Āṉma-Viddai verse 5: in the heart that looks within without thinking of anything else, oneself will be seen
In continuation of and as a conclusion to the five articles on Āṉma-Viddai that I posted here previously, namely Āṉma-Viddai: Tamil text, transliteration and translation, Āṉma-Viddai verse 1: thought is what causes the appearance of the unreal body and world, Āṉma-Viddai verse 2: the thought ‘I am this body’ is what supports all other thoughts, Āṉma-Viddai verse 3: knowledge of all other things is caused by ignorance of ourself and Āṉma-Viddai verse 4: self-investigation is the easiest of all paths, because it is not doing but just being, in this article I will explain and discuss the meaning and implications of the fifth and final verse:
விண்ணா தியவிளக்குங் கண்ணா தியபொறிக்குங்Padavurai (word-explanation): விண் (viṇ): sky, space | ஆதிய (ādiya): beginning with, what begins with | விளக்கும் (viḷakkum): which illumine, cause to shine, make clear, make known {adjectival participle} | கண் (kaṇ): eye | ஆதிய (ādiya): beginning with, which begin with | பொறிக்கும் (poṟikkum): to all the sense organs {poṟikku is a dative (fourth case) form of poṟi, ‘sense organ’, and in this context the suffix um implies ‘entire’, ‘complete’ or ‘all’} | கண் (kaṇ): eye | ஆம் (ām): which is {adjectival participle} | மன (maṉa): mind {maṉam is a Tamil form of the Sanskrit manas, ‘mind’, and maṉa is the form it takes when used as the first word in a compound, so maṉa-k-kaṇ means ‘mind-eye’, implying the ‘eye’ that is mind} | கணுக்கும் (kaṇukkum): even to the eye {kaṇukku is a dative (fourth case) form of kaṇ, ‘eye’, and in this context the suffix um implies ‘even’} | கண் (kaṇ): eye | ஆய் (āy): being, as {adverbial participle} | மன (maṉa): mind | விணுக்கும் (viṇukkum): even to the space {viṇukku is a dative (fourth case) form of viṇ, ‘space’, and in this context the suffix um implies ‘even’} | விண் (viṇ): space | ஆய் (āy): being, as | ஒரு (oru): one | பொருள் (poruḷ): substance {a Tamil equivalent of the Sanskrit vastu, which means ‘substance’ in the sense of the real and ultimate substance or fundamental reality, the only thing that actually exists, from which all other things borrow their seeming existence} | வேறு (vēṟu): what is other, different, separate | எண்ணாது (eṇṇādu): not thinking {negative adverbial participle} | இருந்தபடி (irundapaḍi): as it was, as it is | உள் (uḷ): inside, within | நாடு (nāḍu): investigate {the root of this verb, used here in the sense of an adjectival participle and therefore implying ‘investigating’ or ‘which investigates’} | உளத்து (uḷattu): in the heart, in the mind {the inflectional base of uḷam, a poetic abbreviation of ulḷam, ‘heart’ or ‘mind’, used here as a locative (seventh case) form of it} | ஒளிரும் (oḷirum): shining, which shines {adjectival participle} | அண்ணாமலை (aṇṇāmalai): Annamalai {a Tamil name of Arunachala} | என் (eṉ): say {the root of this verb, used here in the sense of an adjectival participle and therefore implying ‘called’ or ‘which is called’; eṉ is also the inflectional base of the first person singular pronoun and is often used as a genitive (sixth case) form of it, so it can also mean ‘my’} | ஆன்மா (āṉmā): self, oneself {a Tamil form of both ātman and ātmā (the nominative singular of ātman)} | காணுமே (kāṇumē): will certainly be seen {kāṇum means both ‘it will see’ (active voice) and ‘it will be seen’ (middle voice), and the suffix ē is an intensifier that in this case implies ‘certainly’, ‘actually’ or ‘indeed’} || அருளும் (aruḷum): grace also {aruḷ means ‘grace’, and in this context the suffix um implies ‘also’ or can be taken to be a poetic expletive} | வேணுமே (vēṇumē): is certainly necessary {vēṇum means ‘it is necessary’, and the suffix ē is an intensifier that in this case implies ‘certainly’} || அன்பு (aṉbu): love | பூணுமே (pūṇumē): wear, put on, be adorned with, be bound with, be possessed of, undertake || இன்பு (iṉbu): happiness, bliss, joy | தோணுமே (tōṇumē): will certainly appear.
கண்ணா மனக்கணுக்குங் கண்ணாய் மனவிணுக்கும்
விண்ணா யொருபொருள்வே றெண்ணா திருந்தபடி
யுண்ணா டுளத்தொளிரு மண்ணா மலையெனான்மா —
காணுமே; அருளும் வேணுமே; அன்பு பூணுமே;
இன்பு தோணுமே. (ஐயே)
viṇṇā diyaviḷakkuṅ kaṇṇā diyapoṟikkuṅ
kaṇṇā maṉakkaṇukkuṅ kaṇṇāy maṉaviṇukkum
viṇṇā yoruporuḷvē ṟeṇṇā dirundapaḍi
yuṇṇā ḍuḷattoḷiru maṇṇā malaiyeṉāṉmā —
kāṇumē; aruḷum vēṇumē; aṉbu pūṇumē;
iṉbu tōṇumē. (aiyē)
பதச்சேதம்: விண் ஆதிய விளக்கும் கண் ஆதிய பொறிக்கும் கண் ஆம் மனக் கணுக்கும் கண் ஆய், மன விணுக்கும் விண் ஆய் ஒரு பொருள் வேறு எண்ணாது இருந்தபடி உள் நாடு உளத்து ஒளிரும் அண்ணாமலை என் ஆன்மா காணுமே. அருளும் வேணுமே. அன்பு பூணுமே. இன்பு தோணுமே. (ஐயே, அதி சுலபம், ...)
Padacchēdam (word-separation): viṇ ādiya viḷakkum kaṇ ādiya poṟikkum kaṇ ām maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ āy, maṉa-viṇukkum viṇ āy oru poruḷ vēṟu eṇṇādu irundapaḍi uḷ nāḍu uḷattu oḷirum aṇṇāmalai eṉ āṉmā kāṇumē. aruḷum vēṇumē. aṉbu pūṇumē. iṉbu tōṇumē. (aiyē, ati sulabham, ...)
அன்வயம்: வேறு எண்ணாது இருந்தபடி உள் நாடு உளத்து, விண் ஆதிய விளக்கும் கண் ஆதிய பொறிக்கும் கண் ஆம் மனக் கணுக்கும் கண் ஆய், மன விணுக்கும் விண் ஆய் ஒளிரும் ஒரு பொருள் அண்ணாமலை என் ஆன்மா காணுமே. அருளும் வேணுமே. அன்பு பூணுமே. இன்பு தோணுமே. (ஐயே, அதி சுலபம், ...)
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): vēṟu eṇṇādu irundapaḍi uḷ nāḍu uḷattu, viṇ ādiya viḷakkum kaṇ ādiya poṟikkum kaṇ ām maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ āy, maṉa-viṇukkum viṇ āy oru poruḷ oḷirum aṇṇāmalai eṉ āṉmā kāṇumē. aruḷum vēṇumē. aṉbu pūṇumē. iṉbu tōṇumē. (aiyē, ati sulabham, ...)
English translation: In the heart that investigates within, as it is without thinking of anything other, oneself, which is called Annamalai, the one substance, which shines as the eye even to the mind-eye, which is the eye to all the sense organs beginning with eyes, which illumine what begins with space, and as the space even to the mind-space, will certainly be seen. Grace also is certainly necessary. Be adorned with love. Happiness will certainly appear. (Ah, extremely easy, ...)
Explanatory paraphrase: In the uḷḷam [heart or mind] that investigates within, [just being] as it is without thinking of anything other [than itself], ātmā [oneself], which is called Annamalai, the one poruḷ [real substance], which shines as the eye even to the mind-eye, which is the eye to all the [five] sense organs beginning with eyes, which illumine [the five elements] beginning with space, and as the space even to the mind-space, will certainly be seen. [For one to see oneself as one actually is] grace also is certainly necessary. [In order to be a suitable receptacle to imbibe grace, one should] be adorned with [bound by or possessed of] love [for seeing and thereby just being as one actually is]. [Infinite] happiness will [then] certainly appear [or be experienced]. ([Therefore] ah, extremely easy, ātma-vidyā, ah, extremely easy!)
- The structure and meaning of the first sentence
- We ourself are ‘the eye even to the mind-eye, which is the eye to all the sense organs beginning with eyes, which illumine what begins with space’
- Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai verse 15: Arunachala is ‘the eye to the mind-eye’, because it is the eye of pure awareness, which is what illumines the mind-eye, so it cannot be seen or known by any eye other than itself
- Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 4: The mind-eye sees forms because it sees itself as the form of a body, whereas the ‘eye to the mind-eye’ is infinite and hence formless, so it sees no forms but only itself, the infinite whole
- We are ‘the space even to the mind-space’, so we are the one real substance, of which everything else is just an appearance
- There is only one substance, Arunachala, the heart, the light of awareness, which shines without appearing or disappearing as the space for the appearing and disappearing of the mind-eye and everything known by it
- What we actually are is what is called Annamalai, but so long as we rise as ego and thereby mistake ourself to be the form of a body, Annamalai appears outwardly in the form of a hill and in the human form of Bhagavan Ramana
- As ego we can never see ourself as we actually are, but we must try to see ourself thus, because as soon as we see ourself as we actually are we will thereby cease to be ego and remain as we actually are
- We can see ourself as we actually are only by turning our entire mind back to look within instead of thinking of anything else, thereby being as we always actually are
- Though looking at ourself and thereby being as we actually are is exceedingly easy, it seems difficult so long as we rise and stand as ego, because the very nature of ego is to be constantly grasping forms
- Grace is certainly necessary, because the all-consuming love to look deep within and thereby let go everything else can come only from grace, not from ego
- If we cultivate and nurture love in our heart to know and to be what we actually are, infinite and eternal happiness, which is what we always actually are, will shine forth
In the first sentence of this verse Bhagavan indicates what we actually are and then explains the means by which we can see or be aware of ourself as what we actually are, so though the order of words in this first sentence is not the logical order in which they would occur in a prose sentence, he placed them in this order not only for poetic reasons but also for a logical reason, because in order to investigate ourself effectively and thereby be aware of ourself as we actually are we first need to understand what we actually are.
Now we are aware of ourself as if we were a body consisting of five sheaths, namely a physical body, life, mind, intellect and will, so we first need to understand that these are not what we actually are, and hence we cannot know what we actually are by investigating any of these five sheaths. However, rather than emphasising what we are not, in this verse and elsewhere he emphasises what we actually are and thereby implies that we are not anything else. What we actually are is only the fundamental awareness ‘I am’, so this is what we need to investigate in order to be aware of ourself as we actually are, namely as nothing other than ‘I am’.
Therefore the order in which I will explain and discuss the meaning and implication of what he says in this first sentence is the order in which he says it. However, before doing so I will first explain the connection between the various clauses in this sentence. The main clause is ‘ஆன்மா காணுமே’ (āṉmā kāṇumē), ‘oneself will certainly be seen’, in which ஆன்மா (āṉmā) is a Tamil form of the Sanskrit word आत्मा (ātmā), the nominative singular form of आत्मन् (ātman), which means ‘oneself’, and in this context it refers to the real nature of ourself (ātma-svarūpa), so this clause implies that we will see ourself as we actually are. This is preceded by a relative clause, ‘அண்ணாமலை என்’ (aṇṇāmalai eṉ), ‘which is called Annamalai’ (Annamalai being an alternative name of Arunachala), so ‘அண்ணாமலை என் ஆன்மா காணுமே’ (aṇṇāmalai eṉ āṉmā kāṇumē) means ‘oneself, which is called Annamalai, will certainly be seen’.
This is preceded by an adjectival participle, ‘ஒளிரும்’ (oḷirum), ‘which shines’, which links two adverbial clauses to the main clause. The two adverbial clauses it links are ‘விண் ஆதிய விளக்கும் கண் ஆதிய பொறிக்கும் கண் ஆம் மனக் கணுக்கும் கண் ஆய்’ (viṇ ādiya viḷakkum kaṇ ādiya poṟikkum kaṇ ām maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ āy), ‘being [or as] the eye even to the mind-eye, which is the eye to all the sense organs beginning with eyes, which illumine what begins with space’, and ‘மன விணுக்கும் விண் ஆய்’ (maṉa-viṇukkum viṇ āy), ‘being [or as] the space even to the mind-space’. Together with ‘ஒளிரும்’ (oḷirum) these two adverbial clauses form a relative clause: ‘விண் ஆதிய விளக்கும் கண் ஆதிய பொறிக்கும் கண் ஆம் மனக் கணுக்கும் கண் ஆய், மன விணுக்கும் விண் ஆய் ஒளிரும்’ (viṇ ādiya viḷakkum kaṇ ādiya poṟikkum kaṇ ām maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ āy, maṉa-viṇukkum viṇ āy oḷirum), ‘which shines as the eye even to the mind-eye, which is the eye to all the sense organs beginning with eyes, which illumine what begins with space, [and] as the space even to the mind-space’.
These two adverbial clauses are followed by a phrase, ‘ஒரு பொருள்’ (oru poruḷ), which means ‘the one substance’ in the sense of the one thing that actually exists and that is therefore the reality underlying and supporting the seeming existence of all other things. Though this is separated from the subject of the main clause, it stands in apposition to it, so ‘ஒரு பொருள், அண்ணாமலை என் ஆன்மா காணுமே’ (oru poruḷ, aṇṇāmalai eṉ āṉmā kāṇumē) means ‘oneself, which is called Annamalai, the one substance, will certainly be seen’. Therefore the subject of the main clause, namely ஆன்மா (āṉmā), ‘oneself’, is modified by this appositive phrase and two relative clauses, all of which are non-restrictive (meaning that they do not limit the meaning of the word they modify, namely oneself, but provide additional information about it), so together with these three modifiers (the first of which is a combination of two modifiers, making a total of four modifiers) the main clause in natural prose order is: ‘விண் ஆதிய விளக்கும் கண் ஆதிய பொறிக்கும் கண் ஆம் மனக் கணுக்கும் கண் ஆய், மன விணுக்கும் விண் ஆய் ஒளிரும் ஒரு பொருள், அண்ணாமலை என் ஆன்மா காணுமே’ (viṇ ādiya viḷakkum kaṇ ādiya poṟikkum kaṇ ām maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ āy, maṉa-viṇukkum viṇ āy oḷirum oru poruḷ, aṇṇāmalai eṉ āṉmā kāṇumē), ‘oneself, which is called Annamalai, the one substance, which shines as the eye even to the mind-eye, which is the eye to all the sense organs beginning with eyes, which illumine what begins with space, [and] as the space even to the mind-space, will certainly be seen’.
In addition to the main clause and these three modifiers there is one other phrase in this sentence, namely ‘வேறு எண்ணாது இருந்தபடி உள் நாடு உளத்து’ (vēṟu eṇṇādu irundapaḍi uḷ nāḍu uḷattu), ‘in the heart [or mind] that investigates within, as it is without thinking of anything other’, which is an adverbial phrase that modifies the main verb of the sentence, namely காணுமே (kāṇumē), ‘will certainly be seen’. Therefore the entire sentence in natural prose order is ‘வேறு எண்ணாது இருந்தபடி உள் நாடு உளத்து, விண் ஆதிய விளக்கும் கண் ஆதிய பொறிக்கும் கண் ஆம் மனக் கணுக்கும் கண் ஆய், மன விணுக்கும் விண் ஆய் ஒளிரும் ஒரு பொருள், அண்ணாமலை என் ஆன்மா காணுமே’ (vēṟu eṇṇādu irundapaḍi uḷ nāḍu uḷattu, viṇ ādiya viḷakkum kaṇ ādiya poṟikkum kaṇ ām maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ āy, maṉa-viṇukkum viṇ āy oḷirum oru poruḷ, aṇṇāmalai eṉ āṉmā kāṇumē), ‘In the heart [or mind] that investigates within, as it is without thinking of anything other, oneself, which is called Annamalai, the one substance, which shines as the eye even to the mind-eye, which is the eye to all the sense organs beginning with eyes, which illumine what begins with space, [and] as the space even to the mind-space, will certainly be seen’.
2. We ourself are ‘the eye even to the mind-eye, which is the eye to all the sense organs beginning with eyes, which illumine what begins with space’
In the order in which it occurs in the verse, the first higher level clause is ‘விண் ஆதிய விளக்கும் கண் ஆதிய பொறிக்கும் கண் ஆம் மனக் கணுக்கும் கண் ஆய்’ (viṇ ādiya viḷakkum kaṇ ādiya poṟikkum kaṇ ām maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ āy), ‘being [or as] the eye even to the mind-eye, which is the eye to all the sense organs beginning with eyes, which illumine what begins with space’. As I explained above, together with the adjectival participle ‘ஒளிரும்’ (oḷirum), ‘which shines’, this clause modifies the subject of this sentence, ஆன்மா (āṉmā), ‘oneself’, and also by implication its two other modifiers, namely ‘ஒரு பொருள்’ (oru poruḷ), ‘the one substance’, and அண்ணாமலை (aṇṇāmalai). Therefore, since ஆன்மா (āṉmā), ‘oneself’, in this context means the real nature of oneself (ātma-svarūpa), which is the one real substance and which is what is called Annamalai or Arunachala, the implication of this first clause is that what we actually are is ‘விண் ஆதிய விளக்கும் கண் ஆதிய பொறிக்கும் கண் ஆம் மனக் கணுக்கும் கண்’ (viṇ ādiya viḷakkum kaṇ ādiya poṟikkum kaṇ ām maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ), ‘the eye even to the mind-eye, which is the eye to all the sense organs beginning with eyes, which illumine what begins with space’.
‘விண் ஆதிய’ (viṇ ādiya) means ‘what begins with space’ and therefore refers to the five elements, namely space, air, fire, water and earth, and hence to everything that is made of them, namely the entire world, which includes both the world of physical phenomena and the world of mental phenomena, because just as all physical phenomena are said to be composed of the gross forms of these five elements, all mental phenomena are said to be composed of subtle forms of them. விளக்கும் (viḷakkum) is an adjectival participle that means ‘which illumine’, ‘which cause to shine’ or ‘which make clear’. In the context of Bhagavan’s teachings, to shine means to be known or perceived, and to cause to shine means to make known. Therefore ‘விண் ஆதிய விளக்கும்’ (viṇ ādiyaviḷakkum) is a relative clause that means ‘which illumine what begins with space’, thereby implying ‘which make what begins with space known’.
What makes the five elements and everything that is made of them known is ‘கண் ஆதிய பொறி’ (kaṇ ādiya poṟi), ‘the sense organs beginning with eyes’, in which 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). However, just as physical phenomena are made known by these five physical sense organs, mental phenomena are made known by the inner sense organ called ‘mind’, and hence the mind (particularly in the sense of the manōmaya kōśa or mental sheath) is also called பொறி (poṟi), as Bhagavan refers to it in verse 22 of Upadēśa Undiyār:
உடல்பொறி யுள்ள முயிரிரு ளெல்லாஞ்Though the mind and other sense organs are what make all physical and mental phenomena known, they do not themselves know anything, because they are all jaḍa (devoid of awareness), like the five sheaths of which they are a part, so they are just instruments through which phenomena are known. Moreover, they are themselves just phenomena, so what is it that knows them and all other phenomena through them? Phenomena of all kinds are objects, because they are things that are known or perceived, so what knows them is the subject, the knower or perceiver, which is ourself as ego.
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].
Therefore ego is what Bhagavan describes in this first clause as ‘கண் ஆதிய பொறிக்கும் கண் ஆம் மனக் கண்’ (kaṇ ādiya poṟikkum kaṇ ām maṉa-k-kaṇ), ‘the mind-eye, which is the eye to all the sense organs beginning with eyes’. கண் (kaṇ) means ‘eye’, and it is a word that he often uses as a metaphor for awareness in the sense of what knows or is aware, so ‘கண் ஆதிய பொறிக்கும் கண்’ (kaṇ ādiya poṟikkum kaṇ), ‘the eye to [or for] all the sense organs beginning with eyes’, means the ‘eye’ that is aware of both the sense organs and whatever is made known by them. This ‘eye’ is what he calls ‘மனக்கண்’ (maṉa-k-kaṇ), ‘the mind-eye’.
In this term ‘மனக்கண்’ (maṉa-k-kaṇ), ‘the mind-eye’, which means the eye that is the mind, மனம் (maṉam), ‘the mind’, does not mean the manōmaya kōśa (the sheath composed of mind) or any of the other sheaths, because he uses it here as a synonym for ego, which is the root and essence of the mind, as he implies in verse 18 of Upadēśa Undiyār:
எண்ணங்க ளேமனம் யாவினு நானெனு‘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. In its broadest sense it means the totality of all thoughts, as Bhagavan implies in the first sentence of this verse, ‘எண்ணங்களே மனம்’ (eṇṇaṅgaḷ-ē maṉam), ‘Thoughts alone are mind’, in which he uses the term ‘thoughts’ in its broadest sense, which includes everything that is mental or experienced within the mind.
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’].
In this broad sense the term ‘mind’ includes both the subject and all objects, because all objects or phenomena are just thoughts or mental impressions, so the entire world is nothing but thoughts or ideas, as he points out in the fourth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?, ‘நினைவுகளைத் தவிர்த்து ஜகமென்றோர் பொருள் அன்னியமா யில்லை’ (niṉaivugaḷai-t tavirttu jagam-eṉḏṟōr poruḷ aṉṉiyamāy illai), ‘Excluding thoughts, there is not separately any such thing as world’, and in the fourteenth paragraph, ‘ஜக மென்பது நினைவே’ (jagam eṉbadu niṉaivē), ‘What is called the world is only thought’. That is, just as the world we perceive in a dream is a mental fabrication and therefore nothing but thoughts, the world we perceive now and any other world we may perceive is just a mental fabrication and therefore nothing but thoughts.
Just as all objects are thoughts, so too is the subject, namely ego, and hence Bhagavan often refers to it as ‘the thought called I’. However, though ego is a thought, it is unlike all other thoughts, which are jaḍa (devoid of awareness), because it is the only thought that is endowed with awareness. Whereas other thoughts are not aware either of their own existence or of anything else, ego is what is aware both of its own seeming existence and of the seeming existence of all other thoughts. Therefore all other thoughts seem to exist only in the view of ego, and hence they do not exist in its absence, as Bhagavan implies in the last four sentences of the fifth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?:
மனதில் தோன்றும் நினைவுக ளெல்லாவற்றிற்கும் நானென்னும் நினைவே முதல் நினைவு. இது எழுந்த பிறகே ஏனைய நினைவுகள் எழுகின்றன. தன்மை தோன்றிய பிறகே முன்னிலை படர்க்கைகள் தோன்றுகின்றன; தன்மை யின்றி முன்னிலை படர்க்கைக ளிரா.This is also what he implies in the second sentence of verse 18 of Upadēśa Undiyār: ‘யாவினும் நான் எனும் எண்ணமே மூலம் ஆம்’ (yāviṉ-um nāṉ eṉum eṇṇam-ē mūlam ām), ‘Of all [thoughts], the thought called ‘I’ alone is the mūla [the root, base, foundation, origin, source or cause]’. Since no other thought could exist without ego, it is the only essential thought in the mind, and hence it is what the mind essentially is, as he says in the third and final sentence of this verse, ‘யான் ஆம் மனம் எனல்’ (yāṉ ām maṉam eṉal), ‘What is called mind is I’, which implies that the mind is essentially just ego, the root thought called ‘I’.
maṉadil tōṉḏṟum niṉaivugaḷ ellāvaṯṟiṟkum nāṉ-eṉṉum niṉaivē mudal niṉaivu. idu eṙunda piṟahē ēṉaiya niṉaivugaḷ eṙugiṉḏṟaṉa. taṉmai tōṉḏṟiya piṟahē muṉṉilai paḍarkkaigaḷ tōṉḏṟugiṉḏṟaṉa; taṉmai y-iṉḏṟi muṉṉilai paḍarkkaigaḷ irā.
Of all the thoughts that appear [or arise] in the mind, the thought called ‘I’ alone is the first thought [the primal, basic, original or causal thought]. Only after this arises do other thoughts arise. Only after the first person [namely ego, the primal thought called ‘I’] appears do second and third persons [namely all other things] appear; without the first person second and third persons do not exist.
This is why he often uses the term ‘mind’ as a synonym for ego. From each context we can understand whether he is using it in this sense or some other sense by considering whether he is referring to the mind as something that knows or is just known, because ego is the only thought or element of the mind that knows anything. For example, in ‘மனக்கண்’ (maṉa-k-kaṇ), ‘the mind-eye’, கண் (kaṇ) means ‘eye’ and therefore implies what knows or perceives, so in this context ‘mind’ means ego, whereas in manōmaya kōśa, ‘the sheath composed of mind’, ‘mind’ does not mean ego but only the grosser functions or aspects of the mind, such as perceptions, memories, thoughts, feelings and emotions, which are all objects perceived by ego.
In one of its broader senses mind is described as the antaḥkaraṇa, ‘the inner instrument’, which has four aspects or sets of functions, namely manas (mind), buddhi (intellect), cittam (will) and ahaṁkāra (ego). The first three of these are what are called respectively manōmaya kōśa (the sheath composed of mind, implying the grosser functions or aspects of the mind), vijñānamaya kōśa (the sheath composed of intellect, the faculty by which we discern, distinguish, judge, reason and understand) and ānandamaya kōśa (the sheath composed of happiness, implying the will, which is driven by our liking to be happy), so being sheaths these are all jaḍa (devoid of awareness), and hence they are known only by ego, which is not a sheath but what identifies all the five sheaths as itself. Ego is therefore what functions through the other three instruments but is itself not any of them, even though it mistakes them to be itself.
Therefore to distinguish ego from every other element or function of the mind, we need to clearly understand and recognise the distinction between the perceiver (dṛk) and what is perceived (dṛśya). Ego is the perceiver and can never be something perceived, because we seem to be ego only so long as we are attending even to the slightest extent to anything other than ourself. If we attend to ourself so keenly that we thereby cease to be aware of anything else, ego will subside completely, dissolving forever back into its source, as Bhagavan implies in verse 25 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: ‘தேடினால் ஓட்டம் பிடிக்கும்’ (tēḍiṉāl ōṭṭam piḍikkum), ‘If seeking [that is, if ego seeks to know what it actually is by keenly investigating itself], it will take flight’.
We can and should try to see ego, but we will never actually see it, because if we look at it carefully enough, what we will see is only the reality that lies behind it, namely the pure awareness ‘I am’, which is what we actually are. Therefore whatever we perceive or know is not ego. Everything other than ‘I’ is an object or phenomenon, so it is not ego, and though what we know as ‘I’ now seems to be ego, if we attend to it keenly enough, we will see that it is actually just pure awareness and was never ego, just as if we look carefully enough at what seems to be a snake, we will see that it is actually just a rope and was never a snake.
Though no such thing as ego actually exists, it seems to exist and to be ourself so long as we are aware of anything other than ourself, and since all other things seem to exist only in the view of ourself as ego, they all depend for their seeming existence upon the seeming existence of ourself as ego, as Bhagavan implies in verse 6 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu:
உலகைம் புலன்க ளுருவேறன் றவ்வைம்Since the knowing or perceiving element of the mind is ego, and since he says here ‘உலகை மனம் ஒன்று ஐம் பொறிவாயால் ஓர்ந்திடுதலால்’ (ulahai maṉam oṉḏṟu aim poṟi-vāyāl ōrndiḍudalāl), ‘Since the mind alone knows [or perceives] the world by way of the five sense organs’, in this context he is using ‘மனம்’ (maṉam), ‘the mind’, as a synonym for ego. What he refers to in this verse as ‘உலகு’ (ulahu), ‘the world’, is what he refers to in the first clause of this fifth verse of Āṉma-Viddai as ‘விண் ஆதிய’ (viṇ ādiya), ‘what begins with space’, so when he says ‘உலகு ஐம் புலன்கள் உரு; வேறு அன்று’ (ulahu aim pulaṉgaḷ uru; vēṟu aṉḏṟu), ‘The world is a form of five sense-impressions, not anything else’, he implies that the five elements and everything that is composed of them are nothing other than sense-impressions, thereby implying that they have no existence independent of ego, whose impressions they are, as he explains in more detail in the subsequent sentences of this verse.
புலனைம் பொறிக்குப் புலனா — முலகைமன
மொன்றைம் பொறிவாயா லோர்ந்திடுத லான்மனத்தை
யன்றியுல குண்டோ வறை.
ulahaim pulaṉga ḷuruvēṟaṉ ḏṟavvaim
pulaṉaim poṟikkup pulaṉā — mulahaimaṉa
moṉḏṟaim poṟivāyā lōrndiḍuda lāṉmaṉattai
yaṉḏṟiyula kuṇḍō vaṟai.
பதச்சேதம்: உலகு ஐம் புலன்கள் உரு; வேறு அன்று. அவ் ஐம் புலன் ஐம் பொறிக்கு புலன் ஆம். உலகை மனம் ஒன்று ஐம் பொறிவாயால் ஓர்ந்திடுதலால், மனத்தை அன்றி உலகு உண்டோ? அறை.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): ulahu aim pulaṉgaḷ uru; vēṟu aṉḏṟu. a-vv-aim pulaṉ aim poṟikku pulaṉ ām. ulahai maṉam oṉḏṟu aim poṟi-vāyāl ōrndiḍudalāl, maṉattai aṉḏṟi ulahu uṇḍō? aṟai.
அன்வயம்: உலகு ஐம் புலன்கள் உரு; வேறு அன்று. அவ் ஐம் புலன் ஐம் பொறிக்கு புலன் ஆம். மனம் ஒன்று உலகை ஐம் பொறிவாயால் ஓர்ந்திடுதலால், மனத்தை அன்றி உலகு உண்டோ? அறை.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): ulahu aim pulaṉgaḷ uru; vēṟu aṉḏṟu. a-vv-aim pulaṉ aim poṟikku pulaṉ ām. maṉam oṉḏṟu ulahai aim poṟi-vāyāl ōrndiḍudalāl, maṉattai aṉḏṟi ulahu uṇḍō? aṟai.
English translation: The world is a form of five sense-impressions, not anything else. Those five sense-impressions are impressions to the five sense organs. Since the mind alone perceives the world by way of the five sense organs, is there a world besides the mind? Say.
Explanatory paraphrase: The world is a form [composed] of five [kinds of] sense-impressions [sights, sounds, tastes, smells and tactile sensations], not anything else. Those five [kinds of] sense-impressions are impressions to [or for] the five sense organs. Since the mind alone [or since one thing, the mind] perceives the world by way of the five sense organs, is there [any] world besides [excluding, if not for, apart from, other than or without] the mind? Say.
What he refers to here as ‘ஐம் பொறி’ (aim poṟi), ‘the five sense organs’, are what he refers to in the first clause of this fifth verse of Āṉma-Viddai as ‘கண் ஆதிய பொறி’ (kaṇ ādiya poṟi), ‘the sense organs beginning with eyes’, but as he makes clear in this verse of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, the five sense organs are merely the வாய் (vāy), the mouth, gateway, path or means by which the world is known, thereby implying that what knows the world is not the sense organs. What knows the world by means of the five sense organs is only the mind, so since the world is just a series of sense-impressions, and since sense-impressions are just mental impressions, the world does not exist independent of the mind that perceives it, as he implies by asking rhetorically: ‘உலகை மனம் ஒன்று ஐம் பொறிவாயால் ஓர்ந்திடுதலால், மனத்தை அன்றி உலகு உண்டோ?’ (ulahai maṉam oṉḏṟu aim poṟi-vāyāl ōrndiḍudalāl, maṉattai aṉḏṟi ulahu uṇḍō?), ‘Since the mind alone perceives the world by way of the five sense organs, is there [any] world besides [excluding, if not for, apart from, other than or without] the mind?’
This is also what he implies, albeit less obviously, in the first clause of this fifth verse of Āṉma-Viddai by saying ‘விண் ஆதிய விளக்கும் கண் ஆதிய பொறிக்கும் கண் ஆம் மனக் கண்’ (viṇ ādiya viḷakkum kaṇ ādiya poṟikkum kaṇ ām maṉa-k-kaṇ), ‘the mind-eye, which is the eye to all the sense organs beginning with eyes, which illumine what begins with space’. That is, since ‘விண் ஆதிய’ (viṇ ādiya) means ‘what begins with space’ and therefore implies the five elements beginning with space and everything that consists of them, namely the entire world of phenomena, and since விளக்கும் (viḷakkum) means ‘which illumine’, ‘which make clear’ or ‘which cause to shine’ and therefore implies ‘which make known’, ‘விண் ஆதிய விளக்கும் கண் ஆதிய பொறி’ (viṇ ādiya viḷakkum kaṇ ādiya poṟi), ‘the sense organs beginning with eyes, which illumine what begins with space’, implies that what makes the world known is only the sense organs, so without the sense organs no world would seem to exist. However, what knows the seeming existence of the world is not the sense organs but only the mind, because it alone is the ‘eye’ or awareness that perceives the world through the sense organs, as he implies by saying ‘கண் ஆதிய பொறிக்கும் கண் ஆம் மனக் கண்’ (kaṇ ādiya poṟikkum kaṇ ām maṉa-k-kaṇ), ‘the mind-eye, which is the eye to all the sense organs beginning with eyes’. Therefore the world is nothing but a series of sensory impressions, and since sensory impressions are perceived only by the mind, they are just mental impressions, so without the mind there would be no such thing as a world.
Though in English the word order has to be inverted in order to make sense of this first clause, ‘விண் ஆதிய விளக்கும் கண் ஆதிய பொறிக்கும் கண் ஆம் மனக் கணுக்கும் கண் ஆய்’ (viṇ ādiya viḷakkum kaṇ ādiya poṟikkum kaṇ ām maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ āy), ‘as the eye even to the mind-eye, which is the eye to all the sense organs beginning with eyes, which illumine what begins with space’, in Tamil Bhagavan is leading us step by step from what is most gross and exterior, namely the world, which consists of the five elements beginning with space, to what is most subtle and interior, namely our innermost ‘eye’ or awareness, which is what we actually are. The first step he takes in this inward journey is to point out that what makes the world known is only the sense organs, thereby implying that it would not seem to exist without their aid, so it is nothing but a series of sensory impressions. The second step is to point out that the ‘eye’ that perceives these sensory impressions is மனக்கண் (maṉa-k-kaṇ), ‘the mind-eye’, namely ego.
However, though ego is endowed with awareness and therefore able to know the seeming existence of itself and all other things, it is not awareness in its pristine form, namely the pure awareness ‘I am’, because it is awareness mixed and conflated with adjuncts as ‘I am this body’, so it is called cit-jaḍa-granthi, the knot (granthi) formed by the seeming entanglement of pure awareness (cit) with a body, which is non-aware (jaḍa). Therefore ego is not real awareness but only a semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa), so just as the moon derives its seeming light from the light of the sun, ego derives its seeming awareness from the one real awareness, namely being-awareness (sat-cit), which is our fundamental awareness of our own existence, ‘I am’, and which is therefore the essential cit element of the cit-jaḍa-granthi. Therefore this essential cit element of ego is what Bhagavan describes in this clause as ‘மனக் கணுக்கும் கண்’ (maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ), ‘the eye even to [or for] the mind-eye’.
3. Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai verse 15: Arunachala is ‘the eye to the mind-eye’, because it is the eye of pure awareness, which is what illumines the mind-eye, so it cannot be seen or known by any eye other than itself
This ‘மனக் கணுக்கும் கண்’ (maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ), ‘the eye even to the mind-eye’, is what he refers to as ‘கணுக்குக் கண்’ (kaṇukku-k-kaṇ), ‘the eye to the eye’, in verse 15 of Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai:
கண்ணுக்குக் கண்ணாய்க் கண்ணின்றிக் காணுனைக்Being the eye to the mind-eye, which is the eye that sees everything other than itself, Arunachala cannot be seen by any eye other than itself. That is, Arunachala is pure awareness, so it can never be an object of awareness, and hence it can never be known by anything other than itself. No other eye can see it, but there is no need for any other eye to see it, because it sees itself without eyes just by being itself. Being pure awareness, it does not see anything other than itself, so it sees itself as itself alone: ‘I am I’.
காணுவ தெவர்பா ரருணாசலா
kaṇṇukkuk kaṇṇāyk kaṇṇiṉṟik kāṇuṉaik
kāṇuva tevarpā raruṇācalā
பதச்சேதம்: கண்ணுக்கு கண் ஆய் கண் இன்றி காண் உனை காணுவது எவர்? பார் அருணாசலா.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): kaṇṇukku kaṇ āy kaṇ iṉḏṟi kāṇ uṉai kāṇuvadu evar? pār aruṇācalā.
English translation: Arunachala, who can see you, who, being the eye to the eye, sees without eyes? See.
Explanatory paraphrase: Arunachala, who can [by means of what eye] see you, who, being the eye to the eye [the real awareness that illumines the seeming awareness called mind, just as the sun illumines the moon], sees without eyes [that is, who sees (the reality of) everything without seeing (the appearance of) anything]? See [me so that I may see you by seeing myself as you see me].
Though it does not know anything other than itself, it knows all that there is to know, because it alone exists, and hence there is nothing other than itself for it to know. Since it is the original eye of awareness, it does not need any eye other than itself to see itself, so Bhagavan says that it sees without eyes, and what it sees is only itself, because it alone is all that there is to see.
Therefore in the first sentence of this verse, ‘கண்ணுக்கு கண் ஆய் கண் இன்றி காண் உனை காணுவது எவர்?’ (kaṇṇukku kaṇ āy kaṇ iṉḏṟi kāṇ uṉai kāṇuvadu evar?), ‘Who can see you, who, being the eye to the eye, sees without eyes?’, he implies three things: Firstly, that Arunachala, being the eye of pure awareness, cannot be seen or known by anything other than itself. Secondly, that it does not need any eye other than itself to see itself, so it sees itself without eyes. And thirdly, but less obviously, that in seeing itself it sees everything, because nothing other than itself actually exists, so what the mind-eye sees as everything is what it sees as itself.
The second sentence, ‘பார்’ (pār), means ‘See’, which is a prayer to Arunachala, and what he implies by this prayer is that since we cannot see Arunachala, it should see us in such a way that we turn within with all-consuming love to see it, because only then will we lose ourself entirely in it, thereby seeing it by being it.
4. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 4: The mind-eye sees forms because it sees itself as the form of a body, whereas the ‘eye to the mind-eye’ is infinite and hence formless, so it sees no forms but only itself, the infinite whole
Arunachala is what we always actually are, but because we have seemingly risen as ego and thereby limited ourself as the form of a body, we seem to be something separate from Arunachala and from all the other forms that we consequently see. In this context ‘form’ means anything that seems to be in any way separate or distinct from any other thing, and the reason we are aware of such forms is that the nature of ego is to always grasp the form of a body, mistaking it to be itself, as Bhagavan points out in verse 4 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu:
உருவந்தா னாயி னுலகுபர மற்றாIn the first sentence of this verse, ‘உருவம் தான் ஆயின், உலகு பரம் அற்று ஆம்’ (uruvam tāṉ āyiṉ, ulahu param aṯṟu ām), ‘If oneself is a form, the world and God will be likewise’, Bhagavan clearly implies that the reason why the world seems to be a multitude of separate forms, and why God also seems to be something separate from ourself and from the world, is only because by rising as ego we have limited ourself as a body, which is a form consisting of five sheaths (as he says in the next verse, namely verse 5 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu). He further emphasises this in the next pair of sentences by asking two rhetorical questions, ‘உருவம் தான் அன்றேல், உவற்றின் உருவத்தை கண் உறுதல் யாவன்? எவன்?’ (uruvam tāṉ aṉḏṟēl, uvaṯṟiṉ uruvattai kaṇ uṟudal yāvaṉ? evaṉ?), ‘If oneself is not a form, who can see their forms? How?’, thereby implying that if we do not experience ourself as a form, we cannot be aware of any other forms, because we have no means to be aware of them.
முருவந்தா னன்றே லுவற்றி — னுருவத்தைக்
கண்ணுறுதல் யாவனெவன் கண்ணலாற் காட்சியுண்டோ
கண்ணதுதா னந்தமிலாக் கண்.
uruvandā ṉāyi ṉulahupara maṯṟā
muruvandā ṉaṉḏṟē luvaṯṟi — ṉuruvattaik
kaṇṇuṟudal yāvaṉevaṉ kaṇṇalāṯ kāṭciyuṇḍō
kaṇṇadutā ṉantamilāk kaṇ.
பதச்சேதம்: உருவம் தான் ஆயின், உலகு பரம் அற்று ஆம்; உருவம் தான் அன்றேல், உவற்றின் உருவத்தை கண் உறுதல் யாவன்? எவன்? கண் அலால் காட்சி உண்டோ? கண் அது தான் அந்தம் இலா கண்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): uruvam tāṉ āyiṉ, ulahu param aṯṟu ām; uruvam tāṉ aṉḏṟēl, uvaṯṟiṉ uruvattai kaṇ uṟudal yāvaṉ? evaṉ? kaṇ alāl kāṭci uṇḍō? kaṇ adu tāṉ antam-ilā kaṇ.
அன்வயம்: தான் உருவம் ஆயின், உலகு பரம் அற்று ஆம்; தான் உருவம் அன்றேல், உவற்றின் உருவத்தை யாவன் கண் உறுதல்? எவன்? கண் அலால் காட்சி உண்டோ? கண் அது தான் அந்தம் இலா கண்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): tāṉ uruvam āyiṉ, ulahu param aṯṟu ām; tāṉ uruvam aṉḏṟēl, uvaṯṟiṉ uruvattai yāvaṉ kaṇ uṟudal? evaṉ? kaṇ alāl kāṭci uṇḍō? kaṇ adu tāṉ antam-ilā kaṇ.
English translation: If oneself is a form, the world and God will be likewise; if oneself is not a form, who can see their forms? How? Can the seen be otherwise than the eye? The eye is oneself, the infinite eye.
Explanatory paraphrase: If oneself is a form, the world and God will be likewise; if oneself is not a form, who can see their forms, and how [to do so]? Can what is seen be otherwise [or of a different nature] than the eye [the awareness that sees or perceives it]? [Therefore forms can be perceived only by an ‘eye’ or awareness that perceives itself as a form, namely ego or mind, which always perceives itself as the form of a body.] The [real] eye is oneself [one’s real nature, which is pure awareness], the infinite [and hence formless] eye [so it can never see any forms or phenomena, which are all finite].
Therefore it is only when we are aware of ourself as a form that we are aware of other forms, as we can see by considering our own experience. In waking and dream we are aware of ourself as the form of a body, and consequently we are aware of a multitude of other forms, including both the seemingly physical forms of the material world and the more subtle forms of our mental world, whereas in sleep we are not aware of ourself as any kind of form and consequently we are not aware of any other forms. From this simple fact of our own experience we can derive an important philosophical principle, namely that the nature of what is experienced is determined by the nature of what experiences it, so what is perceived or experienced cannot be of a different nature than what perceives or experiences it.
This is what Bhagavan implies in the next sentence by asking rhetorically: ‘கண் அலால் காட்சி உண்டோ?’ (kaṇ alāl kāṭci uṇḍō?), which means ‘Can the seen be otherwise than the eye?’ Though the superficial meaning of this sentence is ‘Except the eye is there the seen?’, which implies that what exists is only what sees and not what is seen, or even ‘Without the eye is there the seen?’, neither of these is the meaning intended in this context, because as he himself explained, in this context he did not use ‘அலால்’ (alāl), which is a poetic abbreviation of ‘அல்லால்’ (allāl), in its usual sense of ‘except’, ‘besides’ or ‘without’, but in the deeper sense of ‘except as’, ‘otherwise than’ or ‘of a different nature than’, so the meaning he intended is ‘Is the seen otherwise than the eye?’ or ‘Can the seen be otherwise than the eye?’
In this context காட்சி (kāṭci), ‘the seen’, means whatever is perceived or experienced, and கண் (kaṇ), ‘the eye’, means what perceives, experiences or is aware. If the eye is a form, what it sees will likewise be forms, and if the eye is devoid of form, what it sees will likewise be devoid of form. மனக்கண் (maṉa-k-kaṇ), ‘the mind-eye’, is ego, which is what is always aware of itself as ‘I am this body’, so since it sees itself as a form, everything that it sees is likewise a form.
But is this mind-eye the real eye? It cannot be, because though it seems to exist in waking and dream, it ceases to exist in sleep, and even in its absence we do not cease to be aware of ourself as ‘I am’. Therefore the real eye is only this fundamental awareness ‘I am’, and since it never limits itself as a form, it is infinite, as Bhagavan implies in the final sentence of this verse: ‘கண் அது தான் அந்தம் இலா கண்’ (kaṇ adu tāṉ antam-ilā kaṇ), ‘The eye is oneself, the infinite eye’.
அந்தம் (antam) means end or limit, so அந்தமிலா (antam-ilā) means endless, limitless or infinite. Every form is limited in one way or another, so whatever is limitless or infinite is formless. Since the real eye is infinite, it is formless, so it can never be aware of any forms. In other words, it can never be aware of anything finite, so what it is aware of is only the one infinite whole, which is itself.
However, this does not mean that the mind-eye ever sees anything that the real eye does not see, because nothing other than the one infinite whole actually exists, so what the mind-eye sees as the multitude of forms that constitute itself, the world and God is what the real eye sees as itself, the one infinite and indivisible whole. If we are walking with Bhagavan along a dark path and see something that seems to us to be a snake but that he recognises to be just a rope, we are not seeing anything that he is not seeing, but whereas he sees it as it actually is, namely a rope, we see it as something that it is not, namely a snake. Likewise the real eye sees what exists as it actually is, whereas the mind-eye sees it as a multitude of forms.
Since the real eye is infinite, nothing other than itself exists, so the mind-eye is actually nothing other than the real eye, but since the mind-eye sees itself as the form of a body, it does not see itself as it actually is, namely as the infinite eye. In order to see itself as the infinite eye, all it needs to do is to look at itself so keenly that it thereby ceases to be aware of anything else. In other words, to know what we actually are, all we need to do is to look at ourself keenly enough, so if we are willing to look at ourself keenly enough, we would see for ourself that knowing ourself is extremely easy, ah, so extremely easy.
If at all it seems difficult, that is only because we are so attached to being aware of other things that we are not yet willing to look at ourself so keenly that we thereby forever cease to be aware of anything else whatsoever. Therefore in order to succeed in this simple path of self-investigation, we need to have all-consuming love to be aware of ourself alone, and to cultivate such love, all we need do is to persevere patiently and single-mindedly in trying to be more and more keenly and steadily self-attentive.
When we, who now seem to be the finite mind-eye, investigate ourself keenly enough, we will see that what we actually are is only the infinite eye, which is the fundamental awareness ‘I am’ in its absolutely pure and pristine condition. Even when we seem to be the mind-eye, we are actually never anything other than the infinite eye, just as even when a rope seems to be a snake, it is actually never anything other than a rope. This is what Bhagavan implies by describing the infinite eye as ‘மனக் கணுக்கும் கண்’ (maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ), ‘the eye even to the mind-eye’, in the first clause of this fifth verse of Āṉma-Viddai: ‘விண் ஆதிய விளக்கும் கண் ஆதிய பொறிக்கும் கண் ஆம் மனக் கணுக்கும் கண் ஆய்’ (viṇ ādiya viḷakkum kaṇ ādiya poṟikkum kaṇ ām maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ āy), ‘being [or as] the eye even to the mind-eye, which is the eye to all the sense organs beginning with eyes, which illumine what begins with space’.
Together with the adjectival participle ‘ஒளிரும்’ (oḷirum), ‘which shines’, this adverbial clause forms a relative clause, ‘விண் ஆதிய விளக்கும் கண் ஆதிய பொறிக்கும் கண் ஆம் மனக் கணுக்கும் கண் ஆய் ஒளிரும்’ (viṇ ādiya viḷakkum kaṇ ādiya poṟikkum kaṇ ām maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ āy oḷirum), ‘which shines as the eye even to the mind-eye, which is the eye to all the sense organs beginning with eyes, which illumine what begins with space’, which modifies the subject of this sentence, ஆன்மா (āṉmā), ‘oneself’, so it implies that what we actually are is ‘மனக் கணுக்கும் கண்’ (maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ), ‘the eye even to the mind-eye’. Therefore the purpose of this first clause is to draw our attention back from the world, which is composed of the five elements beginning with space, and from the sense organs, which illumine the seeming existence of the world, and from the mind-eye, which sees the world by means of the sense organs, in order to focus it on ourself, the fundamental awareness ‘I am’, which is the real eye from which the mind-eye derives its seeming awareness, by which it sees all other things.
5. We are ‘the space even to the mind-space’, so we are the one real substance, of which everything else is just an appearance
The adjectival participle ‘ஒளிரும்’ (oḷirum), ‘which shines’, links the subject of this sentence, namely ஆன்மா (āṉmā), ‘oneself’, not only to this first adverbial clause but also to the second adverbial clause: ‘மன விணுக்கும் விண் ஆய்’ (maṉa-viṇukkum viṇ āy), ‘being [or as] the space even to [or for] the mind-space’, thereby implying that we are not only the eye to the mind-eye but also the space to the mind space. That is, the விண் (viṇ) or space that he refers to at the beginning of the first clause is physical space (bhūtākāśa), and since physical space and everything in it seems to exist only in the view of the mind, the mind is the space for physical space. That is, the space in which physical space appears and is therefore contained is the mind-space, which in Sanskrit is called manākāśa or cittākāśa, and which Bhagavan refers to here as மன விண் (maṉa-viṇ). Since the mind appears and disappears in the infinite space of pure awareness (cidākāśa), this space of pure awareness is what he refers to here as ‘மன விணுக்கும் விண்’ (maṉa-viṇukkum viṇ), ‘the space even to [or for] the mind-space’.
Just as in the first clause he draws our attention step by step from what is most gross and exterior, namely the world composed of the five elements beginning with space, back to what is most subtle and interior, namely our innermost ‘eye’, which is pure awareness, in this second clause he likewise draws our attention from what is most gross and exterior, namely physical space, in which all other physical phenomena are contained, back to what is more subtle and interior, namely the mind, which is the space in which physical space appears and is therefore contained, and from the mind back to what is most subtle and interior, namely the innermost space of pure awareness, which is what we actually are. Here there may seem to be a paradox, in that what is said to be more exterior is contained in what is said to be more interior, but this paradox is rooted in the paradoxical nature of our experience as ego.
That is, as ego we seem to be a body and a mind that is contained within that body, so we seem to be a tiny entity contained within the vast expanse of physical space, and hence in our view the rest of the world and the physical space in which it is contained seem to be something exterior to ourself, whereas in fact the entire physical space and everything contained within it, including the body that we seem to be, are a mere appearance, and what they appear in is only the space of our own mind. Therefore what seems to be exterior, namely physical space, is contained within what seems to be interior, namely the mind. Likewise the space of pure awareness is what shines within us as our fundamental awareness ‘I am’, which now seems to be limited within the extent of this body, whereas in fact it is the infinite space in which the mind-space and consequently the entire physical space is contained.
The space of pure awareness, ‘I am’, is what is called the heart, because it is the innermost centre or core of ourself. Since it alone is what actually exists, it is the one substance (poruḷ or vastu) of everything that seems to exist, just as gold is the substance of all gold ornaments and a rope is the substance of what seems to be a snake, so it is both contained within everything and the infinite space in which everything is contained. This is why brahman, which is this infinite space of pure awareness, is said to be larger than the largest and smaller than the smallest.
This infinite space of pure awareness, which contains everything and is contained within everything, is what we actually are, as Bhagavan points out in this verse by saying ‘மன விணுக்கும் விண் ஆய் ஒளிரும் ஆன்மா’ (maṉa-viṇukkum viṇ āy oḷirum āṉmā), ‘oneself, which shines as the space even to the mind-space’. Therefore we are ஒரு பொருள் (oru poruḷ), ‘the one substance’, as he points out in the phrase that immediately follows this second adverbial clause, ‘மன விணுக்கும் விண் ஆய்’ (maṉa-viṇukkum viṇ āy), ‘as the space even to the mind-space’, because as I explained earlier, though this phrase is separated from the subject of the main clause, namely ஆன்மா (āṉmā), ‘oneself’, it stands in apposition to it, meaning that oneself is the one real substance, of which everything else is just an appearance.
6. There is only one substance, Arunachala, the heart, the light of awareness, which shines without appearing or disappearing as the space for the appearing and disappearing of the mind-eye and everything known by it
பொருள் (poruḷ) is a word that has a very deep significance and is therefore often used by Bhagavan. In most contexts, including this one, the equivalent term in Sanskrit is वस्तु (vastu), because it means the ultimate substance, the one thing that actually exists, the sole reality underlying and supporting the appearance of all other things, as he implies, for example, in the first sentence of verse 6 of Śrī Aruṇācala Aṣṭakam: ‘உண்டு ஒரு பொருள் அறிவு ஒளி உளமே நீ’ (uṇḍu oru poruḷ aṟivu oḷi uḷamē nī), ‘There is only one substance, you [Arunachala], the heart, the light of awareness’.
This 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 verse 24 of Upadēśa Undiyār:
இருக்கு மியற்கையா லீசசீ வர்கThe nature of this ஒரு பொருள் (oru poruḷ) or one substance and where it stands in relation to everything else, namely the subject (the mind-eye) and all objects (everything perceived by the mind-eye), or rather where everything else stands in relation to it, is clearly explained by him in verse 7 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu:
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.]
உலகறிவு மொன்றா யுதித்தொடுங்கு மேனுஅறிவு (aṟivu) means awareness, but in this verse it does not mean real awareness, namely pure awareness, which is அந்தமிலா கண் (antam-ilā kaṇ), ‘the infinite eye’, because real awareness does not arise or subside, since it is the eternal and immutable reality, the ஒரு பொருள் (oru poruḷ) or one real substance. Therefore the அறிவு (aṟivu) or awareness that he refers to here is the awareness that rises and subsides, namely மனக்கண் (maṉa-k-kaṇ), the mind-eye, which is ego. Since it is only in the view of this mind-eye that the world seems to exist, the world shines only by the light of this mind-eye, as he says in the first sentence of this verse: ‘உலகு அறிவும் ஒன்றாய் உதித்து ஒடுங்கும் ஏனும், உலகு அறிவு தன்னால் ஒளிரும்’ (ulahu aṟivum oṉḏṟāy udittu oḍuṅgum ēṉum, ulahu aṟivu-taṉṉāl oḷirum), ‘Though the world and awareness arise and subside simultaneously, the world shines by awareness’.
முலகறிவு தன்னா லொளிரு — முலகறிவு
தோன்றிமறை தற்கிடனாய்த் தோன்றிமறை யாதொளிரும்
பூன்றமா மஃதே பொருள்.
ulahaṟivu moṉḏṟā yudittoḍuṅgu mēṉu
mulahaṟivu taṉṉā loḷiru — mulahaṟivu
tōṉḏṟimaṟai daṟkiḍaṉāyt tōṉḏṟimaṟai yādoḷirum
pūṉḏṟamā maḵdē poruḷ.
பதச்சேதம்: உலகு அறிவும் ஒன்றாய் உதித்து ஒடுங்கும் ஏனும், உலகு அறிவு தன்னால் ஒளிரும். உலகு அறிவு தோன்றி மறைதற்கு இடன் ஆய் தோன்றி மறையாது ஒளிரும் பூன்றம் ஆம் அஃதே பொருள்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): ulahu aṟivum oṉḏṟāy udittu oḍuṅgum ēṉum, ulahu aṟivu-taṉṉāl oḷirum. ulahu aṟivu tōṉḏṟi maṟaidaṟku iḍaṉ-āy tōṉḏṟi maṟaiyādu oḷirum pūṉḏṟam ām aḵdē poruḷ.
அன்வயம்: உலகு அறிவும் ஒன்றாய் உதித்து ஒடுங்கும் ஏனும், உலகு அறிவு தன்னால் ஒளிரும். உலகு அறிவு தோன்றி மறைதற்கு இடன் ஆய் தோன்றி மறையாது ஒளிரும் அஃதே பூன்றம் ஆம் பொருள்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): ulahu aṟivum oṉḏṟāy udittu oḍuṅgum ēṉum, ulahu aṟivu-taṉṉāl oḷirum. ulahu aṟivu tōṉḏṟi maṟaidaṟku iḍaṉ-āy tōṉḏṟi maṟaiyādu oḷirum aḵdē pūṉḏṟam ām poruḷ.
English translation: Though the world and awareness arise and subside simultaneously, the world shines by awareness. Only that which shines without appearing or disappearing as the place for the appearing and disappearing of the world and awareness is the substance, which is the whole.
Explanatory paraphrase: Though the world and awareness [the awareness that perceives the world, namely ego or mind] arise and subside simultaneously, the world shines by [that rising and subsiding] awareness [the mind]. Only that which shines without appearing or disappearing as the place [space, expanse, location, site or ground] for the appearing and disappearing of the world and [that] awareness is poruḷ [the real substance or vastu], which is pūṉḏṟam [the infinite whole or pūrṇa].
Just as moonlight is just a reflection of sunlight that falls on the moon, the light of the mind-eye, which is the light by which the world shines, is just a reflection of pure awareness, which is what shines within the mind-eye as our fundamental awareness, ‘I am’. Since pure awareness shines as ‘I am’ within the mind-eye and thereby lends it the light by which it knows all other things, Bhagavan describes it as ‘மனக் கணுக்கும் கண்’ (maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ), ‘the eye even to [or for] the mind-eye’. However, though it shines as ‘I am’ within the mind-eye and is therefore always known by the mind-eye, the mind-eye does not know it as it actually is, because instead of knowing itself as just ‘I am’, the mind-eye always knows itself as ‘I am this body’.
Because it knows itself as ‘I am this body’, two consequences follow: Firstly, it knows the world, because the body seems to be just a small part of the world and therefore seems to exist only in relation to the seeming existence of the world. And secondly, it rises and subsides, because the body is just a temporary appearance, as indeed is the whole world and everything else that is known by it, except its fundamental awareness ‘I am’.
The mind-eye and the world appear in waking and dream and disappear in sleep, so the ground, substratum or source from which they appear and into which they disappear must be something that exists and shines not only in waking and dream but also in sleep. In other words, it must exist and shine eternally without ever appearing or disappearing. As we can understand by carefully considering our own experience, what exists and shines in all three states without ever appearing or disappearing is only our fundamental awareness ‘I am’, so that alone is what we actually are, and it is the source and substance from which everything else appears and into which it disappears, as he implies in the final sentence of this verse: ‘உலகு அறிவு தோன்றி மறைதற்கு இடன் ஆய் தோன்றி மறையாது ஒளிரும் பூன்றம் ஆம் அஃதே பொருள்’ (ulahu aṟivu tōṉḏṟi maṟaidaṟku iḍaṉ-āy tōṉḏṟi maṟaiyādu oḷirum pūṉḏṟam ām aḵdē poruḷ), ‘Only that which shines without appearing or disappearing as the place [space, expanse, location, site or ground] for the appearing and disappearing of the world and awareness is poruḷ [the real substance or vastu], which is pūṉḏṟam [the infinite whole or pūrṇa]’.
பூன்றம் (pūṉḏṟam) is a Tamil form of the Sanskrit word पूर्ण (pūrṇa), which means full, complete, entire or whole, so it implies existence in its fullness or entirety, or in other words, the infinite whole, other than which nothing exists. That is, since பொருள் (poruḷ) in this context means the one real substance, the ultimate substance that underlies the appearance of everything else, there is nothing other than it, so it is the infinite whole.
This one real substance, which is the infinite whole, is what we actually are, as Bhagavan implies in this first sentence of the fifth verse of Āṉma-Viddai by placing ‘ஒரு பொருள்’ (oru poruḷ), ‘the one substance’, in apposition to ஆன்மா (āṉmā), ‘oneself’. Therefore up to this point in the verse he has told us three things about ourself, namely that we are மனக் கணுக்கும் கண் (maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ), the eye to (or for) the mind-eye, மன விணுக்கும் விண் (maṉa-viṇukkum viṇ), the space to (or for) the mind-space, and ஒரு பொருள் (oru poruḷ), the one real substance.
7. What we actually are is what is called Annamalai, but so long as we rise as ego and thereby mistake ourself to be the form of a body, Annamalai appears outwardly in the form of a hill and in the human form of Bhagavan Ramana
Further on in this sentence he tells us one more thing about what we actually are, namely that we are what is called Annamalai, which is an alternative name of Arunachala and is therefore a name of God, and more specifically, a name of the form of God that is most beloved to him. Though God is actually formless, being nothing other than ourself as we actually are, namely the fundamental awareness ‘I am’, so long as we mistake ourself to be the form of a body, God seems to be something other than ourself, and anything other than ourself must be a form of one kind or another, as he implies in the first sentence of verse 4 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, ‘உருவம் தான் ஆயின், உலகு பரம் அற்று ஆம்’ (uruvam tāṉ āyiṉ, ulahu param aṯṟu ām), ‘If oneself is a form, the world and God will be likewise’.
Until we experience ourself as the formless whole, we cannot experience God as formless, and even if we believe that he is formless, that belief is just an idea, so like all ideas it is just a mental form. We cannot form an accurate mental conception of formlessness, because every conception is a form, so it is appropriate for us to worship God as a form so long as we rise and stand as ego. Therefore from the perspective of ourself as ego Annamalai is the name of God in the form of a hill, but when we know ourself as we actually are, we will know that what the name Annamalai actually refers to is ourself, because what we actually are is what God actually is, namely ஒரு பொருள் (oru poruḷ), the one real substance, which is the infinite and hence formless whole, as Bhagavan implies in this sentence by saying ‘அண்ணாமலை என் ஆன்மா’ (aṇṇāmalai eṉ āṉmā), ‘oneself, which is called Annamalai’, in which ‘ஆன்மா’ (āṉmā), ‘oneself’, refers to ourself as we actually are, which is மனக் கணுக்கும் கண் (maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ), ‘the eye even to the mind-eye’, and மன விணுக்கும் விண் (maṉa-viṇukkum viṇ), ‘the space even to the mind-space’.
In this phrase ‘அண்ணாமலை என் ஆன்மா’ (aṇṇāmalai eṉ āṉmā), ‘என்’ (eṉ) can be interpreted in either of two ways, because it is both the root of a verb that means ‘say’ and the inflectional base of the first personal singular pronoun. In the principal meaning of this phrase, namely ‘oneself, which is called Annamalai’, the verbal root ‘என்’ (eṉ) is used to represent the adjectival participle ‘என்னும்’ (eṉṉum), which means ‘which is called’. Since the inflectional base of nouns and pronouns is often used to represent the genitive or sixth case, as a pronoun ‘என்’ (eṉ) means ‘my’, so the alternative meaning of ‘அண்ணாமலை என் ஆன்மா’ (aṇṇāmalai eṉ āṉmā) is ‘myself, Annamalai’ or ‘Annamalai, myself’. If we interpret it in this sense, Bhagavan is indicating that he and Annamalai are one.
Since Annamalai is ourself as we actually are, in the deepest sense we are all one with Annamalai, but Bhagavan is one with Annamalai in a very special sense, because Annamalai is God and guru in the form of a hill, but since as a hill he teaches us only through silence, and since we cannot understand what is taught through silence without turning within and merging in it, it was necessary for Annamalai to appear in the human form of Bhagavan Ramana to teach us in words what he is eternally teaching us through silence, namely ‘திரும்பி அகம் தனை தினம் அகக்கண் காண்; தெரியும்’ (tirumbi aham taṉai diṉam aha-k-kaṇ kāṇ; ṭeriyum), ‘Turning back inside, see yourself daily with the inner eye [or an inward look]; it [the reality that always shines as ‘I am only I’] will be known’, as he says Annamalai said to him in verse 44 of Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai.
8. As ego we can never see ourself as we actually are, but we must try to see ourself thus, because as soon as we see ourself as we actually are we will thereby cease to be ego and remain as we actually are
The subject of this first sentence is ஆன்மா (āṉmā), ‘oneself’, which in this context means ourself as we actually are, as is made clear by each of its four modifiers. Along with these modifiers the entire subject is ‘விண் ஆதிய விளக்கும் கண் ஆதிய பொறிக்கும் கண் ஆம் மனக் கணுக்கும் கண் ஆய், மன விணுக்கும் விண் ஆய் ஒளிரும் ஒரு பொருள், அண்ணாமலை என் ஆன்மா’ (viṇ ādiya viḷakkum kaṇ ādiya poṟikkum kaṇ ām maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ āy, maṉa-viṇukkum viṇ āy oḷirum oru poruḷ, aṇṇāmalai eṉ āṉmā), ‘oneself, which is called Annamalai, the one substance, which shines as the eye even to the mind-eye, which is the eye to all the sense organs beginning with eyes, which illumine what begins with space, [and] as the space even to the mind-space’.
The main verb of this sentence is காணுமே (kāṇumē), which is an intensified form of காணும் (kāṇum), which is active in form but closer to passive in sense, so though as an active verb it would mean ‘[it] will see’, in this context it implies ‘[it] will be seen’, and when appended to a verb the intensifying suffix ஏ (ē) implies ‘certainly’, ‘definitely’ or ‘actually’. Though காணும் (kāṇum) in this context has to be translated as a passive verb in English, it is actually the neuter third person singular active form of a transitive verb that is used here in a non-active sense, because an active verb requires a specified agent as its subject, whereas in this case no agent is specified, so it is neither active nor passive but a particular type of agentless middle voice that is very common in Tamil but much rarer in English, in which it can be used only with certain verbs, as for example in ‘the food is cooking’, ‘the door opened’ or ‘the glass broke’ (in which the respective verbs are active in form but closer to passive in sense). Bhagavan frequently uses this middle voice because such an active yet agentless expression is particularly appropriate in the context of his teachings. In this case, ‘ஆன்மா காணுமே’ (āṉmā kāṇumē), ‘oneself will certainly be seen’, he uses this form of the verb to say that what we actually are will be seen without specifying the agent, namely the one who will see it.
His use of this agentless middle voice form of the verb should prompt us to consider firstly who or what is to see oneself, and secondly why it is appropriate to avoid specifying who or what is to see oneself. As we actually are we do not need to see ourself, because seeing ourself means being aware of ourself as we actually are, and being aware of ourself as we actually are is the very nature of ourself as we actually are. As such, therefore, we see ourself just by being ourself, so we never cease to see ourself, and hence seeing ourself is not something that we as we actually are ever need to achieve. So does this mean that what needs to see ourself as we actually are is ourself as ego? Yes, but as ego we can never see what we actually are, because our nature as ego is to be always aware of ourself as ‘I am this body’.
Therefore our real nature does not need to see itself, because it never sees anything other than itself, and ego cannot know itself as it actually is, so is it futile for us as ego to try to see ourself as we actually are? No, it is necessary for us to try to see what we actually are, but when we see what we actually are, we will thereby lose ourself in that, which means that we will cease to be ego and remain as we always actually are.
9. We can see ourself as we actually are only by turning our entire mind back to look within instead of thinking of anything else, thereby being as we always actually are
In order to see ourself as we actually are, we need to look at ourself very carefully, which means we need to turn our entire attention back within to face ourself alone. This is what he implies in the adverbial phrase that modifies this main verb, ‘காணுமே’ (kāṇumē), ‘will certainly be seen’, namely ‘வேறு எண்ணாது இருந்தபடி உள் நாடு உளத்து’ (vēṟu eṇṇādu irundapaḍi uḷ nāḍu uḷattu), ‘in the heart [or mind] that investigates within, as it is without thinking of anything other’.
உளத்து (uḷattu) is a poetic abbreviation of உள்ளத்து (uḷḷattu), which is the inflectional base of உள்ளம் (uḷḷam), which means ‘heart’ or ‘mind’, and this inflectional base is used here in a locative (seventh case) sense, so உளத்து (uḷattu) means ‘in the heart’ or ‘in the mind’, and the rest of this phrase is a relative clause that modifies this noun. உள் (uḷ) means inside or within, and நாடு (nāḍu) is the root of a verb that means ‘seek’, ‘search’, ‘investigate’, ‘scrutinise’, ‘examine’ or ‘look attentively’, which is used here to represent the adjectival participle நாடும் (nāḍum), which means ‘investigating’ or ‘which investigates’, so ‘உள் நாடு உளத்து’ (uḷ nāḍu uḷattu) means ‘in the inward investigating [or inward looking] uḷḷam [heart or mind]’ or ‘in the uḷḷam that investigates [or looks] within’.
Inside and outside are relative terms, so they refer to different things in different contexts. For example, from one perspective the world (physical objects) is outside and thoughts (mental objects) are inside, so we seem to experience two distinct worlds, an external world of physical phenomena and an internal world of mental phenomena, but from another perspective even the world of physical phenomena is experienced only within our own mind, so it too is internal. However, in the context of self-investigation the terms inside and outside are used in a much deeper sense, according to which all objects or phenomena are external, being extraneous to ourself, so what is inside is only ourself, ‘I’. Therefore attending to anything other than ‘I’ is facing outwards (bahirmukham) whereas attending to ‘I’ alone is facing inwards (antarmukham or ahamukham), so whenever Bhagavan talks about turning, facing, looking, attending or investigating within, what he implies thereby is turning our attention back to face ourself alone.
இருந்தபடி (irundapaḍi) means ‘as it was’ or ‘as one was’, but in this context can be translated as ‘as it is’ or ‘as one is’, because it implies ‘as one actually was’, and what we actually were is what we always actually are, so in this case tense is irrelevant. Coming immediately before ‘உள் நாடு’ (uḷ nāḍu), ‘inward investigating’ or ‘inward looking’, இருந்தபடி (irundapaḍi), ‘as it was’, implies that by looking within we remain as we always actually are and always have been, or to be more precise, that looking within is itself being as we actually are, because what we actually are is just our fundamental awareness ‘I am’ in its pure and pristine condition, which is always looking within in the sense that it is never aware of anything outside or other than itself.
Looking within and thereby being as we actually are entails not thinking of or attending to anything other than ourself, so to make this clear he begins this adverbial phrase, ‘வேறு எண்ணாது இருந்தபடி உள் நாடு உளத்து’ (vēṟu eṇṇādu irundapaḍi uḷ nāḍu uḷattu), ‘in the heart that investigates within, as it is without thinking of anything other’, with the negative adverbial clause ‘வேறு எண்ணாது’ (vēṟu eṇṇādu), which means ‘not thinking of anything other’ or ‘without thinking of anything other’, and which therefore implies not attending to or being aware of anything other than ourself even to the slightest extent.
Since this whole adverbial phrase modifies the verb of the main clause of this sentence, namely ‘ஆன்மா காணுமே’ (āṉmā kāṇumē), ‘oneself will certainly be seen’, what it implies is that we will certainly be aware of ourself as we actually are when, and only when, our entire heart, mind or attention looks within so keenly that we thereby cease to be aware of anything other than ourself and thus remain as we always actually are, namely as pure awareness, ‘I am’, which is ஒரு பொருள் (oru poruḷ), the one real substance, which is what is called Annamalai and which shines as மனக் கணுக்கும் கண் (maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ), the eye even to the mind-eye, and மன விணுக்கும் விண் (maṉa-viṇukkum viṇ), the space even to the mind-space.
Therefore in this first sentence, ‘விண் ஆதிய விளக்கும் கண் ஆதிய பொறிக்கும் கண் ஆம் மனக் கணுக்கும் கண் ஆய், மன விணுக்கும் விண் ஆய் ஒரு பொருள் வேறு எண்ணாது இருந்தபடி உள் நாடு உளத்து ஒளிரும் அண்ணாமலை என் ஆன்மா காணுமே’ (viṇ ādiya viḷakkum kaṇ ādiya poṟikkum kaṇ ām maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ āy, maṉa-viṇukkum viṇ āy oru poruḷ vēṟu eṇṇādu irundapaḍi uḷ nāḍu uḷattu oḷirum aṇṇāmalai eṉ āṉmā kāṇumē), ‘In the heart that investigates within, as it is without thinking of anything other, oneself, which is called Annamalai, the one substance, which shines as the eye even to the mind-eye, which is the eye to all the sense organs beginning with eyes, which illumine what begins with space, and as the space even to the mind-space, will certainly be seen’, he teaches us very precisely and clearly the means by which we can know ourself as we actually are.
Firstly he makes clear that what we actually are is not anything physical or material, anything composed of the five elements beginning with space, because all such things are illumined only by the sense organs beginning with the eyes; nor are we any of these sense organs, because they are not aware of anything, since they are just the windows through which the mind-eye, namely ego, perceives all physical things; nor are we even this mind or ego, because it borrows its seeming awareness (cidābhāsa) from the one real awareness (cit), which is therefore மனக் கணுக்கும் கண் (maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ), ‘the eye even to the mind-eye’, and also மன விணுக்கும் விண் (maṉa-viṇukkum viṇ), ‘the space even to the mind-space’; so what we actually are is only this fundamental awareness by which the mind and everything known by it shines. This fundamental awareness (cit), which is what always shines within us as our own very being (sat), ‘I am’, is ஒரு பொருள் (oru poruḷ), ‘the one real substance’, which is what is called Annamalai, so this alone is what we need to investigate and know. Since what we actually are is the eye even to the mind-eye, which means the light that shines within the mind-eye enabling it to know all other things, we can know what we actually are not by looking outwards but only by looking deep within ourself, and to see ourself as we actually are we need to look within ourself so keenly and deeply that we thereby cease to be aware of anything other than ourself and thus remain as we actually are, namely as pure awareness, which is awareness that is never aware of anything other than itself and that is therefore aware of itself as ‘I am I’.
10. Though looking at ourself and thereby being as we actually are is exceedingly easy, it seems difficult so long as we rise and stand as ego, because the very nature of ego is to be constantly grasping forms
As he said in the previous verse, ‘கன்மாதி கட்டு அவிழ, சென்மாதி நட்டம் எழ, எம் மார்க்கம் அதனினும் இம் மார்க்கம் மிக்கு எளிது’ (kaṉma-ādi kaṭṭu aviṙa, jeṉma-ādi naṭṭam eṙa, e-m-mārggam-adaṉiṉum i-m-mārggam mikku eḷidu), ‘To untie the bonds beginning with action, to rise from the devastation beginning with birth, more than whatever path, this path is exceedingly easy’, because nothing can be easier than just being as we actually are. We are always as we actually are, so we seem to have risen as ego only because we are looking outside at other things instead of looking within at ourself. So long as we attend to anything other than ourself, we seem to be something other than what we actually are, so in order to see that we are always as we actually are, all we need do is look at ourself very carefully.
Though looking at ourself and thereby being as we actually are is exceedingly easy, it seems difficult so long as we rise and stand as ego, because the very nature of ego is to be constantly grasping forms, which means attending to things other than ourself, as he points out in verse 25 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu:
உருப்பற்றி யுண்டா முருப்பற்றி நிற்குSince ego cannot rise, stand or flourish without grasping things other than itself, and since we cannot turn within to look at ourself alone without thereby letting go of everything else, turning within and being self-attentive is going against the very nature of ourself as ego. However, though being aware of nothing other than ourself is diametrically opposed to our ego nature, it is the nature of ourself as we actually are. Therefore to the extent to which we look within or attend to ourself we are thereby renouncing our ego nature and embracing our real nature.
முருப்பற்றி யுண்டுமிக வோங்கு — முருவிட்
டுருப்பற்றுந் தேடினா லோட்டம் பிடிக்கு
முருவற்ற பேயகந்தை யோர்.
uruppaṯṟi yuṇḍā muruppaṯṟi niṟku
muruppaṯṟi yuṇḍumiha vōṅgu — muruviṭ
ṭuruppaṯṟun tēḍiṉā lōṭṭam piḍikku
muruvaṯṟa pēyahandai yōr.
பதச்சேதம்: உரு பற்றி உண்டாம்; உரு பற்றி நிற்கும்; உரு பற்றி உண்டு மிக ஓங்கும்; உரு விட்டு, உரு பற்றும்; தேடினால் ஓட்டம் பிடிக்கும். உரு அற்ற பேய் அகந்தை. ஓர்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): uru paṯṟi uṇḍām; uru paṯṟi niṟkum; uru paṯṟi uṇḍu miha ōṅgum; uru viṭṭu, uru paṯṟum; tēḍiṉāl ōṭṭam piḍikkum. uru aṯṟa pēy ahandai. ōr.
அன்வயம்: உரு அற்ற பேய் அகந்தை உரு பற்றி உண்டாம்; உரு பற்றி நிற்கும்; உரு பற்றி உண்டு மிக ஓங்கும்; உரு விட்டு, உரு பற்றும்; தேடினால் ஓட்டம் பிடிக்கும். ஓர்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): uru aṯṟa pēy ahandai uru paṯṟi uṇḍām; uru paṯṟi niṟkum; uru paṯṟi uṇḍu miha ōṅgum; uru viṭṭu, uru paṯṟum; tēḍiṉāl ōṭṭam piḍikkum. ōr.
English translation: Grasping form it comes into existence; grasping form it stands; grasping and feeding on form it grows abundantly; leaving form, it grasps form. If seeking, it will take flight. The formless phantom ego. Investigate.
Explanatory paraphrase: Grasping form [that is, projecting and perceiving the form of a body (composed of five sheaths) as itself] it comes into existence [rises into being or is formed]; grasping form [that is, holding on to that body as itself] it stands [endures, continues or persists]; grasping and feeding on form [that is, projecting and perceiving other forms or phenomena] it grows [spreads, expands, increases, ascends, rises high or flourishes] abundantly; leaving [one] form [a body that it had projected and perceived as itself in one state], it grasps [another] form [another body that it projects and perceives as itself in its next state]. If seeking [that is, if it seeks to know what it actually is by keenly investigating itself], it will take flight [because it has no form of its own, and hence it cannot seem to exist without grasping the forms of other things as itself and as its food or sustenance]. [Such is the nature of this] formless phantom [fiend, demon or evil spirit] ego. [Therefore] investigate [it] [or know thus].
11. Grace is certainly necessary, because the all-consuming love to look deep within and thereby let go everything else can come only from grace, not from ego
Ego’s inclinations (vāsanās) to grasp forms are what are called viṣaya-vāsanās, because all forms are viṣayas (objects or phenomena), and all viṣayas are forms in the broad and deep sense in which Bhagavan uses this term. Our inclination or liking to be self-attentive, on the other hand, is what is called sat-vāsanā, because being self-attentive means attending to our own being (sat), ‘I am’, and to the extent to which we attend only to our own being we thereby subside back into our being and are thus just being as we actually are. Whereas viṣaya-vāsanās are born with and from ego, sat-vāsanā originates from ourself as we actually are, because love to be as we actually are is the very nature of ourself as we actually are.
The infinite love that we as we actually are have to be as we actually are is what is called grace, so sat-vāsanā is the clear shining of grace in our heart. The more we persevere in being self-attentive, the more our mind is thereby purified and clarified, so the more grace, which is always shining in our heart as our fundamental awareness ‘I am’, will shine clearly in the form of sat-vāsanā, which is love to know and to be what we always actually are.
Therefore without grace we would have no inclination even to try to turn within. As Bhagavan often said, grace is the beginning, the middle and the end, because it is grace in the form of guru and his teachings that first attracts us to this path, it is grace that gives us the liking to try to be self-attentive, it is grace that supports and guides us on this path, and finally it is grace in its real form of pure awareness (cit-svarūpa) that will swallow us entirely when we eventually look within keenly and deeply enough. This is why he says in the second sentence of this verse: ‘அருளும் வேணுமே’ (aruḷum vēṇumē), ‘Grace also is certainly necessary’.
அருள் (aruḷ) means ‘grace’ and the suffix உம் (um) means ‘also’ or ‘even’ (or in this context it can be taken to be a poetic expletive and therefore devoid of meaning), so அருளும் (aruḷum) means ‘grace also’ or just ‘grace’. வேணும் (vēṇum) means ‘required’, ‘needed’, ‘necessary’ or ‘indispensable’, and the intensifying suffix ஏ (ē) when appended to a verb means ‘certainly’, ‘definitely’ or ‘actually’, so வேணுமே (vēṇumē) means ‘is certainly necessary’. Why did he append உம் (um) to அருள் (aruḷ) and what did he imply thereby? Since உம் (um) means ‘also’, it implies in addition to something else, so what else is required?
What is necessary along with grace is willingness and effort on our part. We must be willing to look within and we must try to do so, because grace will never impose itself on us. It will not force us to look within unless we want to do so. If we want to look within, we will try to do so, and we will do so with the full support of grace, but if we do not have sufficient liking even to try to look within, we are thereby closing the door of our heart on grace. Grace is always available to give us all the help and support we need, but we must be willing to accept its help by trying patiently and persistently to look within. If we are not willing to make any effort to look within, we are thereby refusing the help that grace is always offering us. By attending to anything other than ourself instead of at least trying to attend to ourself, we are obstructing the flow of grace, preventing it from gushing forth from our heart. Therefore we must be willing to yield ourself to grace, which we can do only by trying more and more to be self-attentive.
This is what Bhagavan implies in the twelfth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār? by firstly assuring us that grace in the form of guru will certainly save us and will never forsake us, but by then adding the important caveat that we must nevertheless play our part by unfailingly following the path that he has shown us, namely this simple path of self-investigation and self-surrender:
கடவுளும் குருவும் உண்மையில் வேறல்லர். புலிவாயிற் பட்டது எவ்வாறு திரும்பாதோ, அவ்வாறே குருவினருட்பார்வையிற் பட்டவர்கள் அவரால் ரக்ஷிக்கப்படுவரே யன்றி யொருக்காலும் கைவிடப்படார்; எனினும், குரு காட்டிய வழிப்படி தவறாது நடக்க வேண்டும்.However, we should not claim credit for whatever willingness we have to look within or for whatever effort we make to do so, because even our willingness and effort are only the fruit of his grace. Grace is not something that comes from outside ourself but is ātma-svarūpa, the very nature of ourself as we actually are, so it is what is always shining within us as our own being, ‘I am’, and hence it works from within us and through us. Though it always exists and shines within us as ourself, we can be aware of its nature and experience its influence only to the extent to which our mind is purified and clarified.
kaḍavuḷ-um guru-v-um uṇmaiyil vēṟallar. puli-vāyil paṭṭadu evvāṟu tirumbādō, avvāṟē guruviṉ-aruḷ-pārvaiyil paṭṭavargaḷ avarāl rakṣikka-p-paḍuvarē y-aṉḏṟi y-oru-k-kāl-um kaiviḍa-p-paḍār; eṉiṉum, guru kāṭṭiya vaṙi-p-paḍi tavaṟādu naḍakka vēṇḍum.
God and guru are in truth not different. Just as what has been caught in the jaws of a tiger will not return, so those who have been caught in the look [or glance] of guru’s grace will never be forsaken but will surely be saved by him; nevertheless, it is necessary to walk unfailingly in accordance with the path that guru has shown.
The impurities in our mind are our viṣaya-vāsanās, under whose sway we are constantly rushing outwards, so to the extent to which we allow ourself to be swayed by them, we are thereby looking away from ourself at other things, and hence we fail to recognise the presence of grace in our heart. The more we look within, however, the more we will recognise its presence and experience its magnetic influence, which is always drawing our mind inwards to face itself, and which will eventually feed on us, swallowing and absorbing us entirely in itself as itself, when our mind is thereby sufficiently purified and ripened, as he describes beautifully in verse 10 of Śrī Aruṇācala Padigam:
பார்த்தனன் புதுமை யுயிர்வலி காந்தTherefore whatever love we have to look deep within ourself to see ourself as we actually are and whatever effort we make to do so are entirely the fruit of grace. In other words, it is grace alone that shines within us as the love and effort to look within and thereby to know and to be what we always actually are. Therefore though the suffix உம் (um) in அருளும் (aruḷum) can be taken to mean ‘also’, in which case ‘அருளும் வேணுமே’ (aruḷum vēṇumē) would mean ‘Grace also is certainly necessary’, in this context it is arguably more appropriate to take உம் (um) to be a poetic expletive and therefore devoid of meaning, in which case ‘அருளும் வேணுமே’ (aruḷum vēṇumē) would mean simply ‘Grace is certainly necessary’, thereby implying that nothing other than grace is required.
பருவத மொருதர மிதனை
யோர்த்திடு முயிரின் சேட்டையை யொடுக்கி
யொருதன தபிமுக மாக
வீர்த்ததைத் தன்போ லசலமாச் செய்தவ்
வின்னுயிர் பலிகொளு மிஃதென்
னோர்த்துய்மி னுயிர்கா ளுளமதி லொளிரிவ்
வுயிர்க்கொலி யருணமா கிரியே.
pārttaṉaṉ pudumai yuyirvali kānta
paruvata morudara midaṉai
yōrttiḍu muyiriṉ cēṭṭaiyai yoḍukki
yorutaṉa dabhimukha māha
vīrttadait taṉpō lacalamāc ceydav
viṉṉuyir balikoḷu miḵdeṉ
ṉōrttuymi ṉuyirgā ḷuḷamadi loḷiriv
vuyirkkoli yaruṇamā giriyē.
பதச்சேதம்: பார்த்தனன் புதுமை, உயிர் வலி காந்த பருவதம். ஒருதரம் இதனை ஓர்த்திடும் உயிரின் சேட்டையை ஒடுக்கி, ஒரு தனது அபிமுகம் ஆக ஈர்த்து, அதை தன் போல் அசலமா செய்து, அவ் இன் உயிர் பலி கொளும். இஃது என்! ஓர்த்து உய்மின், உயிர்காள், உளம் அதில் ஒளிர் இவ் உயிர் கொலி அருண மா கிரியே.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): pārttaṉaṉ pudumai, uyir vali kānta paruvatam. orudaram idaṉai ōrttiḍum uyiriṉ cēṭṭaiyai oḍukki, oru taṉadu abhimukham-āha īrttu, adai taṉ pōl acalamā seydu, a-vv-iṉ uyir bali koḷum. iḵdu eṉ! ōrttu uymiṉ, uyirgāḷ, uḷam adil oḷir i-vv-uyir koli aruṇa mā giriyē.
அன்வயம்: பார்த்தனன் புதுமை, உயிர் வலி காந்த பருவதம். இதனை ஒருதரம் ஓர்த்திடும் உயிரின் சேட்டையை ஒடுக்கி, ஒரு தனது அபிமுகம் ஆக ஈர்த்து, அதை தன் போல் அசலமா செய்து, அவ் இன் உயிர் பலி கொளும். இஃது என்! உயிர்காள், உளம் அதில் ஒளிர் இவ் உயிர் கொலி அருண மா கிரியே ஓர்த்து உய்மின்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): pārttaṉaṉ pudumai, uyir vali kānta paruvatam. idaṉai orudaram ōrttiḍum uyiriṉ cēṭṭaiyai oḍukki, oru taṉadu abhimukham-āha īrttu, adai taṉ pōl acalamā seydu, a-vv-iṉ uyir bali koḷum. iḵdu eṉ! uyirgāḷ, uḷam adil oḷir i-vv-uyir koli aruṇa mā giriyē ōrttu uymiṉ.
English translation: I have seen a wonder, the magnetic hill that seizes the soul. Subduing the mischievous activity of the soul who thinks of it once, pulling to face towards itself, the one, and making it motionless like itself, it accepts that sweet soul as sacrificial offering. What this is! O souls, be saved thinking of the great Aruna Hill, this killer of the soul, who shines in the heart.
Explanatory paraphrase: I have seen a wonder, the magnetic hill that seizes [or forcibly attracts] the soul. Subduing the mischievous [outward-flowing mental] activity of the soul who thinks of it once, pulling [dragging or attracting] [that soul] [inwards] to be taṉadu abhimukham [facing towards itself], the one [unique and peerless] [infinite pure awareness that shines within the heart as ‘I’], and [thereby] making it acala [motionless] like itself, it accepts [and consumes] that sweet [spiritually ripened and pure] soul as bali [food offered in sacrifice]. What [a wonder] this is! O souls, be saved [by] thinking of the great Aruna Hill, this killer of the soul, who shines in the heart [as the heart, namely the fundamental awareness of being, ‘I am’].
Both of these interpretations are actually appropriate, because if we take ‘அருளும் வேணுமே’ (aruḷum vēṇumē) to mean ‘Grace also is certainly necessary’, it implies the need for us to cooperate with grace by yielding ourself to its inward pull instead of rushing outwards to attend to anything other than ourself, whereas if we take it to mean just ‘Grace is certainly necessary’, it implies that nothing other than grace is required, because even our yielding ourself to grace by patiently and persistently trying to be self-attentive is itself the working of grace in our heart.
In order for us as ego to turn our entire attention back within and thereby to see and to be what we always actually are, wholehearted and all-consuming love is required, because we cannot survive for a moment as ego without constantly grasping things other than ourself, so it is the very nature of ourself as ego to have strong viṣaya-vāsanās, inclinations to cling to other things. Therefore without all-consuming love to know and to be what we actually are we will never be willing to surrender ourself completely by clinging to ourself so firmly that we subside and merge forever in our mere being, ‘I am’.
Since this wholehearted and all-consuming love to know and to be what we actually are is contrary to the very nature of ourself as ego, it cannot come from ego but only from grace, which is the very nature of ourself as we actually are. This is why Bhagavan ends this song on ātma-vidyā, the art and science of knowing ourself as we actually are, by emphasising the all-important role played by grace: ‘அருளும் வேணுமே’ (aruḷum vēṇumē). ‘Grace is certainly necessary’.
However, since grace is our own real nature (ātma-svarūpa), it is always shining in our heart as our own being, ‘I am’, so all that is necessary on our part is for us to avail ourself of its ever-available help by yielding ourself to its inward pull, which we can do with its help by trying our best to be ever more self-attentive. To the extent to which we are thus self-attentive under the sway of grace, we will thereby subside back within and just be as we actually are, resting without the least action of mind, speech or body, so as he said in the previous verse, ‘எம் மார்க்கம் அதனினும் இம் மார்க்கம் மிக்கு எளிது’ (e-m-mārggam-adaṉiṉum i-m-mārggam mikku eḷidu), ‘more than whatever path, this path is exceedingly easy’.
Therefore, ‘ஐயே, அதி சுலபம், ஆன்ம வித்தை, ஐயே, அதி சுலபம்!’ (aiyē, ati sulabham, āṉma-viddai, aiyē, ati sulabham!), ‘Ah, extremely easy, ātma-vidyā, ah, extremely easy!’
12. If we cultivate and nurture love in our heart to know and to be what we actually are, infinite and eternal happiness, which is what we always actually are, will shine forth
Though our willingness or love to look within is a manifestation of the grace that is always shining in our heart as our own real nature, we as ego experience it as if it were our own, so it is necessary for us to nurture it, as Bhagavan implies in the third sentence of this fifth verse of Āṉma-Viddai: ‘அன்பு பூணுமே’ (aṉbu pūṇumē), ‘Be adorned with love’. அன்பு (aṉbu) means love and பூணுமே (pūṇumē) is an intensified form of பூணும் (pūṇum), which is a respectful imperative form of பூண் (pūṇ), which means put on, wear, be adorned with, be yoked with, be possessed of or undertake, so ‘அன்பு பூணுமே’ (aṉbu pūṇumē) is a poetic way of saying that we should cultivate and nurture love in our heart.
The love he refers to here is the love to know and to be what we actually are, and though this love is our real nature, we seem to have separated ourself from it by rising as ego. However, we never truly separate ourself from it, because what we actually are is infinite happiness, so it always shines in us as our liking to be happy. Since our liking to be happy is the driving force within every volitional inclination (vāsanā), and since vāsanās are the seeds that sprout as likes, dislikes, desires, aversions, attachments, hopes, fears and so on, all such forms of volition are just distortions of our fundamental love to be happy, which in its pure and pristine form is love to know and to be what we actually are.
So long as we experience even the slightest liking or disliking for anything other than ourself, we are thereby directing our attention away from ourself towards that other thing, so this is a misdirection of our fundamental love to be happy. Therefore the love we need to cultivate and nurture is the love to direct our entire attention back towards ourself alone. The seed of such love has already been sown in our heart by grace, and grace alone can nurture and nourish it, enabling it to grow strong and take complete possession of us. However, we must cooperate with grace by trying more and more to be self-attentive, because it is through our willingness and effort to be self-attentive that grace nurtures and nourishes this love.
Grace is cit-śakti, the power of awareness, so whatever we attend to is nourished by grace, in the sense that the more we attend to anything, the more that thing will loom large in our mind. We can see this from our everyday experience. The more we allow our mind to dwell on anything, the more significant and important that thing will seem to be. Therefore if, instead of attending to anything other than ourself, we attend only to our own being, ‘I am’, our being will shine with increasing clarity and prominence, and the more we cling firmly to being self-attentive, the more our love to be self-attentive will grow in strength and intensity.
Therefore being self-attentive is the key to open the door of our heart and thereby to allow grace to draw us back within and devour us in the infinite light of its love, which is the fullness of eternal happiness, as Bhagavan implies in the final sentence of this verse: ‘இன்பு தோணுமே’ (iṉbu tōṇumē), ‘Happiness will certainly appear’.
Infinite and eternal happiness is what we actually are, so by rising as ego and thereby seemingly limiting ourself as the extent of a body, we seem to have separated ourself from such happiness, and hence it seems to us to be at best just a far-off dream, if not a downright impossibility. As ego we are always aware of ourself as ‘I am this body’, so as such we can never be aware of ourself as we actually are, and without being aware of ourself as we actually are we cannot experience the infinite happiness that we actually are. Therefore what stands between us and unlimited happiness is only ego, so to enjoy such happiness all we need do is eradicate ego.
Since ego is just a false awareness of ourself, being awareness of ourself as ‘I am this body’, it can be eradicated only by our being aware of ourself as we actually are, and we can be aware of ourself thus only by turning our entire attention back within to see ourself alone, as Bhagavan explains in this verse. Therefore when we turn back and look deep within ourself with intense love born of his grace, we will see what we actually are, thereby eradicating the veil of self-ignorance (avidyā) called ego, whereupon the infinite and eternal happiness that we actually are will shine forth as the sole reality.
Therefore, ‘ஐயே, அதி சுலபம், ஆன்ம வித்தை, ஐயே, அதி சுலபம்!’ (aiyē, ati sulabham, āṉma-viddai, aiyē, ati sulabham!), ‘Ah, extremely easy, ātma-vidyā, ah, extremely easy!’
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment