Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 12: other than the real awareness that we actually are, there is nothing to know or make known
In section 16 of one of my recent articles, What is aware of everything other than ourself is only the ego and not ourself as we actually are, I quoted and discussed verse 12 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, after reading which a friend who has translated many of my articles into Italian and posted them on his blog , La Caverna del Cuore, wrote asking me to explain the exact meaning and implication of a word in the third sentence that I had translated as ‘for causing to know’. Since this is a very significant word that has a deep and broad meaning in this context, I will explain its significance in this article.
In verse 12 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu Bhagavan says:
அறிவு (aṟivu) and அறியாமை (aṟiyāmai) are both derived from the verb அறி (aṟi), which means to know, be aware, perceive, cognise or experience, so அறிவு (aṟivu) means knowledge or awareness, and அறியாமை (aṟiyāmai) means ignorance or non-awareness. The knowledge and ignorance that Bhagavan refers to in the first sentence of this verse when he says ‘அறிவு அறியாமையும் அற்றது’ (aṟivu aṟiyāmai-y-um aṯṟadu), ‘what is devoid of knowledge and ignorance’, is knowledge and ignorance or awareness and non-awareness of anything other than ourself, because we can never not know or not be aware of ourself, since self-awareness is our real nature, and hence there is no awareness that is devoid of self-awareness. However, as he implies in this first sentence, ‘அறிவு அறியாமையும் அற்றது அறிவு ஆமே’ (aṟivu aṟiyāmaiyum aṯṟadu aṟivu āmē), ‘What is devoid of knowledge and ignorance is actually awareness’, our real awareness (the real awareness that we actually are) is devoid of both awareness and non-awareness of other things, because in its clear view there are no other things that it could either be aware of or not aware of (as he points out in the third sentence).
Therefore, since the knowledge and ignorance of which true knowledge or real awareness is devoid are knowledge and ignorance of things other than ourself, what Bhagavan implies in this first sentence is that true knowledge or real awareness is pure intransitive awareness — that is, intransitive awareness that is completely devoid of even the least trace of any சுட்டறிவு (suṭṭaṟivu) or transitive awareness (awareness of anything other than oneself).
Lest we should have any lingering doubt about whether he perhaps meant that real awareness is only partially, temporarily or just in a certain sense devoid of both awareness and non-awareness of other things, in the kaliveṇbā version of this verse he extended this first sentence by adding at the beginning of it the intensified adverb அறவே (aṟavē), which means completely, utterly or entirely, and which qualifies அற்றது (aṯṟadu), ‘what is devoid of’ or ‘that which is devoid of’. Thus the extended form of this sentence is ‘அறவே அறிவு அறியாமையும் அற்றது அறிவு ஆமே’ (aṟavē aṟivu aṟiyāmaiyum aṯṟadu aṟivu āmē), which means ‘What is completely devoid of knowledge and ignorance is actually knowledge [or awareness]’, and which therefore implies that real awareness or knowledge is completely devoid of any knowledge or ignorance (awareness or non-awareness) of anything other than itself, because nothing other than itself actually exists for it to be either aware of or not aware of.
3. Upadēśa Undiyār verse 27: what is real is only awareness devoid of knowledge and ignorance, because nothing at all exists for it to know
What Bhagavan says succinctly in this first sentence was earlier explained by him in verse 27 of Upadēśa Undiyār:
In the second sentence of this verse he says simply, ‘உண்மை ஈது’ (uṇmai īdu), which means ‘this is real’ or ‘this is truth’, and which implies that pure intransitive awareness (awareness that is devoid of both awareness and non-awareness of anything else) is alone what is real. The reason for this is explained by him in the final sentence, ‘அறிவதற்கு ஒன்று இலை’ (aṟivadaṟku oṉḏṟu ilai), which literally means ‘there is not anything for knowing’, and which therefore implies that nothing else exists for real awareness to know, which is a point on which he elaborates in the third sentence of verse 12 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, as we shall see in the fifth section below.
4. The second sentence: what knows anything other than itself is not real awareness
In the second sentence of verse 12 Bhagavan says, ‘அறியும் அது உண்மை அறிவு ஆகாது’ (aṟiyum adu uṇmai aṟivu āhādu), which means ‘That which knows is not real knowledge [or awareness]’, but what exactly does he mean by this? Why does he say that what knows is not real awareness? Because the knowing he refers to here is knowing as an action rather than knowing as our natural state of just being, and whereas in our natural state of just being we know nothing other than ourself, as illustrated by our experience in sleep, knowing as an act of knowing entails the existence or seeming existence of something other than ourself for us to know. Therefore if anything other than ourself existed for us to know, the act of knowing it would be real knowing, and that which knows it would be real awareness, but as he says in the next sentence this verse and in the final sentence of verse 27 of Upadēśa Undiyār, no other thing actually exists for us to know, so whatever knows anything other than itself is not real awareness but is just a self-deluded semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa).
That is, since he says in the next sentence that for the real awareness that we actually are no other exists to know, the unreal awareness that he refers to here as ‘அறியும் அது’ (aṟiyum adu), which means ‘that which knows’ or ‘that which is aware’, must be whatever is aware of the illusory appearance of any other thing. The term அன்னியம் (aṉṉiyam), which he uses in the next sentence when he says that no other exists to know or make known, is a Tamil form of the Sanskrit term अन्य (anya), which means what is other or different, and in a context such as this it means anything other than oneself. Therefore, since nothing exists other than the real awareness that we actually are, there is nothing for us as that awareness to know or make known, so what he implies when he says in this sentence ‘அறியும் அது உண்மை அறிவு ஆகாது’ (aṟiyum adu uṇmai aṟivu āhādu), ‘That which knows is not real knowledge [or awareness]’, is that whatever knows anything other than itself is not true knowledge or real awareness. In other words, real awareness is only pure self-awareness (intransitive awareness) and not awareness of anything else (transitive awareness).
Therefore what the term ‘அறியும் அது’ (aṟiyum adu), ‘that which is aware’ or ‘that which knows’, implies in this context is ‘சுட்டறியும் அது’ (suṭṭaṟiyum adu), which means ‘that which is transitively aware’ or ‘that which knows anything other than itself’, so since what is transitively aware (that is, aware of anything other than itself) is only the ego, what he implies here is that this transitively aware ego is not real awareness.
5. The third sentence: real awareness is ourself, other than which nothing exists to know or make known
The fact that real awareness is only intransitive awareness, and that what is only intransitively aware is just the real awareness that we actually are, is indicated by Bhagavan explicitly in the third sentence of this verse: ‘அறிதற்கு அறிவித்தற்கு அன்னியம் இன்றாய் அவிர்வதால், தான் அறிவு ஆகும்’ (aṟidaṟku aṟivittaṟku aṉṉiyam iṉḏṟāy avirvadāl, tāṉ aṟivu āhum), which means ‘Since it shines without another for knowing or for causing to know [or causing to be known], oneself is [real] knowledge [or awareness]’. In this context ‘தான்’ (tāṉ), ‘oneself’, means ourself as we actually are (which is what Bhagavan often referred to as ātma-svarūpa, the ‘own form’ or real nature of oneself), so in this sentence he teaches us explicitly that for ourself as we actually are there is no other (anya), and hence there is nothing other than ourself for us to know or to cause to be known.
In this sentence அறிதற்கு (aṟidaṟku) is a dative form of அறிதல் (aṟidal), which is a verbal noun that means ‘knowing’, so (like அறிவதற்கு (aṟivadaṟku) in the final sentence of verse 27 of Upadēśa Undiyār) அறிதற்கு (aṟidaṟku) literally means ‘for knowing’, but in this context implies the same as the infinitive ‘to know’ in English. Likewise அறிவித்தற்கு (aṟivittaṟku) is a dative form of அறிவித்தல் (aṟivittal), which is a verbal noun that means ‘causing to know’, ‘causing to be known’ or ‘making known’, so அறிவித்தற்கு (aṟivittaṟku) literally means ‘for causing to know’, ‘for causing to be known’ or ‘for making known’, but in this context implies the same as the infinitive ‘to cause to know’, ‘to cause to be known’ or ‘to make known’ in English.
The base of this verbal noun அறிவித்தல் (aṟivittal) and its dative form அறிவித்தற்கு (aṟivittaṟku) is the verb அறிவி (aṟivi), which is a causative form of அறி (aṟi), which means ‘know’, so (like தெரிவி) அறிவி (aṟivi) literally means ‘cause to know’, but is generally used in the sense of cause to be known, make known, publish, announce, inform, teach, explain, point out or reveal, because in Tamil the natural way to say ‘cause A to know B’ or ‘make A know B’ is ‘make B known to A’. Therefore, though அறிவித்தற்கு (aṟivittaṟku) literally means ‘for causing to know’, it is generally used in the sense of ‘for causing to be known’ or ‘for making known’, or in more idiomatic English, ‘to make known’.
Therefore if we translate அறிவித்தற்கு (aṟivittaṟku) as ‘for making known’ or ‘to make known’, in combination with ‘அன்னியம் இன்றாய்’ (aṉṉiyam iṉḏṟāy), which means ‘being without another’ (in which இன்றாய் (iṉḏṟāy) is a compound of two words, இன்று (iṉḏṟu), which is a particle or adverb that utterly denies existence (as does இலை (ilai) in the final sentence of verse 27 of Upadēśa Undiyār), and ஆய் (āy), which means being or as, so ‘அன்னியம் இன்றாய்’ (aṉṉiyam iṉḏṟāy) means ‘being without another’ or simply ‘without another’ in the sense that no other exists at all), it can be interpreted in seven ways, namely:
That is, in our real state (the one infinite, indivisible, immutable, formless, eternal and timeless state of ourself as the real awareness that we actually are) nothing other than ourself exists, but in the first three meanings the non-existence of only two factors other than ourself is considered, namely any other thing that could be known (in other words, any object) or any other thing by which anything could be known (in other words, any subject). Thus the import of the first and third meanings is that there is no second thing (no form, phenomenon or object) that could be made known either to ourself or to anything else (that is, to any ego), whereas the import of the second meaning is that there is no other thing (no ego) to which ourself could be made known.
However in the last four meanings the non-existence of a third factor other than ourself is considered, namely any other ‘light’ (prakāśa) to illumine or make anything known. The fourth, fifth and sixth meanings are each respectively a duplication of the first, second and third meanings, but with the non-existence of this third factor considered alongside the non-existence of each of the other two. Thus the import of the fourth and sixth meanings is that there is no other light that could illumine or make any other thing (any object) known either to ourself or to anything else (that is, to any ego), whereas the import of the fifth meaning is that there is no other light that could illumine or make ourself known to anything else (that is, to any ego).
In the final meaning, however, the non-existence of this third factor is considered on its own, so the import of this meaning is that there is no other light that could illumine or make ourself known to ourself. Since this is the case, we must know ourself by ourself, and hence we must be the one real light of awareness, which shines eternally by itself, illuminating itself but nothing else, since there is nothing else for it to illuminate. In other words, since there is no other ‘light’ to make ourself known to ourself, we ourself are the light of awareness that makes ourself known to ourself, so we are self-shining or self-luminous (svayam-prakāśa).
The final word in this first clause of the third sentence is அவிர்வதால் (avirvadāl), which is an instrumental case form of a participial noun form of the verb அவிர் (avir), which means to shine, so அவிர்வதால் (avirvadāl) literally means ‘by shining’, but implies ‘since it shines’ or ‘because it shines’. The implied subject of this participial noun and hence of this entire first clause is the subject of the main clause, namely தான் (tāṉ), which means ‘oneself’, so by saying that oneself shines without another to know or to make known, Bhagavan clearly implies that in the clear view of the real awareness that we actually are nothing other than ourself exists, shines or is known.
That is, in this context ‘shines’ is a metaphor for ‘makes itself known’ (though in other contexts, such as in the first sentence of verse 7 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, it can be a metaphor for ‘is made known’), so since he states in this clause that nothing other than oneself exists, there is nothing else to which oneself could be made known, so oneself makes oneself known only to oneself. Moreover, since there is nothing other than oneself, there is nothing else for oneself to know or that oneself could make known to oneself, so oneself is not only known only to oneself, but also knows only oneself.
Thus in this first clause of the third sentence, ‘அறிதற்கு அறிவித்தற்கு அன்னியம் இன்றாய் அவிர்வதால்’ (aṟidaṟku aṟivittaṟku aṉṉiyam iṉḏṟāy avirvadāl), which means ‘since [oneself] shines without another for knowing or for making known’, Bhagavan indicates clearly and unequivocally that his own experience is actually just ajāta: the ultimate truth (pāramārthika satya) that nothing has ever been born or come into existence, either actually or seemingly, because nothing other than oneself ever actually exists or even seems to exist (since seeming to exist entails being known by something, and according to this clause there is no other thing either to know or to make known, so there is nothing else that could seem to exist or be known to oneself, and there is also nothing other than ourself to whom anything else could ever seem to exist or be known).
That is, when he says in the first part of this clause, ‘அறிதற்கு அறிவித்தற்கு அன்னியம் இன்று’ (aṟidaṟku aṟivittaṟku aṉṉiyam iṉḏṟu), which means ‘another does not exist for knowing or for making known’, and when he likewise says in the final sentence of verse 27 of Upadēśa Undiyār, ‘அறிவதற்கு ஒன்று இலை’ (aṟivadaṟku oṉḏṟu ilai), which means ‘there is not anything for knowing’ or ‘anything for knowing does not exist’, what he means by ‘அன்னியம்’ (aṉṉiyam), ‘another’, and ‘ஒன்று’ (oṉḏṟu), ‘anything’, is anything whatsoever other than ourself, so that includes any appearance, anything that seems to exist or anything that could be known in any way whatsoever. Therefore, by saying that there is nothing other than ourself for us to know or make known, he clearly and unequivocally implies that in the clear view of the real awareness that we actually are not even an illusory appearance exists for us to know or to make known. Moreover, since time itself is other than ourself and hence just an illusory appearance, it does not actually exist, so he also implies that there is no time in which anything (any illusory appearance or anything else other than ourself) has ever existed, will ever exist or could ever exist for us to know or to make known.
This first clause is an adverbial one, and its function is to express the reason for what Bhagavan states in the main clause of this third sentence, namely ‘தான் அறிவு ஆகும்’ (tāṉ aṟivu āhum), which means ‘oneself is awareness’, and which in this context implies that we ourself are the only real awareness, because in the previous sentence he said ‘அறியும் அது உண்மை அறிவு ஆகாது’ (aṟiyum adu uṇmai aṟivu āhādu), which means ‘That which knows is not real awareness’, implying that what knows anything other than itself is not real awareness. Therefore the import of this third sentence, ‘அறிதற்கு அறிவித்தற்கு அன்னியம் இன்றாய் அவிர்வதால், தான் அறிவு ஆகும்’ (aṟidaṟku aṟivittaṟku aṉṉiyam iṉḏṟāy avirvadāl, tāṉ aṟivu āhum), which means ‘Since it shines without another for knowing or for making known, oneself is [real] awareness’, is that since we ourself ‘shine’ or make ourself known, and since nothing else exists for us to know, or for us to make known, or for us to make ourself known to, or to make ourself known either to ourself or to anything else, we alone make ourself known, and we make ourself known only to ourself, so we ourself are the only real knowledge or awareness.
6. The ego is the false awareness that knows other things, whereas what we actually are is the real awareness other than which nothing exists to know
In the second and third sentences of this verse Bhagavan contrasts the nature of the ego with the nature of ourself as we actually are, indicating that the ego is the false awareness that knows or is aware of things other than itself, whereas what we actually are is the real awareness for which nothing other than itself exists to know. This distinction between the ego and what we actually are is a vital clue to us in our practice of self-investigation (ātma-vicāra), because so long as we are aware even to the slightest extent of anything other than the pure self-awareness that we actually are, we are still aware of ourself as if we were the ego, the subject that is aware of objects, and hence we are not aware of ourself as we actually are. Therefore in order to be as we actually are, we need to be aware of nothing other than ourself, which entails focusing our entire attention only on our own fundamental self-awareness, thereby excluding everything else from our awareness.
There is a fundamental difference between knowing or being aware of ourself and knowing or being aware of any other thing, because being aware of anything other than ourself is a mental activity, since it entails movement of our mind or attention away from ourself towards something else, whereas being aware of ourself is not a mental activity, since it entails no movement of our attention away from ourself. Therefore knowing other things is an action (karma) or doing (kriyā), whereas knowing ourself is just being (summā iruppadu), because self-awareness is our real nature — our ‘own form’ (svarūpa) or ‘own being’ (svabhāva) — and hence we know ourself just by being ourself, as Bhagavan says in the first sentence of verse 26 of Upadēśa Undiyār: ‘தானாய் இருத்தலே தன்னை அறிதல் ஆம், தான் இரண்டு அற்றதால்’ (tāṉ-āy iruttal-ē taṉṉai aṟidal ām, tāṉ iraṇḍu aṯṟadāl), ‘Being oneself alone is knowing oneself, because oneself is not two’.
Since pure self-awareness alone is what we actually are, ātma-jñāna (self-knowledge or self-awareness) is not an act of knowing or cognising ourself but is just our natural state of being ourself (being as we actually are), unlike knowing or being aware of anything else, which is an act of knowing. Therefore whereas knowing other things is best expressed by saying ‘அறிகிறேன்’ (aṟigiṟēṉ), ‘I know’, knowing ourself is best expressed by saying simply ‘இருக்கிறேன்’ (irukkiṟēṉ), ‘I am’, because we could not know ourself without being ourself, and we could not be ourself without knowing ourself, since our being or existence (sat) itself is our awareness (cit), and our awareness itself is our existence.
7. The fourth sentence: real awareness is not śūnya, void or non-existent
In the fourth sentence Bhagavan says, ‘பாழ் அன்று’ (pāṙ aṉḏṟu), which means ‘it is not a void [emptiness, nothingness or non-existence]’, thereby explicitly repudiating the contention of certain Buddhist philosophers who maintain that everything is ‘śūnya’, which is a Sanskrit term that means empty, void or non-existent, but which in the context of Buddhist philosophy is generally interpreted to mean svabhāva-śūnya, which means ‘empty of own being’ or ‘empty of self-existence’. Though Bhagavan said in the first sentence of this verse that real awareness is devoid of knowledge and ignorance (implying knowledge and ignorance of anything other than itself), and though in the third sentence he say that nothing other than real awareness exists, in this sentence he denies that it is ‘பாழ்’ (pāṙ), which is a Tamil term that in this context means śūnyatā, emptiness, nothingness or non-existence.
What is non-existent or ‘empty of own being’ is anything other than the real awareness that we actually are, as Bhagavan pointed out in the first clause of the third sentence by saying that nothing other than ourself exists to know or make known. However, though nothing other than ourself actually exists, in the deluded view of ourself as this ego other things seem to exist, and they seem to exist only because we are aware of them. Therefore, whether they actually exist or are merely illusory appearances, we ourself must exist in order to be aware of them, so even if everything else is actually non-existent, we at least must exist to be aware of their seeming existence.
However, though we ourself must exist, we are not necessarily what we seem to be, so we have to consider the possibility that perhaps we are not actually this ego, the subject or first person who is aware of all other things (which are objects or second and third persons), as we now seem to be. Though we now seem to be this ego and therefore seem to be aware of other things, we do not always seem to be thus, because in sleep we exist and are aware of our existence even though we are not aware of this ego or anything else. Therefore, since we are aware of ourself in sleep without being aware of this ego, this ego cannot be what we actually are.
Only when we rise as this ego do other things seem to exist (as Bhagavan points out, for example, in verses 14, 23 and 26 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu and in the first sentence of verse 7 of Śrī Aruṇācala Aṣṭakam), so their seeming existence is dependent on the seeming existence of ourself as this ego. Therefore if this ego does not actually exist, nothing else actually exists or even seems to exist (since they could not seem to exist unless there were actually an ego to be aware of them).
Therefore does this ego actually exist? If it actually existed, it would exist always, and would not just appear in waking and dream and disappear in sleep. Moreover, what is this ego? Does it exist by itself? Since it is just a wrong knowledge of ourself (an erroneous awareness of ourself as something that is not what we actually are), it is not real, but is just an illusory appearance.
But to whom does it appear? In whose view does it seem to exist? It cannot seem to exist in the clear view of ourself as the real awareness that we actually are, because since it is just an erroneous awareness of ourself, if it did seem to exist in the view of ourself as we actually are, that would mean that what we actually are is erroneously aware of itself as something that is not itself, in which case it would not be real awareness but only ignorance. Therefore the ego can only seem to exist in its own view and not in the view of the real awareness that we actually are.
Therefore real awareness is never aware of the ego, and hence it is never aware of anything other than itself (as Bhagavan points out in the first clause of the third sentence of this verse). Since real awareness is what we actually are, and since as real awareness we alone exist, being aware of anything other than ourself (any multiplicity) is not real awareness but only ignorance, as Bhagavan points out in the first two sentences of the next verse (verse 13 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu): ‘ஞானம் ஆம் தானே மெய். நானாவாம் ஞானம் அஞ்ஞானம் ஆம்’ (ñāṉam ām tāṉē mey. nāṉā-v-ām ñāṉam aññāṉam ām), ‘Oneself, who is jñāna [knowledge or awareness], alone is real. Knowledge [or awareness] that is many is ajñāna [ignorance]’, in which ‘நானாவாம் ஞானம்’ (nāṉā-v-ām ñāṉam), ‘awareness that is many’, refers to the ego’s awareness, because as soon as the ego appears it separates itself as a subject that is aware of objects and thereby sees the one real awareness as many phenomena.
As real awareness, we can never be ignorant, and hence we can never be aware of any multiplicity, so what is aware of multiplicity is only the self-ignorant ego, which is itself not real. Therefore, since the multiplicity of phenomena is perceived only by the ego, and since the ego is not real, both the ego and all the phenomena perceived by it are śūnya, non-existent or ‘empty of own being’.
However, there is just one thing that is not śūnya, as Bhagavan points out in this verse, and that is the real awareness that we actually are. Since as real awareness we alone exist, nothing else exists for us to know or not know, so we are completely devoid of both knowledge and ignorance of anything else, but we are not devoid of svabhāva or ‘own being’, because we exist in ourself, by ourself and as ourself. What we actually are is not emptiness (śūnyatā) but absolute fullness (pūrṇatva), because we are full of the only thing that is real, namely pure and infinite self-awareness.
8. The fifth sentence: know or be aware
Bhagavan concludes this verse with a single-word sentence, ‘அறி’ (aṟi), which means ‘know’ or ‘be aware’ (since it is the root of this verb and therefore serves as an imperative when used on its own like this). In this context this imperative can simply imply ‘know what is stated here (either in the previous sentence or in this entire verse)’, but it can also imply ‘be aware of yourself thus (as the one real awareness that you actually are, which alone exists and which therefore shines without anything else to know or make known)’.
- Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 12 and its meaning
- The first sentence: real awareness is devoid of knowledge and ignorance of anything else
- Upadēśa Undiyār verse 27: what is real is only awareness devoid of knowledge and ignorance, because nothing at all exists for it to know
- The second sentence: what knows anything other than itself is not real awareness
- The third sentence: real awareness is ourself, other than which nothing exists to know or make known
- The ego is the false awareness that knows other things, whereas what we actually are is the real awareness other than which nothing exists to know
- The fourth sentence: real awareness is not śūnya, void or non-existent
- The fifth sentence: know or be aware
In verse 12 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu Bhagavan says:
அறிவறி யாமையு மற்றதறி வாமே2. The first sentence: real awareness is devoid of knowledge and ignorance of anything else
யறியும துண்மையறி வாகா — தறிதற்
கறிவித்தற் கன்னியமின் றாயவிர்வ தாற்றா
னறிவாகும் பாழன் றறி.
aṟivaṟi yāmaiyu maṯṟadaṟi vāmē
yaṟiyuma duṇmaiyaṟi vāhā — daṟitaṟ
kaṟivittaṟ kaṉṉiyamiṉ ḏṟāyavirva dāṯṟā
ṉaṟivāhum pāṙaṉ ṟaṟi.
பதச்சேதம்: அறிவு அறியாமையும் அற்றது அறிவு ஆமே. அறியும் அது உண்மை அறிவு ஆகாது. அறிதற்கு அறிவித்தற்கு அன்னியம் இன்றாய் அவிர்வதால், தான் அறிவு ஆகும். பாழ் அன்று. அறி.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): aṟivu aṟiyāmaiyum aṯṟadu aṟivu āmē. aṟiyum adu uṇmai aṟivu āhādu. aṟidaṟku aṟivittaṟku aṉṉiyam iṉḏṟāy avirvadāl, tāṉ aṟivu āhum. pāṙ aṉḏṟu. aṟi.
English translation: What is devoid of knowledge and ignorance is actually knowledge [or awareness]. That which knows is not real knowledge [or awareness]. Since it shines without another for knowing or for causing to know [or causing to be known], oneself is [real] knowledge [or awareness]. It is not a void. Know [or be aware].
அறிவு (aṟivu) and அறியாமை (aṟiyāmai) are both derived from the verb அறி (aṟi), which means to know, be aware, perceive, cognise or experience, so அறிவு (aṟivu) means knowledge or awareness, and அறியாமை (aṟiyāmai) means ignorance or non-awareness. The knowledge and ignorance that Bhagavan refers to in the first sentence of this verse when he says ‘அறிவு அறியாமையும் அற்றது’ (aṟivu aṟiyāmai-y-um aṯṟadu), ‘what is devoid of knowledge and ignorance’, is knowledge and ignorance or awareness and non-awareness of anything other than ourself, because we can never not know or not be aware of ourself, since self-awareness is our real nature, and hence there is no awareness that is devoid of self-awareness. However, as he implies in this first sentence, ‘அறிவு அறியாமையும் அற்றது அறிவு ஆமே’ (aṟivu aṟiyāmaiyum aṯṟadu aṟivu āmē), ‘What is devoid of knowledge and ignorance is actually awareness’, our real awareness (the real awareness that we actually are) is devoid of both awareness and non-awareness of other things, because in its clear view there are no other things that it could either be aware of or not aware of (as he points out in the third sentence).
Therefore, since the knowledge and ignorance of which true knowledge or real awareness is devoid are knowledge and ignorance of things other than ourself, what Bhagavan implies in this first sentence is that true knowledge or real awareness is pure intransitive awareness — that is, intransitive awareness that is completely devoid of even the least trace of any சுட்டறிவு (suṭṭaṟivu) or transitive awareness (awareness of anything other than oneself).
Lest we should have any lingering doubt about whether he perhaps meant that real awareness is only partially, temporarily or just in a certain sense devoid of both awareness and non-awareness of other things, in the kaliveṇbā version of this verse he extended this first sentence by adding at the beginning of it the intensified adverb அறவே (aṟavē), which means completely, utterly or entirely, and which qualifies அற்றது (aṯṟadu), ‘what is devoid of’ or ‘that which is devoid of’. Thus the extended form of this sentence is ‘அறவே அறிவு அறியாமையும் அற்றது அறிவு ஆமே’ (aṟavē aṟivu aṟiyāmaiyum aṯṟadu aṟivu āmē), which means ‘What is completely devoid of knowledge and ignorance is actually knowledge [or awareness]’, and which therefore implies that real awareness or knowledge is completely devoid of any knowledge or ignorance (awareness or non-awareness) of anything other than itself, because nothing other than itself actually exists for it to be either aware of or not aware of.
3. Upadēśa Undiyār verse 27: what is real is only awareness devoid of knowledge and ignorance, because nothing at all exists for it to know
What Bhagavan says succinctly in this first sentence was earlier explained by him in verse 27 of Upadēśa Undiyār:
அறிவறி யாமையு மற்ற வறிவே‘அறிவு அறியாமையும் அற்ற அறிவு’ (aṟivu aṟiyāmai-y-um aṯṟa aṟivu) means ‘knowledge that is devoid of knowledge and ignorance’ or ‘awareness that is devoid of awareness and non-awareness’, and therefore implies awareness that is devoid of both awareness and non-awareness of anything else, so what Bhagavan is referring to by this phrase is pure intransitive awareness (awareness that is aware of nothing other than itself). By concluding the first sentence of this verse with the clause ‘அறிவே அறிவு ஆகும்’ (aṟivē aṟivu āhum), ‘only [such] awareness is awareness’, he implies that only pure intransitive awareness is real awareness.
யறிவாகு முண்மையீ துந்தீபற
வறிவதற் கொன்றிலை யுந்தீபற.
aṟivaṟi yāmaiyu maṯṟa vaṟivē
yaṟivāhu muṇmaiyī dundīpaṟa
vaṟivadaṟ koṉḏṟilai yundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: அறிவு அறியாமையும் அற்ற அறிவே அறிவு ஆகும். உண்மை ஈது. அறிவதற்கு ஒன்று இலை.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): aṟivu aṟiyāmai-y-um aṯṟa aṟivē aṟivu āhum. uṇmai īdu. aṟivadaṟku oṉḏṟu ilai.
அன்வயம்: அறிவு அறியாமையும் அற்ற அறிவே அறிவு ஆகும். ஈது உண்மை. அறிவதற்கு ஒன்று இலை.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): aṟivu aṟiyāmai-y-um aṯṟa aṟivē aṟivu āhum. īdu uṇmai. aṟivadaṟku oṉḏṟu ilai.
English translation: Only knowledge that is devoid of knowledge and ignorance is [real] knowledge [or awareness]. This is real, [because] there is not anything for knowing.
In the second sentence of this verse he says simply, ‘உண்மை ஈது’ (uṇmai īdu), which means ‘this is real’ or ‘this is truth’, and which implies that pure intransitive awareness (awareness that is devoid of both awareness and non-awareness of anything else) is alone what is real. The reason for this is explained by him in the final sentence, ‘அறிவதற்கு ஒன்று இலை’ (aṟivadaṟku oṉḏṟu ilai), which literally means ‘there is not anything for knowing’, and which therefore implies that nothing else exists for real awareness to know, which is a point on which he elaborates in the third sentence of verse 12 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, as we shall see in the fifth section below.
4. The second sentence: what knows anything other than itself is not real awareness
In the second sentence of verse 12 Bhagavan says, ‘அறியும் அது உண்மை அறிவு ஆகாது’ (aṟiyum adu uṇmai aṟivu āhādu), which means ‘That which knows is not real knowledge [or awareness]’, but what exactly does he mean by this? Why does he say that what knows is not real awareness? Because the knowing he refers to here is knowing as an action rather than knowing as our natural state of just being, and whereas in our natural state of just being we know nothing other than ourself, as illustrated by our experience in sleep, knowing as an act of knowing entails the existence or seeming existence of something other than ourself for us to know. Therefore if anything other than ourself existed for us to know, the act of knowing it would be real knowing, and that which knows it would be real awareness, but as he says in the next sentence this verse and in the final sentence of verse 27 of Upadēśa Undiyār, no other thing actually exists for us to know, so whatever knows anything other than itself is not real awareness but is just a self-deluded semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa).
That is, since he says in the next sentence that for the real awareness that we actually are no other exists to know, the unreal awareness that he refers to here as ‘அறியும் அது’ (aṟiyum adu), which means ‘that which knows’ or ‘that which is aware’, must be whatever is aware of the illusory appearance of any other thing. The term அன்னியம் (aṉṉiyam), which he uses in the next sentence when he says that no other exists to know or make known, is a Tamil form of the Sanskrit term अन्य (anya), which means what is other or different, and in a context such as this it means anything other than oneself. Therefore, since nothing exists other than the real awareness that we actually are, there is nothing for us as that awareness to know or make known, so what he implies when he says in this sentence ‘அறியும் அது உண்மை அறிவு ஆகாது’ (aṟiyum adu uṇmai aṟivu āhādu), ‘That which knows is not real knowledge [or awareness]’, is that whatever knows anything other than itself is not true knowledge or real awareness. In other words, real awareness is only pure self-awareness (intransitive awareness) and not awareness of anything else (transitive awareness).
Therefore what the term ‘அறியும் அது’ (aṟiyum adu), ‘that which is aware’ or ‘that which knows’, implies in this context is ‘சுட்டறியும் அது’ (suṭṭaṟiyum adu), which means ‘that which is transitively aware’ or ‘that which knows anything other than itself’, so since what is transitively aware (that is, aware of anything other than itself) is only the ego, what he implies here is that this transitively aware ego is not real awareness.
5. The third sentence: real awareness is ourself, other than which nothing exists to know or make known
The fact that real awareness is only intransitive awareness, and that what is only intransitively aware is just the real awareness that we actually are, is indicated by Bhagavan explicitly in the third sentence of this verse: ‘அறிதற்கு அறிவித்தற்கு அன்னியம் இன்றாய் அவிர்வதால், தான் அறிவு ஆகும்’ (aṟidaṟku aṟivittaṟku aṉṉiyam iṉḏṟāy avirvadāl, tāṉ aṟivu āhum), which means ‘Since it shines without another for knowing or for causing to know [or causing to be known], oneself is [real] knowledge [or awareness]’. In this context ‘தான்’ (tāṉ), ‘oneself’, means ourself as we actually are (which is what Bhagavan often referred to as ātma-svarūpa, the ‘own form’ or real nature of oneself), so in this sentence he teaches us explicitly that for ourself as we actually are there is no other (anya), and hence there is nothing other than ourself for us to know or to cause to be known.
In this sentence அறிதற்கு (aṟidaṟku) is a dative form of அறிதல் (aṟidal), which is a verbal noun that means ‘knowing’, so (like அறிவதற்கு (aṟivadaṟku) in the final sentence of verse 27 of Upadēśa Undiyār) அறிதற்கு (aṟidaṟku) literally means ‘for knowing’, but in this context implies the same as the infinitive ‘to know’ in English. Likewise அறிவித்தற்கு (aṟivittaṟku) is a dative form of அறிவித்தல் (aṟivittal), which is a verbal noun that means ‘causing to know’, ‘causing to be known’ or ‘making known’, so அறிவித்தற்கு (aṟivittaṟku) literally means ‘for causing to know’, ‘for causing to be known’ or ‘for making known’, but in this context implies the same as the infinitive ‘to cause to know’, ‘to cause to be known’ or ‘to make known’ in English.
The base of this verbal noun அறிவித்தல் (aṟivittal) and its dative form அறிவித்தற்கு (aṟivittaṟku) is the verb அறிவி (aṟivi), which is a causative form of அறி (aṟi), which means ‘know’, so (like தெரிவி) அறிவி (aṟivi) literally means ‘cause to know’, but is generally used in the sense of cause to be known, make known, publish, announce, inform, teach, explain, point out or reveal, because in Tamil the natural way to say ‘cause A to know B’ or ‘make A know B’ is ‘make B known to A’. Therefore, though அறிவித்தற்கு (aṟivittaṟku) literally means ‘for causing to know’, it is generally used in the sense of ‘for causing to be known’ or ‘for making known’, or in more idiomatic English, ‘to make known’.
Therefore if we translate அறிவித்தற்கு (aṟivittaṟku) as ‘for making known’ or ‘to make known’, in combination with ‘அன்னியம் இன்றாய்’ (aṉṉiyam iṉḏṟāy), which means ‘being without another’ (in which இன்றாய் (iṉḏṟāy) is a compound of two words, இன்று (iṉḏṟu), which is a particle or adverb that utterly denies existence (as does இலை (ilai) in the final sentence of verse 27 of Upadēśa Undiyār), and ஆய் (āy), which means being or as, so ‘அன்னியம் இன்றாய்’ (aṉṉiyam iṉḏṟāy) means ‘being without another’ or simply ‘without another’ in the sense that no other exists at all), it can be interpreted in seven ways, namely:
- being without another [for oneself] to make [anything else] known [to oneself]
- being without another [for oneself] to make [oneself] known [to anything else]
- being without another [for oneself] to make [anything else] known [to anything else]
- being without another [for anything else] to make [anything else] known [to oneself]
- being without another [for anything else] to make [oneself] known [to anything else]
- being without another [for anything else] to make [anything else] known [to anything else]
- being without another [for anything else] to make [oneself] known [to oneself]
That is, in our real state (the one infinite, indivisible, immutable, formless, eternal and timeless state of ourself as the real awareness that we actually are) nothing other than ourself exists, but in the first three meanings the non-existence of only two factors other than ourself is considered, namely any other thing that could be known (in other words, any object) or any other thing by which anything could be known (in other words, any subject). Thus the import of the first and third meanings is that there is no second thing (no form, phenomenon or object) that could be made known either to ourself or to anything else (that is, to any ego), whereas the import of the second meaning is that there is no other thing (no ego) to which ourself could be made known.
However in the last four meanings the non-existence of a third factor other than ourself is considered, namely any other ‘light’ (prakāśa) to illumine or make anything known. The fourth, fifth and sixth meanings are each respectively a duplication of the first, second and third meanings, but with the non-existence of this third factor considered alongside the non-existence of each of the other two. Thus the import of the fourth and sixth meanings is that there is no other light that could illumine or make any other thing (any object) known either to ourself or to anything else (that is, to any ego), whereas the import of the fifth meaning is that there is no other light that could illumine or make ourself known to anything else (that is, to any ego).
In the final meaning, however, the non-existence of this third factor is considered on its own, so the import of this meaning is that there is no other light that could illumine or make ourself known to ourself. Since this is the case, we must know ourself by ourself, and hence we must be the one real light of awareness, which shines eternally by itself, illuminating itself but nothing else, since there is nothing else for it to illuminate. In other words, since there is no other ‘light’ to make ourself known to ourself, we ourself are the light of awareness that makes ourself known to ourself, so we are self-shining or self-luminous (svayam-prakāśa).
The final word in this first clause of the third sentence is அவிர்வதால் (avirvadāl), which is an instrumental case form of a participial noun form of the verb அவிர் (avir), which means to shine, so அவிர்வதால் (avirvadāl) literally means ‘by shining’, but implies ‘since it shines’ or ‘because it shines’. The implied subject of this participial noun and hence of this entire first clause is the subject of the main clause, namely தான் (tāṉ), which means ‘oneself’, so by saying that oneself shines without another to know or to make known, Bhagavan clearly implies that in the clear view of the real awareness that we actually are nothing other than ourself exists, shines or is known.
That is, in this context ‘shines’ is a metaphor for ‘makes itself known’ (though in other contexts, such as in the first sentence of verse 7 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, it can be a metaphor for ‘is made known’), so since he states in this clause that nothing other than oneself exists, there is nothing else to which oneself could be made known, so oneself makes oneself known only to oneself. Moreover, since there is nothing other than oneself, there is nothing else for oneself to know or that oneself could make known to oneself, so oneself is not only known only to oneself, but also knows only oneself.
Thus in this first clause of the third sentence, ‘அறிதற்கு அறிவித்தற்கு அன்னியம் இன்றாய் அவிர்வதால்’ (aṟidaṟku aṟivittaṟku aṉṉiyam iṉḏṟāy avirvadāl), which means ‘since [oneself] shines without another for knowing or for making known’, Bhagavan indicates clearly and unequivocally that his own experience is actually just ajāta: the ultimate truth (pāramārthika satya) that nothing has ever been born or come into existence, either actually or seemingly, because nothing other than oneself ever actually exists or even seems to exist (since seeming to exist entails being known by something, and according to this clause there is no other thing either to know or to make known, so there is nothing else that could seem to exist or be known to oneself, and there is also nothing other than ourself to whom anything else could ever seem to exist or be known).
That is, when he says in the first part of this clause, ‘அறிதற்கு அறிவித்தற்கு அன்னியம் இன்று’ (aṟidaṟku aṟivittaṟku aṉṉiyam iṉḏṟu), which means ‘another does not exist for knowing or for making known’, and when he likewise says in the final sentence of verse 27 of Upadēśa Undiyār, ‘அறிவதற்கு ஒன்று இலை’ (aṟivadaṟku oṉḏṟu ilai), which means ‘there is not anything for knowing’ or ‘anything for knowing does not exist’, what he means by ‘அன்னியம்’ (aṉṉiyam), ‘another’, and ‘ஒன்று’ (oṉḏṟu), ‘anything’, is anything whatsoever other than ourself, so that includes any appearance, anything that seems to exist or anything that could be known in any way whatsoever. Therefore, by saying that there is nothing other than ourself for us to know or make known, he clearly and unequivocally implies that in the clear view of the real awareness that we actually are not even an illusory appearance exists for us to know or to make known. Moreover, since time itself is other than ourself and hence just an illusory appearance, it does not actually exist, so he also implies that there is no time in which anything (any illusory appearance or anything else other than ourself) has ever existed, will ever exist or could ever exist for us to know or to make known.
This first clause is an adverbial one, and its function is to express the reason for what Bhagavan states in the main clause of this third sentence, namely ‘தான் அறிவு ஆகும்’ (tāṉ aṟivu āhum), which means ‘oneself is awareness’, and which in this context implies that we ourself are the only real awareness, because in the previous sentence he said ‘அறியும் அது உண்மை அறிவு ஆகாது’ (aṟiyum adu uṇmai aṟivu āhādu), which means ‘That which knows is not real awareness’, implying that what knows anything other than itself is not real awareness. Therefore the import of this third sentence, ‘அறிதற்கு அறிவித்தற்கு அன்னியம் இன்றாய் அவிர்வதால், தான் அறிவு ஆகும்’ (aṟidaṟku aṟivittaṟku aṉṉiyam iṉḏṟāy avirvadāl, tāṉ aṟivu āhum), which means ‘Since it shines without another for knowing or for making known, oneself is [real] awareness’, is that since we ourself ‘shine’ or make ourself known, and since nothing else exists for us to know, or for us to make known, or for us to make ourself known to, or to make ourself known either to ourself or to anything else, we alone make ourself known, and we make ourself known only to ourself, so we ourself are the only real knowledge or awareness.
6. The ego is the false awareness that knows other things, whereas what we actually are is the real awareness other than which nothing exists to know
In the second and third sentences of this verse Bhagavan contrasts the nature of the ego with the nature of ourself as we actually are, indicating that the ego is the false awareness that knows or is aware of things other than itself, whereas what we actually are is the real awareness for which nothing other than itself exists to know. This distinction between the ego and what we actually are is a vital clue to us in our practice of self-investigation (ātma-vicāra), because so long as we are aware even to the slightest extent of anything other than the pure self-awareness that we actually are, we are still aware of ourself as if we were the ego, the subject that is aware of objects, and hence we are not aware of ourself as we actually are. Therefore in order to be as we actually are, we need to be aware of nothing other than ourself, which entails focusing our entire attention only on our own fundamental self-awareness, thereby excluding everything else from our awareness.
There is a fundamental difference between knowing or being aware of ourself and knowing or being aware of any other thing, because being aware of anything other than ourself is a mental activity, since it entails movement of our mind or attention away from ourself towards something else, whereas being aware of ourself is not a mental activity, since it entails no movement of our attention away from ourself. Therefore knowing other things is an action (karma) or doing (kriyā), whereas knowing ourself is just being (summā iruppadu), because self-awareness is our real nature — our ‘own form’ (svarūpa) or ‘own being’ (svabhāva) — and hence we know ourself just by being ourself, as Bhagavan says in the first sentence of verse 26 of Upadēśa Undiyār: ‘தானாய் இருத்தலே தன்னை அறிதல் ஆம், தான் இரண்டு அற்றதால்’ (tāṉ-āy iruttal-ē taṉṉai aṟidal ām, tāṉ iraṇḍu aṯṟadāl), ‘Being oneself alone is knowing oneself, because oneself is not two’.
Since pure self-awareness alone is what we actually are, ātma-jñāna (self-knowledge or self-awareness) is not an act of knowing or cognising ourself but is just our natural state of being ourself (being as we actually are), unlike knowing or being aware of anything else, which is an act of knowing. Therefore whereas knowing other things is best expressed by saying ‘அறிகிறேன்’ (aṟigiṟēṉ), ‘I know’, knowing ourself is best expressed by saying simply ‘இருக்கிறேன்’ (irukkiṟēṉ), ‘I am’, because we could not know ourself without being ourself, and we could not be ourself without knowing ourself, since our being or existence (sat) itself is our awareness (cit), and our awareness itself is our existence.
7. The fourth sentence: real awareness is not śūnya, void or non-existent
In the fourth sentence Bhagavan says, ‘பாழ் அன்று’ (pāṙ aṉḏṟu), which means ‘it is not a void [emptiness, nothingness or non-existence]’, thereby explicitly repudiating the contention of certain Buddhist philosophers who maintain that everything is ‘śūnya’, which is a Sanskrit term that means empty, void or non-existent, but which in the context of Buddhist philosophy is generally interpreted to mean svabhāva-śūnya, which means ‘empty of own being’ or ‘empty of self-existence’. Though Bhagavan said in the first sentence of this verse that real awareness is devoid of knowledge and ignorance (implying knowledge and ignorance of anything other than itself), and though in the third sentence he say that nothing other than real awareness exists, in this sentence he denies that it is ‘பாழ்’ (pāṙ), which is a Tamil term that in this context means śūnyatā, emptiness, nothingness or non-existence.
What is non-existent or ‘empty of own being’ is anything other than the real awareness that we actually are, as Bhagavan pointed out in the first clause of the third sentence by saying that nothing other than ourself exists to know or make known. However, though nothing other than ourself actually exists, in the deluded view of ourself as this ego other things seem to exist, and they seem to exist only because we are aware of them. Therefore, whether they actually exist or are merely illusory appearances, we ourself must exist in order to be aware of them, so even if everything else is actually non-existent, we at least must exist to be aware of their seeming existence.
However, though we ourself must exist, we are not necessarily what we seem to be, so we have to consider the possibility that perhaps we are not actually this ego, the subject or first person who is aware of all other things (which are objects or second and third persons), as we now seem to be. Though we now seem to be this ego and therefore seem to be aware of other things, we do not always seem to be thus, because in sleep we exist and are aware of our existence even though we are not aware of this ego or anything else. Therefore, since we are aware of ourself in sleep without being aware of this ego, this ego cannot be what we actually are.
Only when we rise as this ego do other things seem to exist (as Bhagavan points out, for example, in verses 14, 23 and 26 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu and in the first sentence of verse 7 of Śrī Aruṇācala Aṣṭakam), so their seeming existence is dependent on the seeming existence of ourself as this ego. Therefore if this ego does not actually exist, nothing else actually exists or even seems to exist (since they could not seem to exist unless there were actually an ego to be aware of them).
Therefore does this ego actually exist? If it actually existed, it would exist always, and would not just appear in waking and dream and disappear in sleep. Moreover, what is this ego? Does it exist by itself? Since it is just a wrong knowledge of ourself (an erroneous awareness of ourself as something that is not what we actually are), it is not real, but is just an illusory appearance.
But to whom does it appear? In whose view does it seem to exist? It cannot seem to exist in the clear view of ourself as the real awareness that we actually are, because since it is just an erroneous awareness of ourself, if it did seem to exist in the view of ourself as we actually are, that would mean that what we actually are is erroneously aware of itself as something that is not itself, in which case it would not be real awareness but only ignorance. Therefore the ego can only seem to exist in its own view and not in the view of the real awareness that we actually are.
Therefore real awareness is never aware of the ego, and hence it is never aware of anything other than itself (as Bhagavan points out in the first clause of the third sentence of this verse). Since real awareness is what we actually are, and since as real awareness we alone exist, being aware of anything other than ourself (any multiplicity) is not real awareness but only ignorance, as Bhagavan points out in the first two sentences of the next verse (verse 13 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu): ‘ஞானம் ஆம் தானே மெய். நானாவாம் ஞானம் அஞ்ஞானம் ஆம்’ (ñāṉam ām tāṉē mey. nāṉā-v-ām ñāṉam aññāṉam ām), ‘Oneself, who is jñāna [knowledge or awareness], alone is real. Knowledge [or awareness] that is many is ajñāna [ignorance]’, in which ‘நானாவாம் ஞானம்’ (nāṉā-v-ām ñāṉam), ‘awareness that is many’, refers to the ego’s awareness, because as soon as the ego appears it separates itself as a subject that is aware of objects and thereby sees the one real awareness as many phenomena.
As real awareness, we can never be ignorant, and hence we can never be aware of any multiplicity, so what is aware of multiplicity is only the self-ignorant ego, which is itself not real. Therefore, since the multiplicity of phenomena is perceived only by the ego, and since the ego is not real, both the ego and all the phenomena perceived by it are śūnya, non-existent or ‘empty of own being’.
However, there is just one thing that is not śūnya, as Bhagavan points out in this verse, and that is the real awareness that we actually are. Since as real awareness we alone exist, nothing else exists for us to know or not know, so we are completely devoid of both knowledge and ignorance of anything else, but we are not devoid of svabhāva or ‘own being’, because we exist in ourself, by ourself and as ourself. What we actually are is not emptiness (śūnyatā) but absolute fullness (pūrṇatva), because we are full of the only thing that is real, namely pure and infinite self-awareness.
8. The fifth sentence: know or be aware
Bhagavan concludes this verse with a single-word sentence, ‘அறி’ (aṟi), which means ‘know’ or ‘be aware’ (since it is the root of this verb and therefore serves as an imperative when used on its own like this). In this context this imperative can simply imply ‘know what is stated here (either in the previous sentence or in this entire verse)’, but it can also imply ‘be aware of yourself thus (as the one real awareness that you actually are, which alone exists and which therefore shines without anything else to know or make known)’.
Posts
56 comments:
thank you for the article Michael,
regarding the so called "difference" between certain buddhist traditions and advaita vedanta, I think that in the case of the existence of self, it is a clear misunderstanding.
The word "self" means separateness, otherness, and everybody agrees that there is no such thing as a separate self.
On the other hand, althought pure awareness is the unborn which cannot assume any form of any kind of "self" and in which there cannot be an "other", it is self-aware, self-existent and, in that sense, the word "self" means identity of that which knows with what is known.
It does not need "another" in order to know its being.
So what we are is of course not a self, in the relative sense, and althought there also cannot be a self in the ultimate natural state, that state IS the knowledge of its existence.
And, we should also be aware that, even the mahayana doctrine of emptiness, which denies the independent existence of any apparent "thing" , is refering to relative level, and is therefore quite acurate.
while the tibetan buddhist schools, dzogchen and mahamudra, are clearly paths of attaining the natural state, and they even use similar, if not the same, terms and instructions as advaita vedanta, althought, for my taste, the clarity of Bhagavan is without second.
So, advaita is not, "eternalism", as "brahman" is not a person living forever, and buddhism is not "nihilism", as "emptiness" is only refering to the absence of "selves" and "things" and not to the absence of awareness, which would be absurd anyway.
Not a robot, what do you mean when you say ‘The word “self” means separateness, otherness’, and do you not contradict this when you conclude the same sentence by saying ‘everybody agrees that there is no such thing as a separate self’? From what do you think self is separate?
There is a lot of confusion about the meaning of the word ‘self’, particularly when it is referred to as ‘the self’, as if it were something distinct or separate. Though ‘self’ is often used as a noun, it would be more appropriate to consider it to be a pronoun, because it has no meaning except as a term referring to some particular person or thing.
Since it can refer to any particular thing, what it refers to depends upon the context in which it is used. In a spiritual context it generally refers to oneself, the first person, but when referring to oneself it can either refer to what one seems to be, namely the ego or whatever adjuncts it grasps as itself, or to what one actually is, which is pure adjunct-free awareness.
As I explained in section 10 of my previous article, nothing is other than itself, so the ‘self’ of any particular thing is not separate from that thing. For example, a table and itself are not two separate things but one and the same, because in this context the term ‘itself’ refers only to the table itself. Likewise, we and ourself are not two separate things, because each of this pair of pronouns refers to the same thing, namely us ourself.
Therefore there is no such thing as a separate self in the sense of a self that is separate from or other than whosever self it is. Hence, rather than meaning separateness or otherness, as you claim, what ‘self’ actually means is sameness in the sense that each thing and itself are the selfsame thing. Nothing is ever other than itself, and no self is ever other than whatever it is the self of.
However, since all other things seem to exist only when we mistake ourself to be the ego, the only self we should be interested in is ourself. As this ego, we are not aware of ourself as we actually are, so we should investigate ourself in order to find out what we actually are.
When you say, ‘there also cannot be a self in the ultimate natural state’, whose ultimate natural state are you referring to? There can be no state without something whose state it is, but what we should be concerned about is not the ultimate natural state of anything else but only the ultimate natural state of ourself. Therefore, since the ultimate natural state we are seeking is our own ultimate natural state, we ourself must exist in it, so there is a self in our ultimate natural state, and that self is only ourself.
So what is this self that is ourself? As Bhagavan says in the main clause of the third sentence of verse 12 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, ‘தான் அறிவு ஆகும்’ (tāṉ aṟivu āhum), ‘oneself is awareness’, which means that what we actually are (what ourself actually is) is real awareness, for which there is no other thing to know or make known.
Michael, thank you for the response.
you say "nothing is other than itself, so the ‘self’ of any particular thing is not separate from that thing." and you mention the example of the table, but tables do not claim to exist. Egos do. Egos are the only thing that claim to exist and so they can refer to "theirself". And this self that the ego talks about, is the doer, the controller, the "entity" that "runs", "owns" and suffers or enjoys the body mind. And, as you can point much better than me, this ego seems to exist when it grasps form, that is "something else", an "other".
When it looks to find itself, it finds not a self, but pure being-conciousness.
Then you say "Therefore, since the ultimate natural state we are seeking is our own ultimate natural state, we ourself must exist in it, so there is a self in our ultimate natural state, and that self is only ourself."
Of course you don't mean that we as egos exist in our natural state, since from our natural state's view there are no egos, no individuals etc.
pure awareness has never heard of us egos, so we may imagine that "ourself" continues as pure awareness, but that is, i am afraid, not the case.
So ourself as it is, is not what we egos name a self. And i don't think we disagree on that.
Michael,
it is a pleasure to read your recent article which is a perfect example of thoroughness and profundity. It is a logical and convincing analysis of that what we actually are.
Thank you very much, particularly for explaining profoundly the fundamental difference between 'knowing' or being aware of ourself and 'knowing' or being aware of any other thing.
Romba nanri.
svabhava,
I agree totally with you on singing the praises of Michael James.
Michael,
I cannot see any harm in being devoid of ignorance/non-awareness of anything other than ourself. What's the harm in it ?
svabhava and svayam-prakasa, I whole-heartedly agree with both of you. Michael’s articles are a fine example of thoroughness and profundity. More than anything else, these articles represent his love for Bhagavan – a love which we should all try to emulate.
I cannot thank Michael enough for all that I have gained from him. He has clarified and explained Bhagavan’s path to such an extent that now I am completely blinded to all other paths and ‘gurus’. To repay his debt I might have to take a few more births, because it doesn’t seem possible in this one birth. But since I hope not to take any more births (by experiencing myself as I really am in this very birth), I may never be able to repay his debt.
Sri Michael James – what a sublime example of guru-bhakti!
Sanjay,
regarding your remark "to repay his debt".
We indeed owe Michael a debt of gratitude.
I am sure that Michael will consider our all efforts in keeping perseverance in practising self-investigation as the best way of "repayment" for his efforts to clarify our understanding of Bhagavan's unique teaching.
His efforts should not be in vain.
svabhava, once a devotee asked Bhagavan something to the effect: ‘How can repay what you have given me. It is beyond me’, Bhagavan replied: ‘You can repay my debt only by experiencing yourself as you really are’.
So there is other way of repaying our debts to our beloved Bhagavan and his devotees, like Sri Sadhu Om and Sri Michael James, except by following the direct path (the direct means to experience true self-knowledge) which they have so lovingly shown us. Sooner rather than later, we will surely repay all our debts towards them by eventually merging in Bhagavan, the absolute clarity of pure self-awareness with us.
Sanjay,
when you say "So there is other way of repaying our debts to our beloved Bhagavan and his devotees, like Sri Sadhu Om and Sri Michael James, ..." I think you wanted to write : ...no other way ...
Sanjay Lohia,
to remain in ignorance is sheer unbearable.
Here is a brand new video by Rupert Spira , helping a student to understand "the real awareness that we actually are". I find that his explanations from the past year, are more skillful and clear than his previous ones. (Towards the end, he remarks that he had a Ramana Maharshi book by his bed for 25 years, but that - for him - it took an explanation from a different teacher to get him to understand what was in the Ramana book all along.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFnf8AAVd3A
svabhava, yes, I wanted to write ‘. . . no other way . . . ’. Like there is no other way but self-investigation if we want to experience ourself as we really are, there is no other way to thank Bhagavan and his pure-channels (Muruganar, Sadhu Om and Michael), expect by redoubling our efforts at self-attentiveness.
tan arivu ahum, yes, it is unbearable to remain in self-ignorance. But who is self-ignorant? Is it our svarupa? No, our svarupa is fully conscious of itself as ‘I am I’, and therefore this ignorance only belongs to our ego. When we watch ourself with a keenly focused power of attention our ego will die, and since our ego is synonymous with ignorance, these two will disappear together.
Bhagavan sings in verse 96 of Sri Arunachala Aksharamanamalai:
O Arunachala! If (You) leave (me), it will be a (terrible) affliction (for me). (Therefore) bestow (Your) grace (upon me) so that (my) life may leave (the body) without (my) leaving you.
All our unbearable afflictions are because of our pramada (self-negligence), and therefore the only antidote to all our afflictions is sada-apramada (perpetual self-attentiveness).
Sanjay,
regarding redoubling our efforts at self-investigation:
turn the letters "c" and "p" the other way:
instead "expect" we shoud read "except".
Sanjay,
yes, my scream sounded from the ego's view. Indeed, there is no greater sorrow and affliction than to be left by Arunachala. The pain of separation from the Lord of the Fiery Hill is surely the height of hopelessness, despair and dreariness.
But as a consolation, how lucky we are - we never can really leave Arunachala completely.
svabhava, I thank you for pointing out my mistake. But ironically you have also made an error: you have written ‘should’ as ‘shoud’.
All our negligence is due to pramada (negligence, inattentiveness or carelessness), which is nothing but the offshoot of our primal pramada. It is pramada which gives rise to the ego and this world-appearance. It is said that pramada is death – that is, the seeming ‘death’ of our svarupa (our true form). Therefore, our aim should be: sada-apramada (uninterrupted self-attentiveness).
tan arivu ahum, as you say, ‘we can never leave Arunachala completely’. This is because Arunachala is what we actually are. How can we ever leave Arunachala or Bhagavan, because it is all that actually exists?
But, due to pramada, we rise as this ego and imagine we are separate from Arunachala. This imagined separation causes pain and anguish. However, Bhagavan has explicitly assured us that he will never leave us. He has assured us through his conversations with his devotees that he will come with us even if we go to hell, because he and ourself are not different.
Sanjay,
as you say one should be uninterruptedly self-attentive and not act carelessly.
Regrettably I obviously am a citizen of the kingdom of pramada. Therefore owing to the lack of sada apramada I actually neglected to write the auxiliary verb "should" completely correct. Because of my inattentiveness I omitted the letter "l" and what is more I did not even notice it before clicking on the button "Publish Your Comment".
Similar to that negligence while I am writing often my self-attentiveness in daily life is lacking in concentration and therefore imperfect and incomplete.
Sanjay,
actually we have a run of good luck:
Because Arunachala and Bhagavan is all that really exists, even the hell is nothing but atma-svarupa.
Watching the previously mentioned video of Rupert Spira, led me to another video of his. This one is easily the best and clearest explanation of Self-Enquiry that I have come across (previously, I would have awarded that to David Godman's Youtube video on the subject).
This Rupert Spira video is the first clear explanation of the following statement by Sadhu Om (from "Path of Sri Ramana Part One):
"But on the other hand, as soon as the attention is fixed on the first person (or Self), it loses its mean names such as mind, intellect or ego sense. Moreover, that attention is no longer even an action, but inaction (akarma) or the state of ‘being still’ (summa iruttal). Therefore, the mind which attends to Self is no more the mind; it is the consciousness aspect of Self (atma-chit-rupam)! Likewise, so long as it attends to the second and third persons (the world), it is not the consciousness aspect of Self; It is the mind, the reflected form of consciousness (chit-abhasa-rupam)! Hence, since Self-attention is not a doing (kriya), it is not an action (karma). That is, Self alone realizes Self; the ego does not !"
I highly recommend this Rupert Spira Video, it is precisely logical, and in complete accord with the teachings of Ramana and Advaita Vedanta (both of which Spira has studied for many years). It is at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73hmMugiqGg
Recommending Rupert Spira’s videos could help some people that are still searching through the spiritual marketplace to find their way, but my feeling is that when we actually find the source of Bhagavan’s teachings, and I mean Bhagavan’s own words, why bother searching in other places? Actually there are tons of people and traditions that are in complete “accord with the teachings with the teachings of Ramana and Advaita Vedanta” but that is just another opinion, as we find many opinions out there when it comes to spiritual teachings.
It is said that an opinion is a middle way between a truth and a lie. And since absolute truth cannot be grasped by mind, I tend to lean more that an opinion is a lie than it is a half truth. But that is just my opinion!
As for myself, the clearest explanation of self-enquiry or investigation is Bhagavan’s own words, not Michael’s, not David G’s nor any other (no matter how articulate they are), the problem is that we really need to read through (and most importantly assmilate) Bhagavan’s most direct writing/teachings to distill them to the most essential elements and practice vehemently until no more words are necessary. Then eventually we might find that we don’t need to depend on external commentaries, arguments, opinions, etc unless we dive into those as a pass-time, or intellectual gymnastics. I could have said exactly the same as Rupert about what I understand about Bhagavan’s teachings, I was introduced by the compendium of “Be as you are” by David Godman, and then Talks, and then all the books of reminiscences by devotees, but it is only when I came through the understanding that Michael provided of the actual and unfiltered version of Bhagavan’s teachings (Ulladu Narpadu, Nan-Yar, etc…) coupled with the actual practice that the teaching became assimilated.
There are clear discrepancies of what Rupert Spira (RS) said and what Michael’s expose in this blog, starting with the idea that what is aware of phenomena is essentially awareness (self) which is RS position against the perspective is actually aware of phenomena is ego (MJ’s). If we read Saddhu Om’s text pointed out by Ken in the recent posting, that is what transpires, awareness can only “be aware” of itself, while it is chidabhasa (ego) that is only aware of phenomena.
This is again the same old vedantic discussion that will go forever until the moment the dream will be destroyed, that’s why from my point of view (and here we are dealing only with "points of view”) I couldn’t agree more with verse 40 of Bhagavan’s Ulladu Narpadu:
"If it be said that liberation is of three kinds, with form, without form, and both with and without form, I shall reply that the destruction of the form of the ego, which distinguishes between [liberation which is] with form, without form, and both with and without form, is liberation. Know thus.
In synthesis, ego (chidabhasa, mind, maya, I-thought) is everything, including all points of view, all teachings, all quotes, all videos, all blog postings, commentaries, bodies, minds, bhagavans, you/me/he/she/it/us/they and infinite etceteras...
Mouna,
without having watched the recommended video I instinctively share your reservation about "bother searching in other places of the spiritual market".
The full understanding of Bhagavan's teachings as they are explained by Michael James should be enough theoretical base to enable us to find our own way back home.
Let us therefore weigh the heavy anchor of our ego-bound ignorance about our real nature and under full sail use the strong airflow of meticulous self-investigation to reach our destination: knowing the knower.
Mouna -
It sounds like you didn't watch the video.
Mouna -
"There are clear discrepancies..."
That paragraph is not an accurate representation of either Rupert or Ramana's viewpoint.
You should read again this sentence of Sadhu Om that I just posted:
"Therefore, the mind which attends to Self is no more the mind; it is the consciousness aspect of Self (atma-chit-rupam)! Likewise, so long as it attends to the second and third persons (the world), it is not the consciousness aspect of Self; It is the mind, the reflected form of consciousness (chit-abhasa-rupam)!"
The phrase "reflected form of" is not a negation.
For example, rain is a form of water. So, when rain falls on us, then water falls on us.
In the video, Rupert explains - in terms of actually moment-to-moment experience - what Ramana and Sadhu Om explain theoretically.
Ken,
I not only watched that video but many others from Rupert even before he became well-known. I consider him one of the best advaita western teachers of the moment, if not the best. I am well versed in what he presents, even from the time of The Transparency of Things and the book he edited/wrote from his teacher Francis Lucille.
You should read again the phrase you posted from Sadhu Om, that clearly points out that "the mind which attends to Self is no more the mind; it is the consciousness aspect of Self (atma-chit-rupam)!" That means that when ego directs attention to "itself", does not find itself (since non-existent), dissolves and that is called awareness being aware of itself (that actually and to use Rupert's phrase is a semantic concession because nothing can be aware of itself in the absolute sense) because let us remember that the ego is an imaginary knot (FROM ITS OWN VIEWPOINT) between awareness and imaginary non-sentient projection of its own.
And second: so long as it attends [the mind] to the second and third persons (the world), it is not the consciousness aspect of Self; It is the mind, the reflected form of consciousness (chit-abhasa-rupam)! Clearly what I was pointing out to you in my previous posting that sounds like you didn't read.
But you know what Ken, as I said before in a different but quite the same kind of exchange, you may have the last word in this thread, that I shall read, think about and respect, but I shall not respond anymore because definitely we understand things a bit differently, coming from different viewpoints, and at this stage I am no longer, as Rupert says time and time again in his discussions, interested to have more philosophical and semantic exchanges.
Last but not least, and again, no one here has the truth about Bhagavan's teachings, nor me, nor you, nor Michael, David G, RS, these are only pointers within the dream... Ego, or jiva, is one, not many, and cannot, never-ever, understand what is going on on the other side of itself, specially because, there is nothing going on! and itself is just its own mirage.
Mouna -
But that (your first three paragraphs) is exactly what Rupert says in the video. (I certainly have not seen all his videos, and he may have said incorrect things in the ones I have not seen.)
In the course of the video, he gives an easy method to transition from attending to 2nd and 3rd persons, to doing what Ramana and Sadhu Om suggest, i.e. being still while being alert and present (my paraphrase).
Sadhu Om states "Moreover, that attention is no longer even an action, but inaction (akarma) or the state of ‘being still’ (summa iruttal)."
Rupert describes this as not being "attention", he uses "attention" only when the mind is going towards 2nd and 3rd persons.
I think his explanation of this in the video is the clearest explanation of what "attention to the Self" actually is.
Ramana's reliably documented teachings are all in Tamil, so most of us will never be reading Ramana's writings. Instead, we are reading someone else's writings. As Godman states: 'The European-language translations of these works are only as good as the understanding and the linguistic ability of the person doing the translating."
The various English translations of Ramana's writings have significant differences. Some are acknowledged as expressing the translator's understanding of the teaching as a whole. Thus it is the teaching of the translator.
There is a Youtube video of "lost satsangs of Nisargadatta" which illustrate this. Nisargadatta spoke only Marathi, with an English translator always present, and both can be heard on the video. However, the video producers also had a new translator do an English translation in the subtitles. The results are hilarious - they seem like two different talks are being heard (between the English audio and the English subtitles).
As all of us who read Ramama blogs know well, "Talks" is a dubious source, and no particular Talk can be depended to represent Ramana's teachings. However, the same does not apply to other collections.
Godman states that after Ramana's writings, "Next, in order of authenticity and reliability, are the records of conversations that appeared during Bhagavan’s lifetime which were checked and edited by him prior to publication. This list would include Maharshi’s Gospel, Spiritual Instruction, and the talks that precede Sat Darshana Bhashya.
There is a proof copy of the first edition of Maharshi’s Gospel in the Ramanasramam archives which shows that Bhagavan made minor handwritten revisions to the text prior to its publication."
IMHO, for English readers, this makes Maharshi's Gospel the most reliable and authentic Ramana teachings. In addition, its author, Maurice Frydman is a very well regarded saint-like figure. Nisargadatta, when asked if anyone thoroughly understood his teachings, replied that the only one he was sure of, was Maurice Frydman.
Lastly, we have the claim of "certain teachings were watered down for less advanced students but Ramana's writings represent the real teachings". However, an actual reading from beginning to end of both Nan Yar and Ulladu Narpadu would indicate just the opposite - both works "start from scratch". Many of the conversations in the other books certainly start from a more knowledgeable perspective.
OK, I'll break the promise I did to myself of not answering.
I haven't heard, so far, Rupert saying something "incorrect", that is why I have him in such a high standard. What I said two postings ago is that there are some discrepancies between what he presents and Michael's view in relation to Bhagavan's teachings.
I agree about the translations but the two sources I use for B's teachings is Michael and Robert Butler. They have an incredible understanding of not only the grammar and meaning of each word but also a clear understanding of the teaching. I have many tamilian friends here in California that praise someone like Robert Butler (or Michael) as knowing more tamil than themselves. Is worth noting that the writings of Bhagavan from his hand were written in classic poetic tamil, very difficult to decipher even for the normal tamilian speaker.
I do agree with your take on Nisargadatta's translations, I saw that film and couldn't believe it myself. On YouTube there are talks by Nisargadatta (without image) that are translated sentence by sentence by a translator in "voice over" that make much more sense.
But ultimately Ken, my whole point is that whatever meaning we attribute to the different versions of what Bhagavan wrote or was put down by his scribes, after a while, and I think you would agree with me, the practice of turning attention inwards, tracing the sense of subjective feeling of "i", tracing the source where phenomena (thoughts or vritti) like sensations, perceptions, feelings and thoughts arise, tracing the root "I-thought", and eventually the most important, abiding "there" after we made all these efforts, becomes very evident as the ultimate tool.
DO we need to understand more than that? or what happens when mind dissolves?
What happens next, if there is going to be perception, or a world view as self in a non-dual way, or no world at all, is really not our immediate business.
I feel sometimes we spend more time reading the menu than actually eating the food, and that, in the final analysis, might increase our hunger even more.
Dear Ken
On behalf of the have-not's, do you happen to know if Rupert has a policy for those who cannot affords his satsang/retreat prices to attend?
Many thanks
Sterling
svabhava, as you say, our lives are imperfect and incomplete. It will always be so, as long as we experience ourself as this ego. The ego is imperfect, because perfection belongs only to ourself as we really are, and since our ego is just a distorted form of ourself, it can never be perfect. Likewise, it is always incomplete because it has broken itself away from completeness – that is, away from our infinite and unbroken self.
Therefore, the only way to become perfect and complete is to destroy this ego, and we can achieve this aim only by vigilant self-investigation.
Sanjay,
quite right.
But now I have to pack my luggage. Siva-Arunachala-Ramana has ordered me a few weeks of intense practice in self-investigation.
Kind regards.
Bye for now.
manana… (which is in a mixture of Michael’s words and my own words)
In one his videos on his YouTube channel Michael talked about the Upanishadic statement: ‘All is brahman’. He explained how Bhagavan’s his central teaching is: ‘All is ego’.
Bhagavan teaches us, ‘all is ego’, because it a practical teaching. If we say ‘all is brahman, it is just a thought, or an idea in our mind. Though ultimately ‘all is brahman’, but intermediately it very useful to understand that ‘all is ego’. Though Bhagavan’s teaching seems to differ from the Upanishadic teaching, but these two can be reconciled.
If we think, ‘all is ego’, then the logical question should be: ‘if all is ego, then who am I? Am I also this ego? This ego was not there in sleep, but I was very much there, so who exactly am I?’ Such reflections should prompt us to investigate: who am I?
Thus we turn our attention towards ourself, our ego, and once we do this the ego disappears. What remains is brahman. Then what was it that appeared as the ego and this world-appearance? Obviously it can be only brahman (our atma-svarupa), because brahman alone actually exists.
Bhagavan’s teachings are much more practical than all the Upanishads and Vedanta put together. This world-appearance is an expansion of our ego, and once it is destroyed the world-appearance will also be destroyed. What will then remain is the adhisthana or aadhara of the ego, and this adhisthana or aadhara is brahman. Therefore, Bhagavan’s teaching is ultimately reconciled with Upanishadic teachings.
manana - part one . . . on the immense benefit of sat-sanga
Inputs: (A) Sri Ramanopadesa Noonmalai Commentary by Sri Sadhu Om (B) Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham – an explanatory paraphrase an article by Sri Michael James
The benefits and unique efficacy of sat-sanga is the topic of the first 6 verses of Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham. This shows the immense value which Bhagavan attached to sat-sanga. In the context of Bhagavan’s teachings, sat-sanga only means ‘association with sat, the reality, or association with those who know and abide as the reality’, as Sri Sadhu Om explains.
verse one: By such sat-sanga our asat-sanga (association with asat, this illusory world-appearance) will be reduced, which in turn will reduce our mental attachments towards the worldly objects. In other words, our vishaya-vasanas will be weakened, and they will all eventually perish due to our lack of interest in them. Thus we will be established in our immutable, motionless self, never to rise again as this ego.
Mental contact with the jnani is much more beneficial than their physical company. We should try to love their teachings and practise these to the best of our ability. Regular sravana and manana of their teachings is itself a powerful sat-sanga.
Therefore, as Bhagavan said, ‘cherish their [jnani’s] association’.
verse two: The true sage (atma-jnani) will direct us only to aim for complete self-knowledge. As Bhagavan one said: ‘our aim is only atma [one’s essential self]; all other aims are for those who are incapable of atma-lakshaya’. The true sage will lovingly explain us the only direct means to attain such clear self-knowledge. Such benefit cannot be obtained by listening to religious preachers, reading spiritual texts, doing virtuous deeds and so on.
(I will continue this manana in my next comment)
In continuation of my previous manana
verse three: Just as a hand fan can be put aside when the cool southern breeze is blowing, likewise one can discard all observances and niyamas like fasting, puja, japa, dhyana, self-restrain, or living a virtuous life, when one is able to attend directly to sat or ‘what is’, or associate with the jnani.
verse four: Our mental anguish, our bodily needs and our sins will be removed merely by the precious sight of the incomparable sadhu. Like, merely being in the presence of Bhagavan benefited countless devotees in various ways.
verse five: The power of holy waters and images of deities is derived from the intensity of faith, devotion and bhava of devotees. These can bestow purity to a limited extent and that to very slowly. However the jnani is like the fire - fire of jnana. The mere presence of the jnani will transform the hearts of those who reside in that presence (sannidhi). The power of Arunachala is the power of the jnani’s presence.
Note: In my previous manana comment I wrote: ‘The benefits and unique efficacy of sat-sanga is the topic of first 6 verses of Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham’. Sorry, it is not first 6 verses, but first 5 verses that deal with the topic of sat-sanga.
Everyone is aware of the Self every night during deep sleep, when there is no world.
So, realisation is not "being aware of the Self when there is no world", because everyone is already doing that every night.
Thus, a jnani is someone who is also aware of the Self when the world is present - that is their difference from everyone else.
This is why the claim that "the world vanishes upon realization" makes no sense at all.
Everyone is aware of the Self every night during deep sleep, when there is no world.
There is "no one" that can be aware "of the Self" during sleep. There is only pure awareness.
So, realisation is not "being aware of the Self when there is no world", because everyone is already doing that every night.
Same commentary as above.
Thus, a jnani is someone who is also aware of the Self when the world is present - that is their difference from everyone else.
A "jnani" is not "someone". There is only jnana
This is why the claim that "the world vanishes upon realization" makes no sense at all.
Who said that it makes sense? Of course for the mind doesn't make any sense at all.
Why? Because according to the ultimate teachings there is no world and no realization to start with!!!
Figure that one out, dear ego!
Interestingly enough Mouna, neither Gaudapada's famous ajata vada verse, nor Sankara's commentary on it says that there is no world. They only both refer to the individual jiva, for whom:
"There is no dissolution, no birth, none in bondage, none aspiring for wisdom, no seeker of liberation and none liberated. This is the absolute truth"
It is clearly talking in a personal creation sense rather than world creation sense. Bhagavan also of course focused attention on the reality of the jiva, as opposed to discussions on the reality of the world.
Sankara's commentary on Brihadaranyaka Up makes clear:
"The results of knowledge and nescience are 'being the Self of all' and 'being of a limited nature' respectively. Through knowledge one becomes the Self of all. Through nescience one becomes finite. One becomes cut off from others."
The whole purpose of the upanishads is to address the ignorance of the individual that he is separate from all that is, and therefore must strive for personal benefit and accumulation.
Interestingly enough Venkat, you forgot "no creation" at the beginning of you karika 2:32 version...
Ken, in your latest comment you have introduced us to two new and very curious ideas: firstly that the difference between sleep and ātma-jñāna is that in sleep one is aware only of oneself, whereas in ātma-jñāna one can be aware both of oneself and of the world; and secondly that ātma-jñāna is somehow dependent upon awareness of the world (or at least upon the ability to be aware of the world).
However, Bhagavan taught us that there is actually no difference whatsoever between sleep and ātma-jñāna, because like ātma-jñāna sleep is our natural state of pure self-awareness. For example, in the first chapter of Maharshi’s Gospel (2002 edition, page 9) it is recorded that he said:
‘Sleep is not ignorance, it is one’s pure state; wakefulness is not knowledge, it is ignorance. There is full awareness in sleep and total ignorance in waking.’
The only defect in sleep is that we seem to come out of it when we rise as the ego in waking or dream, but this defect seems to exist only from the perspective of ourself as this ego. From the perspective of ourself as we actually are we never come out of sleep, because what is called ‘sleep’ from the perspective of the ego is actually our real and eternal state, the one and only state that actually exists.
The reason why there is no awareness of any world in sleep but there is awareness of a world in both waking and dream is explained by Bhagavan very simply in the first sentence of the third paragraph of Nāṉ Yār? and in one of the sentences of the fourth paragraph: ‘சர்வ அறிவிற்கும் சர்வ தொழிற்குங் காரண மாகிய மன மடங்கினால் ஜகதிருஷ்டி நீங்கும்’ (sarva aṟiviṟkum sarva toṙiṟkum kāraṇam-āhiya maṉam aḍaṅgiṉāl jaga-diruṣṭi nīṅgum), ‘If the mind, which is the cause for all awareness [of things other than oneself] and for all activity, subsides, jagad-dṛṣṭi [perception of the world] will cease’, and ‘மனம் ஆத்ம சொரூபத்தினின்று வெளிப்படும்போது ஜகம் தோன்றும்’ (maṉam ātma sorūpattiṉiṉḏṟu veḷippaḍum-pōdu jagam tōṉḏṟum), ‘When the mind comes out from ātma-svarūpa, the world appears’.
Therefore, since there is no mind in ātma-jñāna, how can there be awareness of any world? As Bhagavan makes very clear in these two paragraphs of Nāṉ Yār?, the world is a projection of the mind, so since the mind is an erroneous awareness of ourself (an awareness of ourself as if we were a body), there can be no perception of any world when we see ourself as we actually are. This is why he said in the next two sentences of the fourth paragraph: ‘ஆகையால், ஜகம் தோன்றும்போது சொரூபம் தோன்றாது; சொரூபம் தோன்றும் (பிரகாசிக்கும்) போது ஜகம் தோன்றாது’ (āhaiyāl, jagam tōṉḏṟum-pōdu sorūpam tōṉḏṟādu; sorūpam tōṉḏṟum (pirakāśikkum) pōdu jagam tōṉḏṟādu), ‘Therefore when the world appears, svarūpa [one’s ‘own form’ or real nature] does not appear; when svarūpa appears (shines), the world does not appear’.
(I will continue this reply in my next comment.)
In continuation of my previous comment in reply to Ken:
What Bhagavan stated so explicitly and unequivocally in these two paragraphs of Nāṉ Yār? was also clearly implied by him in many verses of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu and Upadēśa Undiyār. For example, while explaining the nature of real awareness in verse 27 of Upadēśa Undiyār, he concluded by saying, ‘அறிவதற்கு ஒன்று இலை’ (aṟivadaṟku oṉḏṟu ilai), ‘There is not anything for knowing’, thereby implying that nothing (no world or anything else) ever exists for real awareness to know. Likewise, in the third sentence of verse 12 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu he says, ‘அறிதற்கு அறிவித்தற்கு அன்னியம் இன்றாய் அவிர்வதால், தான் அறிவு ஆகும்’ (aṟidaṟku aṟivittaṟku aṉṉiyam iṉḏṟāy avirvadāl, tāṉ aṟivu āhum), ‘Since it shines without another for knowing or for making known, oneself is [real] awareness’, thereby implying once again that for ourself as the real awareness that we actually are no other thing exists to know or make known.
Therefore if you believe that there is awareness of the world in ātma-jñāna, how do you explain what Bhagavan says in these two verses, and in the third and fourth paragraphs of Nāṉ Yār?, and in all the other samples of his writings that I cited and discussed in What is aware of everything other than ourself is only the ego and not ourself as we actually are?
Nikhilananda's translation reads "No dissolution, NO BIRTH . . .", as does Sw Chinmayananda.
Clearly one can interpret no birth as no creation, but if you look at the last 4 clauses "none in bondage, none aspiring for wisdom, no seeker of liberation and none liberated", they all refer to the personal self.
Given that the whole point of Vedanta and Shankara is to correct the avidya arising from the mutual superimposition of Self (Brahman) and non-Self (body-mind), as is clear from the second quote from Shankara (in my previous comment), it strikes me that it is a reasonable hypothesis to say that the primary focus of ajata vada is the imagined separation of the jiva.
Best,
venkat
venkat,
ok, let's play with your cards.
creation=birth. creation comes with birth, the birth of the ego, that is what Bhagavan says.
ego goes, creation goes. ego appears, creation appears. every day you can verify that cycle.
simple. you do not need a lot of shastra knowledge to verify that, or the fact that there is existence and knowledge of that existence.
but you know my friend, I actually also share your point of view, the difference is that for me, is both.
best also,
m
Mouna said...
There is "no one" that can be aware "of the Self" during sleep. There is only pure awareness.
yes, and in fact, there is not even the "cognitive structure" through which "some one" can perceive something.
there can be no sadhana, no effort, no effortlessness, no something, no nothing, to be known.
there is no capacity for thinking.
how ever, Ken has a point. Jnana should "assimilate" even the "story telling" of a "world".
and of a "jnani".
maybe after all, when the belief in a personal self dies completely, nothing else matters.
I'm not a robot. what am I?,
jnana doesn't "assimilate" anything... jnana can't be paralleled with a verb like jnana does this, does that, sees the world as itself, etc. jnana is and exists. period.
is the ego that does everything and atributes limitations to what doesn't have any.
duality is non-dual but non-duality is not dual, except in the case of a perceiver-perceived dyad. (the snake is the rope, but the rope is not the snake, except when viewed from an external source that after-the-fact will think: "Oh, so the rope was the snake after all!"
Mouna,
Ramanashram's translation of Nan Yar, which has a different nuance from that of Michael, reads:
"If the mind, which is the instrument of knowledge and is the basis of all activity, subsides, the perception of the world as an objective reality ceases"
In any event, the question we are not going to resolve is whether Bhagavan when he said that for the world must disappear, he meant it literally. Or, could he have meant it figuratively, in the sense that all likes and dislikes, all desires and fears, all "mine" and "yours", i.e. all mental interpretations / judgements, have to disappear. Shankara's writings are very much of the latter import.
In addition, evidence for the latter has been pointed to, in this blog, in various of Bhagavan's Talks, as well those of GVK, Murugunar's writings, Sadhu Natanananda, Sadhu Om and others. The response, which is not rebuttable, is that these were said as a concession to seekers who could not accept the final truth.
As we have agreed on before, this does not really matter, since it does not change the practice of vichara, and both interpretations point to detachment, vairagya. Which is what Bhagavan also says in UN verse 3 "The world is real. No it is an unreal appearance" . . .
Thanks for the manana
venkat
Mouna wrote:
" Everyone is aware of the Self every night during deep sleep, when there is no world.
There is 'no one' that can be aware 'of the Self' during sleep. There is only pure awareness."
"Ramana Maharshi: What is the standard of reality? That alone is real which exists by itself, which reveals itself by itself and which is eternal and unchanging." (Maharshi’s Gospel, p. 61)
That the Self "reveals itself by itself" is a major aspect of the Self. The Self is always aware of itself. The Self is Awareness. Awareness is always aware of itself.
When I said:
" a jnani is someone who is also aware of the Self when the world is present - that is their difference from everyone else."
that can only be from the perspective of ajnanis.
Michael wrote:
"The only defect in sleep is that we seem to come out of it when we rise as the ego in waking or dream, but this defect seems to exist only from the perspective of ourself as this ego. From the perspective of ourself as we actually are we never come out of sleep, because what is called ‘sleep’ from the perspective of the ego is actually our real and eternal state, the one and only state that actually exists."
That is entirely true. But realisation, ignorance, bondage, jnanis and sages are only from the perspective of ego.
The Self is always fine as it is, it does not need teachings.
But that brings up a further point with regards to the idea "the world vanishes upon realization".
"Ramana Maharshi: The jnani knows that the screen, the pictures and the sight thereof are but the Self. With the pictures the Self is in its manifest form; without the pictures It remains in the unmanifest form. To the jnani it is quite immaterial if the Self is in the one form or the other. He is always the Self." (From Maharshi's Gospel, p. 62)(all of my quotes from it are from the 2002 edition, by the way)
This same "the Self is in the one form or the other" is echoed in Nan Yar paragraph 7:
"Svarūpa [our ‘own form’ or actual self] alone is the world; svarūpa alone is ‘I’ [our ego, soul or individual self]; svarūpa alone is God; everything is śiva-svarūpa [our actual self, which is śiva, the absolute and only truly existing reality]."
and Nan Yar paragraph 4:
"What is called ‘mind’ is an atiśaya śakti [an extraordinary or wonderful power] that exists in ātma-svarūpa [our actual self]."
So, the world can only vanish from the viewpoint of the ego. "To the jnani it is quite immaterial"
I like that Venkat, the only thing we know is that we don't know...
"thanks for the manana"
Thank you my friend,
See you around the block... sorry, blog
m
Ken wrote:
So, the world can only vanish from the viewpoint of the ego. "To the jnani it is quite immaterial"
Couldn't agree more, but only if one also ads: so the world can only be perceived from the viewpoint of the ego. "To the jnani it is quite immaterial"
ego is all.
definition of all?: "used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing."
Venkat, regarding the comment in which you say, ‘Nikhilananda’s translation [of Māṇḍukya Kārikā 2.32] reads “No dissolution, NO BIRTH ...”, as does Sw Chinmayananda’, the word that they translated in this case as ‘birth’ is उत्पत्ति (utpatti), which means coming into existence, arising, origination, birth, production or occurrence (and in verse 24 of Upadēśa Taṉippākkaḷ Bhagavan translated utpatti in this verse as ஆதல் (ādal), which likewise means coming into existence, occurring, happening or becoming), so when this verse says that there is no utpatti the straightforward implication is that there is no utpatti whatsoever.
Of course if we want we could interpret it to mean that there is just no birth of any jīva or ‘personal self’, as you suggest, but rather than interpreting it according to our own personal preferences, it would be more wise for us to interpret it in accordance with the fundamental principles of Bhagavan’s teachings, as expressed by him in Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, Nāṉ Yār? and elsewhere. As he says in verse 26 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, ‘அகந்தை உண்டாயின், அனைத்தும் உண்டாகும்; அகந்தை இன்றேல், இன்று அனைத்தும். அகந்தையே யாவும் ஆம்’ (ahandai uṇḍāyiṉ, aṉaittum uṇḍāhum; ahandai iṉḏṟēl, iṉḏṟu aṉaittum. ahandai-y-ē yāvum ām), which means ‘If the ego [the jīva] comes into existence, everything comes into existence; if the ego does not exist, everything does not exist. The ego itself is everything’, so if there is no birth or coming into existence of the ego or jīva, there is no birth or coming into existence of anything whatsoever.
Mouna, come on...
if our experience was that there is only Jnana, and it does nothing, then we wouldn't be having this conversations, right?
the ajata view can be a claim that the Jnani makes, not the ego.
and the truth is that, as long as we believe that we are a body mind, whatever we say about the ultimate is just ... irrelevent.
I just came across one more quote on this:
"D: How can I control the mind?
Ramana Maharshi: There is no mind to control if the Self is realised. The Self shines forth when the mind vanishes. In the realised man the mind may be active or inactive, the Self alone exists. For, the mind, body and world are not separate from the Self; and they cannot remain apart from the Self. Can they be other than the Self? When aware of the Self why should one worry about these shadows? How do they affect the Self?" (from Maharshi's Gospel, p. 16)
Venkat, regarding the comment in which you say, ‘Ramanashram’s translation of Nan Yar, which has a different nuance from that of Michael, reads: “If the mind, which is the instrument of knowledge and is the basis of all activity, subsides, the perception of the world as an objective reality ceases”’, am I not correct in believing that you can read and understand Tamil? If that is the case, you can see for yourself that my translation of the first sentence of the third paragraph of Nāṉ Yār?, ‘சர்வ அறிவிற்கும் சர்வ தொழிற்குங் காரண மாகிய மன மடங்கினால் ஜகதிருஷ்டி நீங்கும்’ (sarva aṟiviṟkum sarva toṙiṟkum kāraṇam-āhiya maṉam aḍaṅgiṉāl jaga-diruṣṭi nīṅgum), namely ‘If the mind, which is the cause for all awareness [of things other than oneself] and for all activity, subsides, jagad-dṛṣṭi [perception of the world] will cease’, is accurate and correct, and that Bhagavan wrote no words in that sentence that mean or could imply ‘as an objective reality’.
In the context of his teachings the term ‘objective reality’ has no meaning whatsoever, because according to him what is real is only ātma-svarūpa (the ‘own form’ or real nature of oneself), which is pure awareness (awareness that is completely devoid of both awareness and ignorance of anything else, as he says in the first sentence of both verse 27 of Upadēśa Undiyār and verse 12 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu), and ātma-svarūpa or pure awareness can never be ‘objective’, since it devoid of both subject and object (though paradoxically the sole source and substance of both of them). Moreover, since objects seem to exist only in the view of the subject, which is the ego, they are completely unreal.
Therefore the ‘translation’ you have cited from one of the books published by Sri Ramanasramam is not bringing out a ‘different nuance’ of what Bhagavan wrote, but is simply interpolating an idea that has no place in his teachings, so it is not actually a translation but a serious misinterpretation and misrepresentation of what he wrote.
I'm not a robot. what am I?
agreed, all irrelevant, except for ego.
Hi Michael
Unfortunately I have forgotten my Tamil. Thank you for the clarification.
Best wishes,
venkat
‘Ramanashram’s translation of Nan Yar, which has a different nuance from that of Michael, reads: “If the mind, which is the instrument of knowledge and is the basis of all activity, subsides, the perception of the world as an objective reality ceases.”’
As Michael points out, there is a problem with the phrase ‘objective reality’. If something is ‘objective’ it cannot be real; and if something is ‘real’ it cannot be ‘objective’. Therefore, if we think deeply, ‘objective reality’ carries a serious contraction within the phrase itself.
Post a Comment