Upadēśa Undiyār: Tamil text, transliteration and translation
The three main sources that I cite in articles on this blog are Nāṉ Ār?, Upadēśa Undiyār and Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, because these are the three texts in which Bhagavan expressed the fundamental principles of his teachings in the most comprehensive, systematic, clear and coherent manner, but though there is a complete translation of Nāṉ Ār? on my website, I have not till now given a complete translation of all the verses of either Upadēśa Undiyār or Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu in one place, so since friends often write to me asking for such a translation of these texts, I have decided to give a complete translation of each of them here. Therefore in this article I give a translation of all the verses of Upadēśa Undiyār (which Bhagavan composed first in Tamil and later translated into Sanskrit, Telugu and Malayalam under the title Upadēśa Sāram, ‘The Essence of Spiritual Teachings’), and in a subsequent article I will likewise give a translation of all the verses of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu.
In both these texts Bhagavan expressed the fundamental principles of his teachings in the style of sūtras or aphorisms, so though each verse is relatively short, it is packed with deep meaning and is rich in implications, and hence they require explanation in order for us to understand them more deeply and completely. However no explanation of them should be considered complete, because no matter how much we may study and reflect on their meaning, we can always find fresh depth of meaning and wealth of implications in them, and consequently our understanding of them can become more clear, as I often find while answering questions or replying to comments on this blog, because when I cite and apply these verses in different contexts my understanding of them is deepened and enriched.
Therefore in this article, instead of attempting to give any new explanations of these verses, after each one I will give a list of links in reverse chronological order to places in this blog where I have already cited, explained and discussed it. Later I intend to post a copy of this translation on my website, but until I do so I will try to keep the list of links for each verse up to date by adding new links as and when I write any further explanations of any of these verses.
Like Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu and some of the other important Tamil works of Bhagavan Sri Ramana, Upadēśa Undiyār was composed at the request of Muruganar. In order to understand correctly what Bhagavan teaches us in this text, it is necessary for us to know the context in which he composed it.
Muruganar, who was not only Bhagavan’s foremost disciple but also a great Tamil scholar and poet, first came to him in September 1923, and before coming he composed a song called Dēśika Padigam, which he offered to him on his arrival. Soon after that he composed another song entitled Tiruvembāvai, and on seeing the poetic beauty of these verses and the lofty ideas contained in them, Bhagavan remarked, ‘This is in the style of Manikkavacakar. Can you sing like Manikkavacakar?’. Muruganar was taken aback on hearing these words, and exclaimed, ‘Where is my ignorant mind, which is as blind as an owl in daylight, and which is darker than the darkness of night? And where is the self-experience (ātma-anubhuti) of Manikkavacakar, in whom the darkness of delusion had vanished and in whom true knowledge (mey-jñāna) had surged forth? To compare my base mind with his exalted experience is like comparing a fire-fly with the bright stars’. When Muruganar thus expressed his own deeply felt unworthiness, by his glance of grace Bhagavan shone forth in his heart, thereby making his mind blossom, enabling him to compose the great work Śrī Ramaṇa Sannidhi Muṟai, which in later years Bhagavan himself declared to be equal to Manikkavacakar’s Tiruvācakam.
Śrī Ramaṇa Sannidhi Muṟai is a collection of more than 120 songs composed by Muruganar in praise of Bhagavan, and many of them are sung in the same style and metres as the songs of Tiruvācakam. Among the songs in Tiruvācakam, there is one song of 20 verses called Tiruvundiyār, in which Manikkavacakar sings about some of the līlās or divine games played by Lord Siva. Therefore in 1927 when Muruganar began to compose a song called Tiruvundiyār in praise of Bhagavan, he decided to follow a similar theme, and thus he started to sing about various līlās played by several Gods, taking all those Gods to be none other than Bhagavan Ramana himself.
Once some devotees asked Sadhu Om, ‘Kavyakantha Ganapati Sastri claimed that Bhagavan is an incarnation or avatāra of Subrahmanya. Other devotees say that he is an incarnation of Siva. What was Muruganar’s opinion? According to him, of which God was Bhagavan an incarnation?’, to which he replied with a smile, ‘According to Muruganar, it is the other way around. His conviction was that all Gods are incarnations or manifestations of Bhagavan’. This conviction of Muruganar’s is beautifully expressed by him in his song Tiruvundiyār.
Having attained self-knowledge by the grace of Bhagavan, Muruganar knew from his own direct experience that Bhagavan is the one unlimited supreme reality, and that all Gods and divine incarnations are truly manifestations of that same supreme reality. Although the supreme reality can manifest itself in any number of divine names and forms, the highest of all those manifestations is the name and form of the sadguru. Therefore being an exemplary disciple, Muruganar was drawn in devotion only to the name and form of his sadguru, Bhagavan Ramana, as he expresses beautifully in Śrī Ramaṇa Jñāna Bōdham, volume 3, verse 1023:
Thus in Tiruvundiyār Muruganar sings about the līlās of Vinayaka, Subrahmanya, Vishnu and his various incarnations such as Rama and Krishna, Siva, Buddha and Jesus, taking all these Gods to be manifestations of Bhagavan Ramana. Tiruvundiyār is divided into two parts, the first part consisting of 137 verses (Sannidhi Murai, vv. 1277-1413) about the līlās of various Gods narrated in the Hindu Purāṇas, and the second part consisting of 7 verses (Sannidhi Murai, vv. 1414-1420) about Buddha upholding the dharma of compassion (vv. 1-5) and Jesus Christ suffering crucifixion to expiate the sins of others (vv. 6-7).
In the first part of Tiruvundiyār Muruganar sings about Vinayaka breaking the axle of his father’s chariot (1-2), about Subrahmanya subduing the ego of Brahma (3), giving upadēśa to Siva (4-9) and playing with Vishnu (10-11), about Vishnu killing Hiranaya (12) and bestowing grace upon Mahabali (13-16), about Rama being merciful to Ravana (17), about Krishna teaching Arjuna his duty (18), and about Siva drinking poison (19), subduing Kali by his dance (20-21), plucking off one of the heads of Brahma (22), killing Andhakasura (23), burning the Tripurasuras with a mere laugh (24-34), punishing Daksha (35-36), destroying Jalandharasura (37), flaying the elephant (38), burning Kama (39-51), kicking Yama (52-61), showing compassion to Ravana (62-66), blessing Brahma and Vishnu when they worshipped him in the form of Annamalai, having failed to reach his head and feet (67-69), and finally enlightening the ascetics in the Daruka Forest (70-137). While singing about these līlās, Muruganar sings of them as the līlās of Bhagavan Ramana, who had manifested as all these various Gods.
It was in the context of the last līlā related in the first part of Tiruvundiyār that the work Upadēśa Undiyār came into existence. Having sung in verses 70 to 102 how Bhagavan in the form of Siva had appeared in the Daruka Forest to subdue the pride of the ascetics (tapasvis) and bring them to the path of liberation, Muruganar came to the point where Siva was to give them his spiritual teachings (upadēśa). Thinking that it would not be appropriate for him to decide what teachings Siva would have given in order to uplift the ascetics from their then level of maturity, in which they were blinded by their attachment to the path of ritualistic action (karma), and to elevate their minds gradually till they would be fit to come to the direct path to liberation, Muruganar prayed to Bhagavan to reveal the essence of the teachings which he had himself given to the ascetics in those ancient days, when he had manifested in their midst in the form of Siva. Accordingly in verses 103 to 132 of the first part of Tiruvundiyār (verses 1379 to 1408 of Sannidhi Murai) Bhagavan composed the essence of the upadēśa that Siva gave to the ascetics in the Daruka Forest.
While composing these thirty verses, which he did in one sitting, Bhagavan discussed in detail with Muruganar all the ideas which were to be presented one after another in a carefully arranged and balanced sequence, and in the course of these discussions the original drafts of verses 16, 28 and 30 were composed by Muruganar and were then revised by Bhagavan. Such was the close co-operation with which they worked together.
These thirty verses form the main text (nūl) of Upadēśa Undiyār, and Bhagavan subsequently translated them into Telugu, Sanskrit and Malayalam under the title Upadēśa Saram (The Essence of Teachings). In Tamil the entire work consists of a prefatory verse (pāyiram) composed by Muruganar, six introductory verses (upōdghātam) that Bhagavan selected from Muruganar’s Tiruvundiyār in order to present the teachings in their proper context, the main text (nūl) of thirty verses, and five concluding verses of praise (vāṙttu), which are the last five verses of the first part of Tiruvundiyār.
In each of the verses of the upōdghātam, nūl and vāṙttu the final word of the second and third lines is உந்தீபற (undīpaṟa), which is a poetic elongation of the verb உந்திபற (undipaṟa), in which பற (paṟa) is the root and an imperative form of a verb that means to fly, hover, flutter or float in the air, and உந்தி (undi) seems to have been the name of an ancient game played by women, which was perhaps an early non-competitive form of what later evolved into the modern competitive sports of ball badminton and badminton, and the aim of which may have been for the group of players to keep the ball or shuttlecock flying about in the air without touching the ground for as long as possible. உந்தி (undi) may therefore have also meant the ball or shuttlecock used in such a game, in which case உந்தீ (undī) would be a vocative (or eighth case) form of it, so ‘உந்தீ பற’ (undī paṟa) may have been an exclamation that meant ‘ball, fly’ or ‘shuttlecock, fly’. The Tiruvundiyār song composed by Manikkavacakar was perhaps intended to be sung while playing this game, and hence he adopted a metre in which this word occurs at the end of the second and third lines of each verse. When these verses are translated into English, உந்தீபற (undīpaṟa) is obviously to be treated as a poetic expletive, but it is worth noting that it does lend a very joyful and playful spirit to the profound spiritual teachings that Bhagavan gives us in Upadēśa Undiyār.
In order to understand what Bhagavan is teaching us in Upadēśa Undiyār, particularly in the first fifteen verses, we need to read and carefully consider the upōdghātam and the summary of the story contained in it. Though in the Purāṇas the ascetics who were living in the Daruka Forest are described as ‘rishis’ (ṛṣis) who were performing tapas or austerities, what actually was their state of mind, what kind of tapas were they performing, and what was it that they were seeking to achieve through their tapas?
These so-called rishis were following the path of kāmya karma (ritualistic actions performed for the fulfilment of temporal desires), which is the path prescribed by the pūrva mīmāṁsā, a system of philosophy focused on the interpretation and practice of the Karma Kāṇḍa, the preliminary (and by far the largest) portion of the Vedas, which is concerned with performance of sacrifices and other ritualistic actions. Not knowing that the true goal of life is liberation, which is eradication of ego, they exhibited their ignorance by their actions such as the performance of various kinds of yāgas and yajñas (sacrificial rites), whereby they sought to attain powers, siddhis and other sources of enjoyment both in this world and the next. Being adept in the performance of such sacrificial rites and in the use of other techniques such as mantras, yantras and tantras, they had become intoxicated with conceit. Their pride in the power and efficacy of their karmas (ritualistic actions) was so great that they had even come to believe that there is no God except karma. ‘Karma alone is of foremost importance. The efforts we make in performing karmas have the power to yield their own fruit; they must yield their fruit; even God cannot prevent them from yielding fruit. So there is no need for us to be concerned about any God other than our own karmas’ – such was their arrogant attitude.
Thus, though in the Purāṇas they are politely referred to as ‘rishis’, their state of mind reveals that they were in fact only students in the first standard of the school of bhakti described in chapter two of the supplement to The Path of Sri Ramana. Can the karmas that they were performing for the fulfilment of their own selfish desires be called real tapas? As Bhagavan taught us in verse 30 of Upadēśa Undiyār, real tapas is nothing but complete cessation of ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’, which is what gives rise to the sense of doership, ‘I am doing karma’.
Since the ascetics had thus strayed so far from the path that leads to the real goal of egolessness, it was necessary for Lord Siva, the ocean of compassion, to make them understand the error of their ways and guide them back to the proper path. Therefore he manifested in the form of a mendicant and made them understand that even their most powerful karmas were rendered powerless in front of him. Thus their pride was subdued and they prayed to him for salvation.
Knowing how gross and unrefined the minds of the ascetics had become due to their longstanding attachment to karma, Siva knew that it would not be possible to bring them immediately to the subtle path of self-investigation (ātma-vicāra), which alone is the direct path to liberation. Therefore he had to guide them towards the path of self-investigation in a gradual manner. That is why in the first fifteen verses of Upadēśa Undiyār it was necessary for Bhagavan to summarise the paths of niṣkāmya karma, bhakti and yōga, which Siva first had to teach to the ascetics in order to elevate their minds gradually to the level of maturity in which they could understand that liberation can ultimately be attained only by means of self-investigation. Only after summarising those paths and explaining how they are each intended to lead eventually to the path of self-investigation, which is the true path of jñāna, could he begin to explain this path in more detail from verse 16 onwards.
Either because they do not know the context in which he composed this work, or because they have not carefully considered the connection between the context and what he taught in it, many people wrongly assume that Upadēśa Undiyār or Upadēśa Sāram is the essence of Bhagavan Ramana’s own teachings. However, if we consider the context and what he wrote in the first fifteen verses, it should be clear that the intention with which he composed this work was to summarise not his own teachings but the teachings that Siva gave in ancient days to the ascetics in the Daruka Forest to suit their level of spiritual maturity.
As Bhagavan often used to say, whatever spiritual teachings are given must be suited to the grasping power and maturity of whomever they are given to, so many different levels of teachings and practices are necessary to suit the needs of people of many different levels of spiritual development (see for example section 107 of Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi (1978 edition, page 103; 2006 edition, page 105), where it is recorded that he said that the instructions to be given ‘differ according to the temperaments of the individuals and according to the spiritual ripeness of their minds’). Since the ascetics to whom Siva gave his teachings were to be elevated by him from a very low level of spiritual maturity, it was necessary for him to begin by giving them teachings that they would be willing to accept and therefore able to grasp and put into practice, and then he had to lead them gradually from the grosser forms of spiritual practice such as pūjā, japa, dhyāna and prāṇāyāma towards the most refined, namely self-investigation, which is the simple practice of self-attentiveness.
Therefore we should not assume that all the sādhanas or spiritual practices that Bhagavan discusses in Upadēśa Undiyār are his own direct teachings. Though it is true that during his lifetime he had to give instructions concerning almost every kind of spiritual practice in order to guide those who were already following such practices and were not yet willing to come to the direct path of self-investigation, what actually was the core and essence of his teachings? Can it be said that pūjā, japa, dhyāna and prāṇāyāma are core elements of his teachings? Was it to teach such practices that he appeared on earth in our present age?
Though he acknowledged the efficacy of such practices as indirect means that, if practiced with devotion and without desire for achieving any selfish aim, would gradually purify the mind and thereby sooner or later lead one to the direct path of self-investigation (as indicated by him in verse 3 of Upadēśa Undiyār), the main reason he appeared in human form in modern times was not merely to give his approval to such indirect practices, which have already been expounded in detail in ancient texts. The principal purpose of his life was to teach us why and how to practise the simple and direct path of self-investigation, which is the only means by which we can be aware of ourself as we actually are and thereby eradicate ego. That is why his teachings were focussed on the practice of self-investigation, which bypasses the need for any other kind of spiritual practice.
In 1928, one year after he had composed Upadēśa Undiyār, Muruganar prayed to him, ‘So that we may be saved, reveal to us the nature of reality and the means by which to attain it’ (Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu pāyiram: introductory verse), in response to which Bhagavan composed Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, in which the only practice he expounded was self-investigation, and he made no more than a few indirect references to other practices. Therefore, the real essence of his teachings is only the path of self-investigation, which he has expounded in both Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu and the last fifteen verses of Upadēśa Undiyār.
Though he briefly discussed pūjā, japa, dhyāna and prāṇāyāma in the first fifteen verses of Upadēśa Undiyār, if we carefully consider what he actually says in these verses, we will see that he is explaining firstly how each of these practices can ultimately lead one to the path of self-investigation, which alone is the direct means to eradicate ego, and secondly that self-investigation is therefore the culmination of all other varieties of spiritual practice, namely niṣkāmya karma, bhakti, yōga, and jñāna, as he says in verse 10.
In the first two verses he begins by condemning kāmya karmas (actions performed for the fulfilment of temporal desires), declaring that they will not lead to liberation but will only immerse the doer deeper and deeper into the ocean of karma (action). In verse 3 he teaches that action can be conducive to the attainment of liberation only if it is done for the love of God and without any desire for its fruit, because it will then purify the mind and thereby enable one to recognise that the means to liberation is only self-investigation. In verses 4 to 7 he discusses the various kinds of desireless action (niṣkāmya karma), namely pūjā (worship or adoration of God), japa (repetition of a mantra or name of God) and dhyāna (meditation upon a name or form of God), which are done respectively by body, speech and mind, and each succeeding one of which is more efficacious in purifying the mind than the preceding one.
Then in verse 8 he says that rather than meditation upon God as other than oneself, it is better to meditate upon him as not other than oneself, and thereby he reveals how the paths of niṣkāmya pūjā, japa and dhyāna must eventually lead to the path of self-investigation, which is what he described as ananya-bhāva (meditation on what is not other), and which he said is ‘aṉaittiṉum uttamam’, ‘the best among all’, thereby implying that among all the practices of bhakti and also all other forms of spiritual practice it is the best, in the sense that it is the most effective means to purify the mind. He then says in verse 9 that to abide in one’s own true state of being, which is attained by the strength of such ananya-bhāva (self-attentiveness) and which transcends meditation (in the sense of mental activity, as opposed to self-attentiveness, which is a cessation of all such activity), is the truth of para-bhakti (supreme devotion). Thus, in verses 3 to 9 Bhagavan reveals how the paths of desireless action (niṣkāmya karma) and devotion (bhakti) lead to and culminate in the path of self-investigation, which in turn establishes one in the state of self-abidance, which is the true state of liberation. He then concludes this series of verses by saying in verse 10 that subsiding and being in one’s real nature, which is the source from which one had risen as a doer of action, is not only the essence of karma yōga and bhakti yōga, as described in the preceding verses, but is also the essence of rāja yōga and jñāna yōga, as described in the subsequent verses.
In verses 11 to 15 Bhagavan discusses the path of raja yōga. In verses 11 and 12 he explains that prāṇāyāma (breath-control) is an effective means to make the mind subside, but in verse 13 he warns that complete subsidence or dissolution of mind is of two kinds, namely laya and nāśa, the former being temporary and the latter being permanent. By prāṇāyāma only a temporary dissolution of the mind can be achieved, so in verse 14 he teaches us that the mind, which will subside only temporarily when the breath is restrained, should be directed on the one path of self-investigation, for then only will it attain manōnāśa, the state of destruction or permanent dissolution. Thus he reveals that the path of raja yōga must also lead one to the path of self-investigation if it is to enable one to achieve the final goal of liberation. He then concludes this second series of verses by saying in verse 15 that the great yōgi whose mind has thus been destroyed and who thereby abides as what alone is actually real has no more actions to do, because he has attained his natural state, thereby implying that our natural state is not one of doing anything but only one of just being, and that this is the goal we should be seeking.
Thus, though in verses 3 to 15 Bhagavan acknowledges the efficacy of niṣkāmya pūjā, japa, dhyāna and prāṇāyāma, he clearly implies that none of these sādhanas can be an adequate substitute for the direct path of self-investigation, but explains how each of them must finally lead one to self-investigation in order to enable one to attain the final goal of self-knowledge or liberation, which is manōnāśa or complete and permanent eradication of ego.
Having thus briefly summarized the paths of karma yōga, bhakti yōga and raja yōga in the first fifteen verses, showing how they must each sooner lead one to the practice of self-investigation, Bhagavan devotes the last fifteen verses to explaining the practice and goal of jñāna yōga, which he explains to be nothing other than the direct path of self-investigation, the simple practice of attending to and knowing the true nature of ‘I’.
உபதேச வுந்தியார் (Upadēśa-v-Undiyār): Teachings in an Undiyār Song of Thirty Verses
பாயிரம் (pāyiram): Prefatory Verse (composed by Sri Muruganar)
கன்மமய றீர்ந்துகதி காண நெறிமுறையின்
மன்மமுல குய்ய வழங்குகெனச் — சொன்முருகற்
கெந்தைரம ணன்றொகுத் தீந்தா னுபதேச
வுந்தியார் ஞானவிளக் கோர்.
kaṉmamaya ṯīrndugati kāṇa neṟimuṟaiyiṉ
maṉmamula huyya vaṙaṅguheṉac — coṉmurugaṟ
kendairama ṇaṉḏṟohut tīndā ṉupadēśa
vundiyār ñāṉaviḷak kōr.
பதச்சேதம்: ‘கன்ம மயல் தீர்ந்து கதி காண நெறி முறையின் மன்மம் உலகு உய்ய வழங்குக’ என சொல் முருகற்கு எந்தை ரமணன் தொகுத்து ஈந்தான் உபதேச வுந்தியார் ஞான விளக்கு ஓர்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): ‘kaṉma-mayal tīrndu gati kāṇa neṟi muṟaiyiṉ maṉmam ulahu uyya vaṙaṅguha’ eṉa sol murugaṟku endai ramaṇaṉ tohuttu īndāṉ upadēśa-v-undiyār ñāṉa viḷakku ōr.
அன்வயம்: ‘உலகு கன்ம மயல் தீர்ந்து உய்ய, கதி காண நெறி முறையின் மன்மம் வழங்குக’ என சொல் முருகற்கு எந்தை ரமணன் தொகுத்து ஈந்தான் ஞான விளக்கு உபதேச வுந்தியார் ஓர்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): ‘ulahu kaṉma-mayal tīrndu uyya, gati kāṇa neṟi muṟaiyiṉ maṉmam vaṙaṅguha’ eṉa sol murugaṟku endai ramaṇaṉ tohuttu īndāṉ ñāṉa viḷakku upadēśa-v-undiyār ōr.
English translation: Know that Upadēśa Undiyār is a light of jñāna that our father Ramana composed and gave to Muruganar, who said, ‘For the world to be saved, giving up the delusion of karma, tell the secret of the nature of the path to experience liberation’.
Explanatory paraphrase: Know that Upadēśa Undiyār is a light of jñāna [true knowledge or pure awareness] that our father Ramana composed and gave to Muruganar, who said, ‘For [the people of] the world to give up the delusion of karma [action] and be saved [from self-ignorance], tell [us] the secret of the muṟai [nature or orderly process] of the path [way or means] to experience liberation’.
உபோற்காதம் (upōdghātam): Introductory Verses (composed by Sri Muruganar)
Upōdghātam verse 1:
தாரு வனத்திற் றவஞ்செய் திருந்தவர்
பூருவ கன்மத்தா லுந்தீபற
போக்கறை போயின ருந்தீபற.
dāru vaṉattiṯ ṟavañcey dirundavar
pūruva kaṉmattā lundīpaṟa
pōkkaṟai pōyiṉa rundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: தாரு வனத்தில் தவம் செய்து இருந்தவர் பூருவ கன்மத்தால் போக்கறை போயினர்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): dāru vaṉattil tavam seydu irundavar pūruva kaṉmattāl pōkkaṟai pōyiṉar.
English translation: Those who were doing austerities in the Daruka forest were going to ruin by pūrva karma.
Explanatory paraphrase: Those who were doing tavam [austerities or tapas] in the Daruka forest were going to ruin by [following] pūrva karma [the path of ritualistic action as interpreted and prescribed by pūrva mīmāṁsā]. (Tiruvundiyār 1.70)
கன்மத்தை யன்றிக் கடவு ளிலையெனும்
வன்மத்த ராயின ருந்தீபற
வஞ்சச் செருக்கினா லுந்தீபற.
kaṉmattai yaṉḏṟik kaḍavu ḷilaiyeṉum
vaṉmatta rāyiṉa rundīpaṟa
vañjac cerukkiṉā lundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: ‘கன்மத்தை அன்றி கடவுள் இலை’ எனும் வல் மத்தர் ஆயினர் வஞ்ச செருக்கினால்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): ‘kaṉmattai aṉḏṟi kaḍavuḷ ilai’ eṉum val mattar āyiṉar vañja serukkiṉāl.
அன்வயம்: வஞ்ச செருக்கினால் ‘கன்மத்தை அன்றி கடவுள் இலை’ எனும் வல் மத்தர் ஆயினர்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): vañja serukkiṉāl ‘kaṉmattai aṉḏṟi kaḍavuḷ ilai’ eṉum val mattar āyiṉar.
English translation: Because of delusive conceit they became intoxicated with intense pride that there is no God except karma.
Explanatory paraphrase: Because of [their] delusive conceit [or infatuation] they became [so] intoxicated [or mad] with intense pride [that they fell prey to the arrogant belief] that there is no God except karma. (Tiruvundiyār 1.71)
கன்ம பலந்தருங் கர்த்தற் பழித்துச்செய்
கன்ம பலங்கண்டா ருந்தீபற
கர்வ மகன்றன ருந்தீபற.
kaṉma phalandaruṅ karttaṟ paṙittuccey
kaṉma phalaṅkaṇḍā rundīpaṟa
garva mahaṉḏṟaṉa rundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: கன்ம பலம் தரும் கர்த்தன் பழித்து செய் கன்ம பலம் கண்டார்; கர்வம் அகன்றனர்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): kaṉma-phalam tarum karttaṉ paṙittu sey kaṉma-phalam kaṇḍār; garvam ahaṉḏṟaṉar.
English translation: They saw the fruit of actions done disparaging God, who gives the fruit of actions. They left arrogance.
Explanatory paraphrase: They saw the fruit of actions done disparaging [spurning or disregarding] God [the kartā or ordainer], who gives karma-phala [the fruit of actions], [and hence] they left [gave up or lost] garva [their pride or arrogance]. (Tiruvundiyār 1.99)
Upōdghātam verse 4:
காத்தரு ளென்று கரையக் கருணைக்கண்
சேர்த்தருள் செய்தன னுந்தீபற
சிவனுப தேசமி துந்தீபற.
kāttaru ḷeṉḏṟu karaiyak karuṇaikkaṇ
sērttaruḷ seydaṉa ṉundīpaṟa
śivaṉupa dēśami dundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: காத்து அருள் என்று கரைய, கருணை கண் சேர்த்து அருள் செய்தனன் சிவன் உபதேசம் இது.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): kāttu aruḷ eṉḏṟu karaiya, karuṇai kaṇ sērttu aruḷ-seydaṉaṉ śivaṉ upadēśam idu.
அன்வயம்: காத்து அருள் என்று கரைய, கருணை கண் சேர்த்து சிவன் உபதேசம் இது அருள் செய்தனன்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): kāttu aruḷ eṉḏṟu karaiya, karuṇai kaṇ sērttu śivaṉ upadēśam idu aruḷ-seydaṉaṉ.
English translation: When they wept, ‘Graciously protect’, attaching the eye of grace, Śiva graciously gave this upadēśa.
Explanatory paraphrase: When they wept [repentantly], ‘Graciously protect [or save us]’, fixing [his] eye of grace [upon them], Śiva graciously gave this upadēśa [spiritual teaching]. (Tiruvundiyār 1.100)
Upōdghātam verse 5:
உட்கொண் டொழுக வுபதேச சாரத்தை
யுட்கொண் டெழுஞ்சுக முந்தீபற
வுட்டுன் பொழிந்திடு முந்தீபற.
uṭkoṇ ḍoṙuha vupadēśa sārattai
yuṭkoṇ ḍeṙuñsukha mundīpaṟa
vuṭṭuṉ boṙindiḍu mundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: உள் கொண்டு ஒழுக உபதேச சாரத்தை, உள் கொண்டு எழும் சுகம்; உள் துன்பு ஒழிந்திடும்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): uḷ koṇḍu oṙuha upadēśa sārattai, uḷ koṇḍu eṙum sukham; uḷ tuṉbu oṙindiḍum.
அன்வயம்: உபதேச சாரத்தை உள் கொண்டு ஒழுக, சுகம் உள் கொண்டு எழும்; உள் துன்பு ஒழிந்திடும்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): upadēśa sārattai uḷ koṇḍu oṙuha, sukham uḷ koṇḍu eṙum; uḷ tuṉbu oṙindiḍum.
English translation: When one imbibes and follows upadēśa sāram, happiness will rise from within; miseries within will cease.
Explanatory paraphrase: When one imbibes and follows [this] upadēśa sāram [the essence or summary of the spiritual teachings given by Lord Siva], happiness will rise from within [and thereby] miseries within will cease [die or be destroyed]. (Tiruvundiyār 1.101)
Upōdghātam verse 6:
சார வுபதேச சாரமுட் சாரவே
சேரக் களிசேர வுந்தீபற
தீரத் துயர்தீர வுந்தீபற.
sāra vupadēśa sāramuṭ cāravē
sērak kaḷisēra vundīpaṟa
tīrat tuyartīra vundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: சார உபதேச சாரம் உள் சாரவே. சேர களி சேர. தீர துயர் தீர.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): sāra upadēśa sāram uḷ sāravē. sēra kaḷi sēra. tīra tuyar tīra.
அன்வயம்: உபதேச சாரம் சார உள் சாரவே. களி சேர சேர. துயர் தீர தீர.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): upadēśa sāram sāra uḷ sāravē. kaḷi sēra sēra. tuyar tīra tīra.
English translation: May the essence of Upadēśa Sāram enter within. May joy accumulate, accumulate. May suffering cease, cease.
Explanatory paraphrase: May the sāra [essence, substance or import] of Upadēśa Sāram enter within [our heart]. May joy accumulate [or be achieved] abundantly. May suffering cease entirely. (Tiruvundiyār 1.102)
நூல் (nūl): Text
Verse 1:
கன்மம் பயன்றரல் கர்த்தன தாணையாற்
கன்மங் கடவுளோ வுந்தீபற
கன்மஞ் சடமதா லுந்தீபற.
kaṉmam payaṉḏṟaral karttaṉa dāṇaiyāṟ
kaṉmaṅ kaḍavuḷō vundīpaṟa
kaṉmañ jaḍamadā lundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: கன்மம் பயன் தரல் கர்த்தனது ஆணையால். கன்மம் கடவுளோ? கன்மம் சடம் அதால்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): kaṉmam payaṉ taral karttaṉadu āṇaiyāl. kaṉmam kaḍavuḷ-ō? kaṉmam jaḍam adāl.
அன்வயம்: கன்மம் பயன் தரல் கர்த்தனது ஆணையால். கன்மம் சடம் அதால், கன்மம் கடவுளோ?
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): kaṉmam payaṉ taral karttaṉadu āṇaiyāl. kaṉmam jaḍam adāl, kaṉmam kaḍavuḷ-ō?
English translation: Action giving fruit is by the ordainment of God. Since action is non-aware, is action God?
Explanatory paraphrase: Karma [action] giving fruit is by the ordainment of God [the kartā or ordainer]. Since karma is jaḍa [devoid of awareness], can karma be God?
Explanations and discussions:
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 1: karma is insentient, so it gives fruit only as ordained by God
2019-08-05: Since karma is jaḍa (devoid of awareness), what selects which fruit of past āgāmyas are to form the prārabdha of each life is neither ego nor any of its karmas but only grace
2016-10-12: An explanation of the first ten verses of Upadēśa Undiyār
2016-02-08: Why should we believe what Bhagavan taught us?
2014-09-05: The karma theory as taught by Sri Ramana (in this and the subsequent article, Why did Sri Ramana teach a karma theory?, the meaning and some of the implications of this verse are discussed and explained in depth)
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 2:
வினையின் விளைவு விளிவுற்று வித்தாய்
வினைக்கடல் வீழ்த்திடு முந்தீபற
வீடு தரலிலை யுந்தீபற.
viṉaiyiṉ viḷaivu viḷivuṯṟu vittāy
viṉaikkaḍal vīṙttiḍu mundīpaṟa
vīḍu taralilai yundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: வினையின் விளைவு விளிவு உற்று வித்தாய் வினை கடல் வீழ்த்திடும். வீடு தரல் இலை.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): viṉaiyiṉ viḷaivu viḷivu uṯṟu vittāy viṉai-kaḍal vīṙttiḍum. vīḍu taral ilai.
English translation: The fruit of action perishing, as seed causes to fall in the ocean of action. It is not giving liberation.
Explanatory paraphrase: The fruit of [any] action will perish [when it is experienced as part of prārabdha], [but what remains] as seed [namely viṣaya-vāsanās (also known as karma-vāsanās): inclinations to seek happiness or satisfaction in experiencing viṣayas (objects or phenomena) by doing actions of mind, speech and body] causes [one] to fall in the ocean of action. [Therefore] it [action or karma] does not give liberation.
Explanations and discussions:
2023-11-08: All vāsanās can be destroyed only when their root, namely ego, is eradicated, because it is the nature of ego to have vāsanās, and until all viṣaya-vāsanās are destroyed we cannot be truly said to be without action (karma), because viṣaya-vāsanās are the seeds that cause us to fall in the great ocean of action
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 2: karma is caused by vāsanās, so it does not give liberation
2022-03-24: The cause for our falling in the vast ocean of action is our viṣaya-vāsanās
2021-12-05: What Bhagavan means in this verse is that it is the seeds (namely vāsanās) that cause us to fall in the ocean of action, and though each fruit perishes as soon as we experience it, the seeds persist and perpetuate themselves, but only to the extent to which we allow ourself to be swayed by them, so the fundamental error we make is allowing ourself to be swayed by our viṣaya-vāsanās, and hence the only solution is for us to cling firmly to being self-attentive and thereby not allow ourself to be swayed by any viṣaya-vāsanās
2021-12-04: All actions are caused by our allowing ourself to be swayed by our viṣaya-vāsanās, as Bhagavan implies here, because the seeds he refers to are viṣaya-vāsanās and consequent karma-vāsanās (inclinations to do actions in order to experience viṣayas), so these are what prompt us to do actions by mind, speech and body and thereby cause us to fall in the great ocean of perpetual action
2021-06-29: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 2: viṣaya-vāsanās are the seeds that cause us to fall in the great ocean of action (karma)
2020-12-18: Using our icchā-kriyā-svatantra (freedom of will and action) to do any āgāmya is a misuse of it, because doing so causes us to fall in the ocean of action
2020-08-24: Experiencing prārabdha is consuming the fruit of past āgāmya (actions done under the sway of our vāsanās), so when we consume that fruit it thereby ceases to exist, but the seeds that drive us to do āgāmya remain, so if we do not curb them by refraining from acting under their sway they will continue driving us to do āgāmya and will thereby immerse us in the vast ocean of action (karma)
2019-12-21: Destiny (prārabdha) is the fruit of our past karmas, so if destiny could determine whether or not we succeed in eradicating ego, that would mean that liberation is the fruit of karma, which cannot be the case
2018-09-01: Even after the fruit of one of the āgāmyas we have done in an earlier life has been experienced by us as part of our prārabdha in a later life, the seed or karma-vāsanā left by that āgāmya will remain until it is either replaced by other vāsanās or eradicated by self-investigation and self-surrender, so karma is self-perpetuating
2018-09-01: Since actions done with desire (kāmya karma), as actions generally tend to be to a greater or lesser extent, not only create fruit but also leave seeds (namely viṣaya-vāsanās and concomitant karma-vāsanās), they are self-perpetuating, so the more we desist from doing such actions the less we will be either creating new seeds or strengthening existing ones
2018-09-01: What binds us to the relentless wheel of karma or saṁsāra, which is like a great ocean in which we have been immersed and drowning since time immemorial, is not the fruits of our past actions, a small selection of which are what we experience as prārabdha in each life or dream, but is our will (the desire or liking that we have to continue doing such actions and experiencing whatever we seem to achieve thereby), which is like a large bag of seeds, each of which is waiting to sprout as thoughts, words or deeds (actions of mind, speech or body) whenever conditions are favourable
2018-09-01: Since liberation is our real nature, we cannot ‘attain’ it by doing anything but only by being what we actually are
2017-09-05: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 2: the cause of bondage is not fate but vāsanās, which belong only to the domain of free will
2017-06-20: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 2: being the fruit of our past actions, prārabdha cannot make our mind turn within and hence can never give us liberation
2016-10-12: An explanation of the first ten verses of Upadēśa Undiyār
2016-02-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: liberation is gained not by doing anything but only by just being
2015-07-18: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 2: no action or karma can give liberation (this section also includes the Sanskrit text of verse 2 of Upadēśa Sāram together with my translation of it)
2014-03-20: Ātma-vicāra is the only means by which we can experience ourself as we really are
2013-12-30: Dhyāna-p-Paṭṭu: The Song on Meditation
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 3:
கருத்தனுக் காக்குநிட் காமிய கன்மங்
கருத்தைத் திருத்தியஃ துந்தீபற
கதிவழி காண்பிக்கு முந்தீபற.
karuttaṉuk kākkuniṭ kāmiya kaṉmaṅ
karuttait tiruttiyaḵ dundīpaṟa
gativaṙi kāṇbikku mundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: கருத்தனுக்கு ஆக்கும் நிட்காமிய கன்மம் கருத்தை திருத்தி, அஃது கதி வழி காண்பிக்கும்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): karuttaṉukku ākkum niṭkāmiya kaṉmam karuttai tirutti, aḵdu gati vaṙi kāṇbikkum.
English translation: Desireless action done for God, purifying the mind, it will show the path to liberation.
Explanatory paraphrase: Niṣkāmya karma [action not motivated by desire] done [with love] for God purifies the mind and [thereby] it will show the path to liberation [that is, it will enable one to recognise what the correct path to liberation is].
Explanations and discussions:
2024-09-10: When we start on the path of bhakti, God seems to be something other than ourself, so we try to express our love for him through actions of body, speech and mind, namely pūjā (worship of him), stōtra (singing his praises) or japa (repetition of his name) and dhyāna (meditation on him) respectively, and by the love with which we do such actions our mind is gradually purified, meaning that it is cleansed of all its inclinations to seek happiness in anything other than love for God
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 3: action done for God purifies the mind, so it is an indirect means for liberation
2020-12-18: Instead of misusing our icchā-kriyā-svatantra (freedom of will and action) to do any action under the sway of our viṣaya-vāsanās, it is better to refrain from doing such actions, which are kāmya karmas, and to do only niṣkāmya karmas for the love of God alone
2020-12-18: Niṣkāmya karma is action done without the interference of our will, so it implies that we are free to act either according to our will or solely in accordance with God’s will (that is, in accordance with whatever prārabdha he has allotted us).
2020-08-24: When Bhagavan says here that niṣkāmya karma done for God purifies the mind, he clearly implies that we can refrain from acting under the sway of our vāsanās, and that to the extent that we refrain from acting under their sway we are thereby purifying our mind, which means that we are reducing the strength of whatever vāsanās tend to drive us to do kāmya karmas
2018-09-01: Though karma can never give liberation, if it is done because of love for God and therefore without desire for any fruit, it can help to purify the mind or will (cittam) by weakening or reducing its outgoing propensities (viṣaya-vāsanās and karma-vāsanās), and will thereby enable one to recognise that the means to liberation is not going outwards to do any actions by mind, speech or body but only turning back within to investigate whether one is actually this ego, the one who does action and experiences its fruit
2018-09-01: By whatever means it may be achieved, purity of mind (citta-śuddhi) gives one the clarity of vivēka (discernment, discrimination or judgement) to recognise that the only means by which ego can eradicate itself is to turn its attention back towards itself in order to see what its real nature actually is
2018-09-01: Just as we can choose to attend to ourself rather than to anything else, we can choose to think of a name or form of God, for example, rather than of any other thing, and if our motive for thinking of that name or form is love for God rather than for anything else that we may hope to gain thereby, that will purify our mind, strengthening our devotional inclinations (bhakti-vāsanās) and weakening our inclinations (vāsanās) to be concerned about other things
2018-09-01: Our mind can be purified by practices such as mūrti-dhyāna and mantra-japa only if we do them for the love of God and not for any other desired aim, because if love for God is our sole motivation, such practices will strengthen this love and correspondingly reduce the overall strength of our viṣaya-vāsanās
2018-09-01: The true purpose and only real benefit of all other spiritual practices is the purification of our cittam (even though the purification that can be achieved from them is only partial and not complete), because unless our cittam is purified to a certain extent by such practices we will not have the clarity, subtlety and acuity of vivēka that we need to recognise and accept that liberation is just the annihilation of ego and that the only means to attain it is therefore self-investigation (ātma-vicāra)
2016-10-12: An explanation of the first ten verses of Upadēśa Undiyār
2016-02-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: liberation is gained not by doing anything but only by just being
2015-07-18: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 3: niṣkāmya karma done with love for God will show the way to liberation (this section also includes extracts from the Sanskrit and Malayalam texts of verse 3 of Upadēśa Sāram together with my translation of them)
2014-03-20: Ātma-vicāra is the only means by which we can experience ourself as we really are
2013-12-30: Dhyāna-p-Paṭṭu: The Song on Meditation
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 4:
திடமிது பூசை செபமுந் தியான
முடல்வாக் குளத்தொழி லுந்தீபற
வுயர்வாகு மொன்றிலொன் றுந்தீபற.
diḍamidu pūjai jepamun dhiyāṉa
muḍalvāk kuḷattoṙi lundīpaṟa
vuyarvāhu moṉḏṟiloṉ ḏṟundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: திடம் இது: பூசை செபமும் தியானம் உடல் வாக்கு உள தொழில். உயர்வு ஆகும் ஒன்றில் ஒன்று.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): diḍam idu: pūjai jepam-um dhiyāṉam uḍal vākku uḷa toṙil. uyarvu āhum oṉḏṟil oṉḏṟu.
அன்வயம்: பூசை செபமும் தியானம் உடல் வாக்கு உள தொழில். ஒன்றில் ஒன்று உயர்வு ஆகும். இது திடம்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): pūjai jepam-um dhiyāṉam uḍal vākku uḷa toṙil. oṉḏṟil oṉḏṟu uyarvu āhum. idu diḍam.
English translation: This is certain: pūjā, japa and dhyāna are actions of body, speech and mind. One than one is superior.
Explanatory paraphrase: This is certain: pūjā [worship], japa [repetition of a name of God or a sacred phrase] and dhyāna [meditation] are [respectively] actions of body, speech and mind, [and hence in this order each subsequent] one is superior to [the previous] one [in the sense that it is a more effective means to purify the mind].
Explanations and discussions:
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 4: actions of body, speech and mind are progressively more purifying
2018-09-01: Our will drives not only the actions we do by mind and speech but also those that we do by body, as Bhagavan implies in verse 4 of Upadēśa Undiyār
2016-10-12: An explanation of the first ten verses of Upadēśa Undiyār
2015-07-18: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 4: dhyāna is more effective than japa, which is more effective than pūjā
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 5:
எண்ணுரு யாவு மிறையுரு வாமென
வெண்ணி வழிபட லுந்தீபற
வீசனற் பூசனை யுந்தீபற.
eṇṇuru yāvu miṟaiyuru vāmeṉa
veṇṇi vaṙipaḍa lundīpaṟa
vīśaṉaṯ pūjaṉai yundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: எண் உரு யாவும் இறை உரு ஆம் என எண்ணி வழிபடல் ஈசன் நல் பூசனை.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): eṇ uru yāvum iṟai uru ām eṉa eṇṇi vaṙipaḍal īśaṉ nal pūjaṉai.
English translation: Worshipping thinking that all eight forms are forms of God is good pūjā of God.
Explanatory paraphrase: Considering all the eight forms [the aṣṭa-mūrti, the eight forms or manifestations of Siva, namely the five elements (earth, water, fire, air and space), sun, moon and sentient beings (jīvas)] [or all thought-forms, namely all forms, which are just thoughts or mental phenomena] to be forms of God, worshipping [any of them] is good pūjā [worship] of God.
Explanations and discussions:
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 5: worshipping anything considering it to be God is worship of God
2016-10-12: An explanation of the first ten verses of Upadēśa Undiyār
2015-07-18: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 5: anything can be worshipped as God
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 6:
வழுத்தலில் வாக்குச்ச வாய்க்குட் செபத்தில்
விழுப்பமா மானத முந்தீபற
விளம்புந் தியானமி துந்தீபற.
vaṙuttalil vākkucca vāykkuṭ jepattil
viṙuppamā māṉata mundīpaṟa
viḷambun dhiyāṉami dundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: வழுத்தலில், வாக்கு உச்ச, வாய்க்குள் செபத்தில் விழுப்பம் ஆம் மானதம். விளம்பும் தியானம் இது.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): vaṙuttalil, vākku ucca, vāykkuḷ jepattil viṙuppam ām māṉatam. viḷambum dhiyāṉam idu.
அன்வயம்: வழுத்தலில், உச்ச வாக்கு, வாய்க்குள் செபத்தில் மானதம் விழுப்பம் ஆம். இது தியானம் விளம்பும்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): vaṙuttalil, ucca vākku, vāykkuḷ jepattil māṉatam viṙuppam ām. idu dhiyāṉam viḷambum.
English translation: Rather than praising, loud voice, rather than japa within the mouth, what is done by mind is beneficial. This is called dhyāna.
Explanatory paraphrase: Rather than praising [God by chanting hymns], [japa or repetition of his name is beneficial]; [rather than japa done in a] loud voice, [japa whispered faintly within the mouth is beneficial]; [and] rather than japa within the mouth, mānasa [that which is done by mind] is beneficial [in the sense that it is a more effective means to purify the mind]. This [mental repetition or mānasika japa] is called dhyāna [meditation].
Explanations and discussions:
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 6: doing japa mentally is more purifying than otherwise
2016-10-12: An explanation of the first ten verses of Upadēśa Undiyār
2015-07-18: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 6: the relative efficacy of different modes of japa
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 7:
விட்டுக் கருதலி னாறுநெய் வீழ்ச்சிபோல்
விட்டிடா துன்னலே யுந்தீபற
விசேடமா முன்னவே யுந்தீபற.
viṭṭuk karudali ṉāṟuney vīṙccipōl
viṭṭiḍā duṉṉalē yundīpaṟa
viśēḍamā muṉṉavē yundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: விட்டு கருதலின் ஆறு நெய் வீழ்ச்சி போல் விட்டிடாது உன்னலே விசேடம் ஆம் உன்னவே.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): viṭṭu karudaliṉ āṟu ney vīṙcci pōl viṭṭiḍādu uṉṉal-ē viśēḍam ām uṉṉa-v-ē.
அன்வயம்: விட்டு கருதலின் ஆறு நெய் வீழ்ச்சி போல் விட்டிடாது உன்னலே உன்னவே விசேடம் ஆம்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): viṭṭu karudaliṉ āṟu ney vīṙcci pōl viṭṭiḍādu uṉṉal-ē uṉṉa-v-ē viśēḍam ām.
English translation: Rather than meditating leavingly, certainly meditating unleavingly, like a river or the falling of ghee, is superior to meditate.
Explanatory paraphrase: Rather than meditating [on God] interruptedly [because of being frequently distracted by other thoughts as a result of insufficient love for him], certainly meditating uninterruptedly [without being distracted by any other thoughts because of the intensity of one’s love for him], like a river or the falling of ghee, is a better way to meditate [or is superior, when considered] [in the sense that it is a more effective means to purify the mind].
Explanations and discussions:
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 7: meditating uninterruptedly is more purifying than otherwise
2016-10-12: An explanation of the first ten verses of Upadēśa Undiyār
2015-07-18: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 7: uninterrupted meditation is superior to interrupted meditation
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 8:
அனியபா வத்தி னவனக மாகு
மனனிய பாவமே யுந்தீபற
வனைத்தினு முத்தம முந்தீபற.
aṉiyabhā vatti ṉavaṉaha māhu
maṉaṉiya bhāvamē yundīpaṟa
vaṉaittiṉu muttama mundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: அனிய பாவத்தின் அவன் அகம் ஆகும் அனனிய பாவமே அனைத்தினும் உத்தமம்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): aṉiya-bhāvattiṉ avaṉ aham āhum aṉaṉiya-bhāvam-ē aṉaittiṉ-um uttamam.
English translation: Rather than anya-bhāva, ananya-bhāva, in which he is I, certainly is the best among all.
Explanatory paraphrase: Rather than anya-bhāva [meditation on anything other than oneself, particularly meditation on God as if he were other than oneself], ananya-bhāva [meditation on nothing other than oneself], in which he is [understood to be] I, certainly is the best among all [practices of bhakti, varieties of meditation and kinds of spiritual practice] [in the sense that it is the most effective of all means to purify the mind, and is also the only means to eradicate ego, the root of all impurities].
Explanations and discussions:
2024-09-10: Since the nature of ourself as ego is to rise, stand and flourish by attending to things other than ourself, we will subside and sink back into the depth of our heart only to the extent to which we attend to ourself alone, as Bhagavan makes clear in verse 25 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, so by meditating on ourself we are surrendering ourself to God, and hence in this verse he says that ananya-bhāva, meditating on nothing other than ourself, is ‘அனைத்தினும் உத்தமம்’ (aṉaittiṉum uttamam), ‘best among all’, implying that it is not only the best practice of bhakti and most effective means to purify the mind but also the only means by which we can eradicate ego and thereby surrender ourself completely to God
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 8: meditation on nothing other than oneself is most purifying of all
2022-03-10: What he describes in the first verse of Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai as ‘thinking that Arunachalam is actually I’ is what he describes in this verse as ‘ananya-bhāva [meditation on what is not other], in which he is I’, which implies mediating on nothing other than ‘I’ with the understanding that he (namely God or Arunachalam) is what shines as ‘I’
2022-03-10: Though he says in this verse, ‘Rather than anya-bhāva, ananya-bhāva, in which he is I, certainly is the best among all’, this is not intended to deny the value or efficacy of anya-bhāva, devotion to God as if he were other than oneself, because such devotion will purify the mind and thereby give it the clarity to understand that God is actually what always exists and shines in our heart as ‘I’
2020-12-18: Among all the beneficial uses of our icchā-kriyā-svatantra (freedom of will and action) that he describes in verses 4 to 8, the ‘best of all’ (aṉaittiṉ-um uttamam) is only ananya-bhāva, which means meditation on nothing other than ourself
2020-11-01: Upadēśa Undiyār verses 8 and 9: what Bhagavan described as ananya-bhāva (meditation on what is not other [than oneself]) is keen self-attentiveness, so ‘பாவ பலம்’ (bhāva balam), ‘the strength of meditation’, means keenness of self-attentiveness
2020-08-24: By saying that ananya-bhāva (meditation on what is not other than oneself), which is a synonym for ātma-vicāra, is ‘அனைத்தினும் உத்தமம்’ (aṉaittiṉum uttamam), ‘the best among all’, he implies that it is the most effective of all means to purify the mind
2019-11-26: Meditating on anything other than ourself (anya-bhāva) may be an indirect means to gradually purify our mind, particularly if it is done with heart-melting love for God, but it cannot by itself eradicate ego, so it must eventually lead us to the path of self-investigation (ananya-bhāva), which alone can eradicate ego
2019-09-23: Comment explaining that holding ‘I am’ is the pinnacle of bhakti, because ‘I am’ is the real nature (svarūpa) of both Bhagavan and Arunachala
2018-09-25: In this verse Bhagavan refers to ātma-vicāra as ananya-bhāva (meditation on what is not other, namely oneself) and says that of all it is the best (uttamam), which in the context of the previous five verses means that it is the best or most effective of all means to purify the mind or will
2018-09-01: After explaining in the previous four verses that the mind is purified by niṣkāmya pūjā, japa and dhyāna, which are respectively actions of body, speech and mind and which are in this order progressively more purifying, in this verse he implies that what is most purifying of all is meditating only upon oneself
2018-09-01: Self-attentiveness is the most effective means to purify our will (cittam), as Bhagavan implies in this verse, so it is the best use we can make of our will and our freedom to use it as we like
2018-09-01: What Bhagavan wrote in the previous five verses clearly shows that he did not consider freedom to turn within to be the only freedom of choice we have, because none of the practises that he describes in those verses as being progressively more effective means to purify our mind entail turning it within, and it is only in this verse that he first refers to the practice of turning our attention within, which he describes as ananya-bhāva, ‘meditation on what is not other [than oneself]’, saying that it is ‘அனைத்தினும் உத்தமம்’ (aṉaittiṉum uttamam), the ‘best of all’ or ‘best among all’, thereby implying that it is the most effective of all means to purify the mind
2018-09-01: Though we can free ourself from our viṣaya-vāsanās slowly and to some extent by other practices of bhakti, the most effective means to eradicate them is self-investigation, which is the ultimate practice of bhakti and the only means to eradicate them entirely
2017-06-20: Upadēśa Undiyār verses 8 and 9: by the intensity of self-attentiveness we will be in our real state of being, which is beyond thinking
2017-03-19: What is ‘remembering the Lord’ or ‘remembrance of Arunachala’?
2016-10-12: An explanation of the first ten verses of Upadēśa Undiyār
2016-02-08: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 8: love for God as nothing other than oneself is best of all
2015-07-18: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 8: meditating on nothing other than ourself is ‘the best among all’
2015-03-06: Intensity, frequency and duration of self-attentiveness
2014-05-02: Ātma-vicāra: stress and other related issues
2014-02-24: We should meditate only on ‘I’, not on ideas such as ‘I am brahman’
2013-12-30: Dhyāna-p-Paṭṭu: The Song on Meditation
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 9:
பாவ பலத்தினாற் பாவனா தீதசற்
பாவத் திருத்தலே யுந்தீபற
பரபத்தி தத்துவ முந்தீபற.
bhāva balattiṉāṯ bhāvaṉā tītasaṯ
bhāvat tiruttalē yundīpaṟa
parabhatti tattuva mundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: பாவ பலத்தினால் பாவனாதீத சத் பாவத்து இருத்தலே பரபத்தி தத்துவம்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): bhāva balattiṉāl bhāvaṉātīta sat-bhāvattu iruttal-ē para-bhatti tattuvam.
English translation: By the strength of meditation, being in sat-bhāva, which transcends bhāvanā, alone is para-bhakti tattva.
Explanatory paraphrase: By the strength [intensity, firmness or stability] of [such] meditation [ananya-bhāva or self-attentiveness], being in sat-bhāva [the state of being], which transcends [all] bhāvanā [thinking, imagination or meditation in the sense of mental activity], alone [or certainly] is para-bhakti tattva [the nature, reality or true state of supreme devotion].
Explanations and discussions:
2024-09-10: Since we as ego will subside back into our being to the extent to which we attend to ourself, when by persistent practice our self-attentiveness becomes strong and stable enough, we will thereby be firmly fixed in our true state of being (sat-bhāva), which transcends all mental activity, so being in this state is para-bhakti tattva, the true state of supreme devotion, because it is the state in which we have given ourself wholly to God and therefore do not rise as ego to know anything other than o
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 9: being in one’s real state of being by self-attentiveness is supreme devotion
2022-03-10: Meditating on anything other than ourself is a thought or mental activity (bhāvanā), because it entails a movement of our mind or attention away from ourself towards something else, whereas meditating on nothing other than ourself is not a thought or mental activity, because it is just a resting of our mind or attention in its source, namely ourself
2022-03-10: As he implies in verse 10 of Śrī Aruṇācala Padigam, by pulling us inwards to be self-attentive, Arunachala will make us motionless (acala) like itself, meaning that we will be firmly established in the state of just being as we actually are, in accordance with the principle that he implies in this verse, ‘By the strength of meditation [that is, by the strength of ananya-bhāva or self-attentiveness], being in sat-bhāva [the state of being], which transcends bhāvanā [thinking or meditation]’
2020-11-01: Upadēśa Undiyār verses 8 and 9: ‘பாவ பலம்’ (bhāva balam), ‘the strength of meditation’, means keenness of self-attentiveness, so what he implies in these two verses is that by keenness of self-attentiveness we will be in sat-bhāva, the state of being as we actually are
2018-09-01: Meditating upon anything other than oneself (anya-bhāva) is an action (karma), because it entails directing one’s mind or attention away from oneself towards something else, whereas meditating only upon oneself (ananya-bhāva) is not an action but a state of just being, a cessation of all activity, because it does not entail directing one’s mind or attention away from oneself but only allowing it to return to and rest in its source
2018-09-01: So long as we direct our attention away from ourself towards anything else, that outward flow of our attention is what is called thinking or imagining, but when we direct our attention back towards ourself alone, that is the subsidence or cessation of all thinking or imagining, which is what Bhagavan refers to in this verse as பாவனாதீத (bhāvaṉātīta), ‘transcending [or beyond] bhāvana [thinking, imagination or meditation]’
2017-06-20: Upadēśa Undiyār verses 8 and 9: by the intensity of self-attentiveness we will be in our real state of being, which is beyond thinking
2017-02-06: How can we see inaction in action?
2016-10-12: An explanation of the first ten verses of Upadēśa Undiyār
2016-02-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: liberation is gained not by doing anything but only by just being
2015-07-18: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 9: by meditating on ourself we will subside in our real state of being
2015-03-06: Intensity, frequency and duration of self-attentiveness
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 10:
உதித்த விடத்தி லொடுங்கி யிருத்த
லதுகன்மம் பத்தியு முந்தீபற
வதுயோக ஞானமு முந்தீபற.
uditta viḍatti loḍuṅgi yirutta
ladukaṉmam bhattiyu mundīpaṟa
vaduyōga ñāṉamu mundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: உதித்த இடத்தில் ஒடுங்கி இருத்தல்: அது கன்மம் பத்தியும்; அது யோகம் ஞானமும்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): uditta iḍattil oḍuṅgi iruttal: adu kaṉmam bhatti-y-um; adu yōgam ñāṉam-um.
English translation: Being, subsiding in the place from which one rose: that is karma and bhakti; that is yōga and jñāna.
Explanatory paraphrase: Being [by inwardly] subsiding in the place from which one rose [namely one’s own real nature (ātma-svarūpa), which is pure being-awareness (sat-cit), ‘I am’]: that is [the culmination of the paths of] [niṣkāmya] karma and bhakti [as explained in the previous seven verses]; that is [also the culmination of the paths of] yōga [as will be explained in the next five verses] and jñāna [as will be explained in the final fifteen verses].
Explanations and discussions:
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 10: being in one’s source is karma, bhakti, yōga and jñāna
2020-01-16: Bhagavan often uses the term ‘இடம்’ (iḍam), which literally means ‘place’, as a metaphor for our real nature (ātma-svarūpa), because it is the ‘place’ or source from which we rise as ego and into which we must eventually subside
2018-09-01: In the previous seven verses Bhagavan explained how the path of bhakti begins with niṣkāmya actions of body, speech and mind (which is the path of niṣkāmya karma) but eventually leads to and culminates in the path of jñāna, which is the practice of self-attentiveness (svarūpa-dhyāna) or self-investigation (ātma-vicāra), and which is not an action (karma) but just one’s natural state of being (sat-bhāva), in which the ego surrenders itself entirely and remains subsided in the source from which it arose, and in this verse he implies that this is the ultimate culmination and goal of all forms of spiritual practice
2017-02-06: How can we see inaction in action?
2016-10-12: An explanation of the first ten verses of Upadēśa Undiyār
2016-02-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: liberation is gained not by doing anything but only by just being
2015-12-10: Is ātma-vicāra an exclusive or inclusive practice?
2015-07-18: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 10: subsiding and being in our source is karma, bhakti, yōga and jñāna
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 11:
வளியுள் ளடக்க வலைபடு புட்போ
லுளமு மொடுங்குறு முந்தீபற
வொடுக்க வுபாயமி துந்தீபற.
vaḷiyuḷ ḷaḍakka valaipaḍu puṭpō
luḷamu moḍuṅguṟu mundīpaṟa
voḍukka vupāyami dundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: வளி உள் அடக்க, வலை படு புள் போல் உளமும் ஒடுங்குறும். ஒடுக்க உபாயம் இது.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): vaḷi uḷ aḍakka, valai paḍu puḷ pōl uḷam-um oḍuṅguṟum. oḍukka upāyam idu.
அன்வயம்: வளி உள் அடக்க, வலை படு புள் போல் உளமும் ஒடுங்குறும். இது ஒடுக்க உபாயம்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): vaḷi uḷ aḍakka, valai paḍu puḷ pōl uḷam-um oḍuṅguṟum. idu oḍukka upāyam.
English translation: When one restrains the breath within, like a bird caught in a net the mind also will be restrained. This is a means to restrain.
Explanatory paraphrase: When one restrains [curbs, calms or subdues] the breath within, like a bird caught in a net the mind also will be restrained [sink, subside, calm down, become quiet, be dissolved or cease being active]. This [the practice of breath-restraint or prāṇāyāma] is [therefore] a means to restrain [curb, calm, subdue, shut down or dissolve] [the mind].
Explanations and discussions:
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 11: when breath is restrained mind will subside
2015-06-18: Upadēśa Undiyār verses 11 and 12: how breath-restraint is a means to restrain the mind
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 12:
உளமு முயிரு முணர்வுஞ் செயலு
முளவாங் கிளையிரண் டுந்தீபற
வொன்றவற் றின்மூல முந்தீபற.
uḷamu muyiru muṇarvuñ ceyalu
muḷavāṅ kiḷaiyiraṇ ḍundīpaṟa
voṉḏṟavaṯ ṟiṉmūla mundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: உளமும் உயிரும் உணர்வும் செயலும் உளவாம் கிளை இரண்டு. ஒன்று அவற்றின் மூலம்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): uḷam-um uyir-um uṇarvu-[u]m ceyal-um uḷavām kiḷai iraṇḍu. oṉḏṟu avaṯṟiṉ mūlam.
அன்வயம்: உளமும் உயிரும் உணர்வும் செயலும் உளவாம் இரண்டு கிளை. அவற்றின் மூலம் ஒன்று.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): uḷam-um uyir-um uṇarvu-[u]m ceyal-um uḷavām iraṇḍu kiḷai. avaṯṟiṉ mūlam oṉḏṟu.
English translation: Mind and breath are two branches, which have knowing and doing. Their root is one.
Explanatory paraphrase: Mind and breath [or life, which includes breath and all other physiological functions] are two branches, which have knowing and doing [as their respective functions]. [However] their mūla [root, base, foundation, origin, source or cause] is one [so this is why when either one is restrained the other one will also be restrained, as pointed out in the previous verse].
Explanations and discussions:
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 12: the root of mind and breath is one
2015-06-18: Upadēśa Undiyār verses 11 and 12: how breath-restraint is a means to restrain the mind
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 13:
இலயமு நாச மிரண்டா மொடுக்க
மிலயித் துளதெழு முந்தீபற
வெழாதுரு மாய்ந்ததே லுந்தீபற.
ilayamu nāśa miraṇḍā moḍukka
milayit tuḷadeṙu mundīpaṟa
veṙāduru māyndadē lundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: இலயமும் நாசம் இரண்டு ஆம் ஒடுக்கம். இலயித்து உளது எழும். எழாது உரு மாய்ந்ததேல்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): ilayam-um nāśam iraṇḍu ām oḍukkam. ilayittu uḷadu eṙum. eṙādu uru māyndadēl.
அன்வயம்: ஒடுக்கம் இலயமும் நாசம் இரண்டு ஆம். இலயித்து உளது எழும். உரு மாய்ந்ததேல் எழாது.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): oḍukkam ilayam-um nāśam iraṇḍu ām. ilayittu uḷadu eṙum. uru māyndadēl eṙādu.
English translation: Dissolution is two: laya and nāśa. What is lying down will rise. If form dies, it will not rise.
Explanatory paraphrase: Dissolution [complete subsidence or cessation of ego or mind] is [of] two [kinds]: laya [temporary dissolution] and nāśa [permanent dissolution or annihilation]. What is lying down [or dissolved in laya] will rise. If [its] form dies [in nāśa], it will not rise.
Explanations and discussions:
2023-11-08: Bhagavan used to warn those who were inclined to practise prāṇāyāma and other yōga techniques that they should take care not to subside in manōlaya as a result of such practices, and advised them that though they could use such practices to gain a certain degree of mental calmness, they could gain lasting benefit from such calmness only if they use it as a favourable condition to turn their attention back within to investigate who am I
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 13: dissolution of mind is of two kinds, laya and nāśa
2022-03-24: If we withdraw our mind from dṛśya without keenly attending to cittva, our fundamental awareness, ‘I am’, the mind will dissolve in laya, and ‘What has gone in laya arises again’
2022-02-08: Like sleep, any state in which all thoughts cease along with their root, namely ego, but from which they subsequently rise again is just a state of manōlaya (temporary dissolution of mind), whereas the state from which they will never rise again is manōnāśa (annihilation or permanent dissolution of mind), so manōnāśa alone is the solution we should aim for
2020-06-02: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 13: if it is dissolved in sleep or any other state of laya, ego will rise again, but why?
2019-10-16: Comment explaining that nothing exists in sleep other than our real nature, which is sat-cit-ānanda, so the only difference between sleep (manōlaya) and eradication of ego (manōnāśa) is that ego will never rise again from the latter, whereas it does rise from the former, but this is not a difference in those states but only a difference from the perspective of ourself as ego in waking or dream
2019-07-29: Why does ego rise again from manōlaya and not from manōnāśa?
2017-07-27: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 13: the only difference between manōlaya and manōnāśa is that the ego will rise from manōlaya but never from manōnāśa
2017-07-07: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 13: from the perspective of the ego in waking or dream the distinction between manōlaya and manōnāśa is in effect real
2015-06-18: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 13: the two kinds of subsidence of mind
2014-04-11: Ātma-vicāra and nirvikalpa samādhi
2014-02-16: Self-attentiveness and citta-vṛtti nirōdha
2011-10-07: Annihilation of mind (manōnāśa) is permanent, whereas any other subsidence of mind (manōlaya) such as sleep, coma, death or samādhi is only temporary
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 14:
ஒடுக்க வளியை யொடுங்கு முளத்தை
விடுக்கவே யோர்வழி யுந்தீபற
வீயு மதனுரு வுந்தீபற.
oḍukka vaḷiyai yoḍuṅgu muḷattai
viḍukkavē yōrvaṙi yundīpaṟa
vīyu madaṉuru vundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: ஒடுக்க வளியை ஒடுங்கும் உளத்தை விடுக்கவே ஓர் வழி, வீயும் அதன் உரு.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): oḍukka vaḷiyai oḍuṅgum uḷattai viḍukka-v-ē ōr vaṙi, vīyum adaṉ uru.
அன்வயம்: வளியை ஒடுக்க ஒடுங்கும் உளத்தை ஓர் வழி விடுக்கவே, அதன் உரு வீயும்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): vaḷiyai oḍukka oḍuṅgum uḷattai ōr vaṙi viḍukka-v-ē, adaṉ uru vīyum.
English translation: Only when one sends the mind, which will be restrained when one restrains the breath, on the investigating path will its form perish.
Explanatory paraphrase: Only when one sends the mind, which will be restrained [become calm or dissolve] when one restrains the breath, on ōr vaṙi [the investigating path or one path, namely the path of self-investigation, which is the one and only means to eradicate ego and thereby annihilate the mind] will its form perish. [However, the mind cannot be sent on this path of self-investigation if it has dissolved in laya, so if one practices breath-restraint in order to restrain the mind, one should take care to send the mind on this path of self-investigation (which means to direct one’s attention back towards oneself) when it has become calm but before it dissolves in laya.]
Explanations and discussions:
2023-11-08: Bhagavan used to warn those who were inclined to practise prāṇāyāma and other yōga techniques that they should take care not to subside in manōlaya as a result of such practices, and advised them that though they could use such practices to gain a certain degree of mental calmness, they could gain lasting benefit from such calmness only if they use it as a favourable condition to turn their attention back within to investigate who am I
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 14: only by self-investigation will the mind die
2020-06-02: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 14: only by means of self-investigation will ego dissolve in pure awareness in such a way that it will never rise again
2015-06-18: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 14: our mind will die only by self-investigation (in the section following this, Upadēśa Sāram verse 14: the meaning of ēka-cintanā, I give the Sanskrit text and my English translation of verse 14 of Upadēśa Sāram and discuss its meaning)
2014-04-11: Ātma-vicāra and nirvikalpa samādhi
2011-10-07: The mind will be annihilated only when it is sent on the unique path of self-investigation (ātma-vicāra)
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 15:
மனவுரு மாயமெய்ம் மன்னுமா யோகி
தனக்கோர் செயலிலை யுந்தீபற
தன்னியல் சார்ந்தன னுந்தீபற.
maṉavuru māyameym maṉṉumā yōgi
taṉakkōr seyalilai yundīpaṟa
taṉṉiyal sārndaṉa ṉundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: மன உரு மாய மெய் மன்னும் மா யோகி தனக்கு ஓர் செயல் இலை. தன் இயல் சார்ந்தனன்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): maṉa uru māya mey maṉṉum mā yōgi taṉakku ōr seyal ilai. taṉ iyal sārndaṉaṉ.
English translation: When the form of the mind is annihilated, for the great yōgi who remains permanently as the reality, there is not a single doing. He has attained his nature.
Explanatory paraphrase: When the form of the mind is annihilated, for the great yōgi who [thereby] remains permanently as the reality, there is not a single doing [action or karma], [because] he has attained his [real] nature [which is actionless being].
Explanations and discussions:
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 15: when the mind is dead, there is no action but only one’s real nature
2018-09-01: The jñāni is not a person but only the infinite space of pure self-awareness, in whose clear view neither a person nor anything else exists at all, so the jñāni never actually does any action, either with or without doership
2018-04-18: What experiences itself as ‘I am doing’ or ‘I am experiencing’ is only the ego, and without the ego nothing else exists, so there is nothing either to do or to experience
2016-12-27: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 15: for the jñāni there is no ego or mind and hence no action
2014-04-11: Ātma-vicāra and nirvikalpa samādhi
2011-10-07: When the mind is annihilated, one is established as the reality, so there is no action (thinking, talking or doing)
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 16:
வெளிவிட யங்களை விட்டு மனந்தன்
னொளியுரு வோர்தலே யுந்தீபற
வுண்மை யுணர்ச்சியா முந்தீபற.
veḷiviḍa yaṅgaḷai viṭṭu maṉantaṉ
ṉoḷiyuru vōrdalē yundīpaṟa
vuṇmai yuṇarcciyā mundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: வெளி விடயங்களை விட்டு மனம் தன் ஒளி உரு ஓர்தலே உண்மை உணர்ச்சி ஆம்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): veḷi viḍayaṅgaḷai viṭṭu maṉam taṉ oḷi-uru ōrdalē uṇmai uṇarcci ām.
அன்வயம்: மனம் வெளி விடயங்களை விட்டு தன் ஒளி உரு ஓர்தலே உண்மை உணர்ச்சி ஆம்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): maṉam veḷi viḍayaṅgaḷai viṭṭu taṉ oḷi-uru ōrdalē uṇmai uṇarcci ām.
English translation: Leaving external phenomena, the mind knowing its own form of light is alone real awareness.
Explanatory paraphrase: Leaving [or letting go of] [awareness of any] external viṣayas [namely phenomena of every kind, all of which are external in the sense that they are other than and hence extraneous to oneself], the mind knowing its own form of light [namely the light of pure awareness, which is its real nature and what illumines it, enabling it to be aware both of itself and of other things] is alone real awareness [true knowledge or knowledge of reality].
Explanations and discussions:
2024-09-12: Consciousness or awareness is not an object but the reality of the subject, so no objective investigation can enable us to know consciousness as it actually is, and since we ourself are consciousness, in order to know ourself as we actually are we need to turn our entire attention back on ourself, away from all other things
2023-11-08: In order to eradicate ego, we not only need to cease attending to anything other than ourself but also need to attend keenly to ourself
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 16: seeing nothing but awareness is seeing what is real
2022-03-24: To see what is real, the mind must see its own real nature, which is pure awareness
2022-03-24: We cannot see our own cittva merely by keeping our mind back from all dṛśya
2022-03-24: The mind can see its own cittva only by being its own cittva, and it can be it only by being swallowed by it
2022-03-10: As he implies in verse 16 of Upadēśa Sāram, svarūpa-darśana (seeing ourself as we actually are) alone is tattva-darśana (seeing what is real), and in order to see our own cittva (pure awareness), which is ourself as we actually are, we need to turn back and look deep within ourself
2021-08-29: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 16: real awareness is only awareness of what actually exists, namely ourself, so we can remain as real awareness only by knowing nothing other than ourself
2021-05-13: In order to know ourself as we actually are and thereby eradicate the false awareness called ego, all we need do is to withdraw our attention from all other things by trying to focus it exclusively on ourself alone
2021-02-18: So long as we are looking at anything other than ourself, we seem to be something other than pure awareness, but if we give up looking at anything else by looking at ourself alone, we will see that we are actually just pure awareness
2020-10-16: What Bhagavan refers to in verse 17 as investigating மனத்தின் உரு (maṉattiṉ uru), the ‘form of the mind’, is investigating its real form, which is pure awareness, its ‘ஒளி உரு’ (oḷi-uru) or ‘form of light’
2020-09-19: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 16: to eradicate ego we not only need to cease being aware of anything other than ourself, but need to do so by being keenly self-attentive
2020-09-19: When the cit element of the mind or ego is turned back to face itself alone, it is thereby turning its back on all external phenomena, so it ceases to be aware of anything else, and thus it remains as pure awareness, which is what it always actually is
2020-06-17: Our experience in sleep is a vital clue that guides us in our self-investigation, because so long as we are aware of anything that we are not aware of in sleep, our attention is still not focused solely and exclusively on ourself
2020-06-02: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 16: being so keenly self-attentive that we thereby cease to be aware of anything else is real awareness
2020-04-05: In this verse, as in the first sentence of the thirteenth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?, Bhagavan clearly implies that we must try to be aware of nothing whatsoever other than ourself
2020-03-31: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 16: what is required is that we withdraw our attention from all other things by being keenly self-attentive
2020-02-28: Here ‘light’ is a metaphor for awareness, because awareness is the light by which we know all things, both ourself and everything else, and ‘form’ is a metaphor for nature (svarūpa), so ‘தன் ஒளி உரு’ (taṉ oḷi-uru), ‘its [or one’s] own form of light’, implies that our real nature (or the real nature of the mind) is the light of pure awareness
2020-02-27: In order to be aware of what is real, we not only need to cease perceiving any world, but need to do so by being aware of ‘தன் ஒளி உரு’ (taṉ oḷi-uru), ‘our own form of light’ (our real nature, which is the original light of pure awareness)
2020-02-02: Real awareness or vidyā is the awareness that alone remains when we are clearly aware only of ourself (our own form of light), thereby ceasing to be aware of anything else
2020-01-16: In order to be annihilated and thereby never rise again, we as ego must not only withdraw our attention from all phenomena but must do so by focusing our entire attention on ourself alone
2019-12-16: Comment explaining that in order to be aware of ourself as we actually are we as ego must cease being aware of phenomena and must instead be aware only of our ‘own form of light’, which is pure awareness
2019-12-10: In order to be aware of ourself as we actually are we need to be aware of ourself alone, in complete isolation from awareness of anything else
2019-11-28: Instead of using the reflected light called mind to know other things (which are what Bhagavan calls ‘வெளி விடயங்கள்’ (veḷi viḍayaṅgaḷ), ‘external phenomena’), we must turn it back to face its source, the original light of pure awareness, which is always shining within us as ‘I am’
2019-11-28: What he gave us in this verse is a clear definition of ‘உண்மை உணர்ச்சி’ (uṇmai uṇarcci), which means ‘real awareness’, ‘true knowledge’ or ‘awareness [or knowledge] of reality’, but a definition intended to show us the means by which we can experience real awareness
2019-11-26: In order to dissolve ego, we must eventually turn our entire attention back towards ourself (which is what Bhagavan refers to here as the mind’s ‘ஒளி உரு’ (oḷi-uru) or ‘form of light’) and thereby away from everything else (which is what he refers to as ‘வெளி விடயங்கள்’ (veḷi viḍayaṅgaḷ), ‘external phenomena’)
2019-11-24: In order to be aware of ourself as we actually are, namely as pure awareness, which is our own ‘ஒளி உரு’ (oḷi-uru) or ‘form of light’, we need to cease being aware of any phenomena, including all the adjuncts that we mistake to be ourself
2019-10-25: There are two essential features that define us as ego, namely we are aware of ourself as a set of adjuncts (a body consisting of five sheaths) and consequently we are aware of other phenomena, so in order to see ourself as we actually are we must not only give up our awareness of adjuncts but also our awareness of all other phenomena
2019-06-24: In order for us as ego to eradicate ourself permanently, we not only need to cease being aware of anything else, but also need to be attentively and clearly aware of ourself alone
2018-11-08: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 16: since awareness of anything other than ourself is ignorance and unreal, we can be aware of ourself as real awareness only by withdrawing our attention from everything else and turning back towards ourself to know our own ‘form of light’
2018-11-08: In order to be aware of our own ‘form of light’ (the pure awareness that we actually are) we need to give up being aware of any phenomena
2017-10-07: Just giving up attending to external phenomena is not sufficient, because we do so whenever we fall asleep, so what is required is just that we attend only to ourself, that is, to our own fundamental self-awareness, because if we do so we will thereby give up attending to anything else
2018-09-01: When Bhagavan talks of the mind investigating itself, what he means by the term ‘mind’ is ego, which is the perceiving or aware element of it, and which is therefore what needs to investigate itself and thereby surrender itself, as he implies in this verse
2017-04-16: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 16: to the extent that our attention is focused on ourself it will thereby be withdrawn from other things
2016-10-19: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 16: we must not just cease attending to other things but must keenly attend to ourself alone
2016-05-17: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 16: we must attend only to ourself and thereby leave aside all phenomena
2016-04-20: Comment discussing verse 16 of Upadēśa Undiyār
2015-10-12: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 16: we must attentively observe our own self-awareness
2015-05-20: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 16: to see what is real we must give up seeing what is seen (dṛśya) (this section also includes the Sanskrit text of verse 16 of Upadēśa Sāram together with my translation of it)
2014-12-13: The teachings of Sri Ramana and Nisargadatta are significantly different
2014-09-09: Comment explaining the meaning of verse 16 of Upadēśa Undiyār
2011-10-07: To be annihilated, the mind must not only cease being aware of any phenomena (viṣayas) but must also attend to ‘its own form of light’ (its fundamental self-awareness)
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 17:
மனத்தி னுருவை மறவா துசாவ
மனமென வொன்றிலை யுந்தீபற
மார்க்கநே ரார்க்குமி துந்தீபற.
maṉatti ṉuruvai maṟavā dusāva
maṉameṉa voṉḏṟilai yundīpaṟa
mārgganē rārkkumi dundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: மனத்தின் உருவை மறவாது உசாவ, மனம் என ஒன்று இலை. மார்க்கம் நேர் ஆர்க்கும் இது.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): maṉattiṉ uruvai maṟavādu usāva, maṉam eṉa oṉḏṟu ilai. mārggam nēr ārkkum idu.
அன்வயம்: மறவாது மனத்தின் உருவை உசாவ, மனம் என ஒன்று இலை. இது ஆர்க்கும் நேர் மார்க்கம்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): maṟavādu maṉattiṉ uruvai usāva, maṉam eṉa oṉḏṟu ilai. idu ārkkum nēr mārggam.
English translation: When one investigates the form of the mind without forgetting, there is not anything called ‘mind’. This is the direct path for everyone whomsoever.
Explanatory paraphrase: When one investigates [examines or scrutinises] the form of the mind without forgetting [neglecting, abandoning, giving up or ceasing], [it will be clear that] there is not anything called ‘mind’. This is the direct [straight or appropriate] path for everyone whomsoever.
Explanations and discussions:
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 17: when one keenly investigates it, there is no mind
2022-03-24: Ego is the first cause, and hence the root cause of all other causes, so there cannot be anything that causes ego to rise or come into existence, and there need not be anything that causes it, because if we investigate it keenly enough, it will be clear that no such thing has ever actually existed or risen at all
2021-02-18: If we investigate ego keenly enough, without yielding even in the least to pramāda (negligence or forgetfulness), we will see that what we actually are is just pure awareness, so it will then be clear that there is no such thing as mind or ego at all
2020-10-22: Self-investigation is ‘the direct path for everyone whomsoever’, so if we are attracted to this path and want to follow it, we are mature enough to do so
2020-10-16: This path is the direct path because we are trying to look at ourself directly in order to perceive ourself as we actually are
2020-09-19: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 17: to see that there is no such thing as ego or mind at all, we need to be so keenly self-attentive that we give not even the slightest room for any pramāda (self-negligence) to creep in
2019-12-21: Bhagavan didn’t give any teachings unasked, but when he was asked his first inclination was to advise all questioners to look within to see what they actually are, because this is ‘மார்க்கம் நேர் ஆர்க்கும்’ (mārggam nēr ārkkum), ‘the direct path for everyone whomsoever’
2019-12-11: Comment explaining that it is the mind (in the sense of ego, the thought called ‘I’, which is the root and essence of the mind, being its perceiving element) that needs to investigate itself, because if it does so keenly enough it will be clear that there is no such thing
2019-11-08: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 17: if we incessantly investigate this atiśaya śakti called mind or ego, it will be clear that no such thing exists at all
2019-10-25: As soon as the mind knows its own form of light, which is pure awareness, it dissolves and merges in that, thereby ceasing to be mind and remaining just as pure awareness, so self-investigation ultimately reveals that there is no such thing as mind at all
2019-05-08: Ego seems to exist only when it is attending to or aware of anything other than itself, so if it attends to itself so keenly that it ceases to be aware of anything else, it will be clear that there is no such thing as ego
2019-04-19: On this path of self-investigation and self-surrender there is no such thing as a shortcut, because it is ‘மார்க்கம் நேர் ஆர்க்கும்’ (mārggam nēr ārkkum), ‘the direct path for everyone whomsoever’, and there can obviously be no shorter cut than the direct way
2018-11-08: Ego or mind seems to exist only when it is looking elsewhere, that is, at anything other than itself, but when it looks only at itself, there is no such thing but only pure awareness, which is never aware of anything other than itself
2017-09-24: A series of two comments explaining that the most important of all the fundamental principles of Bhagavan’s teachings is that the ego will cease to cease if and only if we investigate it
2017-07-27: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 17: if we investigate it keenly enough, we will find that there is no such thing as an ego or mind
2017-06-28: There is absolutely no difference between sleep and pure self-awareness (ātma-jñāna)
2017-03-21: Upadēśa Undiyār verses 17 and 18: what we should watch is only the ego, the root thought called ‘I’, and not any other thought
2016-11-21: Since vivarta vāda contends that non-existent things seem to exist only in the view of the non-existent ego, its logical conclusion can only be ajāta
2016-10-19: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 17: if we keenly investigate our ego, we will find that there is actually no such thing at all, and hence no world or anything else other than ourself
2015-12-10: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 17: avoiding self-negligence (pramāda) is the only means to destroy our ego
2015-11-11: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 17: our ego or mind does not actually exist at all, even now
2015-05-20: The essence of the mind is the ego, and the essence of the ego is pure self-awareness
2014-09-28: The perceiver and the perceived are both unreal
2014-09-26: Metaphysical solipsism, idealism and creation theories in the teachings of Sri Ramana
2014-03-20: Ātma-vicāra is the only means by which we can experience ourself as we really are
2014-03-03: Does the practice of ātma-vicāra work?
2014-02-16: Self-attentiveness and citta-vṛtti nirōdha
2008-02-16: Cultivating uninterrupted self-attentiveness
2011-10-07: Annihilation of mind (manōnāśa) is not actually a state in which something that existed has been destroyed, but is just the clear knowledge that nothing other than ourself has ever existed
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 18:
எண்ணங்க ளேமனம் யாவினு நானெனு
மெண்ணமே மூலமா முந்தீபற
யானா மனமென லுந்தீபற.
eṇṇaṅga ḷēmaṉam yāviṉu nāṉeṉu
meṇṇamē mūlamā mundīpaṟa
yāṉā maṉameṉa lundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: எண்ணங்களே மனம். யாவினும் நான் எனும் எண்ணமே மூலம் ஆம். யான் ஆம் மனம் எனல்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): eṇṇaṅgaḷ-ē maṉam. yāviṉ-um nāṉ eṉum eṇṇam-ē mūlam ām. yāṉ ām maṉam eṉal.
அன்வயம்: எண்ணங்களே மனம். யாவினும் நான் எனும் எண்ணமே மூலம் ஆம். மனம் எனல் யான் ஆம்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): eṇṇaṅgaḷ-ē maṉam. yāviṉ-um nāṉ eṉum eṇṇam-ē mūlam ām. maṉam eṉal yāṉ ām.
English translation: Thoughts alone are mind. Of all, the thought called ‘I’ alone is the root. What is called mind is ‘I’.
Explanatory paraphrase: Thoughts alone are mind [or the mind is only thoughts]. Of all [thoughts], the thought called ‘I’ alone is the mūla [the root, base, foundation, origin, source or cause]. [Therefore] what is called mind is [essentially just] ‘I’ [namely ego, the root thought called ‘I’].
Explanations and discussions:
2023-12-07: ‘மனம்’ (maṉam) or ‘mind’ is used in a variety of different senses, so the sense in which it is used in each case is determined by the context and needs to be understood accordingly
2023-12-07: Since no other thought could exist without ego, it is the only essential thought in the mind, and hence it is what the mind essentially is, as he says in the final sentence of this verse, ‘யான் ஆம் மனம் எனல்’ (yāṉ ām maṉam eṉal), ‘What is called mind is I’, which implies that the mind is essentially just ego, the root thought called ‘I’
2023-07-27: The mind consists of two elements, namely the subject, which is ego, the thought called ‘I’, and all objects, which are all the other thoughts that constitute the mind, and since all other thoughts are known only by ego, they could not exist independent of ego, so what the mind essentially is is only ego
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 18: mind is essentially just the ego, the root of all other thoughts
2021-02-18: What he refers to in verse 17 as ‘மனத்தின் உரு’ (maṉattiṉ uru), ‘the form of the mind’, is ego, because as he explains in this verse, ego is the root of the mind and hence what the mind essentially is
2021-02-02: Bhagavan is the ultimate reductionist: All phenomena are just thoughts; thoughts are just mind; mind is in essence just ego, the first thought ‘I’; and if instead of looking at anything else we look keenly at ourself alone, we will find that ego is actually just pure awareness, so pure awareness is all that actually exists
2020-09-19: Though the term ‘mind’ is often used to refer to all thoughts collectively, the root of all thoughts is only ego, which is the thought called ‘I’, so what the mind essentially is is only ego
2020-04-15: All other thoughts are objects perceived by ego, whereas ego is the subject, the perceiver of them all, so no other thoughts can exist without ego, and hence ego is the one constant thought, the thread on which all other thoughts are strung
2020-01-16: In many contexts Bhagavan uses ‘mind’ as a synonym for ego, which is what he sometimes calls ‘the thought called I’, but in other contexts he uses it in a broader sense to refer to the totality of all thoughts
2020-01-16: Whenever Bhagavan uses the term ‘the thought called I’, he is referring to ego, which is the first thought and the root of all other thoughts
2019-11-08: When Bhagavan uses the term ‘mind’, in some cases he is referring to the totality of all thoughts, but in most cases he is referring to ego, which is the root of all other thoughts and therefore the essence of the mind
2019-10-25: What he referred to in verse 17 as ‘மனத்தின் உரு’ (maṉattiṉ uru), ‘the form of the mind’, is ego, which is the fundamental form of the mind, being its perceiving element and hence its root, because it is that in whose view all the perceived elements of the mind, namely all other thoughts, seem to exist
2019-05-08: Ego is the perceiving element of the mind and therefore its root and essence
2018-11-08: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 18: though all thoughts are included in mind, what mind essentially is is only ego, the root thought called ‘I’
2018-05-13: The term ‘mind’ is used in two distinct senses: in a general sense it is a term that refers to the totality of all thoughts or mental phenomena, but since the root of all thoughts is the ego, the primal thought called ‘I’, what the mind essentially is is only the ego, and hence in a more specific sense ‘mind’ is a term that refers to the ego
2018-04-18: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 18: though the term ‘mind’ can refer to all thoughts collectively, what the mind essentially is is just the ego
2017-09-18: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 18: though the term ‘mind’ can refer to the totality of all thoughts, what the mind essentially is is just the ego
2017-07-27: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 18: the mind is essentially just the ego, the primal thought and root of all other thoughts
2017-03-21: Upadēśa Undiyār verses 17 and 18: what we should watch is only the ego, the root thought called ‘I’, and not any other thought
2016-10-02: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 18: the mind is essentially ‘I’, the ego or mixed awareness ‘I am this body’
2016-06-19: The first movement of thought is the rising of our ego, so we are completely ‘off the movement of thought’ only in manōlaya or manōnāśa (this section also includes the Sanskrit text of verse 18 of Upadēśa Sāram together with my translation of it)
2016-04-08: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 18: the ego is our first thought, the root of our mind
2015-11-11: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 18: our mind is in essence just our primal thought called ‘I’
2015-07-18: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 18: our ego is the root of all our mental impurities
2015-05-20: Distinguishing the ego from the rest of the mind
2015-04-03: Any experience we can describe is something other than the experience of pure self-attentiveness
2014-12-13: The teachings of Sri Ramana and Nisargadatta are significantly different
2014-09-26: Metaphysical solipsism, idealism and creation theories in the teachings of Sri Ramana
2014-08-15: Establishing that I am and analysing what I am
2014-05-25: The mind’s role in investigating ‘I’
2014-02-16: Self-attentiveness and citta-vṛtti nirōdha
2014-02-05: Spontaneously and wordlessly applying the clue: ‘to whom? to me; who am I?’
2011-10-07: In essence the mind is just the thought called ‘I’, which is the root of all other thoughts
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 19:
நானென் றெழுமிட மேதென நாடவுண்
ணான்றலை சாய்ந்திடு முந்தீபற
ஞான விசாரமி துந்தீபற.
nāṉeṉ ḏṟeṙumiḍa mēdeṉa nāḍavuṇ
ṇāṉḏṟalai sāyndiḍu mundīpaṟa
ñāṉa vicārami dundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: நான் என்று எழும் இடம் ஏது என நாட உள், நான் தலைசாய்ந்திடும். ஞான விசாரம் இது.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): nāṉ eṉḏṟu eṙum iḍam ēdu eṉa nāḍa uḷ, nāṉ talai-sāyndiḍum. ñāṉa-vicāram idu.
அன்வயம்: நான் என்று எழும் இடம் ஏது என உள் நாட, நான் தலைசாய்ந்திடும். இது ஞான விசாரம்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): nāṉ eṉḏṟu eṙum iḍam ēdu eṉa uḷ nāḍa, nāṉ talai-sāyndiḍum. idu ñāṉa-vicāram.
English translation: When one investigates within what the place is from which one rises as ‘I’, ‘I’ will die. This is awareness-investigation.
Explanatory paraphrase: When one investigates within [or inwardly investigates] what the place is from which one [or it] rises as ‘I’ [ego or mind], ‘I’ will die. This is jñāna-vicāra [investigation of awareness].
Explanations and discussions:
2024-09-12: Bhagavan defined self-investigation (ātma-vicāra) in the sixteenth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār? as ‘always keeping the mind on oneself’ (sadākālamum maṉattai ātmāvil vaittiruppadu), and as he made clear, keeping our mind on ourself means keeping our attention fixed firmly on what we actually are, namely our fundamental awareness ‘I am’, which is our very being, so he also called this practice ‘awareness-investigation’ (jñāna-vicāra)
2023-05-16: What he refers to here as ‘நான் என்று எழும் இடம்’ (nāṉ eṉḏṟu eṙum iḍam), ‘the place from which one rises as I’ or ‘the place from which it rises as I’, is our real nature (ātma-svarūpa), which is what always shines within us as our fundamental awareness of our own existence, ‘I am’, so investigating this ‘place’ means keenly attending only to this awareness ‘I am’, which is why he calls this investigation jñāna-vicāra, which means ‘awareness-investigation’
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 19: when one investigates from where the ego rises, it will die
2021-11-26: ‘நான் என்று எழும் இடம்’ (nāṉ eṉḏṟu eṙum iḍam), ‘the place from which one rises as I’, is our real nature (ātma-svarūpa), which is what always shines within us as our fundamental awareness of our own existence, ‘I am’, so investigating this ‘place’ means keenly attending only to this awareness ‘I am’, which is why he calls this investigation jñāna-vicāra, which means ‘awareness-investigation’
2020-01-16: Bhagavan often uses the term ‘இடம்’ (iḍam), which literally means ‘place’, as a metaphor for our real nature (ātma-svarūpa), because it is the ‘place’ or source from which we rise as ego and into which we must eventually subside
2019-11-24: ஞான விசாரம் (ñāṉa-vicāram) or jñāna-vicāra means ‘awareness-investigation’, so since awareness alone is what we actually are, jñāna-vicāra is the practice of investigating our real nature (ātma-svarūpa), which is what Bhagavan refers to in this verse as ‘நான் என்று எழும் இடம்’ (nāṉ eṉḏṟu eṙum iḍam), ‘the place from which one rises as I’
2016-10-02: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 19: if we investigate ourself, the source from which we rose as this ego, it will die
2015-07-31: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 19: we should investigate the source of our ego, which is what we actually are
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 20:
நானொன்று தானத்து நானானென் றொன்றது
தானாகத் தோன்றுமே யுந்தீபற
தானது பூன்றமா முந்தீபற.
nāṉoṉḏṟu thāṉattu nāṉāṉeṉ ḏṟoṉḏṟadu
tāṉāhat tōṉḏṟumē yundīpaṟa
tāṉadu pūṉḏṟamā mundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: ‘நான்’ ஒன்று தானத்து ‘நான் நான்’ என்று ஒன்று அது தானாக தோன்றுமே. தான் அது பூன்றம் ஆம்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): ‘nāṉ’ oṉḏṟu thāṉattu ‘nāṉ nāṉ’ eṉḏṟu oṉḏṟu adu tāṉāha tōṉḏṟumē. tāṉ adu pūṉḏṟam ām.
அன்வயம்: ‘நான்’ ஒன்று தானத்து ‘நான் நான்’ என்று ஒன்று அது தானாக தோன்றுமே. அது தான் பூன்றம் ஆம்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): ‘nāṉ’ oṉḏṟu thāṉattu ‘nāṉ nāṉ’ eṉḏṟu oṉḏṟu adu tāṉāha tōṉḏṟumē. adu tāṉ pūṉḏṟam ām.
English translation: In the place where ‘I’ merges, that, the one, appears spontaneously as ‘I am I’. That itself is the whole.
Explanatory paraphrase: In the place where ‘I’ [namely ego, the false awareness ‘I am this’] merges, that, the one, appears spontaneously [or as oneself] as ‘I am I’ [that is, as awareness of oneself as oneself alone]. That itself [or that, oneself] is pūṉḏṟam [pūrṇa: the infinite whole or entirety of what is].
Explanations and discussions:
2023-05-16: ‘நான் ஒன்று தானம்’ (nāṉ oṉḏṟu thāṉam), ‘the place where ‘I’ merges’, is the place from which it rose, namely our fundamental awareness of our own existence, ‘I am’, so when ego merges there, we will cease to be aware of ourself as ‘I am this body’ and will instead be aware of ourself just as ‘I am I’
2023-05-16: What shines forth spontaneously as ‘I am I’ is our real nature (ātma-svarūpa), which is what is also called brahman and which, being ‘one only without a second’ (ēkam ēva advitīyam), is the infinite whole (pūrṇa), other than which nothing actually exists, as Bhagavan implies by saying that it is ‘परम पूर्ण सत्’ (parama pūrṇa sat), ‘the supreme whole existence [being or reality]’
2023-05-16: The Sanskrit verb स्फुर् (sphur), from which the noun स्फुरण (sphuraṇa) is derived, means to shine, be clear, be evident or make itself known in any way, and is particularly used in the sense of shine forth, shine with a fresh clarity or appear afresh, and it is in this sense that he uses it in verse 20 of Upadēśa Sāram when he says ‘अहम् अहंतया स्फुरति हृत् स्वयम्’ (aham ahaṁtayā sphurati hṛt svayaṁ), “the heart shines forth spontaneously as ‘I am I’”
2023-05-16: As soon as ego is eradicated, what seemed till then to be a new and fresh clarity of self-awareness (sphuraṇa), which had been gradually growing clearer until it finally swallowed us entirely in its all-consuming effulgence, is recognised to be natural (sahaja), being what Bhagavan calls ‘பூன்றம்’ (pūṉḏṟam), ‘the whole’, in verse 20 of Upadēśa Undiyār and ‘परम पूर्ण सत्’ (parama pūrṇa sat), ‘the supreme whole existence [being or reality]’, in verse 20 of Upadēśa Sāram
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 20: when ego is annihated, the infinite whole will shine forth as ‘I am I’
2022-02-08: Since thought alone is the obstacle that stands in the way of our being aware of ourself as we actually are, as soon as all thoughts (including the primal thought, namely ego) are dissolved in such a manner that they can never reappear, our real nature will shine forth spontaneously, just as the sun appears spontaneously as soon as the clouds that concealed it are blown aside
2021-11-26: What we actually are is sat-cit (existence-awareness), which is our fundamental awareness of our own existence, ‘I am’, so when we are aware of ourself as we actually are, we will be aware of ourself just as ‘I am I’
2021-11-26: As soon as ego is eradicated, what seemed till then to be a new and fresh clarity of self-awareness (sphuraṇa), which had been gradually growing clearer until it finally swallowed us entirely in its all-consuming effulgence, is recognised to be natural (sahaja), being what Bhagavan calls ‘பூன்றம்’ (pūṉḏṟam), ‘the whole’
2021-11-26: What appears spontaneously as ‘I am I’ is our real nature (ātma-svarūpa), which is ‘परम पूर्ण सत्’ (parama pūrṇa sat), the supreme whole existence, being or reality, as he says in verse 20 of Upadēśa Sāram
2021-11-26: The Sanskrit verb स्फुर् (sphur) means to shine, be clear, be evident or make itself known in any way, and is particularly used in the sense of shine forth, shine with a fresh clarity or appear afresh, and it is in this sense that he uses it in verse 20 of Upadēśa Sāram when he says ‘अहम् अहंतया स्फुरति हृत् स्वयम्’ (aham ahaṁtayā sphurati hṛt svayaṁ), “the heart shines forth spontaneously as ‘I am I’”
2021-11-26: As soon as ego is eradicated, what seemed till then to be a new and fresh clarity of self-awareness (sphuraṇa), which had been gradually growing clearer until it finally swallowed us entirely in its all-consuming effulgence, is recognised to be natural (sahaja), being what Bhagavan calls ‘परम पूर्ण सत्’ (parama pūrṇa sat), ‘the supreme whole existence [being or reality]’, in verse 20 of Upadēśa Sāram
2020-06-21: Bhagavan used the term ‘நான் நான்’ (nāṉ nāṉ), ‘I am I’, to distinguish our real adjunct-free self-awareness from our false adjunct-mixed self-awareness, namely ego, which he referred to as ‘நான் இது’ (nāṉ idu), ‘I am this’, because ‘நான் இது’ (nāṉ idu), ‘I am this’, denotes a false identity, since it is an identification of ourself with something other than ourself, namely a body consisting of five sheaths, whereas ‘நான் நான்’ (nāṉ nāṉ), ‘I am I’, denotes our real identity, since it is an identification of ourself with ourself alone
2019-09-22: Comment explaining that ‘I am I’ is not a circular definition of ‘I’, because it refers to the clear awareness that I am nothing other than I, which is what shines forth when ego, the false awareness ‘I am this’, is destroyed
2019-08-28: Comment explaining that ‘நான் நான்’ (nāṉ nāṉ), ‘I am I’, expresses recognition of the fact that I am nothing other than I, because when ego is eradicated, what remains in its place is just pure self-awareness (ātma-jñāna), which is never aware of itself as anything other than itself
2017-04-12: The second in a series of two comments explaining that when the ego is eradicated (as it will be when it sees itself as it actually is) what we will experience is not that there is no ‘I’ but that ‘I’ is not what it seemed to be so long as it seemed to be mixed and confused with adjuncts such as ‘this’ or ‘that’, which means that we will cease to be aware of ourself as ‘I am this’ or ‘I am that’ and will instead be aware of ourself only as ‘I am I’
2016-10-02: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 20: where ‘I am this’ merges, what remains shining is ‘I am I’ (this section also includes the Sanskrit text of verse 20 of Upadēśa Sāram together with my translation of it)
2016-02-08: We cannot be anything that we do not experience permanently, so ‘I am only I’
2015-09-22: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 20: what remains as ‘I am I’ after the ego dissolves is infinite fullness
2015-03-16: Comment explaining the distinction between the ego, which is the false self-awareness ‘I am this body’, and our real nature, which is the true self-awareness ‘I am I’
2014-07-08: நான் நான் (nāṉ nāṉ) means ‘I am I’, not ‘I-I’
2014-06-23: A series of three comments discussing the significance of the sentence ‘நான் நான்’ (nāṉ nāṉ) and explaining why the correct translation of it is ‘I am I’, not ‘I-I’
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 21:
நானெனுஞ் சொற்பொரு ளாமது நாளுமே
நானற்ற தூக்கத்து முந்தீபற
நமதின்மை நீக்கத்தா லுந்தீபற.
nāṉeṉuñ coṯporu ḷāmadu nāḷumē
nāṉaṯṟa tūkkattu mundīpaṟa
namadiṉmai nīkkattā lundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: நான் எனும் சொல் பொருள் ஆம் அது நாளுமே, நான் அற்ற தூக்கத்தும் நமது இன்மை நீக்கத்தால்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): nāṉ eṉum sol poruḷ ām adu nāḷumē, nāṉ aṯṟa tūkkattum namadu iṉmai nīkkattāl.
அன்வயம்: நான் அற்ற தூக்கத்தும் நமது இன்மை நீக்கத்தால், நான் எனும் சொல் பொருள் நாளுமே அது ஆம்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): nāṉ aṯṟa tūkkattum namadu iṉmai nīkkattāl, nāṉ eṉum sol poruḷ nāḷumē adu ām.
English translation: That is at all times the substance of the word called ‘I’, because of the exclusion of our non-existence even in sleep, which is devoid of ‘I’.
Explanatory paraphrase: That [the one that appears as ‘I am I’, namely pure awareness, which is our real nature] is at all times the substance [or true import] of the word called ‘I’, because of the exclusion of our non-existence [that is, because we do not become non-existent] even in sleep, which is devoid of ‘I’ [namely ego].
Explanations and discussions:
2023-05-16: We are always clearly aware of ourself as ‘I’, not only in waking and dream, when we rise and stand as ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’, but also in sleep, when we remain just as ‘I am’ without rising as ‘I am this’ or ‘I am that’, so what we actually are is only the pure adjunct-free awareness ‘I’, and hence the clear awareness of ourself as ‘I am I’ (in other words, awareness of ourself as ourself alone) is always the true import of the word ‘I’
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 21: that infinite whole is always the true import of the word ‘I’
2022-03-24: Bhagavan gives us a much deeper explanation about sleep than the one that is usually given in advaita texts, because he points out firstly that in sleep ego does not exist, as he implies in this verse, and secondly that in the absence of ego nothing other than ourself exists, as he says unequivocally in verse 26 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
2022-03-10: Even when ‘I’ is used to refer to ego, its true import is always our real nature (ātma-svarūpa)
2021-11-26: We are always clearly aware of ourself as ‘I’, not only in waking and dream, when we rise and stand as ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’, but also in sleep, when we remain just as ‘I am’ without rising as ‘I am this’ or ‘I am that’, so since we are never anything other than ‘I’, the clear awareness of ourself as ‘I am I’ is always the true import of the word ‘I’
2020-06-17: What exists and what we are aware of in sleep is only pure awareness, which is our own real nature and which is completely devoid of ego or mind
2017-04-12: Comment explaining that when we cease to be aware of ourself as ‘I am this’ or ‘I am that’, we will instead be aware of ourself only as ‘I am I’, which is our real identity, because we cannot be anything other than ourself
2016-10-02: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 21: what shines as ‘I am I’ is the real import of the word ‘I’
2015-07-31: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 21: our infinite self is always the true import of the word ‘I’
2015-07-19: Comment explaining that the term ‘I’ refers only to ourself, whether we experience ourself as we actually are or as this ego, but its real import is the awareness ‘I am I’, which is what we always actually are
2015-02-04: The terms ‘I’ or ‘we’ refer only to ourself, whether we experience ourself as we actually are or as the ego that we now seem to be
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 22:
உடல்பொறி யுள்ள முயிரிரு ளெல்லாஞ்
சடமசத் தானதா லுந்தீபற
சத்தான நானல்ல வுந்தீபற.
uḍalpoṟi yuḷḷa muyiriru ḷellāñ
jaḍamasat tāṉadā lundīpaṟa
sattāṉa nāṉalla vundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: உடல் பொறி உள்ளம் உயிர் இருள் எல்லாம் சடம் அசத்து ஆனதால், சத்து ஆன நான் அல்ல.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): uḍal poṟi uḷḷam uyir iruḷ ellām jaḍam asattu āṉadāl, sattu āṉa nāṉ alla.
English translation: Since body, mind, intellect, life and darkness are all jaḍa and asat, they are not ‘I’, which is sat.
Explanatory paraphrase: Since [the five sheaths, namely] body [annamaya kōśa], life [prāṇamaya kōśa], mind [manōmaya kōśa], intellect [vijñānamaya kōśa] and darkness [ānandamaya kōśa, namely the cittam or will, which is internal darkness in the form of the dense fog of viṣaya-vāsanās, inclinations or desires to seek happiness in things other than oneself] are all jaḍa [non-aware] and asat [unreal or non-existent], they are not ‘I’, which is [cit, what is aware, and] sat [what actually exists].
Explanations and discussions:
2023-12-07: பொறி (poṟi) means the sense organs, so it refers primarily to the eyes, ears, mouth or tongue (as the organ of taste), nose and body (as the organ of tactile sensation), but just as physical phenomena are made known by these five physical sense organs, mental phenomena are made known by the inner sense organ called ‘mind’, and hence the mind (particularly in the sense of the manōmaya kōśa or mental sheath) is also called பொறி (poṟi), as Bhagavan refers to it in this verse
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 22: the five sheaths are jaḍa and asat, so they are not ‘I’
2022-03-24: Since the five sheaths are all jaḍa and asat, they are not ‘I’, which is sat
2022-03-24: The ānandamaya kōśa is not the darkness of ignorance but the darkness of desire
2021-11-18: Though we as ego experience ourself as if we were all these five sheaths collectively, they are all jaḍa (non-aware) and asat (unreal or non-existent), and hence they are not what we actually are
2020-01-23: All the five sheaths that constitute the person we seem to be, which is what Bhagavan refers to as ‘body’, are jaḍa (non-aware) and asat (unreal or non-existent), so they are not ‘I’
2020-01-16: When Bhagavan says that ego is what rises as ‘I am this body’, what he means by the term ‘body’ is a form composed of five sheaths, namely the physical form, life, mind, intellect and will, all of which are non-aware (jaḍa)
2019-12-15: Whatever person we seem to be is nothing other than these five sheaths, so since none of them are aware, no person is aware, but since what is aware of phenomena is only ego, and since ego is aware of itself as ‘I am this person’, this person seems to be aware
2019-11-13: Series of two comments explaining that intellect and will are both non-aware (jaḍa), so though intellect is ego’s ability to judge and distinguish one thing from another, and will consists of ego’s likes, dislikes, desires, attachments, hopes, fears and so on, neither of them is ego itself
2019-10-25: Ego is the false awareness ‘I am this body’, so it is called cit-jaḍa-granthi, the knot (granthi) formed by the seeming entanglement of awareness (cit) with a body consisting of five sheaths, all of which are insentient or non-aware (jaḍa)
2019-05-30: All the five sheaths are jaḍa (insentient or non-aware) and asat (unreal or non-existent), so though all the elements of the will are part of the person, who is composed of these five sheaths, the person as a whole is non-aware, so what likes, dislikes, desires, feels attached, wants, wishes, hopes or fears is not this person but only ego, who is what is aware of itself as ‘I am this person’
2018-12-30: Since ānandamaya kōśa is our will (cittam), the totality of all our vāsanās, why does Bhagavan refer to it as ‘இருள்’ (iruḷ), ‘darkness’?
2018-11-08: Ego is not any of the five sheaths, which are all jaḍa (non-aware), but only the false awareness ‘I am this body’, which rises and stands by identifying itself with a body consisting of these five sheaths
2018-11-08: All the five sheaths are jaḍa (non-aware) and asat (non-existence)
2018-11-08: Why does Bhagavan refer to the will (the ānandamaya kōśa), which is the totality of all vāsanās (the vast majority of which are viṣaya-vāsanās), as ‘இருள்’ (iruḷ), which means ‘darkness’?
2018-04-18: None of the five sheaths is aware of anything, so they seem to be sentient only because the ego experiences them as if they were itself
2016-10-02: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 22: the body and other adjuncts are not real and not aware, so they are not ‘I’
2016-05-05: The person we seem to be is a form composed of five sheaths
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 23:
உள்ள துணர வுணர்வுவே றின்மையி
னுள்ள துணர்வாகு முந்தீபற
வுணர்வேநா மாயுள முந்தீபற.
uḷḷa duṇara vuṇarvuvē ṟiṉmaiyi
ṉuḷḷa duṇarvāhu mundīpaṟa
vuṇarvēnā māyuḷa mundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: உள்ளது உணர உணர்வு வேறு இன்மையின், உள்ளது உணர்வு ஆகும். உணர்வே நாமாய் உளம்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): uḷḷadu uṇara uṇarvu vēṟu iṉmaiyiṉ, uḷḷadu uṇarvu āhum. uṇarvē nām-āy uḷam.
அன்வயம்: உள்ளது உணர வேறு உணர்வு இன்மையின், உள்ளது உணர்வு ஆகும். உணர்வே நாமாய் உளம்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): uḷḷadu uṇara vēṟu uṇarvu iṉmaiyiṉ, uḷḷadu uṇarvu āhum. uṇarvē nām-āy uḷam.
English translation: Because of the non-existence of other awareness to be aware of what exists, what exists is awareness. Awareness alone exists as we.
Explanatory paraphrase: Because of the non-existence of [any] awareness other [than what exists] to be aware of what exists, what exists (uḷḷadu) is awareness (uṇarvu). Awareness alone exists as we [that is, the awareness that actually exists, namely pure awareness, which is awareness that is aware of nothing other than itself, is what we actually are].
Explanations and discussions:
2024-09-05: Since God and soul are both aware of their being as ‘I am’, and since their awareness ‘I am’ is not other than their being, the one substance that they both are is pure being-awareness (sat-cit)
2022-10-27: Absolute existence is what is called Arunachala, and since it alone is what actually exists, there cannot be any awareness other than it to know it, so it itself is awareness
2022-07-02: What we actually are is pure awareness (uṇarvu or cit), which alone is what actually exists (uḷḷadu or sat)
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 23: what exists is awareness, which is what we are
2021-08-29: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 23: what actually exists is only our awareness of our own existence, and that alone is what we actually are
2020-11-01: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 23: what actually exists is only awareness, awareness that is aware only of its own existence, ‘I am’, and we are that
2020-06-21: Our existence (sat) and our awareness of our existence (sat-cit) are one and the same thing, so we were aware of our existence in sleep because awareness is our very nature, and hence we could never be not aware
2020-03-31: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 23: what we actually are is only awareness (uṇarvu or cit), which is what alone actually exists (uḷḷadu or sat)
2019-10-25: Ego is the false awareness ‘I am this body’, but what is real, in the sense of what actually exists, is only our fundamental awareness ‘I am’
2019-10-24: Comment explaining that being is consciousness and consciousness is being, so they are not just ‘two aspects of the same thing’, they are the same thing
2019-08-26: Comment explaining the significance of the unusual syntax of the final sentence, ‘உணர்வே நாமாய் உளம்’ (uṇarvē nām-āy uḷam), ‘Awareness alone exist being we’, ‘Awareness alone exist as we’ or ‘Awareness alone are as we’
2019-08-26: Comment explaining that awareness (in the sense of pure awareness) is our very being, because it is what we actually are, so awareness and being are one and the same thing
2018-12-30: What actually exists is only pure awareness, and that is what we actually are
2018-02-28: What distinguishes our real nature (ātma-svarūpa) from our ego is that our real nature is what actually exists (uḷḷadu), which is aware of nothing other than itself, whereas our ego is just a transitory appearance, which is always aware of things that seem to be other than itself
2018-01-01: The second meaning of the first sentence of the first maṅgalam verse, namely ‘உள்ளது அலது உள்ள உணர்வு உள்ளதோ?’ (uḷḷadu aladu uḷḷa-v-uṇarvu uḷḷadō?), namely ‘Except as [or other than] uḷḷadu [what exists], does uḷḷa-v-uṇarvu [existing or actual awareness] exist?’, is a briefer expression of the same argument that Bhagavan gives in this verse
2017-07-06: What we actually are is just pure self-awareness: awareness that is aware of nothing other than itself
2016-10-02: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 23: we are the one existence-awareness that always shines as ‘I am’
2016-06-19: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 23: we are awareness, and awareness alone is what actually exists
2016-06-02: Comment explaining that what actually exists is aware, so its existence and awareness are one and the same thing
2016-03-16: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 23: we are both what exists and what is aware that we exist
2015-09-22: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 23: what exists (uḷḷadu) is what is aware (uṇarvu)
2015-06-25: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 23: what exists is what is aware
2014-08-08: We must experience what is, not what merely seems to be
2014-01-24: Only ‘I am’ is certain and self-evident
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 24:
இருக்கு மியற்கையா லீசசீ வர்க
ளொருபொரு ளேயாவ ருந்தீபற
வுபாதி யுணர்வேவே றுந்தீபற.
irukku miyaṟkaiyā līśajī varga
ḷoruporu ḷēyāva rundīpaṟa
vupādhi yuṇarvēvē ṟundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: இருக்கும் இயற்கையால் ஈச சீவர்கள் ஒரு பொருளே ஆவர். உபாதி உணர்வே வேறு.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): irukkum iyaṟkaiyāl īśa-jīvargaḷ oru poruḷē āvar. upādhi-uṇarvē vēṟu.
English translation: By existing nature, God and soul are just one substance. Only adjunct-awareness is different.
Explanatory paraphrase: By [their] existing nature [that is, because the real nature of each of them is what actually exists (uḷḷadu), which is the pure and infinite awareness (uṇarvu) that shines eternally as ‘I am’, devoid of all adjuncts], īśa [God] and jīva [soul] are just one poruḷ [substance or vastu]. Only upādhi-uṇarvu [adjunct-awareness, namely ego or jīva, the adjunct-conflated awareness ‘I am this body’, which is what attributes adjuncts not only to itself but also to God] is [what makes them seem] different. [However, though the soul (jīva) is aware of itself as a certain set of adjuncts, namely the five sheaths that constitute whatever person it currently seems to be, and consequently attributes certain other adjuncts to God, God always remains just as pure awareness, in the clear view of which no adjuncts exist at all, so the differences between God and soul seem to exist only in the view of the soul and not in the view of God.]
Explanations and discussions:
2024-09-05: We seem to be ego, which is what is also called ‘soul’ (jīva), only because we have imposed limitations on ourself by being aware of ourself as ‘I am this body’, but these limitations are not real but just illusory adjuncts (upādhi), so even when we seem to have imposed these unreal limitations upon ourself, what we essentially are is just infinite being, which is what is called ‘God’ (īśaṉ)
2023-12-07: ஒரு பொருள் (oru poruḷ), the one substance, is our very existence or being, because it alone is what we actually are, and it is also what God actually is, so in our ‘இருக்கும் இயற்கை’ (irukkum iyaṟkai), ‘existing nature’ or ‘being nature’, God and we are just this one substance, as he says in this verse
2022-11-09: Just as iron is the one substance that constitutes both a magnet and an ordinary piece of iron, sat-cit (pure being, which is pure awareness, ‘I am’) is the one substance (poruḷ or vastu) of both Arunachala and ourself, but just as the magnetic particles of iron in a magnet are all aligned to face in one direction, allowing its magnetic nature to manifest, whereas the magnetic particles in an ordinary piece of iron are scattered to face in many directions, thereby obscuring its magnetic nature, so Arunachala, being pure awareness, is always facing towards itself alone, whereas the attention of ourself as ego is always scattered outwards (away from ourself) under the sway of our viṣaya-vāsanās to face in many different directions, thereby obscuring our real nature as pure awareness
2022-08-24: What he refers to here both as ‘இருக்கும் இயற்கை’ (irukkum iyaṟkai), ‘existing nature’, and as ‘ஒரு பொருள்’ (oru poruḷ), ‘one substance’, is sat-cit, pure existence-awareness, which is what always shines in our heart as our fundamental awareness of our own existence, ‘I am’, so this alone is what both Arunachala (God or īśa) and we (ego, soul or jīva) actually are
2022-07-02: What he refers to here as ‘இருக்கும் இயற்கை’ (irukkum iyaṟkai), ‘existing nature’ or ‘being nature’, is the real nature of both Arunachala and ourself, which is pure being, so this is what we actually are, and hence it is the ‘ஒரு பொருள்’ (oru poruḷ), the ‘one substance’, that he says is both God (īśa) and soul (jīva)
2022-03-31: Though outwardly அழகு (aṙahu) and சுந்தரம் (sundaram) differ in their form and appearance, inwardly their பொருள் (poruḷ), their substance or meaning, namely beauty, is one, just as the பொருள் (poruḷ) or substance of God and soul is one even though they differ in their external form and appearance
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 24: God and soul are just one substance, but only their adjuncts differ
2021-02-18: Ego as ego is just an illusory appearance, so it has no existence of its own, but as pure awareness it does exist and is therefore real
2020-11-01: What Bhagavan refers to as ‘ஒரு பொருள்’ (oru poruḷ), ‘one substance’, is pure awareness, which is our ‘இருக்கும் இயற்கை’ (irukkum iyaṟkai), ‘existing nature’ or ‘being nature’, which means what we actually are
2020-02-24: Self-awareness + awareness of adjuncts = ego or jīva, whereas self-awareness without any awareness of adjuncts (and hence without any awareness of anything else whatsoever) = our real nature or God
2019-10-25: When we rise and stand as ego our fundamental awareness ‘I am’ seems to be mixed and conflated with awareness of adjuncts (upādhi-uṇarvu), so this is what creates a seeming separation between ourself as we actually are (the pure awareness ‘I am’), which is what is called ‘God’ (īśa), and ourself as ego (the false awareness ‘I am this body’), which is what is called ‘soul’ (jīva)
2018-01-04: This verse clearly illustrates Bhagavan’s use of பொருள் (poruḷ) in the sense of ‘substance’
2017-02-19: What is the difference between God and the ego?
2016-10-02: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 24: what seemingly separates us from the reality that we actually are is only our awareness of adjuncts
2015-11-17: Upadēśa Undiyār verses 24 and 25: experiencing ourself without adjuncts is experiencing what we actually are
2015-07-31: Upadēśa Undiyār verses 24 and 25: the essential oneness of our ego and our real self
2015-06-25: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 24: our ego and God are only one substance
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 25:
தன்னை யுபாதிவிட் டோர்வது தானீசன்
றன்னை யுணர்வதா முந்தீபற
தானா யொளிர்வதா லுந்தீபற.
taṉṉai yupādhiviṭ ṭōrvadu tāṉīśaṉ
ḏṟaṉṉai yuṇarvadā mundīpaṟa
tāṉā yoḷirvadā lundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: தன்னை உபாதி விட்டு ஓர்வது தான் ஈசன் தன்னை உணர்வது ஆம், தானாய் ஒளிர்வதால்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): taṉṉai upādhi viṭṭu ōrvadu tāṉ īśaṉ taṉṉai uṇarvadu ām, tāṉ-āy oḷirvadāl.
அன்வயம்: தானாய் ஒளிர்வதால், தன்னை உபாதி விட்டு ஓர்வது தான் ஈசன் தன்னை உணர்வது ஆம்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): tāṉ-āy oḷirvadāl, taṉṉai upādhi viṭṭu ōrvadu tāṉ īśaṉ taṉṉai uṇarvadu ām.
English translation: Knowing oneself leaving aside adjuncts is itself knowing God, because of shining as oneself.
Explanatory paraphrase: Knowing [or being aware of] oneself without adjuncts is itself knowing God, because [God is what is always] shining as oneself [one’s own real nature, namely pure awareness, which is oneself without any adjuncts].
Explanations and discussions:
2024-09-05: Though as ego or soul (jīva) we are aware of ourself as a certain set of adjuncts, namely the five sheaths that constitute whatever person we currently seem to be, and consequently attribute certain other adjuncts to God, God always remains just as pure being-awareness (sat-cit), in the clear view of which no adjuncts exist at all, so the differences between God and ourself seem to exist only in the view of ourself and not in the view of God. In order to know God as he actually is, therefore, all that is required is that we should know ourself without adjuncts
2023-05-16: What brahman actually is is only ‘I’ devoid of all adjuncts, so to know brahman we must know ‘I’ devoid of all adjuncts, and to know ‘I’ devoid of all adjuncts we must attend to nothing other than ‘I’
2022-07-02: Since we mistake ourself to be one set of adjuncts, we take Arunachala to be another set of adjuncts, but since he is never aware of himself as anything other than pure being-awareness (sat-cit), he is never aware of any adjuncts at all, so he never sees us as anything other than himself, and hence if we are to see him as he actually is, which is as he sees himself, all we need to do is to see ourself without adjuncts
2022-03-31: By virtue of our existing nature, ‘I am’, we and Arunachala (jīva and śiva) are always one substance (poruḷ), like aṙahu and sundaram, but to see ourself as such, we need to see ourself without adjuncts
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 25: seeing oneself without adjuncts is seeing God, because he is oneself
2021-02-18: Ego is just a false awareness of ourself, an awareness of ourself as if we were a body, but if we investigate it keenly enough, its adjuncts will slip off and we will see that it is nothing other than pure awareness, ‘I am’
2020-12-27: God is nothing other than our own real nature (ātma-svarūpa), but so long as we rise as ego and thereby limit ourself as a finite set of adjuncts (namely a body consisting of five sheaths) he seems to be something other than ourself, so we can know him as he actually is only by knowing ourself without adjuncts
2020-11-01: Upadēśa Undiyār verses 24-25: we already know ourself, so we do not need to know anything new, but just need to know ourself without adjuncts
2020-02-24: If we attend only to ‘I am’, thereby withdrawing our attention from everything else, including all our adjuncts, we will thereby leave aside all adjuncts, and what will then remain is only pure awareness, which is what we always actually are
2020-02-24: Self-awareness + awareness of adjuncts = ego or jīva, whereas self-awareness without any awareness of adjuncts (and hence without any awareness of anything else whatsoever) = our real nature or God
2019-12-10: We are aware of things other than ourself only when we are aware of ourself as a body, and so long as we are aware of ourself as a body we are not aware of ourself as we actually are, so we need to be aware of ourself without being aware of the body or any other adjuncts
2019-10-25: To see God as he actually is, namely as pure awareness, which is our real nature, all we need do is to see ourself without any adjuncts (upādhi), which means without any awareness of adjuncts (upādhi-uṇarvu)
2017-02-19: What is the difference between God and the ego?
2016-10-02: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 25: being aware of ‘I am’ without adjuncts is being aware of the reality
2015-11-17: Upadēśa Undiyār verses 24 and 25: experiencing ourself without adjuncts is experiencing what we actually are
2015-07-31: Upadēśa Undiyār verses 24 and 25: the essential oneness of our ego and our real self
2015-06-25: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 25: knowing ourself without adjuncts is knowing God
2014-08-01: Self-awareness is the very nature of ‘I’
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 26:
தானா யிருத்தலே தன்னை யறிதலாந்
தானிரண் டற்றதா லுந்தீபற
தன்மய நிட்டையீ துந்தீபற.
tāṉā yiruttalē taṉṉai yaṟidalān
tāṉiraṇ ḍaṯṟadā lundīpaṟa
taṉmaya niṭṭhaiyī dundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: தான் ஆய் இருத்தலே தன்னை அறிதல் ஆம், தான் இரண்டு அற்றதால். தன்மய நிட்டை ஈது.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): tāṉ-āy iruttal-ē taṉṉai aṟidal ām, tāṉ iraṇḍu aṯṟadāl. taṉmaya niṭṭhai īdu.
அன்வயம்: தான் இரண்டு அற்றதால், தான் ஆய் இருத்தலே தன்னை அறிதல் ஆம். ஈது தன்மய நிட்டை.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): tāṉ iraṇḍu aṯṟadāl, tāṉ-āy iruttal-ē taṉṉai aṟidal ām. īdu taṉmaya niṭṭhai.
English translation: Being oneself alone is knowing oneself, because oneself is devoid of two. This is tanmaya-niṣṭhā.
Explanatory paraphrase: Being oneself [that is, being as one actually is without rising to know anything else] alone is knowing oneself, because oneself [one’s real nature] is devoid of two [that is, devoid of the fundamental duality of subject and object, knower and thing known, and also devoid of any possibility of being divided as two selves, one self as a subject to know the other self as an object]. This is tanmaya-niṣṭhā [‘steadfastness as that’: the state of being firmly fixed or established as ‘that’ (tat), the one infinite reality called brahman].
Explanations and discussions:
2024-09-12: Since consciousness can never be an object of awareness, we can know it as it is only by being as it is
2024-09-05: Being as we actually are without rising as ego is knowing ourself as we actually are
2023-11-08: Knowing (or being aware of) anything other than ourself is an action, because it entails a movement of our mind or attention away from ourself towards that other thing, whereas knowing ourself is not an action but just being, because it does not entail even the slightest movement of our attention away from ourself
2022-10-27: Being pure awareness, Arunachala alone is both what knows and what it knows, and it itself is also the means by which it knows itself, because it knows itself just by being itself, as Bhagavan points out in this verse: ‘தான் ஆய் 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 devoid of two’
2022-09-23: Though we as pure awareness always know ourself, our knowing ourself is not a knowing like any other kind of knowing, because knowing anything else is an act of knowing, whereas knowing ourself is not an act of knowing, since we know ourself just by being ourself
2022-07-02: The real nature of Arunachala cannot be seen or known as an object but only as the reality of ourself, the subject, and we can see it only being it, because it cannot be seen or known by anything other than itself
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 26: being oneself alone is seeing oneself, because oneself is not two
2022-03-24: When the mind looks deep enough within itself it will thereby be swallowed by its own cittva, and thus it will cease to be anything other than its own cittva, and since being cittva alone is seeing cittva, as he implies in this verse, it is only by being completely swallowed by its own cittva that the mind can see its own cittva
2021-03-22: We cannot be aware of ourself as we actually are so long as we remain as ego, so it is only by being as we actually are that we can be aware of ourself as we actually are
2021-01-30: What we actually are is pure awareness, and pure awareness can be known only by itself, so it is only by being pure awareness that we can know pure awareness
2020-11-01: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 26: since we are awareness and not an object, we know ourself just by being ourself
2020-11-01: What Bhagavan refers to here as ‘தன்னை அறிதல்’ (taṉṉai aṟidal), ‘knowing oneself’, is knowing ourself as we actually are (in other words, ‘தன்னை உபாதி விட்டு ஓர்வது’ (taṉṉai upādhi viṭṭu ōrvadu), ‘knowing ourself without adjuncts’), and what we actually are is just ‘I am’, our fundamental awareness of our own existence
2020-11-01: In this context ‘தான்’ (tāṉ), ‘oneself’, means ourself as we actually are, and since what we actually are is what is called ‘brahman’, which is often referred to as ‘that’ (tat), he concludes this verse by saying ‘தன்மய நிட்டை ஈது’ (taṉmaya niṭṭhai īdu), ‘This is tanmaya-niṣṭhā [the state of abiding or being firmly fixed as tat]’, in which ‘ஈது’ (īdu), ‘this’, refers to the state of being and knowing oneself, as described in the first sentence of this verse.
2019-12-16: Comment explaining that by being aware of ourself as we actually are we are thereby being as we actually are
2019-10-25: What knows pure awareness is only pure awareness, so in order to know our real nature (ātma-svarūpa), which is pure awareness, we must just be as we always actually are
2019-08-26: Comment explaining that what we actually are is pure awareness, which is always aware of itself as it actually is, so being as we actually are entails being aware of ourself as we actually are, and being aware of ourself as we actually are entails being as we actually are
2019-08-24: Only by being ātma-jñāna (pure self-awareness) can we know ātma-jñāna, because ātma-jñāna is not anything other than ourself, and therefore cannot be known as anything other than ourself
2018-01-01: What Bhagavan says in the third sentence of the first maṅgalam verse, namely ‘உள்ளத்தே உள்ளபடி உள்ளதே உள்ளல்’ (uḷḷattē uḷḷapaḍi uḷḷadē uḷḷal), ‘Being in the heart as it is alone is thinking [of the existing substance] [or meditating on it]’, echoes what he had earlier written in this verse, namely ‘தானாய் இருத்தலே தன்னை அறிதல் ஆம், தான் இரண்டு அற்றதால்’ (tāṉ-āy iruttal-ē taṉṉai aṟidal ām, tāṉ iraṇḍu aṯṟadāl), ‘Being oneself [or more literally, being as oneself] alone is knowing oneself, because oneself is not two’
2017-01-15: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 26: being oneself is knowing oneself
2016-04-17: Comment in which it is explained that self-attentiveness is not an action (karma) or mental activity but is simply an actionless state of just being (summā iruppadu), because it is a focusing of our awareness on ourself alone, and being aware of ourself alone is our real nature
2016-03-16: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 26: being aware what we are is not transitive awareness but just being the intransitive awareness that we actually are
2014-11-09: Why should we believe that ‘the Self’ is as we believe it to be?
2014-08-01: Self-awareness is the very nature of ‘I’
2014-04-11: Ātma-vicāra and nirvikalpa samādhi
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 27:
அறிவறி யாமையு மற்ற வறிவே
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 knowledge. This is real. There is not anything for knowing.
Explanatory paraphrase: Only knowledge [in the sense of awareness] that is devoid of knowledge and ignorance [of anything other than oneself] is [actual] knowledge [or awareness]. This [alone] is [what is] real [or true], [because in the clear view of oneself as pure awareness] there is not anything [other than oneself for one either] to know [or to not know].
Explanations and discussions:
2024-09-12: Only consciousness of what actually exists is real consciousness, and since what actually exists is only pure consciousness, it alone is real consciousness
2023-07-27: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 27: real awareness is devoid of both knowledge and ignorance of anything other than itself, because there is nothing other than itself for it either to know or to not know
2022-09-23: What he means in the first sentence by ‘அறிவு அறியாமையும்’ (aṟivu aṟiyāmaiyum), ‘knowledge and ignorance’, is knowledge and ignorance about anything other than oneself, so the awareness (aṟivu) that is devoid of such knowledge and ignorance (or knowing and not knowing) is pure awareness, and hence what he implies in this sentence is that pure awareness alone is real awareness
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 27: there is nothing to know, so real awareness is devoid of knowledge and ignorance
2021-03-22: The distinction between transitive and intransitive awareness is one of the fundamental principles of Bhagavan’s teachings, and it is explained by him, albeit without using these terms, in verse 27 of Upadēśa Undiyār and verses 10, 11, 12, 13 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
2021-02-02: When it is said that ‘everything is one’, it does not mean that everything is real, but that what appears as everything is only one thing, namely ourself, so instead of trying to know anything else, we should turn within to face ourself alone and thereby know ourself as we actually are, namely as pure awareness: awareness that is never aware of anything other than itself, because nothing else exists for it to be aware of
2020-03-09: Real awareness is devoid of ignorance of anything else for the same reason that it is devoid of awareness or knowledge of anything else, namely that that nothing other than itself exists either for it to know or for it to be ignorant of
2020-02-02: What we actually are is only pure awareness, which means awareness that is not aware of anything other than itself, because in its clear view nothing other than itself exists for it to be aware of
2020-01-16: When we are aware of ourself as we actually are, nothing else will exist for us to know
2020-01-05: One of several comments explaining why Bhagavan says ‘Therefore when the world appears, svarūpa does not appear; when svarūpa appears (shines), the world does not appear’ in the fourth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?
2019-10-25: Awareness of ourself mixed and conflated with adjuncts is what is called ‘ego’ or ‘mind’, which alone is what is aware of all other phenomena, so being aware of ourself without adjuncts means being aware of absolutely nothing other than ourself
2019-06-28: The reason why real awareness is completely devoid of knowledge and ignorance about other things is explained by Bhagavan in the final sentence of this verse: ‘அறிவதற்கு ஒன்று இலை’ (aṟiyum adu uṇmai aṟivu āhādu), ‘there is not anything for knowing’
2019-02-20: Since nothing other than oneself actually exists, being aware of other things is not real awareness, so real awareness is only awareness that is devoid of awareness or ignorance of anything else
2019-01-31: When we are aware of ourself as we actually are, there will be nothing else for us to know, as Bhagavan implied in the second sentence of verse 3 of Āṉma-Viddai and as he stated more explicitly in this verse
2018-11-08: The reason why real awareness is completely devoid of knowledge (or awareness) and ignorance of any other things is that it alone actually exists, so in its clear view there is absolutely nothing else for it be aware of, or for it to know or be ignorant of
2018-04-30: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 12 and Upadēśa Undiyār verse 27: real knowledge or awareness is that which is completely devoid of both knowing and not knowing
2018-04-18: Real awareness is devoid of awareness or ignorance of anything else, because there is nothing else for it to know
2017-05-28: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 27: what is real is only awareness devoid of knowledge and ignorance, because nothing at all exists for it to know
2015-09-22: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 27: we are devoid of knowledge and ignorance
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 28:
தனாதியல் யாதெனத் தான்றெரி கிற்பின்
னனாதி யனந்தசத் துந்தீபற
வகண்ட சிதானந்த முந்தீபற.
taṉādiyal yādeṉat tāṉḏṟeri hiṟpiṉ
ṉaṉādi yaṉantasat tundīpaṟa
vakhaṇḍa cidāṉanda mundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: தனாது இயல் யாது என தான் தெரிகில், பின் அனாதி அனந்த சத்து அகண்ட சித் ஆனந்தம்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): taṉādu iyal yādu eṉa tāṉ terihil, piṉ aṉādi aṉanta sattu akhaṇḍa cit āṉandam.
அன்வயம்: தான் தனாது இயல் யாது என தெரிகில், பின் அனாதி அனந்த அகண்ட சத்து சித் ஆனந்தம்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): tāṉ taṉādu iyal yādu eṉa terihil, piṉ aṉādi aṉanta akhaṇḍa sattu cit āṉandam.
English translation: If one knows what the nature of oneself is, then beginningless, endless and unbroken existence-awareness-happiness.
Explanatory paraphrase: If one knows what the [real] nature of oneself is, then [what will remain existing and shining is only the real nature of oneself (ātma-svarūpa), which is] anādi [beginningless], ananta [endless, limitless or infinite] and akhaṇḍa [unbroken, undivided or unfragmented] sat-cit-ānanda [existence-awareness-happiness].
Explanations and discussions:
2023-05-16: Our real nature (ātma-svarūpa), which is what shines eternally as ‘I am I’, is pure being-awareness-happiness (sat-cit-ānanda), which is beginningless (anādi), infinite (ananta) and undivided (akhaṇḍa)
2022-07-02: What we actually are is sat-cit-ānanda, pure being (sat), pure awareness (cit) and pure happiness (ānanda), which is infinite, eternal, indivisible and immutable
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 28: one’s real nature is imperishable unborn full awareness-happiness
2021-11-26: Our real nature (ātma-svarūpa), which is what shines eternally as ‘I am I’, is pure being-awareness-happiness (sat-cit-ānanda), which is beginningless (anādi), infinite (ananta) and undivided (akhaṇḍa)
2020-10-19: Being anādi (beginningless), ananta (endless, limitless or infinite) and akhaṇḍa (unbroken, undivided or unfragmented), this state is timeless, immutable and devoid of even the slightest division of subject and object, and hence devoid of even the subtlest of phenomena or changes
2020-05-28: What we actually are is eternal, infinite and immutable sat-cit-ānanda, so if we want to experience infinite happiness (ānanda), we need to be aware of ourself as we actually are, and in order to be aware of ourself as we actually are we need to investigate ourself and thereby surrender this erroneous self-awareness called ego
2019-10-25: Pure awareness, which is the real nature of ourself (ātma-svarūpa), is sat (being or existence in the sense of what actually exists), cit (awareness in the sense of what is actually aware) and ānanda (happiness in the sense of what is actually happy), so when we know what our real nature is, what will remain is only sat-cit-ānanda, which is beginningless, endless, infinite and indivisible
2019-06-28: When by means of self-investigation and self-surrender we manage to eradicate ego entirely, everything else will cease to exist along with it, so what will then remain as ‘one only without a second’ (ēkam ēva advitīyam) is just pure awareness, whose nature is beginningless, endless, infinite and indivisible sat-cit-ānanda
2018-11-08: What actually exists is only our real nature, which is pure awareness, so it alone is what seems to have been divided or separated into subject (ego) and objects (phenomena), but though it seems to have been divided, it has never actually been divided, because it is indivisible
2018-04-30: When Bhagavan looked at himself, the perceiver (the ego) disappeared, and along with it all perceptions (all phenomena or objects perceived) also disappeared, because he saw that what actually exists is only pure, infinite, indivisible, immutable and eternal self-awareness
2017-07-27: Liberation is eternal: beginningless, endless and unbroken
2017-06-27: Māyā is nothing but our own mind, so it seems to exist only when we seem to be this mind
2017-03-24: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 28: our real nature is infinite and undivided, so nothing else exists to know it
2017-03-08: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 28: when everything else ceases to exist, what remains is only beginningless, infinite and undivided sat-cit-ānanda
2016-12-14: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 28: the nature of ‘the Self’ is diametrically opposite to the nature of phenomena
2016-10-19: As we actually are, we do nothing and are aware of nothing other than ourself
2016-10-02: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 28: the pure self-awareness ‘I am I’ is beginningless, endless and indivisible
2016-07-13: Ātma-jñāna is the only real state and is immutable and indivisible, so there are no stages of it or states other than it
2015-09-22: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 28: the real nature of ourself
2015-06-25: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 28: sat-cit-ānanda is eternal, infinite and indivisible
2014-11-20: Is there any such thing as a ‘self-realised’ person?
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 29:
பந்தவீ டற்ற பரசுக முற்றவா
றிந்த நிலைநிற்ற லுந்தீபற
விறைபணி நிற்றலா முந்தீபற.
bandhavī ḍaṯṟa parasukha muṯṟavā
ṟinda nilainiṯṟa lundīpaṟa
viṟaipaṇi niṯṟalā mundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: பந்த வீடு அற்ற பரசுகம் உற்றவாறு இந்த நிலை நிற்றல் இறை பணி நிற்றல் ஆம்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): bandha vīḍu aṯṟa para-sukham uṯṟa-v-āṟu inda nilai niṯṟal iṟai-paṇi niṯṟal ām.
English translation: Standing in this state, thereby experiencing supreme bliss, which is devoid of bondage and liberation, is standing in the service of God.
Explanatory paraphrase: Standing [remaining, abiding or steadfastly being] in this state [of beginningless, infinite and indivisible sat-cit-ānanda], thereby experiencing supreme bliss, which is devoid of [the dyad or duality of] bondage and liberation, is standing in the service of God [or is standing as God directed].
Explanations and discussions:
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 29: the divine soul experiences supreme happiness beyond bondage and liberation
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 30:
யானற் றியல்வது தேரி னெதுவது
தானற் றவமென்றா னுந்தீபற
தானாம் ரமணேச னுந்தீபற.
yāṉaṯ ṟiyalvadu tēri ṉeduvadu
dāṉaṯ ṟavameṉḏṟā ṉundīpaṟa
tāṉām ramaṇēśa ṉundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: ‘யான் அற்று இயல்வது தேரின் எது, அது தான் நல் தவம்’ என்றான் தான் ஆம் ரமணேசன்
Padacchēdam (word-separation): ‘yāṉ aṯṟu iyalvadu tēriṉ edu, adu-dāṉ nal tavam’ eṉḏṟāṉ tāṉ ām ramaṇēśaṉ.
English translation: ‘I ceasing, what if one knows what remains, that alone is good tapas’: thus said Lord Ramana, who is oneself.
Explanatory paraphrase: ‘What [exists and shines alone] if one knows what remains after I [ego] has ceased to exist, [just being] that [namely egoless pure awareness] alone is good tapas [spiritual austerity or asceticism]’: thus said Lord Ramana, who is oneself [one’s own real nature].
Explanations and discussions:
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 30: one’s shining devoid of ‘I’ is great tapas
2015-08-22: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 30: experiencing what remains when the ego dissolves is tapas
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
வாழ்த்து (vāṙttu): Concluding Verses of Praise (composed by Sri Muruganar)
Vāṙttu verse 1:
இருடிக ளெல்லா மிறைவ னடியை
வருடி வணங்கின ருந்தீபற
வாழ்த்து முழங்கின ருந்தீபற.
iruḍiga ḷellā miṟaiva ṉaḍiyai
varuḍi vaṇaṅgiṉa rundīpaṟa
vāṙttu muṙaṅgiṉa rundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: இருடிகள் எல்லாம் இறைவன் அடியை வருடி வணங்கினர்; வாழ்த்து முழங்கினர்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): iruḍigaḷ ellām iṟaivaṉ aḍiyai varuḍi vaṇaṅgiṉar; vāṙttu muṙaṅgiṉar.
English translation: Touching the feet of God, all the ṛṣis paid obeisance; they sang aloud praise.
Explanatory paraphrase: Touching the feet of God [Lord Siva], all the ṛṣis [the ‘rishis’ or ascetics in the Daruka forest] paid obeisance [and] sang aloud praise [to him]. (Tiruvundiyār 1.133)
Vāṙttu verse 2:
உற்றார்க் குறுதி யுபதேச வுந்தியார்
சொற்ற குருபர னுந்தீபற
சுமங்கள வேங்கட னுந்தீபற.
uṯṟārk kuṟudi yupadēśa vundiyār
soṯṟa gurupara ṉundīpaṟa
sumaṅgaḷa vēṅkaṭa ṉundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: உற்றார்க்கு உறுதி உபதேச வுந்தியார் சொற்ற குருபரன் சுமங்கள வேங்கடன்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): uṯṟārkku uṟudi upadēśa-v-undiyār soṯṟa guru-paraṉ sumaṅgaḷa vēṅkaṭaṉ.
English translation: The supreme guru who sang Upadēśa Undiyār, an assurance to devotees, is the auspicious Venkatan.
Explanatory paraphrase: The supreme guru who sang Upadēśa Undiyār [as] an assurance to devotees [friends or those close to him, implying those who came to him for salvation] is the auspicious Venkatan [Sri Ramana]. (Tiruvundiyār 1.134)
Vāṙttu verse 3:
பல்லாண்டு பல்லாண்டு பற்பன்னூ றாயிரம்
பல்லாண்டு பல்லாண்டு முந்தீபற
பார்மிசை வாழ்கவே யுந்தீபற.
pallāṇḍu pallāṇḍu paṯpaṉṉū ṟāyiram
pallāṇḍu pallāṇḍu mundīpaṟa
pārmisai vāṙgavē yundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: பல் ஆண்டு, பல் ஆண்டு, பல் பல் நூறு ஆயிரம் பல் ஆண்டு, பல் ஆண்டும் பார்மிசை வாழ்கவே.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): pal āṇḍu, pal āṇḍu, pal pal nūṟu āyiram pal āṇḍu, pal āṇḍum pār-misai vāṙga-v-ē.
English translation: Many years, many years, many hundreds of thousands of years, many years may he shine gloriously on earth.
Explanatory paraphrase: [For] many years, many years, many hundreds of thousands of years, many years may he [Sri Ramana] shine gloriously on earth. (Tiruvundiyār 1.135)
Vāṙttu verse 4:
இசையெடுப் போருஞ் செவிமடுப் போரும்
வசையறத் தேர்வோரு முந்தீபற
வாழி பலவூழி யுந்தீபற.
isaiyeḍup pōruñ cevimaḍup pōrum
vasaiyaṟat tērvōru mundīpaṟa
vāṙi palavūṙi yundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: இசை எடுப்போரும், செவிமடுப்போரும், வசை அற தேர்வோரும் வாழி பல ஊழி.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): isai eḍuppōr-um, sevimaḍuppōr-um, vasai aṟa tērvōr-um vāṙi pala ūṙi.
அன்வயம்: இசை எடுப்போரும், செவிமடுப்போரும், வசை அற தேர்வோரும் பல ஊழி வாழி.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): isai eḍuppōr-um, sevimaḍuppōr-um, vasai aṟa tērvōr-um pala ūṙi vāṙi.
English translation: May those who sing, those who hear and those who flawlessly understand shine gloriously for many aeons.
Explanatory paraphrase: May those who sing, those who hear [literally feed or fill their ears with] and those who flawlessly understand [this Upadēśa Undiyār] shine gloriously for many aeons. (Tiruvundiyār 1.136)
Vāṙttu verse 5:
கற்கு மவர்களுங் கற்றுணர்ந் தாங்குத்தா
நிற்கு மவர்களு முந்தீபற
நீடூழி வாழியே யுந்தீபற.
kaṟku mavargaḷuṅ kaṯṟuṇarn dāṅguttā
niṟku mavargaḷu mundīpaṟa
nīḍūṙi vāṙiyē yundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: கற்கும் அவர்களும் கற்று உணர்ந்து ஆங்கு தான் நிற்கும் அவர்களும் நீடு ஊழி வாழியே.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): kaṟkum avargaḷ-um kaṯṟu uṇarndu āṅgu tāṉ niṟkum avargaḷ-um nīḍu ūṙi vāṙi-y-ē.
English translation: May those who learn, and those who, learning and understanding, stand accordingly, shine gloriously for long aeons.
Explanatory paraphrase: May those who learn [this Upadēśa Undiyār], and those who, learning and understanding [it], stand [remain or abide] accordingly [as beginningless, infinite and indivisible sat-cit-ānanda], shine gloriously for long aeons. (Tiruvundiyār 1.137)
In both these texts Bhagavan expressed the fundamental principles of his teachings in the style of sūtras or aphorisms, so though each verse is relatively short, it is packed with deep meaning and is rich in implications, and hence they require explanation in order for us to understand them more deeply and completely. However no explanation of them should be considered complete, because no matter how much we may study and reflect on their meaning, we can always find fresh depth of meaning and wealth of implications in them, and consequently our understanding of them can become more clear, as I often find while answering questions or replying to comments on this blog, because when I cite and apply these verses in different contexts my understanding of them is deepened and enriched.
Therefore in this article, instead of attempting to give any new explanations of these verses, after each one I will give a list of links in reverse chronological order to places in this blog where I have already cited, explained and discussed it. Later I intend to post a copy of this translation on my website, but until I do so I will try to keep the list of links for each verse up to date by adding new links as and when I write any further explanations of any of these verses.
-
Introduction
- Upōdghātam verse 1
- Upōdghātam verse 2
- Upōdghātam verse 3
- Upōdghātam verse 4
- Upōdghātam verse 5
- Upōdghātam verse 6
- Verse 1: karma is insentient, so it gives fruit only as ordained by God
- Verse 2: karma is caused by vāsanās, so it does not give liberation
- Verse 3: action done for God purifies the mind and shows the way to liberation
- Verse 4: actions of body, speech and mind are progressively more purifying
- Verse 5: worshipping anything considering it to be God is good worship of God
- Verse 6: doing japa mentally is more purifying than otherwise
- Verse 7: meditating uninterruptedly is more purifying than otherwise
- Verse 8: meditation on nothing other than oneself is most purifying of all
- Verse 9: being in one’s real state of being by self-attentiveness is supreme devotion
- Verse 10: being in one’s source is karma, bhakti, yōga and jñāna
- Verse 11: when breath is restrained mind will subside
- Verse 12: the root of mind and breath is one
- Verse 13: dissolution of mind is of two kinds, laya and nāśa
- Verse 14: only by self-investigation will the mind die
- Verse 15: when the mind is dead, there is no action but only one’s real nature
- Verse 16: knowing nothing but awareness is real awareness
- Verse 17: when one keenly investigates it, there is no mind
- Verse 18: mind is essentially just the ego, the root of all other thoughts
- Verse 19: when one investigates from what the ego rises, it will die
- Verse 20: where the ego dies, the infinite whole will shine forth as ‘I am I’
- Verse 21: that infinite whole is always the true import of the word ‘I’
- Verse 22: the five sheaths are jaḍa and asat, so they are not ‘I’
- Verse 23: what exists is awareness, which is what we are
- Verse 24: God and soul are just one substance, but only their adjuncts differ
- Verse 25: knowing oneself without adjuncts is knowing God, because he is oneself
- Verse 26: being oneself alone is knowing oneself, because oneself is not two
- Verse 27: there is nothing to know, so real awareness is devoid of knowledge and ignorance
- Verse 28: one’s real nature is beginningless, infinite and indivisible sat-cit-ānanda
- Verse 29: abiding as supreme bliss devoid of bondage or liberation is serving God
- Verse 30: knowing and being what remains when the ego has ceased is tapas Vāṙttu: Concluding Verses of Praise (composed by Sri Muruganar)
Pāyiram: Prefatory Verse (composed by Sri Muruganar)
Upōdghātam: Introductory Verses (composed by Sri Muruganar)
Like Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu and some of the other important Tamil works of Bhagavan Sri Ramana, Upadēśa Undiyār was composed at the request of Muruganar. In order to understand correctly what Bhagavan teaches us in this text, it is necessary for us to know the context in which he composed it.
Muruganar, who was not only Bhagavan’s foremost disciple but also a great Tamil scholar and poet, first came to him in September 1923, and before coming he composed a song called Dēśika Padigam, which he offered to him on his arrival. Soon after that he composed another song entitled Tiruvembāvai, and on seeing the poetic beauty of these verses and the lofty ideas contained in them, Bhagavan remarked, ‘This is in the style of Manikkavacakar. Can you sing like Manikkavacakar?’. Muruganar was taken aback on hearing these words, and exclaimed, ‘Where is my ignorant mind, which is as blind as an owl in daylight, and which is darker than the darkness of night? And where is the self-experience (ātma-anubhuti) of Manikkavacakar, in whom the darkness of delusion had vanished and in whom true knowledge (mey-jñāna) had surged forth? To compare my base mind with his exalted experience is like comparing a fire-fly with the bright stars’. When Muruganar thus expressed his own deeply felt unworthiness, by his glance of grace Bhagavan shone forth in his heart, thereby making his mind blossom, enabling him to compose the great work Śrī Ramaṇa Sannidhi Muṟai, which in later years Bhagavan himself declared to be equal to Manikkavacakar’s Tiruvācakam.
Śrī Ramaṇa Sannidhi Muṟai is a collection of more than 120 songs composed by Muruganar in praise of Bhagavan, and many of them are sung in the same style and metres as the songs of Tiruvācakam. Among the songs in Tiruvācakam, there is one song of 20 verses called Tiruvundiyār, in which Manikkavacakar sings about some of the līlās or divine games played by Lord Siva. Therefore in 1927 when Muruganar began to compose a song called Tiruvundiyār in praise of Bhagavan, he decided to follow a similar theme, and thus he started to sing about various līlās played by several Gods, taking all those Gods to be none other than Bhagavan Ramana himself.
Once some devotees asked Sadhu Om, ‘Kavyakantha Ganapati Sastri claimed that Bhagavan is an incarnation or avatāra of Subrahmanya. Other devotees say that he is an incarnation of Siva. What was Muruganar’s opinion? According to him, of which God was Bhagavan an incarnation?’, to which he replied with a smile, ‘According to Muruganar, it is the other way around. His conviction was that all Gods are incarnations or manifestations of Bhagavan’. This conviction of Muruganar’s is beautifully expressed by him in his song Tiruvundiyār.
Having attained self-knowledge by the grace of Bhagavan, Muruganar knew from his own direct experience that Bhagavan is the one unlimited supreme reality, and that all Gods and divine incarnations are truly manifestations of that same supreme reality. Although the supreme reality can manifest itself in any number of divine names and forms, the highest of all those manifestations is the name and form of the sadguru. Therefore being an exemplary disciple, Muruganar was drawn in devotion only to the name and form of his sadguru, Bhagavan Ramana, as he expresses beautifully in Śrī Ramaṇa Jñāna Bōdham, volume 3, verse 1023:
அறியாதே னல்ல னநேகர்போற் றோன்றுHence, even when he had occasion to sing about the līlās of some of the different names and forms in which the supreme reality had manifested itself, he was able to sing about those names and forms only as various manifestations of his Lord and sadguru, Bhagavan Ramana.
மிறைவ ரெலாருமொன் றென்றே — அறிந்து
மவரனைவ ருள்ளு மவாவியென் சிந்தை
சிவரமணன் பாலே செலும்.
aṟiyādē ṉalla ṉanēkarpōṯ ṟōṉḏṟu
miṟaiva relārumoṉ ḏṟeṉḏṟē — aṟindu
mavaraṉaiva ruḷḷu mavāviyeṉ cintai
śivaramaṇaṉ bālē selum.
பதச்சேதம்: அறியாதேன் அல்லன். அநேகர் போல் தோன்றும் இறைவர் எலாரும் ஒன்று என்றே அறிந்தும், அவர் அனைவர் உள்ளும் அவாவி என் சிந்தை சிவரமணன் பாலே செலும்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): aṟiyādēṉ allaṉ. anēkar pōl tōṉḏṟum iṟaivar elārum oṉḏṟu eṉḏṟē aṟindum, avar aṉaivar uḷḷum avāvi eṉ cintai śiva-ramaṇaṉ pālē selum.
English translation: It is not that I do not know. Though I know that all Gods, who appear as if many, are one, among all of them my mind flows lovingly only towards Siva-Ramana.
Thus in Tiruvundiyār Muruganar sings about the līlās of Vinayaka, Subrahmanya, Vishnu and his various incarnations such as Rama and Krishna, Siva, Buddha and Jesus, taking all these Gods to be manifestations of Bhagavan Ramana. Tiruvundiyār is divided into two parts, the first part consisting of 137 verses (Sannidhi Murai, vv. 1277-1413) about the līlās of various Gods narrated in the Hindu Purāṇas, and the second part consisting of 7 verses (Sannidhi Murai, vv. 1414-1420) about Buddha upholding the dharma of compassion (vv. 1-5) and Jesus Christ suffering crucifixion to expiate the sins of others (vv. 6-7).
In the first part of Tiruvundiyār Muruganar sings about Vinayaka breaking the axle of his father’s chariot (1-2), about Subrahmanya subduing the ego of Brahma (3), giving upadēśa to Siva (4-9) and playing with Vishnu (10-11), about Vishnu killing Hiranaya (12) and bestowing grace upon Mahabali (13-16), about Rama being merciful to Ravana (17), about Krishna teaching Arjuna his duty (18), and about Siva drinking poison (19), subduing Kali by his dance (20-21), plucking off one of the heads of Brahma (22), killing Andhakasura (23), burning the Tripurasuras with a mere laugh (24-34), punishing Daksha (35-36), destroying Jalandharasura (37), flaying the elephant (38), burning Kama (39-51), kicking Yama (52-61), showing compassion to Ravana (62-66), blessing Brahma and Vishnu when they worshipped him in the form of Annamalai, having failed to reach his head and feet (67-69), and finally enlightening the ascetics in the Daruka Forest (70-137). While singing about these līlās, Muruganar sings of them as the līlās of Bhagavan Ramana, who had manifested as all these various Gods.
It was in the context of the last līlā related in the first part of Tiruvundiyār that the work Upadēśa Undiyār came into existence. Having sung in verses 70 to 102 how Bhagavan in the form of Siva had appeared in the Daruka Forest to subdue the pride of the ascetics (tapasvis) and bring them to the path of liberation, Muruganar came to the point where Siva was to give them his spiritual teachings (upadēśa). Thinking that it would not be appropriate for him to decide what teachings Siva would have given in order to uplift the ascetics from their then level of maturity, in which they were blinded by their attachment to the path of ritualistic action (karma), and to elevate their minds gradually till they would be fit to come to the direct path to liberation, Muruganar prayed to Bhagavan to reveal the essence of the teachings which he had himself given to the ascetics in those ancient days, when he had manifested in their midst in the form of Siva. Accordingly in verses 103 to 132 of the first part of Tiruvundiyār (verses 1379 to 1408 of Sannidhi Murai) Bhagavan composed the essence of the upadēśa that Siva gave to the ascetics in the Daruka Forest.
While composing these thirty verses, which he did in one sitting, Bhagavan discussed in detail with Muruganar all the ideas which were to be presented one after another in a carefully arranged and balanced sequence, and in the course of these discussions the original drafts of verses 16, 28 and 30 were composed by Muruganar and were then revised by Bhagavan. Such was the close co-operation with which they worked together.
These thirty verses form the main text (nūl) of Upadēśa Undiyār, and Bhagavan subsequently translated them into Telugu, Sanskrit and Malayalam under the title Upadēśa Saram (The Essence of Teachings). In Tamil the entire work consists of a prefatory verse (pāyiram) composed by Muruganar, six introductory verses (upōdghātam) that Bhagavan selected from Muruganar’s Tiruvundiyār in order to present the teachings in their proper context, the main text (nūl) of thirty verses, and five concluding verses of praise (vāṙttu), which are the last five verses of the first part of Tiruvundiyār.
In each of the verses of the upōdghātam, nūl and vāṙttu the final word of the second and third lines is உந்தீபற (undīpaṟa), which is a poetic elongation of the verb உந்திபற (undipaṟa), in which பற (paṟa) is the root and an imperative form of a verb that means to fly, hover, flutter or float in the air, and உந்தி (undi) seems to have been the name of an ancient game played by women, which was perhaps an early non-competitive form of what later evolved into the modern competitive sports of ball badminton and badminton, and the aim of which may have been for the group of players to keep the ball or shuttlecock flying about in the air without touching the ground for as long as possible. உந்தி (undi) may therefore have also meant the ball or shuttlecock used in such a game, in which case உந்தீ (undī) would be a vocative (or eighth case) form of it, so ‘உந்தீ பற’ (undī paṟa) may have been an exclamation that meant ‘ball, fly’ or ‘shuttlecock, fly’. The Tiruvundiyār song composed by Manikkavacakar was perhaps intended to be sung while playing this game, and hence he adopted a metre in which this word occurs at the end of the second and third lines of each verse. When these verses are translated into English, உந்தீபற (undīpaṟa) is obviously to be treated as a poetic expletive, but it is worth noting that it does lend a very joyful and playful spirit to the profound spiritual teachings that Bhagavan gives us in Upadēśa Undiyār.
In order to understand what Bhagavan is teaching us in Upadēśa Undiyār, particularly in the first fifteen verses, we need to read and carefully consider the upōdghātam and the summary of the story contained in it. Though in the Purāṇas the ascetics who were living in the Daruka Forest are described as ‘rishis’ (ṛṣis) who were performing tapas or austerities, what actually was their state of mind, what kind of tapas were they performing, and what was it that they were seeking to achieve through their tapas?
These so-called rishis were following the path of kāmya karma (ritualistic actions performed for the fulfilment of temporal desires), which is the path prescribed by the pūrva mīmāṁsā, a system of philosophy focused on the interpretation and practice of the Karma Kāṇḍa, the preliminary (and by far the largest) portion of the Vedas, which is concerned with performance of sacrifices and other ritualistic actions. Not knowing that the true goal of life is liberation, which is eradication of ego, they exhibited their ignorance by their actions such as the performance of various kinds of yāgas and yajñas (sacrificial rites), whereby they sought to attain powers, siddhis and other sources of enjoyment both in this world and the next. Being adept in the performance of such sacrificial rites and in the use of other techniques such as mantras, yantras and tantras, they had become intoxicated with conceit. Their pride in the power and efficacy of their karmas (ritualistic actions) was so great that they had even come to believe that there is no God except karma. ‘Karma alone is of foremost importance. The efforts we make in performing karmas have the power to yield their own fruit; they must yield their fruit; even God cannot prevent them from yielding fruit. So there is no need for us to be concerned about any God other than our own karmas’ – such was their arrogant attitude.
Thus, though in the Purāṇas they are politely referred to as ‘rishis’, their state of mind reveals that they were in fact only students in the first standard of the school of bhakti described in chapter two of the supplement to The Path of Sri Ramana. Can the karmas that they were performing for the fulfilment of their own selfish desires be called real tapas? As Bhagavan taught us in verse 30 of Upadēśa Undiyār, real tapas is nothing but complete cessation of ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’, which is what gives rise to the sense of doership, ‘I am doing karma’.
Since the ascetics had thus strayed so far from the path that leads to the real goal of egolessness, it was necessary for Lord Siva, the ocean of compassion, to make them understand the error of their ways and guide them back to the proper path. Therefore he manifested in the form of a mendicant and made them understand that even their most powerful karmas were rendered powerless in front of him. Thus their pride was subdued and they prayed to him for salvation.
Knowing how gross and unrefined the minds of the ascetics had become due to their longstanding attachment to karma, Siva knew that it would not be possible to bring them immediately to the subtle path of self-investigation (ātma-vicāra), which alone is the direct path to liberation. Therefore he had to guide them towards the path of self-investigation in a gradual manner. That is why in the first fifteen verses of Upadēśa Undiyār it was necessary for Bhagavan to summarise the paths of niṣkāmya karma, bhakti and yōga, which Siva first had to teach to the ascetics in order to elevate their minds gradually to the level of maturity in which they could understand that liberation can ultimately be attained only by means of self-investigation. Only after summarising those paths and explaining how they are each intended to lead eventually to the path of self-investigation, which is the true path of jñāna, could he begin to explain this path in more detail from verse 16 onwards.
Either because they do not know the context in which he composed this work, or because they have not carefully considered the connection between the context and what he taught in it, many people wrongly assume that Upadēśa Undiyār or Upadēśa Sāram is the essence of Bhagavan Ramana’s own teachings. However, if we consider the context and what he wrote in the first fifteen verses, it should be clear that the intention with which he composed this work was to summarise not his own teachings but the teachings that Siva gave in ancient days to the ascetics in the Daruka Forest to suit their level of spiritual maturity.
As Bhagavan often used to say, whatever spiritual teachings are given must be suited to the grasping power and maturity of whomever they are given to, so many different levels of teachings and practices are necessary to suit the needs of people of many different levels of spiritual development (see for example section 107 of Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi (1978 edition, page 103; 2006 edition, page 105), where it is recorded that he said that the instructions to be given ‘differ according to the temperaments of the individuals and according to the spiritual ripeness of their minds’). Since the ascetics to whom Siva gave his teachings were to be elevated by him from a very low level of spiritual maturity, it was necessary for him to begin by giving them teachings that they would be willing to accept and therefore able to grasp and put into practice, and then he had to lead them gradually from the grosser forms of spiritual practice such as pūjā, japa, dhyāna and prāṇāyāma towards the most refined, namely self-investigation, which is the simple practice of self-attentiveness.
Therefore we should not assume that all the sādhanas or spiritual practices that Bhagavan discusses in Upadēśa Undiyār are his own direct teachings. Though it is true that during his lifetime he had to give instructions concerning almost every kind of spiritual practice in order to guide those who were already following such practices and were not yet willing to come to the direct path of self-investigation, what actually was the core and essence of his teachings? Can it be said that pūjā, japa, dhyāna and prāṇāyāma are core elements of his teachings? Was it to teach such practices that he appeared on earth in our present age?
Though he acknowledged the efficacy of such practices as indirect means that, if practiced with devotion and without desire for achieving any selfish aim, would gradually purify the mind and thereby sooner or later lead one to the direct path of self-investigation (as indicated by him in verse 3 of Upadēśa Undiyār), the main reason he appeared in human form in modern times was not merely to give his approval to such indirect practices, which have already been expounded in detail in ancient texts. The principal purpose of his life was to teach us why and how to practise the simple and direct path of self-investigation, which is the only means by which we can be aware of ourself as we actually are and thereby eradicate ego. That is why his teachings were focussed on the practice of self-investigation, which bypasses the need for any other kind of spiritual practice.
In 1928, one year after he had composed Upadēśa Undiyār, Muruganar prayed to him, ‘So that we may be saved, reveal to us the nature of reality and the means by which to attain it’ (Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu pāyiram: introductory verse), in response to which Bhagavan composed Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, in which the only practice he expounded was self-investigation, and he made no more than a few indirect references to other practices. Therefore, the real essence of his teachings is only the path of self-investigation, which he has expounded in both Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu and the last fifteen verses of Upadēśa Undiyār.
Though he briefly discussed pūjā, japa, dhyāna and prāṇāyāma in the first fifteen verses of Upadēśa Undiyār, if we carefully consider what he actually says in these verses, we will see that he is explaining firstly how each of these practices can ultimately lead one to the path of self-investigation, which alone is the direct means to eradicate ego, and secondly that self-investigation is therefore the culmination of all other varieties of spiritual practice, namely niṣkāmya karma, bhakti, yōga, and jñāna, as he says in verse 10.
In the first two verses he begins by condemning kāmya karmas (actions performed for the fulfilment of temporal desires), declaring that they will not lead to liberation but will only immerse the doer deeper and deeper into the ocean of karma (action). In verse 3 he teaches that action can be conducive to the attainment of liberation only if it is done for the love of God and without any desire for its fruit, because it will then purify the mind and thereby enable one to recognise that the means to liberation is only self-investigation. In verses 4 to 7 he discusses the various kinds of desireless action (niṣkāmya karma), namely pūjā (worship or adoration of God), japa (repetition of a mantra or name of God) and dhyāna (meditation upon a name or form of God), which are done respectively by body, speech and mind, and each succeeding one of which is more efficacious in purifying the mind than the preceding one.
Then in verse 8 he says that rather than meditation upon God as other than oneself, it is better to meditate upon him as not other than oneself, and thereby he reveals how the paths of niṣkāmya pūjā, japa and dhyāna must eventually lead to the path of self-investigation, which is what he described as ananya-bhāva (meditation on what is not other), and which he said is ‘aṉaittiṉum uttamam’, ‘the best among all’, thereby implying that among all the practices of bhakti and also all other forms of spiritual practice it is the best, in the sense that it is the most effective means to purify the mind. He then says in verse 9 that to abide in one’s own true state of being, which is attained by the strength of such ananya-bhāva (self-attentiveness) and which transcends meditation (in the sense of mental activity, as opposed to self-attentiveness, which is a cessation of all such activity), is the truth of para-bhakti (supreme devotion). Thus, in verses 3 to 9 Bhagavan reveals how the paths of desireless action (niṣkāmya karma) and devotion (bhakti) lead to and culminate in the path of self-investigation, which in turn establishes one in the state of self-abidance, which is the true state of liberation. He then concludes this series of verses by saying in verse 10 that subsiding and being in one’s real nature, which is the source from which one had risen as a doer of action, is not only the essence of karma yōga and bhakti yōga, as described in the preceding verses, but is also the essence of rāja yōga and jñāna yōga, as described in the subsequent verses.
In verses 11 to 15 Bhagavan discusses the path of raja yōga. In verses 11 and 12 he explains that prāṇāyāma (breath-control) is an effective means to make the mind subside, but in verse 13 he warns that complete subsidence or dissolution of mind is of two kinds, namely laya and nāśa, the former being temporary and the latter being permanent. By prāṇāyāma only a temporary dissolution of the mind can be achieved, so in verse 14 he teaches us that the mind, which will subside only temporarily when the breath is restrained, should be directed on the one path of self-investigation, for then only will it attain manōnāśa, the state of destruction or permanent dissolution. Thus he reveals that the path of raja yōga must also lead one to the path of self-investigation if it is to enable one to achieve the final goal of liberation. He then concludes this second series of verses by saying in verse 15 that the great yōgi whose mind has thus been destroyed and who thereby abides as what alone is actually real has no more actions to do, because he has attained his natural state, thereby implying that our natural state is not one of doing anything but only one of just being, and that this is the goal we should be seeking.
Thus, though in verses 3 to 15 Bhagavan acknowledges the efficacy of niṣkāmya pūjā, japa, dhyāna and prāṇāyāma, he clearly implies that none of these sādhanas can be an adequate substitute for the direct path of self-investigation, but explains how each of them must finally lead one to self-investigation in order to enable one to attain the final goal of self-knowledge or liberation, which is manōnāśa or complete and permanent eradication of ego.
Having thus briefly summarized the paths of karma yōga, bhakti yōga and raja yōga in the first fifteen verses, showing how they must each sooner lead one to the practice of self-investigation, Bhagavan devotes the last fifteen verses to explaining the practice and goal of jñāna yōga, which he explains to be nothing other than the direct path of self-investigation, the simple practice of attending to and knowing the true nature of ‘I’.
உபதேச வுந்தியார் (Upadēśa-v-Undiyār): Teachings in an Undiyār Song of Thirty Verses
பாயிரம் (pāyiram): Prefatory Verse (composed by Sri Muruganar)
கன்மமய றீர்ந்துகதி காண நெறிமுறையின்
மன்மமுல குய்ய வழங்குகெனச் — சொன்முருகற்
கெந்தைரம ணன்றொகுத் தீந்தா னுபதேச
வுந்தியார் ஞானவிளக் கோர்.
kaṉmamaya ṯīrndugati kāṇa neṟimuṟaiyiṉ
maṉmamula huyya vaṙaṅguheṉac — coṉmurugaṟ
kendairama ṇaṉḏṟohut tīndā ṉupadēśa
vundiyār ñāṉaviḷak kōr.
பதச்சேதம்: ‘கன்ம மயல் தீர்ந்து கதி காண நெறி முறையின் மன்மம் உலகு உய்ய வழங்குக’ என சொல் முருகற்கு எந்தை ரமணன் தொகுத்து ஈந்தான் உபதேச வுந்தியார் ஞான விளக்கு ஓர்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): ‘kaṉma-mayal tīrndu gati kāṇa neṟi muṟaiyiṉ maṉmam ulahu uyya vaṙaṅguha’ eṉa sol murugaṟku endai ramaṇaṉ tohuttu īndāṉ upadēśa-v-undiyār ñāṉa viḷakku ōr.
அன்வயம்: ‘உலகு கன்ம மயல் தீர்ந்து உய்ய, கதி காண நெறி முறையின் மன்மம் வழங்குக’ என சொல் முருகற்கு எந்தை ரமணன் தொகுத்து ஈந்தான் ஞான விளக்கு உபதேச வுந்தியார் ஓர்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): ‘ulahu kaṉma-mayal tīrndu uyya, gati kāṇa neṟi muṟaiyiṉ maṉmam vaṙaṅguha’ eṉa sol murugaṟku endai ramaṇaṉ tohuttu īndāṉ ñāṉa viḷakku upadēśa-v-undiyār ōr.
English translation: Know that Upadēśa Undiyār is a light of jñāna that our father Ramana composed and gave to Muruganar, who said, ‘For the world to be saved, giving up the delusion of karma, tell the secret of the nature of the path to experience liberation’.
Explanatory paraphrase: Know that Upadēśa Undiyār is a light of jñāna [true knowledge or pure awareness] that our father Ramana composed and gave to Muruganar, who said, ‘For [the people of] the world to give up the delusion of karma [action] and be saved [from self-ignorance], tell [us] the secret of the muṟai [nature or orderly process] of the path [way or means] to experience liberation’.
உபோற்காதம் (upōdghātam): Introductory Verses (composed by Sri Muruganar)
Upōdghātam verse 1:
தாரு வனத்திற் றவஞ்செய் திருந்தவர்
பூருவ கன்மத்தா லுந்தீபற
போக்கறை போயின ருந்தீபற.
dāru vaṉattiṯ ṟavañcey dirundavar
pūruva kaṉmattā lundīpaṟa
pōkkaṟai pōyiṉa rundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: தாரு வனத்தில் தவம் செய்து இருந்தவர் பூருவ கன்மத்தால் போக்கறை போயினர்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): dāru vaṉattil tavam seydu irundavar pūruva kaṉmattāl pōkkaṟai pōyiṉar.
English translation: Those who were doing austerities in the Daruka forest were going to ruin by pūrva karma.
Explanatory paraphrase: Those who were doing tavam [austerities or tapas] in the Daruka forest were going to ruin by [following] pūrva karma [the path of ritualistic action as interpreted and prescribed by pūrva mīmāṁsā]. (Tiruvundiyār 1.70)
Note: The term pūrva-karma here means the path of kāmya-karmas, actions done for the fulfilment of selfish desires, which is the path prescribed by pūrva mīmāṁsā, a system of philosophy that interprets the Vēdas in a particular way, emphasising the Karma Kāṇḍa, the preliminary portion of the Vēdas, which teaches the path of ritualistic action. Pūrva mīmāṁsā elevates action (karma) to a level of such paramount importance that, as explained in the next verse, it even goes so far as to deny that there is any God except karma. This doctrine that there is no God except karma is emphatically repudiated by Bhagavan in the first verse of Upadēśa Undiyār.Upōdghātam verse 2:
கன்மத்தை யன்றிக் கடவு ளிலையெனும்
வன்மத்த ராயின ருந்தீபற
வஞ்சச் செருக்கினா லுந்தீபற.
kaṉmattai yaṉḏṟik kaḍavu ḷilaiyeṉum
vaṉmatta rāyiṉa rundīpaṟa
vañjac cerukkiṉā lundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: ‘கன்மத்தை அன்றி கடவுள் இலை’ எனும் வல் மத்தர் ஆயினர் வஞ்ச செருக்கினால்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): ‘kaṉmattai aṉḏṟi kaḍavuḷ ilai’ eṉum val mattar āyiṉar vañja serukkiṉāl.
அன்வயம்: வஞ்ச செருக்கினால் ‘கன்மத்தை அன்றி கடவுள் இலை’ எனும் வல் மத்தர் ஆயினர்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): vañja serukkiṉāl ‘kaṉmattai aṉḏṟi kaḍavuḷ ilai’ eṉum val mattar āyiṉar.
English translation: Because of delusive conceit they became intoxicated with intense pride that there is no God except karma.
Explanatory paraphrase: Because of [their] delusive conceit [or infatuation] they became [so] intoxicated [or mad] with intense pride [that they fell prey to the arrogant belief] that there is no God except karma. (Tiruvundiyār 1.71)
Note: These first two verses of the upōdghātam are verses 70 and 71 of the first part of Tiruvundiyār, and the following is a free rendering of the story narrated by Muruganar in verses 72 to 98:Upōdghātam verse 3:
Even the wives who conducted their lives with those great ascetics had become deluded, proudly believing that in all the seven worlds there were none as virtuous as themselves in venerating their husbands. (72-3) The wonderful Venkatan [Sri Ramana], who is pure awareness shining like a crystal to which no blemish can cling, appeared singing melodiously with such beauty that would make men desire womanhood. (74-5) Plundering the souls of all who saw his beauty, he wandered about carrying a trident and a skull. (76)
Knowing the cruel enmity of the ascetics, Vishnu also appeared suddenly in their midst as a virtuous maiden with tender beauty. (77) Becoming infatuated with Mohini [that beautiful maiden], all the ahaṅkāra-yōgis [egotistical ascetics] were ashamed [or afraid] when their strength was thereby destroyed. (78)
That male form that wandered there excelling in lustre was not a real form but just an imaginary appearance. (79) [What appeared in that form is] what cannot be measured [or comprehended] by speech or mind; what does not go or come; the real substance, the whole. (80) As soon as they saw his manly self, those good ladies’ ornament [of modesty and chastity] departed entirely. (81) Desiring [his] youthful beauty and drinking it with their eyes, they were intoxicated and enchanted. (82) They forgot their virtue; they forgot their reputation; they forgot themselves; they followed after [him]. (83)
Coming to know about the downfall of their wives, the great ascetic brahmins who knew such things became agitated, quaking [with pain, grief or anger]. (84) [Seeing] that their agreeable life helpmates had become so contemptible, they trembled [with rage]. (85) What a wonder that those who so clearly saw the defects [faults or errors] that took birth in the case of their wives could not see their own defects! (86) If one sees one’s own defects like [one sees] the defects of others, then will even the slightest evil attach to one’s soul? [an adaptation of verse 190 of Tirukkuṟaḷ] (87)
Saying ‘What defilement of the chastity of [our] wives!’, to kill him who is the first [God, the primal being] they thought of a plan. (88) With malicious anger those who had vast learning raised a raging sinful black magic sacrificial fire. (89) To devour the life of Purāri [Tripurāri, Lord Siva, the destroyer of the three demon cities, who did so with a mere laugh or smile], those who did not have subtle awareness [or understanding] discharged a pouncing tiger [from the sacrificial fire]. (90) Flaying it with his fingernail, he aptly wore the skin of that tiger [around his waist]. The ascetics stood perplexed [terrified or abashed]. (91)
To destroy him they unleashed furious serpents, but he transformed them into fine ornaments [to wear] on his poison-adorned throat. (92) After that parātpara Venkatan [Sri Ramana, the highest of the high] seized in his hands the deer, axe, fire and drum that they conjured up and set upon him. (93) Laughing in a terrifying manner and roaring like thunder, they discharged a whirling and exceedingly white skull on the handsome youth. (94) To the wonder of many, he aptly wore that white skull as an ornament for his head. (95) Hordes of demons [conjured up by them] coming close to him fell unconscious at his feet. He took these as his army. (96) To kill the primal one, they conjured up and set upon him a heinous demon called Muyalagan, but he crushed it under his feet. (97) When all their efforts proved ineffectual, they became weary and understood him to be God. (98)
The final four verses of the upōdghātam are verses 99 to 102 of the first part of Tiruvundiyār, after which verses 103 to 132 are the the main text (nūl) of Upadēśa Undiyār, and verses 133 to 137 are the concluding verses of praise (vāṙttu).
கன்ம பலந்தருங் கர்த்தற் பழித்துச்செய்
கன்ம பலங்கண்டா ருந்தீபற
கர்வ மகன்றன ருந்தீபற.
kaṉma phalandaruṅ karttaṟ paṙittuccey
kaṉma phalaṅkaṇḍā rundīpaṟa
garva mahaṉḏṟaṉa rundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: கன்ம பலம் தரும் கர்த்தன் பழித்து செய் கன்ம பலம் கண்டார்; கர்வம் அகன்றனர்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): kaṉma-phalam tarum karttaṉ paṙittu sey kaṉma-phalam kaṇḍār; garvam ahaṉḏṟaṉar.
English translation: They saw the fruit of actions done disparaging God, who gives the fruit of actions. They left arrogance.
Explanatory paraphrase: They saw the fruit of actions done disparaging [spurning or disregarding] God [the kartā or ordainer], who gives karma-phala [the fruit of actions], [and hence] they left [gave up or lost] garva [their pride or arrogance]. (Tiruvundiyār 1.99)
Upōdghātam verse 4:
காத்தரு ளென்று கரையக் கருணைக்கண்
சேர்த்தருள் செய்தன னுந்தீபற
சிவனுப தேசமி துந்தீபற.
kāttaru ḷeṉḏṟu karaiyak karuṇaikkaṇ
sērttaruḷ seydaṉa ṉundīpaṟa
śivaṉupa dēśami dundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: காத்து அருள் என்று கரைய, கருணை கண் சேர்த்து அருள் செய்தனன் சிவன் உபதேசம் இது.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): kāttu aruḷ eṉḏṟu karaiya, karuṇai kaṇ sērttu aruḷ-seydaṉaṉ śivaṉ upadēśam idu.
அன்வயம்: காத்து அருள் என்று கரைய, கருணை கண் சேர்த்து சிவன் உபதேசம் இது அருள் செய்தனன்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): kāttu aruḷ eṉḏṟu karaiya, karuṇai kaṇ sērttu śivaṉ upadēśam idu aruḷ-seydaṉaṉ.
English translation: When they wept, ‘Graciously protect’, attaching the eye of grace, Śiva graciously gave this upadēśa.
Explanatory paraphrase: When they wept [repentantly], ‘Graciously protect [or save us]’, fixing [his] eye of grace [upon them], Śiva graciously gave this upadēśa [spiritual teaching]. (Tiruvundiyār 1.100)
Upōdghātam verse 5:
உட்கொண் டொழுக வுபதேச சாரத்தை
யுட்கொண் டெழுஞ்சுக முந்தீபற
வுட்டுன் பொழிந்திடு முந்தீபற.
uṭkoṇ ḍoṙuha vupadēśa sārattai
yuṭkoṇ ḍeṙuñsukha mundīpaṟa
vuṭṭuṉ boṙindiḍu mundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: உள் கொண்டு ஒழுக உபதேச சாரத்தை, உள் கொண்டு எழும் சுகம்; உள் துன்பு ஒழிந்திடும்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): uḷ koṇḍu oṙuha upadēśa sārattai, uḷ koṇḍu eṙum sukham; uḷ tuṉbu oṙindiḍum.
அன்வயம்: உபதேச சாரத்தை உள் கொண்டு ஒழுக, சுகம் உள் கொண்டு எழும்; உள் துன்பு ஒழிந்திடும்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): upadēśa sārattai uḷ koṇḍu oṙuha, sukham uḷ koṇḍu eṙum; uḷ tuṉbu oṙindiḍum.
English translation: When one imbibes and follows upadēśa sāram, happiness will rise from within; miseries within will cease.
Explanatory paraphrase: When one imbibes and follows [this] upadēśa sāram [the essence or summary of the spiritual teachings given by Lord Siva], happiness will rise from within [and thereby] miseries within will cease [die or be destroyed]. (Tiruvundiyār 1.101)
Upōdghātam verse 6:
சார வுபதேச சாரமுட் சாரவே
சேரக் களிசேர வுந்தீபற
தீரத் துயர்தீர வுந்தீபற.
sāra vupadēśa sāramuṭ cāravē
sērak kaḷisēra vundīpaṟa
tīrat tuyartīra vundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: சார உபதேச சாரம் உள் சாரவே. சேர களி சேர. தீர துயர் தீர.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): sāra upadēśa sāram uḷ sāravē. sēra kaḷi sēra. tīra tuyar tīra.
அன்வயம்: உபதேச சாரம் சார உள் சாரவே. களி சேர சேர. துயர் தீர தீர.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): upadēśa sāram sāra uḷ sāravē. kaḷi sēra sēra. tuyar tīra tīra.
English translation: May the essence of Upadēśa Sāram enter within. May joy accumulate, accumulate. May suffering cease, cease.
Explanatory paraphrase: May the sāra [essence, substance or import] of Upadēśa Sāram enter within [our heart]. May joy accumulate [or be achieved] abundantly. May suffering cease entirely. (Tiruvundiyār 1.102)
நூல் (nūl): Text
Verse 1:
கன்மம் பயன்றரல் கர்த்தன தாணையாற்
கன்மங் கடவுளோ வுந்தீபற
கன்மஞ் சடமதா லுந்தீபற.
kaṉmam payaṉḏṟaral karttaṉa dāṇaiyāṟ
kaṉmaṅ kaḍavuḷō vundīpaṟa
kaṉmañ jaḍamadā lundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: கன்மம் பயன் தரல் கர்த்தனது ஆணையால். கன்மம் கடவுளோ? கன்மம் சடம் அதால்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): kaṉmam payaṉ taral karttaṉadu āṇaiyāl. kaṉmam kaḍavuḷ-ō? kaṉmam jaḍam adāl.
அன்வயம்: கன்மம் பயன் தரல் கர்த்தனது ஆணையால். கன்மம் சடம் அதால், கன்மம் கடவுளோ?
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): kaṉmam payaṉ taral karttaṉadu āṇaiyāl. kaṉmam jaḍam adāl, kaṉmam kaḍavuḷ-ō?
English translation: Action giving fruit is by the ordainment of God. Since action is non-aware, is action God?
Explanatory paraphrase: Karma [action] giving fruit is by the ordainment of God [the kartā or ordainer]. Since karma is jaḍa [devoid of awareness], can karma be God?
Explanations and discussions:
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 1: karma is insentient, so it gives fruit only as ordained by God
2019-08-05: Since karma is jaḍa (devoid of awareness), what selects which fruit of past āgāmyas are to form the prārabdha of each life is neither ego nor any of its karmas but only grace
2016-10-12: An explanation of the first ten verses of Upadēśa Undiyār
2016-02-08: Why should we believe what Bhagavan taught us?
2014-09-05: The karma theory as taught by Sri Ramana (in this and the subsequent article, Why did Sri Ramana teach a karma theory?, the meaning and some of the implications of this verse are discussed and explained in depth)
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 2:
வினையின் விளைவு விளிவுற்று வித்தாய்
வினைக்கடல் வீழ்த்திடு முந்தீபற
வீடு தரலிலை யுந்தீபற.
viṉaiyiṉ viḷaivu viḷivuṯṟu vittāy
viṉaikkaḍal vīṙttiḍu mundīpaṟa
vīḍu taralilai yundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: வினையின் விளைவு விளிவு உற்று வித்தாய் வினை கடல் வீழ்த்திடும். வீடு தரல் இலை.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): viṉaiyiṉ viḷaivu viḷivu uṯṟu vittāy viṉai-kaḍal vīṙttiḍum. vīḍu taral ilai.
English translation: The fruit of action perishing, as seed causes to fall in the ocean of action. It is not giving liberation.
Explanatory paraphrase: The fruit of [any] action will perish [when it is experienced as part of prārabdha], [but what remains] as seed [namely viṣaya-vāsanās (also known as karma-vāsanās): inclinations to seek happiness or satisfaction in experiencing viṣayas (objects or phenomena) by doing actions of mind, speech and body] causes [one] to fall in the ocean of action. [Therefore] it [action or karma] does not give liberation.
Explanations and discussions:
2023-11-08: All vāsanās can be destroyed only when their root, namely ego, is eradicated, because it is the nature of ego to have vāsanās, and until all viṣaya-vāsanās are destroyed we cannot be truly said to be without action (karma), because viṣaya-vāsanās are the seeds that cause us to fall in the great ocean of action
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 2: karma is caused by vāsanās, so it does not give liberation
2022-03-24: The cause for our falling in the vast ocean of action is our viṣaya-vāsanās
2021-12-05: What Bhagavan means in this verse is that it is the seeds (namely vāsanās) that cause us to fall in the ocean of action, and though each fruit perishes as soon as we experience it, the seeds persist and perpetuate themselves, but only to the extent to which we allow ourself to be swayed by them, so the fundamental error we make is allowing ourself to be swayed by our viṣaya-vāsanās, and hence the only solution is for us to cling firmly to being self-attentive and thereby not allow ourself to be swayed by any viṣaya-vāsanās
2021-12-04: All actions are caused by our allowing ourself to be swayed by our viṣaya-vāsanās, as Bhagavan implies here, because the seeds he refers to are viṣaya-vāsanās and consequent karma-vāsanās (inclinations to do actions in order to experience viṣayas), so these are what prompt us to do actions by mind, speech and body and thereby cause us to fall in the great ocean of perpetual action
2021-06-29: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 2: viṣaya-vāsanās are the seeds that cause us to fall in the great ocean of action (karma)
2020-12-18: Using our icchā-kriyā-svatantra (freedom of will and action) to do any āgāmya is a misuse of it, because doing so causes us to fall in the ocean of action
2020-08-24: Experiencing prārabdha is consuming the fruit of past āgāmya (actions done under the sway of our vāsanās), so when we consume that fruit it thereby ceases to exist, but the seeds that drive us to do āgāmya remain, so if we do not curb them by refraining from acting under their sway they will continue driving us to do āgāmya and will thereby immerse us in the vast ocean of action (karma)
2019-12-21: Destiny (prārabdha) is the fruit of our past karmas, so if destiny could determine whether or not we succeed in eradicating ego, that would mean that liberation is the fruit of karma, which cannot be the case
2018-09-01: Even after the fruit of one of the āgāmyas we have done in an earlier life has been experienced by us as part of our prārabdha in a later life, the seed or karma-vāsanā left by that āgāmya will remain until it is either replaced by other vāsanās or eradicated by self-investigation and self-surrender, so karma is self-perpetuating
2018-09-01: Since actions done with desire (kāmya karma), as actions generally tend to be to a greater or lesser extent, not only create fruit but also leave seeds (namely viṣaya-vāsanās and concomitant karma-vāsanās), they are self-perpetuating, so the more we desist from doing such actions the less we will be either creating new seeds or strengthening existing ones
2018-09-01: What binds us to the relentless wheel of karma or saṁsāra, which is like a great ocean in which we have been immersed and drowning since time immemorial, is not the fruits of our past actions, a small selection of which are what we experience as prārabdha in each life or dream, but is our will (the desire or liking that we have to continue doing such actions and experiencing whatever we seem to achieve thereby), which is like a large bag of seeds, each of which is waiting to sprout as thoughts, words or deeds (actions of mind, speech or body) whenever conditions are favourable
2018-09-01: Since liberation is our real nature, we cannot ‘attain’ it by doing anything but only by being what we actually are
2017-09-05: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 2: the cause of bondage is not fate but vāsanās, which belong only to the domain of free will
2017-06-20: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 2: being the fruit of our past actions, prārabdha cannot make our mind turn within and hence can never give us liberation
2016-10-12: An explanation of the first ten verses of Upadēśa Undiyār
2016-02-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: liberation is gained not by doing anything but only by just being
2015-07-18: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 2: no action or karma can give liberation (this section also includes the Sanskrit text of verse 2 of Upadēśa Sāram together with my translation of it)
2014-03-20: Ātma-vicāra is the only means by which we can experience ourself as we really are
2013-12-30: Dhyāna-p-Paṭṭu: The Song on Meditation
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 3:
கருத்தனுக் காக்குநிட் காமிய கன்மங்
கருத்தைத் திருத்தியஃ துந்தீபற
கதிவழி காண்பிக்கு முந்தீபற.
karuttaṉuk kākkuniṭ kāmiya kaṉmaṅ
karuttait tiruttiyaḵ dundīpaṟa
gativaṙi kāṇbikku mundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: கருத்தனுக்கு ஆக்கும் நிட்காமிய கன்மம் கருத்தை திருத்தி, அஃது கதி வழி காண்பிக்கும்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): karuttaṉukku ākkum niṭkāmiya kaṉmam karuttai tirutti, aḵdu gati vaṙi kāṇbikkum.
English translation: Desireless action done for God, purifying the mind, it will show the path to liberation.
Explanatory paraphrase: Niṣkāmya karma [action not motivated by desire] done [with love] for God purifies the mind and [thereby] it will show the path to liberation [that is, it will enable one to recognise what the correct path to liberation is].
Explanations and discussions:
2024-09-10: When we start on the path of bhakti, God seems to be something other than ourself, so we try to express our love for him through actions of body, speech and mind, namely pūjā (worship of him), stōtra (singing his praises) or japa (repetition of his name) and dhyāna (meditation on him) respectively, and by the love with which we do such actions our mind is gradually purified, meaning that it is cleansed of all its inclinations to seek happiness in anything other than love for God
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 3: action done for God purifies the mind, so it is an indirect means for liberation
2020-12-18: Instead of misusing our icchā-kriyā-svatantra (freedom of will and action) to do any action under the sway of our viṣaya-vāsanās, it is better to refrain from doing such actions, which are kāmya karmas, and to do only niṣkāmya karmas for the love of God alone
2020-12-18: Niṣkāmya karma is action done without the interference of our will, so it implies that we are free to act either according to our will or solely in accordance with God’s will (that is, in accordance with whatever prārabdha he has allotted us).
2020-08-24: When Bhagavan says here that niṣkāmya karma done for God purifies the mind, he clearly implies that we can refrain from acting under the sway of our vāsanās, and that to the extent that we refrain from acting under their sway we are thereby purifying our mind, which means that we are reducing the strength of whatever vāsanās tend to drive us to do kāmya karmas
2018-09-01: Though karma can never give liberation, if it is done because of love for God and therefore without desire for any fruit, it can help to purify the mind or will (cittam) by weakening or reducing its outgoing propensities (viṣaya-vāsanās and karma-vāsanās), and will thereby enable one to recognise that the means to liberation is not going outwards to do any actions by mind, speech or body but only turning back within to investigate whether one is actually this ego, the one who does action and experiences its fruit
2018-09-01: By whatever means it may be achieved, purity of mind (citta-śuddhi) gives one the clarity of vivēka (discernment, discrimination or judgement) to recognise that the only means by which ego can eradicate itself is to turn its attention back towards itself in order to see what its real nature actually is
2018-09-01: Just as we can choose to attend to ourself rather than to anything else, we can choose to think of a name or form of God, for example, rather than of any other thing, and if our motive for thinking of that name or form is love for God rather than for anything else that we may hope to gain thereby, that will purify our mind, strengthening our devotional inclinations (bhakti-vāsanās) and weakening our inclinations (vāsanās) to be concerned about other things
2018-09-01: Our mind can be purified by practices such as mūrti-dhyāna and mantra-japa only if we do them for the love of God and not for any other desired aim, because if love for God is our sole motivation, such practices will strengthen this love and correspondingly reduce the overall strength of our viṣaya-vāsanās
2018-09-01: The true purpose and only real benefit of all other spiritual practices is the purification of our cittam (even though the purification that can be achieved from them is only partial and not complete), because unless our cittam is purified to a certain extent by such practices we will not have the clarity, subtlety and acuity of vivēka that we need to recognise and accept that liberation is just the annihilation of ego and that the only means to attain it is therefore self-investigation (ātma-vicāra)
2016-10-12: An explanation of the first ten verses of Upadēśa Undiyār
2016-02-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: liberation is gained not by doing anything but only by just being
2015-07-18: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 3: niṣkāmya karma done with love for God will show the way to liberation (this section also includes extracts from the Sanskrit and Malayalam texts of verse 3 of Upadēśa Sāram together with my translation of them)
2014-03-20: Ātma-vicāra is the only means by which we can experience ourself as we really are
2013-12-30: Dhyāna-p-Paṭṭu: The Song on Meditation
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 4:
திடமிது பூசை செபமுந் தியான
முடல்வாக் குளத்தொழி லுந்தீபற
வுயர்வாகு மொன்றிலொன் றுந்தீபற.
diḍamidu pūjai jepamun dhiyāṉa
muḍalvāk kuḷattoṙi lundīpaṟa
vuyarvāhu moṉḏṟiloṉ ḏṟundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: திடம் இது: பூசை செபமும் தியானம் உடல் வாக்கு உள தொழில். உயர்வு ஆகும் ஒன்றில் ஒன்று.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): diḍam idu: pūjai jepam-um dhiyāṉam uḍal vākku uḷa toṙil. uyarvu āhum oṉḏṟil oṉḏṟu.
அன்வயம்: பூசை செபமும் தியானம் உடல் வாக்கு உள தொழில். ஒன்றில் ஒன்று உயர்வு ஆகும். இது திடம்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): pūjai jepam-um dhiyāṉam uḍal vākku uḷa toṙil. oṉḏṟil oṉḏṟu uyarvu āhum. idu diḍam.
English translation: This is certain: pūjā, japa and dhyāna are actions of body, speech and mind. One than one is superior.
Explanatory paraphrase: This is certain: pūjā [worship], japa [repetition of a name of God or a sacred phrase] and dhyāna [meditation] are [respectively] actions of body, speech and mind, [and hence in this order each subsequent] one is superior to [the previous] one [in the sense that it is a more effective means to purify the mind].
Explanations and discussions:
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 4: actions of body, speech and mind are progressively more purifying
2018-09-01: Our will drives not only the actions we do by mind and speech but also those that we do by body, as Bhagavan implies in verse 4 of Upadēśa Undiyār
2016-10-12: An explanation of the first ten verses of Upadēśa Undiyār
2015-07-18: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 4: dhyāna is more effective than japa, which is more effective than pūjā
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 5:
எண்ணுரு யாவு மிறையுரு வாமென
வெண்ணி வழிபட லுந்தீபற
வீசனற் பூசனை யுந்தீபற.
eṇṇuru yāvu miṟaiyuru vāmeṉa
veṇṇi vaṙipaḍa lundīpaṟa
vīśaṉaṯ pūjaṉai yundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: எண் உரு யாவும் இறை உரு ஆம் என எண்ணி வழிபடல் ஈசன் நல் பூசனை.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): eṇ uru yāvum iṟai uru ām eṉa eṇṇi vaṙipaḍal īśaṉ nal pūjaṉai.
English translation: Worshipping thinking that all eight forms are forms of God is good pūjā of God.
Explanatory paraphrase: Considering all the eight forms [the aṣṭa-mūrti, the eight forms or manifestations of Siva, namely the five elements (earth, water, fire, air and space), sun, moon and sentient beings (jīvas)] [or all thought-forms, namely all forms, which are just thoughts or mental phenomena] to be forms of God, worshipping [any of them] is good pūjā [worship] of God.
Explanations and discussions:
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 5: worshipping anything considering it to be God is worship of God
2016-10-12: An explanation of the first ten verses of Upadēśa Undiyār
2015-07-18: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 5: anything can be worshipped as God
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 6:
வழுத்தலில் வாக்குச்ச வாய்க்குட் செபத்தில்
விழுப்பமா மானத முந்தீபற
விளம்புந் தியானமி துந்தீபற.
vaṙuttalil vākkucca vāykkuṭ jepattil
viṙuppamā māṉata mundīpaṟa
viḷambun dhiyāṉami dundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: வழுத்தலில், வாக்கு உச்ச, வாய்க்குள் செபத்தில் விழுப்பம் ஆம் மானதம். விளம்பும் தியானம் இது.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): vaṙuttalil, vākku ucca, vāykkuḷ jepattil viṙuppam ām māṉatam. viḷambum dhiyāṉam idu.
அன்வயம்: வழுத்தலில், உச்ச வாக்கு, வாய்க்குள் செபத்தில் மானதம் விழுப்பம் ஆம். இது தியானம் விளம்பும்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): vaṙuttalil, ucca vākku, vāykkuḷ jepattil māṉatam viṙuppam ām. idu dhiyāṉam viḷambum.
English translation: Rather than praising, loud voice, rather than japa within the mouth, what is done by mind is beneficial. This is called dhyāna.
Explanatory paraphrase: Rather than praising [God by chanting hymns], [japa or repetition of his name is beneficial]; [rather than japa done in a] loud voice, [japa whispered faintly within the mouth is beneficial]; [and] rather than japa within the mouth, mānasa [that which is done by mind] is beneficial [in the sense that it is a more effective means to purify the mind]. This [mental repetition or mānasika japa] is called dhyāna [meditation].
Explanations and discussions:
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 6: doing japa mentally is more purifying than otherwise
2016-10-12: An explanation of the first ten verses of Upadēśa Undiyār
2015-07-18: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 6: the relative efficacy of different modes of japa
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 7:
விட்டுக் கருதலி னாறுநெய் வீழ்ச்சிபோல்
விட்டிடா துன்னலே யுந்தீபற
விசேடமா முன்னவே யுந்தீபற.
viṭṭuk karudali ṉāṟuney vīṙccipōl
viṭṭiḍā duṉṉalē yundīpaṟa
viśēḍamā muṉṉavē yundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: விட்டு கருதலின் ஆறு நெய் வீழ்ச்சி போல் விட்டிடாது உன்னலே விசேடம் ஆம் உன்னவே.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): viṭṭu karudaliṉ āṟu ney vīṙcci pōl viṭṭiḍādu uṉṉal-ē viśēḍam ām uṉṉa-v-ē.
அன்வயம்: விட்டு கருதலின் ஆறு நெய் வீழ்ச்சி போல் விட்டிடாது உன்னலே உன்னவே விசேடம் ஆம்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): viṭṭu karudaliṉ āṟu ney vīṙcci pōl viṭṭiḍādu uṉṉal-ē uṉṉa-v-ē viśēḍam ām.
English translation: Rather than meditating leavingly, certainly meditating unleavingly, like a river or the falling of ghee, is superior to meditate.
Explanatory paraphrase: Rather than meditating [on God] interruptedly [because of being frequently distracted by other thoughts as a result of insufficient love for him], certainly meditating uninterruptedly [without being distracted by any other thoughts because of the intensity of one’s love for him], like a river or the falling of ghee, is a better way to meditate [or is superior, when considered] [in the sense that it is a more effective means to purify the mind].
Explanations and discussions:
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 7: meditating uninterruptedly is more purifying than otherwise
2016-10-12: An explanation of the first ten verses of Upadēśa Undiyār
2015-07-18: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 7: uninterrupted meditation is superior to interrupted meditation
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 8:
அனியபா வத்தி னவனக மாகு
மனனிய பாவமே யுந்தீபற
வனைத்தினு முத்தம முந்தீபற.
aṉiyabhā vatti ṉavaṉaha māhu
maṉaṉiya bhāvamē yundīpaṟa
vaṉaittiṉu muttama mundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: அனிய பாவத்தின் அவன் அகம் ஆகும் அனனிய பாவமே அனைத்தினும் உத்தமம்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): aṉiya-bhāvattiṉ avaṉ aham āhum aṉaṉiya-bhāvam-ē aṉaittiṉ-um uttamam.
English translation: Rather than anya-bhāva, ananya-bhāva, in which he is I, certainly is the best among all.
Explanatory paraphrase: Rather than anya-bhāva [meditation on anything other than oneself, particularly meditation on God as if he were other than oneself], ananya-bhāva [meditation on nothing other than oneself], in which he is [understood to be] I, certainly is the best among all [practices of bhakti, varieties of meditation and kinds of spiritual practice] [in the sense that it is the most effective of all means to purify the mind, and is also the only means to eradicate ego, the root of all impurities].
Explanations and discussions:
2024-09-10: Since the nature of ourself as ego is to rise, stand and flourish by attending to things other than ourself, we will subside and sink back into the depth of our heart only to the extent to which we attend to ourself alone, as Bhagavan makes clear in verse 25 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, so by meditating on ourself we are surrendering ourself to God, and hence in this verse he says that ananya-bhāva, meditating on nothing other than ourself, is ‘அனைத்தினும் உத்தமம்’ (aṉaittiṉum uttamam), ‘best among all’, implying that it is not only the best practice of bhakti and most effective means to purify the mind but also the only means by which we can eradicate ego and thereby surrender ourself completely to God
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 8: meditation on nothing other than oneself is most purifying of all
2022-03-10: What he describes in the first verse of Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai as ‘thinking that Arunachalam is actually I’ is what he describes in this verse as ‘ananya-bhāva [meditation on what is not other], in which he is I’, which implies mediating on nothing other than ‘I’ with the understanding that he (namely God or Arunachalam) is what shines as ‘I’
2022-03-10: Though he says in this verse, ‘Rather than anya-bhāva, ananya-bhāva, in which he is I, certainly is the best among all’, this is not intended to deny the value or efficacy of anya-bhāva, devotion to God as if he were other than oneself, because such devotion will purify the mind and thereby give it the clarity to understand that God is actually what always exists and shines in our heart as ‘I’
2020-12-18: Among all the beneficial uses of our icchā-kriyā-svatantra (freedom of will and action) that he describes in verses 4 to 8, the ‘best of all’ (aṉaittiṉ-um uttamam) is only ananya-bhāva, which means meditation on nothing other than ourself
2020-11-01: Upadēśa Undiyār verses 8 and 9: what Bhagavan described as ananya-bhāva (meditation on what is not other [than oneself]) is keen self-attentiveness, so ‘பாவ பலம்’ (bhāva balam), ‘the strength of meditation’, means keenness of self-attentiveness
2020-08-24: By saying that ananya-bhāva (meditation on what is not other than oneself), which is a synonym for ātma-vicāra, is ‘அனைத்தினும் உத்தமம்’ (aṉaittiṉum uttamam), ‘the best among all’, he implies that it is the most effective of all means to purify the mind
2019-11-26: Meditating on anything other than ourself (anya-bhāva) may be an indirect means to gradually purify our mind, particularly if it is done with heart-melting love for God, but it cannot by itself eradicate ego, so it must eventually lead us to the path of self-investigation (ananya-bhāva), which alone can eradicate ego
2019-09-23: Comment explaining that holding ‘I am’ is the pinnacle of bhakti, because ‘I am’ is the real nature (svarūpa) of both Bhagavan and Arunachala
2018-09-25: In this verse Bhagavan refers to ātma-vicāra as ananya-bhāva (meditation on what is not other, namely oneself) and says that of all it is the best (uttamam), which in the context of the previous five verses means that it is the best or most effective of all means to purify the mind or will
2018-09-01: After explaining in the previous four verses that the mind is purified by niṣkāmya pūjā, japa and dhyāna, which are respectively actions of body, speech and mind and which are in this order progressively more purifying, in this verse he implies that what is most purifying of all is meditating only upon oneself
2018-09-01: Self-attentiveness is the most effective means to purify our will (cittam), as Bhagavan implies in this verse, so it is the best use we can make of our will and our freedom to use it as we like
2018-09-01: What Bhagavan wrote in the previous five verses clearly shows that he did not consider freedom to turn within to be the only freedom of choice we have, because none of the practises that he describes in those verses as being progressively more effective means to purify our mind entail turning it within, and it is only in this verse that he first refers to the practice of turning our attention within, which he describes as ananya-bhāva, ‘meditation on what is not other [than oneself]’, saying that it is ‘அனைத்தினும் உத்தமம்’ (aṉaittiṉum uttamam), the ‘best of all’ or ‘best among all’, thereby implying that it is the most effective of all means to purify the mind
2018-09-01: Though we can free ourself from our viṣaya-vāsanās slowly and to some extent by other practices of bhakti, the most effective means to eradicate them is self-investigation, which is the ultimate practice of bhakti and the only means to eradicate them entirely
2017-06-20: Upadēśa Undiyār verses 8 and 9: by the intensity of self-attentiveness we will be in our real state of being, which is beyond thinking
2017-03-19: What is ‘remembering the Lord’ or ‘remembrance of Arunachala’?
2016-10-12: An explanation of the first ten verses of Upadēśa Undiyār
2016-02-08: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 8: love for God as nothing other than oneself is best of all
2015-07-18: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 8: meditating on nothing other than ourself is ‘the best among all’
2015-03-06: Intensity, frequency and duration of self-attentiveness
2014-05-02: Ātma-vicāra: stress and other related issues
2014-02-24: We should meditate only on ‘I’, not on ideas such as ‘I am brahman’
2013-12-30: Dhyāna-p-Paṭṭu: The Song on Meditation
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 9:
பாவ பலத்தினாற் பாவனா தீதசற்
பாவத் திருத்தலே யுந்தீபற
பரபத்தி தத்துவ முந்தீபற.
bhāva balattiṉāṯ bhāvaṉā tītasaṯ
bhāvat tiruttalē yundīpaṟa
parabhatti tattuva mundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: பாவ பலத்தினால் பாவனாதீத சத் பாவத்து இருத்தலே பரபத்தி தத்துவம்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): bhāva balattiṉāl bhāvaṉātīta sat-bhāvattu iruttal-ē para-bhatti tattuvam.
English translation: By the strength of meditation, being in sat-bhāva, which transcends bhāvanā, alone is para-bhakti tattva.
Explanatory paraphrase: By the strength [intensity, firmness or stability] of [such] meditation [ananya-bhāva or self-attentiveness], being in sat-bhāva [the state of being], which transcends [all] bhāvanā [thinking, imagination or meditation in the sense of mental activity], alone [or certainly] is para-bhakti tattva [the nature, reality or true state of supreme devotion].
Explanations and discussions:
2024-09-10: Since we as ego will subside back into our being to the extent to which we attend to ourself, when by persistent practice our self-attentiveness becomes strong and stable enough, we will thereby be firmly fixed in our true state of being (sat-bhāva), which transcends all mental activity, so being in this state is para-bhakti tattva, the true state of supreme devotion, because it is the state in which we have given ourself wholly to God and therefore do not rise as ego to know anything other than o
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 9: being in one’s real state of being by self-attentiveness is supreme devotion
2022-03-10: Meditating on anything other than ourself is a thought or mental activity (bhāvanā), because it entails a movement of our mind or attention away from ourself towards something else, whereas meditating on nothing other than ourself is not a thought or mental activity, because it is just a resting of our mind or attention in its source, namely ourself
2022-03-10: As he implies in verse 10 of Śrī Aruṇācala Padigam, by pulling us inwards to be self-attentive, Arunachala will make us motionless (acala) like itself, meaning that we will be firmly established in the state of just being as we actually are, in accordance with the principle that he implies in this verse, ‘By the strength of meditation [that is, by the strength of ananya-bhāva or self-attentiveness], being in sat-bhāva [the state of being], which transcends bhāvanā [thinking or meditation]’
2020-11-01: Upadēśa Undiyār verses 8 and 9: ‘பாவ பலம்’ (bhāva balam), ‘the strength of meditation’, means keenness of self-attentiveness, so what he implies in these two verses is that by keenness of self-attentiveness we will be in sat-bhāva, the state of being as we actually are
2018-09-01: Meditating upon anything other than oneself (anya-bhāva) is an action (karma), because it entails directing one’s mind or attention away from oneself towards something else, whereas meditating only upon oneself (ananya-bhāva) is not an action but a state of just being, a cessation of all activity, because it does not entail directing one’s mind or attention away from oneself but only allowing it to return to and rest in its source
2018-09-01: So long as we direct our attention away from ourself towards anything else, that outward flow of our attention is what is called thinking or imagining, but when we direct our attention back towards ourself alone, that is the subsidence or cessation of all thinking or imagining, which is what Bhagavan refers to in this verse as பாவனாதீத (bhāvaṉātīta), ‘transcending [or beyond] bhāvana [thinking, imagination or meditation]’
2017-06-20: Upadēśa Undiyār verses 8 and 9: by the intensity of self-attentiveness we will be in our real state of being, which is beyond thinking
2017-02-06: How can we see inaction in action?
2016-10-12: An explanation of the first ten verses of Upadēśa Undiyār
2016-02-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: liberation is gained not by doing anything but only by just being
2015-07-18: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 9: by meditating on ourself we will subside in our real state of being
2015-03-06: Intensity, frequency and duration of self-attentiveness
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 10:
உதித்த விடத்தி லொடுங்கி யிருத்த
லதுகன்மம் பத்தியு முந்தீபற
வதுயோக ஞானமு முந்தீபற.
uditta viḍatti loḍuṅgi yirutta
ladukaṉmam bhattiyu mundīpaṟa
vaduyōga ñāṉamu mundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: உதித்த இடத்தில் ஒடுங்கி இருத்தல்: அது கன்மம் பத்தியும்; அது யோகம் ஞானமும்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): uditta iḍattil oḍuṅgi iruttal: adu kaṉmam bhatti-y-um; adu yōgam ñāṉam-um.
English translation: Being, subsiding in the place from which one rose: that is karma and bhakti; that is yōga and jñāna.
Explanatory paraphrase: Being [by inwardly] subsiding in the place from which one rose [namely one’s own real nature (ātma-svarūpa), which is pure being-awareness (sat-cit), ‘I am’]: that is [the culmination of the paths of] [niṣkāmya] karma and bhakti [as explained in the previous seven verses]; that is [also the culmination of the paths of] yōga [as will be explained in the next five verses] and jñāna [as will be explained in the final fifteen verses].
Explanations and discussions:
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 10: being in one’s source is karma, bhakti, yōga and jñāna
2020-01-16: Bhagavan often uses the term ‘இடம்’ (iḍam), which literally means ‘place’, as a metaphor for our real nature (ātma-svarūpa), because it is the ‘place’ or source from which we rise as ego and into which we must eventually subside
2018-09-01: In the previous seven verses Bhagavan explained how the path of bhakti begins with niṣkāmya actions of body, speech and mind (which is the path of niṣkāmya karma) but eventually leads to and culminates in the path of jñāna, which is the practice of self-attentiveness (svarūpa-dhyāna) or self-investigation (ātma-vicāra), and which is not an action (karma) but just one’s natural state of being (sat-bhāva), in which the ego surrenders itself entirely and remains subsided in the source from which it arose, and in this verse he implies that this is the ultimate culmination and goal of all forms of spiritual practice
2017-02-06: How can we see inaction in action?
2016-10-12: An explanation of the first ten verses of Upadēśa Undiyār
2016-02-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: liberation is gained not by doing anything but only by just being
2015-12-10: Is ātma-vicāra an exclusive or inclusive practice?
2015-07-18: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 10: subsiding and being in our source is karma, bhakti, yōga and jñāna
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 11:
வளியுள் ளடக்க வலைபடு புட்போ
லுளமு மொடுங்குறு முந்தீபற
வொடுக்க வுபாயமி துந்தீபற.
vaḷiyuḷ ḷaḍakka valaipaḍu puṭpō
luḷamu moḍuṅguṟu mundīpaṟa
voḍukka vupāyami dundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: வளி உள் அடக்க, வலை படு புள் போல் உளமும் ஒடுங்குறும். ஒடுக்க உபாயம் இது.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): vaḷi uḷ aḍakka, valai paḍu puḷ pōl uḷam-um oḍuṅguṟum. oḍukka upāyam idu.
அன்வயம்: வளி உள் அடக்க, வலை படு புள் போல் உளமும் ஒடுங்குறும். இது ஒடுக்க உபாயம்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): vaḷi uḷ aḍakka, valai paḍu puḷ pōl uḷam-um oḍuṅguṟum. idu oḍukka upāyam.
English translation: When one restrains the breath within, like a bird caught in a net the mind also will be restrained. This is a means to restrain.
Explanatory paraphrase: When one restrains [curbs, calms or subdues] the breath within, like a bird caught in a net the mind also will be restrained [sink, subside, calm down, become quiet, be dissolved or cease being active]. This [the practice of breath-restraint or prāṇāyāma] is [therefore] a means to restrain [curb, calm, subdue, shut down or dissolve] [the mind].
Explanations and discussions:
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 11: when breath is restrained mind will subside
2015-06-18: Upadēśa Undiyār verses 11 and 12: how breath-restraint is a means to restrain the mind
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 12:
உளமு முயிரு முணர்வுஞ் செயலு
முளவாங் கிளையிரண் டுந்தீபற
வொன்றவற் றின்மூல முந்தீபற.
uḷamu muyiru muṇarvuñ ceyalu
muḷavāṅ kiḷaiyiraṇ ḍundīpaṟa
voṉḏṟavaṯ ṟiṉmūla mundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: உளமும் உயிரும் உணர்வும் செயலும் உளவாம் கிளை இரண்டு. ஒன்று அவற்றின் மூலம்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): uḷam-um uyir-um uṇarvu-[u]m ceyal-um uḷavām kiḷai iraṇḍu. oṉḏṟu avaṯṟiṉ mūlam.
அன்வயம்: உளமும் உயிரும் உணர்வும் செயலும் உளவாம் இரண்டு கிளை. அவற்றின் மூலம் ஒன்று.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): uḷam-um uyir-um uṇarvu-[u]m ceyal-um uḷavām iraṇḍu kiḷai. avaṯṟiṉ mūlam oṉḏṟu.
English translation: Mind and breath are two branches, which have knowing and doing. Their root is one.
Explanatory paraphrase: Mind and breath [or life, which includes breath and all other physiological functions] are two branches, which have knowing and doing [as their respective functions]. [However] their mūla [root, base, foundation, origin, source or cause] is one [so this is why when either one is restrained the other one will also be restrained, as pointed out in the previous verse].
Explanations and discussions:
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 12: the root of mind and breath is one
2015-06-18: Upadēśa Undiyār verses 11 and 12: how breath-restraint is a means to restrain the mind
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 13:
இலயமு நாச மிரண்டா மொடுக்க
மிலயித் துளதெழு முந்தீபற
வெழாதுரு மாய்ந்ததே லுந்தீபற.
ilayamu nāśa miraṇḍā moḍukka
milayit tuḷadeṙu mundīpaṟa
veṙāduru māyndadē lundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: இலயமும் நாசம் இரண்டு ஆம் ஒடுக்கம். இலயித்து உளது எழும். எழாது உரு மாய்ந்ததேல்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): ilayam-um nāśam iraṇḍu ām oḍukkam. ilayittu uḷadu eṙum. eṙādu uru māyndadēl.
அன்வயம்: ஒடுக்கம் இலயமும் நாசம் இரண்டு ஆம். இலயித்து உளது எழும். உரு மாய்ந்ததேல் எழாது.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): oḍukkam ilayam-um nāśam iraṇḍu ām. ilayittu uḷadu eṙum. uru māyndadēl eṙādu.
English translation: Dissolution is two: laya and nāśa. What is lying down will rise. If form dies, it will not rise.
Explanatory paraphrase: Dissolution [complete subsidence or cessation of ego or mind] is [of] two [kinds]: laya [temporary dissolution] and nāśa [permanent dissolution or annihilation]. What is lying down [or dissolved in laya] will rise. If [its] form dies [in nāśa], it will not rise.
Explanations and discussions:
2023-11-08: Bhagavan used to warn those who were inclined to practise prāṇāyāma and other yōga techniques that they should take care not to subside in manōlaya as a result of such practices, and advised them that though they could use such practices to gain a certain degree of mental calmness, they could gain lasting benefit from such calmness only if they use it as a favourable condition to turn their attention back within to investigate who am I
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 13: dissolution of mind is of two kinds, laya and nāśa
2022-03-24: If we withdraw our mind from dṛśya without keenly attending to cittva, our fundamental awareness, ‘I am’, the mind will dissolve in laya, and ‘What has gone in laya arises again’
2022-02-08: Like sleep, any state in which all thoughts cease along with their root, namely ego, but from which they subsequently rise again is just a state of manōlaya (temporary dissolution of mind), whereas the state from which they will never rise again is manōnāśa (annihilation or permanent dissolution of mind), so manōnāśa alone is the solution we should aim for
2020-06-02: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 13: if it is dissolved in sleep or any other state of laya, ego will rise again, but why?
2019-10-16: Comment explaining that nothing exists in sleep other than our real nature, which is sat-cit-ānanda, so the only difference between sleep (manōlaya) and eradication of ego (manōnāśa) is that ego will never rise again from the latter, whereas it does rise from the former, but this is not a difference in those states but only a difference from the perspective of ourself as ego in waking or dream
2019-07-29: Why does ego rise again from manōlaya and not from manōnāśa?
2017-07-27: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 13: the only difference between manōlaya and manōnāśa is that the ego will rise from manōlaya but never from manōnāśa
2017-07-07: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 13: from the perspective of the ego in waking or dream the distinction between manōlaya and manōnāśa is in effect real
2015-06-18: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 13: the two kinds of subsidence of mind
2014-04-11: Ātma-vicāra and nirvikalpa samādhi
2014-02-16: Self-attentiveness and citta-vṛtti nirōdha
2011-10-07: Annihilation of mind (manōnāśa) is permanent, whereas any other subsidence of mind (manōlaya) such as sleep, coma, death or samādhi is only temporary
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 14:
ஒடுக்க வளியை யொடுங்கு முளத்தை
விடுக்கவே யோர்வழி யுந்தீபற
வீயு மதனுரு வுந்தீபற.
oḍukka vaḷiyai yoḍuṅgu muḷattai
viḍukkavē yōrvaṙi yundīpaṟa
vīyu madaṉuru vundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: ஒடுக்க வளியை ஒடுங்கும் உளத்தை விடுக்கவே ஓர் வழி, வீயும் அதன் உரு.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): oḍukka vaḷiyai oḍuṅgum uḷattai viḍukka-v-ē ōr vaṙi, vīyum adaṉ uru.
அன்வயம்: வளியை ஒடுக்க ஒடுங்கும் உளத்தை ஓர் வழி விடுக்கவே, அதன் உரு வீயும்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): vaḷiyai oḍukka oḍuṅgum uḷattai ōr vaṙi viḍukka-v-ē, adaṉ uru vīyum.
English translation: Only when one sends the mind, which will be restrained when one restrains the breath, on the investigating path will its form perish.
Explanatory paraphrase: Only when one sends the mind, which will be restrained [become calm or dissolve] when one restrains the breath, on ōr vaṙi [the investigating path or one path, namely the path of self-investigation, which is the one and only means to eradicate ego and thereby annihilate the mind] will its form perish. [However, the mind cannot be sent on this path of self-investigation if it has dissolved in laya, so if one practices breath-restraint in order to restrain the mind, one should take care to send the mind on this path of self-investigation (which means to direct one’s attention back towards oneself) when it has become calm but before it dissolves in laya.]
Explanations and discussions:
2023-11-08: Bhagavan used to warn those who were inclined to practise prāṇāyāma and other yōga techniques that they should take care not to subside in manōlaya as a result of such practices, and advised them that though they could use such practices to gain a certain degree of mental calmness, they could gain lasting benefit from such calmness only if they use it as a favourable condition to turn their attention back within to investigate who am I
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 14: only by self-investigation will the mind die
2020-06-02: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 14: only by means of self-investigation will ego dissolve in pure awareness in such a way that it will never rise again
2015-06-18: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 14: our mind will die only by self-investigation (in the section following this, Upadēśa Sāram verse 14: the meaning of ēka-cintanā, I give the Sanskrit text and my English translation of verse 14 of Upadēśa Sāram and discuss its meaning)
2014-04-11: Ātma-vicāra and nirvikalpa samādhi
2011-10-07: The mind will be annihilated only when it is sent on the unique path of self-investigation (ātma-vicāra)
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 15:
மனவுரு மாயமெய்ம் மன்னுமா யோகி
தனக்கோர் செயலிலை யுந்தீபற
தன்னியல் சார்ந்தன னுந்தீபற.
maṉavuru māyameym maṉṉumā yōgi
taṉakkōr seyalilai yundīpaṟa
taṉṉiyal sārndaṉa ṉundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: மன உரு மாய மெய் மன்னும் மா யோகி தனக்கு ஓர் செயல் இலை. தன் இயல் சார்ந்தனன்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): maṉa uru māya mey maṉṉum mā yōgi taṉakku ōr seyal ilai. taṉ iyal sārndaṉaṉ.
English translation: When the form of the mind is annihilated, for the great yōgi who remains permanently as the reality, there is not a single doing. He has attained his nature.
Explanatory paraphrase: When the form of the mind is annihilated, for the great yōgi who [thereby] remains permanently as the reality, there is not a single doing [action or karma], [because] he has attained his [real] nature [which is actionless being].
Explanations and discussions:
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 15: when the mind is dead, there is no action but only one’s real nature
2018-09-01: The jñāni is not a person but only the infinite space of pure self-awareness, in whose clear view neither a person nor anything else exists at all, so the jñāni never actually does any action, either with or without doership
2018-04-18: What experiences itself as ‘I am doing’ or ‘I am experiencing’ is only the ego, and without the ego nothing else exists, so there is nothing either to do or to experience
2016-12-27: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 15: for the jñāni there is no ego or mind and hence no action
2014-04-11: Ātma-vicāra and nirvikalpa samādhi
2011-10-07: When the mind is annihilated, one is established as the reality, so there is no action (thinking, talking or doing)
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 16:
வெளிவிட யங்களை விட்டு மனந்தன்
னொளியுரு வோர்தலே யுந்தீபற
வுண்மை யுணர்ச்சியா முந்தீபற.
veḷiviḍa yaṅgaḷai viṭṭu maṉantaṉ
ṉoḷiyuru vōrdalē yundīpaṟa
vuṇmai yuṇarcciyā mundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: வெளி விடயங்களை விட்டு மனம் தன் ஒளி உரு ஓர்தலே உண்மை உணர்ச்சி ஆம்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): veḷi viḍayaṅgaḷai viṭṭu maṉam taṉ oḷi-uru ōrdalē uṇmai uṇarcci ām.
அன்வயம்: மனம் வெளி விடயங்களை விட்டு தன் ஒளி உரு ஓர்தலே உண்மை உணர்ச்சி ஆம்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): maṉam veḷi viḍayaṅgaḷai viṭṭu taṉ oḷi-uru ōrdalē uṇmai uṇarcci ām.
English translation: Leaving external phenomena, the mind knowing its own form of light is alone real awareness.
Explanatory paraphrase: Leaving [or letting go of] [awareness of any] external viṣayas [namely phenomena of every kind, all of which are external in the sense that they are other than and hence extraneous to oneself], the mind knowing its own form of light [namely the light of pure awareness, which is its real nature and what illumines it, enabling it to be aware both of itself and of other things] is alone real awareness [true knowledge or knowledge of reality].
Explanations and discussions:
2024-09-12: Consciousness or awareness is not an object but the reality of the subject, so no objective investigation can enable us to know consciousness as it actually is, and since we ourself are consciousness, in order to know ourself as we actually are we need to turn our entire attention back on ourself, away from all other things
2023-11-08: In order to eradicate ego, we not only need to cease attending to anything other than ourself but also need to attend keenly to ourself
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 16: seeing nothing but awareness is seeing what is real
2022-03-24: To see what is real, the mind must see its own real nature, which is pure awareness
2022-03-24: We cannot see our own cittva merely by keeping our mind back from all dṛśya
2022-03-24: The mind can see its own cittva only by being its own cittva, and it can be it only by being swallowed by it
2022-03-10: As he implies in verse 16 of Upadēśa Sāram, svarūpa-darśana (seeing ourself as we actually are) alone is tattva-darśana (seeing what is real), and in order to see our own cittva (pure awareness), which is ourself as we actually are, we need to turn back and look deep within ourself
2021-08-29: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 16: real awareness is only awareness of what actually exists, namely ourself, so we can remain as real awareness only by knowing nothing other than ourself
2021-05-13: In order to know ourself as we actually are and thereby eradicate the false awareness called ego, all we need do is to withdraw our attention from all other things by trying to focus it exclusively on ourself alone
2021-02-18: So long as we are looking at anything other than ourself, we seem to be something other than pure awareness, but if we give up looking at anything else by looking at ourself alone, we will see that we are actually just pure awareness
2020-10-16: What Bhagavan refers to in verse 17 as investigating மனத்தின் உரு (maṉattiṉ uru), the ‘form of the mind’, is investigating its real form, which is pure awareness, its ‘ஒளி உரு’ (oḷi-uru) or ‘form of light’
2020-09-19: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 16: to eradicate ego we not only need to cease being aware of anything other than ourself, but need to do so by being keenly self-attentive
2020-09-19: When the cit element of the mind or ego is turned back to face itself alone, it is thereby turning its back on all external phenomena, so it ceases to be aware of anything else, and thus it remains as pure awareness, which is what it always actually is
2020-06-17: Our experience in sleep is a vital clue that guides us in our self-investigation, because so long as we are aware of anything that we are not aware of in sleep, our attention is still not focused solely and exclusively on ourself
2020-06-02: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 16: being so keenly self-attentive that we thereby cease to be aware of anything else is real awareness
2020-04-05: In this verse, as in the first sentence of the thirteenth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?, Bhagavan clearly implies that we must try to be aware of nothing whatsoever other than ourself
2020-03-31: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 16: what is required is that we withdraw our attention from all other things by being keenly self-attentive
2020-02-28: Here ‘light’ is a metaphor for awareness, because awareness is the light by which we know all things, both ourself and everything else, and ‘form’ is a metaphor for nature (svarūpa), so ‘தன் ஒளி உரு’ (taṉ oḷi-uru), ‘its [or one’s] own form of light’, implies that our real nature (or the real nature of the mind) is the light of pure awareness
2020-02-27: In order to be aware of what is real, we not only need to cease perceiving any world, but need to do so by being aware of ‘தன் ஒளி உரு’ (taṉ oḷi-uru), ‘our own form of light’ (our real nature, which is the original light of pure awareness)
2020-02-02: Real awareness or vidyā is the awareness that alone remains when we are clearly aware only of ourself (our own form of light), thereby ceasing to be aware of anything else
2020-01-16: In order to be annihilated and thereby never rise again, we as ego must not only withdraw our attention from all phenomena but must do so by focusing our entire attention on ourself alone
2019-12-16: Comment explaining that in order to be aware of ourself as we actually are we as ego must cease being aware of phenomena and must instead be aware only of our ‘own form of light’, which is pure awareness
2019-12-10: In order to be aware of ourself as we actually are we need to be aware of ourself alone, in complete isolation from awareness of anything else
2019-11-28: Instead of using the reflected light called mind to know other things (which are what Bhagavan calls ‘வெளி விடயங்கள்’ (veḷi viḍayaṅgaḷ), ‘external phenomena’), we must turn it back to face its source, the original light of pure awareness, which is always shining within us as ‘I am’
2019-11-28: What he gave us in this verse is a clear definition of ‘உண்மை உணர்ச்சி’ (uṇmai uṇarcci), which means ‘real awareness’, ‘true knowledge’ or ‘awareness [or knowledge] of reality’, but a definition intended to show us the means by which we can experience real awareness
2019-11-26: In order to dissolve ego, we must eventually turn our entire attention back towards ourself (which is what Bhagavan refers to here as the mind’s ‘ஒளி உரு’ (oḷi-uru) or ‘form of light’) and thereby away from everything else (which is what he refers to as ‘வெளி விடயங்கள்’ (veḷi viḍayaṅgaḷ), ‘external phenomena’)
2019-11-24: In order to be aware of ourself as we actually are, namely as pure awareness, which is our own ‘ஒளி உரு’ (oḷi-uru) or ‘form of light’, we need to cease being aware of any phenomena, including all the adjuncts that we mistake to be ourself
2019-10-25: There are two essential features that define us as ego, namely we are aware of ourself as a set of adjuncts (a body consisting of five sheaths) and consequently we are aware of other phenomena, so in order to see ourself as we actually are we must not only give up our awareness of adjuncts but also our awareness of all other phenomena
2019-06-24: In order for us as ego to eradicate ourself permanently, we not only need to cease being aware of anything else, but also need to be attentively and clearly aware of ourself alone
2018-11-08: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 16: since awareness of anything other than ourself is ignorance and unreal, we can be aware of ourself as real awareness only by withdrawing our attention from everything else and turning back towards ourself to know our own ‘form of light’
2018-11-08: In order to be aware of our own ‘form of light’ (the pure awareness that we actually are) we need to give up being aware of any phenomena
2017-10-07: Just giving up attending to external phenomena is not sufficient, because we do so whenever we fall asleep, so what is required is just that we attend only to ourself, that is, to our own fundamental self-awareness, because if we do so we will thereby give up attending to anything else
2018-09-01: When Bhagavan talks of the mind investigating itself, what he means by the term ‘mind’ is ego, which is the perceiving or aware element of it, and which is therefore what needs to investigate itself and thereby surrender itself, as he implies in this verse
2017-04-16: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 16: to the extent that our attention is focused on ourself it will thereby be withdrawn from other things
2016-10-19: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 16: we must not just cease attending to other things but must keenly attend to ourself alone
2016-05-17: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 16: we must attend only to ourself and thereby leave aside all phenomena
2016-04-20: Comment discussing verse 16 of Upadēśa Undiyār
2015-10-12: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 16: we must attentively observe our own self-awareness
2015-05-20: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 16: to see what is real we must give up seeing what is seen (dṛśya) (this section also includes the Sanskrit text of verse 16 of Upadēśa Sāram together with my translation of it)
2014-12-13: The teachings of Sri Ramana and Nisargadatta are significantly different
2014-09-09: Comment explaining the meaning of verse 16 of Upadēśa Undiyār
2011-10-07: To be annihilated, the mind must not only cease being aware of any phenomena (viṣayas) but must also attend to ‘its own form of light’ (its fundamental self-awareness)
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 17:
மனத்தி னுருவை மறவா துசாவ
மனமென வொன்றிலை யுந்தீபற
மார்க்கநே ரார்க்குமி துந்தீபற.
maṉatti ṉuruvai maṟavā dusāva
maṉameṉa voṉḏṟilai yundīpaṟa
mārgganē rārkkumi dundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: மனத்தின் உருவை மறவாது உசாவ, மனம் என ஒன்று இலை. மார்க்கம் நேர் ஆர்க்கும் இது.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): maṉattiṉ uruvai maṟavādu usāva, maṉam eṉa oṉḏṟu ilai. mārggam nēr ārkkum idu.
அன்வயம்: மறவாது மனத்தின் உருவை உசாவ, மனம் என ஒன்று இலை. இது ஆர்க்கும் நேர் மார்க்கம்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): maṟavādu maṉattiṉ uruvai usāva, maṉam eṉa oṉḏṟu ilai. idu ārkkum nēr mārggam.
English translation: When one investigates the form of the mind without forgetting, there is not anything called ‘mind’. This is the direct path for everyone whomsoever.
Explanatory paraphrase: When one investigates [examines or scrutinises] the form of the mind without forgetting [neglecting, abandoning, giving up or ceasing], [it will be clear that] there is not anything called ‘mind’. This is the direct [straight or appropriate] path for everyone whomsoever.
Explanations and discussions:
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 17: when one keenly investigates it, there is no mind
2022-03-24: Ego is the first cause, and hence the root cause of all other causes, so there cannot be anything that causes ego to rise or come into existence, and there need not be anything that causes it, because if we investigate it keenly enough, it will be clear that no such thing has ever actually existed or risen at all
2021-02-18: If we investigate ego keenly enough, without yielding even in the least to pramāda (negligence or forgetfulness), we will see that what we actually are is just pure awareness, so it will then be clear that there is no such thing as mind or ego at all
2020-10-22: Self-investigation is ‘the direct path for everyone whomsoever’, so if we are attracted to this path and want to follow it, we are mature enough to do so
2020-10-16: This path is the direct path because we are trying to look at ourself directly in order to perceive ourself as we actually are
2020-09-19: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 17: to see that there is no such thing as ego or mind at all, we need to be so keenly self-attentive that we give not even the slightest room for any pramāda (self-negligence) to creep in
2019-12-21: Bhagavan didn’t give any teachings unasked, but when he was asked his first inclination was to advise all questioners to look within to see what they actually are, because this is ‘மார்க்கம் நேர் ஆர்க்கும்’ (mārggam nēr ārkkum), ‘the direct path for everyone whomsoever’
2019-12-11: Comment explaining that it is the mind (in the sense of ego, the thought called ‘I’, which is the root and essence of the mind, being its perceiving element) that needs to investigate itself, because if it does so keenly enough it will be clear that there is no such thing
2019-11-08: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 17: if we incessantly investigate this atiśaya śakti called mind or ego, it will be clear that no such thing exists at all
2019-10-25: As soon as the mind knows its own form of light, which is pure awareness, it dissolves and merges in that, thereby ceasing to be mind and remaining just as pure awareness, so self-investigation ultimately reveals that there is no such thing as mind at all
2019-05-08: Ego seems to exist only when it is attending to or aware of anything other than itself, so if it attends to itself so keenly that it ceases to be aware of anything else, it will be clear that there is no such thing as ego
2019-04-19: On this path of self-investigation and self-surrender there is no such thing as a shortcut, because it is ‘மார்க்கம் நேர் ஆர்க்கும்’ (mārggam nēr ārkkum), ‘the direct path for everyone whomsoever’, and there can obviously be no shorter cut than the direct way
2018-11-08: Ego or mind seems to exist only when it is looking elsewhere, that is, at anything other than itself, but when it looks only at itself, there is no such thing but only pure awareness, which is never aware of anything other than itself
2017-09-24: A series of two comments explaining that the most important of all the fundamental principles of Bhagavan’s teachings is that the ego will cease to cease if and only if we investigate it
2017-07-27: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 17: if we investigate it keenly enough, we will find that there is no such thing as an ego or mind
2017-06-28: There is absolutely no difference between sleep and pure self-awareness (ātma-jñāna)
2017-03-21: Upadēśa Undiyār verses 17 and 18: what we should watch is only the ego, the root thought called ‘I’, and not any other thought
2016-11-21: Since vivarta vāda contends that non-existent things seem to exist only in the view of the non-existent ego, its logical conclusion can only be ajāta
2016-10-19: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 17: if we keenly investigate our ego, we will find that there is actually no such thing at all, and hence no world or anything else other than ourself
2015-12-10: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 17: avoiding self-negligence (pramāda) is the only means to destroy our ego
2015-11-11: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 17: our ego or mind does not actually exist at all, even now
2015-05-20: The essence of the mind is the ego, and the essence of the ego is pure self-awareness
2014-09-28: The perceiver and the perceived are both unreal
2014-09-26: Metaphysical solipsism, idealism and creation theories in the teachings of Sri Ramana
2014-03-20: Ātma-vicāra is the only means by which we can experience ourself as we really are
2014-03-03: Does the practice of ātma-vicāra work?
2014-02-16: Self-attentiveness and citta-vṛtti nirōdha
2008-02-16: Cultivating uninterrupted self-attentiveness
2011-10-07: Annihilation of mind (manōnāśa) is not actually a state in which something that existed has been destroyed, but is just the clear knowledge that nothing other than ourself has ever existed
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 18:
எண்ணங்க ளேமனம் யாவினு நானெனு
மெண்ணமே மூலமா முந்தீபற
யானா மனமென லுந்தீபற.
eṇṇaṅga ḷēmaṉam yāviṉu nāṉeṉu
meṇṇamē mūlamā mundīpaṟa
yāṉā maṉameṉa lundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: எண்ணங்களே மனம். யாவினும் நான் எனும் எண்ணமே மூலம் ஆம். யான் ஆம் மனம் எனல்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): eṇṇaṅgaḷ-ē maṉam. yāviṉ-um nāṉ eṉum eṇṇam-ē mūlam ām. yāṉ ām maṉam eṉal.
அன்வயம்: எண்ணங்களே மனம். யாவினும் நான் எனும் எண்ணமே மூலம் ஆம். மனம் எனல் யான் ஆம்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): eṇṇaṅgaḷ-ē maṉam. yāviṉ-um nāṉ eṉum eṇṇam-ē mūlam ām. maṉam eṉal yāṉ ām.
English translation: Thoughts alone are mind. Of all, the thought called ‘I’ alone is the root. What is called mind is ‘I’.
Explanatory paraphrase: Thoughts alone are mind [or the mind is only thoughts]. Of all [thoughts], the thought called ‘I’ alone is the mūla [the root, base, foundation, origin, source or cause]. [Therefore] what is called mind is [essentially just] ‘I’ [namely ego, the root thought called ‘I’].
Explanations and discussions:
2023-12-07: ‘மனம்’ (maṉam) or ‘mind’ is used in a variety of different senses, so the sense in which it is used in each case is determined by the context and needs to be understood accordingly
2023-12-07: Since no other thought could exist without ego, it is the only essential thought in the mind, and hence it is what the mind essentially is, as he says in the final sentence of this verse, ‘யான் ஆம் மனம் எனல்’ (yāṉ ām maṉam eṉal), ‘What is called mind is I’, which implies that the mind is essentially just ego, the root thought called ‘I’
2023-07-27: The mind consists of two elements, namely the subject, which is ego, the thought called ‘I’, and all objects, which are all the other thoughts that constitute the mind, and since all other thoughts are known only by ego, they could not exist independent of ego, so what the mind essentially is is only ego
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 18: mind is essentially just the ego, the root of all other thoughts
2021-02-18: What he refers to in verse 17 as ‘மனத்தின் உரு’ (maṉattiṉ uru), ‘the form of the mind’, is ego, because as he explains in this verse, ego is the root of the mind and hence what the mind essentially is
2021-02-02: Bhagavan is the ultimate reductionist: All phenomena are just thoughts; thoughts are just mind; mind is in essence just ego, the first thought ‘I’; and if instead of looking at anything else we look keenly at ourself alone, we will find that ego is actually just pure awareness, so pure awareness is all that actually exists
2020-09-19: Though the term ‘mind’ is often used to refer to all thoughts collectively, the root of all thoughts is only ego, which is the thought called ‘I’, so what the mind essentially is is only ego
2020-04-15: All other thoughts are objects perceived by ego, whereas ego is the subject, the perceiver of them all, so no other thoughts can exist without ego, and hence ego is the one constant thought, the thread on which all other thoughts are strung
2020-01-16: In many contexts Bhagavan uses ‘mind’ as a synonym for ego, which is what he sometimes calls ‘the thought called I’, but in other contexts he uses it in a broader sense to refer to the totality of all thoughts
2020-01-16: Whenever Bhagavan uses the term ‘the thought called I’, he is referring to ego, which is the first thought and the root of all other thoughts
2019-11-08: When Bhagavan uses the term ‘mind’, in some cases he is referring to the totality of all thoughts, but in most cases he is referring to ego, which is the root of all other thoughts and therefore the essence of the mind
2019-10-25: What he referred to in verse 17 as ‘மனத்தின் உரு’ (maṉattiṉ uru), ‘the form of the mind’, is ego, which is the fundamental form of the mind, being its perceiving element and hence its root, because it is that in whose view all the perceived elements of the mind, namely all other thoughts, seem to exist
2019-05-08: Ego is the perceiving element of the mind and therefore its root and essence
2018-11-08: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 18: though all thoughts are included in mind, what mind essentially is is only ego, the root thought called ‘I’
2018-05-13: The term ‘mind’ is used in two distinct senses: in a general sense it is a term that refers to the totality of all thoughts or mental phenomena, but since the root of all thoughts is the ego, the primal thought called ‘I’, what the mind essentially is is only the ego, and hence in a more specific sense ‘mind’ is a term that refers to the ego
2018-04-18: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 18: though the term ‘mind’ can refer to all thoughts collectively, what the mind essentially is is just the ego
2017-09-18: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 18: though the term ‘mind’ can refer to the totality of all thoughts, what the mind essentially is is just the ego
2017-07-27: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 18: the mind is essentially just the ego, the primal thought and root of all other thoughts
2017-03-21: Upadēśa Undiyār verses 17 and 18: what we should watch is only the ego, the root thought called ‘I’, and not any other thought
2016-10-02: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 18: the mind is essentially ‘I’, the ego or mixed awareness ‘I am this body’
2016-06-19: The first movement of thought is the rising of our ego, so we are completely ‘off the movement of thought’ only in manōlaya or manōnāśa (this section also includes the Sanskrit text of verse 18 of Upadēśa Sāram together with my translation of it)
2016-04-08: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 18: the ego is our first thought, the root of our mind
2015-11-11: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 18: our mind is in essence just our primal thought called ‘I’
2015-07-18: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 18: our ego is the root of all our mental impurities
2015-05-20: Distinguishing the ego from the rest of the mind
2015-04-03: Any experience we can describe is something other than the experience of pure self-attentiveness
2014-12-13: The teachings of Sri Ramana and Nisargadatta are significantly different
2014-09-26: Metaphysical solipsism, idealism and creation theories in the teachings of Sri Ramana
2014-08-15: Establishing that I am and analysing what I am
2014-05-25: The mind’s role in investigating ‘I’
2014-02-16: Self-attentiveness and citta-vṛtti nirōdha
2014-02-05: Spontaneously and wordlessly applying the clue: ‘to whom? to me; who am I?’
2011-10-07: In essence the mind is just the thought called ‘I’, which is the root of all other thoughts
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 19:
நானென் றெழுமிட மேதென நாடவுண்
ணான்றலை சாய்ந்திடு முந்தீபற
ஞான விசாரமி துந்தீபற.
nāṉeṉ ḏṟeṙumiḍa mēdeṉa nāḍavuṇ
ṇāṉḏṟalai sāyndiḍu mundīpaṟa
ñāṉa vicārami dundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: நான் என்று எழும் இடம் ஏது என நாட உள், நான் தலைசாய்ந்திடும். ஞான விசாரம் இது.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): nāṉ eṉḏṟu eṙum iḍam ēdu eṉa nāḍa uḷ, nāṉ talai-sāyndiḍum. ñāṉa-vicāram idu.
அன்வயம்: நான் என்று எழும் இடம் ஏது என உள் நாட, நான் தலைசாய்ந்திடும். இது ஞான விசாரம்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): nāṉ eṉḏṟu eṙum iḍam ēdu eṉa uḷ nāḍa, nāṉ talai-sāyndiḍum. idu ñāṉa-vicāram.
English translation: When one investigates within what the place is from which one rises as ‘I’, ‘I’ will die. This is awareness-investigation.
Explanatory paraphrase: When one investigates within [or inwardly investigates] what the place is from which one [or it] rises as ‘I’ [ego or mind], ‘I’ will die. This is jñāna-vicāra [investigation of awareness].
Explanations and discussions:
2024-09-12: Bhagavan defined self-investigation (ātma-vicāra) in the sixteenth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār? as ‘always keeping the mind on oneself’ (sadākālamum maṉattai ātmāvil vaittiruppadu), and as he made clear, keeping our mind on ourself means keeping our attention fixed firmly on what we actually are, namely our fundamental awareness ‘I am’, which is our very being, so he also called this practice ‘awareness-investigation’ (jñāna-vicāra)
2023-05-16: What he refers to here as ‘நான் என்று எழும் இடம்’ (nāṉ eṉḏṟu eṙum iḍam), ‘the place from which one rises as I’ or ‘the place from which it rises as I’, is our real nature (ātma-svarūpa), which is what always shines within us as our fundamental awareness of our own existence, ‘I am’, so investigating this ‘place’ means keenly attending only to this awareness ‘I am’, which is why he calls this investigation jñāna-vicāra, which means ‘awareness-investigation’
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 19: when one investigates from where the ego rises, it will die
2021-11-26: ‘நான் என்று எழும் இடம்’ (nāṉ eṉḏṟu eṙum iḍam), ‘the place from which one rises as I’, is our real nature (ātma-svarūpa), which is what always shines within us as our fundamental awareness of our own existence, ‘I am’, so investigating this ‘place’ means keenly attending only to this awareness ‘I am’, which is why he calls this investigation jñāna-vicāra, which means ‘awareness-investigation’
2020-01-16: Bhagavan often uses the term ‘இடம்’ (iḍam), which literally means ‘place’, as a metaphor for our real nature (ātma-svarūpa), because it is the ‘place’ or source from which we rise as ego and into which we must eventually subside
2019-11-24: ஞான விசாரம் (ñāṉa-vicāram) or jñāna-vicāra means ‘awareness-investigation’, so since awareness alone is what we actually are, jñāna-vicāra is the practice of investigating our real nature (ātma-svarūpa), which is what Bhagavan refers to in this verse as ‘நான் என்று எழும் இடம்’ (nāṉ eṉḏṟu eṙum iḍam), ‘the place from which one rises as I’
2016-10-02: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 19: if we investigate ourself, the source from which we rose as this ego, it will die
2015-07-31: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 19: we should investigate the source of our ego, which is what we actually are
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 20:
நானொன்று தானத்து நானானென் றொன்றது
தானாகத் தோன்றுமே யுந்தீபற
தானது பூன்றமா முந்தீபற.
nāṉoṉḏṟu thāṉattu nāṉāṉeṉ ḏṟoṉḏṟadu
tāṉāhat tōṉḏṟumē yundīpaṟa
tāṉadu pūṉḏṟamā mundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: ‘நான்’ ஒன்று தானத்து ‘நான் நான்’ என்று ஒன்று அது தானாக தோன்றுமே. தான் அது பூன்றம் ஆம்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): ‘nāṉ’ oṉḏṟu thāṉattu ‘nāṉ nāṉ’ eṉḏṟu oṉḏṟu adu tāṉāha tōṉḏṟumē. tāṉ adu pūṉḏṟam ām.
அன்வயம்: ‘நான்’ ஒன்று தானத்து ‘நான் நான்’ என்று ஒன்று அது தானாக தோன்றுமே. அது தான் பூன்றம் ஆம்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): ‘nāṉ’ oṉḏṟu thāṉattu ‘nāṉ nāṉ’ eṉḏṟu oṉḏṟu adu tāṉāha tōṉḏṟumē. adu tāṉ pūṉḏṟam ām.
English translation: In the place where ‘I’ merges, that, the one, appears spontaneously as ‘I am I’. That itself is the whole.
Explanatory paraphrase: In the place where ‘I’ [namely ego, the false awareness ‘I am this’] merges, that, the one, appears spontaneously [or as oneself] as ‘I am I’ [that is, as awareness of oneself as oneself alone]. That itself [or that, oneself] is pūṉḏṟam [pūrṇa: the infinite whole or entirety of what is].
Explanations and discussions:
2023-05-16: ‘நான் ஒன்று தானம்’ (nāṉ oṉḏṟu thāṉam), ‘the place where ‘I’ merges’, is the place from which it rose, namely our fundamental awareness of our own existence, ‘I am’, so when ego merges there, we will cease to be aware of ourself as ‘I am this body’ and will instead be aware of ourself just as ‘I am I’
2023-05-16: What shines forth spontaneously as ‘I am I’ is our real nature (ātma-svarūpa), which is what is also called brahman and which, being ‘one only without a second’ (ēkam ēva advitīyam), is the infinite whole (pūrṇa), other than which nothing actually exists, as Bhagavan implies by saying that it is ‘परम पूर्ण सत्’ (parama pūrṇa sat), ‘the supreme whole existence [being or reality]’
2023-05-16: The Sanskrit verb स्फुर् (sphur), from which the noun स्फुरण (sphuraṇa) is derived, means to shine, be clear, be evident or make itself known in any way, and is particularly used in the sense of shine forth, shine with a fresh clarity or appear afresh, and it is in this sense that he uses it in verse 20 of Upadēśa Sāram when he says ‘अहम् अहंतया स्फुरति हृत् स्वयम्’ (aham ahaṁtayā sphurati hṛt svayaṁ), “the heart shines forth spontaneously as ‘I am I’”
2023-05-16: As soon as ego is eradicated, what seemed till then to be a new and fresh clarity of self-awareness (sphuraṇa), which had been gradually growing clearer until it finally swallowed us entirely in its all-consuming effulgence, is recognised to be natural (sahaja), being what Bhagavan calls ‘பூன்றம்’ (pūṉḏṟam), ‘the whole’, in verse 20 of Upadēśa Undiyār and ‘परम पूर्ण सत्’ (parama pūrṇa sat), ‘the supreme whole existence [being or reality]’, in verse 20 of Upadēśa Sāram
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 20: when ego is annihated, the infinite whole will shine forth as ‘I am I’
2022-02-08: Since thought alone is the obstacle that stands in the way of our being aware of ourself as we actually are, as soon as all thoughts (including the primal thought, namely ego) are dissolved in such a manner that they can never reappear, our real nature will shine forth spontaneously, just as the sun appears spontaneously as soon as the clouds that concealed it are blown aside
2021-11-26: What we actually are is sat-cit (existence-awareness), which is our fundamental awareness of our own existence, ‘I am’, so when we are aware of ourself as we actually are, we will be aware of ourself just as ‘I am I’
2021-11-26: As soon as ego is eradicated, what seemed till then to be a new and fresh clarity of self-awareness (sphuraṇa), which had been gradually growing clearer until it finally swallowed us entirely in its all-consuming effulgence, is recognised to be natural (sahaja), being what Bhagavan calls ‘பூன்றம்’ (pūṉḏṟam), ‘the whole’
2021-11-26: What appears spontaneously as ‘I am I’ is our real nature (ātma-svarūpa), which is ‘परम पूर्ण सत्’ (parama pūrṇa sat), the supreme whole existence, being or reality, as he says in verse 20 of Upadēśa Sāram
2021-11-26: The Sanskrit verb स्फुर् (sphur) means to shine, be clear, be evident or make itself known in any way, and is particularly used in the sense of shine forth, shine with a fresh clarity or appear afresh, and it is in this sense that he uses it in verse 20 of Upadēśa Sāram when he says ‘अहम् अहंतया स्फुरति हृत् स्वयम्’ (aham ahaṁtayā sphurati hṛt svayaṁ), “the heart shines forth spontaneously as ‘I am I’”
2021-11-26: As soon as ego is eradicated, what seemed till then to be a new and fresh clarity of self-awareness (sphuraṇa), which had been gradually growing clearer until it finally swallowed us entirely in its all-consuming effulgence, is recognised to be natural (sahaja), being what Bhagavan calls ‘परम पूर्ण सत्’ (parama pūrṇa sat), ‘the supreme whole existence [being or reality]’, in verse 20 of Upadēśa Sāram
2020-06-21: Bhagavan used the term ‘நான் நான்’ (nāṉ nāṉ), ‘I am I’, to distinguish our real adjunct-free self-awareness from our false adjunct-mixed self-awareness, namely ego, which he referred to as ‘நான் இது’ (nāṉ idu), ‘I am this’, because ‘நான் இது’ (nāṉ idu), ‘I am this’, denotes a false identity, since it is an identification of ourself with something other than ourself, namely a body consisting of five sheaths, whereas ‘நான் நான்’ (nāṉ nāṉ), ‘I am I’, denotes our real identity, since it is an identification of ourself with ourself alone
2019-09-22: Comment explaining that ‘I am I’ is not a circular definition of ‘I’, because it refers to the clear awareness that I am nothing other than I, which is what shines forth when ego, the false awareness ‘I am this’, is destroyed
2019-08-28: Comment explaining that ‘நான் நான்’ (nāṉ nāṉ), ‘I am I’, expresses recognition of the fact that I am nothing other than I, because when ego is eradicated, what remains in its place is just pure self-awareness (ātma-jñāna), which is never aware of itself as anything other than itself
2017-04-12: The second in a series of two comments explaining that when the ego is eradicated (as it will be when it sees itself as it actually is) what we will experience is not that there is no ‘I’ but that ‘I’ is not what it seemed to be so long as it seemed to be mixed and confused with adjuncts such as ‘this’ or ‘that’, which means that we will cease to be aware of ourself as ‘I am this’ or ‘I am that’ and will instead be aware of ourself only as ‘I am I’
2016-10-02: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 20: where ‘I am this’ merges, what remains shining is ‘I am I’ (this section also includes the Sanskrit text of verse 20 of Upadēśa Sāram together with my translation of it)
2016-02-08: We cannot be anything that we do not experience permanently, so ‘I am only I’
2015-09-22: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 20: what remains as ‘I am I’ after the ego dissolves is infinite fullness
2015-03-16: Comment explaining the distinction between the ego, which is the false self-awareness ‘I am this body’, and our real nature, which is the true self-awareness ‘I am I’
2014-07-08: நான் நான் (nāṉ nāṉ) means ‘I am I’, not ‘I-I’
2014-06-23: A series of three comments discussing the significance of the sentence ‘நான் நான்’ (nāṉ nāṉ) and explaining why the correct translation of it is ‘I am I’, not ‘I-I’
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 21:
நானெனுஞ் சொற்பொரு ளாமது நாளுமே
நானற்ற தூக்கத்து முந்தீபற
நமதின்மை நீக்கத்தா லுந்தீபற.
nāṉeṉuñ coṯporu ḷāmadu nāḷumē
nāṉaṯṟa tūkkattu mundīpaṟa
namadiṉmai nīkkattā lundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: நான் எனும் சொல் பொருள் ஆம் அது நாளுமே, நான் அற்ற தூக்கத்தும் நமது இன்மை நீக்கத்தால்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): nāṉ eṉum sol poruḷ ām adu nāḷumē, nāṉ aṯṟa tūkkattum namadu iṉmai nīkkattāl.
அன்வயம்: நான் அற்ற தூக்கத்தும் நமது இன்மை நீக்கத்தால், நான் எனும் சொல் பொருள் நாளுமே அது ஆம்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): nāṉ aṯṟa tūkkattum namadu iṉmai nīkkattāl, nāṉ eṉum sol poruḷ nāḷumē adu ām.
English translation: That is at all times the substance of the word called ‘I’, because of the exclusion of our non-existence even in sleep, which is devoid of ‘I’.
Explanatory paraphrase: That [the one that appears as ‘I am I’, namely pure awareness, which is our real nature] is at all times the substance [or true import] of the word called ‘I’, because of the exclusion of our non-existence [that is, because we do not become non-existent] even in sleep, which is devoid of ‘I’ [namely ego].
Explanations and discussions:
2023-05-16: We are always clearly aware of ourself as ‘I’, not only in waking and dream, when we rise and stand as ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’, but also in sleep, when we remain just as ‘I am’ without rising as ‘I am this’ or ‘I am that’, so what we actually are is only the pure adjunct-free awareness ‘I’, and hence the clear awareness of ourself as ‘I am I’ (in other words, awareness of ourself as ourself alone) is always the true import of the word ‘I’
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 21: that infinite whole is always the true import of the word ‘I’
2022-03-24: Bhagavan gives us a much deeper explanation about sleep than the one that is usually given in advaita texts, because he points out firstly that in sleep ego does not exist, as he implies in this verse, and secondly that in the absence of ego nothing other than ourself exists, as he says unequivocally in verse 26 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
2022-03-10: Even when ‘I’ is used to refer to ego, its true import is always our real nature (ātma-svarūpa)
2021-11-26: We are always clearly aware of ourself as ‘I’, not only in waking and dream, when we rise and stand as ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’, but also in sleep, when we remain just as ‘I am’ without rising as ‘I am this’ or ‘I am that’, so since we are never anything other than ‘I’, the clear awareness of ourself as ‘I am I’ is always the true import of the word ‘I’
2020-06-17: What exists and what we are aware of in sleep is only pure awareness, which is our own real nature and which is completely devoid of ego or mind
2017-04-12: Comment explaining that when we cease to be aware of ourself as ‘I am this’ or ‘I am that’, we will instead be aware of ourself only as ‘I am I’, which is our real identity, because we cannot be anything other than ourself
2016-10-02: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 21: what shines as ‘I am I’ is the real import of the word ‘I’
2015-07-31: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 21: our infinite self is always the true import of the word ‘I’
2015-07-19: Comment explaining that the term ‘I’ refers only to ourself, whether we experience ourself as we actually are or as this ego, but its real import is the awareness ‘I am I’, which is what we always actually are
2015-02-04: The terms ‘I’ or ‘we’ refer only to ourself, whether we experience ourself as we actually are or as the ego that we now seem to be
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 22:
உடல்பொறி யுள்ள முயிரிரு ளெல்லாஞ்
சடமசத் தானதா லுந்தீபற
சத்தான நானல்ல வுந்தீபற.
uḍalpoṟi yuḷḷa muyiriru ḷellāñ
jaḍamasat tāṉadā lundīpaṟa
sattāṉa nāṉalla vundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: உடல் பொறி உள்ளம் உயிர் இருள் எல்லாம் சடம் அசத்து ஆனதால், சத்து ஆன நான் அல்ல.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): uḍal poṟi uḷḷam uyir iruḷ ellām jaḍam asattu āṉadāl, sattu āṉa nāṉ alla.
English translation: Since body, mind, intellect, life and darkness are all jaḍa and asat, they are not ‘I’, which is sat.
Explanatory paraphrase: Since [the five sheaths, namely] body [annamaya kōśa], life [prāṇamaya kōśa], mind [manōmaya kōśa], intellect [vijñānamaya kōśa] and darkness [ānandamaya kōśa, namely the cittam or will, which is internal darkness in the form of the dense fog of viṣaya-vāsanās, inclinations or desires to seek happiness in things other than oneself] are all jaḍa [non-aware] and asat [unreal or non-existent], they are not ‘I’, which is [cit, what is aware, and] sat [what actually exists].
Explanations and discussions:
2023-12-07: பொறி (poṟi) means the sense organs, so it refers primarily to the eyes, ears, mouth or tongue (as the organ of taste), nose and body (as the organ of tactile sensation), but just as physical phenomena are made known by these five physical sense organs, mental phenomena are made known by the inner sense organ called ‘mind’, and hence the mind (particularly in the sense of the manōmaya kōśa or mental sheath) is also called பொறி (poṟi), as Bhagavan refers to it in this verse
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 22: the five sheaths are jaḍa and asat, so they are not ‘I’
2022-03-24: Since the five sheaths are all jaḍa and asat, they are not ‘I’, which is sat
2022-03-24: The ānandamaya kōśa is not the darkness of ignorance but the darkness of desire
2021-11-18: Though we as ego experience ourself as if we were all these five sheaths collectively, they are all jaḍa (non-aware) and asat (unreal or non-existent), and hence they are not what we actually are
2020-01-23: All the five sheaths that constitute the person we seem to be, which is what Bhagavan refers to as ‘body’, are jaḍa (non-aware) and asat (unreal or non-existent), so they are not ‘I’
2020-01-16: When Bhagavan says that ego is what rises as ‘I am this body’, what he means by the term ‘body’ is a form composed of five sheaths, namely the physical form, life, mind, intellect and will, all of which are non-aware (jaḍa)
2019-12-15: Whatever person we seem to be is nothing other than these five sheaths, so since none of them are aware, no person is aware, but since what is aware of phenomena is only ego, and since ego is aware of itself as ‘I am this person’, this person seems to be aware
2019-11-13: Series of two comments explaining that intellect and will are both non-aware (jaḍa), so though intellect is ego’s ability to judge and distinguish one thing from another, and will consists of ego’s likes, dislikes, desires, attachments, hopes, fears and so on, neither of them is ego itself
2019-10-25: Ego is the false awareness ‘I am this body’, so it is called cit-jaḍa-granthi, the knot (granthi) formed by the seeming entanglement of awareness (cit) with a body consisting of five sheaths, all of which are insentient or non-aware (jaḍa)
2019-05-30: All the five sheaths are jaḍa (insentient or non-aware) and asat (unreal or non-existent), so though all the elements of the will are part of the person, who is composed of these five sheaths, the person as a whole is non-aware, so what likes, dislikes, desires, feels attached, wants, wishes, hopes or fears is not this person but only ego, who is what is aware of itself as ‘I am this person’
2018-12-30: Since ānandamaya kōśa is our will (cittam), the totality of all our vāsanās, why does Bhagavan refer to it as ‘இருள்’ (iruḷ), ‘darkness’?
2018-11-08: Ego is not any of the five sheaths, which are all jaḍa (non-aware), but only the false awareness ‘I am this body’, which rises and stands by identifying itself with a body consisting of these five sheaths
2018-11-08: All the five sheaths are jaḍa (non-aware) and asat (non-existence)
2018-11-08: Why does Bhagavan refer to the will (the ānandamaya kōśa), which is the totality of all vāsanās (the vast majority of which are viṣaya-vāsanās), as ‘இருள்’ (iruḷ), which means ‘darkness’?
2018-04-18: None of the five sheaths is aware of anything, so they seem to be sentient only because the ego experiences them as if they were itself
2016-10-02: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 22: the body and other adjuncts are not real and not aware, so they are not ‘I’
2016-05-05: The person we seem to be is a form composed of five sheaths
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 23:
உள்ள துணர வுணர்வுவே றின்மையி
னுள்ள துணர்வாகு முந்தீபற
வுணர்வேநா மாயுள முந்தீபற.
uḷḷa duṇara vuṇarvuvē ṟiṉmaiyi
ṉuḷḷa duṇarvāhu mundīpaṟa
vuṇarvēnā māyuḷa mundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: உள்ளது உணர உணர்வு வேறு இன்மையின், உள்ளது உணர்வு ஆகும். உணர்வே நாமாய் உளம்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): uḷḷadu uṇara uṇarvu vēṟu iṉmaiyiṉ, uḷḷadu uṇarvu āhum. uṇarvē nām-āy uḷam.
அன்வயம்: உள்ளது உணர வேறு உணர்வு இன்மையின், உள்ளது உணர்வு ஆகும். உணர்வே நாமாய் உளம்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): uḷḷadu uṇara vēṟu uṇarvu iṉmaiyiṉ, uḷḷadu uṇarvu āhum. uṇarvē nām-āy uḷam.
English translation: Because of the non-existence of other awareness to be aware of what exists, what exists is awareness. Awareness alone exists as we.
Explanatory paraphrase: Because of the non-existence of [any] awareness other [than what exists] to be aware of what exists, what exists (uḷḷadu) is awareness (uṇarvu). Awareness alone exists as we [that is, the awareness that actually exists, namely pure awareness, which is awareness that is aware of nothing other than itself, is what we actually are].
Explanations and discussions:
2024-09-05: Since God and soul are both aware of their being as ‘I am’, and since their awareness ‘I am’ is not other than their being, the one substance that they both are is pure being-awareness (sat-cit)
2022-10-27: Absolute existence is what is called Arunachala, and since it alone is what actually exists, there cannot be any awareness other than it to know it, so it itself is awareness
2022-07-02: What we actually are is pure awareness (uṇarvu or cit), which alone is what actually exists (uḷḷadu or sat)
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 23: what exists is awareness, which is what we are
2021-08-29: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 23: what actually exists is only our awareness of our own existence, and that alone is what we actually are
2020-11-01: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 23: what actually exists is only awareness, awareness that is aware only of its own existence, ‘I am’, and we are that
2020-06-21: Our existence (sat) and our awareness of our existence (sat-cit) are one and the same thing, so we were aware of our existence in sleep because awareness is our very nature, and hence we could never be not aware
2020-03-31: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 23: what we actually are is only awareness (uṇarvu or cit), which is what alone actually exists (uḷḷadu or sat)
2019-10-25: Ego is the false awareness ‘I am this body’, but what is real, in the sense of what actually exists, is only our fundamental awareness ‘I am’
2019-10-24: Comment explaining that being is consciousness and consciousness is being, so they are not just ‘two aspects of the same thing’, they are the same thing
2019-08-26: Comment explaining the significance of the unusual syntax of the final sentence, ‘உணர்வே நாமாய் உளம்’ (uṇarvē nām-āy uḷam), ‘Awareness alone exist being we’, ‘Awareness alone exist as we’ or ‘Awareness alone are as we’
2019-08-26: Comment explaining that awareness (in the sense of pure awareness) is our very being, because it is what we actually are, so awareness and being are one and the same thing
2018-12-30: What actually exists is only pure awareness, and that is what we actually are
2018-02-28: What distinguishes our real nature (ātma-svarūpa) from our ego is that our real nature is what actually exists (uḷḷadu), which is aware of nothing other than itself, whereas our ego is just a transitory appearance, which is always aware of things that seem to be other than itself
2018-01-01: The second meaning of the first sentence of the first maṅgalam verse, namely ‘உள்ளது அலது உள்ள உணர்வு உள்ளதோ?’ (uḷḷadu aladu uḷḷa-v-uṇarvu uḷḷadō?), namely ‘Except as [or other than] uḷḷadu [what exists], does uḷḷa-v-uṇarvu [existing or actual awareness] exist?’, is a briefer expression of the same argument that Bhagavan gives in this verse
2017-07-06: What we actually are is just pure self-awareness: awareness that is aware of nothing other than itself
2016-10-02: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 23: we are the one existence-awareness that always shines as ‘I am’
2016-06-19: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 23: we are awareness, and awareness alone is what actually exists
2016-06-02: Comment explaining that what actually exists is aware, so its existence and awareness are one and the same thing
2016-03-16: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 23: we are both what exists and what is aware that we exist
2015-09-22: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 23: what exists (uḷḷadu) is what is aware (uṇarvu)
2015-06-25: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 23: what exists is what is aware
2014-08-08: We must experience what is, not what merely seems to be
2014-01-24: Only ‘I am’ is certain and self-evident
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 24:
இருக்கு மியற்கையா லீசசீ வர்க
ளொருபொரு ளேயாவ ருந்தீபற
வுபாதி யுணர்வேவே றுந்தீபற.
irukku miyaṟkaiyā līśajī varga
ḷoruporu ḷēyāva rundīpaṟa
vupādhi yuṇarvēvē ṟundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: இருக்கும் இயற்கையால் ஈச சீவர்கள் ஒரு பொருளே ஆவர். உபாதி உணர்வே வேறு.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): irukkum iyaṟkaiyāl īśa-jīvargaḷ oru poruḷē āvar. upādhi-uṇarvē vēṟu.
English translation: By existing nature, God and soul are just one substance. Only adjunct-awareness is different.
Explanatory paraphrase: By [their] existing nature [that is, because the real nature of each of them is what actually exists (uḷḷadu), which is the pure and infinite awareness (uṇarvu) that shines eternally as ‘I am’, devoid of all adjuncts], īśa [God] and jīva [soul] are just one poruḷ [substance or vastu]. Only upādhi-uṇarvu [adjunct-awareness, namely ego or jīva, the adjunct-conflated awareness ‘I am this body’, which is what attributes adjuncts not only to itself but also to God] is [what makes them seem] different. [However, though the soul (jīva) is aware of itself as a certain set of adjuncts, namely the five sheaths that constitute whatever person it currently seems to be, and consequently attributes certain other adjuncts to God, God always remains just as pure awareness, in the clear view of which no adjuncts exist at all, so the differences between God and soul seem to exist only in the view of the soul and not in the view of God.]
Explanations and discussions:
2024-09-05: We seem to be ego, which is what is also called ‘soul’ (jīva), only because we have imposed limitations on ourself by being aware of ourself as ‘I am this body’, but these limitations are not real but just illusory adjuncts (upādhi), so even when we seem to have imposed these unreal limitations upon ourself, what we essentially are is just infinite being, which is what is called ‘God’ (īśaṉ)
2023-12-07: ஒரு பொருள் (oru poruḷ), the one substance, is our very existence or being, because it alone is what we actually are, and it is also what God actually is, so in our ‘இருக்கும் இயற்கை’ (irukkum iyaṟkai), ‘existing nature’ or ‘being nature’, God and we are just this one substance, as he says in this verse
2022-11-09: Just as iron is the one substance that constitutes both a magnet and an ordinary piece of iron, sat-cit (pure being, which is pure awareness, ‘I am’) is the one substance (poruḷ or vastu) of both Arunachala and ourself, but just as the magnetic particles of iron in a magnet are all aligned to face in one direction, allowing its magnetic nature to manifest, whereas the magnetic particles in an ordinary piece of iron are scattered to face in many directions, thereby obscuring its magnetic nature, so Arunachala, being pure awareness, is always facing towards itself alone, whereas the attention of ourself as ego is always scattered outwards (away from ourself) under the sway of our viṣaya-vāsanās to face in many different directions, thereby obscuring our real nature as pure awareness
2022-08-24: What he refers to here both as ‘இருக்கும் இயற்கை’ (irukkum iyaṟkai), ‘existing nature’, and as ‘ஒரு பொருள்’ (oru poruḷ), ‘one substance’, is sat-cit, pure existence-awareness, which is what always shines in our heart as our fundamental awareness of our own existence, ‘I am’, so this alone is what both Arunachala (God or īśa) and we (ego, soul or jīva) actually are
2022-07-02: What he refers to here as ‘இருக்கும் இயற்கை’ (irukkum iyaṟkai), ‘existing nature’ or ‘being nature’, is the real nature of both Arunachala and ourself, which is pure being, so this is what we actually are, and hence it is the ‘ஒரு பொருள்’ (oru poruḷ), the ‘one substance’, that he says is both God (īśa) and soul (jīva)
2022-03-31: Though outwardly அழகு (aṙahu) and சுந்தரம் (sundaram) differ in their form and appearance, inwardly their பொருள் (poruḷ), their substance or meaning, namely beauty, is one, just as the பொருள் (poruḷ) or substance of God and soul is one even though they differ in their external form and appearance
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 24: God and soul are just one substance, but only their adjuncts differ
2021-02-18: Ego as ego is just an illusory appearance, so it has no existence of its own, but as pure awareness it does exist and is therefore real
2020-11-01: What Bhagavan refers to as ‘ஒரு பொருள்’ (oru poruḷ), ‘one substance’, is pure awareness, which is our ‘இருக்கும் இயற்கை’ (irukkum iyaṟkai), ‘existing nature’ or ‘being nature’, which means what we actually are
2020-02-24: Self-awareness + awareness of adjuncts = ego or jīva, whereas self-awareness without any awareness of adjuncts (and hence without any awareness of anything else whatsoever) = our real nature or God
2019-10-25: When we rise and stand as ego our fundamental awareness ‘I am’ seems to be mixed and conflated with awareness of adjuncts (upādhi-uṇarvu), so this is what creates a seeming separation between ourself as we actually are (the pure awareness ‘I am’), which is what is called ‘God’ (īśa), and ourself as ego (the false awareness ‘I am this body’), which is what is called ‘soul’ (jīva)
2018-01-04: This verse clearly illustrates Bhagavan’s use of பொருள் (poruḷ) in the sense of ‘substance’
2017-02-19: What is the difference between God and the ego?
2016-10-02: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 24: what seemingly separates us from the reality that we actually are is only our awareness of adjuncts
2015-11-17: Upadēśa Undiyār verses 24 and 25: experiencing ourself without adjuncts is experiencing what we actually are
2015-07-31: Upadēśa Undiyār verses 24 and 25: the essential oneness of our ego and our real self
2015-06-25: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 24: our ego and God are only one substance
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 25:
தன்னை யுபாதிவிட் டோர்வது தானீசன்
றன்னை யுணர்வதா முந்தீபற
தானா யொளிர்வதா லுந்தீபற.
taṉṉai yupādhiviṭ ṭōrvadu tāṉīśaṉ
ḏṟaṉṉai yuṇarvadā mundīpaṟa
tāṉā yoḷirvadā lundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: தன்னை உபாதி விட்டு ஓர்வது தான் ஈசன் தன்னை உணர்வது ஆம், தானாய் ஒளிர்வதால்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): taṉṉai upādhi viṭṭu ōrvadu tāṉ īśaṉ taṉṉai uṇarvadu ām, tāṉ-āy oḷirvadāl.
அன்வயம்: தானாய் ஒளிர்வதால், தன்னை உபாதி விட்டு ஓர்வது தான் ஈசன் தன்னை உணர்வது ஆம்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): tāṉ-āy oḷirvadāl, taṉṉai upādhi viṭṭu ōrvadu tāṉ īśaṉ taṉṉai uṇarvadu ām.
English translation: Knowing oneself leaving aside adjuncts is itself knowing God, because of shining as oneself.
Explanatory paraphrase: Knowing [or being aware of] oneself without adjuncts is itself knowing God, because [God is what is always] shining as oneself [one’s own real nature, namely pure awareness, which is oneself without any adjuncts].
Explanations and discussions:
2024-09-05: Though as ego or soul (jīva) we are aware of ourself as a certain set of adjuncts, namely the five sheaths that constitute whatever person we currently seem to be, and consequently attribute certain other adjuncts to God, God always remains just as pure being-awareness (sat-cit), in the clear view of which no adjuncts exist at all, so the differences between God and ourself seem to exist only in the view of ourself and not in the view of God. In order to know God as he actually is, therefore, all that is required is that we should know ourself without adjuncts
2023-05-16: What brahman actually is is only ‘I’ devoid of all adjuncts, so to know brahman we must know ‘I’ devoid of all adjuncts, and to know ‘I’ devoid of all adjuncts we must attend to nothing other than ‘I’
2022-07-02: Since we mistake ourself to be one set of adjuncts, we take Arunachala to be another set of adjuncts, but since he is never aware of himself as anything other than pure being-awareness (sat-cit), he is never aware of any adjuncts at all, so he never sees us as anything other than himself, and hence if we are to see him as he actually is, which is as he sees himself, all we need to do is to see ourself without adjuncts
2022-03-31: By virtue of our existing nature, ‘I am’, we and Arunachala (jīva and śiva) are always one substance (poruḷ), like aṙahu and sundaram, but to see ourself as such, we need to see ourself without adjuncts
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 25: seeing oneself without adjuncts is seeing God, because he is oneself
2021-02-18: Ego is just a false awareness of ourself, an awareness of ourself as if we were a body, but if we investigate it keenly enough, its adjuncts will slip off and we will see that it is nothing other than pure awareness, ‘I am’
2020-12-27: God is nothing other than our own real nature (ātma-svarūpa), but so long as we rise as ego and thereby limit ourself as a finite set of adjuncts (namely a body consisting of five sheaths) he seems to be something other than ourself, so we can know him as he actually is only by knowing ourself without adjuncts
2020-11-01: Upadēśa Undiyār verses 24-25: we already know ourself, so we do not need to know anything new, but just need to know ourself without adjuncts
2020-02-24: If we attend only to ‘I am’, thereby withdrawing our attention from everything else, including all our adjuncts, we will thereby leave aside all adjuncts, and what will then remain is only pure awareness, which is what we always actually are
2020-02-24: Self-awareness + awareness of adjuncts = ego or jīva, whereas self-awareness without any awareness of adjuncts (and hence without any awareness of anything else whatsoever) = our real nature or God
2019-12-10: We are aware of things other than ourself only when we are aware of ourself as a body, and so long as we are aware of ourself as a body we are not aware of ourself as we actually are, so we need to be aware of ourself without being aware of the body or any other adjuncts
2019-10-25: To see God as he actually is, namely as pure awareness, which is our real nature, all we need do is to see ourself without any adjuncts (upādhi), which means without any awareness of adjuncts (upādhi-uṇarvu)
2017-02-19: What is the difference between God and the ego?
2016-10-02: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 25: being aware of ‘I am’ without adjuncts is being aware of the reality
2015-11-17: Upadēśa Undiyār verses 24 and 25: experiencing ourself without adjuncts is experiencing what we actually are
2015-07-31: Upadēśa Undiyār verses 24 and 25: the essential oneness of our ego and our real self
2015-06-25: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 25: knowing ourself without adjuncts is knowing God
2014-08-01: Self-awareness is the very nature of ‘I’
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 26:
தானா யிருத்தலே தன்னை யறிதலாந்
தானிரண் டற்றதா லுந்தீபற
தன்மய நிட்டையீ துந்தீபற.
tāṉā yiruttalē taṉṉai yaṟidalān
tāṉiraṇ ḍaṯṟadā lundīpaṟa
taṉmaya niṭṭhaiyī dundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: தான் ஆய் இருத்தலே தன்னை அறிதல் ஆம், தான் இரண்டு அற்றதால். தன்மய நிட்டை ஈது.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): tāṉ-āy iruttal-ē taṉṉai aṟidal ām, tāṉ iraṇḍu aṯṟadāl. taṉmaya niṭṭhai īdu.
அன்வயம்: தான் இரண்டு அற்றதால், தான் ஆய் இருத்தலே தன்னை அறிதல் ஆம். ஈது தன்மய நிட்டை.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): tāṉ iraṇḍu aṯṟadāl, tāṉ-āy iruttal-ē taṉṉai aṟidal ām. īdu taṉmaya niṭṭhai.
English translation: Being oneself alone is knowing oneself, because oneself is devoid of two. This is tanmaya-niṣṭhā.
Explanatory paraphrase: Being oneself [that is, being as one actually is without rising to know anything else] alone is knowing oneself, because oneself [one’s real nature] is devoid of two [that is, devoid of the fundamental duality of subject and object, knower and thing known, and also devoid of any possibility of being divided as two selves, one self as a subject to know the other self as an object]. This is tanmaya-niṣṭhā [‘steadfastness as that’: the state of being firmly fixed or established as ‘that’ (tat), the one infinite reality called brahman].
Explanations and discussions:
2024-09-12: Since consciousness can never be an object of awareness, we can know it as it is only by being as it is
2024-09-05: Being as we actually are without rising as ego is knowing ourself as we actually are
2023-11-08: Knowing (or being aware of) anything other than ourself is an action, because it entails a movement of our mind or attention away from ourself towards that other thing, whereas knowing ourself is not an action but just being, because it does not entail even the slightest movement of our attention away from ourself
2022-10-27: Being pure awareness, Arunachala alone is both what knows and what it knows, and it itself is also the means by which it knows itself, because it knows itself just by being itself, as Bhagavan points out in this verse: ‘தான் ஆய் 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 devoid of two’
2022-09-23: Though we as pure awareness always know ourself, our knowing ourself is not a knowing like any other kind of knowing, because knowing anything else is an act of knowing, whereas knowing ourself is not an act of knowing, since we know ourself just by being ourself
2022-07-02: The real nature of Arunachala cannot be seen or known as an object but only as the reality of ourself, the subject, and we can see it only being it, because it cannot be seen or known by anything other than itself
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 26: being oneself alone is seeing oneself, because oneself is not two
2022-03-24: When the mind looks deep enough within itself it will thereby be swallowed by its own cittva, and thus it will cease to be anything other than its own cittva, and since being cittva alone is seeing cittva, as he implies in this verse, it is only by being completely swallowed by its own cittva that the mind can see its own cittva
2021-03-22: We cannot be aware of ourself as we actually are so long as we remain as ego, so it is only by being as we actually are that we can be aware of ourself as we actually are
2021-01-30: What we actually are is pure awareness, and pure awareness can be known only by itself, so it is only by being pure awareness that we can know pure awareness
2020-11-01: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 26: since we are awareness and not an object, we know ourself just by being ourself
2020-11-01: What Bhagavan refers to here as ‘தன்னை அறிதல்’ (taṉṉai aṟidal), ‘knowing oneself’, is knowing ourself as we actually are (in other words, ‘தன்னை உபாதி விட்டு ஓர்வது’ (taṉṉai upādhi viṭṭu ōrvadu), ‘knowing ourself without adjuncts’), and what we actually are is just ‘I am’, our fundamental awareness of our own existence
2020-11-01: In this context ‘தான்’ (tāṉ), ‘oneself’, means ourself as we actually are, and since what we actually are is what is called ‘brahman’, which is often referred to as ‘that’ (tat), he concludes this verse by saying ‘தன்மய நிட்டை ஈது’ (taṉmaya niṭṭhai īdu), ‘This is tanmaya-niṣṭhā [the state of abiding or being firmly fixed as tat]’, in which ‘ஈது’ (īdu), ‘this’, refers to the state of being and knowing oneself, as described in the first sentence of this verse.
2019-12-16: Comment explaining that by being aware of ourself as we actually are we are thereby being as we actually are
2019-10-25: What knows pure awareness is only pure awareness, so in order to know our real nature (ātma-svarūpa), which is pure awareness, we must just be as we always actually are
2019-08-26: Comment explaining that what we actually are is pure awareness, which is always aware of itself as it actually is, so being as we actually are entails being aware of ourself as we actually are, and being aware of ourself as we actually are entails being as we actually are
2019-08-24: Only by being ātma-jñāna (pure self-awareness) can we know ātma-jñāna, because ātma-jñāna is not anything other than ourself, and therefore cannot be known as anything other than ourself
2018-01-01: What Bhagavan says in the third sentence of the first maṅgalam verse, namely ‘உள்ளத்தே உள்ளபடி உள்ளதே உள்ளல்’ (uḷḷattē uḷḷapaḍi uḷḷadē uḷḷal), ‘Being in the heart as it is alone is thinking [of the existing substance] [or meditating on it]’, echoes what he had earlier written in this verse, namely ‘தானாய் இருத்தலே தன்னை அறிதல் ஆம், தான் இரண்டு அற்றதால்’ (tāṉ-āy iruttal-ē taṉṉai aṟidal ām, tāṉ iraṇḍu aṯṟadāl), ‘Being oneself [or more literally, being as oneself] alone is knowing oneself, because oneself is not two’
2017-01-15: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 26: being oneself is knowing oneself
2016-04-17: Comment in which it is explained that self-attentiveness is not an action (karma) or mental activity but is simply an actionless state of just being (summā iruppadu), because it is a focusing of our awareness on ourself alone, and being aware of ourself alone is our real nature
2016-03-16: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 26: being aware what we are is not transitive awareness but just being the intransitive awareness that we actually are
2014-11-09: Why should we believe that ‘the Self’ is as we believe it to be?
2014-08-01: Self-awareness is the very nature of ‘I’
2014-04-11: Ātma-vicāra and nirvikalpa samādhi
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 27:
அறிவறி யாமையு மற்ற வறிவே
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 knowledge. This is real. There is not anything for knowing.
Explanatory paraphrase: Only knowledge [in the sense of awareness] that is devoid of knowledge and ignorance [of anything other than oneself] is [actual] knowledge [or awareness]. This [alone] is [what is] real [or true], [because in the clear view of oneself as pure awareness] there is not anything [other than oneself for one either] to know [or to not know].
Explanations and discussions:
2024-09-12: Only consciousness of what actually exists is real consciousness, and since what actually exists is only pure consciousness, it alone is real consciousness
2023-07-27: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 27: real awareness is devoid of both knowledge and ignorance of anything other than itself, because there is nothing other than itself for it either to know or to not know
2022-09-23: What he means in the first sentence by ‘அறிவு அறியாமையும்’ (aṟivu aṟiyāmaiyum), ‘knowledge and ignorance’, is knowledge and ignorance about anything other than oneself, so the awareness (aṟivu) that is devoid of such knowledge and ignorance (or knowing and not knowing) is pure awareness, and hence what he implies in this sentence is that pure awareness alone is real awareness
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 27: there is nothing to know, so real awareness is devoid of knowledge and ignorance
2021-03-22: The distinction between transitive and intransitive awareness is one of the fundamental principles of Bhagavan’s teachings, and it is explained by him, albeit without using these terms, in verse 27 of Upadēśa Undiyār and verses 10, 11, 12, 13 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu
2021-02-02: When it is said that ‘everything is one’, it does not mean that everything is real, but that what appears as everything is only one thing, namely ourself, so instead of trying to know anything else, we should turn within to face ourself alone and thereby know ourself as we actually are, namely as pure awareness: awareness that is never aware of anything other than itself, because nothing else exists for it to be aware of
2020-03-09: Real awareness is devoid of ignorance of anything else for the same reason that it is devoid of awareness or knowledge of anything else, namely that that nothing other than itself exists either for it to know or for it to be ignorant of
2020-02-02: What we actually are is only pure awareness, which means awareness that is not aware of anything other than itself, because in its clear view nothing other than itself exists for it to be aware of
2020-01-16: When we are aware of ourself as we actually are, nothing else will exist for us to know
2020-01-05: One of several comments explaining why Bhagavan says ‘Therefore when the world appears, svarūpa does not appear; when svarūpa appears (shines), the world does not appear’ in the fourth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?
2019-10-25: Awareness of ourself mixed and conflated with adjuncts is what is called ‘ego’ or ‘mind’, which alone is what is aware of all other phenomena, so being aware of ourself without adjuncts means being aware of absolutely nothing other than ourself
2019-06-28: The reason why real awareness is completely devoid of knowledge and ignorance about other things is explained by Bhagavan in the final sentence of this verse: ‘அறிவதற்கு ஒன்று இலை’ (aṟiyum adu uṇmai aṟivu āhādu), ‘there is not anything for knowing’
2019-02-20: Since nothing other than oneself actually exists, being aware of other things is not real awareness, so real awareness is only awareness that is devoid of awareness or ignorance of anything else
2019-01-31: When we are aware of ourself as we actually are, there will be nothing else for us to know, as Bhagavan implied in the second sentence of verse 3 of Āṉma-Viddai and as he stated more explicitly in this verse
2018-11-08: The reason why real awareness is completely devoid of knowledge (or awareness) and ignorance of any other things is that it alone actually exists, so in its clear view there is absolutely nothing else for it be aware of, or for it to know or be ignorant of
2018-04-30: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 12 and Upadēśa Undiyār verse 27: real knowledge or awareness is that which is completely devoid of both knowing and not knowing
2018-04-18: Real awareness is devoid of awareness or ignorance of anything else, because there is nothing else for it to know
2017-05-28: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 27: what is real is only awareness devoid of knowledge and ignorance, because nothing at all exists for it to know
2015-09-22: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 27: we are devoid of knowledge and ignorance
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 28:
தனாதியல் யாதெனத் தான்றெரி கிற்பின்
னனாதி யனந்தசத் துந்தீபற
வகண்ட சிதானந்த முந்தீபற.
taṉādiyal yādeṉat tāṉḏṟeri hiṟpiṉ
ṉaṉādi yaṉantasat tundīpaṟa
vakhaṇḍa cidāṉanda mundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: தனாது இயல் யாது என தான் தெரிகில், பின் அனாதி அனந்த சத்து அகண்ட சித் ஆனந்தம்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): taṉādu iyal yādu eṉa tāṉ terihil, piṉ aṉādi aṉanta sattu akhaṇḍa cit āṉandam.
அன்வயம்: தான் தனாது இயல் யாது என தெரிகில், பின் அனாதி அனந்த அகண்ட சத்து சித் ஆனந்தம்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): tāṉ taṉādu iyal yādu eṉa terihil, piṉ aṉādi aṉanta akhaṇḍa sattu cit āṉandam.
English translation: If one knows what the nature of oneself is, then beginningless, endless and unbroken existence-awareness-happiness.
Explanatory paraphrase: If one knows what the [real] nature of oneself is, then [what will remain existing and shining is only the real nature of oneself (ātma-svarūpa), which is] anādi [beginningless], ananta [endless, limitless or infinite] and akhaṇḍa [unbroken, undivided or unfragmented] sat-cit-ānanda [existence-awareness-happiness].
Explanations and discussions:
2023-05-16: Our real nature (ātma-svarūpa), which is what shines eternally as ‘I am I’, is pure being-awareness-happiness (sat-cit-ānanda), which is beginningless (anādi), infinite (ananta) and undivided (akhaṇḍa)
2022-07-02: What we actually are is sat-cit-ānanda, pure being (sat), pure awareness (cit) and pure happiness (ānanda), which is infinite, eternal, indivisible and immutable
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 28: one’s real nature is imperishable unborn full awareness-happiness
2021-11-26: Our real nature (ātma-svarūpa), which is what shines eternally as ‘I am I’, is pure being-awareness-happiness (sat-cit-ānanda), which is beginningless (anādi), infinite (ananta) and undivided (akhaṇḍa)
2020-10-19: Being anādi (beginningless), ananta (endless, limitless or infinite) and akhaṇḍa (unbroken, undivided or unfragmented), this state is timeless, immutable and devoid of even the slightest division of subject and object, and hence devoid of even the subtlest of phenomena or changes
2020-05-28: What we actually are is eternal, infinite and immutable sat-cit-ānanda, so if we want to experience infinite happiness (ānanda), we need to be aware of ourself as we actually are, and in order to be aware of ourself as we actually are we need to investigate ourself and thereby surrender this erroneous self-awareness called ego
2019-10-25: Pure awareness, which is the real nature of ourself (ātma-svarūpa), is sat (being or existence in the sense of what actually exists), cit (awareness in the sense of what is actually aware) and ānanda (happiness in the sense of what is actually happy), so when we know what our real nature is, what will remain is only sat-cit-ānanda, which is beginningless, endless, infinite and indivisible
2019-06-28: When by means of self-investigation and self-surrender we manage to eradicate ego entirely, everything else will cease to exist along with it, so what will then remain as ‘one only without a second’ (ēkam ēva advitīyam) is just pure awareness, whose nature is beginningless, endless, infinite and indivisible sat-cit-ānanda
2018-11-08: What actually exists is only our real nature, which is pure awareness, so it alone is what seems to have been divided or separated into subject (ego) and objects (phenomena), but though it seems to have been divided, it has never actually been divided, because it is indivisible
2018-04-30: When Bhagavan looked at himself, the perceiver (the ego) disappeared, and along with it all perceptions (all phenomena or objects perceived) also disappeared, because he saw that what actually exists is only pure, infinite, indivisible, immutable and eternal self-awareness
2017-07-27: Liberation is eternal: beginningless, endless and unbroken
2017-06-27: Māyā is nothing but our own mind, so it seems to exist only when we seem to be this mind
2017-03-24: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 28: our real nature is infinite and undivided, so nothing else exists to know it
2017-03-08: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 28: when everything else ceases to exist, what remains is only beginningless, infinite and undivided sat-cit-ānanda
2016-12-14: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 28: the nature of ‘the Self’ is diametrically opposite to the nature of phenomena
2016-10-19: As we actually are, we do nothing and are aware of nothing other than ourself
2016-10-02: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 28: the pure self-awareness ‘I am I’ is beginningless, endless and indivisible
2016-07-13: Ātma-jñāna is the only real state and is immutable and indivisible, so there are no stages of it or states other than it
2015-09-22: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 28: the real nature of ourself
2015-06-25: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 28: sat-cit-ānanda is eternal, infinite and indivisible
2014-11-20: Is there any such thing as a ‘self-realised’ person?
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 29:
பந்தவீ டற்ற பரசுக முற்றவா
றிந்த நிலைநிற்ற லுந்தீபற
விறைபணி நிற்றலா முந்தீபற.
bandhavī ḍaṯṟa parasukha muṯṟavā
ṟinda nilainiṯṟa lundīpaṟa
viṟaipaṇi niṯṟalā mundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: பந்த வீடு அற்ற பரசுகம் உற்றவாறு இந்த நிலை நிற்றல் இறை பணி நிற்றல் ஆம்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): bandha vīḍu aṯṟa para-sukham uṯṟa-v-āṟu inda nilai niṯṟal iṟai-paṇi niṯṟal ām.
English translation: Standing in this state, thereby experiencing supreme bliss, which is devoid of bondage and liberation, is standing in the service of God.
Explanatory paraphrase: Standing [remaining, abiding or steadfastly being] in this state [of beginningless, infinite and indivisible sat-cit-ānanda], thereby experiencing supreme bliss, which is devoid of [the dyad or duality of] bondage and liberation, is standing in the service of God [or is standing as God directed].
Explanations and discussions:
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 29: the divine soul experiences supreme happiness beyond bondage and liberation
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
Verse 30:
யானற் றியல்வது தேரி னெதுவது
தானற் றவமென்றா னுந்தீபற
தானாம் ரமணேச னுந்தீபற.
yāṉaṯ ṟiyalvadu tēri ṉeduvadu
dāṉaṯ ṟavameṉḏṟā ṉundīpaṟa
tāṉām ramaṇēśa ṉundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: ‘யான் அற்று இயல்வது தேரின் எது, அது தான் நல் தவம்’ என்றான் தான் ஆம் ரமணேசன்
Padacchēdam (word-separation): ‘yāṉ aṯṟu iyalvadu tēriṉ edu, adu-dāṉ nal tavam’ eṉḏṟāṉ tāṉ ām ramaṇēśaṉ.
English translation: ‘I ceasing, what if one knows what remains, that alone is good tapas’: thus said Lord Ramana, who is oneself.
Explanatory paraphrase: ‘What [exists and shines alone] if one knows what remains after I [ego] has ceased to exist, [just being] that [namely egoless pure awareness] alone is good tapas [spiritual austerity or asceticism]’: thus said Lord Ramana, who is oneself [one’s own real nature].
Explanations and discussions:
2022-03-24: Upadēśa Sāraḥ verse 30: one’s shining devoid of ‘I’ is great tapas
2015-08-22: Upadēśa Undiyār verse 30: experiencing what remains when the ego dissolves is tapas
2009-06-08: Upadēśa Undiyār: an explanatory paraphrase
வாழ்த்து (vāṙttu): Concluding Verses of Praise (composed by Sri Muruganar)
Vāṙttu verse 1:
இருடிக ளெல்லா மிறைவ னடியை
வருடி வணங்கின ருந்தீபற
வாழ்த்து முழங்கின ருந்தீபற.
iruḍiga ḷellā miṟaiva ṉaḍiyai
varuḍi vaṇaṅgiṉa rundīpaṟa
vāṙttu muṙaṅgiṉa rundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: இருடிகள் எல்லாம் இறைவன் அடியை வருடி வணங்கினர்; வாழ்த்து முழங்கினர்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): iruḍigaḷ ellām iṟaivaṉ aḍiyai varuḍi vaṇaṅgiṉar; vāṙttu muṙaṅgiṉar.
English translation: Touching the feet of God, all the ṛṣis paid obeisance; they sang aloud praise.
Explanatory paraphrase: Touching the feet of God [Lord Siva], all the ṛṣis [the ‘rishis’ or ascetics in the Daruka forest] paid obeisance [and] sang aloud praise [to him]. (Tiruvundiyār 1.133)
Vāṙttu verse 2:
உற்றார்க் குறுதி யுபதேச வுந்தியார்
சொற்ற குருபர னுந்தீபற
சுமங்கள வேங்கட னுந்தீபற.
uṯṟārk kuṟudi yupadēśa vundiyār
soṯṟa gurupara ṉundīpaṟa
sumaṅgaḷa vēṅkaṭa ṉundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: உற்றார்க்கு உறுதி உபதேச வுந்தியார் சொற்ற குருபரன் சுமங்கள வேங்கடன்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): uṯṟārkku uṟudi upadēśa-v-undiyār soṯṟa guru-paraṉ sumaṅgaḷa vēṅkaṭaṉ.
English translation: The supreme guru who sang Upadēśa Undiyār, an assurance to devotees, is the auspicious Venkatan.
Explanatory paraphrase: The supreme guru who sang Upadēśa Undiyār [as] an assurance to devotees [friends or those close to him, implying those who came to him for salvation] is the auspicious Venkatan [Sri Ramana]. (Tiruvundiyār 1.134)
Vāṙttu verse 3:
பல்லாண்டு பல்லாண்டு பற்பன்னூ றாயிரம்
பல்லாண்டு பல்லாண்டு முந்தீபற
பார்மிசை வாழ்கவே யுந்தீபற.
pallāṇḍu pallāṇḍu paṯpaṉṉū ṟāyiram
pallāṇḍu pallāṇḍu mundīpaṟa
pārmisai vāṙgavē yundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: பல் ஆண்டு, பல் ஆண்டு, பல் பல் நூறு ஆயிரம் பல் ஆண்டு, பல் ஆண்டும் பார்மிசை வாழ்கவே.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): pal āṇḍu, pal āṇḍu, pal pal nūṟu āyiram pal āṇḍu, pal āṇḍum pār-misai vāṙga-v-ē.
English translation: Many years, many years, many hundreds of thousands of years, many years may he shine gloriously on earth.
Explanatory paraphrase: [For] many years, many years, many hundreds of thousands of years, many years may he [Sri Ramana] shine gloriously on earth. (Tiruvundiyār 1.135)
Vāṙttu verse 4:
இசையெடுப் போருஞ் செவிமடுப் போரும்
வசையறத் தேர்வோரு முந்தீபற
வாழி பலவூழி யுந்தீபற.
isaiyeḍup pōruñ cevimaḍup pōrum
vasaiyaṟat tērvōru mundīpaṟa
vāṙi palavūṙi yundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: இசை எடுப்போரும், செவிமடுப்போரும், வசை அற தேர்வோரும் வாழி பல ஊழி.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): isai eḍuppōr-um, sevimaḍuppōr-um, vasai aṟa tērvōr-um vāṙi pala ūṙi.
அன்வயம்: இசை எடுப்போரும், செவிமடுப்போரும், வசை அற தேர்வோரும் பல ஊழி வாழி.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): isai eḍuppōr-um, sevimaḍuppōr-um, vasai aṟa tērvōr-um pala ūṙi vāṙi.
English translation: May those who sing, those who hear and those who flawlessly understand shine gloriously for many aeons.
Explanatory paraphrase: May those who sing, those who hear [literally feed or fill their ears with] and those who flawlessly understand [this Upadēśa Undiyār] shine gloriously for many aeons. (Tiruvundiyār 1.136)
Vāṙttu verse 5:
கற்கு மவர்களுங் கற்றுணர்ந் தாங்குத்தா
நிற்கு மவர்களு முந்தீபற
நீடூழி வாழியே யுந்தீபற.
kaṟku mavargaḷuṅ kaṯṟuṇarn dāṅguttā
niṟku mavargaḷu mundīpaṟa
nīḍūṙi vāṙiyē yundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: கற்கும் அவர்களும் கற்று உணர்ந்து ஆங்கு தான் நிற்கும் அவர்களும் நீடு ஊழி வாழியே.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): kaṟkum avargaḷ-um kaṯṟu uṇarndu āṅgu tāṉ niṟkum avargaḷ-um nīḍu ūṙi vāṙi-y-ē.
English translation: May those who learn, and those who, learning and understanding, stand accordingly, shine gloriously for long aeons.
Explanatory paraphrase: May those who learn [this Upadēśa Undiyār], and those who, learning and understanding [it], stand [remain or abide] accordingly [as beginningless, infinite and indivisible sat-cit-ānanda], shine gloriously for long aeons. (Tiruvundiyār 1.137)
Posts
261 comments:
1 – 200 of 261 Newer› Newest»Sir, I thank you for this article: Upadesa Undiyar: Tamil text, transliteration and translation. This will be very helpful. With regards.
This is a superb article and deeply enlightening for the sincere student who does not know the language.
I do not know if this can be helpful, but we need to develop the readiness to abandon this all, including what we are taught by the sages.
Sir, when I was randomly scrolling down and looking at some of the links you have provided in this article, I found the following sentence at one place:
Being self-attentive is not an action (karma) or doing (kriya) but is simply a state of just being (summā iruppadu), because to the extent that we are being self-attentive we are just being the pure self-awareness that we always actually are.
Is there any difference between an ‘action’ (karma) and ‘doing’ (kriya)? If yes, how exactly do they differ? Regards.
Noob, referring to this article you write, ‘I do not know if this can be helpful, but we need to develop the readiness to abandon this all, including what we are taught by the sages’.
Yes, we do need to be ready to abandon this all, but as long as we retain our ego, it would be wise if we keep company with the words of sages – in our context with the words of our sadguru Bhagavan Ramana. His teachings are like the guide map. If we start on a road trip and are not sure of our route, we may carry a guide with us. I am sure we would keep this guide until we reach our destination. Likewise, we do need to constantly refer to Bhagavan’s teachings to check whether or not we are on the right track (in our spiritual journey). We can discard these only when we are able to discard our ego.
For example, we know that the essence or gist or the entire thrust of Bhagavan’s teachings is pointing us back to ourself. Whatever teachings he has given, its aim is to turn our attention back towards ourself. All our problems have arisen because we have risen as this ego, and therefore to dissolve all our problems we need to destroy the ego, and we can do so only by self-investigation.
However, yesterday in our discussion, Salazar quoted Annamalai Swami as having said that we should watch our thoughts to keep them under check, or something to that effect. How will we know whether what Annamalai Swami is supposed to have said is in accord with Bhagavan’s teachings or not? Obviously, we have to refer to Bhagavan’s teachings (especially his three main texts) to find out whether Bhagavan ever taught us that we should watch our thoughts.
If we do not refer to Bhagavan’s teachings, it is likely that we may believe Annamalai Swami (since he lived with Bhagavan for a long time), and therefore may start watching our thoughts with an attitude of a witness (sakshi-bhava, thinking that this will make our mind subside. Bhagavan never said that we should watch or observe our thoughts.
Therefore, it would be wise if we constantly read and reflect on Bhagavan’s teachings, because such support in invaluable to our sadhana. Can we ever claim to have understood Bhagavan’s teachings with all its different shades of meanings, with all its subtle nuances? It is almost impossible to do as long as we experience ourself as an ego.
As Michael explains, ‘[…] because no matter how much we may study and reflect on their [Bhagavan’s teachings] meaning, we can always find fresh depth of meaning and wealth of implications in them, and consequently our understanding of them can become more clear, as I often find […]’.
Sanjay Lohia,
"As Michael explains, ‘[…] because no matter how much we may study and reflect on their [Bhagavan’s teachings] meaning, we can always find fresh depth of meaning and wealth of implications in them, and consequently our understanding of them can become more clear, as I often find […]’."
This implies that there is no end to this sort of a thing...and the clarity that can be improved upon is no clarity at all.
How is this different from being attached to thoughts?...attached to the 'words' and 'thoughts' .
Bhagavan once told a story about a man who wanted to bury his own shadow in a deep pit. He dug the pit and stood in such a position that his shadow was on the bottom of it. The man then tried to bury it by covering it with earth. Each time he threw some soil in the hole the shadow appeared on top of it. Of course, he never succeeded in burying the shadow.
Many people behave like this when they meditate. They take the mind to be real, try to fight it and kill it, and always fail. These fights against the mind are all mental activities which strengthen the mind instead of weakening it.
If you want to get rid of the mind, all you have to do is understand that it is 'not me?. Cultivate the awareness 'I am the immanent consciousness?.
When that understanding becomes firm, the non-existent mind will not trouble you.
- Living by the words of Bhagavan, p. 266
Annamalai swami lived by the words of bhagavan and not just 'with bhagavan'...and this is different than 'Living with the words of Bhagavan' .
Bhagavan Ramana appeared before us only to teach us the practice of self-investigation (atma-vichara)
There should be no doubt about this. Bhagavan’s advent was only and only to teach us the practice of self-investigation. What was the first question that Sri Sivaprakasam Pillai asked Bhagavan? It was ‘who am I?’
It the supreme and all-loving power of grace which prompted Sri Sivaprakasam Pillai to ask this question - who am I? - and it was same grace (Bhagavan) which provided us its answer by explaining us what our true nature is, and how we can attain it.
There are 42 verses in Ulladu Narpadu (40 + 2 mangalam), 30 verses in Upadesa Undiyar and 20 paragraphs in Nan Yar?. So the total of 42 + 30 + 20 makes it 92. Let us say, he gave us the essence or core of his teachings in these 92 units of his teachings.
I have just found out that out of these 92 units, Bhagavan directly talks about the need or the actual practice of self-investigation in at least 46 units. He may have directly spoken more than once about self-investigation in a single paragraph of Nan Yar?, but I have taken it as only 1 (one) for my calculation purpose.
In the other 46 units he may not have so directly talked about self-investigation. However, even in all these units he is only preparing the ground work to explain the paramount need of self-investigation. Incidentally, he doesn’t even talk once about observing one's thoughts as a means to mind-control in all of these 92 units.
The verses or passages where Bhagavan directly talks about self-investigation are:
(a) Ulladu Narpadu: mangalam verses 1 and 2; main text: verse 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35, 38, and 39.
(b) Upadesa Undiyar: verses 8, 9, 10, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28 and 29.
(c) Nan Yar?: paragraphs 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16 and 17.
Therefore, there can be no doubt that Bhagavan’s mission, if we can call it such, was just to teach us the practice of self-investigation (atma-vichara).
Anonymous, what Annamalai Swami said in the passage you quoted from Living by the Words of Bhagavan, p. 266, namely “If you want to get rid of the mind, all you have to do is understand that it is ‘not me’. Cultivate the awareness ‘I am the immanent consciousness’”, is quite contrary to the fundamental principles of what Bhagavan taught us in advanced texts such as Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu. He or others may justify what he said by claiming that Bhagavan recommended the chanting of texts such as Ribhu Gīta, which may seem to support such ideas, but they are preliminary texts that may be useful for those who cannot grasp the clear and simple yet radical principles that Bhagavan taught us in Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu and elsewhere, so they do not represent his actual teachings.
How can we get rid of the mind merely by understanding that it is ‘not me’? By intellectual analysis we can understand that the mind is ‘not me’, because it appears in waking and dream but disappears in sleep, whereas I exist and am aware of my existence in all three states. Since I am aware of myself in sleep when the mind is not present, how can the mind be what I actually am? However by understanding this I have not got rid of the mind, because what understands this is only myself as this mind.
And what does Annamalai Swami mean by saying, “Cultivate the awareness ‘I am the immanent consciousness’”? How can we cultivate such an awareness? Is it merely by thinking ‘I am the immanent consciousness’? Is he suggesting that we can get rid of the mind by thinking ‘The mind is not me. I am the immanent consciousness’? That cannot be an effective means to get rid of it, because what thinks ‘The mind is not me’ or ‘I am the immanent consciousness’ is only the mind itself, so how can it get rid of itself by thinking thus?
According to Bhagavan what is aware of itself as ‘I am this’ or ‘I am that’ is only the ego, so if we think ‘I am the immanent consciousness’ or ‘I am brahman’ we are thereby sustaining the ego. Pure self-awareness, which is brahman and which I assume is what Annamalai Swami means by ‘the immanent consciousness’, is not aware of itself as ‘I am this’, ‘I am that’, ‘I am brahman’ or ‘I am the immanent consciousness’ but only as ‘I am I’, because being aware of ourself as anything other than ‘I’ entails duality.
Is there any brahman or immanent consciousness other than ‘I’? Obviously not, so surely it is sufficiently for us to meditate only on ‘I’, ourself. If we meditate only on ourself, we are meditating upon both brahman and the immanent consciousness, because they are nothing but ourself, whereas ideas such as ‘The mind is not me’ or ‘I am the immanent consciousness’ are other than ourself, so if we meditate on these or any other ideas we are not actually meditating on ourself, brahman or immanent consciousness, but only on ideas about them.
(I will continue this reply in my next three comments.)
In continuation of my previous comment in reply to Anonymous:
Thinking ‘The mind is not me’ is what is called nēti nēti (not such, not such), and thinking ‘I am the immanent consciousness’ is what is called sōham bhāvana (the imagination ‘I am he’), so it seems that Annamalai Swami was in effect recommending these two practices as a means to destroy the mind, even though Bhagavan taught us explicitly that they are at best just aids (Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verses 29 and 36) and are practised only ‘due to deficiency of strength’(Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 32). In verse 29 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu he wrote:
நானென்று வாயா னவிலாதுள் ளாழ்மனத்தா
னானென்றெங் குந்துமென நாடுதலே — ஞானநெறி
யாமன்றி யன்றிதுநா னாமதுவென் றுன்னறுணை
யாமதுவி சாரமா மா.
nāṉeṉḏṟu vāyā ṉavilāduḷ ḷāṙmaṉattā
ṉāṉeṉḏṟeṅ gundumeṉa nāḍudalē — ñāṉaneṟi
yāmaṉḏṟi yaṉḏṟidunā ṉāmaduveṉ ḏṟuṉṉaṟuṇai
yāmaduvi cāramā mā.
பதச்சேதம்: ‘நான்’ என்று வாயால் நவிலாது, உள் ஆழ் மனத்தால் ‘நான்’ என்று எங்கு உந்தும் என நாடுதலே ஞான நெறி ஆம். அன்றி, ‘அன்று இது, நான் ஆம் அது’ என்று உன்னல் துணை ஆம்; அது விசாரம் ஆமா?
Padacchēdam (word-separation): ‘nāṉ’ eṉḏṟu vāyāl navilādu, uḷ āṙ maṉattāl ‘nāṉ’ eṉḏṟu eṅgu undum eṉa nāḍudal-ē ñāṉa-neṟi ām. aṉḏṟi, ‘aṉḏṟu idu, nāṉ ām adu’ eṉḏṟu uṉṉal tuṇai ām; adu vicāram āmā?
அன்வயம்: .‘நான்’ என்று வாயால் நவிலாது, உள் ஆழ் மனத்தால் ‘நான்’ என்று எங்கு உந்தும் என நாடுதலே ஞான நெறி ஆம்; அன்றி, ‘நான் இது அன்று, [நான்] அது ஆம்’ என்று உன்னல் துணை ஆம்; அது விசாரம் ஆமா?
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): ‘nāṉ’ eṉḏṟu vāyāl navilādu, uḷ āṙ maṉattāl ‘nāṉ’ eṉḏṟu eṅgu undum eṉa nāḍudal-ē ñāṉa neṟi ām; aṉḏṟi, ‘nāṉ idu aṉḏṟu, [nāṉ] adu ām’ eṉḏṟu uṉṉal tuṇai ām; adu vicāram āmā?
English translation: Without saying ‘I’ by mouth, investigating by an inward sinking mind where one rises as ‘I’ alone is the path of jñāna [the means to experience real knowledge]. Instead, thinking ‘[I am] not this [body or mind], I am that [brahman]’ is an aid, [but] is it vicāra [self-investigation]?
(I will continue this reply in my next two comments.)
In continuation of my previous comment in reply to Anonymous:
In verse 36 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu he wrote:
நாமுடலென் றெண்ணினல நாமதுவென் றெண்ணுமது
நாமதுவா நிற்பதற்கு நற்றுணையே — யாமென்று
நாமதுவென் றெண்ணுவதே னான்மனித னென்றெணுமோ
நாமதுவா நிற்குமத னால்.
nāmuḍaleṉ ḏṟeṇṇiṉala nāmaduveṉ ḏṟeṇṇumadu
nāmaduvā niṟpadaṟku naṯṟuṇaiyē — yāmeṉḏṟu
nāmaduveṉ ḏṟeṇṇuvadē ṉāṉmaṉida ṉeṉḏṟeṇumō
nāmaduvā niṟkumada ṉāl.
பதச்சேதம்: நாம் உடல் என்று எண்ணின், ‘அலம், நாம் அது’ என்று எண்ணும் அது நாம் அதுவா நிற்பதற்கு நல் துணையே ஆம். என்றும் ‘நாம் அது’ என்று எண்ணுவது ஏன்? ‘நான் மனிதன்’ என்று எணுமோ? நாம் அதுவா நிற்கும் அதனால்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): nām uḍal eṉḏṟu eṇṇiṉ, ‘alam, nām adu’ eṉḏṟu eṇṇum adu nām adu-v-ā niṟpadaṟku nal tuṇai-y-ē ām. eṉḏṟum ‘nām adu’ eṉḏṟu eṇṇuvadu ēṉ? ‘nāṉ maṉidaṉ’ eṉḏṟu eṇumō? nām adu-v-ā niṟkum adaṉāl.
அன்வயம்: நாம் உடல் என்று எண்ணின், ‘அலம், நாம் அது’ என்று எண்ணும் அது நாம் அதுவா நிற்பதற்கு நல் துணையே ஆம். நாம் அதுவா நிற்கும் அதனால், என்றும் ‘நாம் அது’ என்று எண்ணுவது ஏன்? ‘நான் மனிதன்’ என்று எணுமோ?
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): nām uḍal eṉḏṟu eṇṇiṉ, ‘alam, nām adu’ eṉḏṟu eṇṇum adu nām adu-v-ā niṟpadaṟku nal tuṇai-y-ē ām. nām adu-v-ā niṟkum adaṉāl, eṉḏṟum ‘nām adu’ eṉḏṟu eṇṇuvadu ēṉ? ‘nāṉ maṉidaṉ’ eṉḏṟu eṇumō?
English translation: If we think that we are a body, thinking ‘No [we are not this body], we are that [brahman]’, will be just a good aid for [reminding and encouraging] us to abide as that. [However] since we abide [or constantly exist] as that, why [should we be] always thinking ‘we are that’? Does one think ‘I am a man’ [that is, does one need to always think ‘I am a man’ in order to experience oneself as a man]?
(I will continue this reply in my next comment.)
In continuation of my previous comment in reply to Anonymous:
And in verse 32 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu he wrote:
அதுநீயென் றம்மறைக ளார்த்திடவுந் தன்னை
யெதுவென்று தான்றேர்ந் திராஅ — ததுநா
னிதுவன்றென் றெண்ணலுர னின்மையினா லென்று
மதுவேதா னாயமர்வ தால்.
adunīyeṉ ḏṟammaṟaiga ḷārttiḍavun taṉṉai
yeduveṉḏṟu tāṉḏṟērn dirāa — dadunā
ṉiduvaṉḏṟeṉ ḏṟeṇṇalura ṉiṉmaiyiṉā leṉḏṟu
maduvētā ṉāyamarva dāl.
பதச்சேதம்: ‘அது நீ’ என்று அம் மறைகள் ஆர்த்திடவும், தன்னை எது என்று தான் தேர்ந்து இராது, ‘அது நான், இது அன்று’ என்று எண்ணல் உரன் இன்மையினால், என்றும் அதுவே தான் ஆய் அமர்வதால்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): ‘adu nī’ eṉḏṟu a-m-maṟaigaḷ ārttiḍavum, taṉṉai edu eṉḏṟu tāṉ tērndu irādu, ‘adu nāṉ, idu aṉḏṟu’ eṉḏṟu eṇṇal uraṉ iṉmaiyiṉāl, eṉḏṟum aduvē tāṉ-āy amarvadāl.
அன்வயம்: ‘அது நீ’ என்று அம் மறைகள் ஆர்த்திடவும், அதுவே தான் ஆய் என்றும் அமர்வதால், தன்னை எது என்று தான் தேர்ந்து இராது, ‘அது நான், இது அன்று’ என்று எண்ணல் உரன் இன்மையினால்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): ‘adu nī’ eṉḏṟu a-m-maṟaigaḷ ārttiḍavum, adu-v-ē tāṉ-āy eṉḏṟum amarvadāl, taṉṉai edu eṉḏṟu tāṉ tērndu irādu, ‘adu nāṉ, idu aṉḏṟu’ eṉḏṟu eṇṇal uraṉ iṉmaiyiṉāl.
English translation: When the Vēdas declare ‘that is you’, instead of oneself knowing oneself and being [as one is] [by investigating] what [am I], thinking ‘I am that [brahman], not this [body or mind]’ is due to deficiency of strength [lack of clarity of understanding], because that itself always exists as oneself.
Meditating that the mind is not me or that I am the immanent consciousness are both mental activities, and as Annamalai Swami rightly said in the same passage that you quoted, all mental activities strengthen the mind instead of weakening it, so Bhagavan used to compare such practices to trying to bury one’s own shadow in a deep pit. What Bhagavan said in this context applies to all types of meditation other than self-investigation, because meditating on anything other than oneself, including ideas such as ‘The mind is not me’ or ‘I am the immanent consciousness’, is a mental activity, because it entails a movement of our mind or attention away from ourself towards something else.
The only meditation that is not a mental activity is meditation on oneself (svarūpa-dhyāna), which is the practice of self-investigation (ātma-vicāra), because it entails no movement of our mind away from ourself, and this is why Bhagavan said that this is the only means by which we can eradicate the mind along with its root, the ego. Because the mind or ego is a false awareness of ourself — an awareness of ourself as something other than the pure self-awareness that we actually are — it can be destroyed only by awareness of ourself as we actually are, and in order to be aware of ourself as we actually are we must attend only to ourself and not to anything else whatsoever, not even ideas such as ‘The mind is not me’ or ‘I am the immanent consciousness’.
Sanjay, regarding your question, ‘Is there any difference between an ‘action’ (karma) and ‘doing’ (kriya)?’, they essentially mean the same, but they are both used as technical terms, so in some technical contexts they are not interchangeable. For example, āgāmya, sañcita and prārabdha are called the three karmas, but it would not be appropriate to call them the three kriyās. However in the context you referred to (namely when I wrote somewhere, ‘Being self-attentive is not an action (karma) or doing (kriyā) but is simply a state of just being (summā iruppadu), because to the extent that we are being self-attentive we are just being the pure self-awareness that we always actually are’) I was using them in a more general sense, in which there is no difference between them.
Anonymous, regarding your comment ‘there is no end to this sort of a thing [studying and reflecting on the meaning of Bhagavan’s teachings]’, it will all come to an end when the ego comes to an end, which is its sole purpose. We should always keep this purpose in mind.
Why do we study and reflect on his teachings? Because our aim is to destroy our ego, and studying and reflecting on his teachings supports and guides us in our practice of ātma-vicāra, which is the only means by which we can destroy it.
Regarding your question about being attached, attachment is the very nature of the ego, because the ego cannot rise, stand or nourish itself without attaching itself to things other than itself, so we cannot get rid of all attachment until we get rid of the ego. Therefore until we are ready to let go of the ego along with all its other attachments, attachment to Bhagavan’s teachings is like a thorn that we use to remove another deeply embedded thorn from our foot.
When we discard our ego, we must discard Bhagavan’s words along with it, but until then we should not be too hasty to discard them. Once we reach our destination the map we used to get there will be of no further use to us, but let us not throw it away before we reach our destination, lest we take any wrong turnings on the way.
Sir, I thank you for clarifying the meaning of the terms karma and kriya. Regards.
Dear Sanjay, greetings
To complement Michael's answer about your question "Is there any difference between an ‘action’ (karma) and ‘doing’ (kriya)?", it seems that the difference is a semantic one according to the context as Michael pointed out.
At least in English parlance, as I understand it, action is the fact of doing, which usually is associated (doing) with the idea of a person "doing" (an action). Actions don't do, while doing "does" actions (apologies for the strange use of language here!) ergo associated with the "doer" (ego) and so creating more actions in turn (karma as in agamia, sanchita and prarabdha)
I kindly ask Michael to correct me if I am wrong, because I am not an English speaking person.
Be well,
m
Per the transliteration from Tamil.
According to their-their prārabdha, he who is for that being there-there will cause to dance [that is, according to the destiny (prārabdha) of each person, he who is for that (namely God or guru, who ordains their destiny) being in the heart of each of them will make them act]. What is never to happen will not happen whatever effort one makes [to make it happen]; what is to happen will not stop whatever obstruction [or resistance] one does [to prevent it happening]. This indeed is certain. Therefore silently being [or being silent] is good.
I know this is considered to be one of the most significant things that Maharishi Ramana said and I would like to understand why. He says that what is destined to happen will happen but at what level? Is he separating the mind from the body and saying that “God being in the heart of each of them will make them act” physically without any mental participation?!! That seems absurd.
For example, if it is destined that his mother should feel emotional distress that must mean that she is also destined to struggle against “what” is destined to happen. How else would she feel sorrowful?
It seems to me that his main aim was to console his mother and nothing else.
I find the last sentence very important in that he is suggesting to his mother that she should remain unperturbed in the face of the trials of life, which is something that all teachers worth the name have insisted upon.
Sir, meditation on the I thought, is this enough?
Michael,
"Anonymous, regarding your comment ‘there is no end to this sort of a thing [studying and reflecting on the meaning of Bhagavan’s teachings]’, it will all come to an end when the ego comes to an end, which is its sole purpose. We should always keep this purpose in mind."
When the ego does not even have a locus standi,how would it come to an end?...It will only seek better and better understanding and revel in it's improved understanding.
What Annamalai Swami has pointed out is straight forward... “If you want to get rid of the mind, all you have to do is understand that it is ‘not me’. Cultivate the awareness ‘I am the immanent consciousness’"
Bhagavan has indeed said that mere reading of Ribhu Gita would grant Samadhi...so,there is indeed substance to this approach.
To get rid of the mind,it is enough to understand that it is 'not me'...this does not promote further thinking 'it is not me' and repeating it like a parrot as that will not yield anything... which is what Bhagavan has referred to in that verse of ulladhu narpadhu quoted by you.
It means that one has nothing to do with thoughts and no interest in thought...all then happens in the 'immanent consciousness' which does not even say 'I am'.
It is like a market place arrayed with things that one encounters...nothing interests one and passes by without becoming a 'buyer'...no need to remove the market place or the things in order to cease to be a 'buyer'...it is enough to cease interest in them.
toshi thomas
from the blog : How to attend to ‘I’? Friday, 16 May 2014
Meditation on anything other than ‘I’ is relatively gross, because it entails attending to some object: a word, an image, a thought, a feeling, a place in the body, or whatever. In comparison, meditation on ‘I’ is very subtle, because it entails not attending to any object but only attending to the subject: to the ‘I’ that experiences all objects (and that experiences not only the presence of objects, as in waking and dream, but also their absence, as in deep sleep).
Meditating on or attending to ‘I’ is subtly different to meditating on or attending to any object, because ‘I’ is not only featureless but also has no exact location. To give a crude and rather inadequate analogy, attending to ‘I’ is similar to observing the screen instead of observing any of the pictures that appear on the screen, because ‘I’ is the background awareness in which all other experiences appear and disappear. Therefore rather than describing it as meditating on or attending to ‘I’, you may find it easier to think of it as simply being aware of ‘I’, because that is all that meditating on or attending to ‘I’ actually means or entails.
We are always aware of ‘I’, but our awareness of ‘I’ is usually mixed with awareness of other things, so our aim should be to be aware only of ‘I’. This is why the practice is sometimes described as focussing attention exclusively on ‘I’. This is not meant to imply that ‘I’ is an object that we attend to, but only that we should be so keenly aware of ‘I’ that everything else is excluded from our awareness.
Sri Ramana described this subtle practice of meditating only on ‘I’ (or being aware only of ‘I’) as ātma-vicāra, which means self-investigation or self-examination, because though we clearly experience ‘I’, our power of attention has been rendered relatively gross by our long-ingrained habit of attending to objects, so it is not easy for us to clearly distinguish ‘I’ from the objects that we habitually mistake to be ‘I’, namely our body and mind. Therefore our attempt to attend only to ‘I’ is a process of vicāra or investigation: trying to investigate exactly what this ‘I’ is in order to clearly distinguish it from all other things - or in other words, to experience it in complete isolation from everything else.
...
in order to attend only to ‘I’ (or to be aware only of ‘I’) our mind must be clear, calm and unagitated. However, in order to make our mind clear, calm and unagitated, it is not necessary for us to practise any other type of meditation, because the most effective means to make our mind clear, calm and unagitated is to try to attend only to ‘I’. Even if rajas or tamas impedes our efforts, the most effective way to overcome them is to persevere in trying to attend only to ‘I’.
Though our efforts to experience only ‘I’ may often be obstructed by the distracting influence of rajas (which manifests as thoughts) or the dulling influence of tamas (which manifests as sleepiness or lethargy), if we persevere in our efforts, we will gradually be able to experience ‘I’ with greater and greater clarity.
Therefore the only way to understand how to attend to or experience ‘I’ alone is to try to do so. The more you try, the more clear it will become to you what the terms ātma-vicāra, self-investigation, self-attentiveness or meditation upon ‘I’ actually mean. Just as one cannot learn how to ride a bicycle except by trying to ride one, we cannot learn how to attend to ‘I’ except by trying to do so.
Toshi Thomas, in reply to your question, ‘meditation on the I thought, is this enough?’, we should first understand clearly what the term ‘I-thought’ actually means, because people often imagine it to be some kind of object (something other than ourself), whereas in fact it is not an object but the subject, which is what we now seem to be.
What Bhagavan calls ‘நான் என்னும் நினைவு’ (nāṉ eṉṉum niṉaivu) in Nāṉ Yār? (paragraphs 5, 6 and 8) and ‘நான் எனும் எண்ணம்’ (nāṉ eṉum eṇṇam) in verse 18 of Upadēśa Undiyār, both of which mean ‘the thought called I’, and ‘अहं वृत्ति’ (ahaṁ-vṛtti) in verse 18 of Upadēśa Sāram (his Sanskrit translation of Upadēśa Undiyār), which means ‘the I-thought’, is the ego, which is the root, origin and base of all other thoughts, being the subject that thinks and is aware of them. Therefore what we experience as ‘I’ (ourself) so long as we are aware of any other thoughts (that is, anything other than the pure self-awareness that we actually are, since according to Bhagavan everything else is just a thought) is only this original thought called ‘I’, the ego.
As Bhagavan explains in verse 25 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, the nature of this ego is to rise, stand, feed itself and flourish only by ‘grasping form’ (which means by attending to anything other than itself, since he says it is just a ‘formless phantom’), and hence if it tries to grasp itself (that is to be aware of itself alone) it will dissolve and disappear, as he implies in that verse by saying ‘தேடினால் ஓட்டம் பிடிக்கும்’ (tēḍiṉāl ōṭṭam piḍikkum), which means ‘If it seeks [investigates or examines] [itself], it will take flight’.
Therefore if we attend to anything other than ourself, we are thereby nourishing and sustaining our ego, whereas if we attend only to ourself, who now seem to be this ego or thought called ‘I’, it will cease to exist. Hence the answer to your question is yes, meditation on this thought called ‘I’ is enough, and not only is it enough, but it is also necessary, because this is the only means by which we can eradicate it.
Anonymous, if you are satisfied with the approach you describe in your reply to my previous reply to you, that is fine, because we are each free to choose what we want, but so long as you are aware of ‘the market place or the things’ (namely the world, thoughts or phenomena) you have not got rid of the mind, because the mind or ego alone is what is aware of all such things, as Bhagavan makes clear, for example, in the third and fourth paragraphs of Nāṉ Yār?.
Regarding your question, ‘When the ego does not even have a locus standi, how would it come to an end?’, this has been very clearly explained by Bhagavan, particularly in Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, Upadēśa Undiyār and Nāṉ Yār?. Though the ego does not actually exist, in its own view it seems to exist, but it seems to exist only so long as it attends to or is aware of anything other than itself, so if it investigates itself it will take flight (as he says in verse 25 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu), or in other words, it will be found to be non-existent (as he says in verse 17 of Upadēśa Undiyār).
What is necessary is self-investigation (ātma-vicāra), because if we do not investigate what we actually are, we cannot get rid of the ego or mind, even if we tell ourself that it is ‘not me’, that it has no locus standi or that it does not actually exist (because what thinks or says all such things is only the ego).
Bhagavan has clearly shown us that self-investigation is the only means by which we can eradicate the ego or mind, and in the twelfth paragraph of Nāṉ Yār? he says, ‘குரு காட்டிய வழிப்படி தவறாது நடக்க வேண்டும்’ (guru kāṭṭiya vaṙi-p-paḍi tavaṟādu naḍakka vēṇḍum), which means ‘it is necessary to walk unfailingly along the path that guru has shown’, but it is up to each one of us to decide for ourself whether or not we want to follow this simple path that he has shown us.
In reply to a friend who wrote to me about verses 17 and 19 of the Sanskrit version of Upadēśa Sāram (which is Bhagavan’s own translation of Upadēśa Undiyār), asking questions such what is the mind we should investigate, where does this ‘I’ rise from, and how to investigate from where it rises, I wrote:
As Bhagavan explains in verse 18, though the term ‘mind’ is often used to refer to all thoughts collectively, what the mind essentially is is just the ego, the primal thought called ‘I’, which is the root of all other thoughts. Therefore in verse 17 what he means by ‘the form of the mind’, which he says we should investigate without neglecting, is the ego, and we can investigate it only by being keenly self-attentive.
Since we rise, stand and flourish as this ego only by ‘grasping form’ (that is, by attending to anything other than ourself), as he explains in verse 25 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, and since the ego will cease to exist if we attend to it keenly enough, so long as we mistake ourself to be this ego we will be reluctant to let go of everything else and cling only to ourself. Therefore when we try to be self-attentive it is natural for our mind to jump outwards to attend to other things, but whenever our mind does so it is necessary for us to turn it back to attend to ourself alone.
Where the ego rises from is only ourself. In sleep we alone exist, and since we are not then aware of anything other than ourself, our real nature is just pure self-awareness (prajñānam), so this is the source from which we rise as this ego in waking and dream. Therefore investigating where the ego rises means investigating ourself, which we can do only by being keenly self-attentive. Therefore what Bhagavan describes in both verse 17 and verse 19 of Upadēśa Undiyār, albeit in somewhat different terms, is just the practice of self-investigation (ātma-vicāra).
For more detailed explanations of these two verses, you can follow the links that I give after each of them in my recent article: Upadēśa Undiyār: Tamil text, transliteration and translation.
Michael,
"Anonymous, if you are satisfied with the approach you describe in your reply to my previous reply to you, that is fine, because we are each free to choose what we want, but so long as you are aware of ‘the market place or the things’ (namely the world, thoughts or phenomena) you have not got rid of the mind, because the mind or ego alone is what is aware of all such things, as Bhagavan makes clear, for example, in the third and fourth paragraphs of Nāṉ Yār?."
It is not a matter of what we 'want' but a matter of being free from wants...It is enough to understand that the 'mirage' water that is seen is not 'Real water' ...but seeing the 'mirage' does not tantamount to believing that it is 'Real'...the seeing of the 'mirage' would continue as before...only we would not take it as 'Real'...the world can continue to be perceived through the senses and the mind but all that is not 'Real' and the only Reality is the Self which is the substratum...there is no need to make anything 'disappear'...In the context of everyday living ,'the Body' and 'the Mind' can continue to perform their core function but without the sense of 'I' and 'mine'...This is the state of 'Jivanmukti'...when the 'Body along with the Mind' drops off ,the functions cease but the Self is ever free in either case although in the later case,it is termed as 'Videhamukti'...Fundamentally there is no difference between Jivanmukti and Videhamukti.
According to Bhagavan human beings are worse than swine
The following extract (which is not verbatim) is taken from the latest video uploaded by Michael on his YouTube channel: 2017-09-16 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 8 (1:05 to 1:12):
A lady devotee: All that you talk reminds me of the saying in Bible or somewhere: ‘It is like throwing pearls before a swine’.
Michael: I plead not guilty! You are blaming me for throwing pearls before a swine. It is not me who did that. It was Bhagavan who threw pearls before all of us, swine.
Devotee: I wish I hadn’t known all these - that I am not this body, I am pure-consciousness. I would have been better off. At least I would have enjoyed my life, but I now know I am not all this, so it makes restless . . .
Michael: Are you satisfied with your present life? Being born, growing up, getting married, having children, old age, dying, this happens to all of us again and again and again. But are we satisfied?
Devotee: I mean the birds, bees, all seem happy.
Michael: No, they have their desires, they have their fears. Show me any embodied creature that is content. No creature is content. Because as long we take the body to be ‘I’, we have to struggle for the survival of the body, we have to encounter dangers, we have to feed the body, we have to clothe the body. So many problems are there. Embodied life is imperfect, and in spite of knowing all that we continue wallowing in this.
So you said, ‘throwing pearls before a swine’. Worst that that is throwing pearls before human beings, because according to Bhagavan human beings are worse than swine. In one verse Bhagavan says:
Those who take the body to be ‘I’ are worse than pigs, because this body eats pure food and turns it into filth. The pig eats filth, but at least they are not guilty of turning pure food into filth.
Bhagavan has done this - given us these pearls – for a purpose. He knows that he is planting the seed in us now. Whether we like it or not we have been caught in the jaws of a tiger. We can’t escape. We may try to escape, but we will never succeed.
Devotee: That’s good to know.
Michael: So we may as well give up, sooner rather than later. But we aren’t ready to give up, are we? That’s the problem. So who isn’t ready to give up? We need to investigate that. Who isn’t ready to surrender?
The "snake" vs the "mirage" analogies.
Mirage (world) continues to appear after self-realization -> vedanta position -> awakening "to" the dream -> lucid dreaming, still dream.
Snake (world) disappears after self-realization -> ajata -> awakening "from" the dream -> no more dreaming, no dream.
Both analogies and everything else -> ego.
Stephen Hawking in Black Holes and Baby Universes (14 essays)
Is everything determined?
I want to suggest that the concepts of free will and moral responsibility for our actions are really an effective theory in the sense of fluid mechanics. It may be that everything we do is determined by some grand unified theory. If that theory has determined that we shall die by hanging, then we shall not drown. But you would have to be awfully sure that you were destined for the gallows to put to sea in a small boat during a storm. I have noticed that even people who claim that everything is predestined and that we can do nothing to change it look before they cross the road. Maybe it's just that those who don't look don't survive to tell the tale.
One cannot base one's conduct on the idea that every-thing is determined, because one does not know what has been determined. Instead, one has to adopt the effective theory that one has free will and that one is responsible for one's actions. This theory is not very good at predicting human behaviour, but we adopt it because there is no chance of solving the equations arising from the fun-damental laws. There is also a Darwinian reason that we believe in free will: a society in which the individual feels responsible for his or her actions is more likely to work together and survive to spread its values. Of course, ants work well together. But such a society is static. It cannot respond to unfamiliar challenges or develop new opportunities. A collection of free individuals who share certain mutual aims, however, can collaborate on their common objectives and yet have the flexibility to make innovations. Thus, such a society is more likely to prosper and to spread its system of values.
…
In summary, the title of this essay was a question: is everything determined? The answer is yes, it is. But it might as well not be, because we can never know what is determined.…
If we are wise, we will seek only to return to our home
The following transcript of an extract, which is not verbatim, is taken from the video: 2017-09-16 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 8:
If our goal is to see God in name and form, then there is no need to do atma-vichara. We can worship God in name and form and if we develop enough love, we will eventually see God in name and form. But is that our aim? Even if we see God as a name and form we will still remain as a name and form, so there will still be discontent and dissatisfaction. We can never be perfectly satisfied as long as we remain separate from God.
Seeing God in name and form is not the goal that Bhagavan recommends us to seek. If we are able to see God in name and form, what should we do next? It’s not the end, because we are still there seeing God, there is still a separation between God and us. If we have pure, all-consuming love for God, why should we want to remain as a separate entity? So long as we retain a separate entity, we are retaining some love for ourself. Our ultimate goal is to lose ourself in God.
Bhagavan is very-very consistent. He says: ‘if you want to see God in name and form, you can see God in name and form, and such sadhana will also purify your mind’. However, if we want to see God as it really is we have to see ourself as we actually are, since there is nothing other than ourself. This means we have to give up our name and form.
Bhagavan doesn’t force anything on anyone. If people want to have other goals, he isn’t going to stop them. But if we are wise we will seek only to return to our home, which is where we merge in God or merge in the place from which we arose. To see God as something other than ourself is, Bhagavan says, manomayam am katci (a mental vision). Our aim is not to see a mental vision of God. Our aim is to destroy the mind that sees God as other than ourself.
I feel that what Bhagavan has told us/me is the truth...Hopefully I m falling in the jaws of the tiger and regardless of what happens I will experience the truth sooner or later. Arguments are for the ego, they may soften it, but I hope this is all irreversible.
Sanjay Lohia,
the problem is that most of us do not with certainty know if Bhagavan says the truth - even when we easily tend to put our trust in him because his fundamental teachings appear to us so convincingly correct. Of course I too want to find and experience God as not other than myself. Admittedly I am still in a state of uncertainty to have complete 100% confidence, that is without the slightest trace of doubt, in him - although on my bedside table there are stood up several Arunachala stones gathered by me from the slopes of nearly all main directions of Arunachala Hill since the year 2000. Obviously even the purifying power of that most holy stones could not destroy the seemingly armoured structure of the vishaya-vasanas of my/this ego.
purnatva, once somebody sent a letter to Bhagavan requesting Bhagavan to send him the most holy stone of Arunachala. Bhagavan said to the devotees present something to the effect: ‘How can I send him a holy part of Arunchala? Perhaps he doesn’t know that this hill is Siva itself, and therefore every inch of the hill is equally holy’.
However, just by keeping the stones from Arunachala by your bedside will not destroy your ego, although it may have some benefit. However, we need to walk the path that Bhagavan has so loving shown us, because only self-investigation can destroy our ego. Of course, since you appear to be attracted to the name and form of Arunachala, you can silently pray to it in whatever way suits you. Such bhakti if done with nishkamya bhava (without any worldly desire) will certainly clarify and purify your mind.
You say, 'Admittedly I am still in a state of uncertainty to have complete 100% confidence, that is without the slightest trace of doubt, in him'. To the extent we practise Bhagavan’s path, to that extent our confidence in his path would increase. A time will come when our confidence in his path will become unshakable, like a solid rock.
Therefore we should try to practise self-investigation as much as possible. This is the simplest, easiest and the most direct path of all.
Sanjay Lohia,
venerating/revering and worshipping "every inch of the hill as equally holy" is completely natural for me . That is why I feel attracted by Arunachala Hill itself and carry also the most part during the day a little Arunachala-stone in my trouser pocket. When I leave my room and it rarely happens that I miss to put that stone into my pocket I feel the whole day that there is something wrong with me and that I am not entirely allright. Of course in such case I try to tide me over that period by remembering that Arunachala itself is my innermost self-awareness.
But I must own up in all honesty that I as the ego sometimes do not shrink from pursuing and satisfying simply egoistic aims - even in presence of Arunachala-stones and what's more without the slightest shame.
Evidently my rucksack of visaya-vasanas seems to be even for Arunachala a heavy burden. So contrary to my expectation the process of purification of the mind along with the entire collection of various "spiritual obstacles" takes more time than I wish.
As you say I have to try to intensify my attempts to overcome my dogged dislike for making separate or special attempts to practise self-investigation by sitting for long periods. Yes, I have to concede the possibility that the fact that my consciousness most of the time is lacking profound and bottomless/fathomless depth is immediate consequence of that reluctance. However, that my unwillingness is inversely the result of my lack of great success in trying to practise self-investigation in a sitting body-position .
This is a very moving and honest confession and I sincerely hope you find the peace you are looking for...
My admiration for Maharshi Ramana is unbounded but shocking as it may seem, the notion of Jivan Mukti does not make sense to me; I believe only in Videha Mukti.
Ecclesiastes 4.1-4.2
So I returned, and considered all the oppressions that are done under the sun: and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power; but they had no comforter.
Wherefore I praised the dead who are already dead more than the living who are yet alive.
Sri Ramana also spoke about mourning on one's birthday so I think he would have not dismissed this lightly.
If I am wearing red glasses, the whole world will appear to be red
The following extract is taken from the video: 2017-09-16 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 8. As usual the transcript is not verbatim:
We are not actually aware of time. What we are actually aware of is change, and time is the framework in which change takes place. So time and change are very closely related.
However, is the change actually real? To whom does the change appear? To whom does the time appear? We have to again and again turn our attention back on ourself. This is the only way to solve all the mysteries and puzzles of life.
Philosophy is very good for asking questions, by identifying what questions should be asked. But philosophy can never give us answers. To get the answers we need to investigate ourself – investigate the one who has all these puzzling questions.
Philosophers have been debating for thousands of years whether time is real or not, whether space is real or not, whether the world exists independent of our perception of it or not. These are ancient philosophical questions which have debated in East, West and everywhere.
The most useful philosophy is the philosophy given to us by Bhagavan, because Bhagavan’s philosophy is constantly pointing us back to ourself. In order to know anything, we first have to know the knower. Without knowing the knower we can’t know anything.
How can we be sure that our knowledge of anything is true knowledge, when we don’t even know what we ourself are? If I am wearing red glasses, the whole world will appear to be red. So without knowing the colour of the glasses I am wearing, I can’t judge the colour of the world. So also to know the truth of the world, we need to know the truth of ourself, the seer of the world.
pūrṇatva4 October 2017 at 15:38
This is a very moving and honest confession and I sincerely hope you find the peace you are looking for...
My admiration for Maharshi Ramana is unbounded but shocking as it may seem, the notion of Jivan Mukti does not make sense to me; I believe only in Videha Mukti.
Ecclesiastes 4.1-4.2
So I returned, and considered all the oppressions that are done under the sun: and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power; but they had no comforter.
Wherefore I praised the dead who are already dead more than the living who are yet alive.
---------------
Sri Ramana also spoke about mourning on one's birthday so I think he would have not dismissed this lightly.
purnavata, Bhagavan has clearly indicated that mental worship is better (that is, it is more efficacious in purifying our mind) than physical worship. Therefore if you forget to carry the Arunachala-stones with you, you can easily worship Arunachala in your mind. We can reflect on verse 4 of Upadesa Undiyar to understand this better:
This is certain: pūjā, japa and dhyāna are [respectively] actions of body, speech and mind, [and hence in this order each successive] one is superior to [the preceding] one.
However, self-attentiveness is the most effective way to remember Arunachala, because Aruchanala in its essential nature is nothing but ourself, ‘I’.
The following extract taken from an article The Power of Arunachala by Michael James, would add material to this discussion. It was first published in The Mountain Path, (1982, pp. 75-84). It is now also available on David Godman’s website:
In his writings Sri Bhagavan has repeatedly confirmed the mysterious power that the thought of Arunachala has over the mind. In his Tamil Collected Works, under the picture of Arunachala, there is a verse that can be considered as his dhyana sloka (verse of contemplation) upon his Sadguru, Arunachala Siva.
In this verse he sings, 'This is Arunachala-Siva, the ocean of grace that bestows liberation when thought of'.
In the first verse of Sri Arunachala Aksharamanamalai (The Marital Garland of Letters) he sings, 'O Arunachala, you root out the ego of those who think of you in the heart as Arunachala'.
(I will continue this in my next comment)
In continuation of my previous comment in reply to purnavata:
In the 102nd verse of Aksharamanamalai, he sings, 'O Arunachala, the moment I thought of Arunai [the holy town of Arunachala] I was caught in the trap of your grace. Can the net of your grace ever fail?'
And in the last line of the second verse of Sri Arunachala Navamanimalai (The Necklet of Nine Gems) he sings, 'Mukti Ninaikka varul Arunachalam,' meaning, 'Arunachala, the mere thought of which bestows liberation'.
But only in the tenth verse of Sri Arunachala Patikam does Sri Bhagavan actually reveal how the thought of Arunachala works in the mind to root out the ego. In this verse he sings:
I have seen a wonder, a magnetic hill that forcibly attracts the soul. Arresting the activities of the soul who thinks of it even once, drawing it to face itself, the One, making it thus motionless like itself, it feeds upon that sweet [pure and ripened] soul. What a wonder is this! O souls, be saved by thinking of this great Arunagiri, which shines in the mind as the destroyer of the soul [the ego].
Therefore the only task of Arunachala is to root our ego, and we can assist him in this task by trying to turn within as often as possible.
If we are practicing self-investigation, we need not necessarily be in a sitting posture. We can practise it in any posture – sitting, standing, lying down, while engaged in worldly duties and even in toilet. In short we not need any fixed posture or any fixed time or any fixed place to practise this. Whenever we can remember to turn within, we should try to do so.
Also we do necessarily have to practise it for a long stretch of time in one sitting. A few minutes here, a few minutes there will also do. Of course whenever possible we can sit for exclusive self-attentiveness for as long as possible. However, we should not overexert ourself.
Thank you so so much Michael for kindly making the translation of Upadesa Undiyar available together with all the links to your commentaries. It's a great resource to have on this inner journey.
purnavata, there were two typos in my last comment:
Second last paragraph: In short we do not need any fixed posture or any fixed time or any fixed place to practise this. Whenever we can remember to turn within, we should try to do so.
Last paragraph: Also we do not necessarily have to practise it for a long stretch of time in one sitting.
The words typed in bold were not there earlier.
22-11-45 Morning
Bhagavan explained how it is said in books that the
highest possible happiness, which a human being can attain
or which the ten grades of beings higher than man, ending
with gods like Brahma can attain, is like foam in the deluging
flood of the bliss of the Self.
Imagine a man in robust health; of vigorous adult age,
endowed with unsurpassed wealth and power, with intellect
and all other resources, and married to a fair and faithful wife,
and conceive of his happiness.
Each higher grade of being above man is capable of a
hundred-fold greater happiness than that of the grade below.
But the highest happiness of all the eleven grades of being is
only the foam in the flooding ocean of divine bliss.
Anonymous, Bhavagan teaches us in verse 28 of Upadesa Undiyar:
If one knows what the nature of oneself is, then [what will exist and shine is only] anādi [beginningless], ananta [endless, limitless or infinite] and akhaṇḍa [unbroken, undivided or unfragmented] sat-cit-ānanda [being-awareness-bliss].
As Bhagavan says our true nature is infinite and unbroken happiness. In this state there is nothing other than ourself to cause us any misery or trouble. This is the supreme happiness in which no desire, attachment and fear can raise its head even in the least, and therefore nothing exists in such a state to cause us any discontentment.
In other words, since all other types of worldly happiness we experience are mixed with unhappiness and misery, such happiness is like foam in the deluging flood of the bliss of self.
Such regular reminders should motivate us to focus all our interest on investigating ourself alone, because there is no real or enduring happiness in any of the things or experiences of this world.
Just a question for discussion:
If we accept that everything we are to experience in this world has been already predetermined, and the world is nothing but a collection of our thoughts as in a dream, does this mean that all the thoughts that we as the subject are experiencing are also predetermined? I.E we are destined to think the way we think at the moment and each thought is occurring to us because it was destined to and there is no way to change that except to stop experiencing the thoughts altogether including the primal thought "I", which is our final goal.
Noob, here is what Einstein thought..
Human beings, in their thinking, feeling and acting are not free agents but are as causally bound as the stars in their motion.
Albert Einstein
Noob,
in daily life we have to act according our seeming free will as if nothing would be predetermined - albeit having the idea of full predermination in the background.
Yes, it will be always much consolation to us to believe that there is a final goal which we are determined to reach. Nevertheless let us appeal to the predetermining creator that he should not spoil our fun enjoying the ego, the primal thought 'I'.
Whether we are willing to accept predetermination or not - as ignorant idiots we have to bow our dizzy head we have to give way to the wisdom of real sages and not to the oafish waffle of crazy jumping jacks.
Exactly, one space... Here is Einstein again.
---------
wish, but we can only wish what we must. Practically, I am, nevertheless, compelled to act as if freedom of the will existed. If I wish to live in a civilized community, I must act as if man is a responsible being. I know that philosophically a murderer is not responsible for his crime; nevertheless, I must protect myself from unpleasant contacts. I may consider him guiltless, but I prefer not to take tea with him.
------------
My own career was undoubtedly determined, not by my own will but by various factors over which I have no control—primarily those mysterious glands in which Nature prepares the very essence of life, our internal secretions.
----- Albert Einstein
Noob, I concur 100% with what you've said and I like all the following comments about it.
one space said "we have to act according our seeming free will as if nothing would be predetermined" ....
Yes it seems that way, however the idea that there is an actor who has to act is the reason why we think we are bound. There is no actor/ego/mind, there is no me or we, the body and actions are animated entirely by the Absolute.
"We think" we do or decide things but that's just a thought. I've read about a scientific experiment where it was measured when the thought 'I am going to lift my arm' occurs (or any other action by the body) and the interesting thing is that the arm started to rise milliseconds BEFORE the thought appeared to raise that arm.
”...does this mean that all the thoughts that we as the subject are experiencing are also predetermined?”
Yes and/or no, but who cares?...
”...the subject which does not grasp or is not distracted by a thought is the Absolute.”
“Absolute” is not subject.
Michael says in his video 2017-09-16 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 8:
1) Being with Bhagavan’s teachings is being with Bhagavan. Bhagavan is with us in the form of his teachings. So by talking about his teachings, we are having satsanga with Bhagavan. We are thinking about what Bhagavan wanted us to learn from him. So more than Bhagavan’s physical satsanga, his mental satsanga is more efficacious.
Therefore, thinking about Bhagavan’s teachings is the best form of mental satsanga with him. Of course we have to go beyond mental satsanga to atma-sanga, which is turning our attention within. That is beyond the mind.
2) Sri Krishna taught in Bhagavad Gita exactly what Bhagavan taught. There are two verses in Bhagavad Gita which are exactly what Bhagavan taught us. These verses are 6.25 and 6.26:
Gradually-gradually turn the mind within and fix the mind in oneself. Do not think of anything else whatsoever.
We should fix the mind only on ourself and think of nothing else whatsoever. Krishna did teach what Bhagavan taught, but because Bhagavad Gita is meant for a variety of people, with a variety of beliefs, understanding and aspirations, Krishna gave something for everyone in Gita.
3) The world is imperfect and will remain imperfect. If we want perfection, we have to seek that within ourself. So let us first see who we are, then we will know the truth about the world and God. So first things first.
Bhagavan used to say, ‘change your outlook that of jnana, and see the whole world as brahman’. So the whole world is perfect if we are able to see it as it really is, which is brahman. It is because we see it as name and form that it seems imperfect.
(I will continue this in my next comment)
In continuation of my previous comment:
4) So long as we take the material or physical world as the primary thing, we are looking in the wrong direction. To whom does this material world seem to exist? When did the material world seem to exist? Only when we see it. So what comes first, the material world or consciousness that is aware of the materiel world?
According to Bhagavan they rise and subside simultaneously, but it only by the mind that the world shines. Neither the mind nor the world is real. That from which they appear, and that into which disappear is porul, and that is the reality. Bhagavan wants us to see that, and to see that we have to be that, and we can be that only by turning within.
Seer comes along with the seen. What exists in all the three states is only porul. In dream and waking it exists with ego and world, and in sleep it exists without ego and world.
5) There are some people who remain all their life in the physical presence of the jnana-guru, but the darkness of their ego is not thereby dispelled. That is like the darkness at the foot of the lamp. In old fashioned lamp posts, the lamps will be on the top of the post, and there will be darkness around the foot of the lamp.
So, mere presence of Bhagavan will not destroy our ego. If we are already following what Bhagavan has taught us - that is, trying to turn our attention within – then being in Bhagavan’s presence will be an aid.
"Anyway Mouna, let's not split hairs here or be too finicky.”
Concepts are mind produced phenomena, but as pointers we need to be clear where are they pointing at and the content where they were produced, otherwise we might end up at the wrong destination thinking that we already arrived where we wanted to go.
The intellect gets on the way when confused about the meaning of words, i.e. enlightenment, ego, mind, absolute, jnani, etc… otherwise when the pointers (or the “wordings”…) are well understood and applied (at least in the light of Bhagavan’s teachings for example) they are a help instead of a hindrance.
I recently watched a lecture of an ex-christian monk at the London Ramana Center talking about his experience and about Bhagavan’s teachings (his understanding of them) and about all these words like self-realization, ego, mind, etc… Under the light of Bhagavan’s teachings he was clearly confused, since he gave ego a life/survival after realization, which clearly contradicts the most profound teachings of Bhagavan (ajata).
And the proof of the confusion is that the talk started very well and emotional (even tears) and we are one and we are alll manifestations of god/absolute, etc, etc… and when at the end his understanding was slightly challenged, he went into “defensive mode” even a little bit agresive at times, a very noticeable shift in energy from the beginning of the talk, interesting and fun to watch. This person thinks he is enlightened because I heard other interviews and apparently he had this “realization” that never “left” him…
If I post a comment like this is not by any means to denigrate anyone, but just to point out that a not very clear understanding of Bhagavan’s (or other “sages”) pointers and the context in which they are made can mislead and confuse many honest and fervent seekers in their quest.
"The attempts for understanding concepts with the mind in the extend as it is done on this blog has become a hindrance for quite a few here."
and quite a blessing for others...
justice? no... divine lila at play.
"true knowledge comes from silence and manifest as thoughts from that silence."
beautiful!
s,
agree in all counts.
m
Salazar,
when you write "Since people are here so focused on "wording" (because of lack of experience?) ..... when the seeming "subject" is not distracted by thoughts it is not a "subject" anymore.
But that all transpires in the realm of imagination of mind anyway ....."
you pretend to draw real knowledge from the limitless treasure of your "experience".
But somehow I am overcome with a feeling that your experience does not at all exceed the horizont of the most commentators here.
Am I mistaken or only filled with envy ?
Comparison is the tool of the ego.
For the Subject there is no one to compare to
Thanks for this Michael. It's a great gift.
Ojai, California
11th Public Talk 30th June, 1934
Question: To what extent can a person control his own actions? If we are, at any one time, the sum of our previous experience, and there is no spiritual self, is it possible for a person to act in any other way than that which is determined by his original inheritance, the sum of his past training, and the stimuli which play upon him at the time? If so, what causes the changes in the physical processes, and how?
Krishnamurti: "To what extent can a person control his own actions?" A person does not control his own actions if he has not understood environment. Then he is only acting under the compulsion, the influence of environment; such an action is not action at all, but is merely reaction or self-protectiveness. But when a person begins to understand environment, sees its full significance and worth, then he is master of his own actions, then he is intelligent; and therefore no matter what the condition he will function intelligently.
"If we are, at any one time, the sum of our previous experience, and there is no spiritual self, is it possible for a person to act in any other way than that which is determined by his original inheritance, the sum of his past training, and the stimuli which play upon him at the time?"
Again, what I have said applies to this. That is, if he is merely acting from the burden of the past, whether it be his individual or racial inheritance, such action is merely the reaction of fear; but if he understands the subconscious, that is, his past accumulations, then he is free of the past, and therefore he is free of the compulsion of the environment.
After all, environment is of the present as well as of the past. One does not understand the present because of the clouding of the mind by the past; and to free the mind from the subconscious, the unconscious hindrances of the past, is not to roll memory back into the past, but to be fully conscious in the present. In that consciousness, in that full consciousness of the present, all the past hindrances come into activity, surge forward, and in that surging forward, if you are aware, you will see the full significance of the past, and therefore understand the present. "If so, what causes the changes in the physical processes, and how?" As far as I understand the questioner, he wants to know what produces this action, this action which is forced upon him by environment. He acts in a particular manner, compelled by environment, but if he understood environment intelligently, there would be no compulsion whatever; there would be understanding, which is action itself.
Is not honest, forthright and natural humility the greatest gift which (alone) gives us the cognition of one's permanent pretending and self-deception ?
It seems a likely supposition that knowing the truth does not become accessible to us without having (developed) such humility.
Or am I in error ?
anma sorupam, or is it you again Ravi?
What is natural humility? Do you think you have that? If so you are delusional. You are also delusional, like Ravi who made the same pointless argument weeks ago, when you believe you could "develop" humility.
The only way to "attain" natural humility is enlightenment. Everything else is a game of the ego and you Ravi (or anma sorupam) play that game very well.
What about your obsessions and hypocrisy and deception? I'd worry more about that than to lecture about humility :-)
anma sorupam, yes, we need to cultivate the quality of humility. How can an arrogant and proud person expect to go far in spirituality? Has Bhagavan given us lessons on moral science? Yes, his life itself was a lesson in humility. However, in his text Nan Yar? he did give us some direct and pertinent advice:
In paragraph 19 he says: However bad other people may appear to be, disliking them is not proper [or appropriate]. Likes and dislikes are both fit [for one] to dislike [or renounce] […] All that one gives to others one is giving only to oneself. If [everyone] knew this truth, who indeed would refrain from giving.
In paragraph 20 he says: If oneself [the ego or mind] rises, everything rises; if oneself subsides [or ceases], everything subsides [or ceases]. To whatever extent being subsided [or humble] we behave, to that extent there is goodness [or virtue]
So Bhagavan is clearly telling us what is expected of us as spiritual aspirants. We need to be (or at least try to be) humble in all situations; we should not dislike even our worst antagonists; and we should give freely to others in whatever way we can. At least we are capable of behaving with normal courtesy with others. So Bhagavan did give us some basic moral principles.
However, he did not often repeat this verbally. He main teaching was to direct us to turn within so that we know who we are.
What is the best way to keep our ego in check? It is by constantly watching it, because this is only effective way to keep it in real check, to not let it raise its head. However, even when we are facing outwards, we should try to behave as humbly as possible.
Salazar,
your pigheaded prejudice closely resembles a zombie operated by remote control.
You tend to be rather talkative. At any rate I hardly stand your boastful bragging which can come only from a conceited so-and-so.
Michael says in his video: 2017-09-16 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 8
Supposing we have got great love for Bhagavan’s name and form, so we want to meditate just on his name and form. Whenever any thought comes to disturb us, because we have so much love for Bhagavan’s name and form, we cling to his name and form and our other thoughts go away.
So we are weakening all our other vasanas, but are strengthening this vasana to cling to Bhagavan. But we are still clinging to something other than ourself. So long as we are clinging to Bhagavan’s name and form, we are also clinging to our name and form. By thinking about Bhagavan we are subduing our mind from branching out in many directions, so that way it is beneficial.
When we turn our attention within, our attachment to our name and form begins to dissolve. This is the most purifying of all forms of practice. When we lose all connection with our name and form, we will also lose all connection with the name and form of Bhagavan. However, when we experience ourself as we really are, we simultaneously also experience Bhagavan as he really is, because Bhagavan and ourself are not different in our essential nature.
The precise present moment is the immeasurably fine boundary or interface between the past and future
Michael says in his book HAB:
The precise present moment is the immeasurably fine boundary or interface between the past and the future. Where the past ends, the future begins, so the interface between them is an infinitely fine point that has no measurement or extent. Similarly the precise present place is the immeasurably fine point that exists in the very centre of our perception of space.
Michael has elaborated on this in his latest video:
In vipassana meditation they are always trying to be aware of what is happening in the present moment. That is not the present moment, because happening can only take place in the flow or movement of time. Everything happens in the present, but not in the exact present moment. It happens in the relative present – the flow from past to future.
And if we analyze time, what exactly is the present moment? If we take a second, a second has certain duration. But the whole of the second is not the present moment. A split second earlier is past; a split second ahead is future. So if we analyze or look very closely at the present moment, it is just an infinitesimally small interface between the past and the future.
In the precise present moment there is no room for any thought, any movement, because movement can only happen in the flow of time from past to future. In the exact present moment there is perfect stillness. This is our true nature. So to know what the exact present moment is we have to look at ourself. What is present in the present moment is only ourself.
Thoughts arise and subside, all phenomena rise and subside in the flow of time from past to future. When we are able to focus all our attention on the exact present moment, we will find that the past and future are both unreal. In fact time is unreal.
So our mind has to extremely sharp to see what we actually are. In Arunachala Panchratnam Bhagavan says that we need a blemishless mind. So mind has to be very much purified, refined, sharpened and made pure, and we can cultivate such a sharp and pure mind by atma-vichara.
Sanjay Lohia,
"So mind has to be very much purified, refined, sharpened and made pure, and we can cultivate such a sharp and pure mind by atma-vichara."
What you say is quite plausible.
anma sorupam, how much did you grasp of Bhagavan's teaching? Apparently not much as many here on this blog. Instead of that constant palaver here quoting certain texts why not putting some things into practice? Like your denial about your own arrogance?
Bhagavan taught that the world is a projection of your mind. When your mind cannot stand something or is judgmental about "others" being talkative or whatever then that is only noticed because it is a projection of your very own [and same] attributes your are in denial with. If you'd be in peace with arrogance or boasting it never could irritate you. That is kindergarten spirituality, however it is apparent how many here have not even grasped that (or prefer to ignore it). You guys jumped elementary school and signed up for some college classes, no wonder about the rampant confusion.
If you cannot stand somebody boasting that means that you have unresolved issues with your own boasting or arrogance. The stronger your irritation the stronger the extend of your denial. To make things worse, your denial makes your ego pointing the finger and yelling at others instead to look at yourself. A specialty of Ravi, something in urgent need for attention.
So much talk about humility, but I don't see any humility on this blog. Just some conceited egos playing games and being in denial.
Mouna my friend, you wrote:
"Concepts are mind produced phenomena, but as pointers we need to be clear where are they pointing at and the content where they were produced, otherwise we might end up at the wrong destination"
In that spirit, I think you are mistaken in asserting that Bhagavan's ajata position meant that on self-realisation, there is not even the appearance of the world.
GVK62: The world appearance is an association that comprises the five sense perceptions. He who has known it to be wholly Self, the consciousness that is the supreme, knows and experiences the same swarupa through his five senses as well.
Murugunar's comment: This verse explains the little known truth that the sahaja state is experienced even in external perceptions. For him who truly knows sense perceptions to be his own Self, the world is not an obstacle. he experiences and enjoys his own Self in all perceptions and rejoices identically both internally and externally without even a trace of the thought of bondage.
GVK1119: Though the mind that has been captivated and held under the sway of shining of pure being may move away to sense objects that are seen, heard, eaten, smelt and touched, as in the past, its knot has definitely been severed through perfect, firm, vichara.
Murugunar's comment: There is no rule that the mind whose knot has been cut should not operate among the sense objects. Through strength of practice, it can remain without kartrutva (sense of doing), the suttarivu (the false consciousness that divides itself into someone who sees and objects that are seen), and it can operate among them [the sense objects] wholly as the Self, but it will not in the least become bound by them.
Also, from Robert Butler's translation of Murugunar's "Sri Guru Ramana Prasadam":
250: As soon as I experienced the wondrous illumination of mauna, shining within my mind as the grace of supreme consciousness, the train of knower, known and knowledge appearing before me became merely a series of images projected upon a screen.
251: The glorious reality of the Self, consciousness, is the unmoving screen upon which the interplay of the triad of knower, known and knowledge takes place, I have found my proper place, coming to abide as the shining witness that illuminates them with the light of 'I'.
293: When the movement of the mind merges through grace with the experience of jnana in the non-dual state of mauna, it does not become separate from Sivam, but rather its nature becomes pure Sivam, through the dying away and disappearance of the arrogant ego, deluded by desire. In me activity in the world is no more than an appearance.
611: Those who have clearly realised the truth that the reality of the Self underlies all ideas of "I" and 'mine' will never lose their grip on that Self whose form is immutable consciousness, even in the midst of the world with its multifarious activities.
In similar vein, Lakshmana Sarma, in his Sri Ramanaparavidyopanishad writes a series of verses on the unreality of the world, including:
428: Just as one that has become wise to the truth of the mirage without being deluded, so too the Sage, seeing this world, does not think of it as real, as does the ignorant one.
Best wishes.
Salazar,
after exchanging our ignorant views in form of "kindnesses of all sorts" I try to use this afternoon with careful study of Bhagavan's teaching.
With best wishes.
I don't think Bhagavan Ramana meant that world actually disappears on Realization. I mean, he walked around objects in his path and not into walls, embraced his favorite cow, leaned on his walking stick, etc, etc, etc. Really bizarre to interpret what he said/wrote as meaning dematerialization of world!?
Anonymous, yes, when we experience ourself as we actually are, the world-appearance doesn’t get dematerialized, but rather we come to know that the world never existed in the first place. Bhagavan said in paragraph 18 of Nan Yar?:
Except that waking is dīrgha [long lasting] and dream is kṣaṇika [momentary or lasting for only a short while], there is no other difference [between these two mind-created states]. To the extent to which all the vyavahāras [doings, activities, affairs or occurrences] that happen in waking seem [at this present moment] to be real, to that [same] extent even the vyavahāras that happen in dream seem at that time to be real.
We experience a world in our dream, but when we wake up we realize that there was actually no world there. Whatever we saw in our dream was nothing but our own imagination. Therefore, our dream-world doesn’t become dematerialized when we wake us, but we realize that the dream world never existed in the first place.
In our dream we may see Bhagavan walk around objects in his path and not into walls, embrace his favorite cow and lean on his walking stick, but when we wake we will realize that that Bhagavan and his actions were just part of our dream, and therefore it never really existed in the place first place.
Bhagavan is like a lion that appears in an elephant’s dream. The lion is unreal, but the fright of seeing the lion wakes up the elephant, and this waking up is real. Similarly the name and form of Bhagavan is unreal, our own imagination, but it will bring about our awakening to our real state (porul), and such waking up will be real. It will end all our imaginations once and for all.
venkat, you are correctly pointing out Mouna's mistake. I noticed that too but didn't mention it because from what I've read from Mouna so far it seems he got the gist of it (realization), so why being so finicky (a favorite on this blog) about certain concepts?
It must be instant karma for Mouna since he insisted to me that "exact wording" is a must and then he made that ajata comment.
Guys, this whole ajata thing is something the mind can get crazy about but what does the conceptual knowledge of ajata really yield in terms of realization - NOTHING!
There are so many vasanas which are lurking in our sub-consciousness, those are the ones who direct and rule the jiva without him even being aware of it. These vasanas impact on realization is far greater than the correct understanding of conceptual knowledge. Atma-vichara will bring those vasanas to the surface in form of thoughts and unpleasant emotional discharges.
That's why it is so laughable that certain jivas believe they could change anything, "cultivate" anything by other means than atma-vichara. "Purifying the mind" - Bhagavan used that term but it was not meant in the way many seem to believe, as an instruction to deliberately outwardly change "habits" - because that would lead back to samsara and not realization. Too bad that this is not clear at all.
Salazar wrote to anma sorupam, ‘When your mind cannot stand something or is judgmental about "others" being talkative or whatever then that is only noticed because it is a projection of your very own [and same] attributes you are in denial with’.
I agree with Salazar’s point of view. We see many egos outside, but they are all projection of the one ego which actually exists (till it is destroyed). Likewise all the good or bad qualities we see in others are just a reflection of these very qualities in us.
If we see arrogance in others, it is because there is still arrogance in us. If we see greediness in others, it is because there is still greediness in us. So if we see such qualities in others, we still have a long way to go in sadhana, and therefore we need to redouble our efforts.
Only when we are able to destroy our ego by looking carefully at it, we will be able to destroy all our inherent good and bad qualities. Once our ego is destroyed we will see no egos outside, and therefore we will also not see any good or bad qualities in ‘others’.
As times we are abused by others for no apparent fault of ours. Michael once said that we should not take personally whatever abuse is thrown at us, because any abuse is just a reflection of the abuser’s character and a symptom of their ego.
My understanding of Michael's position is along the lines that Mouna has written. See:
http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/the-difference-between-vivarta-vada-and.html
where he writes:
"when this ego is annihilated by self-investigation, our experience will not be that there was once an ego that has now ceased to exist, but that there was never any ego at all, and that there was accordingly never any illusory appearance of anything whatsoever. This is the experience of ajāta.
Therefore ajāta is not like a random night of sleep in which we happened not to dream, in contrast of other nights when we happened to dream, but is the experience that there never was any dreamer and hence no dream has ever occurred or ever could occur."
Michael takes a literal interpretation of UN v26, where Bhagavan writes:
"If the ego which is the embryo comes into existence, everything will come into existence. If the ego does not exist, everything will not exist . . ."
But I think Murugunar makes it clear that it is the suttarivu - the false idea of separation - that goes on realisation.
When we seem to move from one place to another, that other place becomes ‘here’
Introduction: We feel that we move about in space, but actually space moves about in us. Likewise we feel that we move forward in time, but actually time moves about in us. Michael has explained this in his book HAB. He says:
Because we identify ourself with a particular body, we feel that we move about in space, whereas in fact space moves about in us. That is, because we are not this material body but only consciousness, all space exists only within us, and hence all movement in space occurs only within us. Wherever we appear to go, the present place ‘here’ goes with us. When we seem to move from one place to another, that other place becomes ‘here’, that is, it moves into and becomes the central place in our consciousness.
My note: Likewise times moves about in us. Whenever we experience ourself as a body, we feel that we are in the present time. Therefore, the sense of 'now' moves about with us.
This world, all the persons in it, time, apace, everything seems to exist only in our mind, and our mind seems to exist within us, who are pure consciousness. However, everything that seems to exist within us is merely our ego’s imagination, and therefore when our ego is annihilated everything else will also disappear along with it, never to appear again.
Dear Venkat, greetings
Really appreciated the meticulous and instructive list of quotes you provided from many sources to sustain your point, really.
A lot of digital ink (??!!) had been spilled in this blog and in many other discussions lists about this controversial topic, so although I do appreciate the effort in demonstrating that side of the argument, after all this time I don’t think I still have the desire nor the energy to counter argument that point or start another “war of quotes” as we usually do under the spell of this topic. And let me explain you why.
First of all I don’t think the issue lies in an either-or proposition (after self realization the world disappears or the world does not disappear), as strange as it may sound, I believe is both, with the difference that I am absolutely convinced that is ego who says that... so then, did ego completely died yet?... or how come it doesn’t exist in the first place?!!... well again, yes and no! (go figure!)
The vedantic/tantric/saivist position declares that it doesn’t disappear, the “mirage” analogy; the pure advaitic/ajata position says it does (at least the ajata I understand, non-created/born) using the snake analogy.
These days I base my view on “experience”. In waking and dream there is world perception because there is a perceiver and vice versa, duality. Both seemingly arise at the same time. In deep sleep there is no perceiver nor perceived, no time so no born. As a simple minded individual I am, that for me is the answer to all questions.
Deep sleep is the ground whereupon apparently arises “me” (ego/maya), but this very thought is thought by ego, not by the ground...
To summarize in a simplistic way, if the world, in the end, does not disappear after self-realization but “I”, starting seeing the world as Brahman does not believe “that is it”, where is the problem? There is self-realization anyways!
The problem would be if indeed the world disappears after self-realization but “I” believes the world doesn’t disappear, and thinks that seeing the world as Brahman “is it”!
In the end, if it disappears or not, who cares?!!
Be well my friend and thanks again for you commentary.
m
Sanjay,
”Therefore, our dream-world doesn’t become dematerialized when we wake up...”
It doesn’t?... where does it go then? :)
Mouna, something can become dematerialized only if was a material earlier. When we wake us from our dream, we do not think that there was a material world there, but now it has become dematerialized. We realize that there was never any world in the first place.
Of course, metaphorically we can say that the material world that we experienced in our dream has become dematerialized.
Sanjay,
For the dreamer’s body the dream was quite material, base yourself on your own experience. Once we wake up FROM that dream it dematerializes, is not metaphorical.
You can’t say from the waking state point of view that it never took place.
Either you say I didn’t dream anything last night or you say I had a dream, but the dream as a dream did take place and it was all imagination, granted, or to be more precise, another ego projection, but on waking up it dematerialized, otherwise you’ll still be in it!
You too Mouna.
Salazar,
”but what does the conceptual knowledge of ajata really yield in terms of realization - NOTHING!”
You finally got the meaning and practical importance of ajata my friend!!! NOTHING!
Hey all you super-grasper:
we all make sometimes mistakes.
Or shall we now finally celebrate your realization ?
The only good message is:
If the ego is destroyed its does not exist anymore.
And then everything will not exist.
"That's why it is so laughable that certain jivas believe they could change anything, "cultivate" anything by other means than atma-vichara. "Purifying the mind" - Bhagavan used that term but it was not meant in the way many seem to believe, as an instruction to deliberately outwardly change "habits" - because that would lead back to samsara and not realization. Too bad that this is not clear at all."
Is it really advisable to consider Salazar's explanations as relevant and applicable ?
Evidently we would profit greatly from translating in reality what we recommend to others.
Sanjay Lohia,
good points which you wrote on 3 October 2017 at 07:17:
1. We can never be perfectly satisfied as long as we remain separate from God.
2. Our ultimate goal is to lose ourself in God.
3. Our aim is not to see a mental vision of God. Our aim is to destroy the mind that sees God as other than ourself.
Sanjay Lohia,
very good point:
" How can we be sure that our knowledge of anything is true knowledge, when we don’t even know what we ourself are ? If I am wearing red glasses, the whole world will appear to be red. So without knowing the colour of the glasses I am wearing, I can’t judge the colour of the world. So also to know the truth of the world, we need to know the truth of ourself, the seer of the world. "
very good point, v g p...
Sanjay Lohia,
thank you for your reply and also correcting two typos in your first reply to me.
Besides my name is purnatva not purnavata. No matter.
Presumably "Aruchanala" is nothing other than Arunachala.
Having much love for Arunachala-stones kept in my bedroom and in my trouser pocket does not exclude the mentioned "mental worship" of Arunachala.
Even when I physically stay at Arunachala Hill I always keep a stone of it with me.
As you say the most crucial influence has thinking of Arunachala in the heart.
Because I am often lost in other thoughts than Arunachala, thinking permanently and uninterruptedly of Arunachala I regrettably did not bring together even when strolling over the thorny and almost impassable slopes of the beloved Arunagiri.
At present it is too much for me to turn within more than what is within my power and ability.
May Arunachala not be angry with me because of the inadequacy of my efforts.
Sonadrisa, do not even consider to stop to shine in my mind as the destroyer of the ego.
Sanjay Lohia,
when you are in agreement about Salazar's statement written to me
"‘When your mind cannot stand something or is judgmental about "others" being talkative or whatever then that is only noticed because it is a projection of your very own [and same] attributes you are in denial with’.....
Likewise all the good or bad qualities we see in others are just a reflection of these very qualities in us. "
you should also take into consideration that it results in the further consequence that the very noticer of that attributes or qualities (reproached me with) would suffer from the same bad qualities.
As you say the best way to see not any bad quality in "others" is to lose the ego itself. I also accede to your remark what Michael once said: "that we should not take personally whatever abuse is thrown at us, because any abuse is just a reflection of the abuser’s character and a symptom of their ego."
The Urgency of Change - J Krishnamurti
Dependence, p. 95
Questioner: What do you mean, the observer?
Krishnamurti: Are you looking at it from a centre with all its conclusions of like
and dislike, opinion, judgement, the desire to be free of this emptiness and so on
- are you looking at this aridness with the eyes of conclusion - or are you looking
with eyes that are completely free? When you look at it with completely free eyes
there is no observer. If there is no observer, is there the thing observed as
loneliness, emptiness, wretchedness?
Questioner: Do you mean to say that that tree doesn't exist if I look at it
without conclusions, without a centre which is the observer?
Krishnamurti: Of course the tree exists.
Questioner: Why does loneliness disappear but not the tree when I look
without the observer?
Krishnamurti: Because the tree is not created by the centre, by the mind of the
"me". But the mind of the "me', in all its self-centred activity has created this
emptiness, this isolation. And when that mind, without the centre, looks, the self-
centred activity ends. So the loneliness is not. Then the mind functions in freedom. Looking at the whole structure of attachment and detachment, and the
movement of pain and pleasure, we see how the mind of the "me" builds its own
desert and its own escapes. When the mind of the "me" is still, then there is no
desert and there is no escape.
I think Sri Ramana's statements are epistemological, not ontological.
About ontology the only answer he gave was silence.
Sanjay Lohia, Thanks for the explanation. I am unable to appreciate your point of view, but if it "works" for you, great.
Slightly connected commentary with the topic at hand...
I always wondered about Talk 315 in “Talks with Ramana Maharshi” where Bhagavan apparently quotes Shankara with his statement: “(1) Brahman is real; (2) the universe is a myth; (3) Brahman is the universe.” And I wondered because Shankara actually didn’t say that or at least not completely (as per his recorded writings).
I think, my subjective feeling, is that is one of those cases where the scribe of Talks “glossed” over what Bhagavan said with his own understanding… but of course I can’t be sure about it.
Many of the seekers that sustain that the universe is real from the point of view of Brahman quote this passage in Talks, which actually is very dubious because it will mean that Bhagavan misquoted Shankara…
In any case, there are two instances in Shankara’s literature where something similar is pronounced (but not as recorded in Talks).
One of them is in Viveka Chudamani Verse 20:
“brahma satyaM jaganmithyetyevaMruupo vinishchayaH .
so.ayaM nityaanityavastuvivekaH samudaahR^itaH”
(Trans) The firm understanding that reality is Brahman and that the material world (jagat) is mithyaa is spoken of as discrimination between the eternal and the transcient (nityaanityavastuviveka) or A firm conviction that Brahman alone is Real and the phenomenal world is unreal is known as discrimination between the Real and the unreal.
The other case is the actual famous phrase:
Brahma satyam jagat mithya, jivo brahmaiva naparah
And it happens in a work attributed to Shanaracharya: Brahma Jnanavali Mala (also Verse 20)
brahma satyam jaganmithyA jIvo brahmaiva nAparah
anena vedyam sacchAstram iti vedAntaDiNDimah--20
(Trans) Brahman is real, the universe is mithya. The jiva is Brahman itself and not different.
This should be understood as the correct SAstra. This is proclaimed by Vedanta.
As we can see, the ultimate meaning of “(1)Brahman is real, (2) the universe is mithya. (3)The jiva is Brahman itself and not different.” is a little bit different from: “(1) Brahman is real; (2) the universe is a myth; (3) Brahman is the universe.” Subtle difference, but I won’t go into that right now…
Food for thought.
Blessings,
m
purnatva, sorry, I misspelled Arunachala and your name.
Arunachala can never be angry with us, because it is love itself. It doesn’t know what anger is. As Bhagavan sings in verse 101 of Sri Arunachala Aksaramanamalai:
Arunachala, like ice in water, lovingly melt me as love in you, the form of love.
So Bhagavan has himself said that Arunachala is the form of love. We are not able to experience this pure love because of our insufficient love for it. Our love for Arunachala at present is like ice – that is, it is cold and frozen. The more we remember Arunachala, the more this frozen ice will start melting, and eventually we will merge in Arunachala, the form of love.
Our practice of self-investigation is another very powerful way of melting our cold and hardened ego. The more we practise self-investigation, the more we will start to disappear in absolute love, which is ourself as we really are.
Mouna, This is an oft repeated saying:
(1) Brahman is real
(2) The universe is a myth
(3) The universe is brahman itself
Suppose if we are walking with Bhagavan, and we see a snake lying on our way. Bhagavan doesn't see any snake there, but sees only a rope. Therefore, he could instruct us as follows:
(1) Rope [brahman] alone is real
(2) The snake [universe] is a myth
(3) The snake [universe] is nothing but a rope [brahman] (because what we see as a snake is not a snake but only a rope)
Does it make the original statement clear?
Sanjay,
With all due respect, know your sources well before comment.
First of all the “oft repeated saying” is often repeated by whom? (as far as I remember, Michael only explained it once in a talk on video)
Second, you misquoted, the saying as recorded in Talks IS NOT: “The universe is brahman itself”, but “Brahman
is the universe”. A subtle difference, for those who take the time to think about these things.
If you had quoted Shankara that (apparently) said “the jiva is not different from Brahman” (jivo brahmaiva naparah) you would have made more sense, but reaction usually comes faster than reflection on what is presented as evidence.
So what you said didn’t make the meaning of the misquote (what you call the “original statement”) more clear, on the contrary.
The snake is the rope all right (for the awakened one maybe), but the rope can never be the snake.
The ego is Brahman under the filter of maya, but for Brahman there isn’t and there wasn’t any ego ever.
By the way, I appreciate the effort to instruct us, but my point wasn’t that I was confused by the statement or that I didn’t understand it, it was simply to point out an error that reveals one more time that Talks cannot be trusted at face value when it comes to present Bhagavan’s words as he really uttered them and people get confused by many confused statements in that book.
And As an addendum to my last commentary, that same passage in Talks we were discussing about, the second statement that reads: “the universe is a myth” denotes the complete lack of understanding of the actual word that is used in the shastras: “mithya”, which is not “myth” (or maybe in a very convoluted sense) but rather phenomena that seems real but it isn’t, illusory. A very difficult word to translate.
I strongly doubt Bhagavan used the word “myth” or its equivalent in Tamil or Sanskrit but since I wasn’t there, I cannot say for sure.
Sanjay Lohia and Mouna,
keep a sense of proportion.
How can the ego/mind have even an intuitive grasp of brahman never mind mentally/ rationally or intellectually ?
Silence is a sermon
Bhagavan’s main teaching was silence. What does it mean? It means that he wanted us to aim for not only mental silence, but to go beyond mental silence. He wanted us to destroy our mind, so that we become established in real silence, which can only come once our ego and all its thoughts are destroyed. In fact, as Michael often reminds us, our ego is the first noise, and is the root of all other noise.
What exists is only silence, and therefore silence can be known only by silence. Bhagavan once said that guru’s silence is the greatest upadesa, and the disciple’s silence is his greatest lesson.
Bhagavan unusually sat in silence. He answered the questions which were put to him by the devotees, but he never went out into the world to teach people. The following incident gives us an awe-inspiring sample of his teaching through silence. This is taken from an article called The Hymn to Sri Dakshinamurti (pp. 8-9) which has appeared in the latest Mountain Path (Vol. 54 NO. 4):
T. K. Sundaresa Iyer, an ardent devotee who first met Bhagavan in 1908, relates in his moving reminiscences an incident:
It was Sivaratri Day. The evening worship at the Mother’s shrine was over. The devotees had their dinner with Sri Bhagavan, who was now on His seat. At 8 p.m. one of the sadhus stood up, did pranam (offered obeisance), and with folded hands prayed: ‘Today is the Sivaratri Day; we should be highly blessed by Sri Bhagavan expounding to us the meaning of the Hymn to Dakshinamurti (stotra)’. Bhagavan said, ‘Yes, sit down’.
The sadhu sat, and all eagerly looked at Sri Bhagavan and Sri Bhagavan looked at them. Sri Bhagavan sat and sat in his usual pose, no, poise. No words, no movement, and all was stillness! He sat still, and all sat still, waiting. The clock went on striking, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, one, two and three. Sri Bhagavan sat and they sat. Stillness, calmness, motionlessness – not conscious of the body, of space or time.
Thus eight hours were passed in peace, in Silence, in Being, as it is. Thus was the Divine Reality taught through the speech of Silence by Bhagavan Sri Ramana-Dakshinamurti. At the stroke of 4 a.m. Sri Bhagavan quietly said: ‘And now have you known the essence of the Dakshinamurti Hymn’. All the devotees stood and made pranam to the holy Form of the Guru in the ecstasy of their Being.
Sanjay Lohia,
could you please explain the meaning of "ecstasy of their Being" ?
Hi Michael and Anyone Else Inclined to Answer,
Bhagavan in the note to his mother says that whatever is to happen will happen and what is not to happen will not happen despite your efforts to the contrary; therefore, the best course is to remain silent. Now, I was wondering how one goes about remaining silent. By being silent, I would assume it means that your mind is not engaged in thought. But, if so, it is not possible to remain silent all the time because to perform the predetermined actions, you will be forced to engage in thinking and thus not being silent. Practically speaking, this means that anyone engaged in an 8-hr job, as most people are, they cannot remain silent for those 8 hours because the demand for action at work will necessitate thinking. When they return home, assuming they have a family of their own, as most people tend to have, they will be forced (or choose) to engage in conversations, which entails thinking and hence cannot remain silent. The only time they will have a chance to be silent is perhaps if they can carve out an hour or two from this busy life to stay silent when there are no demands on their time and they can be alone. Apart from those 1 or 2 hours, I do not see how one can remain silent. Isn't that so? So, is Bhagavan's prescription of being silent more easily implementable by bachelors (spinsters) who are not working for a living?
D Samarender Reddy you can have some answer here :
http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.fr/2016/02/why-should-we-believe-what-bhagavan.html#benefit
here :
http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.fr/2017/05/how-to-avoid-following-or-completing.html#dec98note
here :
http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.fr/2017/06/concern-about-fate-and-free-will-arises.html#thinking
and here :
http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.fr/2017/09/if-we-choose-to-do-any-harmful-actions.html#dec98note
Thanks, Jacques Franck, for the links. But they do not answer my main doubt as to how one can be silent when one is at work in a 9-to-5 job because at that time one is forced to keep thinking, which is far from being silent.
Just a trial.
Sanjay Lohia,
I would like to have been one of the devotees who where gathered sitting around Bhagavan then in the old dining room. Even the dishwashers and the kitchen staff in the neighbouring kitchen would have benefitted by the eight hours silence of the then Sivaratri night.
What could/would be more conducive to real knowledge than knowing the essence of the Hymn to Sri Dakshinamurti ?
@D Samarender Reddy:
Sir, my experience is that when you totally accept that whatever is to happen will happen and what is not to happen will not happen despite your efforts to the contrary, a different kind of silence results naturally. It persists even when you are engaged in work. No other effort is required to achieve this silence other than total faith in what bhagavan wrote to his mother.
Thanks, Sanjay Srivastava. What you wrote rings true for me. Thanks once again for the insight.
D Samarender Reddy,
it is not at all necessary to be outwardly completely silent during working time.
But without any doubt keeping inwardly highly attentive or vigilant to one's inner pure/real awareness at least to some degree is possible even during carrying out any work. And that is certainly promoting one's efforts to follow Bhagavan's teaching.
D Samarender Reddy, greetings
There is silence in acceptance and surrender to what is, that kind of silence doesn’t necessarily mean the absence of words or thoughts.
I understand that being one of the facets of meaning when Bhagavan wrote that phrase to his mother.
Acceptance and surrender don’t necessarily mean “lack of action” but rather an unobstructed view of what is happening based on the understanding that is beyond our control.
In some verses of Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham (26-27) Bhagavan quotes Vasista instructing Rama (I am paraphrasing) as to how to play one’s role to the best of our abilities but trying as much as one can to have our mind and our heart fixed inwards on the, and I think is appropriate to use this term here, silence that underlies and permeates all phenomena.
Thanks Tanmai for your observations.
Greetings, Mouna. I can very much see what you are saying. Here is to Silence, then.
Samarender Reddy, continuing the gentle kidding in your final query - "So, is Bhagavan's prescription of being silent more easily implementable by bachelors (spinsters) who are not working for a living?" .
It seems to me that you are predetermined to ponder this question without arriving at a definite answer. Bhagavan's reply to his mother is of no use when you look ahead to the future because one can never know what is determined.
But it a source of consolation when you look back at the past because what happened was indeed determined so regret is a useless emotion.
tanmai, our being (what we really are) is pure happiness. The devotees were in the presence of their guru and that too silting for eight hours in an atmosphere surcharged with Bhagavan’s silence. Thus they felt extreme joy, which must have had a spill over effect even after they got up. Thus it could be said that they were in the ‘ecstasy of their being’.
D. Samarender, Bhagavan’s path is for all – bachelors, spinsters, married, sanyasis, householders, retired persons, or whoever. Bhagavan himself says that it is the direct path for all. He teaches us in verse 17 of Upadesa Undiyar:
When one investigates [examines or scrutinises] the form of the mind without neglecting [forgetting, abandoning, giving up or ceasing], anything called ‘mind’ will not exist. This is the direct [straight or appropriate] path for everyone whomsoever.
You say. ‘By being silent, I would assume it means that your mind is not engaged in thought’. No, we can be inwardly silent – attentively self-aware – but outwardly our body, mind and speech may be engaged in various actions according to our destiny. If we are sufficiently in-drawn, we may not even realize what our body, speech and mind are up to. In other words, we can remain ahamukham (‘I’-facing or in self-attentiveness) even in the midst of our activities, and this is what Bhagavan wants us to aim for. He says in paragraph 11 of Nan Yar?:
If one clings fast to uninterrupted svarūpa-smaraṇa[self-remembrance] until one attains svarūpa [one’s own actual self], that alone [will be] sufficient.
This sentence has many implications:
1) If we are practicing self-investigation, we need not practise any other sadhana. This practice itself is enough to take us to our goal.
2) We are capable of uninterrupted srarupa-smarana. If we were not, Bhagavan wouldn’t have asked us to try it.
3) We should try to practice self-investigation even in the midst of our other activities, because we do need to act as long as we experience ourself as an ego.
4) While we are antarmukham in the midst of our other activities, our self-attentiveness may not be very deep, but we can certainly remain in-drawn to some extent. It is to stress this point that Bhagavan describes it as svarupa-smarana (self-remembrance). This world itself suggests a tenuous self-attentiveness.
https://www.closertotruth.com/topics/consciousness/free-will
Mystery of Free Will
TV EPISODE
Big Questions in Free Will II?
TV EPISODE
Anonymous, I did not mean to kid, but that's how it reads I guess.
Thanks, Sanjay Lohia, for your pertinent comments.
D. Samarender, in my first comment I had discussed the most effective way to keep silent (or relatively silent) even while we are engaged in our activities – that is, we should try to be attentively self-aware, to the extent possible, even while acting.
We can supplement this practice by totally trusting paramesvara sakti, by surrendering all our worldly burdens to him. We should have an attitude, even when we are bahirmukham (outward facing), that whatever has happened, whatever is happening or whatever will happen in our live is for our ultimate spiritual good. Bhagavan explains this in paragraph 13 of Nan Yar?:
Even though we place whatever amount of burden upon God, that entire amount he will bear. Since one paramēśvara śakti [supreme ruling power or power of God] is driving all activities [everything that happens in this world], instead of yielding to it why should we always think, ‘it is necessary to act in this way; it is necessary to act in that way’? Though we know that the train is going bearing all the burdens, why should we who go travelling in it suffer bearing our small luggage on our head instead of remaining happily leaving it placed on that [train].
The more we trust the supreme ruling power to take care of burdens, the more we will keep quiet or silent. To the extent we trust Bhagavan, to that extent we will react less to outside events, by realising that everything is Bhagavan’s will, so why should ‘I’ (ego) rise and try to change outside events.
Bhagavan is all-knowing, all-powerful and all–loving, and therefore whatever he has ordained as our prarabdha has to be in our best interest. His love is taking perfect care of us in all ways. If we are following the path shown to us by Bhagavan, we should be doubly confident that Bhagavan is fully in charge. Without such faith and trust in Bhagavan we may not be able to devote our entire attention on practising the path of self-investigation.
As Bhagavan implies, since we are travelling on a train whose driver is Bhagavan himself, we should not only place our luggage (all our worldly responsibilities) on the luggage rack of the train, but also trust the driver (Bhagavan) to carry us safely to our destination.
Oh, how disappointing, Samarender Reddy, I thought I'd found someone with a sense of humor on this blog.
Anyway, I think Sri Ramana's reply to his mother was mainly intended to console her and nothing more because it doesn't contain any information other than to remain mouna.
Now, it depends how you interpret that word mouna - if you want to take it at face value he is advising her to stop talking.
If you use the deepest interpretation, he is advising her to become enlightened.
But as a guide to practical action in the world it contains no information. If you know with certainty what is going to happen, why/how would/could you go against it?
Unfortunately, no one, including Bhagavan Ramana, is privy to that knowledge.
Hi Anonymous, sorry to disappoint you. I guess I do have a sense of humour but I feel it may be irreverent to display it on this rather serious blog. But, I think Bhagavan did have a good laugh now and then, so perhaps some levity is called for even on this blog.
You say, "If you know with certainty what is going to happen, why/how would/could you go against it?" For instance, say, I know with certainty that next day I am going to fracture my leg. Now, knowing that today can I be silent, or will I go on worrying about it with anxiety is the question. Since you cannot prevent it with your worrying and anxiety, Bhagavan is saying the best alternative is to accept your destiny and not worry about it and be silent. Like Sanjay Srivastava said above, certain silence descends naturally on you when you know you cannot do anything to prevent what is to happen.
But, I agree that it is not easy to know your future, except perhaps such knowledge as you can divine by visiting a good palmist or astrologer, but even then they will only give you the broad contours of your life and not any nitty-gritty details.
Sanjay Srivastava said above that it is a matter of faith to believe in Bhagavan's note to his mother. I wonder if there is any intellectual rational reason to say everything is predetermined. I think the fact that God is omniscient would tend to preclude your ability to surprise him by not acting according to His plan but according your whim and fancy of the moment. Also, consider this. If karma theory is correct, then most of my actions (maybe all even) must be predetermined to be able to reap my karma and also through my actions to affect or play the role of allotment of others' karma who are impinged by my actions. Also, there are several scientific studies, such as by Benjamin Libet and others, which show that our conscious decision to act is preceded several milliseconds by the readiness potential in the brain to carry out that very task, thereby debunking free will.
But, if everything is predetermined, then one's self-realization date and time must also be predetermined because the actions done by the body-mind before and after self-realization are drastically different. The way I would react to say your verbal provocation will be drastically different depending on whether I am enlightened or not, and so, if all my actions are predetermined at the time of my birth, then the date and time of my self-realization must also be predetermined. Something to think about and chew on, eh?
D Samarender Reddy, a little glossing on your thought if you allow me to do so
"But, if everything is predetermined, then one's self-realization date and time must also be predetermined because the actions done by the body-mind before and after self-realization are drastically different.”
Self-realization whipes everything out, body-mind and me, time, space and all types of karma, including self-realization itself.
Self doesn’t do nor creates. No action in self-realization.
What is now for us/me, is not, only appears to be from the point of view of the one dreaming to be some-one.
From that point of view self-realization cannot be determined because it never happened, is not happening and will never happen to me or any-one else.
Samarender Reddy, will henceforth use the handle Agnostic
Your comment is very interesting, especially this -
"Also, consider this. If karma theory is correct, then most of my actions (maybe all even) must be predetermined to be able to reap my karma and also through my actions to affect or play the role of allotment of others' karma who are impinged by my actions..."
As you have pointed out, one is part of a karmic Web and that is often overlooked. A trivial act on one's part could lead to major consequences for some one else. So it seems to me that even the most trivial of one's actions, mental AND physical may be necessary in some one else's frame of reference.
I will say more about your comment later on, it is very interesting.
But self-realization is one phenomenon I don't usually discuss because it is beyond me and is anyway said to be literally out of one's mind!
Mouna, greetings
you say "From that point of view self-realization cannot be determined because it never happened, is not happening and will never happen to me or any-one else."
Who is the viewer in the above case of "that point of view" ?
Agnostic,
you say "But self-realization is one phenomenon I don't usually discuss because it is beyond me and is anyway said to be literally out of one's mind!"
Is there nobody at home in the land of "out of one's mind" ?
D Samarender Reddy,
"Also, there are several scientific studies, such as by Benjamin Libet and others, which show that our conscious decision to act is preceded several milliseconds by the readiness potential in the brain to carry out that very task, thereby debunking free will."
Does the result of that study (readiness potential ...) really debunk free will ?
Mouna, I am wary of entering that discussion because it can be a slippery slope of confusing concepts and ideas. Nevertheless, I have to point out that Bhagavan did say that his moment of self-realization was when he had the death experience. Now, at this point you will say Bhagavan is the Self and not the body speaking so. That line of argumentation will lead us nowhere except the silencing of all possible discussion around the topic on hand. One could of course say that since Bhagavan is the Self, it also includes the body of Bhagavan.
Agnostic, I look forward to your further comments on the topic.
One Space, what is the reason for your skepticism about the scientific studies "debunking" free will?
Anonymous,
three remarks:
a.) "... because it doesn't contain any information other than to remain mouna."
Where is there any lack of information in Ramana's statement ?
Is not on the contrary his recommendation of keeping silence just the fullness of information and teaching ?
b.) " If you know with certainty what is going to happen, why/how would/could you go against it? "
"What is going to happen" or what will happen is just unknown.
c.) "Unfortunately, no one, including Bhagavan Ramana, is privy to that knowledge."
Bhagavan never claimed to be clairvoyant. Why should he have the need for such kind of "knowledge" ?
D Samarender Reddy,
I only wanted to examine whether (the discovery of) the fact of the existence of the mentioned readiness potential in the brain preceding the conscious decision to act does debunk free will and if yes in which way ?
D Samarender Reddy,
you seem to imply that all what exists is included in the infinite "Self".
But if we would consider all matter and even the gross body of someone as enclosed in "the Self" there would be no need of any "self-realization".
Svatma-bhakti,
'Is there nobody at home in the land of "out of one's mind" ?'
I am very happy to discover another commenter with a sense of humor.
Agnostic,
who or which phenomeneon are you to think that anything could beyond you ?
One Space, you write "I only wanted to examine whether (the discovery of) the fact of the existence of the mentioned readiness potential in the brain preceding the conscious decision to act does debunk free will and if yes in which way ?"
Well, the investigators were able to predict with a percentage of accuracy greater than would be the case due to merely chance, what the subject was going to do even before the subject himself was conscious that that is what he wanted to do.
Karu, you write, "you seem to imply that all what exists is included in the infinite "Self". But if we would consider all matter and even the gross body of someone as enclosed in "the Self" there would be no need of any "self-realization"."
It is true that the Self is everything just like all the waves are part of the ocean, but due to ignorance our minds consider the body to be a separate entity composed of matter only, and hence the need for self-realization, which is merely the removal of the ignorance that one is a separate self independent of the Self.
D Samarender Reddy,
you say "If karma theory is correct, then most of my actions (maybe all even) must be predetermined to be able to reap my karma and also through my actions to affect or play the role of allotment of others' karma who are impinged by my actions."
I would reply more accurate that the role of allotment of others' karma...is played not by your actions as such but by God's ruling power.
One Space, yes it is by God's ruling power but that power does not act magically but by controlling and directing our actions, which in turn affects others as per their karma or God's will.
D Samarender Reddy,
is it not also true that the self does not even see waves or an ocean ?
The mind/ego considers not only its adjunct (the body) as separated but also itself as a separate entity.
Likewise the need for self-realization exists only in the view of the deluded ego which itself does not really exist. Therefore we should not lose sight of the fact that there is actually nothing but the self. All other views make us bewildered.
Coming back to your statement in reply to Mouna that "one could of course say that since Bhagavan is the Self, it also includes the body of Bhagavan."
In that context we should rather have the good sense to consider Bhagavan's mortal body as not the self.
If we say that nothing ever happened may or shall we then also correctly derive that nothing has ever been ?
power of grace, greetings back
”From that point of view self-realization cannot be determined because it never happened, is not happening and will never happen to me or any-one else.
Who is the viewer in the above case of "that point of view"?”
Good point! I always wondered that myself too!
Karu,
You seem to be arguing from the Ajata Vada point of view. Fine, have it your way because my mind cannot fathom Ajata Vada as it is presented from one interpretation of it, as presented by Michael on this blog.
D Samarender Reddy,
no matter, because as you say you are not the mind.
The mind is said to be the embodiment of self-ignorance.
The main thing is that Arunachala shines in your heart as 'I'.
Samarender Reddy (would Sam be OK?)
One of Einstein's best quotes
I do not at all believe in human freedom in the philosophical sense... Schopenhauer’s saying, ‘A man can do what he wants, but not will what he wants,’ has been a very real inspiration to me since my youth; it has been a continual consolation in the face of life’s hardships, my own and others’, and an unfailing wellspring of tolerance. This realization mercifully mitigates the easily paralyzing sense of responsibility and prevents us from taking ourselves and other people too seriously; it is conducive to a view of life which, in part, gives humour its due.
“I do not believe in free will. Schopenhauer's words: 'Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills,' accompany me in all situations throughout my life and reconcile me with the actions of others, even if they are rather painful to me. This awareness of the lack of free will keeps me from taking myself and my fellow men too seriously as acting and deciding individuals, and from losing my temper.”
— Albert Einstein (1932), “My Credo”,
Agnostic, yes, you can call me Sam. Good to see Einstein agreeing with Bhagavan. Check out Sam Harris' YouTube videos on Free Will - there are several of them.
Bhagavan says that self-investigation is the best of all practices, but should we assert this to others?
Introduction: Many of us are firmly convinced that self-investigation is the best of all practices. Does such a belief entail that we look down upon other practices? Does it entail that we are proud of the fact that we are practising the best of all practices? I had some similar doubts, and so I wrote an email to Michael asking for his views on the matter. This is what he wrote to me (sometime in October 2015):
We cannot develop pride by practising self-investigation, because by trying to practise even a little self-investigation we are beginning to chop away at the root of all pride, namely our ego. However, we can develop pride by imagining that we are in any way superior to others merely because we try to practise self-investigation.
Even believing that self-investigation is the best of all practices (because it alone can directly destroy our ego and because it is the most effective and reliable means to purify our mind) will not create pride in us, if we merely treasure this belief in our heart and discuss it only with those who want to know about it, but it can create pride if we try to force the idea on others or argue about it with anyone who is not yet ready to understand why Bhagavan said it is the best practice.
(I will continue this in my next comment)
Agnostic,
would you please tell me what world-picture you have as an agnostic - if any at all ?
In continuation of my previous comment:
My note: Therefore, if we share our views about self-investigation on this blog, it should not create pride in us, because this blog is meant to discuss Bhagavan’s teachings. However, if we go into the world, mount a platform and try to give a discourse on the method and benefits of self-investigation, it is highly likely that it will create pride in us. In other words, as Michael says, we should not try to force our views on others. Bhagavan never did it, so why should we not emulate Bhagavan?
Even on this blog we find a few who are not willing to concede that self-investigation is the only path which can enable us to experience ourself as we really are. Should we argue with them or try to convince them with our explanations? We can do it to some extent, because after all this blog is meant for such discussions. However, if they are not able to appreciate our point of view, we should not continue such arguments. Such arguments should have a limit, because if we stretch it too far it may create unnecessary mental disturbance in us.
After all, people can come to Bhagavan’s real teachings only when they are ready for it. Bhagavan knows when we are ready for his teachings, and he will expose it to us at the right time. I believe most of us (except a few) on this blog are ready to understand and follow his teachings, otherwise we wouldn’t have been here.
Agnostic,
Schopenhauer's statement that "A man can do what he wants, but not will what he wants"
is not at all true.
Certainly one can want what one wants.
Perhaps Schopenhauer was wrongly quoted or translated.
Ich glaube nicht an die Freiheit des Willens. Schopenhauers Wort: 'Der Mensch kann wohl tun, was er will, aber er kann nicht wollen, was er will', begleitet mich in allen Lebenslagen und versöhnt mich mit den Handlungen der Menschen, auch wenn sie mir recht schmerzlich sind.
http://www.einstein-website.de/z_biography/credo.html
Agnostic,
thanks for providing the German original version of Schopenhauer's statement.
His assertion is to all appearances based on the assumption that even one's wanting is predetermined or at least depending from a preconceived (mental) attitude or preset/preshaped/premoulded personality or character. But there is still enough place for free wanting. Kind regards.(Liebe Grüße).
Commenter One ignorant, my handle Agnostic is just that, a handle for this blog.
As for my world view, I believe what Maharshi Ramana said. (inexact wording?)
“All the activities that the body is to do and all the experiences it is to pass through were determined when it first came into existence.”
Unfortunately, he also added a sentence that I do not agree with -
"The only freedom you have is to turn your mind inwards and renounce activities there."
Of course, are many historical figures who have had such a conviction.
Should be - There are many historical...
I also agree with Bernard Shaw -
Death is for many of us the gate of hell; but we are inside on the way out, not outside on the way in.
The world is Dukkha.
Agnostic, Bernard Shaw says, ‘Death is for many of us the gate of hell; but we are inside on the way out, not outside on the way in’. However, he doesn’t reflect the teachings of Bhagavan Ramana when he says so. On death we are not inside on the way out, but inside on the way to another round of dream.
As long as our ego is alive death means ending of just one dream, and therefore very soon we will start dreaming another dream – by taking another body as ourself. We are on our way out of this mess called ‘world’ only when we begin to sincerely practise self-investigation. It is the only real sign that we are on our way to freedom – freedom from all dukkha (uncomfortableness).
Agnostic,
of course, we are free to doubt even Ramana Maharshi's asseverations and to disagree with some of his teachings. Our mind naturally cannot grasp all key teachings of this manifestation of Siva in a human form all at once.
But if we intend to experience the undivided Sivam, pure consciousness, I would recommend to wisely and finally come back to the unique wisdom and charisma of the diamondlike Bhagavan Ramana.
Thank you for your sincere and well meant advice.
Devaraja Mudaliar, My Recollections of Bhagavan Sri Ramana 4ed 2009
Page 92.
"Whatever this body is to do and whatever experiences it is to pass through was already already decided when it came into existence."
Sam,
Maharshi Ramana has said all there is to say and said it wonderfully well in part of Talk 28.
D.: What is the relation between my free-will and the overwhelming might of the Omnipotent?
(a) Is omniscience of God consistent with ego’s freewill?
(b) Is omnipotence of God consistent with ego’s freewill?
(c) Are the natural laws consistent with God’s free-will?
M.: Yes. Free-will is the present appearing to a limited faculty of sight and will. The same ego sees its past activity as falling into a course of ‘law’ or rules - its own free-will being one of the links in that course of law.
Omnipotence and omniscience of God are then seen by the ego to have acted through the appearance of his own free-will. So he comes
to the conclusion that the ego must go by appearances.
Natural laws are manifestations of God’s will and they have been laid down.
-----------
I am part of the causal chain whatever happens so can I lose my deep sense of agency? I think a superficial sense of agency is still needed but like the "burnt rope", etc, etc.
Agnostic,
Devaraja Mudaliar, p.92,
why repeating "already" ?
Bhagavan has saved us from the complex maze of various long-drawn-out spiritual and religious practices
Sometime in March 2016 I wrote the following comment on this blog:
Bhagavan’s teachings are so simple – that is, if we investigate our ego for a prolonged period of time it will eventually be destroyed. We are fortunate that Bhagavan has saved us from [the] complex maze of various long-drawn-out spiritual and religious practices.
Michael agreed with me and replied:
In comparison to atma-vicara, other practices are at best only circuitous and less effective means to purify our mind [...] Atma-vicara alone is the direct path to liberation. […]
Since annihilation of the ego is not the sole aim or even the principle aim of most other spiritual and religious practices, and since none of them lead to it directly, if we do not know what our aim should be or how best we can achieve it, all those various other spiritual and religious practices will collectively appear to be complex maze.
Therefore by clearly showing us that annihilation of our ego should be our sole aim and that atma vicara is the simplest and the only direct means to achieve it, Bhagavan has certainly saved us from this complex maze of other spiritual and religious practices. However, we will be able to appreciate this only if we have clearly understood the fundamental premises and simple logic of his teachings, in which case we will understand that we need not proselytise his teachings and should not be intolerant of others who have not yet been given to understand their unique value.
I came to Bhagavan first through music and art, then traveling the world, then Gurdjieff-Ouspensky, then Buddhism, then western Advaita, then traditional Vedanta and finally hit home with Bhagavan.
There wasn’t any travels through complex mazes, or complicated initiations, actually I understood quite well each of those roads.
They were, at least for me, stepping stones that brought me here with Him, and in turn He showed me the way. So I am completely grateful for each and every “teaching” I encountered and feel very happy for the ones that find what works for them.
In this vast dreaming experience, the elephant’s tiger shows in many ways.
It is futile to proselytize one way or another, and sometimes doing so denotes a little bit of insecurity behind...
Anyhow why bother for other ways when one found one’s true direction?
But no worries, it will all end soon.
Back to silence then.
Yes, Mouna could be right in one sense when he says, ‘It is futile to proselytize one way or another, and sometimes doing so denotes a little bit of insecurity behind... Anyhow why bother for other ways when one found one’s true direction?’ However, it could be our love for Bhagavan and his teaching which makes us talk so passionately about his teachings.
We are definitely grateful to the various spiritual practices which we have done in the past. We have had many previous influences, and it is such practices and influences which have helped us purify our mind, and such purity has helped us to finally come to Bhagavan.
However, once we have come to Bhagavan we realise that we have now taken a great quantum leap, as far as our spiritual journey is concerned. Probably earlier we were progressing at a snail’s pace, but after having come to Bhagavan’s path of self-investigation we can be sure that we are now travelling at jet speed.
Therefore, we cherish and love Bhagavan’s teachings more than anything else. It is only from the perceptive of our practice of self-investigation that other practices seem like a complex maze. Why? It is because as long as we were following those other paths, we were not aware of our goal or the path which could lead us to our goal. Everything was hazy and unclear, because probably we were trying do one thing one day and trying something else the next day - there was no real focus.
Only Bhagavan has shown us the goal we should aim for; only Bhagavan has given us a simple and direct path which can take us to this goal; and only Bhagavan has told us why attaining this goal should be the only purpose of our live. I am grateful to other paths which I had practiced in the past, but I am a thousand times more grateful now, because Bhagavan has exposed me to this path of self-investigation.
Hi Mouna
You said:
[They were, at least for me, stepping stones that brought me here with Him, and in turn He showed me the way. So I am completely grateful for each and every “teaching” I encountered and feel very happy for the ones that find what works for them.
In this vast dreaming experience, the elephant’s tiger shows in many ways.]
I agree whole heartedly.
I am grateful for all the teachings and teachers I have encountered on the way to Bhagavan. But I believe Bhagavan was all those teachers / teachings.
Cheers
H
Sanjay Lohia,
so what is our goal ?
Regarding "we are now travelling at jet speed":
the speed of our journey for the most part depends on the intensity and greatness of carefulness, truthfulness (uprightness) and vigilance with which we are practising self-investigation.
"Probably earlier we were progressing at a snail’s pace, but after having come to Bhagavan’s path of self-investigation we can be sure that we are now travelling at jet speed."
This is one of the funniest comments I have read on this blog. Ha,ha.
Anonymous,
do you poke at Sanjay Lohia ?
Sanjay Lohia is always ready for a laugh. Otherwise he will certainly allay your doubts which possibly/obviously arise.
Sanjay Lohia,
you write " It is only from the perceptive of our practice ...".
Presumably you wanted to write "perspective".
atma-sukha, yes, our speed of progress depends on the intensity and earnestness of our practice. We have a choice at each moment - either we attend to the things of this illusory world or we attend to ourself as much as possible. We can be sure that we are progressing (at least one step) towards our goal, whenever we choose to be attentively self-aware.
mango breeder, yes, it should have been 'perspective'. Thank you.
Agnostic, thank you for sharing Bhagavan's comments on free will.
Also, check out www.naturalism.org/philosophy/free-will/luck-swallows-everything
I am.
Am I happy in my being ?
Possibly in the depth of my heart might I feel that happiness of being ?
Or can I only be happy when I do not feel anything ?
Let's ask Bhagavan Annamalai to wake up Siva in my heart.
Sam, thanks for the link.
I have followed both Galen Strawson and Tom Clark for a long time and find them very interesting.
I am sure you must have run into something by Joachim Krueger, he also writes quite a lot about free will.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/one-among-many
Free will is all that stands between me and Nirvana!
Let us not forget that the maze and the confusion one goes through are not the different teachings that through their different teachers in essence point to oneself, but the mechanism of ego.
Because who is Bhagavan, Jesus, Buddha, Shankara but oneself? And where do ultimately ajata, sufism, mysticism, saivism, buddhism, kabbalah or even “neo-advaita” point to (when properly taught) if not oneself?
The complex maze which was spoken of before is the ego... not necessarily it’s projection. Both are equally illusory, that’s the real confusion.
Hector,
”But I believe Bhagavan was all those teachers / teachings.”
Beautifully put...
Mahatma Gandhi and Bhagavan Ramana
Mahatma Gandhi (1869 – 1948) and Bhagavan (1879 – 1950) were contemporaries. However, they had very different missions to fulfill. Gandhi was all about unceasing action, whereas Bhagavan’s teaching was silence. In spite of such contrasting philosophies in life, they had very high regard for each other. David Godman speaks about their unique relationship in his video David Godman – 2nd Buddha at the Gas Pump Interview (44 minutes onwards) – it is not verbatim:
Ramana often read things that Gandhi had written. Gandhi was a prolific writer of articles. Occasionally Bhagavan would read out something which Gandhi had said, and he invariably approved Gandhi’s views. Bhagavan had high regards for Gandhi’s spiritual state.
Once Congress [a political party in India] people came to Bhagavan seeking his advice about how they could attain India’s independence? Bhagavan said something the effect, ‘be like Gandhi – have no expectations, no desires to accomplish anything. Surrender to the will of God and work. Be in that inner state where you get moved by grace within, rather than by your desire for any personal goal. Even if the goal is a laudable one, even if it is something that should happen, don’t work with the idea that I must accomplish this, this needs to be done’.
Gandhi once came to Tiruvannamalai, and everybody was very excited. They thought he might come into Ramanasramam. He was going to give a political speech about 5 minutes from the ashram. He had to drive past the ashram main gate. The man who was organizing the trip was Rajagopalachari, a Congress politician. He waved the driver on, indicating to him that he should not stop and should go past the gate as soon as possible. Gandhi wanted to come to meet Bhagavan, but Rajagopalachari somehow prevented him from doing so. He convinced Gandhi that they were very late, and therefore they should proceed to their next halt.
So everyone was very disappointed, because everyone was looking forward to the meeting between Gandhi and Bhagavan. Annamalai asked Bhagavan, ‘Bhagavan, why wouldn’t they let him in? What was the problem?’ Bhagavan said, ‘they are probably afraid that if he comes here, he would go into samadhi and forget all about politics. They want an active front man for their organisation’.
Hi Mouna,
You said;
[Because who is Bhagavan, Jesus, Buddha, Shankara but oneself? And where do ultimately ajata, sufism, mysticism, saivism, buddhism, kabbalah or even “neo-advaita” point to (when properly taught) if not oneself?]
I could not agree more Mouna.
That is why I believe that criticizing, degrading and looking down on religions, teachers and other spiritual aspirants is funny when you think about it!
As Bhagavan said the ego is everything and investigating it will result in giving up everything.
This is not a path for the faint hearted.
Cheers
H
Hector,
yes, having beliefs is funny. But are they of any use to us ?
Question: Is there no Dehatma Buddhi (I-am-the-body idea) for the jnani? If, for instance, Sri Bhagavan is bitten by an insect, is there no sensation?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: There is the sensation and there is also the dehatma buddhi. The latter is common to both jnani and ajnani with this difference, that the ajnani thinks only the body is myself, whereas the jnani knows all is of the Self, or all this is Brahman. If there be pain let it be. It is also part of the Self. The Self is Poorna (perfect).
After transcending dehatma buddhi one becomes a jnani. In the absence of that idea there cannot be either Kartritva (doership) or Karta (doer). So a jnani has no karma (that is, a jnani performs no actions). That is his experience. Otherwise he is not a jnani. However, the ajnani identifies the jnani with his body, which the jnani does not do.
Question: I see you doing things. How can you say that you never perform actions?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: The radio sings and speaks, but if you open it you will find no one inside. Similarly, my existence is like the space; though this body speaks like the radio, there is no one inside as a doer.
Question: I find this hard to understand. Could you please elaborate on this?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Various illustrations are given in books to enable us to understand how the jnani can live and act without the mind, although living and acting require the use of the mind. The potter’s wheel goes on turning round even after the potter has ceased to turn it because the pot is finished. In the same way, the electric fan goes on revolving for some minutes after we switch off the current. Prarabdha (predestined Karma) which created the body will make it go through whatever activities it was meant for. But the jnani goes through all these activities without the notion that he is the doer of them. It is hard to understand how this is possible. The illustration generally given is that the jnani performs actions in some such way as a child that is roused from sleep to eat eats but does not remember next morning that it ate. It has to be remembered that all these explanations are not for the jnani. He knows and has no doubts. He knows that he is not the body and he knows that he is not doing anything even though his body may be engaged in some activity. These explanations are for the onlookers who think of the jnani as one with a body and cannot help identifying him with his body
Tradition and Revolution.Dialogue 8 New Delhi 26th December 1970
P: Do you see yourself as a person?
Krishnamurti: If you mean the body - yes. As an ego, as a person talking on the platform, walking, climbing the hill - no.
P: The sense of existence, the sense of ``I am; does it operate in you?
Krishnamurti: One of the things I have never had is the sense of the ``I''. Never.
P: ``I exist'' is the central core in all of us. It is the very fabric of our existence.
Krishnamurti: The peripheral expressions of Krishnamurti appear to be a person.
But at the centre there is no person. I really do not know what it means. You are asking, is there in you a centre, the ``I am'', the sense of ``I am''. No. The feeling of ``I am'' is not true.
P: It is not as obvious as that. But the sense of existence, the core of the ego within us, is unexplored. There is something which holds it together and as long as it remains, what you are saying - the no centre - has no validity for us.
Ramana Maharshi on Watching the Mind and Searching for the Mind
(from Talks, Talk 328)
Ramana Maharshi: If the mind is watched thoughts cease. Peace results and it is your true nature. King Janaka said: “I have now found the robber (namely the mind) who has been robbing me of my ‘I’-ness. I will instantly kill this thief.” The perturbation owing to thoughts appears to rob the Self of its peace. The perturbation is the mind. When that ceases the mind is said to take flight. The Self remains as the undisturbed substratum.
Another person interposed: The mind must kill the mind.
Ramana Maharshi: Yes, if there be the mind. A search for it discloses its non-existence. How can anything that does not exist be killed?
Agnostic,
in view of your first comment regarding Sri Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi:
therefore let us without delay endeavour to take off the clothes of an ajnani or mere "onlooker".
How Do You Search for the Mind?
Bhagavan says in Talk 328 (as quoted above) that "A search for it [the mind] discloses its non-existence." I wonder how you search for the mind. Can anyone enlighten me on that?
Also, note that Bhagavan does not say how long you should search for the mind nor how many times you should search for the mind, so I wonder if Bhagavan means that if we search for the mind correctly, doing so once is enough because to see the absence of something you need to look only once carefully, right? So, Bhagavan seems to be indicating instantaneous liberation, the only thing blocking us being our lack of knowledge about how to search for the mind, right?
Papaji also said that self-enquiry need be done only once.
D Samarender Reddy,
yes, what we most need is disclosure of truth, reality, 'I'-ness, peace, the self as the undisturbed substratum or one's actual nature.
Perturbation has to cease.
Disclosure, disclosure...
King Janaka, would you graciously help me to make the same discovery ?
Indeed absurd: How can anything that does not exist be killed ?
Can there exist a bigger inconsistency at all ?
Bhagavan: The ultimate Truth is so simple. It is nothing more than being in the pristine state. That is all that need be said.
Still, it is a wonder that to teach this simple Truth there should come into being so many religions, creeds, methods and disputes among them and so on! Oh the pity! Oh the pity! (Talk no. 96)
My note: As Bhagavan says we just need to be in our pristine state or as he often used to say, ‘be as you are’. We can achieve this by ceasing to act and by turning our entire attention on ourself alone.
However, so many religions, creeds and methods have been invented by human minds, but ultimately we have to give up all these in order to be as we actually are. So from this perspective all methods other than self-investigation look like a complex maze.
We can easily bypass other spiritual methods and come directly to self-investigation, if we want to. As Michael once said, ‘Thus the easiest — and indeed the only — means by which we can experience ourself as we really are is just to be as we really are by inwardly scrutinising ourself and thereby excluding all other thoughts, and Bhagavan also emphasises that we can experience this state of ‘just being as we are’ only if we have all-consuming love for it'.
We are pure being, but we foolishly rise as this ego and as a result engage in all sorts of actions. Not only that, we very soon add various religious and other spiritual practices to our already unending worldly actions.
However, do we need to act in the first place? No, because all our actions will only keep us entangled in a complex web. To get out of this seemingly unending web, all we need to do is to give up all our actions - whether they are worldly, religious or spiritual – and remain as we actually are.
Sam, here is Robert Sapolsky, very good.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mbqwjx/you-have-no-free-will
If I can deeply absorb and internalize the fact that my feeling of free will is false, it would advance my quest greatly.
That is what I take from Bhagavan Ramana's teaching. Self enquiry doesn't seem to work for me.
D. Samarender Reddy, greetings
”I wonder how you search for the mind.”
In a way, there is no need to search for the mind because everything “you” (D S Reddy) experience is mind.
What Bhagavan is pointing at is to question and investigate its reality, its root, if there is such a thing. We can only do that turning our attention away from the content of mind (everything) to where we assume its source will be (inwards).
Since we won’t be able to find any “real” source for it, in this way we might find out not only the illusory and impermanent nature of mind but also the essential nature of our real selves, the only “thing” permanent, self-evident and limitless, existence/awareness.
Agnostic,
You are so right when you say, "If I can deeply absorb and internalize the fact that my feeling of free will is false, it would advance my quest greatly." In fact, that is my feeling, too, these days. What that will do is, it leads to acceptance and surrender, surrender being the second of 2 paths Bhagavan pointed out as leading to self-realization, the first path, of course, being self-enquiry.
Perhaps, you can ponder on this: are you choosing your thoughts at any given moment of time or are your thoughts choosing you. If you answer that the thoughts are choosing you then you are not freely choosing your actions. See Sam Harris' Youtube videos on free will as they make a very good case for no free will. But, as you rightly point out, no matter what the intellectual arguments are for free will, at the end of them we still feel very much like we have free will. Try reading this article to see if it helps you a bit more that free will is an illusion - http://cogsci.ucd.ie/introtocogsci/docs/Agency-1999.pdf
Thanks for the Sapolsky article link. I will read it soon.
I look forward to carrying this discussion forward with you and other readers as and when we go through our recommendations and as and when any fresh thoughts arise on this issue. Also, consider this fact: when can we say will is "free"? Only if it was "free" to do B in a given situation when it chose A among the two options. But, such freedom has to be based on some foundation. In other words, there must have been a reason why I chose A over B, the reason being that I estimated based on my reading of the situation, which in turn depended on my knowledge at that moment and my mood etc., that choosing A was better for me than choosing B. In that case it would seem that to have the freedom to have chosen B over A at that moment in time would have been to go against my own judgement and not in my best interest as I could rationally calculate at that time. So, that kind of free will I would not want and would not actually be free because I would have to force myself to choose B over A when my mind is telling me that A is better. Would deciding by tossing a coin be free will? no, because the toss of a coin is random. Now, how does it transpire that I "thought" or "felt" that A was the better option in that given moment. Obviously based on my knowledge, hormone levels, my tastes and inclinations, my childhood upbringing, etc., all of which are influenced by what has happened in the past to me, so in a way I am not "free" to choose A but for5ced to choose A given my past. As a matter of fact, I think that is why J. Krishnaumrti says that it is only the confused mind which chooses, whereas the clear mind knows what is the right course of action in every situation and there is no choice (or you could say freedom) for it.
Greetings, Mouna. Thanks for your reply. What you say makes sense. Since Bhagavan equates mind with "I-thought" or "I-sense", searching for the mind is I guess searching for the root of I-sense, which search as you point out ends up taking us to the Self, and thus revealing the non-existence of the mind as only the Self is found to be existing.
Agnostic,
By the way, even if you had said above that you are choosing your thoughts, we would have to ask what is that "you" which is choosing the thoughts. The "you" has to be necessarily the sum total of your past, and so, the choice of thoughts is also based on or dictated by your past, so you are not choosing your thoughts freely but guided to do so by your past being what it is. If you say, no, no, I will choose randomly at times, then there must be some explanation for why you have some proclivity towards randomness and that explanation has to take into account "your past" and so even randomness is not so random. I hope that makes sense.
A Reflection on Free Will or the Lack Thereof: Every time I drive on to the road, I change the flow of traffic, be it ever so subtly or slightly, and thus change or determine what accidents can and do occur. And, pray, what made me drive on to the road at that point in time and not at some other time - a constellation of a whole lot of events on which I had little or no say.
If "Everything is Predetermined" Then Self-Realisation Also Must be Predetermined, Right?
Ramana Maharshi says that whatever actions and motions that the body has to go through are predetermined at the time of one's birth. So, when Venkataraman Iyer (later to be known as Ramana Maharshi) was born, all the motions that Venkataraman's body had to go through in the course of his entire life must have been predetermined at the time of his birth, as indeed the fact that he would spend all of his adult life on or on the foothills of Arunachala, including his sitting motionless for a few years in the beginning of his stay near Arunachala without so much as taking even a morsel of food for days together. Now, if Venkataraman Iyer did not have the death experience at Madurai and consequently the self-realisation (ignoring for the moment the standard argument that there is no one who realises the self and therefore there is no such thing as self-realisation, which can be argued about this way and that in terms of dry logic) it would be inexplicable why he would have gone and spent all his adult life on, near and around Arunachala, much less how he could have spoken all those words of wisdom on which we all are hanging on in this blog, as countless others who do not visit this blog? The only thing that can explain the anomaly is if his death experience and consequent self-realisation also must have been predetermined at the time of his birth so that the post-realisation movements of and words spoken by the body of Venkatraman Iyer in his adult life, which were predetermined at the time of his birth, could come to pass. If Venkatraman's self-realisation was not predetermined, and so for argument sake let us say that the moment of self-realisation bypassed him in Madurai at the age of 16, left to his own sweet will and self-exertions, then one can legitimately ask the question that since it was predetermined at the time of birth of Venkatraman Iyer that he would compose the book Nan Yar? (Who Am I?), how could Venkatraman Iyer have done so if the self-realisation did not happen in Madurai at the age of 16 because if that did not happen then Venkatraman Iyer would have been ignorant of the Self and he could not have answered so wisely the questions put to him by Sivaprakasam Pillai and consequently we would not be having the exact copy of Nan Yar? that we have now on our hands. I think, by now, you can see where I am going with this. And yet, Bhagavan says in Day by Day with Bhagavan that we have the freedom to identify or not with the body and its actions, and what is disidentification with the body but self-realisation, so the implication of Bhagavan's words is that self-realisation is not predetermined. But if it is not predetermined, then how to account for the anomalies that arise thereby as mentioned above. Any thoughts on or response to this conundrum?
D Samarender Reddy,
so what is your question ?
Is there any practical benefit from thinking about the concept of predestination ?
The mind will never be satisfied with explanations whatever given.
Why should we allow to get paralyzed with anything what is said to be preordained by God or foreordained by fate ?
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/06/09/robert-sapolsky-on-free-will/#comments
Agnostic,
Check out these two transcripts of Ramesh Balsekar's (disciple of Nisargadataa Maharaj) dialogues:
www.advaita.org/transcripts/rameshTranscripts.pdf
Sam, from your earlier reply -
"You are so right when you say, "If I can deeply absorb and internalize the fact that my feeling of free will is false, it would advance my quest greatly." In fact, that is my feeling, too, these days. What that will do is, it leads to acceptance and surrender, surrender being the second of 2 paths Bhagavan pointed out as leading to self-realization, the first path, of course, being self-enquiry."
On this topic of free will, I prefer to get my information from science and from Sri Ramana's intuition and insight. I am firmly convinced that the evolution of the universe is predetermined in the minutest detail.
But does it really lead to path 2, the path of bhakti?
Would that not depend on the temperament of the aspirant?
The path of bhakti depends on faith in the guru and there is no deeper source of religious discord than the "bhakta" who does not realize that he is turned outwards, not inwards, and is constantly hyping his/her own guru.
Razor's edge indeed...
Agnostic,
You yourself said above that "Self enquiry doesn't seem to work for me." And Bhagavan said that there are only 2 paths available for self-realisation: (1) Self-enquiry, and (2) Surrender. If self-enquiry is not working for you, and as you say you are not temperamentally suited for surrender, as you do not fancy being a bhakta, then what is the other 3rd path that you want to follow for self-realisation. Would merely being intellectually convinced that you have no free will and everything is predetermined bestow upon you self-realisation? I do not quite see how that is possible. You can enlighten me on how you see that happening.
Agnostic,
Since you said you want to turn to science to debunk free will, here are some links that you will find useful to go through:
www.wired.com/2008/04/mind-decision/
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/03/25/yet-another-experiment-eroding-free-will/
You may also want to read the following books:
(1) Free Will by Sam Harris
(2) The Illusion of Conscious Will by Daniel Wegner
Both the above books are available for FREE DOWNLOAD here - http://libgen.io/
Sam, Thanks for asking such an excellent question. I wasn't going to say what follows but you have provided a pretext...(I have to watch that razor's edge!)
The answer should be obvious. I think Sri Ramana did not emphasize the path most important to me - That of Karma yoga. I am convinced it is the best path for me; as the Japanese used to say in quality control take care of the process, and the product will take care of itself.
Anyway, all paths are mixed paths and temperament provides the emphasis. As I have said before I think Bhagavan was a great jnana, bhakti, karma yogi.
I may not be a hard core bhakta of Sri Ramana, but there is no one I esteem more highly than him. I tell myself that until I am able to sit naked in a loin cloth before crowds of visitors without having eaten for 3 days, I cannot fathom the depths from which he spoke.
So we come full circle back to answer your original, gently humorous question,
"So, is Bhagavan's prescription of being silent more easily implementable by bachelors (spinsters) who are not working for a living?"
Now you have my answer, heh, heh.
Agnostic,
Yes, I would agree that Karma Yoga can be the 3rd path Bhagavan did not emphasize but Krishna did so in the Bhagavad Gita. Here are some relevant verses from the Bhagavad Gita (you may already know them quite well):
Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 5 - Verse 1
Arjuna said: O Krishna, You talk of the renunciation of action (sannyasa) but then again, You also speak of karma-yoga (the way of selfless action). Please tell me clearly, which of the two is best?
Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 5 - Verse 2
Bhagavan Shri Krishna replied: Both renunciation of action (sannyasa) and the performance of selfless action (karmayoga) give the highest benefit. Yet, of the two, the path of selfless action is higher than the renunciation of action.
Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 5 - Verse 4
Those who are immature and devoid of knowledge state that the path of renunciation and the path of karma-yoga are different. However, one who follows either of these paths perfectly achieves the results of both.
Bhagavan Ramnana Maharshi defined karma yoga as action done without the sense of doership. In that sense I can see how being intellectually convinced that there is no free will can enable you to do action without the sense of doership.
Agnostic,
Here are further relevant verses from the Bhagavad Gita:
Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 5 - Verse 5
That state which is achieved by renunciation is also attained by karma-yoga. One who sees these two systems as one and the same actually sees things as they are.
Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 5 - Verse 6
O mighty-armed one, without karma-yoga, renunciation is a cause for misery. However, that wise man that performs karma-yoga quickly attains the Absolute Truth.
Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 5 - Verse 7
One who is pure engages in karma-yoga and controls the mind and senses. Although he engages in action, he is never contaminated and he is filled with love for all living beings.
Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 5 - Verse 8-9
One who is a knower of the truth, although he is engaged in seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, eating, moving, sleeping, breathing, talking, evacuating, accepting objects and blinking the eyes, realizes that all his sense-functions are interacting with the respective sense-objects. Therefore, he thinks, “I am not doing anything.”
Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 5 - Verse 10
One who gives up all attachments and acts by offering all his actions unto the Supreme is never contaminated by any impiety, just as a lotus leaf is never touched by water.
Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 5 - Verse 11
By giving up all attachments, the karma-yogi performs actions though the medium of the body, mind, intelligence and senses simply for the purpose of self-purification.
Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 5 - Verse 12
The karma-yogi, giving up the results of his actions, attains everlasting peace. However, the selfish worker being attached, desires the results of his actions and therefore becomes ensnared.
D. Samarender Reddy has written in one of his recent comments:
Also, note that Bhagavan does not say how long you should search for the mind nor how many times you should search for the mind, so I wonder if Bhagavan means that if we search for the mind correctly, doing so once is enough because to see the absence of something you need to look only once carefully, right? So, Bhagavan seems to be indicating instantaneous liberation, the only thing blocking us being our lack of knowledge about how to search for the mind, right? Papaji also said that self-enquiry need be done only once.
Bhagavan has clearly indicated that we should practise self-investigation until all our vishaya vasanas or desires are gone, never to reappear again. As Bhagavan indicates in paragraph 6 of Nan Yar?:
When [one] practises and practises in this manner, to the mind the power to stand firmly established in its birthplace will increase [that is, by repeatedly practising turning our attention towards our mere being, which is the birthplace of our mind, our mind’s ability to remain as mere being will increase].
So we have to practise and practise, and in this sense there is no instantaneous liberation. That is, most of us will not get liberated by practising self-investigation only once, as Papaji seems to indicate. Bhagavan was an exception and not a rule. Since he (Venkataraman) had done all the hard work in his previous births, he was able to annihilate his ego in his very first attempt at turning within.
However, for most of us it usually takes, perhaps, years, decades or even many life-times. So there is a lot of hard work ahead of us. The more the strength of our vishaya vasanas, the more time it would take to reach our goal of pure self-experience. By far the fastest or quickest way to travel from where we are now, to our goal of atma jnana is this practice of self-investigation. However, this travel requires a lot of patience and perseverance. What sort of perseverance do we need? This has been beautifully stated in Bhagavad Gita verse 6.26 (verse 28 of Bhagavad Gita Saram):
Wherever the ever-wavering and unsteady mind goes, restraining [or withdrawing] it from there one should subdue it [by always keeping it firmly fixed] only in atman.
So we should not expect instantaneous liberation. It may well happen here and now if we are able to turn a full 180 degrees towards ourself alone, but until and unless it happens we should be at our work: day in, day out.
Sanjay Lohia,
your quotation "Wherever the ever-wavering and unsteady mind goes, restraining [or withdrawing] it from there one should subdue it [by always keeping it firmly fixed] only in atman." sounds plausibly.
Restraining or withdrawing the mind from serving its vishaya vasanas by keeping it firmly fixed only on atman is possible only by a huge effort of will.
Often I am not able to use all my strength against that wall of desires and fall through. It is no good moaning and groaning. I only can put my trust to Arunachala to help me overcoming that rabble.
Sam, thank you very much for the links and the books.
Chapter 5 of the Bhagavad Gita is one of my favorite chapters second only to Chapter 18, especially 18.59,60,61. There are wonderful free apps available for BG, Vivekachudamani, Brahma Sutras, Patanjali, etc, etc.
Regarding your point about liberation, since all great spiritual preceptors talk about "seeing" the truth I assume that something "clicks" and after that you will never mistake the rope for the snake. But Bhagavan also emphasized that this insight takes time to steady itself. Anyway, all this is beyond me and it is just my imagination.
Are we aiming to attain silence or to give up all noise?
Superficially it may appear that we are aiming to attain absolute silence. This seems to be our goal. However, on close examination it would be more correct to say that our aim in real terms in just to give up all noise. All our thoughts, including the first thought ‘ego’, are noise, whereas our true nature is silence. All our thoughts are alien to us. So we have to just give all our accretions (thoughts) and eventually silence, which is our fundamental nature, will be revealed as an inescapable residue.
Yesterday I was listening to a talk by a Swami at our local Ramana Centre. He said that words and thoughts are just interruptions in our silence. I think Bhagavan also said that silence is the most eloquent language or silence is an unending speech, or something on similar lines. Our thoughts, speech and actions seem to obstruct or obscure silence.
It is like an ocean. If all the waves in the ocean become absolutely calm, the ocean will remain as it is. All its waves are just superimposition on the stillness of the ocean.
So we do not have to gain or learn anything. We have to lose or unlearn everything. By giving up all our thoughts, ideas and imaginations, we will become re-established in silence. The only way which will reveal our innate silence is self-investigation.
Post a Comment