Author Topic: Sri Ramanopadesa Noonmalai ஸ்ரீ ரமனோபதேச நூன்மாலை  (Read 17855 times)

Balaji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1165
    • View Profile
                                                        ..--அறவே
12.   அறிவறி யாமையு மற்றதறி வாமே
        யறியும துண்மையறி வாகா --தறிதற்
        கறிவித்தற் கன்னியமின் றாயவிர்வ தாற்றா
        னறிவாகும் பாழன் றறிவாய் ...

That (state) which is completely devoid of knowledge and ignorance (about objects) is (true) knowledge.  That which knows(anything  as other than itself)  is not true knowledge.  Since Self shines without another ( for it) to know or to make ( it) known, it is (true ) knowledge; it is not a void ( though devoid of both knowledge and ignorance about objects).  Know thus.

Note:  That which knows objects is not the real Self but only the mind or ego, which is not a true knowledge but only ignorance.   Since Self exists and shines as the sole, non-dual reality there does not exist anything other than it either for it to know or to make it known.  Thus the nature of Self, which is the true knowledge,  is not to know anything but only to be.   Hence Self is that which is completely devoid of knowledge and ignorance about objects . (Verse 27of Upadesa Undiyar).  However , Self is not a void, because it shines and knows itself by its own light of consciousness as the clear and abundant knowledge 'I am'.
The word "arivittarku"( to make known) can give four meanings, namely:
1.    To make something known to another
2.    To make something known to Oneself
3.    To make oneself  known to another
4.    To make oneself known to oneself
All four meanings are fitting in the context , but the last is the most important, because it reveals that Self is self-shining(swayamprakasa), that is, that self knows itself by its own light of consciousness.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2014, 06:18:59 PM by Balaji »
Om Namo Bagavathe Sri Ramanaya

Balaji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1165
    • View Profile
                                                         .....--செறிவாய
 13.   ஞானமாந் தானேமெய் நானாவா ஞானமஞ்
         ஞானமாம் பொய்யாமஞ் ஞானமுமே -ஞானமாந்
         தன்னையனறி யின்றனணிக டாம்பலவும் பொயிமெய்யாம்
         பொன்னையன்றி யுன்டோ புகல்....

Self ('I am ') which is (clear and) abundant knowledge  (jnana), alone is real.  Knowledge which is many (this is the knowledge which knows the many objects of this world) is ignorance ( ajnana).  Even (that) ignorance (the knowledge of the many objects of this world), which is unreal, does not exist apart from Self, which is only (real) knowledge .  All the many ornaments are unreal; do they exist apart from the gold, which (alone) is real?

Since the one non-dual Self alone is real, since the many objects of this world (which are mere names and forms) are therefore unreal, the knowledge which knows those many  objects is only ignorance and not real knowledge. Sri Bhagavan declares this ignorance ( ajnana) to be unreal because, though it seems to exist in the deluded outlook of the individual who is under  its sway  it is completely non-existent in the true outlook of Self.  However, just as the many unreal names and forms of the ornaments could not even seem to exist if there did not exist the one real substance, the gold, and just as the unreal snake could not even seem to exist if there did not exist the real rope, so this unreal ignorance-the knowledge which knows manyness-could not even seem to exist if there did not exist the one real knowledge , the Self.

Note:  The words nanavam jnanam, which literally mean 'knowledge which is many' or manifold knowledge' , may be taken to mean either (1) the knowledge which knows many objects, that is, the knowing mind, or (2) the knowledge of many objects, that is the knowledge gathered by the mind.   However, in practice these two meanings amount to the same thing, because the knowing mind is nothing other than the knowledge of objects.  That is, without the knowledge of objects there is no such thing as mind, and without the mind there is no such thing as mind, and without the mind there is no such thing as knowledge of objects.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 06:15:08 PM by Balaji »
Om Namo Bagavathe Sri Ramanaya

Balaji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1165
    • View Profile
                                                        ...உடனா --னென்னுமத்
14.  தன்மையுண்டேன் முன்னிலைப டர்க்கைக டாமுளவாந்
       தன்மையி னுண்மையைத் தானாய்ந்து --தன்மையறின்
      முன்னிலைப டர்க்கை முடிவுற்றென் றாயொளிருந்
       தன்மையே தன்னிலைமை தான் ...


   If that first person ( the ego or subject, 'I') named 'I am the body' exists , the second and third persons ( the objects, 'you', 'he', 'she', 'it, ' this ', ' that' and so on) will exist.  If the first person ceases to exist by one's scrutinizing the truth of the first person, the second and third persons will cease to exist, and the state ( which will then remain) shining as one ( that is, as the one real Self and not as the unreal three persons) is indeed  one's own nature ( the real nature or state of self).

Note:   The first person mentioned in this verse is the mind or ego, the feeling ' I am this body', which is the knowledge that knows many objects-the knowledge which was said in the previous verse to be ignorance and unreal.   The second and third persons are the many objects known  by this first person, 'I'.   The second and third persons, the known objects , can seemingly exist only if the first person, the knowing subject, seemingly exist only if the first person, the knowing subject, seemingly exists.   But if one keenly scrutinizes the truth of the first person in order to know (Who am I?'), the first person will be found to be truly non-existent, and hence the second and third persons known by it will cease to exist.  The state which remains after all the three persons have thus ceased to exist, alone is the true state of Self, one's own real nature, which shines as one undivided Whole, devoid of both the knowing subject and the known objects.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2014, 11:23:53 AM by Balaji »
Om Namo Bagavathe Sri Ramanaya

Balaji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1165
    • View Profile
                                            ..நிதமு--மன்னு
15.   நிகழ்வினைப் பற்றி யிறப்பெதிர்வு நிற்ப
        நிகழ்கா லவையு நிகழ்வே--நிகழ்வொன்றே
       யின்றுண்மை தேரா திறப்பெதிர்வு தேரவுன
       லொன்றின்றி யெண்ண வுனல் ....


The past and future stand (only by) depending upon the present, which remains always .  While occurring they (the past and future) are both only the present.  (Therefore) the present is the only one (time).  [In other words, there are not three times, the past, present and future; there is only one time, the present.] (Hence) trying to know the past and future without knowing the truth of the present [that is, without knowing the truth that the present is non-existent as one of the three times, and that the sole reality underlying the sense of present time is the ever-existing self] is (like) trying to count without ( knowing the value of the unit) one.

Note:  The past and future can seemingly exist only if the present seemingly exists, because it is only with reference to the present that other times are called either past or future.   But if one keenly scrutinizes the present moment in order to know. 'What exactly is it that is called the present?', the present as such will be found to be truly non-existent, and hence the past and future will also cease to exist.  How? If we try to attend to the exact present moment, even one millionth of this so-called present moment will be found to be either past or future.   If we do not attend even to such subtlest past and future moments, and if we try to know what exists between those subtle past and future moments, we will find that there exists, no such thing as the present moment.

When the unreal snake is found to be non-existent as a snake, the ever-existing rope, which is the sole reality underlying the snake, alone will remain shining.  Similarly, when the unreal first person is found to be non-existent as a first person or individual, and when  the unreal present time is found to be non-existent as a time, the ever-existing Self, which is the sole reality underlying both the first person and the present time, alone will remain shining.

Just as the ego has two aspects-the real aspect 'I am' and the unreal aspect 'So -and-so'-so the present has both a real aspect and an unreal aspect. If the present is experienced as one's mere being, 'I am', devoid of all thoughts, it is real; but if the same present is experienced as one of the three times in which thoughts of the other two times ( past and future)occur, it is unreal.(as the thoughts can only be about past or future).
« Last Edit: November 05, 2014, 01:15:00 PM by Balaji »
Om Namo Bagavathe Sri Ramanaya

Balaji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1165
    • View Profile
                                           ...உணர-நின்ற பொருள்

16.   நாமன்றி நாளேது நாடேது நாடுங்கா
       னாமுடம்பே னாணாட்டு ணாம்படுவ-நாமுடம்போ
       நாமின்றன் றென்றுமொன்று நாடிங்கங் கெங்குமொன்றா
       னாமுண்டு நாணாடி னாம்...


When we scrutinize except 'we', the known existing reality ('I am') where is time and where is place?  that is, when we keenly scrutinize  ourself through the enquiry 'Who am I?' it will be found that there exists no such thing as time or place, but only  'we' the reality or Self,) If we are the body, ( that is if we mistake oneself to be the body), we  shall be caught in time and place;(But) are we the body?( If we enquiry 'If I am not the body, then who am I?' we will  realize that since we are the one ( reality) now , then and always, the one ( reality) here,, there and everywhere, we-the 'we' (self) who is devoid of time and place-(alone) exist ( and time and place do not exist).

Note:   The conception of place exists only with reference to the first person,  'I' whom we always feel to be 'here', while the conception of time exists only with reference to the present moment, which we always feel to be 'now'.  But by our scrutinizing either the truth of the first person or the truth of the present moment, both the first person and the present moment   (which are twin conceptions that always exist side by side) will be found to be non-existent as such, and hence the conceptions of time and place will cease to exist. Thus we will realize  that we are not be body, which is bound by time and place but are only the real Self, which is devoid of time and place and which is the sole reality underlying the different times ' now' 'then' and always', and the different places such as here', 'there ' and 'everywhere'.

The words   'nal-nadu-il in the last  line of this verse may be taken to be either an adjective clause to ' we' meaning   "who is devoid of time and place", or an independent clause meaning " time and place" or an independent clause meaning " time and place to not exist".   Therefore both meaning are given in this translation, the first without brackets and the second within brackets.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2014, 02:19:56 PM by Balaji »
Om Namo Bagavathe Sri Ramanaya

Balaji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1165
    • View Profile
                                                   ...ஊனம் -ஆமிவ்
17.   உடனானே தன்னை யுணரார்க் குணர்ந்தார்க்
       குடலளவே நான்ற னுணரார்க் -குடலுள்ளே
       தன்னுணர்ந்தார்க் கெல்லையறத் தானொளிரு நானிதுவே
       யின்னவர்தம் பேதமென வெண்ணுவாய்....

To those who have not known Self and to those who have known ( Self), this defective ( or fleshy) body is 'I' (But) to those who have not known Self, 'I' is ( limited to) only the measure of the body, ( whereas) to those who have known Self within the body ( that is, within the lifetime of the body), 'I' the Self, shines without limit.   Know that this indeed is the difference between them.

Note:  An ajnani ( one who does not know Self) feels ' the body alone is 'I' whereas the Jnani ( one who knows and abides as Self) feels ' the body is also I'.  That is, since the Jnani clearly knows that Self alone exists, and that it shines without any limit,  He knows that if at all there is any such thing as the body, it cannot be other than 'I' the real Self.   If the body were to exist as other than Self, that would set a limitation upon the limitless nature of Self.   Also refer here to verse  4 of Ekatma Panchakam ( drunken man and cloth).
Om Namo Bagavathe Sri Ramanaya

Balaji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1165
    • View Profile
                                                          ...--முன்னாம்
18.  உலகுண்மை யாகு முணர்வில்லார்க் குள்ளார்க்
      குலகளவா முண்மை யுணரார்க்--குலகினுக்
      காதார மாயுருவற் றாறுமுணர்ந் தாருண்மை
      யீதாகும் பேதமிவர்க் கெண்ணுக ....


To those who do not have knowledge (of Self) and to those who do have (knowledge of Self), the world which is  seen in front  (of them) is real.(But) to those who have not known ( Self) the reality is limited to the measure of the world (that is, to its names and forms), (whereas) to those who have known(Self), the reality abides devoid of ( name and ) form as the substratum of the world.  Know that this is the difference between them.

Note: An ignorant man who wrongly sees a rope as a snake, and a wise man who sees the same rope as a rope, both feel ' this is real'.   Similarly , the ajnani, who wrongly sees the reality as names and forms, and the Jnani, who sees the reality as it is, that is, devoid of names and forms, both feel ' this is real'.   Thus the feeling ' this is real' is common to both of them, but what they experience as ' this ' is different.   The ajnani experiences the world as names and forms, whereas the Jnani experiences the world to be the nameless and formless existence-consciousness-bliss.  Refer here to verse 4 of this work, and also to verses 50 and 51 of Guru Vachaka Kovai; where Sri Bhagavan says that the true meaning of the statement ' the world is real' can be understood only by the Jnani and not by  ajnani.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2014, 06:28:12 PM by Balaji »
Om Namo Bagavathe Sri Ramanaya

Balaji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1165
    • View Profile
                                              ....-பேத
19.  விதிமதி மூல விவேக மிலார்க்கே
      விதிமதி வெல்லும் விவாதம்-விதிமதிகட்
      கோர்முதலாந் தன்னை யுணர்ந்தா ரவைதணந்தார்
      சார்வரோ பின்னுமவை சாற்றுவாய்....

     The dispute as to which prevails, fate or freewill, is only for those who do not have correct knowledge of the root of fate and freewill, which are different (from each other). (That is, this dispute arises only for those who do not know that the ego, who is the experience of fate and the wielder of free will, is truly non-existent). Those who have known the (non-existence of the individual) self ( the ego), who is the one ( and only) base of fate and freewill, have discarded them.(that is, they have discarded fate and free will along with their root and base, the ego). 
Say, will they again become entangled in them (in fate and free will, or in the dispute about them)?

Note:  Also refer to GVK522
 

                                                                       ...-சார்பவை
20.  காணுந் தனைவிட்டுத் தான்கடவு ளைக்காணல்
      காணு மனோமயமாங் காட்சிதனைக் - காணுமவன்
      றான்கடவுள் கண்டானாந் தன்முதலைத் தான்முதல்போய்த்
      தான்கடவு ளன்றியில தால்....

      Oneself seeing God leaving oneself (that is, oneself seeing God without seeing oneself, the ego), who sees what comes (in front of one) is merely) seeing a mental vision ( a manasika darsanam or imaginary appearance).  He, who (through the enquiry 'Who am I?') sees the ( real) Self, the source of the ( individual) self, alone is he who has ( truly) seen God, because the ( real) Self-( which shines forth) after the base, the ( individual) self, ( the ego), has perished-is not other than God.
 
Note:  Compare with verse 25 of Upadesa Undiyar.
 
« Last Edit: December 15, 2014, 06:19:26 PM by Balaji »
Om Namo Bagavathe Sri Ramanaya

Balaji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1165
    • View Profile
                                                          ....உயிராத் -தான் கருதும்
21.  தன்னைத்தான் காண றலைவன் றனைக்காண
       லென்னும்பன் னூலுண்மை யென்னையெனின்-றன்னைத்தான்
       காணலெவன் றானொன்றாற் காணவொணா தேற்றலைவற்
       காணலெவ னூணாதல் காண்.

If it is asked,' what is the truth of the many scriptures which speak of oneself seeing oneself, whom one thinks to be an individual soul, and seeing     God ?  ( the reply will be as follows: since oneself ( the first person feeling ' I') is one ( and not two), how is oneself to see oneself?(Then) if it is impossible ( for one) to see( one Self,) how ( is one) to see God( who is the substratum or Reality of oneself)? To become a prey  (to God, who is the real Self) is seeing (God).

Explanatory Note:  Many scriptures speak of Self-realization and God-realization as the goals which are to be attained by a spiritual aspirant.  However, those who comment upon such scriptures often misunderstand and misinterpret these terms.  For example, in Kaivalya  Navanitham 1.13, it is said, " If one sees oneself and God, who is the substratum of oneself, then that God having become oneself and ( oneself) having become Brahman, one will put and end to birth?."  Which is often misinterpreted to mean that one must first realize oneself, the individual soul, and then one must realize God, who is the substratum or underlying  support  of oneself.

To illustrate the import of this verse Sri Bhagavan used to tell the story of a man who wanted to see a tiger.  After making enquiries among some villagers, the man was told that an old tiger lived in a certain cave in the nearby forest. Being very old the tiger was unable to come out of the cave to hunt its prey, so it remained inside waiting for some prey to come of its own accord.  After searching and finding the cave, the man peeped inside, but he was unable to see anything because it was so dark.  His desire to see the tiger was so strong, however, that he gathered up his courage and entered the cave.  But still he could not see anything inside.  Little by little he proceeded further into the cave, but in the darkness he was unable to see the tiger.   All of a sudden, when he had come very close to the tiger, it pounced and devoured him.

Just as the man never saw the tiger, so the individual self can never see or realize God, the real Self.  But in its attempt to see God, who shines within it as the adjunctless consciousness ' I  am', the individual self will become a prey to God.  The means by which the individual can thus attempt to see God and thereby become a prey to him, is revealed by Sri Bhamgavan in the next verse.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2014, 03:07:31 PM by Balaji »
Om Namo Bagavathe Sri Ramanaya

Balaji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1165
    • View Profile
                                  ...எவையுங் -காணும்
22.     மதிக்கொளி தந்தம் மதிக்கு ளொளிரு
         மதியினை யுள்ளே மடக்கிப் பதியிற்
         பதித்திடுத லன்றிப் பதியை மதியான்
         மதித்திடுத  லெங்ஙன் மதியாய்..

Except by turning the mind inwards ( towards the feeling 'I am ')  and ( thereby) sinking ( it) in the Lord, who shines within that mind ( as its substratum) giving light ( the light of consciousness) to the mind, which sees everything (other than itself), how is it possible to know ( or to meditate upon) the Lord by the mind ? consider thus.

Note:  In this verse Sri Bhagavan clearly reveals the truth that the only means by which one can know God, who is the real Self and who shines within the mind as the pure consciousness ' I am ', is to merge the mind in Him by turning it inwards through the enquiry 'Who am I'.
Om Namo Bagavathe Sri Ramanaya

Balaji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1165
    • View Profile
                                         ...மதியிலதால்
23.   நானென்றித் தேக நவிலா துறக்கத்து
       நானின்றென் றாறு நவில்வதிலை -நானொன்
       றெழுந்தபி னெல்லா மெழுமிந்த நானெங்
       கெழுமென்று நுண்மதியா லெண்ண-நழுவும்


Since it is not sentient, this body does not say 'I'  ( that is it does not itself have any inherent consciousness of its own existence)  No one says," In sleep (where  the body does not exist) I do not exist".  After an 'I'  rises ( from sleep as ' I am the body')  everything ( all the second and third person  objects of the world) rises.  when one scrutinizes with keen mind " Where does this ' I' rise?", it will slip away 'being found to be non-existent).

Note:  In this  verse Sri Bhagavan speaks about three distinct things namely(1) the body, which being insentient,  has no 'I'-consciousness (2) the consciousness 'I' ( the real Self) which exists even in sleep; where the body and all else do not exist, and (3) another 'I' (the individual self) after whose rising all else rises.  Since this rising 'I' is clearly distinct from the body and from the real 'I' which exists in sleep,  Sri Bhagavan instructs us to scrutinize where it rises, for when we scrutinize thus it will be found to be non-existent.  Then in the next two verses He reveals more about the nature of this rising 'I', whose form is the feeling ' I am the body', and explains how it is distinct both from the body and from the real Self, and yet at the same time assumes the properties of both.

When Sri Bhagavan first composed this verse in venba metre.  He concluded it with the word 'en' which is an imperative meaning 'scrutinize' or enquire'.  But when He converted the verse into Kalivenba metre,  He changed the word ' en' into 'enna' which means when one scrutinizes' or ' when one enquires' and added the word ' nazhuvum', which means ' it will slip away'.



24.   சடவுடனா னென்னாது சச்சித் துதியா
       துடலளவா நானொன் றுதிக்கு -மிடையிலிது
       சிச்சடக்கி ரந்திபந்தஞ் சீவனுட்ப மெய்யகந்தை
       யிச்சமு சாரமன மெண்...

24. The insentient body does not say ( or feel) 'I'. Existence consciousness (sat-chit, the real Self) does not rise ( or subside).(But) in  between  (these two) an 'I' rises as the measure of the body that is in between the body and the real Self a limited 'I'-consciousness in the form ' I am this body rises in waking and subsides again in sleep)  Know  that this ( I am  body'-consciousness  is ( what is called by various names such as) the knot between consciousness  and the insentient  (chit-jada-granthi) bondage( bandha) the individual soul ( jiva), subtle body ( sukshma sarira) ego ( ahantai) this mundane state of activity ( samsara) and mind ( manas).

Note :   The rising ' I' is distinct from the body because the body is insentient and has no inherent feeling ' I' .   It is also distinct from the real Self, because the real Self neither rises nor subsides.   However, though it is neither the body nor the real self, it assumes the properties of both.   Like the body it rises and subsides ( or appears and disappears) and is limited by time and space and like the real Self, it shines as ' I' . Therefore this rising 'I' whose form is the feeling ' I am the body' is described as a Knot( granthi) between the real Self, which is consciousness ( chit), and the body; which is insentient ( jada) It is this knot alone which is called by various names such as bondage, the individual soul subtle body, ego, samsara and mind.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2015, 02:14:20 PM by Balaji »
Om Namo Bagavathe Sri Ramanaya

Balaji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1165
    • View Profile
                                             .....என்னே --விச்சை
25.   உருப்பற்றி யுண்டா முருப்பற்றி நிற்கு
       முருப்பற்றி யுண்டுமிக வோங்கு -முருவிட்
       டுருப்பற்றுந் தேடினா லோட்டம் பிடிக்கு
       முருவற்ற பேயகந்தை யோர்வாய்..

What a  wonder !(This) ghostly ego, which is devoid of form ( that is, which has no form of  its own), comes into existence by grasping a form ( that is, by identifying the form of a body as I) ; it endures by grasping a form ( that is, by continuing to cling to that body as I) ;  it waxes more by grasping and feeding upon forms ( that is, by attending to second and third person objects, which it cognizes though the five senses) ; having left a form, it grasps a form ( that is, having given up one body, it grasps another body as I) ; (but) if one searches     ( for it by enquiring  Who am I, this formless ego ), it will take to flight ( being found to be non-existent); Know thus.

Note: The ego can seemingly come into existence and endure only by grasping forms, that is, by attending to second and third person objects.  The more it attends to such objects, the more it waxes and grows strong.  But since the ego has no form of its own, if it tries to attend to itself, the first person or subject, it will lose its strength, subside and disappear, because without any form to attend to, it cannot stand.

In order to illustrate the properties of the ego-described in this and the previous verse, Sri Bhagavan used to tell the story   of a way farer who played a prominent part in a marriage celebration.   Though he belonged neither to the bride's party nor to the bridegroom's party, he pretended to each party that he was an important member of the other.  So long as every one believed him, he thrived happily bossing over both parties and feasting sumptuously.   But as soon as people began to doubt his identity and to enquire who he was, he took to flight and disappeared.  Similar is the case with the go.  Though it is neither the body nor the real Self, it pretends to be both.  So long as no enquiry is made about its reality, it seems to exist.  But as soon as it is scrutinized to find out who it is, it will disappear, being found to be non-existent.

« Last Edit: January 30, 2015, 03:30:44 PM by Balaji »
Om Namo Bagavathe Sri Ramanaya

Balaji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1165
    • View Profile
                                                         ....--கருவாம்
26.  அகந்தையுண் டாயி னனைத்துமுண் டாகு
       மகந்தையின் றேலின் றனைத்து-மகந்தையே
       யாவுமா மாதலால் யாதிதென்று நாடலே
       யோவுதல் யாவுமென வோர்......

                                     

If the ego, which is the embryo comes into existence, everything (the world, God, bondage and liberation, knowledge and ignorance, and so on) will come into existence. If the ego does not exist, everything will not exist. (Hence) the ego itself is everything. Therefore, know that scrutinizing 'What is this (ego)?' is alone giving up (or renouncing) everything!

Note: The body and the whole world of manifestation, consisting of so many dyads and triads, are nothing but an expansion  of the ego, which is the embryo or seed-form of everything. Since the ego is therefore everything, and since as revealed in the previous verse) the ego will take to flight when it is scrutinized, being found to be truly non-existent, if one earnestly and vigilantly scrutinizes the ego, one is  truly renouncing everything!

                                    .....முதல் போல்--மேவுமிந்த
27.     நானுதியா துள்ளநிலை நாமதுவா யுள்ளநிலை
         நானுதிக்குந் தானமதை நாடாம -னானுதியாத்
         தன்னிழப்பைச் சார்வதெவன் சாராமற் றானதுவாந்
         தன்னிலையி னிற்பதெவன் சாற்றுதி....


The state in which this 'I' (the ego), which rises as if the first, does not rise, is the state in which 'we are That'. Unless one scrutinizes the source (the real Self) from which 'I' rises, how to attain the destruction of the (individual) self (the state of egolessness), in which 'I' does not rise? (And) unless one attains (that non-rising of 'I'), say, how to abide in one's own (real) state (the natural state of Self), in which one is That?

Note: In scriptures it is taught that, instead of feeling 'I am this body', we should experience 'I am That', in other words, 'I am Brahman, the absolute Reality'. The state of experience which is thus referred to as 'I am That' or 'I am Brahman, is only one's real and natural state, in which one abides as the pure adjunctless existence-consciousness 'I am' without rising as the adjunct-mixed feeling 'I am this body'. Therefore, in order to experience the truth denoted by the words 'I am That', one must attain the state in which the  ego ( the feeling 'I am this body') does not rise. And in order to attain this state of egolessness, one must scrutinize the source of the ego, for only when one scrutinizes its source (the real Self, the pure consciousness 'I am') will the ego subside and be found to be non-existent.

Thus in this verse Sri Bhagavan clearly reveals the truth that the only means by which one can destroy the ego and thereby abide as Self, the absolute reality, is to scrutinize the source or rising-place of the ego, in other words, to attend to Self, the mere consciousness 'I am'. Compare here the note to verse 22.
Om Namo Bagavathe Sri Ramanaya

Balaji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1165
    • View Profile
                                                    ...-முன்னர்
28.  எழும்பு மகந்தை யெழுமிடத்தை நீரில்
      விழுந்த பொருள்காண வேண்டி --முழுகுதல்போற்
      கூர்ந்தமதி யாற்பேச்சு மூச்சடக்கிக் கொண்டுள்ளே
      யாழ்ந்தறிய வேண்டு மறி......

Just as one would dive (restraining one's speech and breath) in order to find a thing which has fallen into the water, one should dive within (oneself) restraining speech and breath with a keen mind (that is, with a keen and penetrating attention fixed on the feeling 'I'), and know (the real Self, which is) the rising-place (or source) of the ego, which rises first. Know thus.
Refer here to the note to verse 24 of Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham.

Note: When Sri Bhagavan says in this verse that one should know 'the rising-place of the ego' (ahandai ezhum-idattai), it is to be noted that He does not use the word 'place' literally to mean a place limited by time and space, but only figuratively to mean Self, the timeless and spaceless reality from which the ego seemingly rises. Since time and space are mere thoughts which can come into existence only, after the ego rises, the source or 'place' from which the ego rises must obviously be beyond the limitations of time and space. Therefore, when practicing Self-enquiry, aspirants should  not try to find any place in the limited and transient body as the source from which the ego rises, but should try only to know Self, the unlimited reality which alone will remain when the ego subsides.

For an explanation regarding the words 'restraining speech and breath', the reader may refer to the note to verse 24 of Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham, and to chapter eight of The Path of Sri Ramana. - Part I.


Om Namo Bagavathe Sri Ramanaya

Balaji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1165
    • View Profile
                            ...பிணம் போல் --தீர்ந்து உடலம்
29.   நானென்று வாயா னவிலாதுள் ளாழ்மனத்தா
       னானென்றெங் குந்துமென நாடுதலே--ஞானநெறி
       யாமன்றி யன்றிதுநா னாமதுவென் றுன்னறுணை
       யாமதுவி சாரம மா...


Having discarded the body like a corpse and without uttering 'I' by mouth, scrutinizing with an inward-diving  mind, "Where does (this feeling) 'I' rise?", is alone the path of knowledge (jnana-marga). Instead (of inwardly  scrutinizing the feeling 'I' in this manner), (merely) thinking  (or meditating), "I am not this (body composed of five sheaths), I am That (the absolute reality or Brahman)' ,is (at)  first in a roundabout way) an aid (to the above said path of  knowledge or enquiry) (but) is it enquiry (that is, is It the correct practice of Self-enquiry or Atma-vichara, which is the  direct path of Knowledge)?

Note: If we have been told some particulars about a certain place to which we wish to go, repeating and thereby memorising those particulars may at first be an indirect aid for us to reach that place. But merely repeating and memorising those particulars cannot be the actual journey there. Having learnt those particulars, we must set out and travel to that place. Similar is the case with the truth which  the scriptures tell us about our real and natural state, namely that we are not this body, prana, mind and so on, but are only Brahman, the absolute reality. Meditating upon this truth by repeatedly thinking, "I am not this body, I am Brahman", may in the beginning be an indirect aid to the practice of Self-enquiry, because it will encourage one to try to know one's own true nature. But merely repeatedly thinking thus, cannot be the actual practice of Self-enquiry. Having  understood and become convinced of the truth that we are not  the body but Brahman, we must take to the practice of Self  Enquiry - that is, we must scrutinize and know the true nature   of the feeling 'I' -, for then only can we attain the state in which we experience ourself to be Brahman. Compare verses 32 and 36 of this work.



Om Namo Bagavathe Sri Ramanaya