāy iruppāy aruṇācalā</i>), ‘Arunachala, may you be [seated] firmly on [my] mind so that it does not run [about outside], changing [or transforming] you [by seeing you as all this multiplicity]’.<br>
<br>
By allowing the mind to run outwards, we are seemingly transforming Arunachala in another sense also. That is, the nature of Arunachala is pure being, but by rising as ego and thereby allowing our mind to run about outside we are seemingly transforming being into rising and doing. As pure being, Arunachala is not actually affected in the least by the appearance of any amount of rising, running or doing, which occur only in the view of ego, the false rising ‘I’, so being is never actually transformed into rising, running or doing, but as ego we mistakenly see our being, ‘I am’, as rising, running and doing, ‘I have risen’, ‘I am running’ and ‘I am doing’. Therefore, in order to put an end to this illusory appearance of rising, running and doing by enabling us to see our real being as it always actually is, Bhagavan prays to Arunachala on our behalf: ‘உனையே மாற்றி ஓடாது உளத்தின் மேல் உறுதியாய் இருப்பாய் அருணாசலா’ (<i>uṉaiyē māṯṟi ōḍādu uḷattiṉ mēl uṟudiyāy iruppāy aruṇācalā</i>), ‘Arunachala, may you be [seated] firmly on the mind so that it does not [rise to] run [about outside, incessantly doing actions by mind, speech and body], [thereby seemingly] changing you [the one real being] [as all this rising, running and doing]’.<br>
<br>
Muruganar also gives an alternative explanation of this verse by pointing out that the wording of it also suggests another metaphor, namely a rider controlling an unruly horse by sitting firmly upon it. The mind is like an unruly horse, so if it is not firmly controlled by its rider, it will run away, throwing the rider from its back and thereby becoming free to roam wherever it wills, which in the case of the mind would be to run after all the allurements of the world. That is, மாற்றி (<i>māṯṟi</i>) also means removing, dispelling, repelling or expelling, so in the case of a horse and a rider it implies the horse throwing the rider from its back. Therefore, when viewed in the light of this metaphor, ‘உனையே மாற்றி ஓடாது உளத்தின் மேல் உறுதியாய் இருப்பாய் அருணாசலா’ (<i>uṉaiyē māṯṟi ōḍādu uḷattiṉ mēl uṟudiyāy iruppāy aruṇācalā</i>) implies: ‘Arunachala, may you be [seated] firmly on [the back of this horse, namely my unruly] mind, so that it does not run [away out of control], expelling [or rejecting] you [by throwing you off its back]’.<br>
<br>
<a name="apad07"></a>The central idea in all the three interpretations of this verse that I have discussed here is the same, namely that the outward-running nature of the mind can be curbed and redirected to sink back within only by the grace of Arunachala, who is what is always existing and shining clearly in our heart as our own being, ‘I am’, and his drawing the mind back within to face himself alone and thereby to sink and merge forever in him, the heart, is what Bhagavan describes metaphorically as him being or sitting down firmly on the mind, just as he describes it metaphorically in verse 7 of <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Padigam</i> as him placing his vast lotus-feet on the head of ego, the spurious ‘I’ who has come out as if it were something other than him:<br>
<blockquote>வெளிவளி தீநீர் மண்பல வுயிரா<br>
விரிவுறு பூதபௌ திகங்கள்<br>
வெளியொளி யுன்னை யன்றியின் றென்னின்<br>
வேறுயா னாருளன் விமலா<br>
வெளியதா யுளத்து வேறற விளங்கின்<br>
வேறென வெளிவரு வேனார்<br>
வெளிவரா யருணா சலவவன் றலையில்<br>
விரிமலர்ப் பதத்தினை வைத்தே.<br>
<br>
<i>veḷivaḷi tīnīr maṇpala vuyirā<br>
virivuṟu bhūtabhau tikaṅgaḷ<br>
veḷiyoḷi yuṉṉai yaṉḏṟiyiṉ ḏṟeṉṉiṉ<br>
vēṟuyā ṉāruḷaṉ vimalā<br>
veḷiyadā yuḷattu vēṟaṟa viḷaṅgiṉ<br>
vēṟeṉa veḷivaru vēṉār<br>
veḷivarā yaruṇā calavavaṉ ṟalaiyil<br>
virimalarp padattiṉai vaittē</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> வெளி, வளி, தீ, நீர், மண் பல உயிரா விரிவு உறு பூத பௌதிகங்கள் வெளி ஒளி உன்னை அன்றி இன்று என்னின், வேறு யான் ஆர் உளன்? விமலா, வெளி அதாய் உளத்து வேறு அற விளங்கின், வேறு என வெளி வருவேன் ஆர்? வெளி வராய், அருணாசல, அவன் தலையில் விரி மலர் பதத்தினை வைத்தே.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>veḷi, vaḷi, tī, nīr, maṇ pala uyirā virivu uṟu bhūta bhautikaṅgaḷ veḷi oḷi uṉṉai aṉḏṟi iṉḏṟu eṉṉiṉ, vēṟu yāṉ ār uḷaṉ? vimalā, veḷi adāy uḷattu vēṟu aṟa viḷaṅgiṉ, vēṟu eṉa veḷi varuvēṉ ār? veḷi varāy, aruṇācala, avaṉ talaiyil viri malar padattiṉai vaittē</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> If the elements, space, air, fire, water and earth, and what is composed of them, which spread out as many living beings, do not exist besides you, the space of light, who else am I? Blemishless, if shining without another in the heart as that, the space, who am I who come out as another? Come out, Arunachala, placing the vast lotus-feet on his head.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> If <i>bhūtas</i> [the five elements], [namely] space, air, fire, water and earth, and <i>bhautikas</i> [everything composed of these elements], which spread out [expand or unfold] as many living beings, do not exist besides you, the space of light [namely pure awareness], who else am I [other than you]? Blemishless, if [you are] shining without another in the heart as that, the space [of pure awareness], who am I who come out as [if] another? Come out [showing yourself to me by drawing my mind back within], Arunachala, placing [your] vast lotus-feet on his head [on the head of this ego, the spurious ‘I’ who has come out as if other than you].</blockquote>
Though we need to try persistently to turn our mind back within to see what we actually are, which is Arunachala, we can do so only by his grace, because the nature of the mind is to constantly run about outside, seeking happiness in transient phenomena instead of sinking back within to find it in the one thing that exists and shines eternally and without ever undergoing any change whatsoever, in all times, in all places and in all states, namely Arunachala, the infinite light of pure being-awareness, ‘I am’. Looking back within to see what we actually are is not difficult, but it does require all-consuming love, the source of which is Arunachala, who exists and shines deep within our heart as <i>ātma-svarūpa</i>, the real nature of ourself.<br>
<br>
<b>Video discussion:</b> <a href="https://youtu.be/SLUkeVA_0Lo"><i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> verse 7</a><br>
<br>
<div style="text-align:center"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/SLUkeVA_0Lo" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-34314279144684903472022-04-28T17:46:00.007+01:002022-10-29T12:59:40.118+01:00Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai verse 6This is the sixth in a series of articles that I hope to write on <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>, Bhagavan willing, the completed ones being <a href="https://www.happinessofbeing.com/articles.html#aamm">listed here</a>.<br><a name='more'></a>
<br>
<a name="aamm06"></a><b>Verse 6:</b><br>
<blockquote>ஈன்றிடு மன்னையிற் பெரிதருள் புரிவோ<br>
யிதுவோ வுனதரு ளருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>īṉḏṟiḍu maṉṉaiyiṟ peridaruḷ purivō<br>
yiduvō vuṉadaru ḷaruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> ஈன்றிடும் அன்னையில் பெரிது அருள் புரிவோய், இதுவோ உனது அருள் அருணாசலா?<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>īṉḏṟiḍum aṉṉaiyil peridu aruḷ purivōy, iduvō uṉadu aruḷ aruṇācalā?</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, you who bestow kindness greater than the mother who gave birth, is this your kindness?<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, you who bestow <i>aruḷ</i> [grace, love, affection, kindness, solicitude and compassion] greater than [that given by] the mother who gave birth [to one], is this your <i>aruḷ</i>?<br>
<br>
<b>Alternative meaning</b> [when இதுவோ (<i>iduvō</i>) is split as ‘இது ஓ’ (<i>idu ō</i>), ‘this, oh’ or ‘ah, such’]: Arunachala, you who bestow <i>aruḷ</i> greater than [that given by] the mother who gave birth [to one], ah, such is your <i>aruḷ</i>!</blockquote>
<b>Explanation:</b> ‘ஈன்றிடும் அன்னையில் பெரிது அருள் புரிவோய்’ (<i>īṉḏṟiḍum aṉṉaiyil peridu aruḷ purivōy</i>) is a vocative clause addressing Arunachala as ‘you who bestow kindness greater than the mother who gave birth’. ஈன்றிடும் (<i>īṉḏṟiḍum</i>) means ‘birth-giving’ or ‘who gave birth’, being an adjectival participle formed from the verb ஈன் (<i>īṉ</i>), which means to give birth, bring forth, bring into being or produce, and அன்னை (<i>aṉṉai</i>) means mother, so ஈன்றிடும் அன்னை (<i>īṉḏṟiḍum aṉṉai</i>) means ‘the mother who gave birth’, or in other words, one’s birth mother, biological mother or own mother. அன்னையில் (<i>aṉṉaiyil</i>) is a locative case form of அன்னை (<i>aṉṉai</i>), and the locative is used here in a comparative sense, so it means ‘in comparison to the mother’ or ‘than the mother’.<br>
<br>
பெரிது (<i>peridu</i>) is a noun that means what is great, large, abundant or excellent, but here it is used as an adjective in a comparative sense, so it means greater, more abundant or more excellent. அருள் (<i>aruḷ</i>) is a key word that Bhagavan frequently uses both as a noun and as a verb, particularly in <i>Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> and other songs of <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Stuti Pañcakam</i>. In this context it is a noun, and it means more or less the same as the Sanskrit terms <i>karuṇā</i>, <i>kṛpā</i> and <i>anugraha</i>, namely kindness, tenderness, affection, love, solicitude, compassion, benevolence, pity, mercy and divine grace or blessing. புரி (<i>puri</i>) is a verb that means to do, make, produce or give, and புரிவோய் (<i>purivōy</i>) is a second person composite noun that means ‘you who do [make, produce or give]’. Therefore அருள்புரி (<i>aruḷ-puri</i>) means to give or bestow kindness, tenderness, compassion or grace, and அருள்புரிவோய் (<i>aruḷ-purivōy</i>) means ‘you who bestow kindness’.<br>
<br>
Though Arunachala’s அருள் (<i>aruḷ</i>), kindness, tenderness, solicitude, compassion, love or grace, is infinite and free of even the least imperfection, whereas a mother’s is finite and flawed, and though his is therefore incomparably greater than hers, to illustrate the greatness of his <i>aruḷ</i> Bhagavan says it is greater than a mother’s because as a general rule the <i>aruḷ</i> bestowed by a mother on her own child is more perfect and unconditional than whatever kindness, solicitude or love may be given by any other person in this world. Moreover, since the term ‘mother’ can refer to mothers of various kinds, such as a stepmother, adoptive mother, foster mother and so on, he specifies ‘ஈன்றிடும் அன்னை’ (<i>īṉḏṟiḍum aṉṉai</i>), ‘the birth-giving mother’ or ‘the mother who gave birth’, because there is a special bond between a birth mother and her child, so as a general rule the love of such a mother for her child is stronger and more unconditional than that of any other kind of mother.<br>
<br>
Sadhu Om used to illustrate this with an analogy. On a dark night the dim light of the stars is a welcome respite from the pitch darkness that would otherwise envelope us, but if the moon rises, in its relatively bright light the starlight will fade into insignificance. However, when the sun rises, even the moonlight is found to be dim in comparison to the clear sunlight, which swallows all other lights in its brightness. Likewise, in the darkness of <i>saṁsāra</i> the kindness and love of friends, relatives and even strangers is a welcome respite from the selfishness, greed, heartlessness and cruelty we see all around us, but even the kindness and love of others is relatively insignificant when compared with the natural kindness and love that a mother shows towards her own child. However, when we are blessed to experience the supreme kindness and love of Arunachala, in comparison to it even the kindness and love that our own mother showed us when we were a child is found to be trivial.<br>
<br>
No matter how great a birth mother’s love for her child may be, it has its own shortcomings and limitations. For example, though a mother may give so much care and attention to her child while she is awake, when she is overcome with tiredness she wants nothing more than to sleep, and when she sleeps she forgets all about her child. Arunachala, on the other hand, is eternally awake in our heart as pure awareness and therefore never forgets us, so he is always lovingly taking care of us whether we remember him or not. He is our divine mother, the source from which we have been born as ego and into which we must eventually merge back, and he is not only our source but also our substance, meaning that he is what we actually are, so he can never leave us, and hence, unlike the mother of our body, who is separated from us daily in sleep, and will be separated from us permanently when either her body or our body dies, and who can therefore be a mother to us only temporarily, he can never be separated from us, so he is our real and eternal mother.<br>
<br>
His love for us is not constrained by any conditions, whereas the love of a birth mother is constrained by so many conditions. For example, circumstances sometimes force a mother to abandon her child, whether by giving it for adoption or in any other way, so even though she may continue to love her child, she cannot give it the care and attention that is due to it. Moreover, poverty may also cause a mother to neglect her child, because she may be so busy working to provide food and other necessities for herself and her child that she may not be able to give it sufficient care and attention. And even if a mother is able to give care and attention to her child so long as it is still young, her love for it may later diminish or cease entirely if in later life her child neglects her or if they turn against each other for any reason. On the other hand, no circumstances can ever force Arunachala to neglect or abandon us, and no matter how much we may deviate from the path of love and righteousness, he will never reject us and his love for us will never diminish even to the slightest extent.<br>
<br>
Moreover, if a mother has several children, she may be more fond of one or some of them than of others. Some mothers, for example, are particularly fond of their sons and therefore give them more care and attention than they give their daughters, whereas other mothers feel more affinity with their daughters and therefore give them more care and attention. Arunachala, on the other hand, is never guilty of such partiality, because he has unlimited and therefore equal love for all of us, since in his view none of us are other than himself.<br>
<br>
The love of a mother for her child is imperfect because it is <i>anya-aṉbu</i>, love for another, whereas the love of Arunachala is perfect in every respect, being <i>ananya-aṉbu</i>, love for what is not other, because he is the one infinite and indivisible whole, other than which nothing exists, so in his clear view nothing is other than himself, and hence he loves each and every one of us as himself. He does not merely <i>have</i> love for himself and consequently for us as himself, because he is love itself, so there is no such thing as love other than himself, and hence the love of a mother for her child and all other forms of love that we see in this world are just poor reflections of the one infinite love that is himself.<br>
<br>
His love for us is therefore his very nature, so as soon as we first rose as ego his love began working in the form of grace, the power that draws us back to merge eventually in him. His grace works primarily from within our own heart, gently pulling our mind back within, but because we are so strongly inclined to face outwards, away from him, his grace also works from outside in so many ways to gradually push us back within. For example, it is his grace that allots the fruits of our <i>karmas</i>, and it does so in such a way that will be most conducive to our spiritual development, so since everything that we experience is the fruit of our past <i>karmas</i>, our entire life is shaped by his grace. He is therefore taking care of every minute detail of both our internal and external life with far greater love and solicitude than our finite mind can ever comprehend or adequately appreciate.<br>
<br>
<a name="anmm9"></a>When her children grow up, a birth mother will generally desire to have grandchildren, and if she has enjoyed a happily married life (insofar as any life as an embodied being can be happy), she will generally desire a similar life for her children, so most birth mothers are eager to see their children marry and have children. In the case of Bhagavan, however, his divine mother and father, Arunachala, never had any such desire for him. On the contrary, the sole intention of Arunachala was to save him not only from drowning in the deep ocean of the worldly <i>māyā</i> of being a mother or father, but also from the root cause of that <i>māyā</i>, namely ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’, as he implies in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/03/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-2.html#anmm9">verse 9</a> of <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Navamaṇimālai</i>:<br>
<blockquote>அம்மையு மப்பனு மாயெனைப் பூமியி லாக்கியளித்<br>
தம்மகி மாயையெ னாழ்கடல் வீழ்ந்துயா னாழ்ந்திடுமுன்<br>
னென்மன மன்னி யிழுத்துன் பதத்தி லிருத்தினையால்<br>
சின்மய னாமரு ணாசல நின்னருட் சித்ரமென்னே.<br>
<br>
<i>ammaiyu mappaṉu māyeṉaip bhūmiyi lākkiyaḷit<br>
tammahi māyaiye ṉāṙkaḍal vīṙnduyā ṉāṙndiḍumuṉ<br>
ṉeṉmaṉa maṉṉi yiṙuttuṉ padatti liruttiṉaiyāl<br>
ciṉmaya ṉāmaru ṇācala niṉṉaruṭ citrameṉṉē</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> அம்மையும் அப்பனும் ஆய் எனை பூமியில் ஆக்கி அளித்து, அம் மகி மாயை என் ஆழ் கடல் வீழ்ந்து யான் ஆழ்ந்திடும் முன், என் மனம் மன்னி இழுத்து உன் பதத்தில் இருத்தினை ஆல். சின்மயன் ஆம் அருணாசல நின் அருள் சித்ரம் என்னே!<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>ammai-y-um appaṉ-um āy eṉai bhūmiyil ākki aḷittu, a-m-mahi māyai eṉ āṙ kaḍal vīṙndu yāṉ āṙndiḍum muṉ, eṉ maṉam maṉṉi iṙuttu uṉ padattil iruttiṉai āl. ciṉmayaṉ ām aruṇācala niṉ aruḷ citram eṉṉē!</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Bearing and tending me in the world as mother and father, before I sank falling in the deep ocean, namely that worldly <i>māyā</i>, entering my mind and drawing to yourself, you fixed at your feet. Aruṇācala, who are one composed of pure awareness, what a wonder of your grace!<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Bearing and tending me in the world as [my] mother and father, before I sank falling in the deep ocean, namely that worldly <i>māyā</i> [the delusion of being a mother or father], entering [or occupying] my mind and drawing [me inwards] to yourself [or attracting me inwards to face yourself], you fixed [me] at your feet [or in your state]. Arunachala, who are <i>cinmayaṉ</i> [one composed of pure awareness], what a wonder of your grace [this is]!</blockquote>
<a name="aa1"></a>Therefore, to save him from this worldly <i>māyā</i> and its root cause, from his earliest childhood, even before he knew any other thing, Arunachala entered and occupied his mind, making him think of him as something supremely great, as he says in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/03/after-annihilation-of-ego-no-i-can-rise.html#aa1">verse 1</a> of <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Aṣṭakam</i>: ‘அறிவு அறு கிரி என அமர்தரும். அம்மா, அதிசயம் இதன் செயல் அறி அரிது ஆர்க்கும். அறிவு அறு சிறு வயது அது முதல் அருணாசலம் மிக பெரிது என அறிவின் இலங்க, அறிகிலன் அதன் பொருள் அது திருவண்ணாமலை என ஒருவரால் அறிவு உற பெற்றும்’ (<i>aṟivu aṟu giri eṉa amardarum. ammā, atiśayam idaṉ seyal aṟi aridu ārkkum. aṟivu aṟu siṟu vayadu adu mudal aruṇācalam miha peridu eṉa aṟiviṉ ilaṅga, aṟihilaṉ adaṉ poruḷ adu tiruvaṇṇāmalai eṉa oruvarāl aṟivu uṟa peṯṟum</i>), ‘It sits calmly as a hill [seemingly] bereft of awareness [or knowledge], [but] ah, its action [its அருட்செயல் (<i>aruḷ-seyal</i>), the action or working of its grace] is pre-eminent [or wonderful], difficult for anyone to understand. Though from [my] young age, [when I was] bereft of knowledge, Arunachalam shone in [my] awareness [or mind] as something exceedingly great, even [after] coming to know from someone that it is Tiruvannamalai I did not know its <i>poruḷ</i> [substance, reality, truth, import, meaning or significance]’. For Bhagavan, therefore, there is no greater wonder than the grace of Arunachala and the way it works from within our heart to draw our mind inwards and thereby to save us by devouring us entirely.<br>
<br>
<a name="apad10"></a>Since he had experienced the அருட்செயல் (<i>aruḷ-seyal</i>), the doing, working or action of Arunachala’s grace, which had taken complete charge and possession of him, entering and occupying his mind in this way by filling it with the thought of him, thereby stopping its சேட்டை (<i>cēṭṭai</i> or <i>cēṣṭā</i>), its outward-going movement or activity, pulling it inwards to be தனது அபிமுகம் (<i>taṉadu abhimukham</i>), facing towards himself, making it அசலம் (<i>acalam</i>), motionless, like himself, and devouring him as a sweet பலி (<i>bali</i>), food offered in sacrifice, as he describes in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/03/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-payiram.html#apad10">verse 10</a> of <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Padigam</i>, the remembrance of his grace was firmly established and always shining fresh in his mind, so in the main clause of this sixth verse of <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> he refers to it as ‘இது’ (<i>idu</i>), ‘this’, exclaiming in wonder: ‘இது ஓ உனது அருள் அருணாசலா!’ (<i>idu ō uṉadu aruḷ aruṇācalā!</i>), ‘this [or such], oh, is your <i>aruḷ</i> [kindness, solicitude, compassion, love or grace], Arunachala!’.<br>
<br>
உனது (<i>uṉadu</i>) means ‘your’, and as we have seen அருள் (<i>aruḷ</i>) means grace, kindness, tenderness, solicitude, compassion or love, so ‘உனது அருள்’ (<i>uṉadu aruḷ</i>) means ‘your grace’. In this context இதுவோ (<i>iduvō</i>) can be interpreted in two ways, because இது (<i>idu</i>) means ‘this’, வ் (<i>v</i>) is a glide that joins இது (<i>idu</i>) and ஓ (<i>ō</i>) euphonically, and ஓ (<i>ō</i>) is both an interrogative suffix and an interjection, the meaning of which is determined by the context in which it is used, like ‘oh’ or ‘ah’ in English, and which in this context expresses wonder and joy. The meaning immediately suggested by இதுவோ (<i>iduvō</i>) is a question implying ‘is this?’, so when it is interpreted in this interrogative sense the main clause of this verse is a question: ‘இதுவோ உனது அருள் அருணாசலா?’ (<i>iduvō uṉadu aruḷ aruṇācalā?</i>), ‘is this your <i>aruḷ</i> [kindness, solicitude, compassion, love or grace], Arunachala?’. When it is interpreted in this interrogative sense, therefore, in this verse Bhagavan is rebuking Arunachala, implying: ‘When your love is so much greater than a mother’s, if you do not now finish the task you began, eradicating this ego and thereby taking complete charge of me as your own, and if instead you leave me to languish in this half-baked condition, or worse still, if you reject or abandon me altogether, is this your <i>aruḷ</i>? Does your unequalled and unsurpassed love and grace amount to no more than this?’<br>
<br>
Having made us think of him, Arunachala will never reject or abandon us, and will certainly save us, in spite of all our defects and shortcomings, but how quickly and painlessly he does so depends on the extent to which we cooperate with him by surrendering ourself to him, so the more clearly we are aware of the inadequacy of our love and surrender, the more we will fear the consequences of our failure to surrender ourself wholeheartedly to him by clinging firmly to self-attentiveness, thereby not rising to obstruct the work of his grace. It is this fear of our own inadequacy that prompts us to implore him not to reject or abandon us, as Bhagavan is imploring in verses 4, 5 and 6, so though in these verses he seems to be chiding Arunachala, as if Arunachala would ever be guilty of forsaking anyone whom he had decided to save by making them think of him, he is taking the liberty of doing so just as a lover may chide her beloved, begging him never to reject or abandon her, because the love for him that he has aroused in her heart gives her the right to take such liberties with him. In her heart of hearts she knows that he will never forsake her, but knowing how unworthy she is of his love, in her desperate longing to become worthy of it and to reciprocate it as well as she can, she pleads with him never to forsake her. Rebuking him in this manner is therefore her way of clinging firmly to him and telling him that, in spite of her unworthiness and the inadequacy of her love for him, she nevertheless recognises how much she needs and depends entirely upon his grace and support.<br>
<br>
Muruganar takes ‘இது ஓ உனது அருள்!’ (<i>idu ō uṉadu aruḷ!</i>), ‘ah, such is your <i>aruḷ</i> [kindness, solicitude, compassion, love or grace]!’, to be the principal meaning of ‘இதுவோ உனது அருள்’ (<i>iduvō uṉadu aruḷ</i>), and ‘இதுவோ உனது அருள்?’ (<i>iduvō uṉadu aruḷ?</i>), ‘is this your <i>aruḷ</i>?’, to be its secondary meaning, but in this case I have followed Sadhu Om in taking the latter to be the primary meaning and the former to be secondary. Both meanings are equally valid, and each is suited to a particular perspective and <i>bhāva</i> (devotional attitude).<br>
<br>
<a name="aamm03"></a>‘இது ஓ உனது அருள்!’ (<i>idu ō uṉadu aruḷ!</i>), ‘ah, such is your <i>aruḷ</i>!’, expresses the same <i>bhāva</i> of wonder, joy and gratitude that Bhagavan expressed in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/04/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-3.html#aamm03">verse 3</a>, ‘அகம் புகுந்து ஈர்த்து உன் அக குகை சிறையாய் அமர்வித்தது என் கொல் அருணாசலா’ (<i>aham puhundu īrttu uṉ aha guhai siṟaiyāy amarvittadu eṉ kol aruṇācalā</i>), ‘Arunachala, entering [my] mind [or home], [forcefully] carrying [me] away [dragging me out or attracting me to yourself], keeping [me] captive in the cave of your heart is what [a wonder of your grace]!’, so this meaning is particularly suitable from the perspective of Bhagavan’s experience of the grace of Arunachala. It is also suitable for any of us who feel wonder and joy thinking about how his grace has been working in our own life, even though we have not yet surrendered ourself to him entirely and consequently he has not yet taken complete charge and possession of us.<br>
<br>
<a name="aamm04"></a><a name="aamm05"></a>‘இதுவோ உனது அருள்?’ (<i>iduvō uṉadu aruḷ?</i>), ‘is this your <i>aruḷ</i>?’, on the other hand, expresses the same <i>bhāva</i> of outwardly chiding but inwardly pleading that Bhagavan expressed in the previous two verses, namely <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/04/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-4.html#aamm04">verse 4</a>, ‘ஆருக்கா எனை ஆண்டனை? அகற்றிடில் அகிலம் பழித்திடும் அருணாசலா’ (<i>ārukkā eṉai āṇḍaṉai? ahaṯṟiḍil akhilam paṙittiḍum aruṇācalā</i>), ‘Arunachala, for whom [or for whose sake] did you take charge of me? If you reject [banish or abandon] [me], the whole world will blame [ridicule or revile] [you]’, and <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/04/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-5.html#aamm05">verse 5</a>, ‘இப் பழி தப்பு. உனை ஏன் நினைப்பித்தாய்? இனி யார் விடுவார்? அருணாசலா’ (<i>i-p-paṙi tappu. uṉai ēṉ niṉaippittāy? iṉi yār viḍuvār? aruṇācalā</i>), ‘Arunachala, escape this blame. Why did you make [me] think of you? Now [or henceforth] who will [or can] leave [or let go]? [You cannot leave or let go of me, and I cannot leave or let go of you]’, so this meaning is particularly suitable for us whenever we are in a more prayerful mood. Sadhu Om took this to be the main meaning both because as a general rule, whenever there is a choice of more than one interpretation of any verse, he preferred to take any more prayerful meaning as the primary one, and more specifically because in the case of this verse, this prayerful interpretation provides a natural continuity with the prayerful <i>bhāva</i> not only of the previous two verses but also of the next six verses, the first two of which (7 and 8) are explicit prayers, and the other four of which (9 to 12) are implicit prayers expressed in the form of chiding, as a lover may chide her beloved whenever she feels he is not taking sufficient care of her and protecting her from others.<br>
<br>
Though Muruganar has composed many beautiful verses of prayer, in the majority of his verses he is primarily praising Bhagavan, expressing his wonder and joy at his grace and the way in which he had saved him from the clutches of ego, so it was natural for him to take the primary meaning of this and other verses to be any meaning that expressed wonder and joy at the grace of Arunachala. Most of the songs and verses composed by Sadhu Om, on the other hand, are heart-melting prayers for the grace of Bhagavan, though in many of his verses he also expresses his wonder and joy at his grace, so it was natural for him to take the primary meaning of this and other verses to be any meaning that either directly or indirectly expressed a prayer.<br>
<br>
<b>Video discussion:</b> <a href="https://youtu.be/R_9DXHd6_f0"><i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> verse 6</a><br>
<br>
<div style="text-align:center"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/R_9DXHd6_f0" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-50385562449743753682022-04-22T22:14:00.004+01:002022-10-29T12:58:29.229+01:00Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai verse 5This is the fifth in a series of articles that I hope to write on <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>, Bhagavan willing, the completed ones being <a href="https://www.happinessofbeing.com/articles.html#aamm">listed here</a>.<br><a name='more'></a>
<br>
<a name="aamm05"></a><b>Verse 5:</b><br>
<blockquote>இப்பழி தப்புனை யேனினைப் பித்தா<br>
யினியார் விடுவா ரருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>ippaṙi tappuṉai yēṉiṉaip pittā<br>
yiṉiyār viḍuvā raruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> இப் பழி தப்பு. உனை ஏன் நினைப்பித்தாய்? இனி யார் விடுவார்? அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>i-p-paṙi tappu. uṉai ēṉ niṉaippittāy? iṉi yār viḍuvār? aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, escape this blame. Why did you cause to think of you? Now who will leave?<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, escape this blame. Why did you make [me] think of you? Now [or henceforth] who will [or can] leave [or let go]? [You cannot leave or let go of me, and I cannot leave or let go of you.]</blockquote>
<a name="aamm04"></a><b>Explanation:</b> The demonstrative prefix இ (<i>i</i>) means ‘this’, and பழி (<i>paṙi</i>) means blame, censure, condemnation or ridicule, so இப்பழி (<i>i-p-paṙi</i>) means ‘this blame’. In this context தப்பு (<i>tappu</i>) means ‘escape’, so ‘இப்பழி தப்பு’ (<i>i-p-paṙi tappu</i>) means ‘Escape this blame’. The blame he is referring to here is the blame he spoke about in the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/04/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-4.html#aamm04">previous verse</a>: ‘ஆருக்கா எனை ஆண்டனை? அகற்றிடில் அகிலம் பழித்திடும் அருணாசலா’ (<i>ārukkā eṉai āṇḍaṉai? ahaṯṟiḍil akhilam paṙittiḍum aruṇācalā</i>), ‘For whom did you take charge of me? If you [now] reject [expel, banish or abandon] [me], the whole world will blame [ridicule or revile] [you], Arunachala’.<br>
<br>
Since Arunachala would deserve such blame, condemnation or ridicule only if he were to reject, expel, banish or abandon any of his devotees, he can escape this blame only by never rejecting or abandoning any of them, no matter how unworthy they may be. Therefore ‘இப்பழி தப்பு’ (<i>i-p-paṙi tappu</i>), ‘Escape this blame’, is a prayer that implies: ‘Do not reject or abandon me, but instead complete the task you have begun of taking charge of me by eradicating this ego and thereby restoring me to my natural state of absolute and inseparable oneness with you’. It also implies that for the same reason he should never reject or abandon any of his devotees, so in this verse Bhagavan is praying on behalf of all of us that Arunachala should never leave his divine task of eradicating ego incomplete by rejecting any of us as unworthy of his grace.<br>
<br>
Arunachala began this task, his அருட்செயல் (<i>aruḷ-seyal</i>), the action or working of his grace, at the very beginning of time, namely at the very moment that we first rose as ego, because such is his nature, but he commenced the final stages of this process by making us think of him, because it is by making us think of him that he begins to draw our outward-running mind inwards. Prior to that, at every moment of waking and dream we had been ceaselessly seeking happiness and satisfaction in things other than ourself, so we began to seek them within ourself only when he made us think of him.<br>
<br>
Therefore, if he did not intend to complete the task of taking charge of us entirely by eradicating ego, why did he make us think of him, as Bhagavan asks in the next sentence: ‘உனை ஏன் நினைப்பித்தாய்?’ (<i>uṉai ēṉ niṉaippittāy?</i>), ‘Why did you make [me] think of you?’? உனை (<i>uṉai</i>) is a poetic abbreviation of உன்னை (<i>uṉṉai</i>), which is the accusative singular form of the second person pronoun, ‘you’, and ஏன் (<i>ēṉ</i>) is an interrogative pronoun that means ‘why?’ or ‘for what?’. நினை (<i>niṉai</i>) is a verb that means to think, consider, ponder, remember or meditate, and நினைப்பி (<i>niṉaippi</i>) is a causative form of it, so it means ‘cause to think’ or ‘make think’. நினைப்பித்தாய் (<i>niṉaippittāy</i>) is a second person singular past tense form நினைப்பி (<i>niṉaippi</i>), so it means ‘you caused to think’ and in this case implies ‘you made [me] think’.<br>
<br>
<a name="uu08"></a>As always, ‘thinking of Arunachala’ can be understood and interpreted at two levels. At the surface level, it means thinking of his name or form, while at a deeper level it means thinking of or meditating on his real nature (<i>svarūpa</i>), which is the real nature of ourself (<i>ātma-svarūpa</i>), namely the fundamental awareness that is always shining within us as ‘I am’. Both of these interpretations are correct, because as I explained <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/03/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-payiram.html#uu08">while discussing the meaning</a> of the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/03/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-payiram.html#aamm01">first verse</a>, interpreting ‘thinking of Arunachala’ to mean thinking of his name or form is appropriate for those who are more drawn to <i>anya-bhāva</i>, the devotional attitude or idea (<i>bhāva</i>) that God is other (<i>anya</i>) than oneself, which is the preliminary stage of the path of self-surrender or <i>bhakti</i>, whereas interpreting it to mean being self-attentive, which is ‘thinking of’ or meditating on his <i>svarūpa</i>, is appropriate for those who are more drawn to <i>ananya-bhāva</i>, the understanding that God is not other (<i>ananya</i>) than oneself, which is what prompts us to follow the path of self-investigation or <i>jñāna</i>, which is the more advanced stage of the path of self-surrender or <i>bhakti</i>, as Bhagavan implies in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu08">verse 8</a> of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i>: ‘அனிய பாவத்தின் அவன் அகம் ஆகும் அனனிய பாவமே அனைத்தினும் உத்தமம்’ (<i>aṉiya-bhāvattiṉ avaṉ aham āhum aṉaṉiya-bhāvam-ē aṉaittiṉ-um uttamam</i>), ‘Rather than <i>anya-bhāva</i>, <i>ananya-bhāva</i>, in which he is I, certainly is the best among all [practices of <i>bhakti</i> and means to purify the mind]’.<br>
<br>
<a name="apad10"></a>In the case of some spiritual aspirants Arunachala may draw their mind inwards to meditate on his <i>svarūpa</i> even before or without ever making them think of his name or form, whereas in the case of others he may first make them think of his name or form, because making us think of his name and form is a very powerful and effective means by which he draws our mind inwards to face his <i>svarūpa</i>, as Bhagavan explains in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/03/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-payiram.html#apad10">verse 10</a> of <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Padigam</i>, the meaning and implication of which I discussed in detail while discussing the meaning of the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/03/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-payiram.html#aamm01">first verse</a> of <i>Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>. Therefore, whether he does so either by first making us think of his name or form or by any other means, his ultimate aim is to draw our mind inwards to meditate on his <i>svarūpa</i>, because only when we do so will we sink into the innermost depth of our heart and thereby be devoured by him.<br>
<br>
Arunachala used the seeming mind, speech and body of Bhagavan, which he had taken complete charge of as his own, to sing <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> for the benefit of devotees at various stages of their spiritual development, so the meaning and implications of these verses can appropriately be interpreted at different levels and from different perspectives, and though certain levels and perspectives may appeal to us more than others, we should take care not to exclude any of them and to acknowledge the aptness and value of all of them. Therefore, if I seem to be explaining these verses more from the perspective of <i>ananya-bhāva</i>, this is not intended to exclude or underrate the value of viewing them from the <i>anya-bhāva</i> perspective, which I fully acknowledge and appreciate.<br>
<br>
This second sentence of this fifth verse, ‘உனை ஏன் நினைப்பித்தாய்?’ (<i>uṉai ēṉ niṉaippittāy?</i>), ‘Why did you make [me] think of you?’, is significant for several reasons. Firstly, by saying this Bhagavan implies that if we think of Arunachala, that is because he has made us think of him. The natural inclination of the mind is to flow outwards seeking happiness and satisfaction in things other than itself, so it will become inclined to turn back within to seek happiness and satisfaction in its own real nature (<i>ātma-svarūpa</i>) only when it is drawn to do so by a power greater than itself, namely the power of grace, which is the infinite love that Arunachala has for us as himself. It is his love for us that sows the seed of love for him in our heart. Therefore our thinking of him is the effect of his grace working within us.<br>
<br>
Without his grace we would not have even the slightest inclination to think of him, because we would be too preoccupied with our search for happiness and satisfaction in things other than ourself. We seek happiness in other things because we wrongly believe that we cannot obtain happiness or satisfaction without such things, and we believe this because of our lack of <i>vivēka</i>: clear judgement, discernment or discrimination. The more we seek happiness in other things, the more our mind is thereby clouded by its dense fog of <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, which are what rise in us as likes, dislikes, desires, attachments, hopes, fears and so on, and the more it is clouded, the more we consequently seek happiness in other things, so our lack of <i>vivēka</i> is self-perpetuating and therefore cannot be rectified except by grace.<br>
<br>
That is, grace is what shines within us as the clarity that is required to disperse and dispel the dense fog of our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> and consequently to reveal the clear <i>vivēka</i> that always exists in our heart but remains hidden so long as it is covered by this dense fog. This clarity called ‘grace’ can come only from Arunachala, the infinite light of pure awareness that is eternally shining in our heart as ‘I am’, and we can bathe and cleanse ourself in this light only by turning our mind back within to face it alone.<br>
<br>
Therefore the entire process of our spiritual development is driven primarily by grace. So long as our mind is racing outwards in search of happiness and satisfaction, we will have no inclination to turn back within, so it is grace alone that can give us love to turn within, and it gives us this love by gradually dispersing the dense fog of our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> and thereby allowing the clarity of <i>vivēka</i> to shine forth from within ourself.<br>
<br>
A second reason why this sentence, ‘உனை ஏன் நினைப்பித்தாய்?’ (<i>uṉai ēṉ niṉaippittāy?</i>), ‘Why did you make [me] think of you?’, is significant is implicit in the first reason. If our thinking of him had been a whim or fancy of our own mind, we might forget about him as soon as some other whim takes hold of us and might therefore never think of him again, so any thought that originated from our mind would be fickle and unreliable. However, since it is he who made us think of him, our thought of him originates from him and not from us, so it has a power far greater than any thought that originates from us, and unlike such a thought it will be unfailing in its effect. That is, since he made us think of him once, he will make us think of him again and again and more and more deeply, so this thought of him will steadily increase in strength, depth and intensity, thereby becoming firmly established and deeply rooted in our mind. In other words, having once drawn our mind back within to meditate on him in our heart, he will continue drawing it back to him no matter how many times it wanders away outside, and he will not stop doing so till he has drawn it so deep within that it can never rise and come out again.<br>
<br>
To the extent to which he draws our mind back within, we thereby taste the deep peace and joy of meditating on him in our heart as ‘I’, and the more we taste this peace and joy, the more willingly we will submit ourself to his inward-pulling attraction, thereby allowing him to draw us deeper and deeper within. In other words, the more he draws our mind within to meditate on him, the more he thereby nurtures in our heart the love to think of nothing other than him, so fixing our mind on him in our heart will be found to be happening more and more naturally, effortlessly and uninterruptedly.<br>
<br>
<a name="aamm02"></a>Another reason why this sentence, ‘உனை ஏன் நினைப்பித்தாய்?’ (<i>uṉai ēṉ niṉaippittāy?</i>), ‘Why did you make [me] think of you?’, is significant is that in this context it implies that by making us think of him, Arunachala has implicitly undertaken an obligation and made a binding commitment to us, namely that he will never reject or abandon us but will unfailingly take complete charge (that is, complete control and care) of us, which he can do perfectly only by eradicating ego and thereby revealing that he and we are always ‘முற்று அபின்னம்’ (<i>muṯṟu abhinnam</i>), ‘completely non-different, indivisible and inseparable’ (as Bhagavan implies in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/03/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-2.html#aamm02">verse 2</a>). That is, by asking this rhetorical question immediately after saying that Arunachala should escape the blame of rejecting or abandoning him after taking charge of him, he implies that the reason he made him think of him was in order thereby to take complete charge of him.<br>
<br>
All these implications of the second sentence are further confirmed in the next sentence: ‘இனி யார் விடுவார்?’ (<i>iṉi yār viḍuvār?</i>), which means ‘Now who will leave?’ but can be interpreted as implying ‘Now who can leave?’. இனி (<i>iṉi</i>) is an adverb that means now, hereafter or henceforth; யார் (<i>yār</i>) is an interrogative pronoun that means who; and விடுவார் (<i>viḍuvār</i>) is a third person plural or honorific singular future form of the verb விடு (<i>viḍu</i>), which means to leave or let go, so ‘யார் விடுவார்?’ (<i>yār viḍuvār?</i>) means ‘who will leave?’ or ‘who will let go?’, implying ‘which of us will [or can] leave or let go of the other?’.<br>
<br>
<a name="aamm71"></a>Since Arunachala is what we always actually are, the real nature of ourself (<i>ātma-svarūpa</i>), namely our fundamental awareness ‘I am’, he can never leave us, and we can never leave him. Moreover, by making us think of him, he has committed himself to taking complete charge of us without ever rejecting or abandoning us, so now that he had undertaken this task, he can never henceforth let go of us. Because of the persistently outward-going nature of our mind, we may seem to let go of him repeatedly, but no matter how often we may allow ourself to attend to other things under the sway of our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, he will repeatedly draw our attention back within to face himself, so we cannot let go of him without being unfailingly drawn back to him sooner or later, and eventually he will draw us so deep within that we will lose ourself entirely and forever in him, after which we will never again be able to let go of him even for a moment, as he implies in verse 71:<br>
<blockquote>பேய்த்தனம் விடவிடாப் பேயாப் பிடித்தெனைப்<br>
பேயனாக் கினையென் னருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>pēyttaṉam viḍaviḍāp pēyāp piḍitteṉaip<br>
pēyaṉāk kiṉaiyeṉ ṉaruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> பேய் தனம் விட விடா பேயா பிடித்து, எனை பேயன் ஆக்கினை. என் அருணாசலா!<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>pēy taṉam viḍa viḍā pēyā piḍittu, eṉai pēyaṉ ākkiṉai. eṉ aruṇācalā!</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, what! Grasping as an unleaving demon so that the demon-nature leaves, you made me a demoniac.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, what [a wonder]! Grasping [seizing or possessing] [me] as an unleaving demon [a demon, ghost, fiend or evil spirit that will never let go of me] so that [my] [hitherto unleaving] demon-nature [namely ego] leaves [me], you made me a demoniac [someone possessed by the demon-like madness of love for you].</blockquote>
So long as we rise and stand as ego, our mind wanders about the world like a hungry demon trying to squeeze iotas of happiness and satisfaction out of numerous experiences, but as soon as Arunachala makes us think of him, we are possessed by a far more powerful demon in the form of his grace, which will never release us from its hold, but will instead gradually intoxicate us with an ever-increasing love for him, thereby binding us to itself more and more firmly until it eventually devours us entirely. Therefore, now that he has made us think of him, we can never henceforth leave him, and he will never leave or forsake us.<br>
<br>
<b>Video discussion:</b> <a href="https://youtu.be/HTIKeQz0mlU"><i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> verse 5</a><br>
<br>
<div style="text-align:center"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HTIKeQz0mlU" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-27742057574215458262022-04-17T22:24:00.013+01:002023-07-26T19:26:27.471+01:00Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai verse 4This is the fourth in a series of articles that I hope to write on <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>, Bhagavan willing, the completed ones being <a href="https://www.happinessofbeing.com/articles.html#aamm">listed here</a>.<br><a name='more'></a>
<br>
<a name="aamm04"></a><b>Verse 4:</b><br>
<blockquote>ஆருக் காவெனை யாண்டனை யகற்றிடி<br>
லகிலம் பழித்திடு மருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>āruk kāveṉai yāṇḍaṉai yahaṯṟiḍi<br>
lakhilam baṙittiḍu maruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> ஆருக்கா எனை ஆண்டனை? அகற்றிடில் அகிலம் பழித்திடும் அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>ārukkā eṉai āṇḍaṉai? ahaṯṟiḍil akhilam paṙittiḍum aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, for whom did you take charge of me? If rejecting, the whole world will blame.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, for whom [or for whose sake] did you take charge of me? If [you] reject [banish or abandon] [me], the whole world will blame [ridicule or revile] [you].</blockquote>
<a name="aluvadu"></a><b>Explanation:</b> The key word in the first sentence of this verse is ஆண்டனை (<i>āṇḍaṉai</i>), a second person singular past tense form of ஆள் (<i>āḷ</i>), which is a verb that Bhagavan frequently uses in its various forms in <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> and other songs of <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Stuti Pañcakam</i> (Five Hymns to Arunachala), but for which there is no adequate English equivalent. The <a href="https://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/tamil-lex"><i>Tamil Lexicon</i></a> defines <a href="https://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/tamil-lex_query.py?qs=ஆள்&searchhws=yes&matchtype=default">ஆள்</a> (<i>āḷ</i>) variously as to rule, reign over or govern; to receive or accept, as a protégé; to control or manage, as a household; and to cherish or maintain. As these definitions suggest, ஆள் (<i>āḷ</i>) combines within itself two principal meanings, namely on one hand to rule, govern, control or manage, and on the other hand to cherish, care for, take care of or take loving responsibility for the welfare and protection of, so I translate it as ‘to take charge’, in the sense that a caring adult may take charge of an orphaned child, meaning that they lovingly take full responsibility for the welfare, care, protection and upbringing of the child. It can also be translated as ‘to take possession of’ or ‘take as one’s own’, in the sense that a bridegroom takes his bride as his own, meaning that he takes full responsibility for protecting and taking care of her in every way.<br>
<br>
One of the words that is derived from ஆள் (<i>āḷ</i>) is ஆண்டவன் (<i>āṇḍavaṉ</i>), which means ‘he who has taken charge’ or ‘he who has taken as his own’ and is therefore a term that is used to refer to God. Since God is the real nature of ourself (<i>ātma-svarūpa</i>), he loves us as himself, so he is always lovingly taking care of us. However, he never obstructs our freedom of will and action (<i>icchā-kriyā-svatantra</i>), because our real nature is infinitely free, so when we rise as ego and thereby limit ourself as a finite person, our freedom is limited but not entirely lost. Therefore, though he is always lovingly taking care of us in all respects, we fail to recognise this so long as we misuse our freedom of will to attend to things other than ourself.<br>
<br>
Everything other than ourself is a <i>viṣaya</i> (object or phenomenon), so our inclinations (<i>vāsanās</i>) to seek happiness in and therefore attend to such things are called <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>. The more we allow ourself to be swayed by any <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, the stronger they become, and hence under their sway our mind rushes outwards with great enthusiasm seeking happiness or satisfaction in the experience of <i>viṣayas</i>. Allowing ourself to be swayed by our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> in this way is a misuse of our freedom of will (<i>icchā-svatantra</i>), which in turn leads to a misuse of our freedom of action (<i>kriyā-svatantra</i>).<br>
<br>
So long as we misuse our freedom of will in this way, we never turn our attention back within to see what we ourself actually are, so we fail to recognise that God is ever existing and shining blissfully in our heart as our own real nature (<i>svarūpa</i>), and hence we are blinding ourself to the fact that he is meticulously taking care of us in every possible way. Therefore it is only to the extent to which we surrender our will and are thereby willing to abide by his will that we begin to recognise the extent to which he is lovingly taking care of us and all our needs.<br>
<br>
By surrendering ourself to him, we are handing over charge and possession of ourself to him, so he takes charge and possession of us to the extent to which we surrender ourself to him. That is, though he is always lovingly caring for us, he takes complete control of our life only to the extent to which we are willing to surrender our will to him. Therefore his ஆளுவது (<i>āḷuvadu</i>) or taking charge of us as his own and our surrendering ourself to him are two sides of the same coin. Since he is always willing to take charge of us, we must be equally willing to surrender and thereby hand over charge of ourself to him, because until we surrender ourself we are in effect obstructing the flow of his grace, since he will never deny us the freedom to use our will in whatever way we wish.<br>
<br>
<a name="aamm14"></a>It may seem, therefore, that his taking charge of us is dependent on our surrendering ourself to him, but this is not the entire picture, because it is only by his grace that we become willing to surrender ourself to him. Long before we began to surrender ourself, his grace was working in our heart preparing the ground, and in that well-prepared ground he has now planted the seed of love for him, so it is only after he has planted and nurtured this seed that we begin to experience the inclination to surrender ourself to him. Therefore the full responsibility for his taking charge of us as his own lies with him, as he implies in verse 14 of <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>:<br>
<blockquote>ஔவைபோ லெனக்குன் னருளைத் தந்தெனை<br>
யாளுவ துன்கட னருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>auvaipō leṉakkuṉ ṉaruḷait tandeṉai<br>
yāḷuva duṉkaḍa ṉaruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> ஔவை போல் எனக்கு உன் அருளை தந்து, எனை ஆளுவது உன் கடன் அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>auvai pōl eṉakku uṉ aruḷai tandu, eṉai āḷuvadu uṉ kaḍaṉ aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, giving me your grace like a mother, taking charge of me is your duty.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, giving me your <i>aruḷ</i> [grace, love, kindness and compassion] like a mother, taking charge of me [as your own] is your duty [obligation or responsibility].</blockquote>
<a name="ny12"></a>It is his duty to take charge of us as his own, like a mother whose natural duty is to lovingly take care of her child as her own, but it is nevertheless our duty to surrender ourself completely to him, as he makes clear in the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para12">twelfth paragraph</a> of <i>Nāṉ Ār?</i>:<br>
<blockquote>கடவுளும் குருவும் உண்மையில் வேறல்லர். புலிவாயிற் பட்டது எவ்வாறு திரும்பாதோ, அவ்வாறே குருவினருட்பார்வையிற் பட்டவர்கள் அவரால் ரக்ஷிக்கப்படுவரே யன்றி யொருக்காலும் கைவிடப்படார்; எனினும், குரு காட்டிய வழிப்படி தவறாது நடக்க வேண்டும்.<br>
<br>
<i>kaḍavuḷ-um guru-v-um uṇmaiyil vēṟallar. puli-vāyil paṭṭadu evvāṟu tirumbādō, avvāṟē guruviṉ-aruḷ-pārvaiyil paṭṭavargaḷ avarāl rakṣikka-p-paḍuvarē y-aṉḏṟi y-oru-k-kāl-um kaiviḍa-p-paḍār; eṉiṉum, guru kāṭṭiya vaṙi-p-paḍi tavaṟādu naḍakka vēṇḍum</i>.<br>
<br>
God and <i>guru</i> are in truth not different. Just as what has been caught in the jaws of a tiger will not return, so those who have been caught in the look [or glance] of <i>guru</i>’s grace will never be forsaken but will surely be saved by him; nevertheless, it is necessary to walk unfailingly in accordance with the path that <i>guru</i> has shown.</blockquote>
<a name="ny13"></a>‘குரு காட்டிய வழி’ (<i>guru kāṭṭiya vaṙi</i>), ‘the path that <i>guru</i> has shown’, is to surrender ourself entirely to him, and we can surrender ourself to him only by being so keenly self-attentive that we do not give even the least room in our heart to the rising of any thought about anything else, as he explains in the next sentence, namely the first sentence of the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para13">thirteenth paragraph</a>:<br>
<blockquote>ஆன்மசிந்தனையைத் தவிர வேறு சிந்தனை கிளம்புவதற்குச் சற்று மிடங்கொடாமல் ஆத்மநிஷ்டாபரனா யிருப்பதே தன்னை ஈசனுக் களிப்பதாம்.<br>
<br>
<i>āṉma-cintaṉaiyai-t tavira vēṟu cintaṉai kiḷambuvadaṟku-c caṯṟum iḍam-koḍāmal ātma-niṣṭhāparaṉ-āy iruppadē taṉṉai īśaṉukku aḷippadām</i>.<br>
<br>
Being <i>ātma-niṣṭhāparaṉ</i> [one who is firmly fixed as oneself], giving not even the slightest room to the rising of any <i>cintana</i> [thought] except <i>ātma-cintana</i> [thought of oneself: self-contemplation or self-attentiveness], alone is giving oneself to God.</blockquote>
When we think of or attend to anything other than ourself, we are turning our attention away from God as he actually is, namely the pure awareness that is always shining in our heart as our own fundamental awareness, ‘I am’, so we can give ourself completely to him only by turning our entire attention back within to face his real nature (<i>svarūpa</i>), which is the real nature of ourself (<i>ātma-svarūpa</i>), namely ‘I am’. The more we lovingly attend to him in our heart as ‘I am’, the more we as ego subside and sink back within, and the more we thereby open our heart to his grace. When we do not attend to him, we are in effect closing our heart to his grace and thereby obstructing its work.<br>
<br>
How he takes charge of us, therefore, is by sowing and nurturing the seed of love for him in our heart, because it is only by the strength of such love that we can cling firmly to self-attentiveness, thereby overcoming the strength of our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>. His grace therefore works through us, and our being self-attentive is an essential part of his அருட்செயல் (<i>aruḷ-seyal</i>), the action or working of his grace.<br>
<br>
<a name="anmm7"></a>Since he takes charge of us only to the extent to which we have surrendered ourself to him, and since he therefore takes complete charge of us only when our surrender to him becomes complete, his taking charge of us is often described as an event that takes place at a particular time, as he describes it in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2021/07/freedom-surrender-and-clinging-fast-to.html#anmm7">verse 7</a> of <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Navamaṇimālai</i>:<br>
<blockquote>அண்ணா மலையா யடியேனை<br>
யாண்ட வன்றே யாவியுடற்<br>
கொண்டா யெனக்கோர் குறையுண்டோ<br>
குறையுங் குணமு நீயல்லா<br>
லெண்ணே னிவற்றை யென்னுயிரே<br>
யெண்ண மெதுவோ வதுசெய்வாய்<br>
கண்ணே யுன்றன் கழலிணையிற்<br>
காதற் பெருக்கே தருவாயே.<br>
<br>
<i>aṇṇā malaiyā yaḍiyēṉai<br>
yāṇda vaṉḏṟē yāviyuḍaṯ<br>
koṇḍā yeṉakkōr kuṟaiyuṇḍō<br>
kuṟaiyuṅ guṇamu nīyallā<br>
leṇṇē ṉivaṯṟai yeṉṉuyirē<br>
yeṇṇa meduvō vaduseyvāy<br>
kaṇṇē yuṉḏṟaṉ kaṙaliṇaiyiṟ<br>
kādaṯ perukkē taruvāyē</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> அண்ணாமலையாய் அடியேனை ஆண்ட அன்றே ஆவி உடல் கொண்டாய். எனக்கு ஓர் குறை உண்டோ? குறையும் குணமும் நீ அல்லால் எண்ணேன் இவற்றை. என் உயிரே, எண்ணம் எதுவோ அது செய்வாய்; கண்ணே, உன்றன் கழல் இணையில் காதல் பெருக்கே தருவாயே.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>aṇṇāmalaiyāy aḍiyēṉai āṇda aṉḏṟē āvi uḍal koṇḍāy. eṉakku ōr kuṟai uṇḍō? kuṟaiyum guṇamum nī allāl eṇṇēṉ ivaṯṟai. eṉ uyirē, eṇṇam eduvō adu seyvāy. kaṇṇē, uṉḏṟaṉ kaṙal iṇaiyil kādal perukkē taruvāyē</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Annamalai, the very day you took charge of me, a slave, you took possession of soul and body. Is there any deficiency for me? Defects and qualities, except you, I do not think of them. My life, whatever be thought, do that. Eye, just give only a flood of love for your pair of feet.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Annamalai, the very day you took charge of me, [your] slave [servant or devotee], you took possession of [my] soul and body. [Therefore] is there [now] any <i>kuṟai</i> [imperfection, defect, deficiency, need, want, dissatisfaction or grievance] for me? [Since] <i>kuṟai</i> [imperfections, flaws, faults, defects, impurities or vices] and <i>guṇam</i> [good qualities or virtues] [cannot exist independent of you or as other than you], I do not think of them but only of you. My <i>uyir</i> [life or soul, implying my real nature], whatever be [your] thought [intention or wish], do that. [My] <i>kaṇ</i> [eye, implying both my beloved (the one who is more dear to me than my own eyes) and my own real awareness (which is what is always shining in my heart as ‘I am’)], just give [me] only a flood [overflow, fullness, abundance, surge or increasing intensity] of love for your pair of feet.</blockquote>
<a name="dec98note"></a>Annamalai (Arunachala) always has partial control of our mind, speech and body, because he has to make them do whatever actions they need to do in order to facilitate the unfolding of our <i>prārabdha</i> (fate or destiny), as Bhagavan says in the first sentence of the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2020/08/praising-or-disparaging-others-is.html#dec98note">note that he wrote for his mother</a> in December 1898: ‘அவரவர் பிராரப்தப் பிரகாரம் அதற்கானவன் ஆங்காங்கிருந் தாட்டுவிப்பன்’ (<i>avar-avar prārabdha-p prakāram adaṟkāṉavaṉ āṅgāṅgu irundu āṭṭuvippaṉ</i>), which literally means ‘In accordance with their-their <i>prārabdha</i>, he who is for that being there-there will cause to dance’, and which implies ‘In accordance with the <i>prārabdha</i> of each individual, he who is for that [namely God or <i>guru</i>, who is the one who ordains their <i>prārabdha</i>] being in each place [that is, in the heart of each of them] will make them act’. However, so long as we retain even the least inclination or liking to use our mind, speech and body as instruments for achieving the fulfilment of our desires, he allows us to do so, and hence does not take complete control of them. Only when we surrender ourself entirely to him will he take complete charge of us, and taking complete charge of us entails taking complete control of our mind, speech and body, as he implies in the first sentence of this verse: ‘அண்ணாமலையாய் அடியேனை ஆண்ட அன்றே ஆவி உடல் கொண்டாய்’ (<i>aṇṇāmalaiyāy aḍiyēṉai āṇda aṉḏṟē āvi uḍal koṇḍāy</i>), ‘Annamalai, the very day you took charge of me, [your] slave [servant or devotee], you took possession of [my] soul and body’.<br>
<br>
When he thus takes charge of us, there is no separate ‘I’ left to have any imperfection or defect, or to feel any deficiency, need, want, dissatisfaction or grievance, as he implies in the second sentence: ‘எனக்கு ஓர் குறை உண்டோ?’ (<i>eṉakku ōr kuṟai uṇḍō?</i>), ‘Is there [now] any <i>kuṟai</i> [imperfection, defect, deficiency, need, want, dissatisfaction or grievance] for me?’ If at all there were even the slightest trace of any ego remaining, which would be the case only if his taking charge of it were not yet complete, by its surrender it would have been attenuated to such an extent that it would not be concerned at all about its defects or qualities, because its whole attention would be riveted on the only thing that actually exists, namely Arunachala himself, as he implies in the third sentence: ‘குறையும் குணமும் நீ அல்லால் எண்ணேன் இவற்றை’ (<i>kuṟaiyum guṇamum nī allāl eṇṇēṉ ivaṯṟai</i>), which literally means ‘Defects and qualities, except you, I do not think of them’, and which implies ‘[Since] <i>kuṟai</i> [imperfections, flaws, faults, defects, impurities or vices] and <i>guṇam</i> [good qualities or virtues] [cannot exist independent of you or as other than you], I do not think of them but only of you’.<br>
<br>
Being so completely absorbed in loving contemplation on Arunachala alone, a devotee in such a state would have not even the slightest desire for anything other than an all-consuming flood of love for him, and hence would have no concern about whatever else may happen, as he implies in the final two sentences of this verse: ‘என் உயிரே, எண்ணம் எதுவோ அது செய்வாய். கண்ணே, உன்றன் கழல் இணையில் காதல் பெருக்கே தருவாயே’ (<i>eṉ uyirē, eṇṇam eduvō adu seyvāy. kaṇṇē, uṉḏṟaṉ kaṙal iṇaiyil kādal perukkē taruvāyē</i>), which literally means ‘My life, whatever be thought, do that. Eye, just give only a flood of love for your pair of feet’, and which implies ‘My <i>uyir</i> [life or soul, implying my real nature], whatever be [your] thought [intention or wish], do that. [My] <i>kaṇ</i> [eye, implying both my beloved (the one who is more dear to me than my own eyes) and my own real awareness (which is what is always shining in my heart as ‘I am’)], just give [me] only a flood [overflow, fullness, abundance, surge or increasing intensity] of love for your pair of feet’.<br>
<br>
Thus in this verse Bhagavan clearly implies that his taking charge of us and our surrendering ourself entirely to him are as inseparable as the two sides of a single sheet of paper. He will take charge of us only to the extent to which we are willing to surrender ourself completely to him, but we will be willing to surrender ourself completely to him only to the extent that his grace occupies our entire heart in the form of intense and all-consuming love for him. Though his taking charge of us and our surrendering ourself to him each gives rise to an increase of the other, being two aspects of the same single process of grace, ultimately his lovingly taking charge of us is the cause and our surrendering ourself to him is the effect, because grace is the infinite love that he has for us as himself, and whatever love we have to surrender ourself to him is born only in the womb of his infinite love for us.<br>
<br>
Therefore, though it is necessary for us to surrender ourself to him by persistently trying to cling firmly to self-attentiveness, the more we thereby surrender ourself to him the more clearly we will recognise that the driving force behind all our efforts to surrender is only his grace, and hence when we have surrendered ourself entirely to him we will clearly see that we have truly done nothing and he has done everything. However, though he is ultimately the one who does everything, he does it without actually doing anything, because everything happens as it is meant to happen by his grace, and grace is his very nature. Therefore he does everything that needs to be done just by being himself, and by being thus he unfailingly draws us back into the heart, thereby making us be as we always actually are, namely as himself. This process of grace is therefore what he refers to as ஆளுவது (<i>āḷuvadu</i>), taking charge of us.<br>
<br>
All this preamble was to explain the deep meaning and significance of the verb ஆள் (<i>āḷ</i>), which Bhagavan uses in one or other of its various forms in this fourth verse of <i>Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> and in many other verses in <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Stuti Pañcakam</i>, because we cannot adequately understand any of these verses without having a clear and comprehensive understanding of the meaning and significance of this word. Having explained this, I will now discuss and explain the context in which it is used in this verse.<br>
<br>
The first word of this verse is ஆருக்கா (<i>ārukkā</i>), which means ‘for whom?’, being a dative form of the interrogative pronoun ஆர் (<i>ār</i>), which means ‘who?’. The basic dative form of this pronoun is ஆருக்கு (<i>ārukku</i>), which means either ‘to whom?’ or ‘for whom?’, but the addition of the suffix ஆ (<i>ā</i>) makes the dative mean specifically ‘for’ rather than ‘to’. எனை (<i>eṉai</i>) is a poetic abbreviation of என்னை (<i>eṉṉai</i>), which is the accusative singular form of the first person pronoun, so it means ‘me’. And as I explain above, ஆண்டனை (<i>āṇḍaṉai</i>) is a second person singular past tense form of ஆள் (<i>āḷ</i>), so it means ‘you took charge’, ‘you took possession’ or ‘you took as your own’. Therefore the first sentence of this verse, ‘ஆருக்கா எனை ஆண்டனை?’ (<i>ārukkā eṉai āṇḍaṉai?</i>), means ‘For whom did you take charge of me?’, thereby implying ‘For whose sake did you take charge of me?’<br>
<br>
When he takes charge of any devotee, for whom does he do so? There are three possibilities, namely for himself, for the devotee, or for others, so let us consider each of these. Does he do so for his own sake? No, he does not, because he is the one infinite whole, other than which nothing exists, so he does not lack anything, and hence he is not in need of anything, and therefore he stands to gain nothing for himself by taking charge of any devotee. Therefore he need not and would not do anything for himself. So does he do so for the sake of the devotee? Yes, he does, at least from the perspective of the devotee, because by rising and dancing as ego the devotee has been courting endless suffering of various kinds, so out of his infinite love he comes to rescue ego (the devotee) from its own ignorance and folly by swallowing it entirely in the clear light of his own pure awareness, ‘I am’.<br>
<br>
Does he also do so for the sake of others? He certainly does not do so on the recommendation of anyone else, nor to please anyone else, but it could be said that he does so to enable others to see the greatness and infallible power of his grace and thereby to encourage them to seek his grace with a heart yearning for salvation from the suffering of embodied existence (<i>saṁsāra</i>).<br>
<br>
However, though it is true from a certain perspective that Arunachala takes charge of each of his devotees for their own sake, and though it can be said that he also does so to encourage others, the ultimate truth is that he does so not for any reason but because such is his nature. That is, since he is the infinite ocean of pure love, which is what is called grace, and since in his clear view there is nothing other than himself, always bestowing his grace abundantly on each and every <i>jīva</i> (sentient being) is his very nature.<br>
<br>
If at all it seems that he is bestowing his grace more on some than on others, that is because each <i>jīva</i> receives his grace according to its own capacity to do so. To borrow a very apt analogy given by Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, the rain of grace is always pouring equally on all, but it runs off high places and gathers in low places. The higher ego rises, the less it is able to retain and benefit from the abundant grace that is always pouring on it, just as a high mound can hold only a small fraction of the abundant rainwater that pours on it, whereas the deeper ego sinks back into the heart, the more it will drown in and be overwhelmed by the abundant grace that accumulates within it, just as a deep depression or hollow will be completely immersed in the abundant rainwater that accumulates within it.<br>
<br>
However, his grace is the supreme power, so it works unfailingly for all, and hence it benefits, albeit more slowly and gradually, even those who, because of their egotism, pride, selfishness and greed, are not now able to benefit from grace as much as they could if they were more humble and less self-centred. Just as water falling constantly on a rock will gradually wear it away, grace will gradually but unfailingly erode even the strongest and most hard-hearted ego, but the more we yield ourself to the influence of grace, the quicker it will thereby do its job.<br>
<br>
The ultimate aim of grace is eradication of ego, which is what Bhagavan describes as Arunachala taking complete charge of us. That is, we allow him to take charge of us to the extent to which we surrender ourself to him, so though he is gradually taking charge of us to a greater and greater extent, he will take complete charge of us only when we surrender ourself entirely to him, thereby allowing him to swallow us (namely ego) in the infinitely clear light of pure awareness, which is his real nature (<i>svarūpa</i>).<br>
<br>
If during this process of his taking charge of his devotees he were to reject or abandon any of them, that would be worthy of immense பழி (<i>paṙi</i>), blame, censure or ridicule, as he says in the next sentence of this fourth verse of <i>Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>: ‘அகற்றிடில் அகிலம் பழித்திடும் அருணாசலா’ (<i>ahaṯṟiḍil akhilam paṙittiḍum aruṇācalā</i>), ‘If [you] reject [me], the whole world will blame [you], Arunachala’, in which அகற்றிடில் (<i>ahaṯṟiḍil</i>) means ‘if rejecting [expelling, banishing or abandoning]’, thereby implying ‘if [you] reject [expel, banish or abandon] [me]’; அகிலம் (<i>akhilam</i>) means the whole, all or the entire universe, so in this context it implies all the people of the world, though in particular it refers to all devotees who with wholehearted faith in his grace have surrendered or are surrendering themselves to him; and பழித்திடும் (<i>paṙittiḍum</i>) means ‘will blame [ridicule or revile]’.<br>
<br>
<a name="aamm03"></a><a name="aamm60"></a>If a man enters the home of a young girl, entices her to elope with him, and thereby abducts her and keeps her captive in his home, as Bhagavan said that Arunachala had done in the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/04/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-3.html#aamm03">previous verse</a>, ‘அகம் புகுந்து ஈர்த்து உன் அக குகை சிறையாய் அமர்வித்தது என் கொல் அருணாசலா’ (<i>aham puhundu īrttu uṉ aha guhai siṟaiyāy amarvittadu eṉ kol aruṇācalā</i>), ‘Arunachala, entering [my] home [or mind], [forcibly] carrying [me] away [dragging me out or attracting me to yourself], keeping [me] captive in the cave of your heart is what [a wonder of your grace]’, but if he then rejects her, banishing her from his home and care, instead of marrying her, as he had led her to expect he would, that would be an act of immense shame, for which the whole world would blame, ridicule and revile him. Equally shameful would it be if Arunachala were to reject or abandon any devotee after he had seemingly taken charge of her, because it would be a betrayal of the hope that he had raised in her heart, as he likewise implies in verse 60:<br>
<blockquote>நேசமி லெனக்குன் னாசையைக் காட்டிநீ<br>
மோசஞ் செயாதரு ளருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>nēsami leṉakkuṉ ṉāśaiyaik kāṭṭinī<br>
mōsañ ceyādaru ḷaruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> நேசம் இல் எனக்கு உன் ஆசையை காட்டி நீ மோசம் செயாது அருள் அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>nēsam il eṉakku uṉ āśaiyai kāṭṭi nī mōsam seyādu aruḷ aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, showing desire for you to me, who was devoid of love, without you cheating, be gracious.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, [after] showing [the intoxicating taste of] desire for you to me, who [by my very nature as ego] was devoid of love [for you], without [or instead of] you cheating [me now by not giving yourself to me], be gracious [by fulfilling this desire for you that you have planted and nurtured in my heart].</blockquote>
Like several other verses of <i>Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>, verses 4 and 60 are what is called <i>nindā-stuti</i>, abusive, vilifying or rebuking praise, which, in the guise of blaming, finding fault with, accusing, abusing, vilifying, ridiculing or rebuking God, is a way of imploring and cajoling him to save us from ourself and not abandon us to our own devices, which will surely lead us astray, entrapping us forever in the delusive snare of ego. The implied meaning of this fourth verse, therefore, is a prayer imploring Arunachala not to abandon us with disdain, contempt or indifference after bringing us so far in this process of his gradually taking complete charge of us.<br>
<br>
If he has been taking charge of us for our sake, it is surely not due to any merit on our part, but only due to his causeless grace, so even if we now prove ourself to be unworthy of his grace, that is no reason for him to reject or abandon us, because at no time did he ever have any reason to suppose that we were worthy of it. His grace is the infinite good, so who can ever be worthy of it? His infinite love for us is called grace precisely because we can never in any way merit it.<br>
<br>
Moreover, if he has been taking charge of us not only for our sake but also for encouraging others to cling with devotion to his feet and thereby attain salvation, that is all the more reason for him not to reject or abandon us, because if he were to do so he would be betraying not only our trust in his grace but also the trust of others. Therefore if Arunachala were ever to reject or abandon any of his devotees, even the least and most unworthy among them, he would rightly be blamed by all for doing so.<br>
<br>
It is only by his infinite grace that we have been drawn to him, and by attracting us to himself he has committed himself to a binding contract with us to save us from ourself by taking complete charge of us in spite of all our defects and lack of any true love or merit. Therefore, having attracted us to himself, he is now duty-bound, like a mother, to complete the task that he began from the very moment that we first rose as ego, namely to ensnare us gradually but unfailingly in the web of his grace and thereby take complete charge of us by devouring us entirely in his clear light of pure awareness. Any failure on his part to do so would earn him the பழி (<i>paṙi</i>), blame, condemnation and ridicule, of the entire world.<br>
<br>
Therefore in the next verse he prays to Arunachala to escape such blame, thereby implying that, by eradicating ego and thereby taking charge of us entirely, he should complete this task of grace that he began so long before and whose final stages he commenced by making us think of him.<br>
<br>
<b>Video discussion:</b> <a href="https://youtu.be/Z8Ey0HEW3Vg"><i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> verse 4</a><br>
<br>
<div style="text-align:center"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z8Ey0HEW3Vg" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-38242527170146518632022-04-14T11:05:00.005+01:002023-02-08T18:37:05.575+00:00Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai verse 3This is the third in a series of articles that I hope to write on <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>, Bhagavan willing, the completed ones being <a href="https://www.happinessofbeing.com/articles.html#aamm">listed here</a>.<br><a name='more'></a>
<br>
<a name="aamm03"></a><b>Verse 3:</b><br>
<blockquote>அகம்புகுந் தீர்த்துன் னககுகை சிறையா<br>
யமர்வித்த தென்கொ லருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>ahambuhun dīrttuṉ ṉahaguhai siṟaiyā<br>
yamarvitta deṉko laruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> அகம் புகுந்து ஈர்த்து உன் அக குகை சிறையாய் அமர்வித்தது என் கொல் அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>aham puhundu īrttu uṉ aha guhai siṟaiyāy amarvittadu eṉ kol aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, entering the mind, carrying away, keeping captive in the cave of your heart is what!<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, entering [my] mind [or home], [forcibly] carrying [me] away [dragging me out or attracting me to yourself], [you have been] keeping [me] captive in the cave of your heart. What [a wonder of your grace this is]!<br>
<br>
<b>Alternative meaning:</b> Arunachala, entering [my] mind [or home], [forcibly] carrying [me] away [or dragging me out], [you have been] keeping [me] captive in the cave of your heart. Why [or for what reason did you do so]?<br>
<br>
<b>Inner meaning:</b> Arunachala, entering [my] mind [the nature of which was to always face outwards and thereby wander in the maze of worldly delusion], [attracting and] pulling [my mind inwards to face yourself], [you have thereby been] keeping [me] captive in the cave of your heart. What [a wonder of your grace this is]!</blockquote>
<a name="aa1"></a><b>Explanation:</b> The surface meaning of this verse is quite clear. As he implies in the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/03/after-annihilation-of-ego-no-i-can-rise.html#aa1">first verse</a> of <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Aṣṭakam</i>, ‘அறிவு அறு சிறு வயது அது முதல் அருணாசலம் மிக பெரிது என அறிவின் இலங்க, அறிகிலன் அதன் பொருள் அது திருவண்ணாமலை என ஒருவரால் அறிவு உற பெற்றும்’ (<i>aṟivu aṟu siṟu vayadu adu mudal aruṇācalam miha peridu eṉa aṟiviṉ ilaṅga, aṟihilaṉ adaṉ poruḷ adu tiruvaṇṇāmalai eṉa oruvarāl aṟivu uṟa peṯṟum</i>), ‘Though from [my] young age, [when I was] bereft of knowledge, Arunachalam shone in [my] awareness [or mind] as something exceedingly great, even [after] coming to know from someone that it is Tiruvannamalai I did not know its <i>poruḷ</i> [substance, reality, truth, import, meaning or significance]’, even before he knew anything else Arunachalam was shining in his awareness (his heart or mind) as something exceedingly great, so it had already entered his mind by the power of its name even before he knew what that name actually signified. Dwelling stealthily in his mind unknown to anyone else, it eventually revealed itself to him as his own real nature (<i>ātma-svarūpa</i>) one day after overwhelming him with an intense fear of death and thereby drawing his mind inwards to see what it is that shines as ‘I’. Six weeks later, by the power of its magnetic attraction it forcibly dragged him away from his home in Madurai to its own earthly abode in Tiruvannamalai, which is the heart or spiritual centre of the world, and there it kept him prisoner in its caves, never allowing him to be separated from itself even physically. <br>
<br>
The <i>nāyaka-nāyakī</i> connotation of this verse is also quite clear. Bhagavan is a sixteen-year-old maiden (<i>nāyakī</i>), the heroine of the story, and Arunachala is the lord (<i>nāyaka</i>), the hero of the story, who has stolen her heart. Stealthily entering her home, he enticed her out to elope with him, or viewed otherwise, he forcibly seized and abducted her, and now he is keeping her a prisoner in the cave that is his own home. The maiden is the devotee or <i>jīva</i>, whose home is the mind, and her beloved lord is God or <i>śiva</i>, whose home is the heart, the cave that lies buried deep in the very centre or innermost core of the mind, from which there is no possibility of escape. That is, he has imprisoned her and ensured that she can never escape from him in the most effective and infallible manner, namely by capturing and occupying her heart so completely and thoroughly that no thought of leaving him could ever rise in her. <br>
<br>
In this context அகம் (<i>aham</i>) is not the Sanskrit pronoun that means ‘I’ but a Tamil word that means inside, mind, heart or home, and புகுந்து (<i>puhundu</i>) is an adverbial participle that means entering, so ‘அகம் புகுந்து’ (<i>aham puhundu</i>) means both ‘entering [my] heart [or mind]’ and ‘entering [my] home’. ஈர்த்து (<i>īrttu</i>) is an adverbial participle that means dragging, pulling, attracting to itself (like a magnet) or carrying away (like the current of a fast-flowing river or flood), so ‘அகம் புகுந்து ஈர்த்து’ (<i>aham puhundu īrttu</i>) means ‘entering [my] heart [mind or home], carrying [me] away [dragging me out or attracting me to yourself]’.<br>
<br>
உன் (<i>uṉ</i>) means ‘your’ and குகை (<i>guhai</i>) means ‘cave’, so ‘உன் அக குகை’ (<i>uṉ aha guhai</i>) means ‘your inner cave’, ‘your heart-cave’, ‘the cave of your heart’ or ‘the cave that is your heart [or home]’. சிறை (<i>siṟai</i>) means confinement, incarceration, prison, captivity, slavery, bondage, captive, slave, prisoner or a young woman who has been taken captive for marriage, and ஆய் (<i>āy</i>) is an adverbial participle that means ‘being’ and that is often used in the sense of ‘as’, as in this case, so சிறையாய் (<i>siṟai-y-āy</i>) means ‘being captive’ or ‘as captive’. அமர் (<i>amar</i>) is a verb that means to abide, remain, rest or be settled, and அமர்வி (<i>amarvi</i>) is a causative form of it, so it means to cause to remain or to keep, so அமர்வித்தது (<i>amarvittadu</i>) is a participial noun that means ‘causing to remain’ or ‘keeping’. Therefore ‘உன் அக குகை சிறையாய் அமர்வித்தது’ (<i>uṉ aha guhai siṟaiyāy amarvittadu</i>) is a noun phrase that means ‘keeping [me] captive in the cave of your heart’.<br>
<br>
என் (<i>eṉ</i>) means ‘what’ (as an expression of wonder), and கொல் (<i>kol</i>) is either an affix implying doubt or a poetic expletive, so ‘அகம் புகுந்து ஈர்த்து உன் அக குகை சிறையாய் அமர்வித்தது என் கொல்’ (<i>aham puhundu īrttu uṉ aha guhai siṟaiyāy amarvittadu eṉ kol</i>) means ‘entering [my] heart [mind or home], carrying [me] away [or dragging me out], keeping [me] captive in the cave of your heart is what [a wonder]’, implying that it is a wonder of his grace. என் (<i>eṉ</i>) also means ‘why’ or ‘for what reason’, so ‘அகம் புகுந்து ஈர்த்து உன் அக குகை சிறையாய் அமர்வித்தது என் கொல்’ (<i>aham puhundu īrttu uṉ aha guhai siṟaiyāy amarvittadu eṉ kol</i>) can also be taken to be a question, ‘entering [my] heart [mind or home], carrying [me] away [or dragging me out], keeping [me] captive in the cave of your heart is for what reason?’, implying ‘why did you do so?’ or ‘for what reason did you bestow such grace on one who is so worthless and undeserving?’<br>
<br>
<a name="apr5"></a><a name="aa6"></a>Whether we take என் (<i>eṉ</i>) to be an expression of wonder, ‘what!’, or a question, ‘why?’ or ‘for what reason?’, the implication is that the grace of Arunachala is not caused by anything, least of all by any merit on our part. Grace is his very nature, because he is the infinite ocean of ‘அன்னியமில் அன்பு’ (<i>aṉṉiyamil aṉbu</i>), ‘otherless love’ (a term that Bhagavan uses in <a href="https://youtu.be/7CQoF60CNC8">verse 5</a> of <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Pañcaratnam</i>). That is, as he says in the first sentence of <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-role-of-grace-in-all-that-ego.html#aa6">verse 6</a> of <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Aṣṭakam</i>, ‘உண்டு ஒரு பொருள் அறிவு ஒளி உளமே நீ’ (<i>uṇḍu oru poruḷ aṟivu oḷi uḷamē nī</i>), ‘There is only one substance [one thing that actually exists], you, the heart, the light of awareness’, thereby implying that Arunachala alone is what actually exists, so whatever else seems to exist cannot actually be anything other than it. Therefore in the clear view of Arunachala, the light of pure awareness, there is nothing other than itself, so it loves everything as itself. The love of Arunachala is therefore infinite and all-embracing, and this love is what we experience as its grace. In other words, ‘Arunachala’, ‘love’ and ‘grace’ are synonymous, because they are all words that refer to the one thing that actually exists, namely the heart, the light of pure awareness, ‘I am’. Therefore, since grace alone is what actually exists, there cannot be any cause for it, and there need not be any cause for it, because being gracious is its very nature.<br>
<br>
The deeper implication of this verse, ‘அகம் புகுந்து ஈர்த்து உன் அக குகை சிறையாய் அமர்வித்தது என் கொல் அருணாசலா’ (<i>aham puhundu īrttu uṉ aha guhai siṟaiyāy amarvittadu eṉ kol aruṇācalā</i>), is: ‘Arunachala, entering [my] mind [the nature of which was to always face outwards and thereby wander in the maze of worldly delusion], [attracting and] pulling [my mind inwards to face yourself], [you have thereby been] keeping [me] captive in the cave of your heart. What [a wonder of your grace this is]!’. The first step in this process of grace is Arunachala entering the mind, so what is the mind, and what is meant by Arunachala entering it?<br>
<br>
<a name="ny04"></a><a name="ny08"></a>Other than thoughts, there is no such thing as mind, as Bhagavan points out in the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para04">fourth</a> and <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para08">eighth</a> paragraphs of <i>Nāṉ Ār?</i>:<br>
<blockquote>மன மென்பது ஆத்ம சொரூபத்தி லுள்ள ஓர் அதிசய சக்தி. அது சகல நினைவுகளையும் தோற்றுவிக்கின்றது. நினைவுகளை யெல்லாம் நீக்கிப் பார்க்கின்றபோது, தனியாய் மனமென் றோர் பொருளில்லை; ஆகையால் நினைவே மனதின் சொரூபம்.<br>
<br>
<i>maṉam eṉbadu ātma-sorūpattil uḷḷa ōr atiśaya śakti. adu sakala niṉaivugaḷaiyum tōṯṟuvikkiṉḏṟadu. niṉaivugaḷai y-ellām nīkki-p pārkkiṉḏṟa-pōdu, taṉi-y-āy maṉam eṉḏṟu ōr poruḷ illai; āhaiyāl niṉaivē maṉadiṉ sorūpam.</i><br>
<br>
What is called mind is an <i>atiśaya śakti</i> [an extraordinary power] that exists in <i>ātma-svarūpa</i> [the real nature of oneself]. It makes all thoughts appear. When one looks, excluding all thoughts, solitarily there is not any such thing as mind; therefore thought alone is the <i>svarūpa</i> [the very nature] of the mind.<br>
<br>
நினைவே மனத்தின் சொரூபம். நானென்னும் நினைவே மனத்தின் முதல் நினைவு; அதுவே யகங்காரம்.<br>
<br>
<i>niṉaivē maṉattiṉ sorūpam. nāṉ-eṉṉum niṉaivē maṉattiṉ mudal niṉaivu; adu-v-ē y-ahaṅkāram.</i><br>
<br>
Thought alone is the <i>svarūpa</i> [the very nature] of the mind. The thought called ‘I’ alone is the first thought of the mind; it alone is ego.</blockquote>
<a name="ny05"></a>What he means by the term நினைவு (<i>niṉaivu</i>), ‘thought’ or ‘idea’, is a mental impression or mental phenomenon of any kind whatsoever, and as he says in the next sentence of the fourth paragraph of <i>Nāṉ Ār?</i>, ‘நினைவுகளைத் தவிர்த்து ஜகமென்றோர் பொருள் அன்னியமா யில்லை’ (<i>niṉaivugaḷai-t tavirttu jagam eṉḏṟu ōr poruḷ aṉṉiyam-āy illai</i>), ‘Excluding thoughts, there is not separately any such thing as world’, so everything other than our own real nature (<i>ātma-svarūpa</i>) is a thought. The thoughts that constitute the mind are of two kinds, namely the thought called ‘I’, which is ego, the subject or knower, and all other thoughts, which are objects known by ego. Since other thoughts seem to exist only in the view of ego, none of them could exist without it, so it is the root and foundation of all other thoughts, as he implies in the final four sentences of the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para05">fifth paragraph</a> of <i>Nāṉ Ār?</i>:<br>
<blockquote>மனதில் தோன்றும் நினைவுக ளெல்லாவற்றிற்கும் <b>நானென்னும் நினைவே முதல் நினைவு</b>. இது எழுந்த பிறகே ஏனைய நினைவுகள் எழுகின்றன. தன்மை தோன்றிய பிறகே முன்னிலை படர்க்கைகள் தோன்றுகின்றன; தன்மை யின்றி முன்னிலை படர்க்கைக ளிரா.<br>
<br>
<i>maṉadil tōṉḏṟum niṉaivugaḷ ellāvaṯṟiṟkum <b>nāṉ-eṉṉum niṉaivē mudal niṉaivu</b>. idu eṙunda piṟahē ēṉaiya niṉaivugaḷ eṙugiṉḏṟaṉa. taṉmai tōṉḏṟiya piṟahē muṉṉilai paḍarkkaigaḷ tōṉḏṟugiṉḏṟaṉa; taṉmai y-iṉḏṟi muṉṉilai paḍarkkaigaḷ irā</i>.<br>
<br>
Of all the thoughts that appear in the mind, <b>the thought called ‘I’ alone is the first thought</b> [the primal, basic, original or causal thought]. Only after this arises do other thoughts arise. Only after the first person [ego, the primal thought called ‘I’] appears do second and third persons [all other things] appear; without the first person second and third persons do not exist.</blockquote>
<a name="un25"></a>Not only do all other thoughts depend for their seeming existence upon ego, but ego depends for its seeming existence on other thoughts, because without grasping other thoughts it cannot rise, stand or flourish, as he points out in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un25">verse 25</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>:<br>
<blockquote>உருப்பற்றி யுண்டா முருப்பற்றி நிற்கு<br>
முருப்பற்றி யுண்டுமிக வோங்கு — முருவிட்<br>
டுருப்பற்றுந் தேடினா லோட்டம் பிடிக்கு<br>
முருவற்ற பேயகந்தை யோர்.<br>
<br>
<i>uruppaṯṟi yuṇḍā muruppaṯṟi niṟku<br>
muruppaṯṟi yuṇḍumiha vōṅgu — muruviṭ<br>
ṭuruppaṯṟun tēḍiṉā lōṭṭam piḍikku<br>
muruvaṯṟa pēyahandai yōr</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> உரு பற்றி உண்டாம்; உரு பற்றி நிற்கும்; உரு பற்றி உண்டு மிக ஓங்கும்; உரு விட்டு, உரு பற்றும்; தேடினால் ஓட்டம் பிடிக்கும். உரு அற்ற பேய் அகந்தை. ஓர்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>uru paṯṟi uṇḍām; uru paṯṟi niṟkum; uru paṯṟi uṇḍu miha ōṅgum; uru viṭṭu, uru paṯṟum; tēḍiṉāl ōṭṭam piḍikkum. uru aṯṟa pēy ahandai. ōr</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Grasping form it 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. [Such is the nature of this] formless phantom ego. Investigate.</blockquote>
The forms that ego grasps are all thoughts that it has itself projected, and since it is a formless phantom, all forms are things other than itself. Therefore ego is the root and essence of the mind, and it cannot rise, stand or flourish without grasping things other than itself, so its very nature is to always flow outwards, away from itself towards other things, which are all just thoughts that it has itself caused to appear. Since its nature is to attend constantly to other things, it never looks at itself, so it does not see what it itself actually is.<br>
<br>
Though ego is just a thought, it is a thought unlike all other thoughts, because whereas other thoughts are all <i>jaḍa</i> (devoid of awareness), ego is <i>cit-jaḍa-granthi</i>, the knot (<i>granthi</i>) formed by the seeming entanglement of pure awareness (<i>cit</i>) with a body, which is <i>jaḍa</i>, so it is the only thought that is endowed with awareness. It is therefore what is aware of all other thoughts, and it is aware of itself as ‘I am this body’, in which the fundamental awareness ‘I am’ is <i>cit</i>, which alone is <i>sat</i>, what actually exists. Therefore this fundamental awareness ‘I am’ bereft of all adjuncts is the reality of ego, but in order to see its own reality ego needs to turn its entire attention back within to face ‘I am’ alone.<br>
<br>
Since ego cannot survive without constantly attending to things other than itself, its natural inclination is to continue grasping other things and not to turn back within to see what it actually is, namely <i>sat-cit</i>, the adjunct-free awareness ‘I am’. Turning back within is going against the very nature of ego, so ego will be willing to turn back within to see its real nature only when it is possessed by a love greater than itself, namely the pure love that is Arunachala. Therefore Arunachala possessing ego with pure love to turn back within to see itself is what Bhagavan refers to in this verse as ‘அகம் புகுந்து’ (<i>aham puhundu</i>), ‘entering [my] mind’.<br>
<br>
Arunachala is of course always present in our heart as ‘I am’, but so long as we prefer to look outwards than to lovingly attend to him within ourself, we are wilfully ignoring his presence, so we fail to recognise that he is what is shining within us as ‘I am’. Therefore, until he suffuses us with love to look within to see him as he actually is, namely as the pure awareness ‘I am’, he seems to us to be not present within ourself, so we can become aware of his presence only to the extent to which he possesses us in the form of pure love to look within and thereby surrender ourself entirely to him.<br>
<br>
<a name="aamm27"></a>To the extent that he occupies our heart and mind in the form of such pure love, he thereby draws our attention back within, like a magnet attracting a needle towards itself, so this is what he implies in this verse by the adverbial participle ஈர்த்து (<i>īrttu</i>), which means drawing, dragging, pulling, attracting to itself (like a magnet) or carrying away (like a flood). When love for him arises from within and takes possession of our entire heart, we will be pulled inwards by him, like a straw being carried away by a powerful flood, and we will thereby be dissolved forever in his <i>svarūpa</i>, the infinitely clear light of pure awareness, which swallows everything within itself, as he says in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2019/10/can-we-as-ego-ever-experience-pure.html#aamm27">verse 27</a> of <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>:<br>
<blockquote>சகலமும் விழுங்குங் கதிரொளி யினமன<br>
சலச மலர்த்தியி டருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<i>sakalamum viṙuṅguṅ kadiroḷi yiṉamaṉa<br>
jalaja malarttiyi ḍaruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> சகலமும் விழுங்கும் கதிர் ஒளி இன மன சலசம் அலர்த்தியிடு அருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>sakalamum viṙuṅgum kadir oḷi iṉa, maṉa-jalajam alartti-y-iḍu aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, sun of bright light that swallows everything, make the mind-lotus blossom.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, sun of bright light [the clear light of pure awareness, ‘I am’] that swallows everything [when the mind is turned inwards to face you alone], make [my] mind-lotus blossom [with all-consuming love for you].</blockquote>
The state in which ego has been completely swallowed along with all phenomena (<i>viṣayas</i>) by the clear light of pure awareness, which is Arunachala, is what he describes in this third verse of <i>Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> as ‘உன் அக குகை சிறையாய் அமர்வித்தது’ (<i>uṉ aha guhai siṟaiyāy amarvittadu</i>), ‘keeping [me] captive in the cave of your heart’.<br>
<br>
<a name="aamm97"></a>When Arunachala thus imprisons us in the cave of his heart, he does so by revealing to us that this அக குகை (<i>aha guhai</i>) or heart-cave is not only his home but also our own real home, our natural state of pure awareness, as he implies in verse 97 of <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>:<br>
<blockquote>வீடுவிட் டீர்த்துள வீடுபுக்குப் பையவுன்<br>
வீடுகாட் டினையரு ளருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>vīḍuviṭ ṭīrttuḷa vīḍupukkup paiyavuṉ<br>
vīḍukāṭ ṭiṉaiyaru ḷaruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> வீடு விட்டு ஈர்த்து, உள வீடு புக்கு, பைய உன் வீடு காட்டினை. அருள் அருணாசலா!<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>vīḍu viṭṭu īrttu, uḷa vīḍu pukku, paiya uṉ vīḍu kāṭṭiṉai. aruḷ aruṇācalā!</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, alluring away from home, entering the heart-home, you quietly showed your home. Grace!<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, alluring [or dragging] [me] away from [my false] home [the thought-filled mind], entering [or making me enter] the home of [my] heart [the empty space of pure awareness], you quietly [gently, softly or secretively] showed [me] [that that, namely my heart, is] your [real and eternal] home [the state of liberation]. [Such is the greatness of your] grace!</blockquote>
The வீடு (<i>vīḍu</i>), the house, home or abode, in which the devotee was previously residing, believing it to be his real home, is the mind, which is filled with thoughts about other things, but he has now left that false home, having been attracted, allured or dragged inwards by Arunachala, as he implies by saying ‘வீடு விட்டு ஈர்த்து’ (<i>vīḍu viṭṭu īrttu</i>), which literally means ‘drawing [attracting, alluring, pulling or dragging] away, leaving home’. Arunachala resides in the heart of the devotee, so this is the வீடு (<i>vīḍu</i>) or home to which it has drawn him.<br>
<br>
‘உள வீடு புக்கு’ (<i>uḷa vīḍu pukku</i>) literally means ‘entering the heart-home’, but in this context we can also take it to mean ‘causing me to enter the heart-home’. If we take it to mean the latter, the implication is quite clear and straightforward, namely: ‘drawing me away from my false home, the mind, you have made me enter my true home, the heart’. However, if we take it in its literal sense, it implies that Arunachala has entered the heart-home, which is obviously meant metaphorically, because our heart is his eternal abode, and hence he can never leave it even for a moment (as Manikkavacakar famously sings in the second line of <i>Śiva Purāṇam</i>: ‘இமைப்பொழுதும் என்னெஞ்சில் நீங்காதான் தாள்வாழ்க’ (<i>imaippoṙudum eṉṉeñjil nīṅgātāṉ tāḷvāṙga</i>), ‘May the feet of the one who does not leave my heart even for a moment of blinking flourish’). Though he is eternally present in our heart, however, so long as we rise as ego and thereby reside in the mind, his presence in our heart is concealed from our outward-looking vision, so Arunachala entering the heart-home is a metaphorical way of saying that by drawing our attention away from the multitude of thoughts that comprise the mind back into the heart, the empty space of pure awareness, ‘I am’, he reveals to us that he is ever present in our heart, as our heart.<br>
<br>
<a name="un40"></a>The adverb பைய (<i>paiya</i>) means gradually, slowly, quietly, gently or softly, but in this context can be taken to mean quietly in the sense of secretively, unknown to anyone else, and can be construed either with the previous clause, ‘உள வீடு புக்கு’ (<i>uḷa vīḍu pukku</i>), ‘entering the heart-home’, or with the next clause, which is the main one, ‘உன் வீடு காட்டினை’ (<i>uṉ vīḍu kāṭṭiṉai</i>), ‘you showed your home’. In this context this main clause implies ‘you showed [me] [that that, namely my heart, is] your [real and eternal] home’. Moreover, since வீடு (<i>vīḍu</i>) also means liberation, ‘உன் வீடு காட்டினை’ (<i>uṉ vīḍu kāṭṭiṉai</i>), ‘you showed your <i>vīḍu</i>’, also implies ‘you showed [me] your [real state], [which is] liberation’. Therefore, since annihilation of ego alone is liberation, as he says in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un40">verse 40</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>, and since ego can be annihilated only by <i>svarūpa-darśana</i>, seeing its own real nature, the implication of this ninety-seventh verse of <i>Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> is that by drawing us away from the mind back into the heart, Arunachala shows us our real nature, which is his home, and thereby eradicates ego.<br>
<br>
<a name="anmm9"></a>What he says in this third verse of <i>Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>, namely ‘அகம் புகுந்து ஈர்த்து உன் அக குகை சிறையாய் அமர்வித்தது என் கொல் அருணாசலா’ (<i>aham puhundu īrttu uṉ aha guhai siṟaiyāy amarvittadu eṉ kol aruṇācalā</i>), ‘Arunachala, entering [my] mind, [thereby attracting and] pulling [my mind inwards to face yourself], [you have thereby been] keeping [me] captive in the cave of your heart. What [a wonder of your grace this is]’, is also expressed by him in the last two lines of <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/03/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-verse-2.html#anmm9">verse 9</a> of <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Navamaṇimālai</i>: ‘என் மனம் மன்னி இழுத்து உன் பதத்தில் இருத்தினை ஆல். சின்மயன் ஆம் அருணாசல நின் அருள் சித்ரம் என்னே’ (<i>eṉ maṉam maṉṉi iṙuttu uṉ padattil iruttiṉai āl. ciṉmayaṉ ām aruṇācala niṉ aruḷ citram eṉṉē</i>), ‘entering [or occupying] my mind and drawing [me inwards] to yourself [or attracting me inwards to face yourself], you fixed [me] at your feet [or in your state]. Arunachala, who are <i>cinmayaṉ</i> [one composed of pure awareness], what a wonder of your grace [this is]’. That is, what he describes in this third verse of <i>Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> as ‘உன் அக குகை சிறையாய் அமர்வித்தது’ (<i>uṉ aha guhai siṟaiyāy amarvittadu</i>), ‘keeping [me] captive in the cave of your heart’, is what he describes in the final verse of <i>Navamaṇimālai</i> as ‘உன் பதத்தில் இருத்தினை’ (<i>uṉ padattil iruttiṉai</i>), ‘you fixed [me] at your feet [or in your state]’, because the cave of the heart is not only his abode but also his feet and his real state.<br>
<br>
<a name="apr2"></a>In other words, Arunachala is himself the heart, the place where he dwells, as Bhagavan implies in <a href="https://youtu.be/nl5Xfm2Bp4s">verse 2</a> of <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Pañcaratnam</i>: ‘நித்தியமும் நான் என்று இதயம் நடித்திடுவையால், உன் பேர் தான் இதயம் என்றிடுவர் தாம்’ (<i>nittiyamum nāṉ eṉḏṟu idayam naḍittiḍuvaiyāl, tām uṉ pēr tāṉ idayam eṉḏṟiḍuvar</i>), ‘Since you dance eternally in the heart as ‘I’, they say your name itself is heart’. Heart means the centre, and in this context it implies the ultimate or innermost centre of ourself and everything else. At the centre of all that is experienced is the experiencer, who is ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’, and the centre of this false awareness is the real awareness ‘I am’, so the real heart is only this fundamental awareness ‘I am’, which is Arunachala. Since it is shining in the centre of ourself, it is said to be in the heart, but it is not just in the centre of ourself, because it is itself the centre of ourself, so it is not just in the heart but is the heart itself.<br>
<br>
<a name="un27"></a>Therefore அக குகை (<i>aha guhai</i>), the heart-cave, is not only the abode of Arunachala but is Arunachala himself, so being imprisoned in his அக குகை (<i>aha guhai</i>) or heart-cave means being imprisoned in himself, and we can be imprisoned in him only by losing ourself entirely in him. ‘உன் அக குகை சிறையாய் அமர்வித்தது’ (<i>uṉ aha guhai siṟaiyāy amarvittadu</i>), ‘keeping [me] captive in the cave of your heart’, is therefore the state in which ego has surrendered itself entirely to him and has therefore been completely eradicated by him, so this alone is the state in which we are that, namely Arunachala, as Bhagavan implies in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un27">verse 27</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>: <br>
<blockquote>நானுதியா துள்ளநிலை நாமதுவா யுள்ளநிலை<br>
நானுதிக்குந் தானமதை நாடாம — னானுதியாத்<br>
தன்னிழப்பைச் சார்வதெவன் சாராமற் றானதுவாந்<br>
தன்னிலையி னிற்பதெவன் சாற்று.<br>
<br>
<i>nāṉudiyā duḷḷanilai nāmaduvā yuḷḷanilai<br>
nāṉudikkun thāṉamadai nāḍāma — ṉāṉudiyāt<br>
taṉṉiṙappaic cārvadevaṉ sārāmaṯ ṟāṉaduvān<br>
taṉṉilaiyi ṉiṟpadevaṉ sāṯṟu</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> ‘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.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>‘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</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> 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, how to stand in the state of oneself, in which oneself is that? Say.</blockquote>
The state in which ego is annihilated and can therefore never rise again is ‘தான் அது ஆம் தன் நிலை’ (<i>tāṉ adu ām taṉ nilai</i>), ‘the state of oneself [or one’s own state], in which oneself is that [namely <i>brahman</i> or Arunachala]’. This is our natural state, which is the real state of Arunachala, so it is the state that he describes in this third verse of <i>Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> as ‘உன் அக குகை சிறையாய் அமர்வித்தது’ (<i>uṉ aha guhai siṟaiyāy amarvittadu</i>), ‘keeping [me] captive in the cave of your heart’, and in the final verse of <i>Navamaṇimālai</i> as ‘உன் பதத்தில் இருத்தினை’ (<i>uṉ padattil iruttiṉai</i>), ‘you fixed [me] in your state [or at your feet]’.<br>
<br>
As he implies in the second sentence of this twenty-seventh verse of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i> by asking rhetorically, ‘நான் உதிக்கும் தானம் அதை நாடாமல், நான் உதியா தன் இழப்பை சார்வது எவன்?’ (<i>nāṉ udikkum thāṉam-adai nāḍāmal, nāṉ udiyā taṉ-ṉ-iṙappai sārvadu evaṉ?</i>), ‘Without investigating the place where ‘I’ rises, how to reach the annihilation of oneself, in which ‘I’ does not rise?’, we cannot achieve the annihilation of ego except by investigating the source from which we have risen as ego, namely the heart, our fundamental awareness ‘I am’, which is the <i>svarūpa</i> or real nature of Arunachala. However, we cannot investigate this fundamental awareness ‘I am’ without all-consuming love to surrender ourself entirely to Arunachala, and since Arunachala is itself that all-consuming love, we cannot achieve such love unless Arunachala occupies and takes complete possession of our heart and mind.<br>
<br>
<a name="anmm9a"></a>His occupying and taking complete possession of our heart and mind is what Bhagavan describes in this third verse of <i>Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> as ‘அகம் புகுந்து’ (<i>aham puhundu</i>), ‘entering [my] mind [or heart]’, and by doing so he automatically draws our entire mind inwards to face our fundamental awareness ‘I am’, thereby eradicating ego and establishing us forever in the cave of his heart, as he implies by saying ‘ஈர்த்து உன் அக குகை சிறையாய் அமர்வித்தது’ (<i>īrttu uṉ aha guhai siṟaiyāy amarvittadu</i>), ‘pulling [my mind inwards to face yourself], keeping [me] captive in the cave of your heart’. What a wonder of his grace this is, as he also says in the final line of <a href="#anmm9">verse 9</a> of <i>Navamaṇimālai</i>: ‘சின்மயன் ஆம் அருணாசல நின் அருள் சித்ரம் என்னே’ (<i>ciṉmayaṉ ām aruṇācala niṉ aruḷ citram eṉṉē</i>), ‘Arunachala, who are <i>cinmayaṉ</i> [one composed of pure awareness], what a wonder of your grace [this is]’.<br>
<br>
Therefore the implication of this verse is that grace is absolutely essential in this path of self-investigation and self-surrender, because grace is the infinite love that Arunachala has for us as itself, and since its love is the only real love, it is the source and substance of all other forms of love, so it alone can give us the all-consuming love that we require in order to turn back within and thereby surrender ourself entirely. Since it is the bright sun of pure awareness that shines eternally in our heart as ‘I’, it gives us this love from within by gradually attracting our mind inwards, thereby filling our heart with love to give ourself entirely to him.<br>
<br>
<a name="aamm101"></a>The love that Arunachala thereby gives us is nothing other than itself, because it is itself the infinite love that it has for us as itself, so by surging in our heart as this love to know and to be what we always actually are, it is giving itself to us, thereby dissolving us completely in and as itself, as he implies in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-role-of-grace-in-all-that-ego.html#aamm101">verse 101</a> of <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>:<br>
<blockquote>அம்புவி லாலிபோ லன்புரு வுனிலெனை<br>
யன்பாக் கரைத்தரு ளருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<i>ambuvi lālipō laṉburu vuṉileṉai<br>
yaṉbāk karaittaru ḷaruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> அம்புவில் ஆலி போல் அன்பு உரு உனில் எனை அன்பு ஆ கரைத்து அருள் அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>ambuvil āli pōl aṉbu-uru uṉil eṉai aṉbu ā karaittu aruḷ aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, be gracious, melting me as love in you, the form of love, like ice in water.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, like ice in water, lovingly melt me as love in you, the form of love.</blockquote>
As Bhagavan often used to say, grace is the beginning, the middle and the end, thereby implying that it is grace alone that attracts and draws us to this path, that guides and supports us along it, and that will finally swallow us entirely, thereby revealing to us that it is our own real nature. That is, grace is Arunachala, the infinite ocean of love, and we can yield ourself to his grace only by turning back within with heart-melting love to know and to be what we actually are, which is what he actually is, namely the infinite space of pure being, pure awareness, pure happiness and pure love. When we thereby give ourself wholly to him, he will melt us as love in himself, the form of love.<br>
<br>
<b>Video discussion:</b> <a href="https://youtu.be/5C6851Krb-4"><i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> verse 3</a><br>
<br>
<div style="text-align:center"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5C6851Krb-4" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-10241355820278259972022-03-31T16:44:00.012+01:002022-10-29T12:56:09.319+01:00Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai verse 2This is the second in a series of articles that I hope to write on <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>, Bhagavan willing, the completed ones being <a href="https://www.happinessofbeing.com/articles.html#aamm">listed here</a>.<br><a name='more'></a>
<br>
<a name="aamm02"></a><b>Verse 2:</b><br>
<blockquote>அழகுசுந் தரம்போ லகமும் நீயுமுற்<br>
றபின்னமா யிருப்போ மருணாசலா<br>
<br>
<i>aṙahusun darampō lahamum nīyumuṯ<br>
ṟabhiṉṉamā yiruppō maruṇācalā</i><br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> அழகு சுந்தரம் போல் அகமும் நீயும் உற்று அபின்னமாய் இருப்போம் அருணாசலா.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>aṙahu sundaram pōl ahamum nīyum uṯṟu abhiṉṉamāy iruppōm aruṇācalā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Arunachala, like <i>aṙahu</i> and <i>sundaram</i>, may I and you uniting be non-different.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Arunachala, like <i>aṙahu</i> and <i>sundaram</i> [two words that are different in form but one in meaning, namely beauty], may I and you uniting be [completely] non-different.<br>
<br>
<b>Alternative meaning 1</b> [when நீயுமுற்று (<i>nīyumuṯṟu</i>) is split as ‘நீயும் முற்று’ (<i>nīyum muṯṟu</i>), ‘and you completely’]: Arunachala, like <i>aṙahu</i> and <i>sundaram</i>, I and you will [always] be [or always are] completely non-different.<br>
<br>
<b>Alternative meaning 2:</b> Arunachala, like Aṙahu [my mother] and Sundaram [my father], may I and you uniting be [completely] non-different.</blockquote>
<a name="uu24"></a><b>Explanation:</b> அழகு (<i>aṙahu</i>) is a Tamil word that means beauty, and is also the name of Bhagavan’s mother, whereas சுந்தரம் (<i>sundaram</i>) is a Sanskrit word that means beauty, and is also the name of his father. Therefore though outwardly these two words differ in their form and appearance, inwardly their பொருள் (<i>poruḷ</i>), their substance or meaning, is one, just as the பொருள் (<i>poruḷ</i>) or substance of God and soul is one even though they differ in their external form and appearance, as Bhagavan says in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu24">verse 24</a> of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i>:<br>
<blockquote>இருக்கு மியற்கையா லீசசீ வர்க<br>
ளொருபொரு ளேயாவ ருந்தீபற<br>
வுபாதி யுணர்வேவே றுந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>irukku miyaṟkaiyā līśajī varga<br>
ḷoruporu ḷēyāva rundīpaṟa<br>
vupādhi yuṇarvēvē ṟundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> இருக்கும் இயற்கையால் ஈச சீவர்கள் ஒரு பொருளே ஆவர். உபாதி உணர்வே வேறு.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>irukkum iyaṟkaiyāl īśa-jīvargaḷ oru poruḷē āvar. upādhi-uṇarvē vēṟu</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> By existing nature, God and soul are just one substance. Only adjunct-awareness is different.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> By [their] existing nature [that is, because the real nature of each of them is what actually exists (<i>uḷḷadu</i>), which is pure awareness (<i>uṇarvu</i>)], God and soul are just one <i>poruḷ</i> [substance or reality]. Only awareness of [their] adjuncts is [what makes them seem] different [that is, whereas the soul (<i>jīva</i>) is aware of itself as a certain set of adjuncts, namely the five sheaths that constitute whatever person it currently seems to be, and consequently attributes certain other adjuncts to God, God always remains just as pure awareness, in the clear view of which no adjuncts exist at all].</blockquote>
<a name="uu25"></a>By virtue of our existing nature, ‘I am’, we and Arunachala (<i>jīva</i> and <i>śiva</i>) are always one substance (<i>poruḷ</i>), like <i>aṙahu</i> and <i>sundaram</i>, but to see ourself as such, we need to see ourself without adjuncts, as he says in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu25">verse 25</a> of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i>:<br>
<blockquote>தன்னை யுபாதிவிட் டோர்வது தானீசன்<br>
றன்னை யுணர்வதா முந்தீபற<br>
தானா யொளிர்வதா லுந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>taṉṉai yupādhiviṭ ṭōrvadu tāṉīśaṉ<br>
ḏṟaṉṉai yuṇarvadā mundīpaṟa<br>
tāṉā yoḷirvadā lundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> தன்னை உபாதி விட்டு ஓர்வது தான் ஈசன் தன்னை உணர்வது ஆம், தானாய் ஒளிர்வதால்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>taṉṉai upādhi viṭṭu ōrvadu tāṉ īśaṉ taṉṉai uṇarvadu ām, tāṉ-āy oḷirvadāl</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>அன்வயம்:</b> தானாய் ஒளிர்வதால், தன்னை உபாதி விட்டு ஓர்வது தான் ஈசன் தன்னை உணர்வது ஆம்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Anvayam</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>tāṉ-āy oḷirvadāl, taṉṉai upādhi viṭṭu ōrvadu tāṉ īśaṉ taṉṉai uṇarvadu ām</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Knowing oneself leaving aside adjuncts is itself knowing God, because of shining as oneself.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Knowing [or being aware of] oneself without adjuncts is itself knowing God, because [God is what is always] shining as oneself [one’s own real nature, namely pure awareness, which is oneself without any adjuncts].</blockquote>
Knowing ourself without any adjuncts (<i>upādhis</i>) means being aware of ourself as we actually are, for which we require all-consuming love to turn within, and such love is possible only by the grace of Arunachala, who is our own real nature (<i>ātma-svarūpa</i>).<br>
<br>
Like the oneness or non-difference of <i>aṙahu</i> and <i>sundaram</i>, the oneness of ourself and Arunachala (<i>jīva</i> and <i>śiva</i>) is eternal, immutable, unconditional and complete (<i>muṯṟu</i>), so it is not a oneness that needs to be forged or created by an act of uniting, but a oneness that needs to be discovered by investigation, which means looking deep within ourself to see what we always actually are. Since we and Arunachala are always one and completely non-different, like <i>aṙahu</i> and <i>sundaram</i>, our seeming separation or individuality is just an illusory appearance and therefore entirely unreal.<br>
<br>
<a name="un05"></a>In this context உற்று (<i>uṯṟu</i>) means joining or uniting, but it is not intended to imply that we are ever actually anything separate or distinct from Arunachala. Though we are never actually anything other than Arunachala, however, when we rise as ego or <i>jīva</i> we seem to be separate, because instead of being aware of ourself as just ‘I am’, which is the real nature (<i>svarūpa</i>) of Arunachala, we are aware of ourself as ‘I am this body’. This body, which is a form composed of five sheaths (as he says in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un05">verse 5</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>), namely the physical body, life, mind, intellect and will, is a set of adjuncts, so it is what he refers to in the above two verses of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> as ‘உபாதி’ (<i>upādhi</i>), and hence our awareness of ourself as ‘I am this body’ is what he describes in verse 24 as ‘உபாதி யுணர்வு’ (<i>upādhi-y-uṇarvu</i>), ‘adjunct-awareness’. Therefore what he implies in verse 24 is that this false awareness ‘I am this body’ is alone what makes us seem to be separate from or other than Arunachala, who is not only God and <i>guru</i> but also our own real nature (<i>ātma-svarūpa</i>).<br>
<br>
<a name="un04"></a>So long as we are aware of ourself as if we were a body, which is a form composed of five sheaths, we cannot know or conceive of God as anything other than a form, as Bhagavan points out in the first sentence of <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un04">verse 4</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>: ‘உருவம் தான் ஆயின், உலகு பரம் அற்று ஆம்’ (<i>uruvam tāṉ āyiṉ, ulahu param aṯṟu ām</i>), ‘If oneself is a form, the world and God will be likewise’. Even if we believe that God is formless, our very idea that he is formless is just an idea, which is a mental form, so we can know him as formless only by knowing ourself as formless, which means knowing ourself without any adjuncts (<i>upādhis</i>), as he implies in the second sentence of the same verse: ‘உருவம் தான் அன்றேல், உவற்றின் உருவத்தை கண் உறுதல் யாவன்? எவன்?’ (<i>uruvam tāṉ aṉḏṟēl, uvaṯṟiṉ uruvattai kaṇ uṟudal yāvaṉ? evaṉ?</i>), ‘If oneself is not a form, who can see their forms, and how [to do so]?’<br>
<br>
So long as we are aware of ourself as a set of adjuncts, we will inevitably conceive of God as another set of adjuncts, such as something that is all-knowing, all-loving and all-powerful, so what Bhagavan describes as ‘உபாதி யுணர்வு’ (<i>upādhi-y-uṇarvu</i>), ‘adjunct-awareness’, includes not only our awareness of ourself as ‘I am this body’, but also our conception of God as another set of adjuncts. In the clear view of God, who is <i>ātma-svarūpa</i>, there are no adjuncts whatsoever (not even the adjuncts of being all-knowing, all-loving and all-powerful, because there is no ‘all’ other than <i>ātma-svarūpa</i>, which alone is what actually exists and is therefore one and indivisible), so ‘உபாதி யுணர்வு’ (<i>upādhi-y-uṇarvu</i>), ‘adjunct-awareness’, which is what seemingly separates us from God, exists only in the view of ourself as ego or <i>jīva</i> and not in the view of God or Arunachala.<br>
<br>
In order to see ourself without adjuncts, we need to turn our entire attention back within to look at ourself alone. To the extent to which we do so, ego will thereby subside and dissolve back into its source, which is Arunachala, and when we are so keenly self-attentive that we thereby cease to be aware of anything else whatsoever, ego will dissolve completely and forever, thereby merging back into Arunachala as Arunachala. This merging of ego in and as Arunachala, and the consequent dissolution of its false awareness of difference or distinction (<i>bhēda bhāva</i>), is what Bhagavan implies by the adverbial participle உற்று (<i>uṯṟu</i>), which as I explained above means joining or uniting.<br>
<br>
Since ego and its seeming separation from Arunachala are not real, its merging back in Arunachala is only seemingly a case of merging or uniting. If we look carefully at what seems to be a snake and thereby see that it is just a rope, we can say that the snake has merged back into the rope or united with it, but that is just a metaphorical way of saying that the seeming snake has been recognised as a rope. Even when it seemed to be a snake, it was always actually just a rope. Likewise, even when we seem to be ego, we are actually never anything other than pure awareness, which is Arunachala, so what is called uniting with Arunachala is just recognising that Arunachala is what we always actually are.<br>
<br>
If we do not know the meaning (<i>poruḷ</i>) of அழகு (<i>aṙahu</i>) and சுந்தரம் (<i>sundaram</i>), we may assume that since they are two separate words, they each have a distinct meaning, but when we come to know that they both mean ‘beauty’, in our understanding they will thereby merge together and unite as one பொருள் (<i>poruḷ</i>), meaning or substance, as they always actually were. Likewise, so long as we do not know our own real substance (<i>poruḷ</i>), which is the real substance of God or Arunachala, we seem to be separate from him, but when we know our real substance by turning our entire attention back within to face ourself alone, thereby withdrawing it from everything else, including all adjuncts, we will thereby merge and unite with Arunachala as the one பொருள் (<i>poruḷ</i>) or real substance that we always actually are.<br>
<br>
As we have seen, அழகு (<i>aṙahu</i>) and சுந்தரம் (<i>sundaram</i>) both mean ‘beauty’, and போல் (<i>pōl</i>) is a particle of comparison that means ‘like’, so ‘அழகு சுந்தரம் போல்’ (<i>aṙahu sundaram pōl</i>) means ‘like <i>aṙahu</i> and <i>sundaram</i>’. In this context அகம் (<i>aham</i>) means ‘I’ and நீ (<i>nī</i>) means ‘you’, and the suffix உம் (<i>um</i>) appended to each is a connective particle that in this case means ‘and’, so ‘அகமும் நீயும்’ (<i>ahamum nīyum</i>) means ‘I and you’.<br>
<br>
The coalesced words நீயுமுற்று (<i>nīyumuṯṟu</i>) can be split in two ways, either as ‘நீயும் உற்று’ (<i>nīyum uṯṟu</i>), in which நீயும் (<i>nīyum</i>) means ‘and you’ and உற்று (<i>uṯṟu</i>) means ‘joining’ or ‘uniting’, or as ‘நீயும் முற்று’ (<i>nīyum muṯṟu</i>), in which முற்று (<i>muṯṟu</i>) means ‘completely’. Therefore the main clause of this verse, ‘அகமும் நீயுமுற் றபின்னமா யிருப்போம்’ (<i>ahamum nīyumuṯ ṟabhiṉṉamā yiruppōm</i>), can be interpreted either as ‘அகமும் நீயும் உற்று அபின்னமாய் இருப்போம்’ (<i>ahamum nīyum uṯṟu abhiṉṉamāy iruppōm</i>), which means ‘may I and you uniting be non-different’, or as ‘அகமும் நீயும் முற்று அபின்னமாய் இருப்போம்’ (<i>ahamum nīyum muṯṟu abhiṉṉamāy iruppōm</i>), which means ‘may I and you be completely non-different’. Since both of these meanings are appropriate, we can assume that a double meaning was intended here, so they can be combined as ‘may I and you uniting be completely non-different’.<br>
<br>
<a name="ny07"></a>அபின்னம் (<i>abhinnam</i>) is a Tamil form of the Sanskrit term अभिन्न (<i>abhinna</i>), which means not भिन्न (<i>bhinna</i>): divided, separated, split, broken, distinct, different or other than. That is, like भेद (<i>bhēda</i>), भिन्न (<i>bhinna</i>) derives from the verb भिद् (<i>bhid</i>), which means to divide, separate, split, cut into parts, break, disturb, violate or distinguish, so अभेद (<i>abhēda</i>) and अभिन्न (<i>abhinna</i>) both imply what is not divided, separated, distinct or different. Therefore ‘முற்று அபின்னம்’ (<i>muṯṟu abhinnam</i>) means ‘completely non-different, indivisible and inseparable’, which implies being non-different eternally and in every respect. In other words, what Bhagavan is praying for here is the state of absolute and eternal oneness (<i>aikya</i>) or non-duality (<i>advaita</i>), which is our real and natural state, because as he says in the first sentence of the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para07">seventh paragraph</a> of <i>Nāṉ Ār?</i>: ‘யதார்த்தமா யுள்ளது ஆத்மசொரூப மொன்றே’ (<i>yathārtham-āy uḷḷadu ātma-sorūpam oṉḏṟē</i>), ‘What actually exists is only <i>ātma-svarūpa</i> [the real nature of oneself]’. Since <i>ātma-svarūpa</i> alone is what actually exists, it is the sole reality or substance (<i>poruḷ</i> or <i>vastu</i>) of both Arunachala and ourself, so what we are praying for here is for the grace of Arunachala to enable us to be as we always actually are, namely just as <i>sat-cit</i>, pure being and awareness, ‘I am’.<br>
<br>
<a name="av3"></a>Separation and differences are not real. They seem to exist only so long as we look outwards, away from ourself, but they all disappear when we turn our entire attention back within to see what we actually are. Therefore in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/01/anma-viddai-tamil-text-transliteration.html#av3">verse 3</a> of <i>Āṉma-Viddai</i> Bhagavan sings:<br>
<blockquote>தன்னை யறிதலின்றிப் பின்னை யெதறிகிலென்<br>
றன்னை யறிந்திடிற்பின் னென்னை யுளதறிய<br>
பின்ன வுயிர்களில பின்ன விளக்கெனுமத்<br>
தன்னைத் தனிலுணர மின்னுந் தனுளான்ம —<br>
ப்ரகாசமே; அருள் விலாசமே; அக விநாசமே;<br>
இன்ப விகாசமே. (ஐயே)<br>
<br>
<i>taṉṉai yaṟidaliṉḏṟip piṉṉai yedaṟihileṉ<br>
ḏṟaṉṉai yaṟindiḍiṟpiṉ ṉeṉṉai yuḷadaṟiya<br>
bhiṉṉa vuyirgaḷila bhiṉṉa viḷakkeṉumat<br>
taṉṉait taṉiluṇara miṉṉun taṉuḷāṉma —<br>
prakāśamē; aruḷ vilāsamē; aha vināśamē;<br>
iṉba vikāsamē</i>. (<i>aiyē</i>)<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> தன்னை அறிதல் இன்றி, பின்னை எது அறிகில் என்? தன்னை அறிந்திடில், பின் என்னை உளது அறிய? பின்ன உயிர்களில் அபின்ன விளக்கு எனும் அத் தன்னை தனில் உணர, மின்னும் தன் உள் ஆன்ம ப்ரகாசமே. அருள் விலாசமே, அக விநாசமே, இன்ப விகாசமே. (ஐயே, அதி சலபம், ...)<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>taṉṉai aṟidal iṉḏṟi, piṉṉai edu aṟihil eṉ? taṉṉai aṟindiḍil, piṉ eṉṉai uḷadu aṟiya? bhiṉṉa uyirgaḷil abhiṉṉa viḷakku eṉum a-t-taṉṉai taṉil uṇara, miṉṉum taṉ uḷ āṉma-prakāśamē. aruḷ vilāsamē, aha vināśamē, iṉba vikāsamē</i>. (<i>aiyē, ati sulabham, ...</i>)<br>
<br>
<b>அன்வயம்:</b> தன்னை அறிதல் இன்றி, பின்னை எது அறிகில் என்? தன்னை அறிந்திடில், பின் அறிய என்னை உளது? பின்ன உயிர்களில் அபின்ன விளக்கு எனும் அத் தன்னை தனில் உணர, தன் உள் ஆன்ம ப்ரகாசமே மின்னும். அருள் விலாசமே, அக விநாசமே, இன்ப விகாசமே. (ஐயே, அதி சலபம், ...)<br>
<br>
<b><i>Anvayam</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>taṉṉai aṟidal iṉḏṟi, piṉṉai edu aṟihil eṉ? taṉṉai aṟindiḍil, piṉ aṟiya eṉṉai uḷadu? bhiṉṉa uyirgaḷil abhiṉṉa viḷakku eṉum a-t-taṉṉai taṉil uṇara, taṉ uḷ āṉma-prakāśamē miṉṉum. aruḷ vilāsamē, aha vināśamē, iṉba vikāsamē</i>. (<i>aiyē, ati sulabham, ...</i>)<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Without knowing oneself, if one knows whatever else, what? If one has known oneself, then what exists to know? When one knows in oneself that self, which is the light without separation in separate living beings, within oneself the shining of oneself alone will flash forth. The shining forth of grace; the annihilation of ego; the blossoming of happiness. (Ah, extremely easy, ...)<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Without knowing oneself, if one knows whatever else, what [reliability or value does such knowledge have]? If one has known oneself, then what [else] exists to know? When one knows in oneself that self [one’s real nature], which is the light [that shines] <i>abhinna</i> [without <i>bhinna</i>: separation, division, difference or distinction] in separate living beings, within oneself <i>ātma-prakāśa</i> [the shining, clarity or light of oneself] alone will flash forth [like lightening]. [This is] <i>aruḷ-vilāsa</i> [the shining forth, amorous play or beauty of grace], <i>aha-vināśa</i> [the annihilation of ego], <i>iṉba-vikāsa</i> [the blossoming of happiness]. ([Therefore] ah, extremely easy, <i>ātma-vidyā</i>, ah, extremely easy!)</blockquote>
So long as we look outwards, we are aware of the seeming existence of separation and differences. We know ourself as the subject or knower and so many other things as objects, so the primary separation is between subject and objects, and further separation appears among objects, because each object is separate from every other object. Since we are aware of ourself as a living being, we see so many other பின்ன உயிர்கள் (<i>bhiṉṉa uyirgaḷ</i>), separate living beings, but the one light of awareness that shines in all those separate living beings is only ourself, so since we can never be separate from ourself, Bhagavan describes this light of awareness, which shines within each one of us as ‘I am’, as அபின்ன விளக்கு (<i>abhiṉṉa viḷakku</i>), ‘the undivided light’ or ‘light without separation’.<br>
<br>
This undivided light of pure awareness, which always shines within us as ‘I am’, is Arunachala, and when we know it within ourself by turning our entire attention back within to face ourself alone, it will shine forth as <i>ātma-prakāśa</i>, the shining, clarity or light of ourself, thereby dissolving our seemingly separate existence within itself as முற்று அபின்னம் (<i>muṯṟu abhinnam</i>), completely non-different, indivisible and inseparable. This is therefore what Bhagavan is praying for in this second verse of <i>Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>: ‘அழகு சுந்தரம் போல் அகமும் நீயும் முற்று அபின்னமாய் இருப்போம் அருணாசலா’ (<i>aṙahu sundaram pōl ahamum nīyum muṯṟu abhiṉṉamāy iruppōm aruṇācalā</i>), ‘Arunachala, like <i>aṙahu</i> and <i>sundaram</i>, may I and you be completely non-different [indivisible and inseparable]’.<br>
<br>
This state in which Arunachala has shone forth within us as <i>ātma-prakāśa</i>, the indivisible light of pure awareness, our own real nature, and in which he and we therefore remain as முற்று அபின்னம் (<i>muṯṟu abhinnam</i>), completely non-different, is அருள் விலாசம் (<i>aruḷ vilāsam</i>), ‘the shining forth [or beauty] of grace’, because the real nature and true beauty of grace can be known by us only when we have been swallowed by it entirely. It is also அக விநாசம் (<i>aha vināśam</i>), the complete and utter annihilation or eradication of ego, because by shining forth within us as <i>ātma-prakāśa</i> Arunachala devours us completely, leaving not even the slightest trace of any பின்ன உயிர் (<i>bhiṉṉa uyir</i>), separate life, soul or individuality. And since Arunachala is the fullness of infinite happiness, his shining forth within us as <i>ātma-prakāśa</i> is இன்ப விகாசம் (<i>iṉba vikāsam</i>), ‘the blossoming of happiness’.<br>
<br>
The suffix ஆய் (<i>āy</i>) appended to அபின்னம் (<i>abhinnam</i>) is an adverbial participle that means ‘being’, but is often used in the sense of ‘as’, so ‘அகமும் நீயும் முற்று அபின்னமாய் இருப்போம்’ (<i>ahamum nīyum muṯṟu abhiṉṉam-āy iruppōm</i>) literally means ‘may I and you be as completely non-different’. However, when translating a Tamil sentence like this into English, it is not necessary to translate ஆய் (<i>āy</i>), because in such a sentence in English we would just say ‘may we be non-different’ not ‘may we be as non-different’. That is, whenever any form of the verb இரு (<i>iru</i>), which means ‘be’, is used as a copular (a verb that links a subject to its complement, such as ‘is’ in ‘A is B’), ஆய் (<i>āy</i>) is always appended to the complement (so instead of saying ‘A is B’, in Tamil one would in effect say ‘A is as B’), so since we do not use ‘as’ in such cases in English, when translating such a Tamil sentence into English we can leave ஆய் (<i>āy</i>) without any explicit translation.<br>
<br>
இருப்போம் (<i>iruppōm</i>) is the first person plural future tense or predictive form of இரு (<i>iru</i>), ‘be’, so it literally means ‘we will be’, but in this context it implies இருப்போமாக (<i>iruppōmāha</i>), ‘may we be’. However, we can also interpret it more literally, and since what is generally called the future tense could be more accurately described as the predictive tense, it is often used in Tamil to express what is predictably, typically, habitually or constantly the case, so it serves as a continuous form of the present tense, implying what is and always will be the case. Therefore in this context இருப்போம் (<i>iruppōm</i>) implies not only ‘may we be’ but also ‘we will always be’ or ‘we always are’, so an alternative meaning of this verse, ‘அழகு சுந்தரம் போல் அகமும் நீயும் முற்று அபின்னமாய் இருப்போம் அருணாசலா’ (<i>aṙahu sundaram pōl ahamum nīyum muṯṟu abhiṉṉamāy iruppōm aruṇācalā</i>), is: ‘Arunachala, like <i>aṙahu</i> and <i>sundaram</i>, I and you will [always] be [or always are] completely non-different’. That is, in this verse Bhagavan implies that he and Arunachala are, always have been and always will be முற்று அபின்னம் (<i>muṯṟu abhinnam</i>), completely non-different and inseparable. In other words, they are eternally, immutably and indivisibly one.<br>
<br>
<a name="aamm01"></a>Therefore, though for us this verse serves as an extremely appropriate prayer for inseparable oneness with Arunachala, it is also a declaration by Bhagavan of his real and eternal state of absolute oneness (<i>aikya</i>) with Arunachala. Moreover, when read along with the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2022/03/sri-arunacala-aksaramanamalai-payiram.html#aamm01">previous verse</a>, this verse also implies that when the ego that was aware of itself as ‘I am Venkataraman, son of Aṙahu and Sundaram’ thought of Arunachala as ‘I’ deep within its heart, it was thereby eradicated by his grace, and that by eradicating it Arunachala revealed the eternal truth of <i>jīva-brahma-aikya</i>, the ever-inseparable oneness of <i>jīva</i> and <i>brahman</i>. In other words, what Bhagavan implies in these two verses is that by eradicating ego in the sixteen-year-old Venkataraman, Arunachala revealed to him that they were always one and முற்று அபின்னம் (<i>muṯṟu abhinnam</i>), completely non-different and inseparable.<br>
<br>
As Sadhu Om pointed out, ‘அழகு சுந்தரம் போல்’ (<i>aṙahu sundaram pōl</i>), ‘like <i>aṙahu</i> and <i>sundaram</i>’, is more apt than other analogies that are frequently used in devotional literature to describe the closeness and intimacy of God and soul, such as ‘like flower and fragrance’ or ‘like moon and coolness’, because though each of these is a pair of closely associated things, they are neither identical nor inseparable, since there can be fragrance without a flower and coolness without the moon, whereas <i>aṙahu</i> and <i>sundaram</i> are identical and inseparable in meaning (<i>poruḷ</i>). Therefore by using this analogy Bhagavan clearly implies that though on the surface <i>Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> may seem to be a song expressing <i>anya-bhakti</i>, love for God as other than oneself, which entails duality, its underlying import is <i>ananya-bhakti</i>, love for him as none other than oneself, which is devoid of duality. Moreover, beauty is more abstract and subjective, whereas ‘flower and fragrance’ and ‘moon and coolness’ are more concrete and objective, so this analogy reminds us that the true import of this love song is extremely deep, subtle and inward.<br>
<br>
Though as his devotees we all see beauty in the physical forms of Bhagavan and Arunachala, the beauty that he alludes to here is not just the outward beauty of their physical forms but the inner beauty of their real substance (<i>poruḷ</i> or <i>vastu</i>), namely <i>ātma-svarūpa</i>, because their physical forms are <i>bhinna</i>, distinct or different from each other, whereas their real form (<i>svarūpa</i>) is முற்று அபின்னம் (<i>muṯṟu abhinnam</i>), completely non-different. So long as we look outwards, away from ourself, we cannot avoid seeing differences, so we can see non-difference only by looking deep within to see the real nature of ourself (<i>ātma-svarūpa</i>). The beauty of non-difference that we will see by looking deep within ourself to see ourself as we actually are alone is real beauty, in which all other forms of beauty merge and become completely non-different.<br>
<br>
As in many of the verses of <i>Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i>, in this verse there is an underlying allusion to the <i>nāyaka-nāyakī bhāva</i>, the devotional attitude of a young maiden who yearns cravingly for the lord who has attracted and stolen her heart. That is, ‘அழகு’ (<i>aṙahu</i>), being the name of Bhagavan’s mother, is an allusion to the young maiden (<i>nāyakī</i>), the devotee or <i>jīva</i>, who is referred to here as ‘அகம்’ (<i>aham</i>), ‘I’, whereas ‘சுந்தரம்’ (<i>sundaram</i>), being the name of his father, is an allusion to the devotee’s beloved lord (<i>nāyaka</i>), God or <i>śiva</i>, who is referred to here as ‘நீ’ (<i>nī</i>), ‘you’. The devotee’s heart has been stolen by her beloved Lord Arunachala, so she prays to be united with him in eternal and indivisible oneness, the state in which they are முற்று அபின்னம் (<i>muṯṟu abhinnam</i>), completely non-different. This state of complete and indivisible oneness with Arunachala is the அக்ஷர மணம் (<i>akṣara maṇam</i>) or ‘imperishable marriage’ for which the devotee is praying in this love song, and being united with him in this state is both the celebration and consummation of this divine marriage.<br>
<br>
<a name="anmm8"></a><a name="anmm9"></a>Moreover, since அழகு (<i>aṙahu</i>) and சுந்தரம் (<i>sundaram</i>) are the names of his mother and father, this verse is also a tribute to them and to the harmony of their marriage, because by comparing the state of indivisible oneness with Arunachala for which he was praying to the happy and harmonious union of his parents, he implies that though they were different in their outward forms, they were united as one in their thoughts and heart, as he also implied less directly in verses <a href="https://youtu.be/c7O9LH1Fgyk">8</a> and <a href="https://youtu.be/QG97qNxlxak">9</a> of <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Navamaṇimālai</i>:<br>
<blockquote>புவிக்குட் பொங்கிடும் புவிச்சொற் புங்கவன்<br>
புரிக்குட் புண்ணியன் சுழிக்குட் சுந்தரன் <br>
றவற்குச் சுந்தரஞ் சதிக்குற் பன்னனந்<br>
தலத்திற் புன்புலன் சழக்கிற் றுன்புறுந்<br>
தவிக்குத் துஞ்சிடும் படிக்குத் தன்னுளந்<br>
தழைக்கத் தன்பத மெனக்குத் தந்தனன்<br>
சிவக்கச் சின்மயஞ் செழிக்கத் தன்மயஞ்<br>
செகத்திற் றுன்னுசெம் பொருப்புச் செம்மலே.<br>
<br>
<i>bhuvikkuṭ poṅgiḍum bhuviccoṟ puṅgavaṉ<br>
purikkuṭ puṇṇiyaṉ cuṙikkuṭ sundaraṉ <br>
ḏṟavaṯkuc sundarañ catikkuṯ paṉṉaṉan<br>
talattiṟ puṉbulaṉ caṙakkiṯ ṟuṉbuṟun<br>
tavikkut tuñciḍum paḍikkut taṉṉuḷan<br>
taṙaikkat taṉpada meṉakkut tandaṉaṉ<br>
civakkac ciṉmayañ ceṙikkat taṉmayañ<br>
jegattiṯ ṟuṉṉucem poruppuc cemmalē</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> புவிக்கு உள் பொங்கிடும் புவி சொல் புங்கவன் புரிக்கு உள் புண்ணியன் சுழிக்கு உள் சுந்தரன் தவற்கு சுந்தரம் சதிக்கு உற்பன்னனம். தலத்தில் புன் புலன் சழக்கில் துன்பு உறும் தவிக்கு துஞ்சிடும்படிக்கு தன் உளம் தழைக்க தன் பதம் எனக்கு தந்தனன் சிவக்க சின்மயம் செழிக்க தன்மயம் செகத்தில் துன்னு செம் பொருப்பு செம்மலே.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>bhuvikku uḷ poṅgiḍum bhuvi sol puṅgavaṉ purikku uḷ puṇṇiyaṉ cuṙikku uḷ sundaraṉ tavaṯku sundaram satikku uṯpaṉṉaṉam. talattil puṉ pulaṉ saṙakkil tuṉbu uṟum tavikku tuñciḍum-paḍikku taṉ uḷam taṙaikka taṉ padam eṉakku tandaṉaṉ sivakka ciṉmayam seṙikka taṉmayam jegattil tuṉṉu sem poruppu semmalē</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>அன்வயம்:</b> புவிக்கு உள் புங்கவன் புரிக்கு உள் பொங்கிடும் புவி சொல் சுழிக்கு உள் புண்ணியன் சுந்தரன் தவற்கு சுந்தரம் சதிக்கு உற்பன்னனம். சின்மயம் சிவக்க தன்மயம் செழிக்க செகத்தில் துன்னு செம் பொருப்பு செம்மலே தலத்தில் புன் புலன் சழக்கில் துன்பு உறும் தவிக்கு துஞ்சிடும்படிக்கு தன் உளம் தழைக்க தன் பதம் எனக்கு தந்தனன்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Anvayam</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>bhuvikku uḷ puṅgavaṉ purikku uḷ poṅgiḍum bhuvi sol cuṙikku uḷ puṇṇiyaṉ sundaraṉ tavaṯku sundaram satikku uṯpaṉṉaṉam. ciṉmayam sivakka taṉmayam seṙikka jegattil tuṉṉu sem poruppu semmalē talattil puṉ pulaṉ saṙakkil tuṉbu uṟum tavikku tuñciḍum-paḍikku taṉ uḷam taṙaikka taṉ padam eṉakku tandaṉaṉ</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> In Cuṙi, which among the towns of God in the world is called the surging place, I was born to the virtuous ascetic Sundaraṉ and to the faithful wife Sundaram. The Red Hill God, who appears in the world so that what is composed of pure awareness glows and so that what is composed of that flourishes, gave to me his state, his heart overflowing with joy, so that the miserable distress in the wickedness of the vile senses in the world perishes.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> In Cuṙi [Tiruccuṙi, commonly spelt Tiruchuli or Tiruchuzhi], which among the towns of God in the world is called the surging place [because every year in the month of <i>Māsi</i> (mid-February to mid-March) the water level in the main temple tank rises up], I was born to the virtuous ascetic Sundaraṉ and to [his] faithful wife Sundaram [Aṙahammal]. God in the form of the Red Hill [Aruṇācala], who appears in the world so that <i>cinmayam</i> [that which is composed of pure awareness] glows [so brightly that it swallows everything else in its infinitely clear light] and so that <i>tanmayam</i> [that which is composed of <i>tat</i> (that), namely <i>brahman</i>] flourishes [shining as one without a second], gave to me his state, his heart overflowing with joy, so that the miserable distress [of my life lived] in the wickedness of the vile senses in the world perishes.<br>
<br>
அம்மையு மப்பனு மாயெனைப் பூமியி லாக்கியளித்<br>
தம்மகி மாயையெ னாழ்கடல் வீழ்ந்துயா னாழ்ந்திடுமுன்<br>
னென்மன மன்னி யிழுத்துன் பதத்தி லிருத்தினையால்<br>
சின்மய னாமரு ணாசல நின்னருட் சித்ரமென்னே.<br>
<br>
<i>ammaiyu mappaṉu māyeṉaip bhūmiyi lākkiyaḷit<br>
tammahi māyaiye ṉāṙkaḍal vīṙnduyā ṉāṙndiḍumuṉ<br>
ṉeṉmaṉa maṉṉi yiṙuttuṉ padatti liruttiṉaiyāl<br>
ciṉmaya ṉāmaru ṇācala niṉṉaruṭ citrameṉṉē</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> அம்மையும் அப்பனும் ஆய் எனை பூமியில் ஆக்கி அளித்து, அம் மகி மாயை என் ஆழ் கடல் வீழ்ந்து யான் ஆழ்ந்திடும் முன், என் மனம் மன்னி இழுத்து உன் பதத்தில் இருத்தினை ஆல். சின்மயன் ஆம் அருணாசல நின் அருள் சித்ரம் என்னே!<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>ammai-y-um appaṉ-um āy eṉai bhūmiyil ākki aḷittu, a-m-mahi māyai eṉ āṙ kaḍal vīṙndu yāṉ āṙndiḍum muṉ, eṉ maṉam maṉṉi iṙuttu uṉ padattil iruttiṉai āl. ciṉmayaṉ ām aruṇācala niṉ aruḷ citram eṉṉē!</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Bearing and tending me in the world as mother and father, before I sank falling in the deep ocean, namely that worldly <i>māyā</i>, entering my mind and drawing to yourself, you fixed at your feet. Aruṇācala, who are one composed of pure awareness, what a wonder of your grace!.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Bearing and tending me in the world as [my] mother and father, before I sank falling in the deep ocean, namely that worldly <i>māyā</i> [the delusion of being a mother or father], entering [or occupying] my mind and drawing [me inwards] to yourself [or attracting me inwards to face yourself], you fixed [me] at your feet [or in your state]. Aruṇācala, who are <i>cinmayaṉ</i> [one composed of pure awareness], what a wonder of your grace [this is]!</blockquote>
Only from such a happy and harmonious union of two such pure souls can Arunachala have taken birth in human form as Bhagavan Ramana, our <i>sadguru</i> and saviour, so the tribute that he pays to them in these verses is very apt.<br>
<br>
Both Muruganar and Sadhu Om point out that in this verse Bhagavan also implies the harmony and inner oneness of Tamil and Sanskrit, for which அழகு (<i>aṙahu</i>) and சுந்தரம் (<i>sundaram</i>) are metaphors, being respectively Tamil and Sanskrit words that share the same meaning. Both are divine languages and dear to the heart of God, because Siva, Vishnu and other forms of God have been praised by saints in heart-melting verses in both these languages. Though they differ in form or appearance and each of them possesses its own unique qualities, they are each an apt medium for expressing both <i>bhakti</i> and <i>jñāna</i>, as Bhagavan has demonstrated in his own poetry in both languages.<br>
<br>
Sadhu Om also points out that Bhagavan gives no room here for anyone to claim that he implied that either language was superior to the other, because though he used the Tamil word அழகு (<i>aṙahu</i>) to refer to the devotee or <i>jīva</i> and the Sanskrit word சுந்தரம் (<i>sundaram</i>) to refer to <i>guru</i> or <i>śiva</i>, he then uses the Sanskrit pronoun அகம் (<i>aham</i>), ‘I’, to refer to the devotee or <i>jīva</i> and the Tamil pronoun நீ (<i>nī</i>), ‘you’, to refer to <i>guru</i> or <i>śiva</i>. Such is his perfect impartiality.<br>
<br>
Just as he views these two languages with such flawless impartiality, he views all languages, religions, races, nationalities, people, species and everything else with the same impartiality, because his state is முற்று அபின்னம் (<i>muṯṟu abhinnam</i>), completely devoid of even the slightest trace of any division, separation, difference, distinction or otherness, since he is உள்ளபொருள் (<i>uḷḷa-poruḷ</i>) or सद्वस्तु (<i>sad-vastu</i>), the one real substance, which, though indivisible and immutable, is what appears in the view of ego as all multiplicity, diversity, differences and distinctions.<br>
<br>
<b>Video discussion:</b> <a href="https://youtu.be/WED5xGVfrgg"><i>Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai</i> verse 2</a><br>
<br>
<div style="text-align:center"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WED5xGVfrgg" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-33404987282551586312022-03-24T07:15:00.018+00:002024-03-12T21:21:32.484+00:00Upadēśa Sāraḥ: Sanskrit text, transliteration and translation (with the original Tamil text)उपदेश सारः (<i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i>), ‘The Essence of Spiritual Teachings’, is Bhagavan’s Sanskrit translation or adaptation of one of the poetic texts that he originally wrote in Tamil, namely <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html">உபதேச வுந்தியார் (<i>Upadēśa-v-Undiyār</i>)</a>. Like all his original writings, both these versions of this poem are extremely deep and rich in meaning and implication, so in order to understand them clearly and correctly we need to do careful <i>śravaṇa</i> (hearing, reading or studying attentively), <i>manana</i> (considering and thinking deeply about what is meant and implied) and <i>nididhyāsana</i> (deep contemplation on that towards which all these teachings are ultimately pointing, namely our own real nature, which is <i>sat-cit</i>, our fundamental awareness of our own existence, ‘I am’).<br><a name='more'></a>
<br>
For us to understand the full meaning and implication of this Sanskrit poem, the original Tamil text is an invaluable guide, so in this article before each Sanskrit verse I will give the Tamil verse from which Bhagavan translated and adapted it.<br>
<ol>
<a href="#intro">Introduction</a><br>
<ul>
<li><a href="#us02a">The cause for our falling in the vast ocean of action is our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i></a></li>
<li><a href="#us16a">To see what is real, the mind must see its own real nature, which is pure awareness</a></li>
<li><a href="#cittva">We cannot see our own <i>cittva</i> merely by keeping our mind back from all <i>dṛśya</i></a></li>
<li><a href="#being">The mind can see its own <i>cittva</i> only by being its own <i>cittva</i>, and it can be it only by being swallowed by it</a></li>
<li><a href="#us22a">Since the five sheaths are all <i>jaḍa</i> and <i>asat</i>, they are not ‘I’, which is <i>sat</i></a></li>
<li><a href="#darkness">The <i>ānandamaya kōśa</i> is not the darkness of ignorance but the darkness of desire</a></li>
<li><a href="#deep">This text will reveal its profound import to us only to the extent to which we study it carefully, think deeply about its meaning and look deep within ourself</a></li>
</ul>
<a href="#uu-us">உபதேச வுந்தியார் (<i>Upadēśa-v-Undiyār</i>) and उपदेश सारः (<i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i>): The Essence of Spiritual Teachings</a><br>
<li><a href="#uu01"><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> verse 1</a><br>
<a href="#us01"><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 1: <i>karma</i> is insentient, so it gives fruit only as ordained by God</a></li>
<li><a href="#uu02"><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> verse 2</a><br>
<a href="#us02"><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 2: <i>karma</i> is caused by <i>vāsanās</i>, so it does not give liberation</a></li>
<li><a href="#uu03"><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> verse 3</a><br>
<a href="#us03"><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 3: action done for God purifies the mind, so it is an indirect means for liberation</a></li>
<li><a href="#uu04"><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> verse 4</a><br>
<a href="#us04"><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 4: actions of body, speech and mind are progressively more purifying</a></li>
<li><a href="#uu05"><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> verse 5</a><br>
<a href="#us05"><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 5: worshipping anything considering it to be God is worship of God</a></li>
<li><a href="#uu06"><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> verse 6</a><br>
<a href="#us06"><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 6: doing <i>japa</i> mentally is more purifying than otherwise</a></li>
<li><a href="#uu07"><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> verse 7</a><br>
<a href="#us07"><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 7: meditating uninterruptedly is more purifying than otherwise</a></li>
<li><a href="#uu08"><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> verse 8</a><br>
<a href="#us08"><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 8: meditation on nothing other than oneself is most purifying of all</a></li>
<li><a href="#uu09"><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> verse 9</a><br>
<a href="#us09"><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 9: being in one’s real state of being by self-attentiveness is supreme devotion</a></li>
<li><a href="#uu10"><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> verse 10</a><br>
<a href="#us10"><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 10: being in one’s source is <i>karma</i>, <i>bhakti</i>, <i>yōga</i> and <i>jñāna</i></a></li>
<li><a href="#uu11"><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> verse 11</a><br>
<a href="#us11"><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 11: when breath is restrained mind will subside</a></li>
<li><a href="#uu12"><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> verse 12</a><br>
<a href="#us12"><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 12: the root of mind and breath is one</a></li>
<li><a href="#uu13"><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> verse 13</a><br>
<a href="#us13"><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 13: dissolution of mind is of two kinds, <i>laya</i> and <i>nāśa</i></a></li>
<li><a href="#uu14"><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> verse 14</a><br>
<a href="#us14"><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 14: only by self-investigation will the mind die</a></li>
<li><a href="#uu15"><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> verse 15</a><br>
<a href="#us15"><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 15: when the mind is dead, there is no action but only one’s real nature</a></li>
<li><a href="#uu16"><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> verse 16</a><br>
<a href="#us16"><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 16: seeing nothing but awareness is seeing what is real</a></li>
<li><a href="#uu17"><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> verse 17</a><br>
<a href="#us17"><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 17: when one keenly investigates it, there is no mind</a></li>
<li><a href="#uu18"><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> verse 18</a><br>
<a href="#us18"><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 18: mind is essentially just the ego, the root of all other thoughts</a></li>
<li><a href="#uu19"><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> verse 19</a><br>
<a href="#us19"><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 19: when one investigates from where the ego rises, it will die</a></li>
<li><a href="#uu20"><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> verse 20</a><br>
<a href="#us20"><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 20: when ego is annihated, the infinite whole will shine forth as ‘I am I’</a></li>
<li><a href="#uu21"><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> verse 21</a><br>
<a href="#us21"><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 21: that infinite whole is always the true import of the word ‘I’</a></li>
<li><a href="#uu22"><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> verse 22</a><br>
<a href="#us22"><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 22: the five sheaths are <i>jaḍa</i> and <i>asat</i>, so they are not ‘I’</a></li>
<li><a href="#uu23"><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> verse 23</a><br>
<a href="#us23"><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 23: what exists is awareness, which is what we are</a></li>
<li><a href="#uu24"><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> verse 24</a><br>
<a href="#us24"><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 24: God and soul are just one substance, but only their adjuncts differ</a></li>
<li><a href="#uu25"><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> verse 25</a><br>
<a href="#us25"><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 25: seeing oneself without adjuncts is seeing God, because he is oneself</a></li>
<li><a href="#uu26"><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> verse 26</a><br>
<a href="#us26"><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 26: being oneself alone is seeing oneself, because oneself is not two</a></li>
<li><a href="#uu27"><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> verse 27</a><br>
<a href="#us27"><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 27: there is nothing to know, so real awareness is devoid of knowledge and ignorance</a></li>
<li><a href="#uu28"><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> verse 28</a><br>
<a href="#us28"><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 28: one’s real nature is imperishable unborn full awareness-happiness</a></li>
<li><a href="#uu29"><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> verse 29</a><br>
<a href="#us29"><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 29: the divine soul experiences supreme happiness beyond bondage and liberation</a></li>
<li><a href="#uu30"><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> verse 30</a><br>
<a href="#us30"><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 30: one’s shining devoid of ‘I’ is great <i>tapas</i></a></li>
</ol>
<a name="intro"></a><b>Introduction</b><br>
<br>
We cannot adequately understand the teachings (<i>upadēśa</i>) given in this poem, particularly in the first fifteen verses, without knowing the context in which it was written, so in the article containing <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html">my translation of the complete Tamil text</a> I have written a detailed <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#intro">introduction</a> explaining the context in which he wrote this poem, and hence I suggest that this should be read along with this article.<br>
<br>
Before giving my translation of this Sanskrit text I should admit that my knowledge and understanding of Sanskrit is fairly limited, but I believe my translation is nevertheless reasonably accurate, and I am confident that my interpretation of these verses is correct because of my understanding of the meaning and implications of the original Tamil verses. However, if any reader who understands Sanskrit better than I do has any suggestions about how I could improve my translation, or if you think that in any places I have not adequately understood the Sanskrit grammar or syntax, please let me know, so that I can make any improvements that may be necessary or appropriate.<br>
<br>
I have a fairly broad knowledge of Sanskrit vocabulary, and understanding the meaning of any unfamiliar words is relatively easy for me with the help of <a href="https://sanskritdictionary.com">several good Sanskrit dictionaries</a>, but my weakness lies in my very limited understanding of Sanskrit grammar and syntax. To illustrate the level of my knowledge of Sanskrit grammar I can give some examples of what I have learnt while translating this text. I already knew that in the case of comparisons the fifth case (which is more or less equivalent to the ablative case, the basic meaning of which corresponds to the English preposition ‘from’) is used in the sense of ‘than’, but what I learnt about it while translating this text is that, since an effect originates from its cause, the fifth case is also used to convey a causal relationship, so in such cases it can be translated as ‘by’, ‘because of’ or ‘as a result of’. I also learnt that the suffix -तः (<i>-taḥ</i>) is used in the same sense as the fifth case, so depending on the context in which it is used, it can mean ‘from’, ‘than’, ‘by’, ‘because of’ or ‘as a result of’.<br>
<br>
Another example of what I learnt is that, just as in English we sometimes use the preposition ‘on’ along with a participle to mean ‘when’, as for example in ‘On coming to know this, I realised my mistake’, in Sanskrit the seventh case (the locative case, the basic meaning of which corresponds to ‘in’, ‘on’ or ‘at’) is used with verbal nouns to mean ‘when’. For example, <i>darśana</i> means ‘seeing’, so its seventh case form <i>darśanē</i> means ‘on seeing’ or ‘when one sees’.<br>
<br>
For anyone who is familiar with Sanskrit grammar, these examples of what I learnt will seem very basic and obvious, but I mention them here to show how limited my understanding is, and why I would therefore be grateful to anyone who reads my translation critically and points out to me any places where I seem to have not understood the grammar or syntax fully or precisely enough.<br>
<br>
However, to translate or interpret a text like this correctly, what is required is not just a good understanding of the language, but more importantly a deep understanding of the subject matter. In this respect, I am confident that my translation of <i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> is more correct and true to the meaning intended by Bhagavan than most other English translations that are available. While making this translation I referred to several other translations, and in all of them I found places where the meaning had been misinterpreted.<br>
<a name="us02a"></a><blockquote><b>The cause for our falling in the vast ocean of action is our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i></b></blockquote>
For example, in a book called <i>Talks on Upadesa Saram (Essence of the Teachings) of Ramana Maharshi</i> published in 1987 by Sri Gangadhareswar Trust, Rishikesh, which contains a transcription of recorded talks given by Swami Dayananda on <i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i>, he has seriously misinterpreted the meaning of several verses, obviously not because of any deficiency in his understanding of Sanskrit but because of a lack of deep, clear and practical understanding of Bhagavan’s teachings, which explain in a simple, clear, fresh, radical, deep and refined manner the practical implications of the essential teachings of the entire <i>vēdānta</i>.<br>
<br>
The first example of how he failed to understand the meaning intended by Bhagavan can be found in his translation of <a href="#us02">verse 2</a>, in the first line of which Bhagavan says ‘कृति महा उदधौ पतन कारणम्’ (<i>kṛti mahā udadhau patana kāraṇam</i>), ‘The cause of falling in the vast ocean of action’. In this Sanskrit verse, however, he does not specify what that cause is, leaving it to each reader to rely on their own understanding to infer what it is. Dayananda interprets the implication of this first line as ‘(Action) is the cause for (one to) fall in the vast ocean of (further) action’, which is like saying that water is the cause for one to fall in the ocean of water. Without action we could not fall in the ocean of action, because there would be no such ocean to fall in, but this does not mean that action is the cause for falling in it. When Bhagavan devotes half of this verse to mentioning the cause for us being immersed in action, he must have implied something deeper than ‘action is the cause of action’, so what is the cause he was referring to?<br>
<br>
Since he says in the next sentence ‘फलम् अशाश्वतम्’ (<i>phalam aśāśvatam</i>), ‘Fruit is impermanent’, meaning that the fruit or moral consequence of any action is impermanent, because when it is experienced it thereby ceases to exist, just as a mango ceases to exist when it is eaten, some translators have interpreted the first sentence as meaning that the fruit of action (<i>karma-phala</i>) is the cause for us to fall in the ocean of action. For example, in a book called <i>The Maharshi’s Way: A Translation and a Commentary on Upadesa Saram</i> by D. M. Sastri this verse is translated as: ‘The fruits of action are not everlasting and they cause one to fall into the great ocean of <i>karma</i>, blocking spiritual progress’. However, this cannot be a correct interpretation, because in this context ‘fruit’ obviously means the effect of doing action, not its cause. Action cannot be caused by its own effect.<br>
<br>
Since ‘fruit’ (<i>phala</i>) is a metaphor for the effect of action, a suitable metaphor for its cause would be ‘seed’, so in the Tamil original of this verse Bhagavan says ‘வினையின் விளைவு விளிவு உற்று வித்தாய் வினை கடல் வீழ்த்திடும்’ (<i>viṉaiyiṉ viḷaivu viḷivu uṯṟu vittāy viṉai-kaḍal vīṙttiḍum</i>), ‘The fruit of action perishing, as seed causes to fall in the ocean of action’. What he refers to here as ‘வித்து’ (<i>vittu</i>), ‘seed’, is <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> (inclinations to seek happiness or satisfaction in experiencing <i>viṣayas</i>, objects or phenomena) and their concomitant <i>karma-vāsanās</i> (inclinations to do whatever actions of mind, speech or body we believe will enable us to experience whatever <i>viṣayas</i> we are inclined to experience), as he makes clear in his Malayalam version of this verse, in which he wrote ‘<i>vāsanākāra vittāy</i>’, which means ‘as seed in the form of <i>vāsanā</i>’. Since <i>vāsanās</i> are volitional inclinations, they are the seeds that sprout as likes, dislikes, desires, fears and so on, so the implication is that it is our own will that causes us to be immersed doing action (<i>karma</i>).<br>
<br>
That is, whenever we allow ourself to be swayed by any <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, under their sway we direct our attention away from ourself towards <i>viṣayas</i>, and such movements of our attention away from ourself are thoughts or mental activities, which in turn give rise to actions of speech and body. Whatever actions we do by mind, speech or body under the sway of our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> are what is called <i>āgāmya</i>, and such actions bear fruit, which are stored in <i>sañcita</i>, from which God or <i>guru</i> selects which fruit will be most beneficial for us to experience as <i>prārabdha</i> (destiny or fate) in each life. Therefore our own <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> are the seeds that cause us to fall in the vast ocean of action.<br>
<a name="us16a"></a><blockquote><b>To see what is real, the mind must see its own real nature, which is pure awareness</b></blockquote>
A far more serious error (or to be more precise, a set of several serious errors) committed by Swami Dayananda is in his interpretation of <a href="#us16">verse 16</a>: ‘दृश्य वारितम्, चित्तम् आत्मनः चित्त्व दर्शनम् तत्त्व दर्शनम्’ (<i>dṛśya vāritam, cittam ātmanaḥ cittva darśanam tattva darśanam</i>). The correct meaning of this is ‘Kept back from <i>dṛśya</i> [what is seen, perceived or known as an object], the mind seeing its own <i>cittva</i> [its real nature as pure awareness, ‘I am’] is <i>tattva-darśana</i> [seeing what is real]’, as is clear from the original Tamil verse: ‘வெளி விடயங்களை விட்டு மனம் தன் ஒளி உரு ஓர்தலே உண்மை உணர்ச்சி ஆம்’ (<i>veḷi viḍayaṅgaḷai viṭṭu maṉam taṉ oḷi-uru ōrdalē uṇmai uṇarcci ām</i>), ‘Leaving external phenomena, the mind knowing its own form of light [its fundamental awareness, ‘I am’] is alone real awareness [or awareness of what is real]’.<br>
<br>
The syntax and meaning of the Tamil verse is simple and extremely clear. விட்டு (<i>viṭṭu</i>) is an adverbial participle that means ‘leaving’ or ‘letting go of’, so ‘வெளி விடயங்களை விட்டு’ (<i>veḷi viḍayaṅgaḷai viṭṭu</i>) is an adverbial clause that means ‘leaving [or letting go of] external <i>viṣayas</i> [objects or phenomena]’, and the main clause is ‘மனம் தன் ஒளி உரு ஓர்தலே உண்மை உணர்ச்சி ஆம்’ (<i>maṉam taṉ oḷi-uru ōrdalē uṇmai uṇarcci ām</i>), ‘the mind knowing its own form of light is alone real awareness’. In this main clause, the subject is ‘மனம் தன் ஒளி உரு ஓர்தலே’ (<i>maṉam taṉ oḷi-uru ōrdalē</i>), ‘the mind knowing its own form of light alone’, and the predicate is ‘உண்மை உணர்ச்சி ஆம்’ (<i>uṇmai uṇarcci ām</i>), ‘is real awareness’.<br>
<br>
Likewise in the Sanskrit version ‘दृश्य वारितम्’ (<i>dṛśya vāritam</i>) is an adverbial clause that means ‘kept back from <i>dṛśya</i> [what is seen, perceived or known as an object]’, which implies the same as ‘வெளி விடயங்களை விட்டு’ (<i>veḷi viḍayaṅgaḷai viṭṭu</i>), ‘leaving [or letting go of] external <i>viṣayas</i> [objects or phenomena]’, and the main clause is ‘चित्तम् आत्मनः चित्त्व दर्शनम् तत्त्व दर्शनम्’ (<i>cittam ātmanaḥ cittva darśanam tattva darśanam</i>), ‘the mind seeing its own <i>cittva</i> [knowingness or awareness] is <i>tattva-darśana</i> [seeing what is real]’. In this main clause, the subject is ‘चित्तम् आत्मनः चित्त्व दर्शनम्’ (<i>cittam ātmanaḥ cittva darśanam</i>), ‘the mind seeing its own <i>cittva</i>’, which implies the same as ‘மனம் தன் ஒளி உரு ஓர்தல்’ (<i>maṉam taṉ oḷi-uru ōrdal</i>), ‘the mind knowing its own form of light’, and the predicate is ‘तत्त्व दर्शनम्’ (<i>tattva darśanam</i>), ‘seeing what is real’, which implies the same as ‘உண்மை உணர்ச்சி’ (<i>uṇmai uṇarcci</i>), ‘real awareness’ or ‘awareness of what is real’.<br>
<br>
This is why I said that the correct meaning of the Sanskrit version of this verse, ‘दृश्य वारितम्, चित्तम् आत्मनः चित्त्व दर्शनम् तत्त्व दर्शनम्’ (<i>dṛśya vāritam, cittam ātmanaḥ cittva darśanam tattva darśanam</i>), is ‘Kept back from <i>dṛśya</i> [what is seen, perceived or known as an object], the mind seeing its own <i>cittva</i> [its real nature as pure awareness, ‘I am’] is <i>tattva-darśana</i> [seeing what is real]’. However, Swami Dayananda gives a significantly different interpretation of this verse, namely: ‘One’s mind withdrawn from perceptions is the appreciation of Awareness [one’s real nature] which is the appreciation of Truth’.<br>
<br>
One relatively minor error in this interpretation, but nevertheless one that leads to other more serious errors, is that he has translated ‘चित्तम् आत्मनः’ (<i>cittam ātmanaḥ</i>) as ‘one’s mind’, meaning that he interpreted it as ‘आत्मनः चित्तम्’ (<i>ātmanaḥ cittam</i>), in which he takes आत्मनः (<i>ātmanaḥ</i>) to mean ‘one’s’. आत्मनः (<i>ātmanaḥ</i>) is both the fifth case (ablative) and sixth case (genitive) form of आत्मन् (<i>ātman</i>), which means oneself, myself, yourself, herself, himself or itself, and in this case it is used as the sixth case form, so in other contexts it could mean ‘one’s own’, but in this context it means ‘its own’, in which ‘it’ refers to चित्तम् (<i>cittam</i>), the mind, so as I explained above, ‘चित्तम् आत्मनः चित्त्व दर्शनम्’ (<i>cittam ātmanaḥ cittva darśanam</i>) means ‘the mind seeing its own <i>cittva</i>’, as is clear from the Tamil original of this phrase, ‘மனம் தன் ஒளி உரு ஓர்தல்’ (<i>maṉam taṉ oḷi-uru ōrdal</i>), ‘the mind knowing its own form of light’.<br>
<br>
Bhagavan carefully chose this wording in both Tamil and Sanskrit, so it is extremely significant and deep in implication, because in this context mind means ego, which is the knowing element of the mind, being the only element of the mind that is endowed with awareness, and ego will be eradicated only when it sees or recognises itself as what it actually is, namely as pure awareness, which is what Bhagavan refers to here as ‘தன் ஒளி உரு’ (<i>taṉ oḷi-uru</i>), ‘its own form of light’, and as ‘आत्मनः चित्त्व’ (<i>ātmanaḥ cittva</i>), ‘its own <i>cittva</i> [knowingness or awareness]’. When the mind dissolves in sleep or any other state of <i>manōlaya</i>, what remains existing and shining is only pure awareness, but the mind is not thereby annihilated because it has already dissolved, albeit only temporarily, and it cannot be annihilated in its absence.<br>
<br>
Since ego is just a false awareness of ourself, being what is always aware of itself as ‘I am this body, it can be eradicated only by being aware of itself as it actually is, namely pure awareness, which is what always shines within us as <i>sat-cit</i>, our fundamental awareness of our own existence, ‘I am’. Since pure awareness can never be an object, what knows pure awareness is only pure awareness, so when ego sees itself as pure awareness, it thereby ceases to be ego and remains as pure awareness, which is what it always actually is. That is, we seem to be ego or mind only so long as we look away from ourself towards anything else, but when we look only at ourself, thereby ceasing to be aware of anything else at all, we thereby remain as pure awareness. As pure awareness our nature is immutable, so it is clear that we have never been anything other than pure awareness, and hence we have never risen as ego. It is only in the view of ourself as ego that we seem to have risen as ego, but if we look at ourself carefully enough, we will see that we have never been anything other than pure awareness.<br>
<br>
In order to see ourself as pure awareness, which means awareness that is not aware of anything other than itself, we as ego need to turn our entire attention back towards our fundamental awareness, ‘I am’, thereby withdrawing it from all other things. This turning of our entire attention back towards our fundamental awareness is what Bhagavan describes here as ‘மனம் தன் ஒளி உரு ஓர்தல்’ (<i>maṉam taṉ oḷi-uru ōrdal</i>), ‘the mind knowing its own form of light’, and as ‘चित्तम् आत्मनः चित्त्व दर्शनम्’ (<i>cittam ātmanaḥ cittva darśanam</i>), ‘the mind seeing its own <i>cittva</i>’, and our thereby withdrawing the mind from all other things is what he describes as ‘வெளி விடயங்களை விட்டு’ (<i>veḷi viḍayaṅgaḷai viṭṭu</i>), ‘leaving [or letting go of] external <i>viṣayas</i> [objects or phenomena]’, and as ‘दृश्य वारितम्’ (<i>dṛśya vāritam</i>), ‘kept back from <i>dṛśya</i> [what is seen, perceived or known as an object]’.<br>
<br>
Therefore by interpreting ‘चित्तम् आत्मनः’ (<i>cittam ātmanaḥ</i>) to mean ‘one’s mind’ and by separating it syntactically from the other half of the same phrase, namely ‘चित्त्व दर्शनम्’ (<i>cittva darśanam</i>), which he translated as ‘the appreciation of Awareness’, Swami Dayananda failed completely to understand the deep and practical significance of this key phrase, ‘चित्तम् आत्मनः चित्त्व दर्शनम्’ (<i>cittam ātmanaḥ cittva darśanam</i>), ‘the mind seeing its own <i>cittva</i>’, which is the very heart of this verse. What this phrase makes clear is firstly that what needs to see <i>cittva</i> (pure knowingness or awareness) is the mind, because only when it sees <i>cittva</i> will it be annihilated, and secondly that the <i>cittva</i> it needs to see is its own <i>cittva</i>, because <i>cittva</i> is the fundamental awareness ‘I am’, which is the reality of mind or ego, the false adjunct-conflated awareness ‘I am this body’.<br>
<br>
Both of these crucial points are obscured and lost in Dayananda’s faulty translation, so his translation should leave any thoughtful reader wondering who or what is to appreciate <i>cittva</i>, and what the relationship is between <i>cittva</i> and whatever is to appreciate it. Since <i>cittva</i> is pure awareness, it never sees anything other than itself, so <i>cittva darśanam</i> (seeing <i>cittva</i>) is its very nature. What needs to see <i>cittva</i>, therefore, is only ego or mind, but since <i>cittva</i> is not an object, ego can see <i>cittva</i> only by being <i>cittva</i>. However, ego does not become <i>cittva</i>, because <i>cittva</i> is immutable and can therefore never be the result of any becoming, so ego can be <i>cittva</i> only because <i>cittva</i> is its own real nature.<br>
<br>
In other words, <i>cittva</i> is what we always actually are even when we seem to be ego, so when we see ourself as we actually are we do not become <i>cittva</i> but just remain as <i>cittva</i>, as we always actually are. This is why Bhagavan says in the Sanskrit version of this verse that the चित्त्व (<i>cittva</i>) the mind is to see is ‘आत्मनः चित्त्व’ (<i>ātmanaḥ cittva</i>), ‘its own <i>cittva</i>’, and in the Tamil original that the ஒளி உரு (<i>oḷi-uru</i>) or form of light that the mind is to know is ‘தன் ஒளி உரு’ (<i>taṉ oḷi-uru</i>), ‘its own form of light’.<br>
<a name="cittva"></a><blockquote><b>We cannot see our own <i>cittva</i> merely by keeping our mind back from all <i>dṛśya</i></b></blockquote>
Therefore misinterpreting and splitting up the phrase ‘चित्तम् आत्मनः चित्त्व दर्शनम्’ (<i>cittam ātmanaḥ cittva darśanam</i>), ‘the mind seeing its own <i>cittva</i>’, as Swami Dayananda did, is a very serious error, but an even more serious error is that he misinterpreted ‘दृश्य वारितम् चित्तम् आत्मनः चित्त्व दर्शनम्’ (<i>dṛśya vāritam cittam ātmanaḥ cittva darśanam</i>), ‘Kept back from <i>dṛśya</i> [what is seen], the mind seeing its own <i>cittva</i>’, as ‘One’s mind withdrawn from perceptions is the appreciation of Awareness [one’s real nature]’, because this implies that ‘दृश्य वारितम्’ (<i>dṛśya vāritam</i>), ‘kept back from <i>dṛśya</i>’, is itself ‘चित्त्व दर्शनम्’ (<i>cittva darśanam</i>), ‘seeing <i>cittva</i>’, one’s real nature. It is true that pure awareness (<i>cittva</i>) is our real nature (<i>ātma-svarūpa</i>), but we cannot know our real nature merely by withdrawing our mind from all objects of perception (<i>dṛśya</i>), as Dayananda implies in this translation of his. His interpretation of this verse is therefore quite contrary to Bhagavan’s teachings and shows that he has failed to understand the deep practical import of this verse, as I will explain in more detail below.<br>
<br>
Bhagavan clearly expresses the central import of this verse in the main clause, ‘चित्तम् आत्मनः चित्त्व दर्शनम् तत्त्व दर्शनम्’ (<i>cittam ātmanaḥ cittva darśanam tattva darśanam</i>), ‘the mind seeing its own <i>cittva</i> [knowingness or awareness] is <i>tattva-darśana</i> [seeing what is real]’. Swami Dayananda translates part of this main clause, ‘चित्त्व दर्शनम् तत्त्व दर्शनम्’ (<i>cittva darśanam tattva darśanam</i>), ‘seeing <i>cittva</i> is <i>tattva-darśana</i> [seeing what is real]’, as ‘the appreciation of Awareness [one’s real nature] which is the appreciation of Truth’, so he acknowledges that चित्त्व दर्शनम् (<i>cittva darśanam</i>) is तत्त्व दर्शनम् (<i>tattva darśanam</i>), but he separates ‘तत्त्व दर्शनम्’ (<i>tattva darśanam</i>) as if it were a relative clause, and rearranging the order of the other words in this verse, he takes the main clause to be ‘आत्मनः चित्तम् दृश्य वारितम् चित्त्व दर्शनम्’ (<i> ātmanaḥ cittam dṛśya vāritam cittva darśanam</i>), which he translates as ‘One’s mind withdrawn from perceptions is the appreciation of Awareness [one’s real nature]’.<br>
<br>
<a name="us13a"></a>As I explained above, ‘दृश्य वारितम्’ (<i>dṛśya vāritam</i>), ‘kept back from <i>dṛśya</i>’, is actually an adverbial clause, so it is not part of the main clause but an appendage. The subject of the main clause is ‘चित्तम् आत्मनः चित्त्व दर्शनम्’ (<i>cittam ātmanaḥ cittva darśanam</i>), ‘the mind seeing its own <i>cittva</i>’, so since the mind can see its own <i>cittva</i> (its fundamental awareness, ‘I am’) only by turning its entire attention back to face ‘I am’ alone, by seeing its own <i>cittva</i> it is thereby withdrawn and kept back from all <i>dṛśya</i> (whatever is seen, perceived or known as an object). Therefore keeping the mind back from <i>dṛśya</i> is certainly necessary, but it is not sufficient, because if we withdraw our mind from <i>dṛśya</i> without keenly attending to <i>cittva</i>, our fundamental awareness, ‘I am’, the mind will dissolve in <i>laya</i>, and as Bhagavan says in <a href="#us13">verse 13</a>, ‘लयगतम् पुनः भवति’ (<i>layagatam punaḥ bhavati</i>), ‘What has gone in <i>laya</i> arises [or comes into being] again’.<br>
<br>
<a name="ny08"></a>Every day when we are too tired to continue being mentally active, we withdraw our mind from all objects of perception (<i>dṛśya</i>) and thereby fall asleep. Sleep is a state of <i>laya</i>, temporary dissolution of mind, so sooner or later the mind will rise again either in a dream or by returning to this waking state, which is also just a dream. Likewise if the mind is withdrawn from all <i>dṛśya</i> by means of <i>prāṇāyāma</i> (breath-restraint) or other <i>yōga</i> practices, it will dissolve in <i>kēvala nirvikalpa samādhi</i>, which is also just a state of <i>laya</i>, like sleep, so it will sooner or later rise again and wander under the sway of its <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, as Bhagavan says in the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para08">eighth paragraph</a> of <i>Nāṉ Ār?</i>:<br>
<blockquote>மனம் அடங்குவதற்கு விசாரணையைத் தவிர வேறு தகுந்த உபாயங்களில்லை. மற்ற உபாயங்களினால் அடக்கினால் மனம் அடங்கினாற்போ லிருந்து, மறுபடியும் கிளம்பிவிடும். பிராணாயாமத்தாலும் மன மடங்கும்; ஆனால் பிராண னடங்கியிருக்கும் வரையில் மனமு மடங்கியிருந்து, பிராணன் வெளிப்படும்போது தானும் வெளிப்பட்டு வாசனை வயத்தா யலையும். […] ஆகையால் பிராணாயாமம் மனத்தை யடக்க சகாயமாகுமே யன்றி மனோநாசஞ் செய்யாது.<br>
<br>
<i>maṉam aḍaṅguvadaṟku vicāraṇaiyai-t tavira vēṟu tahunda upāyaṅgaḷ-illai. maṯṟa upāyaṅgaḷiṉāl aḍakkiṉāl maṉam aḍaṅgiṉāl-pōl irundu, maṟupaḍiyum kiḷambi-viḍum. pirāṇāyāmattāl-um maṉam aḍaṅgum; āṉāl pirāṇaṉ aḍaṅgi-y-irukkum varaiyil maṉam-um aḍaṅgi-y-irundu, pirāṇaṉ veḷi-p-paḍum-bōdu tāṉ-um veḷi-p-paṭṭu vāsaṉai vayattāy alaiyum.</i> […] <i>āhaiyāl pirāṇāyāmam maṉattai y-aḍakka sahāyam-āhum-ē y-aṉḏṟi maṉōnāśam seyyādu.</i><br>
<br>
For the mind to cease [settle, subside, yield, be subdued, be still or disappear], except <i>vicāraṇā</i> [self-investigation] there are no other adequate means. If made to cease [subside or disappear] by other means, the mind remaining [for a while] as if it had ceased, will again rise up [sprout, emerge or start]. Even by <i>prāṇāyāma</i> [breath-restraint] the mind will cease [subside or disappear]; however, so long as <i>prāṇa</i> [life, as manifested in breathing and other physiological processes] remains subsided mind will also remain subsided, [and] when <i>prāṇa</i> emerges it will also emerge and wander about under the sway of [its] <i>vāsanās</i> [inclinations]. […] Therefore <i>prāṇāyāma</i> is just an aid to restrain the mind [or to make it (temporarily) cease, subside or disappear], but will not bring about <i>manōnāśa</i> [annihilation of the mind].</blockquote>
<a name="un22"></a><a name="un27"></a>Therefore, though withdrawing and keeping the mind away from all <i>dṛśya</i> is necessary, it is not sufficient for achieving <i>manōnāśa</i>. It is necessary because attending exclusively to ourself entails withdrawing our attention from everything else, and we cannot achieve <i>tattva darśanam</i> and consequently <i>manōnāśa</i> except by turning our entire attention back within to face ourself alone, namely our fundamental awareness (<i>cittva</i>), ‘I am’, which is the mind’s ஒளி உரு (<i>oḷi-uru</i>) or ‘form of light’, as Bhagavan implies, for example, in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un22">verse 22</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>, ‘மதிக்கு ஒளி தந்து, அம் மதிக்குள் ஒளிரும் பதியில் மதியினை உள்ளே மடக்கி பதித்திடுதல் அன்றி, பதியை மதியால் மதித்திடுதல் எங்ஙன்?’ (<i>matikku oḷi tandu, a-m-matikkuḷ oḷirum patiyil matiyiṉai uḷḷē maḍakki padittiḍudal aṉḏṟi, patiyai matiyāl madittiḍudal eṅṅaṉ?</i>), ‘Except by, turning [or folding] the mind back within, completely immersing it in God, who shines [as <i>cittva</i> or pure awareness] within that mind giving light to the mind, how to fathom God by the mind?’, and also in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un27">verse 27</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>, ‘நான் உதிக்கும் தானம் அதை நாடாமல், நான் உதியா தன் இழப்பை சார்வது எவன்?’ (<i>nāṉ udikkum thāṉam-adai nāḍāmal, nāṉ udiyā taṉ-ṉ-iṙappai sārvadu evaṉ?</i>), ‘Without investigating the place where ‘I’ [ego] rises, how to reach the annihilation of oneself, in which ‘I’ does not [ever] rise [again]?’<br>
<br>
‘நான் உதிக்கும் தானம்’ (<i>nāṉ udikkum thāṉam</i>), ‘the place where ‘I’ rises’, is our real nature (<i>ātma-svarūpa</i>), which is pure awareness, our fundamental awareness ‘I am’, and therefore what Bhagavan describes as the mind’s ‘ஒளி உரு’ (<i>oḷi-uru</i>), ‘form of light’, or ‘चित्त्व’ (<i>cittva</i>), ‘awareness’ or ‘knowingness’, so what he implies in this sentence of verse 27 of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i> is that we cannot achieve <i>manōnāśa</i> or ‘தன் இழப்பு’ (<i>taṉ iṙappu</i>), ‘annihilation of oneself’, except by investigating our own fundamental awareness (<i>cittva</i>), ‘I am’. Investigating this fundamental awareness ‘I am’ means turning our entire attention back towards ourself in order to see what we actually are, and seeing what we actually are is what he describes as ‘மனம் தன் ஒளி உரு ஓர்தல்’ (<i>maṉam taṉ oḷi-uru ōrdal</i>), ‘the mind knowing its own form of light’, and as ‘चित्तम् आत्मनः चित्त्व दर्शनम्’ (<i>cittam ātmanaḥ cittva darśanam</i>), ‘the mind seeing its own <i>cittva</i>’, so we cannot see what we actually are, namely our own ஒளி உரு’ (<i>oḷi-uru</i>), ‘form of light’, or ‘चित्त्व’ (<i>cittva</i>), ‘[fundamental] awareness’, without thereby withdrawing and keeping our mind away from all <i>dṛśya</i> (everything that is seen, perceived or known as an object).<br>
<br>
Therefore it will be clear to anyone who understands Bhagavan’s teachings clearly and correctly that Swami Dayananda’s interpretation of this verse is not only incorrect but also diametrically opposed to all that he taught us about why we need not only to withdraw our attention from everything other than ourself, but to do so by focusing our entire attention on ourself alone. If we could achieve <i>tattva darśanam</i> and consequently <i>manōnāśa</i> merely by withdrawing our attention from everything other than ourself, we would achieve them simply by falling asleep, but obviously that is not the case, as is clear from our own experience. Therefore our own experience of rising again after falling asleep is sufficient proof that Swami Dayananda’s interpretation of this verse, namely ‘One’s mind withdrawn from perceptions is the appreciation of Awareness [one’s real nature] which is the appreciation of Truth’, cannot be correct.<br>
<a name="being"></a><blockquote><b>The mind can see its own <i>cittva</i> only by being its own <i>cittva</i>, and it can be it only by being swallowed by it</b></blockquote>
In the book <i>Upadesa Saram: The Complete Version in Four Languages Composed by Sri Bhagavan</i> Mohan Rao translated the Sanskrit version of this verse very freely as: ‘If having set aside its pre-occupation with the objective world, the mind delves deep within, it will find itself to be of the nature of Consciousness, that is, the vision of ultimate Reality’. Though this is obviously not an accurate translation of the verse, it is a much better interpretation than Swami Dayananda’s, because it is not in any way contrary to Bhagavan’s teachings. However, it does not convey the actual meaning of the Sanskrit verse precisely enough, and in particular it fails to translate the subject of the main clause correctly, because the subject is the phrase ‘चित्तम् आत्मनः चित्त्व दर्शनम्’ (<i>cittam ātmanaḥ cittva darśanam</i>), which means ‘the mind seeing its own <i>cittva</i> [knowingness or fundamental awareness]’, whereas this is what Mohan Rao seems to have interpreted as ‘If the mind delves deep within, it will find itself to be of the nature of Consciousness’. Though this is a reasonable and correct inference to draw from this verse and from Bhagavan’s teachings as a whole, it is not the exact meaning of this hugely significant and deeply meaningful phrase.<br>
<br>
<a name="us26a"></a><a name="un21"></a>The real nature of the mind is pure awareness or consciousness, which will become clear to us to the extent to which we look deep within ourself, and if we look within deep enough we will thereby sink into the innermost depth of ourself and dissolve there forever in the infinite clarity of pure awareness, which is what we always actually are. However, though this is a correct inference to draw from this verse, what Bhagavan actually says here is just: ‘दृश्य वारितम्, चित्तम् आत्मनः चित्त्व दर्शनम् तत्त्व दर्शनम्’ (<i>dṛśya vāritam, cittam ātmanaḥ cittva darśanam tattva darśanam</i>), ‘Kept back from <i>dṛśya</i> [whatever is seen or known as an object], the mind seeing its own <i>cittva</i> [knowingness or fundamental awareness] is <i>tattva-darśana</i> [seeing what is real]’. In order to see its own <i>cittva</i> the mind must look deep within itself, and when it looks deep enough within it will thereby be swallowed by its own <i>cittva</i>. When it is swallowed by it, the mind will thereby cease to be anything other than its own <i>cittva</i>, and since being <i>cittva</i> alone is seeing <i>cittva</i>, as Bhagavan implies in <a href="#us26">verse 26</a>, ‘आत्म संस्थितिः स्वात्म दर्शनम्’ (<i>ātma-saṁsthitiḥ svātma-darśanam</i>), ‘Being oneself is seeing one’s own self’, it is only by being completely swallowed by its own <i>cittva</i> that the mind can see its own <i>cittva</i>, as he implies in the concluding sentence of <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un21">verse 21</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>: ‘ஊண் ஆதல் காண்’ (<i>ūṇ ādal kāṇ</i>), ‘Becoming food is seeing’.<br>
<br>
As I have explained already, every word in the phrase ‘चित्तम् आत्मनः चित्त्व दर्शनम्’ (<i>cittam ātmanaḥ cittva darśanam</i>), ‘the mind seeing its own <i>cittva</i>’, is significant, and one of these key words is आत्मनः (<i>ātmanaḥ</i>), which in this context means ‘its own’. Mohan Rao seems to have overlooked the fact that this is the sixth case (genitive) form of आत्मन् (<i>ātman</i>) and therefore means ‘its own’, because he translated it as ‘itself’, and thereby he failed to convey the exact meaning of this extremely significant phrase.<br>
<a name="us22a"></a><blockquote><b>Since the five sheaths are all <i>jaḍa</i> and <i>asat</i>, they are not ‘I’, which is <i>sat</i></b></blockquote>
Another verse that Swami Dayananda seems to have not understood correctly is <a href="#us22">verse 22</a>: ‘विग्रह इन्द्रिय प्राण धी तमः न अहम् एक सत् तत् जडम् हि असत्’ (<i>vigraha indriya prāṇa dhī tamaḥ na aham ēka sat tat jaḍam hi asat</i>), ‘Body, mind, life, intellect and darkness are not I, <i>ēka sat</i> [the one existence or reality], because that [the body consisting of these five sheaths] is <i>jaḍa</i> [non-aware] and <i>asat</i> [non-existent]’. The <a href="#uu22">Tamil original</a> of this verse is: ‘உடல் பொறி உள்ளம் உயிர் இருள் எல்லாம் சடம் அசத்து ஆனதால், சத்து ஆன நான் அல்ல’ (<i>uḍal poṟi uḷḷam uyir iruḷ ellām jaḍam asattu āṉadāl, sattu āṉa nāṉ alla</i>), ‘Since body, mind, intellect, life and darkness are all <i>jaḍa</i> [non-aware] and <i>asat</i> [non-existent], they are not I, which is <i>sat</i> [what actually exists]’.<br>
<br>
The first five words of this verse, ‘உடல் பொறி உள்ளம் உயிர் இருள்’ (<i>uḍal poṟi uḷḷam uyir iruḷ</i>), ‘body, mind, intellect, life and darkness’, and ‘विग्रह इन्द्रिय प्राण धी तमः’ (<i>vigraha indriya prāṇa dhī tamaḥ</i>), ‘Body, mind, life, intellect and darkness’, refer to the five sheaths (<i>pañca-kōśa</i>), though for poetic reasons they are not given in the usual order. That is, உடல் (<i>uḍal</i>) and विग्रह (<i>vigraha</i>) mean the physical body, the ‘sheath composed of food’ (<i>annamaya kōśa</i>); உயிர் (<i>uyir</i>) and प्राण (<i>prāṇa</i>) mean life, the ‘sheath composed of <i>prāṇa</i>’ (<i>prāṇamaya kōśa</i>), namely the breath and other physiological processes that animate the body; பொறி (<i>poṟi</i>) and इन्द्रिय (<i>indriya</i>) in this context mean mind in the sense of its grosser functions, the ‘sheath composed of mind’ (<i>manōmaya kōśa</i>); உள்ளம் (<i>uḷḷam</i>) and धी (<i>dhī</i>) mean the intellect (<i>buddhi</i>), the ‘sheath composed of discernment [understanding or intelligence]’ (<i>vijñānamaya kōśa</i>); and இருள் (<i>iruḷ</i>) and तमः (<i>tamaḥ</i>) mean darkness, which in this context refers to the will (<i>cittam</i>), the ‘sheath composed of happiness’ (<i>ānandamaya kōśa</i>), which is called ‘darkness’ because it consists of the dense, dark fog of <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, inclinations or desires to seek happiness in things other than oneself.<br>
<br>
Swami Dayananda translated this verse as ‘I am not the body, sense organs, physiological functions, the mind or the ignorance. They are inert and hence unreal. I am the One, nondual existence’, so it seems that he did not recognise that what Bhagavan is referring to here is the five sheaths. He therefore translated इन्द्रिय (<i>indriya</i>) as ‘sense organs’, and in his commentary he said that they are ‘five sense organs and the five organs of action’, but though these are the usual meaning of इन्द्रिय (<i>indriya</i>), in this context what Bhagavan means by this term is the mind or <i>manōmaya kōśa</i>, which is sometimes said to be the eleventh इन्द्रिय (<i>indriya</i>), though it is actually the first, because none of the other ten could operate without it. Since Dayananda did not understand that in this verse इन्द्रिय (<i>indriya</i>) means the mind or <i>manōmaya kōśa</i>, he translated धी (<i>dhī</i>) as ‘the mind’, and in his commentary he said ‘<i>Dhī</i> here includes <i>manas</i>, <i>cittam</i>, <i>ahaṅkāra</i> and <i>buddhi</i>, and therefore stands for what is known as <i>antaḥkaraṇa</i>’, but what Bhagavan actually means by धी (<i>dhī</i>) here is the intellect (<i>buddhi</i>) or <i>vijñānamaya kōśa</i>.<br>
<br>
Swami Dayananda’s idea that धी (<i>dhī</i>) here includes ego (<i>ahaṅkāra</i>) is obviously not correct, because whereas the mind (<i>manas</i>), intellect (<i>buddhi</i>) and will (<i>cittam</i>) are all <i>jaḍa</i> (insentient or non-aware), being just objects perceived by ego, ego itself is not <i>jaḍa</i>, because it is what is aware of itself and all other things. What Bhagavan says in this verse is that all the five sheaths are not ‘I’ because they are <i>jaḍa</i> (non-aware) and hence <i>asat</i> (non-existent), and three of these five sheaths, namely the <i>manōmaya kōśa</i>, <i>vijñānamaya kōśa</i> and <i>ānandamaya kōśa</i>, are respectively the mind (<i>manas</i>), intellect (<i>buddhi</i>) and will (<i>cittam</i>).<br>
<br>
<a name="un24"></a>Though ego is one of the four functions of the <i>antaḥkaraṇa</i> (the internal organ or instrument), unlike each of the other three functions, namely mind, intellect and will, it is not any of the five sheaths. It is what grasps the body consisting of these five sheaths as ‘I am this body’, so since ‘I am’ is <i>sat-cit</i> (existence-awareness, namely our fundamental awareness of our own existence) whereas the body and all the five sheaths of which it is composed are <i>jaḍa</i>, ego is what is called <i>cit-jaḍa-granthi</i>, the knot (<i>granthi</i>) formed by the entanglement of awareness (<i>cit</i>) with a body, which is non-aware (<i>jaḍa</i>). Therefore ego is neither the body nor <i>sat-cit</i> but a spurious conflation of these two, as Bhagavan points out in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un24">verse 24</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>:<br>
<blockquote>சடவுடனா னென்னாது சச்சித் துதியா<br>
துடலளவா நானொன் றுதிக்கு — மிடையிலிது<br>
சிச்சடக்கி ரந்திபந்தஞ் சீவனுட்ப மெய்யகந்தை<br>
யிச்சமு சாரமன மெண்.<br>
<br>
<i>jaḍavuḍaṉā ṉeṉṉādu saccit tudiyā<br>
duḍalaḷavā nāṉoṉ ḏṟudikku — miḍaiyilidu<br>
ciccaḍakki ranthibandhañ jīvaṉuṭpa meyyahandai<br>
yiccamu sāramaṉa meṇ</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> சட உடல் ‘நான்’ என்னாது; சத்சித் உதியாது; உடல் அளவா ‘நான்’ ஒன்று உதிக்கும் இடையில். இது சித்சடக்கிரந்தி, பந்தம், சீவன், நுட்ப மெய், அகந்தை, இச் சமுசாரம், மனம்; எண்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>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</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> The <i>jaḍa</i> body [consisting of five sheaths] does not say ‘I’; <i>sat-cit</i> does not rise; in between one thing, ‘I’, rises as the extent of the body. This [the spurious adjunct-conflated awareness that rises as ‘I am this body’] is <i>cit-jaḍa-granthi</i>, bondage, <i>jīva</i>, subtle body, ego, this <i>saṁsāra</i> and mind. Know.</blockquote>
Therefore ego is not <i>jaḍa</i> but a body-conflated form of awareness. However, since it is mixed and conflated with the <i>jaḍa</i> body and is therefore aware of things other than itself, which are all <i>jaḍa</i> (non-aware) and therefore <i>asat</i> (non-existent), ego is not real awareness but just a semblance of awareness (<i>cidābhāsa</i>). Nevertheless, though it is not real awareness, which is <i>sat-cit</i>, the pure awareness that shines as ‘I am’, it does contain this real awareness, ‘I am’, within itself as its own heart and reality. Therefore, if we as ego look deep within ourself to see who am I, we will thereby let go of all the five sheaths and remain just as <i>sat-cit</i>, ‘I am’, which is what we always actually are.<br>
<a name="darkness"></a><blockquote><b>The <i>ānandamaya kōśa</i> is not the darkness of ignorance but the darkness of desire</b></blockquote>
तमः (<i>tamaḥ</i>) is the first case (nominative) form of तमस् (<i>tamas</i>), the basic meaning of which is darkness or gloom, which is also the meaning of the equivalent word that Bhagavan uses in the original Tamil verse, namely இருள் (<i>iruḷ</i>). In this context he uses both இருள் (<i>iruḷ</i>) and तमः (<i>tamaḥ</i>) to mean the <i>ānandamaya kōśa</i>, which consists of the dark fog of <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>. Like most other translators Swami Dayananda translated तमः (<i>tamaḥ</i>) as ignorance, which is one of the secondary meanings of तमस् (<i>tamas</i>), but though the <i>ānandamaya kōśa</i> is often described as the darkness of ignorance, we need to consider carefully why it is described so and how appropriate this description is.<br>
<br>
<a name="un05"></a><a name="un13"></a>Though Bhagavan describes the <i>ānandamaya kōśa</i> as ‘darkness’ (<i>iruḷ</i> or <i>tamas</i>), we need to distinguish this darkness from the primal darkness of <i>avidyā</i>, which is the darkness of self-ignorance, because the primal darkness is ego itself, not just one of the five sheaths. That is, the very nature of ego is <i>avidyā</i> or self-ignorance, because as ego we are always aware of ourself as ‘I am this body’ and consequently we are aware of the seeming existence of other things. Since the body (which in this context means all the five sheaths, as Bhagavan points out in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un05">verse 5</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>) is not what we actually are, being aware of ourself as ‘I am this body’ is self-ignorance (<i>avidyā</i> or <i>ajñāna</i>), and since nothing other than ourself actually exists, being aware of the appearance of other things is also ignorance, as he points out in the first two sentences of <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un13">verse 13</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>: ‘ஞானம் ஆம் தானே மெய். நானா ஆம் ஞானம் அஞ்ஞானம் ஆம்’ (<i>ñāṉam ām tāṉē mey. nāṉā ām ñāṉam aññāṉam ām</i>), ‘Oneself, who is <i>jñāna</i> [pure awareness], alone is real. Awareness that is manifold [meaning awareness that is aware of many things] is <i>ajñāna</i> [ignorance]’.<br>
<br>
Though ego is aware of itself as ‘I am this body’, the body is not what it actually is, so it is not any of the five sheaths that constitute the body, and hence it is distinct from the <i>ānandamaya kōśa</i>. Therefore, since ego is the primal darkness of <i>avidyā</i>, the darkness that is the <i>ānandamaya kōśa</i> is a secondary form of darkness. Since the <i>ānandamaya kōśa</i> is therefore not the primal darkness of <i>avidyā</i>, why is it often described as the darkness of ignorance, and is this an appropriate description of it? It is said to be the darkness of ignorance because it is generally said that what remains in sleep is only the <i>ānandamaya kōśa</i>, so it is associated with sleep, which from the perspective of the ego or mind in waking and dream seems to be a dark state of ignorance.<br>
<br>
<a name="ny01"></a><a name="uu21a"></a><a name="un26"></a>However, Bhagavan gives us a much deeper explanation about sleep than the one that is usually given in <i>advaita</i> texts, because he points out firstly that in sleep ego does not exist, as he implies in the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para01">first paragraph</a> of <i>Nāṉ Ār?</i> by saying ‘மனமற்ற நித்திரையில்’ (<i>maṉam aṯṟa niddiraiyil</i>), ‘in sleep, which is devoid of mind’, and in <a href="#uu21">verse 21</a> of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> by saying ‘நான் அற்ற தூக்கத்தும்’ (<i>nāṉ aṯṟa tūkkattum namadu</i>), ‘even in sleep, which is devoid of I [ego]’, and secondly that in the absence of ego nothing other than ourself exists, as he says unequivocally in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un26">verse 26</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>: ‘அகந்தை உண்டாயின், அனைத்தும் உண்டாகும்; அகந்தை இன்றேல், இன்று அனைத்தும்’ (<i>ahandai uṇḍāyiṉ, aṉaittum uṇḍāhum; ahandai iṉḏṟēl, iṉḏṟu aṉaittum</i>), ‘If ego comes into existence, everything comes into existence; if ego does not exist, everything does not exist’.<br>
<br>
In this context அனைத்தும் (<i>aṉaittum</i>), ‘everything’, means everything other than our real nature (<i>ātma-svarūpa</i>), which is pure awareness, so since ego does not exist in sleep, what exists and shines then is only our real nature, our fundamental awareness ‘I am’. Therefore in sleep there is no <i>ānandamaya kōśa</i> and no ignorance of any kind whatsoever, so it is only from the perspective of ego in waking and dream that sleep seems to be a state of darkness or ignorance, and a state from which ego has risen again.<br>
<br>
<a name="us17a"></a>The reason why the <i>ānandamaya kōśa</i> is generally said to remain in sleep is that since most people are unable or unwilling to understand the full implications of the fact that ego does not actually exist even when it seems to exist, they want to know why ego rises again from sleep and other states of <i>manōlaya</i> (temporary dissolution of mind), so saying that the <i>ānandamaya kōśa</i> remains in sleep and other such states, and therefore causes ego to rise again in waking or dream, is intended to satisfy the curiosity of such people. Since ego does not actually exist even when it seems to exist, wanting to know how it originally came into existence or how it comes into existence again after dissolving in sleep is like wanting to know how the son of a barren woman was born. Ego is the first cause, and hence the root cause of all other causes, so there cannot be anything that causes ego to rise or come into existence, and there need not be anything that causes it, because if we investigate it keenly enough, it will be clear that no such thing has ever actually existed or risen at all, as Bhagavan implies in <a href="#us17">verse 17</a>: ‘मानसम् तु किम् मार्गणे कृते न एव मानसम्’ (<i>mānasam tu kim mārgaṇē kṛtē na ēva mānasam</i>), ‘When one investigates what the mind actually is, [it will be clear that] there is no mind at all’.<br>
<br>
Therefore the <i>ānandamaya kōśa</i> is said to remain in sleep and sleep is said to be a dark state of ignorance only for the sake of those who lack deep and subtle understanding about the nature of ego, which is the sole cause for the illusory appearance of all other things, including the five <i>kōśas</i> and the three states, since all such things seem to exist only in the outward-facing view of ego. If instead of looking outwards we look back within to see who am I, we will see that there never was any such thing as ego, and therefore there never was anything else at all, not even any of the five <i>kōśas</i> or the three states.<br>
<br>
Therefore if we have understood Bhagavan’s teachings deeply and correctly, we will be satisfied knowing that there is no need for us to seek any explanation for why or how ego rises again after dissolving in sleep. If at all we want to say that there is a reason why ego seems to exist now, that reason can only be <i>avicāra</i> (non-investigation), which is what is also called <i>pramāda</i> (self-negligence or failure to be keenly self-attentive). However, since <i>avicāra</i> is a problem that does not occur in sleep, where ego is absent, but only in waking and dream, where it seems to be present, <i>avicāra</i> cannot be what causes ego to rise from sleep.<br>
<br>
Therefore, though Bhagavan often said that ego seems to exist only because of <i>avicāra</i> or <i>pramāda</i>, he did not mean that <i>avicāra</i> is what causes ego to come into existence, because <i>avicāra</i> is the very nature of ego and could not exist without it. However, though ego did not come into existence because of <i>avicāra</i>, <i>avicāra</i> is what sustains its seeming existence, so what can eradicate its seeming existence is only <i>vicāra</i>. This is all we need to know. Trying to know why or how ego came into existence (whether in the first instance or from sleep) is futile, because it has never actually come into existence at all, but since it seems to exist now, we need to understand that it seems to exist only because of <i>avicāra</i> and will therefore cease to exist only by means of <i>vicāra</i>.<br>
<br>
Since the <i>ānandamaya kōśa</i> is described as the darkness of ignorance only because it is wrongly associated with sleep, which seems to be a dark state of ignorance only from the self-ignorant perspective of ego in waking and dream, this false association is not a satisfactory explanation for why Bhagavan refers to the <i>ānandamaya kōśa</i> in <a href="#uu22">verse 22</a> as இருள் (<i>iruḷ</i>) and तमः (<i>tamaḥ</i>), ‘darkness’. Since ‘<i>ānandamaya kōśa</i>’ is another name for the will (<i>cittam</i>), which consists of <i>vāsanās</i>, the vast majority of which are <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, a much more satisfactory and practical explanation for why he called it ‘darkness’ (<i>iruḷ</i> or <i>tamas</i>) is that it is not the darkness of ignorance but the darkness of desire, because it is an internal darkness in the form of a dense fog of <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, inclinations or desires to seek happiness in things other than oneself.<br>
<br>
This darkness of desire of course arises only because of the fundamental darkness of <i>avidyā</i> or self-ignorance, which is ego, but it is nevertheless distinct from it, because it is just a <i>kōśa</i>, a sheath or covering, whereas ego is what is always covering itself securely with all five <i>kōśas</i> by looking outwards at <i>viṣayas</i> instead of inwards at itself, thereby protecting itself, the darkness of self-ignorance, from being dissolved in the clear light of pure awareness, ‘I am’, which is always shining brightly within it. Instead of attaching itself to the five sheaths in this way by looking away from itself at other things, if ego looks back within to see its real nature, the pure light that is always shining clearly within it as ‘I am’, the fundamental darkness of self-ignorance (<i>avidyā</i>) will thereby be dispersed, and the secondary darkness of desire will dissolve along with it, thereby leaving the pure light of ‘I am’ shining alone forever in the infinite space of the heart as ‘I am I’.<br>
<br>
<a name="ny01a"></a>Moreover, the reason why our will (<i>cittam</i>) is called <i>ānandamaya kōśa</i>, the ‘sheath composed of happiness’, is that <i>vāsanās</i> alone are what constitute it, and all <i>vāsanās</i> are inclinations or desires driven by our fundamental inclination to seek happiness. Therefore the name ‘<i>ānandamaya kōśa</i>’ implies that it is the sheath composed of <i>vāsanās</i>, which are various forms of our fundamental love to be happy. That is, happiness and our love to be happy are inseparable, because they are both our own real nature (<i>svabhāva</i>), as Bhagavan implies in the first sentence of the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para01">first paragraph</a> of <i>Nāṉ Ār?</i>, so in this context ‘<i>ānanda</i>’ implies not only happiness but also love for happiness. Though love for happiness is infinite and therefore formless, when we rise as ego it manifests in us in the form of numerous <i>vāsanās</i>, each of which is essentially just an inclination or liking to experience happiness.<br>
<a name="deep"></a><blockquote><b>This text will reveal its profound import to us only to the extent to which we study it carefully, think deeply about its meaning and look deep within ourself</b></blockquote>
I have discussed these examples of various different ways in which some of the verses of <i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> have been interpreted and understood in order to illustrate what an extremely deep and subtle text it actually is, and why we therefore need to study it carefully along with the original Tamil version, <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i>, and think deeply about the meaning and implication of every word. Most importantly of all, however, we need to put into practice what Bhagavan has taught us, because real clarity can be found only by looking deep within our own heart, so it is only to the extent to which we go deep in the practice of self-investigation and self-surrender that his original writings in texts such as this will reveal to us their deep inner meaning and implications. <br>
<br>
<a name="uu-us"></a><b>உபதேச வுந்தியார் (<i>Upadēśa-v-Undiyār</i>) and उपदेश सारः (<i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i>): The Essence of Spiritual Teachings</b><br>
<br>
<a name="uu01"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu01">verse 1</a>:</b><br>
<blockquote>கன்மம் பயன்றரல் கர்த்தன தாணையாற்<br>
கன்மங் கடவுளோ வுந்தீபற<br>
கன்மஞ் சடமதா லுந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>kaṉmam payaṉḏṟaral karttaṉa dāṇaiyāṟ<br>
kaṉmaṅ kaḍavuḷō vundīpaṟa<br>
kaṉmañ jaḍamadā lundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> கன்மம் பயன் தரல் கர்த்தனது ஆணையால். கன்மம் கடவுளோ? கன்மம் சடம் அதால்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>kaṉmam payaṉ taral karttaṉadu āṇaiyāl. kaṉmam kaḍavuḷ-ō? kaṉmam jaḍam adāl</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Action giving fruit is by the ordainment of God. Since action is non-aware, is action God?<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> <i>Karma</i> [action] giving fruit is by the ordainment of God [the <i>kartā</i> or ordainer]. Since <i>karma</i> is <i>jaḍa</i> [devoid of awareness], can <i>karma</i> be God?</blockquote>
<a name="us01"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 1:</b><br>
<blockquote>कर्तु राज्ञया प्राप्य तेफलम् ।<br>
कर्म किंपरं कर्म तज्जडम् ॥ १ ॥<br>
<br>
<i>kartu rājñayā prāpya tēphalam<br>
karma kiṁparaṁ karma tajjaḍam</i><br>
<br>
<b>पदच्छेद:</b> कर्तुः आज्ञया प्राप्यते फलम्. कर्म किम् परम्? कर्म तत् जडम्.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēda</i></b> (word-separation): <i>kartuḥ ājñayā prāpyatē phalam. karma kim param? karma tat jaḍam.</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Fruit is obtained by the order of God. Is <i>karma</i> God? <i>Karma</i> is insentient.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Fruit [of action] is obtained by the order of God. Is <i>karma</i> [action] God? <i>Karma</i> is <i>jaḍa</i> [non-aware or insentient].</blockquote>
<a name="uu02"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu02">verse 2</a>:</b><br>
<blockquote>வினையின் விளைவு விளிவுற்று வித்தாய் <br>
வினைக்கடல் வீழ்த்திடு முந்தீபற <br>
வீடு தரலிலை யுந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>viṉaiyiṉ viḷaivu viḷivuṯṟu vittāy <br>
viṉaikkaḍal vīṙttiḍu mundīpaṟa<br>
vīḍu taralilai yundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> வினையின் விளைவு விளிவு உற்று வித்தாய் வினை கடல் வீழ்த்திடும். வீடு தரல் இலை.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>viṉaiyiṉ viḷaivu viḷivu uṯṟu vittāy viṉai-kaḍal vīṙttiḍum. vīḍu taral ilai</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> The fruit of action perishing, as seed causes to fall in the ocean of action. It is not giving liberation.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> The fruit of [any] action will perish [when it is experienced as part of <i>prārabdha</i>], [but what remains] as seed [namely <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> (also known as <i>karma-vāsanās</i>): inclinations to seek happiness or satisfaction in experiencing <i>viṣayas</i> (objects or phenomena) by doing actions of mind, speech and body] causes [one] to fall in the ocean of action. [Therefore] it [action or <i>karma</i>] does not give liberation.</blockquote>
<a name="us02"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 2:</b><br>
<blockquote>कृतिम होदधौ पतन कारणम् ।<br>
फलम शाश्वतं गतिनि रोधकम् ॥ २ ॥<br>
<br>
<i>kṛtima hōdadhau patana kāraṇam<br>
phalama śāśvataṁ gatini rōdhakam</i><br>
<br>
<b>पदच्छेद:</b> कृति महा उदधौ पतन कारणम्. फलम् अशाश्वतम्. गति निरोधकम्.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēda</i></b> (word-separation): <i>kṛti mahā udadhau patana kāraṇam. phalam aśāśvatam. gati nirōdhakam.</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> The cause of falling in the vast ocean of action. Fruit is impermanent. Liberation-obstructing.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> The cause of falling in the vast ocean of action [is seeds, namely <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> (also known as <i>karma-vāsanās</i>): inclinations to seek happiness or satisfaction in experiencing <i>viṣayas</i> (objects or phenomena) by doing actions of mind, speech and body]. The fruit [of any action] is impermanent. [Action is therefore] liberation-obstructing.</blockquote>
<b>Note:</b> The implication of the first line of this verse is discussed in <a href="#us02a">The cause for our falling in the vast ocean of action is our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i></a>.<br>
<br>
<a name="uu03"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu03">verse 3</a>:</b><br>
<blockquote>கருத்தனுக் காக்குநிட் காமிய கன்மங்<br>
கருத்தைத் திருத்தியஃ துந்தீபற<br>
கதிவழி காண்பிக்கு முந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>karuttaṉuk kākkuniṭ kāmiya kaṉmaṅ <br>
karuttait tiruttiyaḵ dundīpaṟa<br>
gativaṙi kāṇbikku mundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> கருத்தனுக்கு ஆக்கும் நிட்காமிய கன்மம் கருத்தை திருத்தி, அஃது கதி வழி காண்பிக்கும்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>karuttaṉukku ākkum niṭkāmiya kaṉmam karuttai tirutti, aḵdu gati vaṙi kāṇbikkum</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Desireless action done for God, purifying the mind, it will show the path to liberation.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> <i>Niṣkāmya karma</i> [action not motivated by desire] done [with love] for God purifies the mind and [thereby] it will show the path to liberation [that is, it will enable one to recognise what the correct path to liberation is].</blockquote>
<a name="us03"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 3:</b><br>
<blockquote>ईश्व रार्पितं नेच्छ याकृतम् ।<br>
चित्त शोधकं मुक्ति साधकम् ॥ ३ ॥<br>
<br>
<i>īśva rārpitaṁ nēccha yākṛtam<br>
citta śōdhakaṁ mukti sādhakam</i><br>
<br>
<b>पदच्छेद:</b> ईश्वर अर्पितम् न इच्छया कृतम् चित्त शोधकम् मुक्ति साधकम्.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēda</i></b> (word-separation): <i>īśvara arpitam na icchayā kṛtam citta śōdhakam mukti sādhakam.</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Offered to God, not done with desire, mind-purifier, liberation-accomplishing.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> [Action that is] not done with desire [but] offered [entrusted or transferred] to God [is] mind-purifier [and thereby indirectly] liberation-accomplishing.</blockquote>
<b>Video discussion:</b> <a href="https://youtu.be/PnllvT5eYHE"><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verses 1 to 3</a><br>
<br>
<div style="text-align:center"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PnllvT5eYHE" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></div><br>
<br>
<a name="uu04"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu04">verse 4</a>:</b><br>
<blockquote>திடமிது பூசை செபமுந் தியான<br>
முடல்வாக் குளத்தொழி லுந்தீபற<br>
வுயர்வாகு மொன்றிலொன் றுந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>diḍamidu pūjai jepamun dhiyāṉa <br>
muḍalvāk kuḷattoṙi lundīpaṟa<br>
vuyarvāhu moṉḏṟiloṉ ḏṟundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> திடம் இது: பூசை செபமும் தியானம் உடல் வாக்கு உள தொழில். உயர்வு ஆகும் ஒன்றில் ஒன்று.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>diḍam idu: pūjai jepam-um dhiyāṉam uḍal vākku uḷa toṙil. uyarvu āhum oṉḏṟil oṉḏṟu</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> This is certain: <i>pūjā</i>, <i>japa</i> and <i>dhyāna</i> are actions of body, speech and mind. One than one is superior.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> This is certain: <i>pūjā</i> [worship], <i>japa</i> [repetition of a name of God or a sacred phrase] and <i>dhyāna</i> [meditation] are [respectively] actions of body, speech and mind, [and hence in this order each subsequent] one is superior to [the previous] one [in the sense that it is a more effective means to purify the mind].</blockquote>
<a name="us04"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 4:</b><br>
<blockquote>काय वाङ्मनः कार्य मुत्तमम् ।<br>
पूज नंजप श्चिन्त नंक्रमात् ॥ ४ ॥<br>
<br>
<i>kāya vāṅmanaḥ kārya muttamam<br>
pūja naṁjapa ścinta naṁkramāt</i><br>
<br>
<b>पदच्छेद:</b> काय वाच् मनः कार्यम् उत्तमम् पूजनम् जपः चिन्तनम् क्रमात्.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēda</i></b> (word-separation): <i>kāya vāc manaḥ kāryam uttamam pūjanam japaḥ cintanam kramāt.</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Worship, repetition and meditation, actions to be done by body, speech and mind, are progressively superior.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> <i>Pūjana</i> [worship], <i>japa</i> [repetition] and <i>cintana</i> [meditation], [which are] actions to be done by body, speech and mind [respectively], are [in this order] progressively superior [in their efficacy to purify the mind].</blockquote>
<a name="uu05"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu05">verse 5</a>:</b><br>
<blockquote>எண்ணுரு யாவு மிறையுரு வாமென<br>
வெண்ணி வழிபட லுந்தீபற<br>
வீசனற் பூசனை யுந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>eṇṇuru yāvu miṟaiyuru vāmeṉa <br>
veṇṇi vaṙipaḍa lundīpaṟa<br>
vīśaṉaṯ pūjaṉai yundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> எண் உரு யாவும் இறை உரு ஆம் என எண்ணி வழிபடல் ஈசன் நல் பூசனை.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>eṇ uru yāvum iṟai uru ām eṉa eṇṇi vaṙipaḍal īśaṉ nal pūjaṉai</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Worshipping thinking that all eight forms are forms of God is good <i>pūjā</i> of God.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Considering all the eight forms [the <i>aṣṭa-mūrti</i>, the eight forms or manifestations of Siva, namely the five elements (earth, water, fire, air and space), sun, moon and sentient beings (<i>jīvas</i>)] [or all thought-forms, namely all forms, which are just thoughts or mental phenomena] to be forms of God, worshipping [any of them] is good <i>pūjā</i> [worship] of God.</blockquote>
<a name="us05"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 5:</b><br>
<blockquote>जगत ईशधी युक्त सेवनम् ।<br>
अष्ट मूर्तिभृ द्देव पूजनम् ॥ ५ ॥<br>
<br>
<i>jagata īśadhī yukta sēvanam<br>
aṣṭa mūrtibhṛ ddēva pūjanam</i><br>
<br>
<b>पदच्छेद:</b> जगतः ईश धी युक्त सेवनम् अष्ट मूर्ति भृत् देव पूजनम्.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēda</i></b> (word-separation): <i>jagataḥ īśa dhī yukta sēvanam aṣṭa mūrti bhṛt dēva pūjanam.</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Worship of the world with the idea of God is worship of God having eight forms.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Worship of the world with the idea [that it is] God is worship of God having eight forms [namely the five elements (earth, water, fire, air and space), sun, moon and sentient beings (<i>jīvas</i>)].</blockquote>
<a name="uu06"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu06">verse 6</a>:</b><br>
<blockquote>வழுத்தலில் வாக்குச்ச வாய்க்குட் செபத்தில்<br>
விழுப்பமா மானத முந்தீபற<br>
விளம்புந் தியானமி துந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>vaṙuttalil vākkucca vāykkuṭ jepattil <br>
viṙuppamā māṉata mundīpaṟa<br>
viḷambun dhiyāṉami dundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> வழுத்தலில், வாக்கு உச்ச, வாய்க்குள் செபத்தில் விழுப்பம் ஆம் மானதம். விளம்பும் தியானம் இது.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>vaṙuttalil, vākku ucca, vāykkuḷ jepattil viṙuppam ām māṉatam. viḷambum dhiyāṉam idu</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Rather than praising, loud voice, rather than <i>japa</i> within the mouth, what is done by mind is beneficial. This is called <i>dhyāna</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Rather than praising [God by chanting hymns], [<i>japa</i> or repetition of his name is beneficial]; [rather than <i>japa</i> done in a] loud voice, [<i>japa</i> whispered faintly within the mouth is beneficial]; [and] rather than <i>japa</i> within the mouth, <i>mānasa</i> [that which is done by mind] is beneficial [in the sense that it is a more effective means to purify the mind]. This [mental repetition or <i>mānasika japa</i>] is called <i>dhyāna</i> [meditation].</blockquote>
<a name="us06"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 6:</b><br>
<blockquote>उत्त मस्तवा दुच्च मन्दतः ।<br>
चित्त जंजप ध्यान मुत्तमम् ॥ ६ ॥<br>
<br>
<i>utta mastavā ducca mandataḥ<br>
citta jaṁjapa dhyāna muttamam</i><br>
<br>
<b>पदच्छेद:</b> उत्तम स्तवात्, उच्च, मन्दतः, चित्तजम् जप, ध्यानम् उत्तमम्.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēda</i></b> (word-separation): <i>uttama stavāt, ucca, mandataḥ, cittajam japa, dhyānam uttamam.</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Rather than the best praise, loud, soft, mental repetition, meditation is best.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Rather than the best praise [or praise of the most exalted, namely God] [by chanting hymns], [<i>japa</i> or repetition of his name is better]; [rather than <i>japa</i> done] aloud, [<i>japa</i> that is soft is better]; [and rather than <i>japa</i> that is] soft, mental <i>japa</i>, [which is] <i>dhyāna</i> [meditation], is best [in the sense that it is a more effective means to purify the mind].</blockquote>
<a name="uu07"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu07">verse 7</a>:</b><br>
<blockquote>விட்டுக் கருதலி னாறுநெய் வீழ்ச்சிபோல்<br>
விட்டிடா துன்னலே யுந்தீபற<br>
விசேடமா முன்னவே யுந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>viṭṭuk karudali ṉāṟuney vīṙccipōl <br>
viṭṭiḍā duṉṉalē yundīpaṟa<br>
viśēḍamā muṉṉavē yundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> விட்டு கருதலின் ஆறு நெய் வீழ்ச்சி போல் விட்டிடாது உன்னலே விசேடம் ஆம் உன்னவே.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>viṭṭu karudaliṉ āṟu ney vīṙcci pōl viṭṭiḍādu uṉṉal-ē viśēḍam ām uṉṉa-v-ē</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Rather than meditating leavingly, certainly meditating unleavingly, like a river or the falling of ghee, is superior to meditate.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Rather than meditating [on God] interruptedly [because of being frequently distracted by other thoughts as a result of insufficient love for him], certainly meditating uninterruptedly [without being distracted by any other thoughts because of the intensity of one’s love for him], like a river or the falling of ghee, is a better way to meditate [or is superior, when considered] [in the sense that it is a more effective means to purify the mind].</blockquote>
<a name="us07"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 7:</b><br>
<blockquote>आज्य धारया स्रोत सासमम् ।<br>
सरल चिन्तनं विरल तःपरम् ॥ ७ ॥<br>
<br>
<i>ājya dhārayā srōta sāsamam<br>
sarala cintanaṁ virala taḥparam</i><br>
<br>
<b>पदच्छेद:</b> आज्य धारया स्रोतसा समम् सरल चिन्तनम् विरलतः परम्.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēda</i></b> (word-separation): <i>ājya dhārayā srōtasā samam sarala cintanam viralataḥ param.</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Continuous meditation, like the flow of ghee, a river, is better than discontinuous.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Continuous meditation [meditation on God that is steady, being uninterrupted by other thoughts], like the flow of ghee or a river, is better [in the sense that it is a more effective means to purify the mind] than discontinuous [namely meditation on God that is unsteady, being frequently interrupted by one’s thinking about anything other than him].</blockquote>
<a name="uu08"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu08">verse 8</a>:</b><br>
<blockquote>அனியபா வத்தி னவனக மாகு<br>
மனனிய பாவமே யுந்தீபற<br>
வனைத்தினு முத்தம முந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>aṉiyabhā vatti ṉavaṉaha māhu<br>
maṉaṉiya bhāvamē yundīpaṟa<br>
vaṉaittiṉu muttama mundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> அனிய பாவத்தின் அவன் அகம் ஆகும் அனனிய பாவமே அனைத்தினும் உத்தமம்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>aṉiya-bhāvattiṉ avaṉ aham āhum aṉaṉiya-bhāvam-ē aṉaittiṉ-um uttamam</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Rather than <i>anya-bhāva</i>, <i>ananya-bhāva</i>, in which he is I, certainly is the best among all.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Rather than <i>anya-bhāva</i> [meditation on anything other than oneself, particularly meditation on God as if he were other than oneself], <i>ananya-bhāva</i> [meditation on nothing other than oneself], in which he is [considered to be] I, certainly is the best among all [practices of <i>bhakti</i>, varieties of meditation and kinds of spiritual practice] [in the sense that it is the most effective of all means to purify the mind, and is also the only means to eradicate ego, the root of all impurities].</blockquote>
<a name="us08"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 8:</b><br>
<blockquote>भेद भावना त्सोऽह मित्यसौ ।<br>
भाव नाऽभिदा पाव नीमता ॥ ८ ॥<br>
<br>
<i>bhēda bhāvanā tsō’ha mityasau<br>
bhāva nā’bhidā pāva nīmatā</i><br>
<br>
<b>पदच्छेद:</b> भेद भावनात् सः अहम् इति असौ भावना अभिदा पावनी मता.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēda</i></b> (word-separation): <i>bhēda bhāvanāt saḥ aham iti asau bhāvanā abhidā pāvanī matā.</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Rather than separating meditation, non-separating meditation, that as ‘he is I’, is considered purifying.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Rather than separating meditation [meditation on God as if he were something separate from oneself], non-separating meditation [meditation on him as not separate from oneself], [in which it is recognised that] he is I, is considered [by sages and scriptures to be] purifying.</blockquote>
<b>Video discussion:</b> <a href="https://youtu.be/pV07WhRJi3A"><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verses 3 to 8</a><br>
<br>
<div style="text-align:center"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pV07WhRJi3A" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></div><br>
<br>
<a name="uu09"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu09">verse 9</a>:</b><br>
<blockquote>பாவ பலத்தினாற் பாவனா தீதசற்<br>
பாவத் திருத்தலே யுந்தீபற<br>
பரபத்தி தத்துவ முந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>bhāva balattiṉāṯ bhāvaṉā tītasaṯ<br>
bhāvat tiruttalē yundīpaṟa<br>
parabhatti tattuva mundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> பாவ பலத்தினால் பாவனாதீத சத் பாவத்து இருத்தலே பரபத்தி தத்துவம்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>bhāva balattiṉāl bhāvaṉātīta sat-bhāvattu iruttal-ē para-bhatti tattuvam</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> By the strength of meditation, being in <i>sat-bhāva</i>, which transcends <i>bhāvanā</i>, alone is <i>para-bhakti tattva</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> By the strength [intensity, firmness or stability] of [such] meditation [<i>ananya-bhāva</i> or self-attentiveness], being in <i>sat-bhāva</i> [the state of being], which transcends [all] <i>bhāvanā</i> [thinking, imagination or meditation in the sense of mental activity], alone [or certainly] is <i>para-bhakti tattva</i> [the nature, reality or true state of supreme devotion].</blockquote>
<a name="us09"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 9:</b><br>
<blockquote>भाव शून्यस द्भाव सुस्थितिः ।<br>
भाव नाबला द्भक्ति रुत्तमा ॥ ९ ॥<br>
<br>
<i>bhāva śūnyasa dbhāva susthitiḥ<br>
bhāva nābalā dbhakti ruttamā</i><br>
<br>
<b>पदच्छेद:</b> भाव शून्य सत् भाव सुस्थितिः भावना बलात् भक्तिः उत्तमा.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēda</i></b> (word-separation): <i>bhāva śūnya sat-bhāva susthitiḥ bhāvanā balāt bhaktiḥ uttamā.</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> By the strength of meditation, standing firmly in the state of being, devoid of meditation, is the best devotion.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> By [or because of] the strength of meditation [on God as not separate from oneself], standing firmly in <i>sat-bhāva</i> [the state of being], [which is] devoid of meditation [in the sense of mental activity], is the best [foremost, highest, greatest or ultimate] devotion.</blockquote>
<a name="uu10"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu10">verse 10</a>:</b><br>
<blockquote>உதித்த விடத்தி லொடுங்கி யிருத்த<br>
லதுகன்மம் பத்தியு முந்தீபற<br>
வதுயோக ஞானமு முந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>uditta viḍatti loḍuṅgi yirutta<br>
ladukaṉmam bhattiyu mundīpaṟa<br>
vaduyōga ñāṉamu mundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> உதித்த இடத்தில் ஒடுங்கி இருத்தல்: அது கன்மம் பத்தியும்; அது யோகம் ஞானமும்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>uditta iḍattil oḍuṅgi iruttal: adu kaṉmam bhatti-y-um; adu yōgam ñāṉam-um</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Being, subsiding in the place from which one rose: that is <i>karma</i> and <i>bhakti</i>; that is <i>yōga</i> and <i>jñāna</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Being [by inwardly] subsiding in the place from which one rose [namely one’s own real nature (<i>ātma-svarūpa</i>), which is pure being-awareness (<i>sat-cit</i>), ‘I am’]: that is [the culmination of the paths of] [<i>niṣkāmya</i>] <i>karma</i> and <i>bhakti</i> [as explained in the previous seven verses]; that is [also the culmination of the paths of] <i>yōga</i> [as will be explained in the next five verses] and <i>jñāna</i> [as will be explained in the final fifteen verses].</blockquote>
<a name="us10"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 10:</b><br>
<blockquote>हृत्स्थ लेमनः स्वस्थ ताक्रिया ।<br>
भक्ति योगबो धाश्च निश्चितम् ॥ १० ॥<br>
<br>
<i>hṛtstha lēmanaḥ svastha tākriyā<br>
bhakti yōgabō dhāśca niścitam</i><br>
<br>
<b>पदच्छेद:</b> हृद् स्थले मनः स्वस्थता क्रिया भक्ति योग बोधाः च निश्चितम्.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēda</i></b> (word-separation): <i>hṛd sthalē manaḥ svasthatā kriyā bhakti yōga bōdhāḥ ca niścitam.</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> The mind standing as itself in the heart-ground is certainly <i>kriyā</i>, <i>bhakti</i>, <i>yōga</i> and <i>bōdhā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> The mind standing as itself in the ground [the place or source from which it rose], the heart, is certainly [the culmination of the paths of] <i>kriyā</i> [<i>niṣkāmya karma</i> or desireless action], <i>bhakti</i> [love or devotion], <i>yōga</i> [union] and <i>bōdhā</i> [<i>jñāna</i>, knowledge or awareness].</blockquote>
<b>Video discussion:</b> <a href="https://youtu.be/8ld5x-DanGE"><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verses 8 to 10</a><br>
<br>
<div style="text-align:center"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8ld5x-DanGE" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></div><br>
<br>
<a name="uu11"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu11">verse 11</a>:</b><br>
<blockquote>வளியுள் ளடக்க வலைபடு புட்போ<br>
லுளமு மொடுங்குறு முந்தீபற<br>
வொடுக்க வுபாயமி துந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>vaḷiyuḷ ḷaḍakka valaipaḍu puṭpō<br>
luḷamu moḍuṅguṟu mundīpaṟa<br>
voḍukka vupāyami dundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> வளி உள் அடக்க, வலை படு புள் போல் உளமும் ஒடுங்குறும். ஒடுக்க உபாயம் இது.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>vaḷi uḷ aḍakka, valai paḍu puḷ pōl uḷam-um oḍuṅguṟum. oḍukka upāyam idu</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> When one restrains the breath within, like a bird caught in a net the mind also will be restrained. This is a means to restrain.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> When one restrains [curbs, calms or subdues] the breath within, like a bird caught in a net the mind also will be restrained [sink, subside, calm down, become quiet, be dissolved or cease being active]. This [the practice of breath-restraint or <i>prāṇāyāma</i>] is [therefore] a means to restrain [curb, calm, subdue, shut down or dissolve] [the mind].</blockquote>
<a name="us11"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 11:</b><br>
<blockquote>वायु रोधना ल्लीय तेमनः ।<br>
जाल पक्षिव द्रोध साधनम् ॥ ११ ॥<br>
<br>
<i>vāyu rōdhanā llīya tēmanaḥ<br>
jāla pakṣiva drōdha sādhanam<br>
<br>
</i><b>पदच्छेद:</b> वायु रोधनात् लीयते मनः जाल पक्षिवत्. रोध साधनम्.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēda</i></b> (word-separation): <i>vāyu rōdhanāt līyatē manaḥ jāla pakṣivat. rōdha sādhanam.</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> By restraining the breath, the mind subsides, like a bird in a net. A means of restraining.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> By [or as a result of] restraining the breath, the mind subsides [or dissolves], like a bird [caught] in a net. [This is] a means of restraining [the mind].</blockquote>
<a name="uu12"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu12">verse 12</a>:</b><br>
<blockquote>உளமு முயிரு முணர்வுஞ் செயலு<br>
முளவாங் கிளையிரண் டுந்தீபற<br>
வொன்றவற் றின்மூல முந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>uḷamu muyiru muṇarvuñ ceyalu <br>
muḷavāṅ kiḷaiyiraṇ ḍundīpaṟa<br>
voṉḏṟavaṯ ṟiṉmūla mundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> உளமும் உயிரும் உணர்வும் செயலும் உளவாம் கிளை இரண்டு. ஒன்று அவற்றின் மூலம்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>uḷam-um uyir-um uṇarvu-[u]m ceyal-um uḷavām kiḷai iraṇḍu. oṉḏṟu avaṯṟiṉ mūlam</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Mind and breath are two branches, which have knowing and doing. Their root is one.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Mind and breath [or life, which includes breath and all other physiological functions] are two branches, which have knowing and doing [as their respective functions]. [However] their <i>mūla</i> [root, base, foundation, origin, source or cause] is one [so this is why when either one is restrained the other one will also be restrained, as pointed out in the previous verse].</blockquote>
<a name="us12"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 12:</b><br>
<blockquote>चित्त वायव श्चित्क्रि यायुताः ।<br>
शाख योर्द्वयी शक्ति मूलका ॥ १२ ॥<br>
<br>
<i>citta vāyava ścitkri yāyutāḥ<br>
śākha yōrdvayī śakti mūlakā</i><br>
<br>
<b>पदच्छेद:</b> चित्त वायवः चित् क्रिया युताः शाखयोः द्वयी. शक्ति मूलका.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēda</i></b> (word-separation): <i>citta vāyavaḥ cit kriyā yutāḥ śākhayōḥ dvayī. śakti mūlakā.</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Mind and <i>prāṇas</i> are a pair of branches endowed with knowing and doing. Rooted in power.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Mind and <i>vāyus</i> [the five <i>prāṇas</i>, namely breathing and other physiological functions] are a pair of branches endowed with knowing and doing [as their respective function]. [They are] rooted in [or spring from] [one] power [that is, they arise from one source, namely our real nature, which is <i>cit-śakti</i>, the power of pure awareness, ‘I am’].</blockquote>
<a name="uu13"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu13">verse 13</a>:</b><br>
<blockquote>இலயமு நாச மிரண்டா மொடுக்க<br>
மிலயித் துளதெழு முந்தீபற<br>
வெழாதுரு மாய்ந்ததே லுந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>ilayamu nāśa miraṇḍā moḍukka<br>
milayit tuḷadeṙu mundīpaṟa<br>
veṙāduru māyndadē lundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> இலயமும் நாசம் இரண்டு ஆம் ஒடுக்கம். இலயித்து உளது எழும். எழாது உரு மாய்ந்ததேல்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>ilayam-um nāśam iraṇḍu ām oḍukkam. ilayittu uḷadu eṙum. eṙādu uru māyndadēl</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Dissolution is two: <i>laya</i> and <i>nāśa</i>. What is lying down will rise. If form dies, it will not rise.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Dissolution [complete subsidence or cessation of ego or mind] is [of] two [kinds]: <i>laya</i> [temporary dissolution] and <i>nāśa</i> [permanent dissolution or annihilation]. What is lying down [or dissolved in <i>laya</i>] will rise. If [its] form dies [in <i>nāśa</i>], it will not rise.</blockquote>
<a name="us13"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 13:</b><br>
<blockquote>लयवि नाशने उभय रोधने ।<br>
लयग तंपुन र्भवति नोमृतम् ॥ १३ ॥<br>
<br>
<i>layavi nāśanē ubhaya rōdhanē<br>
layaga taṁpuna rbhavati nōmṛtam</i><br>
<br>
<b>पदच्छेद:</b> लय विनाशने उभय रोधने. लयगतम् पुनः भवति. नो मृतम्.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēda</i></b> (word-separation): <i>laya vināśanē ubhaya rōdhanē. layagatam punaḥ bhavati. nō mṛtam.</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> <i>Laya</i> and <i>vināśana</i> are both stopping. What has gone in <i>laya</i> arises again. What has died does not.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> <i>Laya</i> [temporary dissolution] and <i>vināśana</i> [destruction or annihilation] are both <i>rōdhana</i> [states in which the mind has been stopped or prevented from rising] [in other words, <i>rōdhana</i> is of two kinds: <i>laya</i> and <i>nāśa</i>]. What has gone in <i>laya</i> arises [or comes into being] again. What has died [in <i>nāśa</i>] does not [ever rise again].</blockquote>
<a name="uu14"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu14">verse 14</a>:</b><br>
<blockquote>ஒடுக்க வளியை யொடுங்கு முளத்தை<br>
விடுக்கவே யோர்வழி யுந்தீபற<br>
வீயு மதனுரு வுந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>oḍukka vaḷiyai yoḍuṅgu muḷattai<br>
viḍukkavē yōrvaṙi yundīpaṟa<br>
vīyu madaṉuru vundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> ஒடுக்க வளியை ஒடுங்கும் உளத்தை விடுக்கவே ஓர் வழி, வீயும் அதன் உரு.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>oḍukka vaḷiyai oḍuṅgum uḷattai viḍukka-v-ē ōr vaṙi, vīyum adaṉ uru</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Only when one sends the mind, which will be restrained when one restrains the breath, on the investigating path will its form perish.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Only when one sends the mind, which will be restrained [become calm or dissolve] when one restrains the breath, on <i>ōr vaṙi</i> [the investigating path or one path, namely the path of self-investigation, which is the one and only means to eradicate ego and thereby annihilate the mind] will its form perish. [However, the mind cannot be sent on this path of self-investigation if it has dissolved in <i>laya</i>, so if one practices breath-restraint in order to restrain the mind, one should take care to send the mind on this path of self-investigation (which means to direct one’s attention back towards oneself) when it has become calm but before it dissolves in <i>laya</i>.]</blockquote>
<a name="us14"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 14:</b><br>
<blockquote>प्राण बन्धना ल्लीन मानसम् ।<br>
एक चिन्तना न्नाश मेत्यदः ॥ १४ ॥<br>
<br>
<i>prāṇa bandhanā llīna mānasam<br>
ēka cintanā nnāśa mētyadaḥ</i><br>
<br>
<b>पदच्छेद:</b> प्राण बन्धनात् लीन मानसम् एक चिन्तनात् नाशम् एति अदः.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēda</i></b> (word-separation): <i>prāṇa bandhanāt līna mānasam ēka-cintanāt nāśam ēti adaḥ.</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Settled down by restraining the breath, the mind will reach annihilation by thinking of the one.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> [Having] settled down by [or as a result of] restraining [binding or tying] <i>prāṇa</i> [the breath], the mind will reach [enter, achieve or attain] annihilation by [or as a result of] <i>ēka-cintana</i> [thinking of the one, namely <i>ātma-svarūpa</i>, the real nature of oneself, ‘I am’].</blockquote>
<a name="uu15"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu15">verse 15</a>:</b><br>
<blockquote>மனவுரு மாயமெய்ம் மன்னுமா யோகி<br>
தனக்கோர் செயலிலை யுந்தீபற<br>
தன்னியல் சார்ந்தன னுந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>maṉavuru māyameym maṉṉumā yōgi<br>
taṉakkōr seyalilai yundīpaṟa<br>
taṉṉiyal sārndaṉa ṉundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> மன உரு மாய மெய் மன்னும் மா யோகி தனக்கு ஓர் செயல் இலை. தன் இயல் சார்ந்தனன்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>maṉa uru māya mey maṉṉum mā yōgi taṉakku ōr seyal ilai. taṉ iyal sārndaṉaṉ</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> When the form of the mind is annihilated, for the great <i>yōgi</i> who remains permanently as the reality, there is not a single doing. He has attained his nature.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> When the form of the mind is annihilated, for the great <i>yōgi</i> who [thereby] remains permanently as the reality, there is not a single doing [action or <i>karma</i>], [because] he has attained his [real] nature [which is actionless being].</blockquote>
<a name="us15"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 15:</b><br>
<blockquote>नष्ट मानसो त्कृष्ट योगिनः ।<br>
कृत्य मस्तिकिं स्वस्थि तिंयतः ॥ १५ ॥<br>
<br>
<i>naṣṭa mānasō tkṛṣṭa yōginaḥ<br>
kṛtya mastikiṁ svasthi tiṁyataḥ</i><br>
<br>
<b>पदच्छेद:</b> नष्ट मानस उत्कृष्ट योगिनः कृत्यम् अस्ति किम्, स्वस्थितिम् यतः?<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēda</i></b> (word-separation): <i>naṣṭa mānasa utkṛṣṭa yōginaḥ kṛtyam asti kim, svasthitim yataḥ?</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> The mind annihilated, by the exalted <i>yōgi</i> what is there to be done, because of standing as self?<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> [After] the mind has been annihilated, by the exalted <i>yōgi</i> what is there to be done [or is there anything to be done], because [they are] standing as self [or because they have attained their own state]?</blockquote>
<b>Video discussion:</b> <a href="https://youtu.be/oKZRjnLbKDc"><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verses 11 to 15</a><br>
<br>
<div style="text-align:center"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/oKZRjnLbKDc" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></div><br>
<br>
<a name="uu16"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu16">verse 16</a>:</b><br>
<blockquote>வெளிவிட யங்களை விட்டு மனந்தன்<br>
னொளியுரு வோர்தலே யுந்தீபற<br>
வுண்மை யுணர்ச்சியா முந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>veḷiviḍa yaṅgaḷai viṭṭu maṉantaṉ<br>
ṉoḷiyuru vōrdalē yundīpaṟa<br>
vuṇmai yuṇarcciyā mundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> வெளி விடயங்களை விட்டு மனம் தன் ஒளி உரு ஓர்தலே உண்மை உணர்ச்சி ஆம்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>veḷi viḍayaṅgaḷai viṭṭu maṉam taṉ oḷi-uru ōrdalē uṇmai uṇarcci ām</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Leaving external phenomena, the mind knowing its own form of light is alone real awareness.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Leaving [or letting go of] [awareness of any] external <i>viṣayas</i> [namely phenomena of every kind, all of which are external in the sense that they are other than and hence extraneous to oneself], the mind knowing its own form of light [namely the light of pure awareness, which is its real nature and what illumines it, enabling it to be aware both of itself and of other things] is alone real awareness [true knowledge or knowledge of reality].</blockquote>
<a name="us16"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 16:</b><br>
<blockquote>दृश्य वारितं चित्त मात्मनः ।<br>
चित्त्व दर्शनं तत्त्व दर्शनम् ॥ १६ ॥<br>
<br>
<i>dṛśya vāritaṁ citta mātmanaḥ<br>
citva darśanaṁ tattva darśanam</i><br>
<br>
<b>पदच्छेद:</b> दृश्य वारितम्, चित्तम् आत्मनः चित्त्व दर्शनम् तत्त्व दर्शनम्.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēda</i></b> (word-separation): <i>dṛśya vāritam, cittam ātmanaḥ cittva darśanam tattva darśanam.</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Kept back from what is seen, the mind seeing its own knowingness is seeing what is real.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Kept back from <i>dṛśya</i> [what is seen, perceived or known as an object], the mind seeing its own <i>cittva</i> [its real nature as pure awareness or knowingness] is <i>tattva-darśana</i> [seeing <i>tattva</i>: ‘thatness’, what actually exists and is therefore real].</blockquote>
<b>Note:</b> The meaning of this verse is discussed in <a href="#us16a">To see what is real, the mind must see its own real nature, which is pure awareness</a>, <a href="#cittva">We cannot see our own <i>cittva</i> merely by keeping our mind back from all <i>dṛśya</i></a> and <a href="#being">The mind can see its own <i>cittva</i> only by being its own <i>cittva</i>, and it can be it only by being swallowed by it</a>.<br>
<br>
<a name="uu17"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu17">verse 17</a>:</b><br>
<blockquote>மனத்தி னுருவை மறவா துசாவ<br>
மனமென வொன்றிலை யுந்தீபற<br>
மார்க்கநே ரார்க்குமி துந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>maṉatti ṉuruvai maṟavā dusāva<br>
maṉameṉa voṉḏṟilai yundīpaṟa<br>
mārgganē rārkkumi dundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> மனத்தின் உருவை மறவாது உசாவ, மனம் என ஒன்று இலை. மார்க்கம் நேர் ஆர்க்கும் இது.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>maṉattiṉ uruvai maṟavādu usāva, maṉam eṉa oṉḏṟu ilai. mārggam nēr ārkkum idu</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> When one investigates the form of the mind without forgetting, there is not anything called ‘mind’. This is the direct path for everyone whomsoever.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> When one investigates [examines or scrutinises] the form of the mind without forgetting [neglecting, abandoning, giving up or ceasing], [it will be clear that] there is not anything called ‘mind’. This is the direct [straight or appropriate] path for everyone whomsoever.</blockquote>
<a name="us17"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 17:</b><br>
<blockquote>मान संतुकिं मार्ग णेकृते ।<br>
नैव मानसं मार्ग आर्जवात् ॥ १७ ॥<br>
<br>
<i>māna saṁtukiṁ mārga ṇēkṛtē<br>
naiva mānasaṁ mārga ārjavāt</i><br>
<br>
<b>पदच्छेद:</b> मानसम् तु किम् मार्गणे कृते न एव मानसम्. मार्गः आर्जवात्.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēda</i></b> (word-separation): <i>mānasam tu kim mārgaṇē kṛtē na ēva mānasam. mārgaḥ ārjavāt.</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> When investigation is done what the mind actually is, there is no mind at all. The path because of straightness.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> When one investigates what the mind actually is, [it will be clear that] there is no mind at all. [This is] the path because of [its] straightness [or directness].</blockquote>
<b>Video discussion:</b> <a href="https://youtu.be/DN7vMDx4ib0"><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verses 16 and 17</a><br>
<br>
<div style="text-align:center"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DN7vMDx4ib0" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></div><br>
<br>
<a name="uu18"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu18">verse 18</a>:</b><br>
<blockquote>எண்ணங்க ளேமனம் யாவினு நானெனு<br>
மெண்ணமே மூலமா முந்தீபற<br>
யானா மனமென லுந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>eṇṇaṅga ḷēmaṉam yāviṉu nāṉeṉu<br>
meṇṇamē mūlamā mundīpaṟa<br>
yāṉā maṉameṉa lundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> எண்ணங்களே மனம். யாவினும் நான் எனும் எண்ணமே மூலம் ஆம். யான் ஆம் மனம் எனல்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>eṇṇaṅgaḷ-ē maṉam. yāviṉ-um nāṉ eṉum eṇṇam-ē mūlam ām. yāṉ ām maṉam eṉal</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Thoughts alone are mind. Of all, the thought called ‘I’ alone is the root. What is called mind is ‘I’. <br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Thoughts alone are mind [or the mind is only thoughts]. Of all [thoughts], the thought called ‘I’ alone is the <i>mūla</i> [the root, base, foundation, origin, source or cause]. [Therefore] what is called mind is [essentially just] ‘I’ [namely ego, the root thought called ‘I’].</blockquote>
<a name="us18"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 18:</b><br>
<blockquote>वृत्त यस्त्वहं वृत्ति माश्रिताः ।<br>
वृत्त योमनो विद्ध्य हंमनः ॥ १८ ॥<br>
<br>
<i>vṛtta yastvahaṁ vṛtti māśritāḥ<br>
vṛtta yōmanō viddhya haṁmanaḥ</i><br>
<br>
<b>पदच्छेद:</b> वृत्तयः तु अहंवृत्तिम् आश्रिताः. वृत्तयः मनः. विद्धि अहम् मनः.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēda</i></b> (word-separation): <i>vṛttayaḥ tu ahaṁ-vṛttim āśritāḥ. vṛttayaḥ manaḥ. viddhi aham manaḥ.</i><br>
<br>
<b>अन्वय:</b> वृत्तयः मनः. वृत्तयः तु अहं वृत्तिम् आश्रिताः. विद्धि अहम् मनः.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Anvaya</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>vṛttayaḥ manaḥ. vṛttayaḥ tu ahaṁ-vṛttim āśritāḥ. viddhi aham manaḥ</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Thoughts are mind. But thoughts depend on the I-thought. Know that ‘I’ is the mind.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> <i>Vṛttis</i> [thoughts] are mind. But <i>vṛttis</i> depend on the <i>ahaṁ-vṛtti</i> [the thought ‘I’]. Know that <i>aham </i>[‘I’, namely ego, the thought ‘I’] is the mind.</blockquote>
<a name="uu19"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu19">verse 19</a>:</b><br>
<blockquote>நானென் றெழுமிட மேதென நாடவுண்<br>
ணான்றலை சாய்ந்திடு முந்தீபற<br>
ஞான விசாரமி துந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>nāṉeṉ ḏṟeṙumiḍa mēdeṉa nāḍavuṇ<br>
ṇāṉḏṟalai sāyndiḍu mundīpaṟa<br>
ñāṉa vicārami dundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> நான் என்று எழும் இடம் ஏது என நாட உள், நான் தலைசாய்ந்திடும். ஞான விசாரம் இது.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>nāṉ eṉḏṟu eṙum iḍam ēdu eṉa nāḍa uḷ, nāṉ talai-sāyndiḍum. ñāṉa-vicāram idu</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> When one investigates within what the place is from which one rises as ‘I’, ‘I’ will die. This is awareness-investigation.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> When one investigates within [or inwardly investigates] what the place is from which one [or it] rises as ‘I’ [ego or mind], ‘I’ will die. This is <i>jñāna-vicāra</i> [investigation of awareness].</blockquote>
<a name="us19"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 19:</b><br>
<blockquote>अहम यंकुतो भवति चिन्वतः ।<br>
अयिप तत्यहं निजवि चारणम् ॥ १९ ॥<br>
<br>
<i>ahama yaṁkutō bhavati cinvataḥ<br>
ayipa tatyahaṁ nijavi cāraṇam</i><br>
<br>
<b>पदच्छेद:</b> अहम् अयम् कुतः भवति चिन्वतः, अयि, पतति अहम्. निज विचारणम्.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēda</i></b> (word-separation): <i>aham ayam kutaḥ bhavati cinvataḥ, ayi, patati aham. nija vicāraṇam.</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> By investigating from where this ‘I’ arises, ah, ‘I’ falls down. Self-investigation.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> By investigating from where this ‘I’ [namely ego, the thought ‘I’] arises, ah, ‘I’ falls down [in <i>nāśa</i>, never to rise again]. [This is] <i>nija vicāraṇam</i> [investigation of <i>nija</i>: what is innate, natural, constant, permanent or one’s own, namely <i>ātma-svarūpa</i>, one’s own real nature].</blockquote>
<a name="uu20"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu20">verse 20</a>:</b><br>
<blockquote>நானொன்று தானத்து நானானென் றொன்றது<br>
தானாகத் தோன்றுமே யுந்தீபற<br>
தானது பூன்றமா முந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>nāṉoṉḏṟu thāṉattu nāṉāṉeṉ ḏṟoṉḏṟadu<br>
tāṉāhat tōṉḏṟumē yundīpaṟa<br>
tāṉadu pūṉḏṟamā mundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> ‘நான்’ ஒன்று தானத்து ‘நான் நான்’ என்று ஒன்று அது தானாக தோன்றுமே. தான் அது பூன்றம் ஆம்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>‘nāṉ’ oṉḏṟu thāṉattu ‘nāṉ nāṉ’ eṉḏṟu oṉḏṟu adu tāṉāha tōṉḏṟumē. tāṉ adu pūṉḏṟam ām</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> In the place where ‘I’ merges, that, the one, appears spontaneously as ‘I am I’. That itself is the whole.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> In the place where ‘I’ [namely ego, the false awareness ‘I am this’] merges, that, the one, appears spontaneously [or as oneself] as ‘I am I’ [that is, as awareness of oneself as oneself alone]. That itself [or that, oneself] is <i>pūṉḏṟam</i> [<i>pūrṇa</i>: the infinite whole or entirety of what is].</blockquote>
<a name="us20"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 20:</b><br>
<blockquote>अहमि नाशभा ज्यहम हंतया ।<br>
स्फुरति हृत्स्वयं परम पूर्णसत् ॥ २० ॥<br>
<br>
<i>ahami nāśabhā jyahama haṁtayā<br>
sphurati hṛtsvayaṁ parama pūrṇasat</i><br>
<br>
<b>पदच्छेद:</b> अहमि नाशभाजि अहम् अहंतया स्फुरति हृत् स्वयम्. परम पूर्ण सत्.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēda</i></b> (word-separation): <i>ahami nāśa-bhāji aham ahaṁtayā sphurati hṛt svayam. parama pūrṇa sat.</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> On ‘I’ undergoing annihilation, the heart shines forth spontaneously as ‘I am I’. The supreme whole reality.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> When ‘I’ [ego] is annihilated, the heart [the real nature of oneself] shines forth spontaneously as ‘<i>aham aham</i>’ [‘I am I’]. [This is] <i>parama pūrṇa sat</i> [the supreme whole existence, being or reality].</blockquote>
<a name="uu21"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu21">verse 21</a>:</b><br>
<blockquote>நானெனுஞ் சொற்பொரு ளாமது நாளுமே<br>
நானற்ற தூக்கத்து முந்தீபற<br>
நமதின்மை நீக்கத்தா லுந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>nāṉeṉuñ coṯporu ḷāmadu nāḷumē<br>
nāṉaṯṟa tūkkattu mundīpaṟa<br>
namadiṉmai nīkkattā lundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> நான் எனும் சொல் பொருள் ஆம் அது நாளுமே, நான் அற்ற தூக்கத்தும் நமது இன்மை நீக்கத்தால்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>nāṉ eṉum sol poruḷ ām adu nāḷumē, nāṉ aṯṟa tūkkattum namadu iṉmai nīkkattāl</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> That is at all times the substance of the word called ‘I’, because of the exclusion of our non-existence even in sleep, which is devoid of ‘I’.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> That [the one that appears as ‘I am I’, namely pure awareness, which is our real nature] is at all times the substance [or true import] of the word called ‘I’, because of the exclusion of our non-existence [that is, because we do not become non-existent] even in sleep, which is devoid of ‘I’ [namely ego].</blockquote>
<a name="us21"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 21:</b><br>
<blockquote>इदम हंपदाऽ भिख्य मन्वहम् ।<br>
अहमि लीनकेऽ प्यलय सत्तया ॥ २१ ॥<br>
<br>
<i>idama haṁpadā’ bhikhya manvaham<br>
ahami līnakē’ pyalaya sattayā</i><br>
<br>
<b>पदच्छेद:</b> इदम् अहम् पद अभिख्यम् अन्वहम् अहमि लीनके अपि अलय सत्तया.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēda</i></b> (word-separation): <i>idam aham pada abhikhyam anvaham ahami līnakē api alaya sattayā.</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> This is what the word ‘I’ always refers to, being undissolvable existence even when ‘I’ is dissolved.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> This [the heart, our real nature, which shines forth spontaneously as ‘I am I’ when ego is annihilated] is what the word ‘I’ always refers to, [because we remain] as undissolvable existence even [in sleep] when ‘I’ [ego] is dissolved.</blockquote>
<a name="uu22"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu22">verse 22</a>:</b><br>
<blockquote>உடல்பொறி யுள்ள முயிரிரு ளெல்லாஞ்<br>
சடமசத் தானதா லுந்தீபற<br>
சத்தான நானல்ல வுந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>uḍalpoṟi yuḷḷa muyiriru ḷellāñ<br>
jaḍamasat tāṉadā lundīpaṟa<br>
sattāṉa nāṉalla vundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> உடல் பொறி உள்ளம் உயிர் இருள் எல்லாம் சடம் அசத்து ஆனதால், சத்து ஆன நான் அல்ல.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>uḍal poṟi uḷḷam uyir iruḷ ellām jaḍam asattu āṉadāl, sattu āṉa nāṉ alla</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Since body, mind, intellect, life and darkness are all <i>jaḍa</i> and <i>asat</i>, they are not ‘I’, which is <i>sat</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Since [the five sheaths, namely] body [<i>annamaya kōśa</i>], life [<i>prāṇamaya kōśa</i>], mind [<i>manōmaya kōśa</i>], intellect [<i>vijñānamaya kōśa</i>] and darkness [<i>ānandamaya kōśa</i>, namely the <i>cittam</i> or will, which is internal darkness in the form of the dense fog of <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, inclinations or desires to seek happiness in things other than oneself] are all <i>jaḍa</i> [non-aware] and <i>asat</i> [unreal or non-existent], they are not ‘I’, which is [<i>cit</i>, what is aware, and] <i>sat</i> [what actually exists].</blockquote>
<a name="us22"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 22:</b><br>
<blockquote>विग्र हेन्द्रिय प्राण धीतमः ।<br>
नाह मेकस त्तज्ज डंह्यसत् ॥ २२ ॥<br>
<br>
<i>vigra hēndriya prāṇa dhītamaḥ<br>
nāha mēkasa ttajja ḍaṁhyasat</i><br>
<br>
<b>पदच्छेद:</b> विग्रह इन्द्रिय प्राण धी तमः न अहम् एक सत् तत् जडम् हि असत्.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēda</i></b> (word-separation): <i>vigraha indriya prāṇa dhī tamaḥ na aham ēka sat tat jaḍam hi asat.</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Body, mind, life, intellect and darkness are not I, the one existence, because that is non-aware and non-existent.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> [The five sheaths, namely] the physical body [<i>annamaya kōśa</i>], life [<i>prāṇamaya kōśa</i>], mind [<i>manōmaya kōśa</i>], intellect [<i>vijñānamaya kōśa</i>] and darkness [<i>ānandamaya kōśa</i>, namely the <i>cittam</i> or will, which is internal darkness in the form of the dense fog of <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, inclinations or desires to seek happiness in things other than oneself] are not I, the one <i>sat</i> [what actually exists] [and <i>cit</i>, what is actually aware], because that [the body consisting of these five sheaths] is <i>jaḍa</i> [non-aware or insentient] and <i>asat</i> [non-existent or unreal].</blockquote>
<b>Note:</b> The meaning of this verse is discussed in <a href="#us22a">Since the five sheaths are all <i>jaḍa</i> and <i>asat</i>, they are not ‘I’, which is <i>sat</i></a> and <a href="#darkness">The <i>ānandamaya kōśa</i> is not the darkness of ignorance but the darkness of desire</a>.<br>
<br>
<a name="uu23"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu23">verse 23</a>:</b><br>
<blockquote>உள்ள துணர வுணர்வுவே றின்மையி<br>
னுள்ள துணர்வாகு முந்தீபற<br>
வுணர்வேநா மாயுள முந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>uḷḷa duṇara vuṇarvuvē ṟiṉmaiyi <br>
ṉuḷḷa duṇarvāhu mundīpaṟa<br>
vuṇarvēnā māyuḷa mundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> உள்ளது உணர உணர்வு வேறு இன்மையின், உள்ளது உணர்வு ஆகும். உணர்வே நாமாய் உளம்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>uḷḷadu uṇara uṇarvu vēṟu iṉmaiyiṉ, uḷḷadu uṇarvu āhum. uṇarvē nām-āy uḷam</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Because of the non-existence of other awareness to be aware of what exists, what exists is awareness. Awareness alone exists as we.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Because of the non-existence of [any] awareness other [than what exists] to be aware of what exists, what exists (<i>uḷḷadu</i>) is awareness (<i>uṇarvu</i>). Awareness alone exists as we [that is, the awareness that actually exists, namely pure awareness, which is awareness that is aware of nothing other than itself, is what we actually are].</blockquote>
<a name="us23"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 23:</b><br>
<blockquote>सत्त्व भासिका चित्क्व वेतरा ।<br>
सत्त याहिचि च्चित्त याह्यहम् ॥ २३ ॥<br>
<br>
<i>sattva bhāsikā citkva vētarā<br>
satta yāhici ccitta yāhyaham</i><br>
<br>
<b>पदच्छेद:</b> सत्त्व भासिका चित् क्व वा इतरा? सत्तया हि चित्. चित्तया हि अहम्.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēda</i></b> (word-separation): <i>sattva bhāsikā cit kva vā itarā? sattayā hi cit. cittayā hi aham.</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Where indeed is another awareness to illumine existence? As existence is certainly awareness. As awareness is certainly ‘I’.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Where indeed is [any] <i>cit</i> [awareness] other [than <i>sat</i>] to illumine <i>sat</i> [existence, beingness or what actually exists]? [What shines] as <i>sat</i> [existence] is certainly <i>cit</i> [awareness]. [What exists] as awareness is certainly ‘I’.</blockquote>
<a name="uu24"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu24">verse 24</a>:</b><br>
<blockquote>இருக்கு மியற்கையா லீசசீ வர்க<br>
ளொருபொரு ளேயாவ ருந்தீபற<br>
வுபாதி யுணர்வேவே றுந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>irukku miyaṟkaiyā līśajī varga<br>
ḷoruporu ḷēyāva rundīpaṟa<br>
vupādhi yuṇarvēvē ṟundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> இருக்கும் இயற்கையால் ஈச சீவர்கள் ஒரு பொருளே ஆவர். உபாதி உணர்வே வேறு.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>irukkum iyaṟkaiyāl īśa-jīvargaḷ oru poruḷē āvar. upādhi-uṇarvē vēṟu</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> By existing nature, God and soul are just one substance. Only adjunct-awareness is different.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> By [their] existing nature [that is, because the real nature of each of them is what actually exists (<i>uḷḷadu</i>), which is the pure and infinite awareness (<i>uṇarvu</i>) that shines eternally as ‘I am’, devoid of all adjuncts], <i>īśa</i> [God] and <i>jīva</i> [soul] are just one <i>poruḷ</i> [substance or <i>vastu</i>]. Only <i>upādhi-uṇarvu</i> [adjunct-awareness, namely ego or <i>jīva</i>, the adjunct-conflated awareness ‘I am this body’, which is what attributes adjuncts not only to itself but also to God] is [what makes them seem] different. [However, though the soul (<i>jīva</i>) is aware of itself as a certain set of adjuncts, namely the five sheaths that constitute whatever person it currently seems to be, and consequently attributes certain other adjuncts to God, God always remains just as pure awareness, in the clear view of which no adjuncts exist at all, so the differences between God and soul seem to exist only in the view of the soul and not in the view of God.]</blockquote>
<a name="us24"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 24:</b><br>
<blockquote>ईश जीवयो र्वेष धीभिदा ।<br>
सत्स्व भावतो वस्तु केवलम् ॥ २४ ॥<br>
<br>
<i>īśa jīvayō rvēṣa dhībhidā<br>
satsva bhāvatō vastu kēvalam</i><br>
<br>
<b>पदच्छेद:</b> ईश जीवयोः वेष धी भिदा सत् स्वभावतः वस्तु केवलम्.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēda</i></b> (word-separation): <i>īśa-jīvayōḥ vēṣa-dhī bhidā. sat-svabhāvataḥ vastu kēvalam.</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Between God and soul the difference is costume-thought. By existence-nature, substance is only one.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Between God and soul the difference [separation or distinction] is [only] <i>vēṣa-dhī</i> [costume-thought, the thought or awareness of their respective costumes, disguises or assumed appearances, namely their <i>upādhis</i> or adjuncts]. By [or because of] <i>sat-svabhāva</i> [their real nature, which is just existence or being], <i>vastu</i> [their substance] is only one.</blockquote>
<a name="uu25"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu25">verse 25</a>:</b><br>
<blockquote>தன்னை யுபாதிவிட் டோர்வது தானீசன்<br>
றன்னை யுணர்வதா முந்தீபற<br>
தானா யொளிர்வதா லுந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>taṉṉai yupādhiviṭ ṭōrvadu tāṉīśaṉ<br>
ḏṟaṉṉai yuṇarvadā mundīpaṟa<br>
tāṉā yoḷirvadā lundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> தன்னை உபாதி விட்டு ஓர்வது தான் ஈசன் தன்னை உணர்வது ஆம், தானாய் ஒளிர்வதால்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>taṉṉai upādhi viṭṭu ōrvadu tāṉ īśaṉ taṉṉai uṇarvadu ām, tāṉ-āy oḷirvadāl</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Knowing oneself leaving aside adjuncts is itself knowing God, because of shining as oneself.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Knowing [or being aware of] oneself without adjuncts is itself knowing God, because [God is what is always] shining as oneself [one’s own real nature, namely pure awareness, which is oneself without any adjuncts].</blockquote>
<a name="us25"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 25:</b><br>
<blockquote>वेष हानतः स्वात्म दर्शनम् ।<br>
ईश दर्शनं स्वात्म रूपतः ॥ २५ ॥<br>
<br>
<i>vēṣa hānataḥ svātma darśanam<br>
īśa darśanaṁ svātma rūpataḥ</i><br>
<br>
<b>पदच्छेद:</b> वेष हानतः स्वात्म दर्शनम् ईश दर्शनम्. स्वात्म रूपतः.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēda</i></b> (word-separation): <i>vēṣa hānataḥ svātma-darśanam īśa-darśanam. svātma rūpataḥ.</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> By giving up costume, seeing one’s own self is seeing God, because of the form of one’s own self.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> By giving up [one’s own] costume [disguise or assumed appearance, namely one’s <i>upādhis</i> or adjuncts], <i>svātma-darśanam</i> [seeing one’s own self] is <i>īśa-darśanam</i> [seeing God], because of [God being] the form [or real nature] of one’s own self.</blockquote>
<a name="uu26"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu26">verse 26</a>:</b><br>
<blockquote>தானா யிருத்தலே தன்னை யறிதலாந்<br>
தானிரண் டற்றதா லுந்தீபற<br>
தன்மய நிட்டையீ துந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>tāṉā yiruttalē taṉṉai yaṟidalān<br>
tāṉiraṇ ḍaṯṟadā lundīpaṟa<br>
taṉmaya niṭṭhaiyī dundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> தான் ஆய் இருத்தலே தன்னை அறிதல் ஆம், தான் இரண்டு அற்றதால். தன்மய நிட்டை ஈது.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>tāṉ-āy iruttal-ē taṉṉai aṟidal ām, tāṉ iraṇḍu aṯṟadāl. taṉmaya niṭṭhai īdu</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Being oneself alone is knowing oneself, because oneself is devoid of two. This is <i>tanmaya-niṣṭhā</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Being oneself [that is, being as one actually is without rising to know anything else] alone is knowing oneself, because oneself [one’s real nature] is devoid of two [that is, devoid of the fundamental duality of subject and object, knower and thing known, and also devoid of any possibility of being divided as two selves, one self as a subject to know the other self as an object]. This is <i>tanmaya-niṣṭhā</i> [‘steadfastness as that’: the state of being firmly fixed or established as ‘that’ (<i>tat</i>), the one infinite reality called <i>brahman</i>].</blockquote>
<a name="us26"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 26:</b><br>
<blockquote>आत्म संस्थितिः स्वात्म दर्शनम् ।<br>
आत्म निर्द्वया दात्म निष्ठता ॥ २६ ॥<br>
<br>
<i>ātma saṁsthitiḥ svātma darśanam<br>
ātma nirdvayā dātma niṣṭhatā</i><br>
<br>
<b>पदच्छेद:</b> आत्म संस्थितिः स्वात्म दर्शनम् आत्म निर्द्वयात्. आत्म निष्ठता.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēda</i></b> (word-separation): <i>ātma-saṁsthitiḥ svātma-darśanam ātma nirdvayāt. ātma-niṣṭhatā.</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Being oneself is seeing one’s own self, because of oneself not being two. Self-abidance.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Being [or standing firmly as] oneself is <i>svātma-darśanam</i> [seeing one’s own self], because of oneself not being two [that is, since we are not two, we cannot see ourself as an object, so we can see what we actually are only by being what we actually are, namely pure awareness, <i>sat-cit</i>]. [This is] <i>ātma-niṣṭhatā</i> [being firmly and steadily fixed, standing or abiding as oneself].</blockquote>
<a name="uu27"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu27">verse 27</a>:</b><br>
<blockquote>அறிவறி யாமையு மற்ற வறிவே<br>
யறிவாகு முண்மையீ துந்தீபற<br>
வறிவதற் கொன்றிலை யுந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>aṟivaṟi yāmaiyu maṯṟa vaṟivē<br>
yaṟivāhu muṇmaiyī dundīpaṟa<br>
vaṟivadaṟ koṉḏṟilai yundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> அறிவு அறியாமையும் அற்ற அறிவே அறிவு ஆகும். உண்மை ஈது. அறிவதற்கு ஒன்று இலை.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>aṟivu aṟiyāmai-y-um aṯṟa aṟivē aṟivu āhum. uṇmai īdu. aṟivadaṟku oṉḏṟu ilai</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Only knowledge that is devoid of knowledge and ignorance is knowledge. This is real. There is not anything for knowing.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Only knowledge [in the sense of awareness] that is devoid of knowledge and ignorance [of anything other than oneself] is [real] knowledge [or awareness]. This [alone] is [what is] real [or true], [because in the clear view of oneself as pure awareness] there is not anything [other than oneself for one either] to know [or to not know].</blockquote>
<a name="us27"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 27:</b><br>
<blockquote>ज्ञान वर्जिताऽ ज्ञान हीनचित् ।<br>
ज्ञान मस्तिकिं ज्ञातु मन्तरम् ॥ २७ ॥<br>
<br>
<i>jñāna varjitā’ jñāna hīnacit<br>
jñāna mastikiṁ jñātu mantaram</i><br>
<br>
<b>पदच्छेद:</b> ज्ञान वर्जिता अज्ञान हीन चित् ज्ञानम्. अस्ति किम् ज्ञातुम् अन्तरम्?<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēda</i></b> (word-separation): <i>jñāna varjitā ajñāna hīna cit jñānam. asti kim jñātum antaram?</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Awareness devoid of knowledge and bereft of ignorance is knowledge. Is there another to know?<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> <i>Cit</i> [awareness] devoid of <i>jñāna</i> [knowledge or awareness (in the sense of knowledge or awareness of other things)] and bereft of <i>ajñāna</i> [ignorance (in the sense of ignorance of other things)] is <i>jñāna</i> [knowledge or awareness (in the sense of true knowledge or real awareness)]. Is there another [anything other than awareness] to know [or what else is there to know]?</blockquote>
<a name="uu28"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu28">verse 28</a>:</b><br>
<blockquote>தனாதியல் யாதெனத் தான்றெரி கிற்பின்<br>
னனாதி யனந்தசத் துந்தீபற<br>
வகண்ட சிதானந்த முந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>taṉādiyal yādeṉat tāṉḏṟeri hiṟpiṉ<br>
ṉaṉādi yaṉantasat tundīpaṟa<br>
vakhaṇḍa cidāṉanda mundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> தனாது இயல் யாது என தான் தெரிகில், பின் அனாதி அனந்த சத்து அகண்ட சித் ஆனந்தம்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>taṉādu iyal yādu eṉa tāṉ terihil, piṉ aṉādi aṉanta sattu akhaṇḍa cit āṉandam</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> If one knows what the nature of oneself is, then beginningless, endless and unbroken existence-awareness-happiness.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> If one knows what the [real] nature of oneself is, then [what will remain existing and shining is only the real nature of oneself (<i>ātma-svarūpa</i>), which is] <i>anādi</i> [beginningless], <i>ananta</i> [endless, limitless or infinite] and <i>akhaṇḍa</i> [unbroken, undivided or unfragmented] <i>sat-cit-ānanda</i> [existence-awareness-happiness].</blockquote>
<a name="us28"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 28:</b><br>
<blockquote>किंस्व रूपमि त्यात्म दर्शने ।<br>
अव्य याऽभवाऽऽ पूर्ण चित्सुखम् ॥ २८ ॥<br>
<br>
<i>kiṁsva rūpami tyātma darśanē<br>
avya yā’bhavā” pūrṇa citsukham</i><br>
<br>
<b>पदच्छेद:</b> किम् स्वरूपम् इति आत्म दर्शने अव्यय अभव आपूर्ण चित् सुखम्.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēda</i></b> (word-separation): <i>kim svarūpam iti ātma-darśanē avyaya abhava āpūrṇa cit-sukham.</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> On seeing oneself, what one’s own real nature is, imperishable unborn full awareness-happiness.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> When one sees oneself [by investigating] what <i>svarūpa</i> [one’s own real nature] is, [what will exist and shine is only] <i>avyaya</i> [immutable and imperishable], <i>abhava</i> [unborn], <i>āpūrṇa</i> [full, whole or complete, implying what is infinite] <i>cit-sukham</i> [awareness-happiness].</blockquote>
<a name="uu29"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu29">verse 29</a>:</b><br>
<blockquote>பந்தவீ டற்ற பரசுக முற்றவா<br>
றிந்த நிலைநிற்ற லுந்தீபற<br>
விறைபணி நிற்றலா முந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>bandhavī ḍaṯṟa parasukha muṯṟavā<br>
ṟinda nilainiṯṟa lundīpaṟa<br>
viṟaipaṇi niṯṟalā mundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> பந்த வீடு அற்ற பரசுகம் உற்றவாறு இந்த நிலை நிற்றல் இறை பணி நிற்றல் ஆம்.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>bandha vīḍu aṯṟa para-sukham uṯṟa-v-āṟu inda nilai niṯṟal iṟai-paṇi niṯṟal ām</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> Standing in this state, thereby experiencing supreme bliss, which is devoid of bondage and liberation, is standing in the service of God.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> Standing [remaining, abiding or steadfastly being] in this state [of beginningless, infinite and indivisible <i>sat-cit-ānanda</i>], thereby experiencing supreme bliss, which is devoid of [the dyad or duality of] bondage and liberation, is standing in the service of God [or is standing as God directed].</blockquote>
<a name="us29"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 29:</b><br>
<blockquote>बन्ध मुक्त्यती तंप रंसुखम् ।<br>
विन्द तीहजी वस्तु दैविकः ॥ २९ ॥<br>
<br>
<i>bandha muktyatī taṁpa raṁsukham<br>
vinda tīhajī vastu daivikaḥ</i><br>
<br>
<b>पदच्छेद:</b> बन्ध मुक्ति अतीतम् परम् सुखम् विन्दति इह जीवः तु दैविकः.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēda</i></b> (word-separation): <i>bandha mukti atītam param sukham vindati iha jīvaḥ tu daivikaḥ.</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> The divine soul certainly experiences here supreme happiness, which transcends bondage and liberation.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> The divine soul [the soul that has seen itself without adjuncts, thereby remaining as its real nature, which is the real nature of God] certainly experiences here [and now] supreme [or ultimate] happiness, which transcends [or is beyond] bondage and liberation.</blockquote>
<a name="uu30"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu30">verse 30</a>:</b><br>
<blockquote>யானற் றியல்வது தேரி னெதுவது<br>
தானற் றவமென்றா னுந்தீபற<br>
தானாம் ரமணேச னுந்தீபற.<br>
<br>
<i>yāṉaṯ ṟiyalvadu tēri ṉeduvadu<br>
dāṉaṯ ṟavameṉḏṟā ṉundīpaṟa<br>
tāṉām ramaṇēśa ṉundīpaṟa</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> ‘யான் அற்று இயல்வது தேரின் எது, அது தான் நல் தவம்’ என்றான் தான் ஆம் ரமணேசன்<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>‘yāṉ aṯṟu iyalvadu tēriṉ edu, adu-dāṉ nal tavam’ eṉḏṟāṉ tāṉ ām ramaṇēśaṉ</i>.<br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> ‘I ceasing, what if one knows what remains, that alone is good <i>tapas</i>’: thus said Lord Ramana, who is oneself.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> ‘What [exists and shines alone] if one knows what remains after I [ego] has ceased to exist, [just being] that [namely egoless pure awareness] alone is good <i>tapas</i> [spiritual austerity or asceticism]’: thus said Lord Ramana, who is oneself [one’s own real nature].</blockquote>
<a name="us30"></a><b><i>Upadēśa Sāraḥ</i> verse 30:</b><br>
<blockquote>अहम पेतकं निजवि भानकम् ।<br>
महदि दंतपो रमण वागियम् ॥ ३० ॥<br>
<br>
<i>ahama pētakaṁ nijavi bhānakam<br>
mahadi daṁtapō ramaṇa vāgiyam</i><br>
<br>
<b>पदच्छेद:</b> अहम् अपेतकम् निज विभानकम् महत् इदम् तपः. रमण वाक् इयम्.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Padacchēda</i></b> (word-separation): <i>aham apētakam nija vibhānakam mahat idam tapaḥ. ramaṇa vāk iyam.</i><br>
<br>
<b>English translation:</b> One’s own shining devoid of ‘I’, this is great <i>tapas</i>. This is Ramana’s saying.<br>
<br>
<b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> One’s own shining [or shining as one’s own real nature] devoid of ‘I’ [ego], this is great <i>tapas</i>. This is [Bhagavan] Ramana’s saying.</blockquote>Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.com0