Sri Sadhu Om
Benedictory Verses – Mangalam
If the Reality ‘I’ did not exist, could there exist the consciousness ‘am’ (the consciousness of one’s own existence)?* Since (that) Reality exists in the heart devoid of thought, how to (or who can) meditate upon (that) Reality, which is called the Heart? Know that abiding in the Heart as it is (that is, without thought, as ‘I am’), alone is meditating (upon the Reality).

*Rephrase thus: If the reality (one’s own existence, ‘I’) did not exist, could there exist the consciousness of Being (the consciousness of one’s existence ‘am’)?.

Note: The last two lines of this verse, “How to (or who can) meditate upon the Reality? Know that abiding in the Heart as it is, alone is meditating (upon the Reality)”, were composed by Sri Bhagavan on 7th August 1928, and the first two lines were composed and added by Him four days later. Therefore the first two lines should be understood to be an explanation of the question and statement made in the last two lines. Since the Reality is that which exists within one devoid of thought, it is beyond the range of mental conception. Therefore, how can anyone meditate or form a correct mental conception of that thought-transcending Reality? But since everyone experiences the consciousness ‘am’, it is clear that there does exist a Reality of oneself and that, that Reality is within the range of one’s knowledge, though beyond the range of conceptual knowledge or thought. Since it is we alone who know our own existence or Reality as ‘I am’, we are not only the Reality (sat) but also the consciousness (chit) which knows our Reality (verse 23 of Upadesa Undiyar). Therefore if, instead of rising in the form of a thought ‘I am this’ or ‘I am that’, we remain as we really are – that is, as the thought-free existence consciousness ‘I am’ –, that alone is truly the state of knowing or meditating upon the Reality (Verse 26 of Upadesa Undiyar).

The opening words of this verse, “Ulladu aladu ullaunarvu ullado” (If the reality did not exist, could there exist the consciousness ‘am’?), may also be taken to mean either (1) “Can the consciousness (chit) of (one’s own) existence (sat) be other than (that) existence?” or (2) “Other than the Reality (sat), can there exist a consciousness (chit) to meditate (upon the reality)?”

In 1929 a devotee named K. Lakshmana Sharma (‘who’) attempted to translate some of the verses of Ulladu Narpadu into Sanskrit in the same venba metre in which the Tamil original was composed, but he was unable to translate even a single verse in that metre. Seeing this, Sri Bhagavan Himself translated this first benedictory verse into Sanskrit in venba metre as follows: –

Without reality (sat), could there be knowledge of reality (satjnana)? The Reality shines in the heart devoid of thought. Therefore, how is one to meditate upon it (that Reality), the heart? Abidance in the Heart as it is, is meditation (dhyana) upon the Reality (sat-vastu)

S.S. Cohen
Awareness is the nature of Reality

Without awareness of Reality, can Reality exist? Because this awareness-reality, itself free from thought, exists as the source of all thoughts, it is called Heart. How to know it? To be as it is (thought-free) in the Heart, is to know it.

This verse and the next form the Invocation, which customarily precedes spiritual and poetic works in Indian literature. It may be addressed to a particular deity such as Ganapati, the deva in charge of poetic effusions, or to the devas in general, to a favorite devi, or to the guru or to one of the three major divinities. But Bhagavan, recognizing a single Reality from which all things proceed, makes his dedication to that, as the pure Awareness (chit) abiding in the Heart as external existence (sat), or the absolute Brahman. The literal translation of the first sentence of this verse reads: “Can there be awareness of that which is other than existence?” This makes knowledge or awareness the criterion of existence, because the non-existent cannot make itself known. The color, for example, that is not visible, or the sound that is not audible, amount to nothing.

Michael James
Maṅgalam verse 1: What exists is only thought-free awareness, which is called ‘heart’, so being as it is is alone meditating on it.

English translation: If what exists were not, would existing awareness exist? Since the existing substance exists in the heart without thought, how to think of the existing substance, which is called ‘heart’? Being in the heart as it is alone is thinking. Know.

Explanatory paraphrase: If uḷḷadu [what is or what exists] were not, would uḷḷa-v-uṇarvu [existing awareness, actual awareness or awareness of what is] exist? [Or: (1) Except as uḷḷadu, does uḷḷa-v-uṇarvu exist? (2) Other than uḷḷadu, is there awareness to think [of it, meditate on it or investigate it]?] Since uḷḷa-poruḷ [the existing substance or reality] exists in the heart without thought, how to [or who can] think of [meditate on or investigate] uḷḷa-poruḷ, which is called ‘uḷḷam’ [the heart]? Being in the heart as it is [that is, as pure thought-free self-awareness] alone is thinking [of it, meditating on it, contemplating it, investigating it or revering it]. Know [or be aware] [of it as it is].

Nochur Venkatraman
Can there be an experience of existence as ‘I AM’ without the existence of ‘That which is’, the beingness? That reality, the sat, ‘That which is’ is in the heart devoid of thoughts (beyond the current of becoming) is known as heart. Who is the one that can limit ‘That’ with the mind and meditate? Know that to abide as ‘That’ in the heart is realization.

Sri Sadhu Om
Mature souls who have intense inner fear of death cling to the Feet of the deathless and birthless Great Lord as (their) refuge. By their clinging (thus to His Feet), they have died as individuals and have thereby become one with that deathless Lord. (Therefore) Can (such) deathless people (again) have the thought of death? (They are) eternal.

Note: Whereas the previous verse describes the path of Self-enquiry, this verse describes the path of self-surrender. But since the Great Lord (Mahesan) mentioned in this verse is described as ‘deathless and birthless’ (marana-bhavam-illa), it is to be understood that He is not a mere name and form – for every name and form has a beginning (birth) and an end (death) – but is only the nameless and formless Reality ‘I am’ mentioned in the previous verse. Therefore clinging to His Feet is to be understood to mean clinging or attending to the existence – consciousness ‘I am’. As Sri Bhagavan Himself once said, “The Feet of Guru (or God) are not outside you. They shine within you as ‘I’. Therefore only if you cling to ‘I’ you are truly clinging to His Feet”. By this clinging to ‘I’, the ego will die, and one will remain as the deathless and eternal Self. Such Self-abidance alone is true self surrender.

Thus we should understand from these two benedictory verses that though the paths of Self-enquiry and self surrender are described as though they were two different paths, they are in practice one and the same.

S.S. Cohen
Fear of death is the driving force behind the quest for immortality

Those who have an infinite fear of death take refuge in the Feet of the supreme Lord Who is without birth and death. Can the thought of death occur to those who have destroyed their “I” and “mine” and have become immortal?

Those who most identify themselves with the body are the people who fear death most. Seeing the dissolution of the body they deduce their own dissolution to be simultaneous with it, and dread the terrible Unknown that lurks behind it. Their only hope of safety lies, there, in the worship of the Almighty Lord, who alone is deathless.

But those who through the practice of sadhana or spiritual discipline have transcended this false identification no longer have bodies to be the victims of death. Even the thought of death does not occur to them. They are videhas, bodiless, although they continue to occupy a body.

This verse also implies that by taking refuge in the Lord, these fear-torn people will, in course of time, so progress spiritually that they will be able to destroy their sense of “I” and “mine” and attain immortality, since the death of the ego will evidently destroy death and the thought of death.

Michael James
Maṅgalam verse 2: By surrendering to God, who is devoid of death and birth, the ego, who fears death, will die, and what will remain is deathless.

English translation: Pure-hearted people who have intense fear of death will take refuge at the feet of God, who is devoid of death and birth, as a fortress. By their refuge, they undergo death. Will those who are deathless be associated with the thought of death?

Explanatory paraphrase: Pure-hearted people who have intense fear of death will take refuge at [or surrender to] the feet of Mahēśaṉ [the Great Lord, Śiva or God], who is devoid of death and birth, [depending upon him] as [their protective] fortress. By their [taking] refuge [or as soon as they take refuge], their ego dies [and what remains is only their real nature, which is immortal awareness]. Will those who are [thereby] deathless be associated [ever again] with the thought of death?

Nochur Venkatraman
Those spiritually mature beings with intense fear of death, find the birthless and deathless Lord Mahesha alone as a fortress of protection and they take sole refuge at His feet. Such surrendered devotees behold their own death and wake up to the deathless nature of their Self. Along with their jiva-bhāva (individual-sense) all their vāsanās also get destroyed. Will such jivanmuktās (the liberated souls) who have transcended death, ever again entertain the thought of death?

Sri Sadhu Om
Because we, who are joined with sight, see the world, accepting one principle (or ‘first thing’) which has a manifold power is indispensable. The picture of names and forms, the seer, the co-existing screen and the pervading light – all these are He, who is Self.

Explanatory paraphrase: Because we, the ego or individual, whose adjunct-nature is the faculty to see things as other than ‘I’, see this world of multiplicity, it is indispensable for us to accept the existence of one first principle which has a power to appear as many. This worldpicture, which consists merely of names and forms, the seer of this picture, the screen or supporting base upon which this picture appears, and the pervading light which illumines this picture – all these are only He, that one first principle, who is none other than the real Self.

Explanatory Note: The link-words at the beginning of this verse are parvai ser, which literally mean ‘who are joined with sight’, and which imply that the faculty of seeing is not natural to us but is only an adjunct which we have appended on ourself and from which we can consequently detach ourself.

The words or mudalai, which mean ‘one principle’ or ‘one first thing’, denote the one Reality which underlies the appearance of both the world and the seer. The entire appearance consisting of the world , the seer, the screen and the light are not other than that one first principle, which is affirmed in the last line of this verse to be the real Self. But so long as we experience a difference between ourself, the seer, and the world which we see, that one first principle will be experienced by us as God, a third separate entity who is endowed with unlimited qualities such as Omnipotence and Omniscience and who governs the entire world and all the souls in that world.

The words nanavam sakti, which literally mean ‘a manifold power’ or ‘ a power which is many’, denote the power of Maya or delusion which is the cause of the appearances of all manyness and which is the same as the wonderful power (adisaya sakthi) mentioned in verse 6 of Arunachala Ashtakam. Though in absolute truth, this power is not other than the first principle, the real Self, it seems to be something different from the real Self when it gives rise to this appearance of manyness. Since manyness could not appear to exist if this power did not exist, and since there is nothing other than this power which could appear as many, it is sometimes said that this power itself has become many. However, its becoming many is not actually a real becoming, but only a seeming becoming, because even when manyness is seen, all that manyness is in truth only the one first principle, which is the non-dual real Self. The act of becoming many or seeming to become many is postulated only because we see the world. But even when we see this world of duality and multiplicity, non duality alone is the truth and hence all duality and multiplicity should be understood to be merely an unreal appearance.

The words ‘ the pervading light (‘aroli’) here mean the mind-light, which is a reflection of the real light of self-consciousness and which is the limited light by which we see the entire picture of names and forms.

S.S. Cohen
1.Awareness is All — the seer and seen, the real and apparent.

Because the world is seen, we have to infer a common cause (a Lord) possessing unlimited powers to appear as the diversity. The pictures consisting of names and forms, the seer, the canvas, the light — all these are He Himself.

The Forty begins here. To understand Bhagavan’s meaning we have to use the key with which he supplies us in the Invocation. There he declares Reality to be the thought-free Awareness which dwells in the heart. Here he brings in the world in order to meet on their own ground those disciples who do perceive a “real” external world. He is saying something like this: “You see a world and ascribe an omnipotent creator to it. But as we have already seen, this creation is only an appearance, a manifestation of that Awareness of which we were speaking. It has no more reality in itself than have the pictures projected on a screen.” From the heart thoughts spontaneously rise, like vapor from the ocean, and turn into a kaleidoscopic world of names, forms, colors, sounds, smells and other impressions. These are in it, or on it as on a canvas of which the heart is itself the seer and the sight.

Pure Consciousness or Pure Mind is thus the pictures, the screen, the seer, and the light or sight.

Michael James
Verse 1: Because we see the world, it is best to accept that one fundamental, which is ourself, is what appears as all this multiplicity.

English translation: Because we see the world, accepting one fundamental that has a power that becomes many is certainly the one best option. The picture of names and forms, the one who sees, the cohesive screen, and the pervading light – all these are he, who is oneself.

Explanatory paraphrase: Because we [as ego] see the world, accepting one mudal [first thing, origin, source, base or fundamental reality] that has a power that becomes many [appearances, namely ourself as ego, the seer or perceiver, and all the manifold phenomena that constitute this or any other world that we may see or perceive] is certainly the one best option. The picture of names and forms [namely the world and whatever other phenomena appear in the mind], the one who sees [this picture] [namely ego], the cohesive screen [namely the mind as the background on which it appears], and the pervading light [namely the mind as the reflected light of awareness, which is what illumines its appearance] — all these are he [the one original thing], who is oneself [one’s real nature].

Nochur Venkatraman
With the senses turned outward – since we directly perceive the world, acceptance of a supreme source possessing the inscrutable power of appearing as many, is indisputable. The world-picture of names and forms, the perceiver of it, namely the jiva, the screen on which the pictures of names and forms appear, the light of awareness that illumines them, all these are nothing but He, the Atman, who shines as ‘I-I’ (in the heart).

Sri Sadhu Om
Every religion first postulates three principles, the world, God and soul. ‘ Arguing the one principle (mentioned in the previous verse) alone exists as, the three principles, (No), the three principles are always three principles’ is (possible) only so long as the ego exists. Abiding in one’s own state (the state of self), ‘I’ (the ego) having been annihilated, is the highest.

Note: All arguments about the three principles, the world, soul and God, and about the reality which underlies those three principles, arise only because of the ego, the wrong knowledge which rises in the limited form ‘I am this body’. Since none of these arguments can stand in the egoless state of Self-abidance, that state is the highest of all states and is infinitely superior to any of the doctrinal religions, each of which postulates its own limited tenets about the nature of the world, soul and God. Refer also to verse 34 of this work

S.S. Cohen
2.The triad — God, soul and world – is the creation of the ego and disappears with the ego.

All schools of thought postulate the fundamental triad — God, soul and world — although all three are manifestations of the One. The belief that the three remain eternally lasts only as long as the “I” or ego lasts. To destroy the ego and remain in one’s own state is best.

Most religions are based on the assumption that the triad mentioned in the text is eternal. Bhagavan rejects this assumption as being the child of the ignorant ego which mistakes itself for the body. The “I-am-the-body” notion compels the admissions of an individuality (jiva), a world, its creator, as three distinct, perennial, co-existing entities. Bhagavan, as we have seen, perceives a single existence of which these three are an illusory manifestation which, however, vanishes the moment the eternal “I” is apprehended and the ego perishes.

Michael James
Verse 2: Instead of the ego arguing whether there is just one fundamental or three fundamentals, standing in the real state of oneself by destroying the ego is best.

English translation: Each religion initially accepts three fundamentals. Contending ‘Only one fundamental stands as three fundamentals’, ‘Three fundamentals are always actually three fundamentals’, is only so long as ego exists. ‘I’ perishing, standing in the state of oneself is best.

Explanatory paraphrase: Each religion [or theistic system of belief] initially accepts three fundamentals [namely the soul, world and God]. Contending that only one fundamental stands as [these] three fundamentals or that [these] three fundamentals are always actually three fundamentals is [possible] only so long as ego exists. [As a result of] ‘I’ [ego] perishing [or being destroyed], standing in the [real] state of oneself is best.

Nochur Venkatraman
All religions accept the three postulates the world, the jiva (soul) and God. However, the one principle alone appears as three. The argument ‘the three ever remain as three independent entities’, is possible only as long as the ego remains. The best and the highest state is to abide in one’s own swarupa, the Self, after the cessation of the ego-I.

Sri Sadhu Om
‘The world is real’, ‘(No, it is) an unreal appearance’; ‘the world is sentient’, ‘It is not’; ‘the world is happiness’, ‘It is not’ – what is the use of arguing thus in vain? Having given up the world and having known oneself, both one and two (duality) having come to an end – that state in which ‘I’ has ceased to exist is agreeable to all.

Explanatory paraphrase: ‘The world is real or sat, it is sentient or chit, and it is happiness or ananda’. ‘No, it is unreal, insentient and miserable’ – to engage in such vain arguments is futile. When one has given up attending to the world, when one has known oneself by enquiring ‘Who am I, where is the individual who seeks to know the truth about the world?’ and when one has thereby put an end to all thoughts both about non-duality and about duality, the resulting state of egolessness will be free of all arguments and will be loved by everyone.

Note: Sri Bhagavan and other Sages teach that the world is an unreal appearance which is devoid both of sentience and of happiness, only in order to enable us to give up our attachment to it and thereby to turn within and to know Self. When they teach this truth about the world, they do not intend that we should engage in futile arguments about the world. If we have really understood the truth that the world is unreal, we should give up all arguments about it and should instead turn within in order to know ‘Who am I, the individual who knows this unreal world?’ Only if we thus know the truth of ‘I’, the knowing subject, can we correctly know the truth of the world, the known object. Since the resulting state of Self-knowledge is devoid of the ego, which is the root of all problems and sufferings and the cause of all arguments, Sri Bhagavan declares that state is agreeable to all.

S.S. Cohen
3.Speculations about God and world avail nothing: Self-realization is the hearts cry of all.

Of what avail to debate whether the world is real or unreal, sentient or insentient, pleasant or unpleasant? Extinguishing the ego, transcending the world, realizing the Self – that is the state which is dear to all, and free from the sense of unity and duality.

The same line of thought continues. Destruction of the ego is a sine qua non for the realization of the Self within the heart. It brings to an end all speculation about reality and unreality, God and world, whose true nature will be revealed in actual experience. This is the most blissful attainable state and beyond the plurality of the illusory world.

Michael James
Verse 3: The state in which the ego has died by investigating itself, leaving aside the world and all differences and disputes, is agreeable to all.

English translation: What is the use of disputing: ‘The world is real’, ‘An unreal appearance’; ‘The world is sentient’, ‘It is not’; ‘The world is happiness’, ‘It is not’? Leaving the world and investigating oneself, one and two ceasing, that state in which ‘I’ has perished is agreeable to all.

Explanatory paraphrase: What is the use of disputing: ‘The world is real’, ‘[No, it is] an unreal appearance’; ‘The world is sentient’, ‘It is not’; ‘The world is happiness’, ‘It is not’? Leaving [all thought about] the world and investigating [or knowing] oneself, [thereby] putting an end to [all disputes about] one and two [non-duality and duality], that state in which ‘I’ [ego] has [thereby] perished is agreeable to all.

Nochur Venkatraman
Of what avail is it to indulge in verbal arguments saying ‘the world is real’; ‘no, it is an illusory appearance’; ‘the world is chit (sentient)’; ‘no it is but jada’; ‘it is happiness’; ‘no it is full of misery’? That illumined state freed of the notions of oneness and duality, where the ‘I’ does not arise is indeed fulfilling and acceptable to all.

Sri Sadhu Om
If oneself is a form composed of flesh, the world and God will be likewise (that is, they will also be forms); if oneself is not a form, who can see their forms, and how? Can the sight (that which is seen) be otherwise than the eye (the seer)? Self, the (real) eye is the limitless eye (the eye which is devoid of the limitation of name and form).

Note: The words “Kan alal Katchi undo” may also be taken to mean, “without the eye (the seer), can there be the sight (that which is seen)?” However, Sri Bhagavan Himself used to explain these words to mean “Can the sight be otherwise than the eye?”, which is a meaning having a far deeper import.

Since the nature of what is seen cannot be different from the nature of the seer, and since the ego or mind can come into existence only by identifying the name and form of a body as ‘I’, it can see only names and forms and can never see Self, the nameless and formless reality. Only when one gives up identifying the body as ‘I’, can one see or realize Self. Since in that state of self-realization one remains only as Self, the nameless and formless existence-consciousness-bliss (sat-chit-ananda), one can then see only that nameless and formless existence-consciousness-bliss and can never see the names and forms of this world. That is why Sri Bhagavan asks in this verse, “If oneself is not a form (but only the formless Self), who can see their forms (the forms of the world and God), and how?”.

It is to be noted here that the Tamil word ‘Kan’, which literally means ‘eye’, also means ‘consciousness’ (chit) or ‘knowledge’ (jnana). Therefore the last sentence of this verse also means, “Self, the (real) consciousness (or knowledge), is the limitless (and therefore formless) consciousness (or knowledge)”.

S.S. Cohen
4.Form and formlessness of God depend on the ego’s conception of itself.

If the Self be with form, God and the world will be also. If one be formless oneself, how and by whom can their forms be seen? Can their be sight without eyes? The Self is the eye, the limitless Eye.

This refers to the jnani, who although having a body seem himself as bodiless and formless, and so cannot see God, or in fact see anything with form. The ajnani (the non-realized), perceiving himself as a body, takes God also to be a body and worships him in all sorts of material, formal representations. Yet the fact remains that even he perceives everything through his own formless Self, which we have granted to be the only seers, the only knowledge there is – the “limitless Eye”. Those who condemn idol-worship forget that they themselves worship material symbols and icons, and attribute to God forms, dimensions, positions, even sentiments and sense-perceptions exactly as they do to themselves. Having no experience or conception of a formless omniscient spirit, they feel literally lost lost at the idea of worshipping something not represented in a form. God, thus, appears according to the degree of realization of one’s Self.

“Can there be sight without eyes?” means that without consciousness there can be no knowledge of anything, just as without a lamp none of the objects present in a dark room can be seen. Can there be a world to an unconscious man?

Michael James
Verse 4: If one perceives oneself as a form, one will perceive everything else as forms, but one’s real nature is infinite (hence formless) awareness, so it perceives no forms at all.

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 the 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].

Nochur Venkatraman
If one considers oneself the form of this body of flesh, then the world and God will also be forms. If one realizes oneself to be formless, as awareness, then who remains to perceive the form of the world and God? And how is one to perceive? The mind-eye that hitherto perceived other forms, now shines (after being dissolved in the form of jnana – Atman)as Atman the limitless eye of jnana. Can there be perception without the perceiver? Can perception be different from the perceiving eye?

Sri Sadhu Om
If we scrutinize, the body is a form (composed) of five sheaths (pancha-kosas). Therefore, all the five (sheaths) are included in the term ‘body’ (that is, any of the five sheaths may be denoted when we use the term ‘body’). Without the body, does the world exist? (That is, in the absence of any of the five sheaths, does any world, subtle or gross, exist?) Say, is there anyone who, having given up the body, (that is, having given up identifying the body as ‘I’, as in sleep, death or Self-realization), has seen the world?

Note: Refer to the note to verse 22 of Upadesa Undiyar, where the five sheaths (pancha-kosas) are enumerated.

S.S. Cohen
5.The world is the body inclusive of the five sheaths, for without them the world cannot be conceived (or perceived)

The body is in the form of, and includes, the 5 sheathes. Is there a world apart from the body? Has anyone without a body seen the world?

The body is a complex structure containing a large number of instruments or organs which the Self, as ego uses for a large number of purposes, including among others those of hearing, smelling, seeing, thinking, feeling, memorizing and reasoning. The materials out of which these instruments or parts are made vary from the grossest to the finest. The Shastras (scriptures) have arranged them in five groups. To each group one sheath of kosha is assigned. The kosha dealing with purely physical matter is called annamayakosha (the sheath of food). The pranamayakosha (the vital sheath) looks after the fivefold functions of the vital energies -breathing, assimilation, generation, excretion and locomotion. The manomayakosha (mental sheath) contains the faculties of mentation. The vijnanamayakosha is the sheath of the intellectual and reasoning faculties, of scientific and philosophic thinking, and last is the anandamayakosha, the sheath of bliss, or causal sheath, which stores up within itself the karmic seeds of every birth and is concerned with that state in which profound peace is enjoyed by the dreamless sleeper. This kosha is made of the finest substance, sattva, which in itself is happy, due to its freedom from grossness and its close proximity to the blissful Self.

Thus the term body includes all these koshas, whose appearance and disappearance cause the appearance and disappearance of all objective and subjective perceptions. Assumption of a body is therefore necessary for the world’s enjoyment and the body owes its existence, as we shall see in the next verse, to the five senses, which are the properties of the mind.

Michael James
Verse 5: The body is a form consisting of five sheaths, and without such a body has anyone ever perceived any world?

English translation: The body is a form of five sheaths. Therefore all five are included in the term ‘body’. Without a body, is there a world? Leaving the body, is there anyone who has seen a world? Say.

Explanatory paraphrase: The body is pañca-kōśa-uru [a form composed of five sheaths, namely a physical structure, life, mind, intellect and will]. Therefore all five [sheaths] are included in the term ‘body’. Without a body [composed of these five sheaths], is there a world? Without [experiencing oneself as such] a body, is there anyone who has seen a world? Say.

Nochur Venkatraman
The body is a form made up of five sheaths. Hence, the single term ‘body’ includes all the five sheaths. In the state of absence of a body, can there be any perception of the world appearance? Is the world ever seen by anyone without identifying oneself with a body as ‘I’?

Sri Sadhu Om
The world which is seen is nothing other than the form of the five sense-knowledges (sight, sound, smell, taste and touch). Those five sense- knowledges are sensations (known) to the five sense-organs. Since the one mind (or the mind alone) knows the world through the five sense-organs, say, without the mind does the world exist?

(That is, in the absence of the mind which perceives it, does any such thing as a world exist? Hence the world depends for its seeming existence upon the mind.)

Note: Since in verse 17 of Upadesa Undiyar Sri Bhagavan reveals that if one vigilantly scrutinizes the form of the mind, it will be found that there is no such thing as mind at all, and since in this verse He reveals that the world does not exist in the absence of the mind, we should understand that when through Self-enquiry the mind is found to be nonexistent, the world will also be found to be non-existent. Thus the experience which results from Self-enquiry is ajata – the knowledge that the mind and world have never truly come into existence, and that the one unborn and unchanging Self alone truly exists. This experience is the Supreme and Absolute Truth.

S.S. Cohen
6.The world is what the mind conceives through the senses.

The world is but the fivefold sense-objects, which are the results of the five senses. Since the mind perceives the world through the senses, is there a world without the mind?

Through the sensory organs lodges in the five koshas, the senses display before the mind a variety of objects – physical, vital, emotional, mental and intellectual. Apart from the five sense perceptions, there all sorts of other internal senses which also arise from the mind, work through the mind, and are understood by the mind – such as the senses of time, of space, or “I” and “mine”, and the artistic, ethical, religious and spiritual senses for instance. Since all these senses form the world we known and have one common origin, which is the mind, the world cannot therefore be other than that mind.

Michael James
Verse 6: The world consists of nothing but the five kinds of sense-impressions, and the mind alone perceives it, so is there any world besides the mind?

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 [respective] to the five sense organs. Since the mind alone [or since one thing, the mind] perceives the world by way of the five sense organs, is there [any] world besides [excluding, if not for, apart from, other than or without] the mind? Say.

Nochur Venkatraman
The world that is perceptible to the eyes is nothing other than the five sensory perceptions, namely, taste, form, touch, sound and smell, which are known through the five sense organs, namely, the tongue, eyes, skin, ears and nose. Since it is the mind alone that is aware of the world through the five sense organs, tell me is there a world other than mind?

Sri Sadhu Om
Although the world, which is (seen) in front (of us), and the mind (which sees it) rise (appear or come into existence) and subside (disappear or cease to exist) simultaneously, the world (exists and) shines (only) because of (or by) the mind. That which is the Whole (purna) and which shines without appearing and disappearing as the base for the appearance and disappearance of the world and mind, alone is the Reality.

Note: The world and mind are unreal because they appear at one time and disappear at another time, and because they are divided as separate entities. Only that which shines eternally without appearing and disappearing, and which is a single undivided Whole, is the Reality. Just as the rope is the base on which the unreal snake appears and disappears, so the eternal and undivided Reality is the base on which the unreal world and mind appear and disappear.

S.S. Cohen
7.The world rises and sets with the knowledge of it. Both have their source in the Self.

Although the world and the awareness of it rise and set together, it is by awareness that the world is known. The source from which they both rise, and into which they both set, always shines without itself rising or setting. That alone is real.

This verse is reminiscent of the Invocation and confirms the previous verse, which make awareness the criterion of existence as well as the source of the world. Awareness “always shines” as the “limitless Eye” mentioned in verse four, the eternal Knower. It goes without saying that the appearance of the world is simultaneous with the awareness of it, and disappearance of the world simultaneous with the withdrawal of that awareness. For the fact of the awareness of the world is the fact of its existence. We cannot affirm the existence of an object without first affirming awareness of it. Therefore awareness is the only Reality there is.

Michael James
Verse 7: The world shines only by the mind, but what shines as the space for the appearing and disappearing of the world and mind is the real substance, the infinite whole.

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].

Nochur Venkatraman
Though the world and the mind rise and set simultaneously, the world shines by the light of the mind alone, for it (the world), is not self-luminous. That substratum whence the world and the perceiving mind rise and set but which, by itself, without rising and setting, shines, is the eternal, perfect truth.

Sri Sadhu Om
Whoever worships (the nameless and formless Reality) in whatever form giving (it) whatever name, that is the way to see that (nameless and formless) Reality in (that) name and form, (because) it is possible (to see it thus). However, becoming one (with the Reality), having known one’s own truth (that is, having known the truth that one is not the ego, the individual who worships and sees names and forms, but only the real Self, who never sees names and forms) and having (thereby) subsided in the (nameless and formless) truth of that Reality, alone is seeing in truth (in other words, being the Reality is alone truly seeing the Reality). Know thus.

Note: Although it is possible to see the Reality in name and form, either as God or as Guru, that is not truly seeing the Reality, because the reality (whose nature was defined in the previous verse) is in truth nameless and formless. Regarding seeing God or the Reality, Sri Bhagavan once said in English, “To see is to know, to know is to become and to become is to be”. Therefore, being the Reality (that is, abiding as the real Self, which is devoid of name and form), having known the truth that the ego (which is the seer of names and forms) is non-existent and having thereby subsided and become one with the reality, alone is truly seeing the Reality. (verse 26 of Upadesa Undiyar).

The Tamil words ‘per-uruvil’ can be interpreted in three different ways, namely to mean (1) ‘in name and form’ (qualifying the nature of the seeing), (2) ‘nameless and formless’ (qualifying the nature of the Reality), or (3) ’without name and form’ (qualifying the nature of the seeing). However, for the reasons given in The Path of Sri Ramana – Part Two, appendix 4(b), the third interpretation is not fitting here, and hence only the first two interpretations are included in this translation, the first without brackets and the second within brackets.

S.S. Cohen
8.Any sincere worship eventually leads to Realization.

In whatever name and form the nameless and formless is worshiped, therein lies the path of its realization. Realizing one’s truth as the truth of that reality, and merging into it, is true realization.

All roads lead to Rome -all sincere worship comes from the heart, and leads to the formless God in the heart. To believe that one’s reality is the same as God’s is an important step towards the realization of Him as Pure Consciousness and the process of merging into Him. How many millions of innocent human beings would have been spared the horror of religious persecutions throughout the centuries in the name of God, and how many wars would have been prevented, had this truth been accepted as the one truth underlying all religions, the basic world faith!

Michael James
Verse 8: Worshipping in name and form is the way to see in name and form, but seeing oneself and thereby becoming one with the real substance is true seeing.

English translation: Whoever worships in whatever form giving whatever name, that is the way to see that substance in name and form. However, investigating the reality of oneself, dissolving in the reality of that true substance, becoming one alone is seeing in reality. Know.

Explanatory paraphrase: Whoever worships [it] in whatever form giving [it] whatever name, that is the way to see that [nameless and formless] poruḷ [the real substance, namely brahman, the ultimate reality or God] in name and form. However, [by] investigating [or knowing] the reality of oneself, [and by thereby] dissolving [or subsiding] in the reality of that true poruḷ, becoming one [with it] alone is seeing [it] in reality. Know [or be aware].

Nochur Venkatraman
By whatever name or form, that nameless and formless supreme being is thought of and worshipped – it is verily a way to see that reality. Yet, establishing one’s attention in one’s own Self, losing one’s individual ‘I’ in the reality, and becoming one with That, is realization; know this!

Sri Sadhu Om
The dyads and the triads, (which are unreal appearances like) the blueness of the sky, exist by always clinging to the one (the ego or mind, the thought ‘I am the body’). If one looks within the mind ‘What is that one?’ (in other words, ‘who am I, the ego upon whom these dyads and triads depend for their existence?’), they (the dyads and triads) will slip off.(Since their base the ego, will be found to be non-existent) (that is, they will disappear, being found to be non-existent, because their support and base, the ego, will itself be found to be non-existent). Only those who have (thus) seen the non-existence of the ego and of all its products, namely the dyads and triads are those who have seen the truth; (the real Self, which is the source and absolute base upon which the unreal ego seems to exist). (After seeing thus) they will not be perturbed (by the unreal appearance of the dyads and triads, because in their outlook those dyads and triads will be non-existent). See thus.
Note: The dyads mentioned here are the dvandvas or pairs of opposites such as good and bad, light and darkness, pleasure and pain, bondage and liberation, knowledge and ignorance, and so on, while the triads are the triputis or three factors of objective knowledge such as the knower, the act of knowing and the object known, the seer, the act of seeing and the object seen, and so on. All these differences are an unreal appearance and they always cling to or depend upon the ego for their seeming existence. Therefore, when through Self-enquiry the ego is found to be non-existent, all these differences will also be found to be non-existent, and that which will remain shining is only Self, the ever-existing and ever-undifferentiated reality, which is the absolute base upon which the unreal ego and all its products, the dyads and triads, seemed to exist.

Refer to appendix 4 (C) of The Path of Sri Ramana – Part Two, where it is explained why the ‘one’ (ondru) upon which the dyads and triads depend is to be understood to be the ego and not Self.

S.S. Cohen
9.The dyads and triads are supported by the One, which can be discovered by inquiry.

The dyads and triads rest on the basic One. Inquiring about that One in the mind, they will disappear. Those who see thus are the seers of truth: they remain unruffled.

The dyads are the pairs of opposites – knowledge and ignorance, light and darkness, happiness and misery, birth and death, etc. The triad is triple principle of seen, seer and sight; object, subject and the perception of the former by the latter. As all the numbers stand on, and originate from, the first number, so are the dyads and triads based on, arising from, and of the same nature as the one seer, the perceiving mind. He who realises the world as such retains a uniform serenity in all conditions of life.

Michael James
Verse 9: Dyads and triads depend on one thing (the ego), so if one sees within the mind what that one thing is, they will all cease to exist and what is real will be seen.

English translation: Dyads and triads exist always holding one thing. If one sees within the mind what that one thing is, they will slip off. Only those who have seen have seen the reality. They will not be confused. See.

Explanatory paraphrase: Dyads [pairs of opposites, such as existence and non-existence, life and death, awareness and non-awareness, knowledge and ignorance, happiness and unhappiness, good and bad, liberation and bondage] and triads [the tripuṭī or three factors of transitive knowledge or awareness, namely jñātā or pramātā (the knower or subject, namely ego), jñāna or pramāṇa (knowing or the means of knowing, such as seeing, hearing, perceiving, experiencing, inferring or believing reliable testimony) and jñēya or pramēya (whatever is known, namely objects, phenomena, facts, theories and so on)] exist [by] always holding [or depending on] one thing [namely ego, in whose view alone they seem to exist]. If [by looking keenly at oneself] one sees within the mind what that one thing is, they will slip off [run away or disappear] [implying that they will cease to exist, because their support and foundation, namely ego, will itself cease to exist]. Only those who have seen [what remains when all dyads and triads have thereby ceased to exist along with their root, ego] have seen the reality. They will not be confused [by ever again seeing anything else at all]. See [what is real in this way by seeing within the mind what that one thing is that rises as ‘I’ to know all other things].

Nochur Venkatraman
The dyads (like birth and death, good and bad, pleasure and pain) and the triads (like knower, known and knowledge) merely exist, holding on to the ego as support. If one but turns the mind inward, within oneself and enquires into the truth of this ego, the dyads and triads will fall away. One who thus witnesses the death of the ego alone is the one who has seen the Self, or the truth. Such men of discernment will never again be agitated by such dyads and triads.

Sri Sadhu Om
Without ignorance (about objects), which is dense like darkness, knowledge (about objects) does not exist; (similarly) without knowledge (about objects), that ignorance does not exist. Only the knowledge which knows the (non-existence of the individual) self (the ego), who is the base (of knowledge and ignorance about objects), (by enquiring ‘To whom are that knowledge and ignorance?’) is (true) Knowledge.

Note: Knowledge about objects, and ignorance about objects are a dyad or dvandva, each of which depends upon the other for its seeming existence. If there did not previously exist an ignorance of a thing, the knowledge of that thing could not come into existence. And only when the knowledge of that thing dawns, do we come to know that an ignorance of it existed previously. Thus without our present knowledge of that thing, our prior ignorance would not be known and hence would not exist.

Since knowledge and ignorance about objects are both mere thoughts, they can rise only after the rising of the first thought, the ego. But when one enquires ‘who am I’, the individual to whom both knowledge and ignorance arise?’, one will realize that the ego or individual who experiences knowledge and ignorance about objects is truly non-existent, and that Self alone truly exists. Only that Knowledge which thus knows the non-existence of the ego and the sole existence of Self, is true Knowledge.That knowledge is Self.

S.S. Cohen
10.Knowledge and ignorance are inter-related. Real knowledge arises by inquiring for whom both knowledge ignorance occur.

Knowledge and ignorance are interrelated: the one does not exist without the other. Inquiring to whom is it that knowledge and that ignorance, and arriving at their root cause, the Self, this is true knowledge.

To speak of ignorance is to admit its opposite – knowledge – and vice versa. Until we become aware of an object we remain ignorant of its existence. To learn a lesson is to admit our previous ignorance of its content. Knowledge is thus the light which clears away the darkness of ignorance. But knowledge and ignorance which pertain to external objects are mere modes of thought. They come and go, and are therefore of no consequence in the search for Truth. What is of consequence is their knower, who is fixed, changeless, also called first principle because he is efficient, causeless, the eternal thinker, who precedes and survives all his thoughts – “the basic One” (verse nine).

Michael James
Verse 10: Knowledge and ignorance of other things are mutually dependent, but only the awareness that knows the reality of the ego, to whom they appear, is real awareness.

English translation: Leaving ignorance, knowledge does not exist; leaving knowledge, that ignorance does not exist. Only the knowledge that knows oneself, who is the first, as to whom are that knowledge and ignorance, is knowledge.

Explanatory paraphrase: Without ignorance [of other things], knowledge [of them] does not exist; without knowledge [of them], that ignorance [of them] does not exist. Only the knowledge [or awareness] that knows [the reality of] oneself [ego], who is the first [to appear], [by investigating] to whom are that knowledge and ignorance [of other things], is [real] knowledge [or awareness].

Nochur Venkatraman
There is no separate existence for knowledge apart from ignorance. To enquire, ‘Whose is this knowledge? Whose is this ignorance?’ and thus to know the primal Self, this alone is true knowledge.

Sri Sadhu Om
Knowing other things without knowing oneself (the mind or ego), who knows the objects known, is (only) ignorance; can it instead be (true) knowledge? When (through the enquiry ‘Who am I’, the individual who knows the objects known) one knows (the non-existence of) oneself (the knowing ego) the base for knowledge and the other (that is, the base of knowledge and ignorance about objects) will cease to exist.

Note: The word arivadu may mean either ‘(the act of) knowing’ or ‘that which knows’. If the latter meaning is taken, the first sentence of this verse would translate thus: “That which knows other things without knowing itself, which knows the objects known, is (only) ignorance; can it instead be (true) knowledge?” In other words, the mind, which knows other things without knowing the truth of itself, is not knowledge but only ignorance.

However, when the mind gives up knowing other things and tries instead to know itself by scrutinizing ‘Who am I?’, it will be found to be truly non-existent, and hence all its knowledge and ignorance about other things will automatically cease to exist. The resulting state, in which all knowledge and ignorance about objects has ceased to exist due to the destruction of their base, the knowing mind, alone is the state of true knowledge.

S.S. Cohen
11.Not to seek the Self which is the source of knowledge and ignorance is real ignorance

Is it not ignorance to know all but the all-knowing Self? When the latter, the substratum of both knowledge and ignorance, is known, knowledge and ignorance themselves both disappear.

It is of course foolish to know about everything in the world, and remain ignorant of one’s own Self. Knowledge of the perishable – the universe and its contents – perishes with the body, and cannot be transferred to another body, except perhaps as tendencies or abilities in the perishable too, which may not have any spiritual value in a future life. The imperishable alone endures and gives imperishable satisfaction, and this lies wholly within ourselves, who are the source and ground of both knowledge and ignorance – that is, of all experiences whatever.

Michael James
Verse 11: Knowing anything other than oneself is ignorance, but when one knows the reality of oneself, knowledge and ignorance of everything else will cease.

English translation: Not knowing oneself, who knows, knowing other things is ignorance; besides, is it knowledge? When one knows oneself, the support for knowledge and the other, knowledge and ignorance will cease.

Explanatory paraphrase: Instead of knowing [the reality of] oneself [ego], who knows [everything else], knowing other things is ignorance; except [that], is it knowledge? When one knows [the reality of] oneself [ego], the ādhāra [support, foundation or container] for knowledge and the other [ignorance], knowledge and ignorance [of everything else] will cease [because the reality of ego is just pure awareness, so when one knows oneself as pure awareness ego will no longer seem to exist, and hence all its knowledge and ignorance will cease to exist along with it].

Nochur Venkatraman
Without knowing the ‘I’ who knows all objects through the senses and the mind – by enquiring ‘Who am I?’ – knowing objects which are separate from oneself is indeed ignorance. This can never be true knowledge. When the Self, the substratum of ‘knowing’ and ‘not knowing’ is known, both knowledge and ignorance will come to an end.

Sri Sadhu Om
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, nondual 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 27 of 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.

S.S. Cohen
12.True knowledge is self-effulgent: it is neither knowledge nor ignorance

True knowledge is neither knowledge or ignorance. Objective knowledge is not true knowledge. Because the Self is self-effulgent, having no second to know or be known, it is Supreme Knowledge – not empty nothingness.

This continues the theme of verses ten and eleven. We have seen that objective knowledge is knowledge of the perishable, the apparent, the nonexistent, the unreal (see Invocation). Self-awareness is true knowledge, because it is absolute, i.e. changeless, non-dual, ever-pure (thought-free). This purity is not emptiness because of the lack of perceivable objectives in it, but the ever-shining plenum of Awareness-Being (chit-Sat).

Michael James
Verse 12: Oneself is real awareness, which shines without anything else to know, so it is devoid of both knowledge and ignorance of other things, but it is not void or nothingness.

English translation: What is devoid of knowledge and ignorance is actually knowledge. That which knows is not real knowledge. Since one shines without another for knowing or for causing to know, oneself is knowledge. One is not void. Know.

Explanatory paraphrase: What is devoid of knowledge and ignorance [about anything other than itself] is actually aṟivu [knowledge or awareness]. That which knows [or is aware of anything other than itself, namely ego] is not real aṟivu [knowledge or awareness]. Since [the real nature of oneself] shines without another for knowing or for causing to know [or causing to be known], oneself is [real] aṟivu [knowledge or awareness]. One is not void [emptiness, desolation, nothingness or non-existence]. Know [or be aware].

Nochur Venkatraman
Self-knowledge is devoid of both knowledge and ignorance. The knowledge of the ‘other’ i.e., objects apart from oneself, is not knowledge. As it shines by itself, without there being anything else other than it to know or to make it known, the Self, the Atman is true knowledge. Know that, it is not void.

Sri Sadhu Om
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; say, do they exist apart from the gold, which (alone) is real?

Since the one non-dual Self alone is real, and 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 knowledge of objects.

S.S. Cohen
13.Knowledge of diversity is ignorance, yet it is not apart from the Self, like the shapes of ornaments which are not apart from the gold.

The Self alone is knowledge, is truth. Knowledge of the diversity is ignorance, is false knowledge. Yet ignorance is not apart from the Self, which is knowledge. Are the ornaments different from the gold which is real?

So the world with all its multiplicity of shapes, colors, smells tastes and so forth is nothing but pure consciousness in substance, like variously-shaped jewelry which is nothing but gold. To perceive shapes, colors, smells and the like as different from one another is ignorance, is illusion, but to see them as the single substance out of which they are made – the pure mind – is true knowledge.

“Yet ignorance is not apart from the Self” because all experiences as thoughts come from the Self and are witnessed by it (verses six and seven).

Michael James
Verse 13: Oneself, who is pure awareness, alone is real, so awareness of multiplicity is ignorance and unreal, and hence it does not exist except as oneself.

English translation: Oneself, who is awareness, alone is real. Awareness that is manifold is ignorance. Even ignorance, which is unreal, does not exist except as oneself, who is awareness. All the many ornaments are unreal; do they exist except as gold, which is real? Say.

Explanatory paraphrase: Oneself, who is jñāna [knowledge or awareness], alone is real. Awareness that is manifold [namely the mind, whose root, ego, is the awareness that sees the one as many] is ajñāna [ignorance]. Even [that] ignorance, which is unreal, does not exist except as [besides, apart from or as other than] oneself, who is [real] awareness. All the many ornaments are unreal; do they exist except as gold, which is real? Say. [In other words, though ego or mind, which is the false awareness that sees itself as numerous phenomena, is ignorance and unreal, the real substance that appears as it is only oneself, who is true knowledge or pure awareness, so what actually exists is not ego or mind but only oneself.]

Nochur Venkatraman
The Self that is awareness, the ‘I AM’, alone is Real. The knowledge that knows ‘many’ is ajnana (ignorance). Even that ignorance, an unreal appearance, cannot exist apart from the Self. False are the ornaments. Can they exist apart from gold, which alone is true? Ponder over this and tell me!

Sri Sadhu Om
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). 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’. These second and third persons, the known objects, can 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 nonexistent, 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.

S.S. Cohen
14.”You” and “he” exist when the “I” exists. If the root of the “I” – the One – is found, “You” and “he” will also shine as the One

The “I” existing, “you” and “he” also exist. If by investigating the truth of the “I” the “I” ceases, “you” and “he” will also cease and will shine as the One. This is the natural state of one’s being.

“You” and “he” are the world; it stands and falls with the “I” or ego, which constructs it. Realizing one’s being is realizing the whole world to be the same effulgent being – “the One”. This state of being is experienced by the Self-realized man in the waking state consciously and by all men in dreamless sleep. In dreamless sleep (sushupti), the “I”, like everything else, disappears and one remains in one’s native state – in the true “I” but generally without retaining memory of this condition on awakening.

Michael James
Verse 14: If one investigates the reality of the first person, it will cease to exist along with all second and third persons, and what then shines as one is one’s real nature.

English translation: If the first person exists, second and third persons will exist. If, oneself investigating the reality of the first person, the first person ceases to exist, second and third persons coming to an end, the nature that shines as one alone is oneself, the state of oneself.

Explanatory paraphrase: If the first person [ego] exists, second and third persons [everything else] will exist. If the first person ceases to exist [by] oneself investigating the reality of the first person, second and third persons will come to an end, and [what then remains alone, namely] the nature [selfness, essence or reality] that shines as one [undivided by the appearance of these three persons or ‘places’] alone is oneself, the [real] state [or nature] of oneself.

Nochur Venkatraman
If the first person ‘I’ (the ego-sense or the ‘I am the body’ notion) persists, the notions of second and third persons, namely, ‘you’ and ‘he’ also prevail. If the truth of the first person, the ego-sense, is investigated within and is ended, the sense of both the second and third persons will similarly vanish. What remains is the ‘I AM’, one’s own Self, always shining as the One non-dual awareness, and that is the true state of one’s being.

Sri Sadhu Om
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 that 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).

S.S. Cohen
15.Past and future are only the present when they occur, thus the present alone exists.

On the present the past and the future stand. They too are the present in their times. Thus the present alone exists. Ignoring the present, and seeking to know the past and the future, is like trying to count without the initial unit.

The present is always, for even the past was the present in its time, and so also will the future be the present in its time. Whatever happens therefore happens only in the present. When Methuselah was born, he was born in the present, and when he died after 9 or 10 centuries he died also in the present, despite the later date. Similarly all that happened to him between those two events happened also in the present. Thus the present is the only significant tense in actuality. Moreover, let us not forget the fact that time is made of instants which are so minute as to have no room either for a past or for a future, but for the present alone. The next verse will tell us that even the present is unreal, being one of the notions of our mind, as past and future are – acts of our memory.

Michael James
Verse 15: Past and future depend on the present, the only time that actually exists, so trying to know the past or future without knowing the reality of the present is like trying to calculate without knowing the value of one.

English translation: Past and future stand holding the present. While occurring, they too are actually the present. The present is the only one. Not knowing the reality of now, trying to know the past or future is trying to count without one.

Explanatory paraphrase: Past and future stand holding [or depending upon] the present. While occurring, they too are actually the present. [Therefore] the present is the only one [the only time that actually exists] [alternatively this sentence can be interpreted as meaning: the present alone [is all these three times]; the present alone [exists]; or [there is] only the present] [so the implication of all these interpretations is that there are not three times, namely the past, present and future, but only one, namely the present, which alone is what seems to be these three]. [Hence] without knowing the reality of today [the present moment, now], trying to know the past or future is [like] trying to count [calculate or evaluate] without [knowing the value of] one.

Nochur Venkatraman
Only by holding on to the current of the present that is now, do the past and future exist. At the time of their occurrence, the past and the future are also known as ‘present’. The ‘present’ alone is real. To investigate the past and future without knowing the truth of the present, the ‘here and now’, is like attempting to count forgetting the digit one.

Sri Sadhu Om
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 39‘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 enquire ‘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 the 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 do not exist”. Therefore both meaning are given in this translation, the first without brackets and the second within brackets.

S.S. Cohen
16.Time and space do not exist apart from the Self.

Do time and space exist apart from us? If we are the body we are affected by time and space. But are we the body? We are the same now, then and forever.

Of course time and space are mere concepts in us. Because in our long journey in life we pass through multitudes of experiences, we have to conceive past, present and future in order to arrange them conveniently in their sequence of occurrence in our memory. Because we perceive multiplicity, we have to conceive a space in which to accommodate them, like the screen on which movie pictures are spread. Without a screen there can be no pictures. The screen on which the universe actually appears and moves is thus our own mind, from which it emanates as thoughts, either of external physical objects, or of internal concepts, sensations, emotions, including the senses of time and space.

Those who take themselves for the body take time to be the creator and destroyer of all things, and thus it inspires them with great fear – fear of future calamities, of death, of loss of fortune and position, or whatever it may be. Many of them consult astrologers to read the decrees of time and foretell events long in advance of their occurrence. To them birth, youth, old age and death; creation, preservation and dissolution; past, present and future; health and disease, prosperity and adversity all exist without the shadow of a doubt: they fall prey to time and its vagaries. The others who know themselves to be pure spirit are bodiless, timeless and spaceless; and Bhagavan affirms, they are thus free from the hallucination of “We alone are; time and space are not”.

Michael James
Verse 16: If we are a body, we are ensnared in time and place, but if we investigate ourself, there is no time or place but only ourself, who are the same one always and everywhere.

English translation: When we investigate, except we, where is time, where is place? If we are a body, we will be ensnared in time and place. Are we a body? Since we are the one, now, then and always, the one in place, here, there and everywhere, there is we, we. Time and place do not exist.

Explanatory paraphrase: When we investigate [ourself], except we, where is time and where is place? If we are a body, we will be ensnared in time and place. [But] are we a body? Since we are the [same] one [without any change], now, then and always, the [same] one in [each] place, here, there and everywhere, there is [only] we, [the timeless and placeless] we. Time and place do not exist.

Nochur Venkatraman
When investigated deeply, where is time and where is space apart from the awareness which is self-evident as ‘I AM’? If we are the body, we will be bound by time and space. But are we the body? No. We are the same form of awareness here, there and everywhere. Always we alone are, timeless and spaceless ‘I AM’.

[In this sloka, the Sanskrit words dēśā and kālā are translated as nāḍu – place and nal – day in Tamil. Bhagavan has effectively used these fresh terms for arresting our attention.]

Sri Sadhu Om
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).

S.S. Cohen
17.To those who have not realized, the “I” is of the size of the body. To those who have, it is limitless.

To those who have not realized the Self, as well as to those who have, the body is “I”. To the form the “I” is only the size of the body; whereas to those who have realized the Self within the body, the “I” shines without limits. This is the difference between the two.

The jnani (the Self-realized) like everybody else, refers to the body as “I”. Whereas the others confine their “I” to the flesh and body and to its height and breadth, the jnani takes his “I” to be the life which pervades the body as well as the limitless space outside it. Realization is the direct and indubitable proof of this truth.

Michael James
Verse 17: For those who do not know themself and for those who do, the body is ‘I’, but for the former ‘I’ is limited to the body, whereas for the latter ‘I’ shines without limit.

English translation: For those who do not know themself, for those who have known themself, the body is actually ‘I’. For those who do not know themself, ‘I’ is only the extent of the body; for those who have known themself within the body, oneself, ‘I’, shines without limit. Consider that the difference between them is only this.

Explanatory paraphrase: For those who do not know themself [their real nature] and for those who have known themself, the body is actually ‘I’ [or only ‘I’]. For those who do not know themself, ‘I’ is [limited to] only the extent of the body, [whereas] for those who have known themself within the body, oneself [called] ‘I’ shines without limit [boundary or extent] [as the one infinite whole, which alone exists and which is therefore the sole substance that appears as the body and everything else]. Consider that the difference between them is only this.

Nochur Venkatraman
For those who have not realized, as well as for the Self- realized jnani, the limitation, i.e. this body, is ‘I’. For the unrealized ajnani, the awareness of ‘I’ is limited to the extent of the body. But to those who have recognised the nature of ‘I AM’ within the body, the ‘I’ will shine forth as boundless awareness. This indeed is the difference between the two; know this for certain.

Sri Sadhu Om
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 the ajnani.

S.S. Cohen
18.To those who have not realized, the world is confined to the space it occupies. To those who have, it is the limitless substratum of the world.

To those who have realized the Self and to those who have not, the world is real. To the latter its reality is confined to the spatial measurements of the world, whereas to the former it is formless, and shines as the substratum of the world. This is the difference between the two.

The space which the world occupies is the limit of its reality to the ignorant (ajnani), but to the jnani it is the limitless substratum of the world. Science tells us that space is not material, that is, it is not made of atoms and molecules, like the objects which occupy it, to be visible to the eye. The perception of space by the eye is the worst illusion men suffer. Space is a mental concept, i.e. it is a project by the mind to make the reality of the world plausible. If space is a concept, so should be the objects that occupy it, notwithstanding their atoms and molecules. All the universes and galaxies in the Cosmos are made of atoms and nothing else. But what are atoms after all but the indestructible absolute energy? The jnani experiences this energy as the pure intelligence that is himself. The absolute reality is thus absolute energy as well as absolute energy as well as absolute consciousness – Sat as well as Chit – omnipotent, omnipresent as well as omniscient, the world as well as the creator and seer of the world.

Michael James
Verse 18: For those who do not know themself and for those who do, the world is real, but for the former reality is limited to the world, whereas for the latter it pervades without form as the substratum of the world.

English translation: For those who do not have knowledge, for those who have, the world is real. For those who do not know, reality is the extent of the world; for those who have known, reality pervades devoid of form as the support for the world. This is the difference between them. Consider.

Explanatory paraphrase: For those who do not have knowledge [of their real nature] and for those who have, the world is real. For those who do not know [their real nature], reality is [limited to] the extent of [the forms that constitute] the world, [whereas] for those who have known [their real nature], reality pervades devoid of form as the ādhāra [support, foundation or container] for [the appearance of the forms that constitute] the world. This is the difference between them. Consider.

Nochur Venkatraman
Both for the ignorant who do not have the awareness of the Self and for the sages who have the awareness, the world that is seen by the senses is real. For the ignorant, the reality is limited by the world whereas for the awakened, it shines forth as the formless effulgence – the substratum – on which the world appears and disappears. Know that this is the difference between the jnani and ajnani.

Sri Sadhu Om
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 experiencer of fate and the wielder of freewill, 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 GVK 522

S.S. Cohen
19.Arguments about destiny and free-will are carried on by those who have not realized. Those who have, are free from both.

Disputations as to which prevails over the other, fate or free-will, are for those who have no knowledge of the Self, which is the ground of both fate and free-will. Those who have realized this ground are free from both. Will they be caught by them again?

Fate or destiny is karma. Karma, like free-will, is unintelligent, and can thus affect only the unintelligent in man, namely, thebody, and not the intelligent being, how is the lord of the body. When realization of this is achieved, karma and free-will will have no feet to stand on and will crumble to dust of their own accord.

The scholar do not worry over whether destiny and free-will affect the individual or his body, but argue about which of them dominates the other in its operation. Our own approach to this question is simple. We exercise our will freely and let karma take care of itself. Vasishta Muni exhorts Rama to make constant efforts in his sadhana and forget about all the complexities of destiny. He compares karma and free-will to two battling rams, of which the stronger will always win in the end. Thus strong efforts will overcome destiny.

Some theorists stretch themselves so far as to believe that even the exercise of the will is predestined, that is, destiny is always dominant, leaving no room for freedom of the will. If they are right, then religion, ethical conduct, obedience to moral laws, service of man and humane actions are wasted effort, and evil-doing will be on par with virtuous deeds. Moreover, men out be no better than machines which produce what is put into them, or than animals which are not responsible for their actions and thus, not liable to punishment or reward. Fortunately it is not so: the admission of punishment and reward, which is the fundamental condition in the operation of karma, inevitably leads to the admission of free-will. Karma begins to operate only after the will has been exercised ad libitum. The genesis is free-will not karma, which follows it like its shadow.

Michael James
Verse 19: Dispute about which prevails, fate or will, arises only for those who do not discern the ego as the root of them both, but if one knows the reality of the ego, one will thereby discard them.

English translation: Only for those who do not have discernment of the root of fate and will is there dispute about which prevails, fate or will. Those who have known themself, who is the one origin for fate and will, have discarded them. Will they thereafter be associated with them? Say.

Explanatory paraphrase: Only for those who do not have vidhi-mati-mūla-vivēkam [ability to distinguish or discern the root of fate (vidhi) and will (mati), namely ego] is there dispute about which prevails, fate or will. Those who have known [the reality of] themself [ego], who is the one origin [cause or foundation] for fate and will, have [thereby] discarded them [because ego as such does not actually exist, since its reality is not what it seems to be but just pure awareness, so when one knows oneself as pure awareness the appearance of ego will be dissolved forever, and thus one will have discarded not only ego but also its fate and will]. Will they thereafter be associated with them? Say.

Nochur Venkatraman
This debate whether fate prevails over free-will or free- will over fate is only meant for those ignorant ones who know not the source of both. Those who have known the source of the ego – the Atman, transcend both. Will they ever slip back to the misery born of the ridiculous puzzle there- after? Do think clearly and tell.

Sri Sadhu Om
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.

S.S. Cohen
20.Seeing the Self is seeing God, so the Self is not other than God.

Without seeing the Self, the seeing of God is a mental image. Seeing the Self is seeing God, they say. Completely losing the ego and seeing the Self is finding God; for the Self is not other than God.

The Great Western religions hold that the question of whether there is a God other than man is sacrilegious. The supremacy of God over man, they argue, is so self-evident that the very question is derogatory to God Almighty. Bhagavan answers the question in the negative because, whereas the Western theologians take man to be the nearest dust, the corruptible body, Bhagavan takes him to be the spirit or life within the body, which is infinite and eternal.

Those who have no experience of the Self but claim to have seen God, Bhagavan asserts, have seen only their own mental picture of God resembling their own physical picture more or less, having a shape, color, size, etc. which God the pure Spirit simply does not have.

Michael James
Verse 20: Seeing God without seeing oneself is seeing a mental vision, so only one who has seen oneself, the origin of one’s ego, is one who has seen God, because oneself is not other than God.

English translation: Leaving oneself, who sees, oneself seeing God is seeing a mental vision. Only one who sees oneself, the origin of oneself, is one who has seen God, because the origin, oneself, going, oneself is not other than God.

Explanatory paraphrase: Leaving [letting go of, neglecting, ignoring or not investigating] oneself [namely ego], who sees [all things other than oneself], oneself seeing God is seeing a mental vision [a mind-constituted image, phenomenon or appearance]. Only one who sees oneself [one’s real nature], the origin [base or foundation] of oneself [namely ego], is one who has seen God, because oneself [one’s real nature], [which alone is what remains] when oneself [namely ego], the origin [root or foundation of all other things], goes, is not other than God.

Nochur Venkatraman
To see God, ignoring ‘the seer’ who sees, is but to see the form of one’s imagined mental projection. Once the ‘I’, the primal thought is erased that which remains as the Self is none other than God. Therefore, the one who has seen the essence of one’s ‘I’, the pure awareness, the source of the rise and subsidence of the ego, alone has seen ‘That’, the supreme.

Sri Sadhu Om
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-realisation 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 an 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 Bhagavan in the next verse.

S.S. Cohen
21.To see God is to be absorbed by God.

God is the Self, we said, but ’how to see one’s own Self’, which has no second to perceive or reflect it? Here seeing the Self is knowing the Self, the Self being pure knowledge, itself the seer and itself the seen. Knower and known are thus one and same being. Therefore seeing God is being dissolved in God or Self.

’Being single’ draws attention to the freedom of man from his upadhis (adjuncts), which are anything but ’single’ with their koshas, organs, faculties, and their manifold qualities such as shape, size, color, smell and taste. Therefore to be himself, that is to be ’single’, man the ego had to shed all these superfluities which he has been mistaking for himself, and remain as conscious ness in the heart. That is the true vision or true being of God.

Michael James
Verse 21: since oneself is one, how is oneself to see oneself, and how to see God, except by becoming food to him?

English translation: If one asks what is the truth of many texts that say ‘oneself seeing oneself’, ‘seeing God’: Since oneself is one, how is oneself to see oneself? If it is not possible to see, how to see God? Becoming food is seeing.

Explanatory paraphrase: If anyone asks what is the truth of many texts that talk of ‘oneself seeing oneself’ and ‘seeing God’ [the reply is]: Since oneself is one, how is oneself to see oneself? If it is not possible [for oneself] to see [oneself], how [is oneself] to see God [who is the real nature of oneself]? Becoming food [to God] is seeing [both oneself and God]. [In other words, ego being swallowed and consumed entirely by the infinite light of pure awareness is alone real seeing.]

Nochur Venkatraman
All books on jnana declare that to see one’s own Self is to see God, the primal being. The import of this saying is that the awareness ‘I am’ is but singular, how can one see the Atman shining as one’s own Self? Who is the seer then? Since seeing oneself by oneself is not possible, how can one see God, the primal being? Becoming ‘food’ for God is to see Him.

Sri Sadhu Om
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?’.

S.S. Cohen
22.God shines in the mind. But to know God the mind has to turn inward.

The Lord shines within the mind, illuminating it. Unless it turn inward and be fixed in the Lord, it is not possible for the mind to know Him.

Mind here is jiva which , working through its manas (the faculty of the lower intellect), perceives the world and remains always preoccupied with it. Being an intelligent knower, the jiva is not other than the Lord Himself, but because it is in constant contact with the world, it can have no knowledge of Him, or, what is the same, of itself. To have this knowledge, all it has to do is to turn its attention inwards to the Heart, where the Lord is seated. This is the same as renouncing the adjuncts mentioned in the last note.

Michael James
Verse 22: How to know God, who shines within the mind illumining it, except by turning the mind back within and thereby immersing it in him?

English translation: Except by, turning the mind back within, completely immersing it in God, who shines within that mind giving light to the mind, how to fathom God by the mind? Consider.

Explanatory paraphrase: Except by turning [bending or folding] mati [the mind or intellect] back within [and thereby] completely immersing [embedding or fixing] it in pati [the Lord or God], who shines [as pure awareness] within that mind giving light [of awareness] to the mind, how to fathom [or investigate and know] God by the mind? Consider.

Nochur Venkatraman
The Lord shines in the cave of the heart illumining and enlivening the intellect and the mind and through them everything else. To know Him one has to withdraw the mind from the world and should make it abide firmly in the Self, the Lord. Without merging thus, how can one measure the immeasurable being with the mind?

Sri Sadhu Om
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 nonexistent. 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 enquiries’, and added the word ‘nazhuvum’, which means ‘it will slip away’.

S.S. Cohen
23.Although the world disappears with the “I”, the “I” continues to exist in sleep as in waking.

The body does not say “I”. In sleep no one admits he is not. The “I” emerging, all else emerges. Inquire with a keen mind whence this “I” arises.

The body, being insentient, knows nothing about “I” and “not-I”, yet the “I” persists with or without a body – in the waking state or in sleep or swoon -as the man who himself wakes, swoons and sleeps. To know the true nature of this perennial “I”, we have to conduct an inquiry into its source.

Michael James
Verse 23: This body is not aware of itself as ‘I’, and ‘I’ does not cease to exist in sleep, but after something called ‘I’ rises, everything rises, so keenly discern where it rises

English translation: This body does not say ‘I’. No one says ‘In sleep I do not exist’. After one thing, ‘I’, rises, everything rises. Contemplate by a subtle mind where this ‘I’ rises.

Explanatory paraphrase: This body does not say ‘I’ [that is, it is not aware of itself as ‘I’]. No one says ‘In sleep I do not exist’ [even though one was then not aware of this or any other body]. [Therefore neither this nor any other body can be what I actually am, but in waking and dream an awareness rises as ‘I am this body’.] After one thing [called] ‘I’ [namely ego, the awareness that rises as ‘I am this body’] rises, everything rises. Contemplate [investigate, discern, determine or ascertain] by nuṇ mati [a subtle, refined, sharp, keen, acute, precise, meticulous and discerning mind or intellect] where this ‘I’ rises.

Nochur Venkatraman
This body, being inert, will not say ‘I’ on its own. No one denies one’s existence by saying ‘I do not exist’ in deep sleep.Only when the ‘l’-thought arises (in the form of I am so and so) on waking, all other thoughts (God, jiva, world) follow.Investigate with a keen intellect whence the ‘I’ (the ego sense) emerges. When thus sought, the ego sense merges in itssource and vanishes.

Sri Sadhu Om
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 the 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

S.S. Cohen
24.Neither the body nor the Self says “I”: between them the ego rises and ties them together.

The insentient body does not say “I.” The ever-existent consciousness is not born (thus cannot say “I”). The “I” of the size of the body springs up between the two: it is known as chit-jadagranthi (the knot which ties together the sentient and insentient), bondage, individuality, ego, subtle body, samsara, mind, etc.

The body, unaware of its own existence, does not say “I”; and the Self which pure spirit, pure intelligence, has never come to and so, also, does not say “I.” But somehow the intelligence under the compelling power of avidya (ignorance) assumes a body, comes to identify itself with this body and to call itself “I,” thus tying together body and soul in a knot, which is known as the knot of ignorance in the heart – literally the sentience-insentience knot. It is an extremely hard knot which defies centuries of births, but breaks of its own accord when Self-realization is achieved, and bondage and ignorance are destroyed forever.

“Samsara” means going round on the wheel of birth and death. In India, the wife is significantly also called samsara.

Michael James
Verse 24: The jaḍa body is not aware of itself as ‘I’, and sat-cit does not rise, but in between something called ‘I’ rises as the extent of the body, and this is cit-jaḍa-granthi, the ego, mind and so on

English translation: The insentient body does not say ‘I’; being-awareness does not rise; in between one thing, ‘I’, rises as the extent of the body. This is the awareness-insentience-knot, bondage, soul, subtle body, ego, this wandering and mind. Know.

Explanatory paraphrase: The jaḍa [insentient] body does not say ‘I’; sat-cit [being-awareness] does not rise; [but] in between [these two] one thing [called] ‘I’ rises as the extent of the body. This [the spurious adjunct-conflated awareness that rises as ‘I am this body’] is cit-jaḍa-granthi [the knot (granthi) formed by the entanglement of awareness (cit) with an insentient (jaḍa) body, binding them together as if they were one], bandha [bondage], jīva [life or soul], nuṭpa mey [subtle body], ahandai [ego], this saṁsāra [wandering, revolving, perpetual movement, restless activity, worldly existence, embodied condition or the cycle of birth and death] and manam [mind]. Know.

Nochur Venkatraman
The inert body will not say ‘I’ on its own. Sat-chit (being-awareness) too will not arise as ‘I’. Between these two, something appears as ‘I’ with the body as its limit. This ‘I’, connecting the chit (awareness) and the jaḍa (the matter), binds them in a knot. Know that it is called variously as chit-jada-granthi, bondage, jiva, sūkṣma śarīra (subtle body), samsara (the cycle of birth and death) and the mind.

Sri Sadhu Om
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 through 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 nonexistent)! 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 everyone 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 ego. 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.

S.S. Cohen
25.The ego takes a body and accomplishes various acts. It takes one body after another till it is destroyed by vichara.

Know that this formless ghost (the ego or “I”) springs up in a form (body). Taking a form it lives, feeds and grows. Leaving a form it picks up another, but when it is inquired into, it drops the form and takes to flight.

The ego is a veritable ghost. A ghost is a disembodied spirit that takes on a shadowy appearance to play the living being and hoax people. The ego also is formless spirit – the Atman itself – but it picks up a body and; without knowing it; hoaxes others as well as itself. It begins its samsaric career by identifying itself with the body to enjoy the good things of the world. It reaps the retribution of falling into abysmal avidya (ignorance), losing memory of its true nature, and acquiring the false notions of having a birth, of acting, eating and growing, of accumulating wealth, marrying and begetting children, of being diseased; hungry and miserable and finally, of dying. But when the time of its redemption draws near, it undertakes an investigation of its real nature, sheds its identification with the body, transcends its previous illusions and becomes free once again, full of the bliss of self-discovery and self-knowledge (jnana).

Michael James
Verse 25: Grasping form the formless phantom-ego comes into existence, stands, feeds itself and flourishes, but if it seeks itself, it will take flight

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 sought, 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 sought [that is, if it seeks, examines or investigates itself], it will take flight [because it has no form of its own, and hence it cannot seem to exist without grasping the forms of other things as itself and as its food or sustenance]. [Such is the nature of this] formless phantom [fiend, demon or evil spirit] ego. [Therefore] investigate [it] [or know thus].

Nochur Venkatraman
What a wonder! Holding a form the ego arises; holding a form it stays; continuing the hold, feeding on the food of the senses, experiencing pleasure and pain, and by the strength of the vāsanās of these experiences, it thrives. Leaving one form, it takes hold of another; when sought, it flees. Such is the ego-ghost with no form of its own.

Sri Sadhu Om
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!

S.S. Cohen
26.The ego being the all, surrendering it is surrendering all.

The ego existing, all else exists. The ego not existing, nothing else exists. The ego is thus all. Inquiring as to what the ego is, is therefore surrendering all.

Verse fourteen also makes the ego, or “I” the all. But here, we are led to draw the conclusion that true surrender is the surrender of the ego (which is the totality of the not-Self, or “everything”) and that the same surrender can be achieved by the method of vichara spoken of before.

Michael James
Verse 26: If the ego comes into existence, everything comes into existence, and if it does not exist, nothing exists, so investigating what it is is giving up everything

English translation: If ego comes into existence, everything comes into existence; if ego does not exist, everything does not exist. Ego itself is everything. Therefore, know that investigating what this is alone is giving up everything.

Explanatory paraphrase: If ego [the false awareness ‘I am this body’] comes into existence, everything [all phenomena, everything that appears and disappears, everything other than our pure, fundamental, unchanging and immutable awareness ‘I am’] comes into existence; if ego does not exist, everything does not exist [because nothing other than pure awareness actually exists, so everything else seems to exist only in the view of ego, and hence it cannot seem to exist unless ego seems to exist]. [Therefore] ego itself is everything [because it is the original seed or embryo, which alone is what expands as everything else]. Therefore, know that investigating what this [namely ego] is alone is giving up everything [or is everything ceasing] [because ego will cease to exist if it investigates itself keenly enough, and when it ceases to exist everything else will cease to exist along with it].

Nochur Venkatraman
When the ego, the cause of everything, rises as ‘I’, all the world appearances and perceptions rise along with it. If the ego rises not, all perceptions disappear. The ego verily is all, appearing as all. To seek, to enquire and to know its nature and whence it rises is to renounce everything.

Sri Sadhu Om
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 ( 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.

S.S. Cohen
27.To destroy the ego the source of its emergence has to be sought and retained as the real state.

The non-emergence of the “I” is the state of being THAT. With- out seeking and attaining the place whence the “I” emerges, how is one to achieve self-extinction-the non-emergence of the “I”? Without that achievement, how is one to abide as THAT-one’s true state?

The non-emergence of the “I” means egolessness, the natural state of being or THAT. To stop the ego from rising we have to find the place of its emergence and annihilate it there, before it emerges, so that we may consciously ever abide as THAT, egoless, in the heart, as we unconsciously do in sleep. The word “place” stands here for Heart.

Michael James
Verse 27: The state in which the ego does not rise is the state in which we are that, but without investigating the place where it rises, how can one annihilate it and stand as that?

English translation: The state in which one exists without ‘I’ rising is the state in which we exist as that. Without investigating the place where ‘I’ rises, how to reach the annihilation of oneself, in which ‘I’ does not rise? Without reaching, how to stand in the state of oneself, in which oneself is that? Say.

Explanatory paraphrase: The state in which one exists without ‘I’ [ego] rising is the state in which we exist as that [brahman, the ultimate reality and infinite whole, the nature of which is pure self-awareness, uncontaminated by the appearance of anything else]. Without investigating the place [namely one’s fundamental awareness of one’s own existence, ‘I am’] where [from which or in which] ‘I’ rises, how to reach [achieve or take refuge in] the annihilation of oneself [ego], [the state] in which ‘I’ does not rise? [In other words, the only way to annihilate ego is to investigate oneself, the source from which it rises, because only when one investigates oneself will one see oneself as one actually is, and only when one sees oneself as one actually is will one forever cease rising as ego, the false awareness that rises and subsides as ‘I am this body’.] [And] without reaching [or taking refuge in] [the annihilation of ego], how to stand [stop, stay or abide] in the [real] state of oneself, in which oneself is that? Say [or explain].

Nochur Venkatraman
The pure state where the ‘I’ does not arise is the state where we are ‘That’ the Atman. Without plunging deep in enquiry to find from where the ‘I’- thought arises, how can the extinction of the ego be achieved? Without the ego thus getting eliminated, how can one abide firmly in the state in which one is ‘That’? Tell me.

Sri Sadhu Om
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 ezhumidattai), 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

S.S. Cohen
28.The seeking has to be deep within one-self like diving to recover a precious object that has fallen in deep waters.

Like the diver who dives to recover what has fallen into deep water, controlling speech and breath and with a keen mind, one must dive into himself and find whence the “I” emerges.

The basic theme of many of the previous verses, it must have been ob- served, is the vichara, through which the search for the ego’s source has to be made. Deep diving is a metaphor that implies salvaging the ego from the depths of ignorance into which it has fallen, not amateurishly but very ex- pertly and unremittingly, or else success will be sporadic and even doubtful. Bhagavan means that this sadhak’s life should be dedicated to Realization and to nothing else, for who knows what obstacles destiny will raise against him to bar his march to the highest in future lives? So he asks us to turn into divers right now, controlling speech and breath. Breath-control is equivalent to mental silence (suspension of thoughts), which has to be practiced alongside the inquiry in order to train the mind to be alone, kaivalya (thought- free), when it will perceive itself in its natural purity, the mot previous Self, “whence the I emerges.”

Michael James
Verse 28: Like sinking to find something that has fallen in water, sinking within by a keenly focused mind it is necessary to know oneself, the source where the ego rises

English translation: Like sinking wanting to see something that has fallen in water, sinking within restraining speech and breath by a sharpened mind it is necessary to know the place where the rising ego rises. Know.

Explanatory paraphrase: Like sinking [submerging, immersing or plunging] wanting [needing or in order] to see [find or discover] something that has fallen in water, sinking [submerging, immersing, diving, plunging or piercing] within [oneself] restraining speech and breath by kūrnda mati [a sharpened, pointed, keen, acute, penetrating and discerning mind or intellect] it is necessary to know the place [namely one’s real nature, which is pure awareness] where [from which or in which] the rising ego rises. Know [or be aware].

Nochur Venkatraman
As one would dive deep into a well or a pond, holding one’s breath in order to recover an article, one should plunge into one’s heart holding speech and breath and with a keen intellect find the source from where the ego ‘I’ emerges. This is the only way to extinguish the ego; know this.

Sri Sadhu Om
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 here verses 32 and 36 of this work.

S.S. Cohen
29.The vichara is not muttering “I” but sinking the mind into its source.

Seeking the source of the “I” with a mind turned inwards and no uttering of the word “I” is indeed the path of knowledge. Meditation on “I am not this, I am that” is an aid to the inquiry, but not the inquiry itself.

Bhagavan misses no opportunity of reminding us that the quest “who am I?” is not a formula to be repeated mechanically like an incantation, but an intellectual activity into the nature of the “I” which is carried out until its base is fully grasped and its source is reached. The whole process is dialectical, involving the exercise of the logical faculty, till it ends in the silence of the heart, which transcends all faculties. Some suggestive formula such as “I am THAT” may be used to being with, but in course of time it has to turn into an unshakable conviction, side by side with the stilling of the mind as mentioned in the previous commentary, which gradually grows in depth and duration. That is why the path of the vichara is known as the path of knowlege (jnana marga).

Michael James
Verse 29: Investigating by an inward sinking mind where one rises as ‘I’ alone is the path of jñāna, whereas thinking ‘I am not this, I am that’ is an aid but not vicāra

English translation: Not saying ‘I’ by mouth, investigating by an inward sinking mind where one rises as ‘I’ alone is the path of knowledge. Instead, thinking ‘not this, I am that’ is an aid; is it investigation?

Explanatory paraphrase: Without saying ‘I’ by mouth, investigating by an inward sinking [submerging, immersing, diving, plunging or piercing] mind where one rises as ‘I’ is alone the path of jñāna [the means to experience jñāna, real knowledge or pure awareness, which is one’s true nature]. Instead, thinking ‘[I am] not this [body or mind], I am that [brahman]’ is an aid, [but] is it vicāra [investigation (in the sense of self-investigation)]?

Nochur Venkatraman
Not uttering aloud ‘I’, ‘I’ but with the mind diving deep within, to enquire, seek and know, whence this ‘I’ arises is the sādhana in the path of jnana (supreme wisdom). Instead, to meditate with an imagined attitude of ‘I am not this body; I am That (Brahman)’ is a helpful aid, but can it suffice by itself as a direct sadhana of ātma vichāra or Self-enquiry?

Sri Sadhu Om
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 ezhumidattai), 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

S.S. Cohen
30.On reaching the heart, the “I” subsides and the real “I-I” manifests in its place.

Inquiring “Who am I?” within the mind, and reaching the heart, the “I” collapses. Instantly, the real “I” appears (as “I-I”), which although it manifests itself as “I” is not the ego, but the true being.

What happens to the “I” which has found its own source and collapsed? The meaning is that the “I” which has not been aware of its own reality has now, through inquiry, come face to face with it, and has turned from the notion of being a mortal body to the realization of being the shining sea of consciousness. This is the ’collapse’ of the false “I” giving place to the true “I”, which is eternally present as “I-I” – “I” without end or beginning. We must not forget that there is only one, secondless “I”, whether we view it as ego,totally sunk in the pleasures of the world and in ignorance, or as Self, the substratum and source of the world.

“Inquiring within the mind who am I?” is an affirmation once again, that the quest has to be carried out with the mind.

Michael James
Verse 30: As soon as the ego dies by inwardly investigating who am I, one thing appears spontaneously as ‘I am I’, which is not the ego but the infinite substance, namely oneself

English translation: As soon as the mind reaches the heart inwardly investigating who am I, when he who is ‘I’ dies, one thing appears spontaneously as ‘I am I’. Though it appears, it is not ‘I’. It is the whole, the substance, the substance that is oneself.

Explanatory paraphrase: As soon as the mind reaches the heart [its core and essence, which is pure awareness] [by] inwardly investigating who am I, when [thereby] he who is ‘I’ [ego] dies, one thing [or the one] appears spontaneously [or as oneself] as ‘I am I’ [that is, as awareness of oneself as oneself alone]. Though it appears, it is not ‘I’ [namely ego]. It is pūṉḏṟam [the whole or pūrṇa, which is infinite, eternal and unchanging], the poruḷ [the real substance or vastu], the poruḷ that is oneself.

Nochur Venkatraman
When the mind, turned inward seeking itself, enquiring ‘Who am I?’, reaches the heart, the ego-‘I’, put to shame, hangs its head, subsides and sinks into the heart. Then one as ‘I-l’ appears of its own accord, unceasingly and effortlessly. But this is not the subjective ‘I’, the ego. It is the Atman, the infinite, the whole.

Sri Sadhu Om
When it (the Reality) surges forth and appears (as ‘I-I’), for Him (the Jnani) who enjoys the bliss of Self, which has (thus) risen by destroying the (individual) self (the ego), what single thing exists to do? He does not know anything other than Self (which shines as the one reality); (therefore) how to (or who can) conceive what His state is?

Note: Compare here verse 15 of Upadesa Undiyar

S.S. Cohen
31.Having extinguished the ego the jnani has no other purpose in life but to remain im- mersed in the bliss of the Self.

What remains to be done by him, who, having extinguished the ego, remains immersed in the bliss of the Self? He is aware of nothing but the Self. Who can understand his state?

The purpose of all human endeavors, conscious or unconscious, is the gaining of happiness. The unwise seeks it outside himself in wealth, mat- rimony, high political and social positions, fame, worldly achievements and pleasure of all sorts. The wise knows that the happiness that comes from an outside cause is illusory due to its precarious nature and its inability even temporarily to confer contentment without trouble, fear, and endless anxiety. Lasting, undiluted happiness is one’s very nature, and thus within the grasp of anyone who earnestly seeks it. One who has gained this inner beatitude has no further actions to do, nor purpose to achieve. All his aspirations hav- ing been fulfilled, his sole preoccupation remains that ocean of bliss, which passes the understanding of the common man.

Michael James
Verse 31: When the ego is destroyed by tanmayānanda, there is nothing to do, because one is not aware of anything other than oneself, so who can conceive such a state?

English translation: For those who are happiness composed of that, which rose destroying themself, what one exists for doing? They do not know anything other than themself; who can conceive their state as ‘like this’?

Explanatory paraphrase: For those who are [blissfully immersed in and as] tanmayānanda [happiness composed of that, namely brahman, one’s real nature], which rose [as ‘I am I’] destroying themself [ego], what one [action] exists for doing? They do not know [or are not aware of] anything other than themself; [so] who can [or how to] conceive their state as ‘[it is] like this’?

Nochur Venkatraman
A jīvanmukta who has been reborn as his true Self, having rooted out his ego-self, rejoices in the bliss of the Self. What else remains for him to accomplish? He is unaware of anything as ‘the other’ apart from his own Atman. Who can conceive or comprehend by the mind such a supremely exalted state?

Sri Sadhu Om
When the holy scriptures proclaim, “You are That, which is declared to be the Supreme”, instead of oneself knowing and being oneself (by scrutinizing) ‘What (am I)?’, thinking, “I am That (the supreme) and not this (the body composed of five sheaths)”, is due to the absence of strength (that is, due to the absence of maturity of mind), because That indeed always exists as oneself (one’s own Reality).

S.S. Cohen
32.Although the Vedas say “Thou art THAT”, to not investigate into one’s nature and “abide as THAT” is mental weakness.

Despite the Vedas proclaiming “Thou art THAT”, it is sheer weak-mindedness not to investigate into the nature of oneself and abide as the Self, but instead to go on thinking “THAT I am, not this.”

The main point of this verse is that when the Vedas tell us that we are THAT, we are in duty bound to conduct an inquiry into ourselves in order to experience the truth of it and abide at THAT or the Self, rather than just mechanically thinking that we are not the body but THAT. Investigation and meditation will eventually rise above the body-thought, and will reach the tanumanasi state (the rarefied mind) through which the pure awareness can be directly apprehended. This is the silent heart itself.

Michael James
Verse 32: when the Vēdas proclaim ‘That is you’, instead of knowing and being oneself by investigating what am I, thinking ‘I am that, not this’ is due to lack of strength

English translation: When the Vēdas proclaim ‘That is you’, instead of oneself being knowing oneself as ‘what?’, thinking ‘I am that, not this’ is due to non-existence of strength, because that alone is always seated as oneself.

Explanatory paraphrase: When the Vēdas proclaim ‘That is you’, instead of oneself being [as one is] [by] knowing oneself [by investigating] what [am I], thinking ‘I am that [brahman], not this [body or mind]’ is due to non-existence [destitution or deficiency] of strength [of bhakti and vairāgya] [and consequent lack of clarity of heart and mind], because that [brahman] alone [or that itself] is always seated [calmly] as oneself.

Nochur Venkatraman
The glorious Upanishads have proclaimed that Brahman, the supreme truth is you – Tat Tvam Asi. Having received that upadeśa, instead of seeking within the heart with the enquiry, ‘What is my real nature?’ and abiding as Brahman, thinking or meditating ‘I am that, I am not this’, is due to lack of faith in Guru and firmness of conviction in the śāstrās.

Sri Sadhu Om
Besides that, saying (either), “I do not know myself”, (or), “I have known myself”, is a wide ground for ridicule. Why? To make oneself an object known, are there two selves (one of which can be known by the other)? Because, being one is the truth of everyone’s experience (that is, whether they be a Jnani or an ajnani, everyone experiences the truth ‘I am one’).

S.S. Cohen
33.Self-knowledge is not duality: the Self being single, it is itself both the object as well as the subject.

It is ludicrous to think “I know myself”, or “I do not know my- self”, admitting thereby two selves, one the object of the other. That the Self is only one is the experience of all.

To know a thing is to create a duality-the knower and the known. But in self-knowledge there can be no duality, the known being the knower himself, the object and the subject being one and the same identify.

It is common experience that the “I” is unqualified and single: it is neither divisible into parts nor tainted by qualities. However fat or lean, old or young, learned or ignorant, rich or poor, whole or dismembered one may be, one is aware of oneself only as “I” devoid of any attributes. The bare “I”, “I”, “I” is the primary cognition of everyone, preceding the “mine” cognition, the body and all its appertenances, and all its thoughts. This shows that the Self is non-dual, homogeneous and indivisible, and can abide pure by itself with no thoughts to disturb it, being itself not a thought, but the intuitive recognition of oneself as the eternal knower, the pivot-more correctly, the substance-of all one knows. It is evident that the “I” being pure indivisible consciousness, is experienced by the jnani as the same in all.

Michael James
Verse 33: saying ‘I do not know myself’ or ‘I have known myself’ is ridiculous, because there are not two selves for one to know the other as an object

English translation: Saying ‘I do not know myself’, ‘I have known myself’, is ground for ridicule. Why? To make oneself an object, are there two selves? Because being one is the truth, the experience of everyone.

Explanatory paraphrase: Saying [either] ‘I do not know myself’ [or] ‘I have known myself’ is ground for ridicule. Why? To make oneself viṣaya [an object, something known as other than oneself, the knower], are there two selves [a knowing self and a known self]? Because being one is the truth, [as is known by] the experience of everyone. [That is, since we always experience ourself as one, we are never not aware of ourself, so ātma-jñāna (self-knowledge or self-awareness) is not something that we are yet to attain but is our very nature, and hence what is called the attainment of ātma-jñāna is actually not a gain of anything but a loss of everything along with its root, ego, which is merely a false awareness of ourself (an awareness of ourself as something other than what we actually are), and when ego is lost there is no one left to say ‘I have known myself’, because what remains is only our real nature, which is pure, infinite, eternal and immutable awareness.]

Nochur Venkatraman
Both the statements, ‘I do not know myself’ and ‘I know myself’ invite ridicule. Why is it so? Are there two selves, one to be known by the other? Can the awareness ‘I am’ be dual? Indeed, the awareness of the Self shines forth as one in the experience of all.

Sri Sadhu Om
Instead of firmly abiding as the Reality, which always exists without even a single thought as the nature of everyone, by knowing (that Reality) in the Heart, where it exists (or by knowing it with the mind merging within), disputing, ‘It (the Reality) exists’, ‘It does not exist’, ‘(It has) form’, ‘(It is) formless’, ‘(It is) one (or non-dual)’, ‘(It is) two (or dual)’, ‘It is not (either one or two)’, is ignorance (born) of illusion (maya). Give up (all such disputes)!

Note: The words ‘ondrum ulattu ul’ can give two meanings, namely (i) in the Heart, where it (the reality) exists’, and (2) ‘with the mind merging within’.

S.S. Cohen
34.Disputing the nature of the Self without attempting Self-realization merely constitutes delusion.

Without trying to realise in the heart that reality which is the true nature of all, and without trying to abide in it, to engage in disputations as to whether the reality exists or not, or is real or not, denotes delusion born of ignorance.

The theme of the previous verse continues. The realization of one’s Self is the realization of the true nature of all else, the Self being single and homogeneous. Disputations deepen the ignorance and not infrequently lead to acrimony, anger, hatred, and jealousy among the disputants, not to speak of the vanity and arrogance they create in the hearts of the winners. They should thus be shunned by seekers of Truth and of Peace everlasting.

Michael James
Verse 34: Instead of merging the mind within and thereby knowing and standing firmly as the real substance, quarrelling about its existence and nature is mischief born of māyā

English translation: Not standing firmly knowing the substance, which always exists for everyone as nature, in the mind that merges within, quarrelling saying ‘It exists’, ‘It does not exist’, ‘Form’, ‘Formless’, ‘One’, ‘Two’, ‘Neither’, is delusion-mischief.

Explanatory paraphrase: Instead of standing firmly [as pure, infinite, eternal and immutable awareness] knowing poruḷ [the real substance, namely pure awareness], which always exists for everyone as [their real] nature, in the mind that merges within [or in the heart, where it exists as one], quarrelling [fighting or disputing] saying ‘It exists’, ‘It does not exist’, ‘[It is a] form’, ‘[It is] formless’, ‘[It is] one’, ‘[It is] two’, ‘[It is] neither [one nor two]’, is māyā-mischief [mischief, wickedness or defectiveness born of māyā, delusion or self-ignorance].

Nochur Venkatraman
The Self is ever-attained and experienced by all as their very nature. One has to make the mind abide in it with rigorous refusal to harbour any thought. Instead of abiding in the heart, by recollecting one’s real nature and gaining perfect identity with that, to dispute and quarrel ‘That (reality) exists’; ‘no, it exists not’; ‘It is with form’; ‘no, it is without form’; ‘It is one’; ‘no, two’; is nothing but the deluding power of māyā. Shun it.

Sri Sadhu Om
The subsided mind having subsided, knowing and being the Reality, which is (always) attained, is the (true) attainment (siddhi). All other siddhis are merely (like) siddhis acquired in dream; if one wakes up from sleep, will they be real? Will those who, by abiding in the real state (of self knowledge) have discarded the unreal state (of Self forgetfulness), be deluded (by those unreal siddhis)? (Therefore) know and be (as) you (the Reality) are.

Note: The word ‘siddhi’ means attainment in general and the attainment of occult powers in particular. Our present life in this world, our so-called waking state, is truly nothing but a dream occurring in the long sleep of self forgetfulness;. Therefore any occult powers (siddhis) that we may acquire in this dream will be found to be unreal when, by abiding in the real state of Self-knowledge, we wake up from the unreal state, the sleep of self-forgetfulness.

Also refer verse 15 & 16 of Ulladu Narpadu Anubandam

S.S. Cohen
35. Thaumaturgic powers are like dream-magic: they do not entrap the Self-realized.

To seek and abide in that which is always attained is true attainment. All other attainments, such as siddhis (thaumaturgic powers), are like those acquired in dreams, which prove to be un real on waking. Can they who are established in reality and are rid of illusions be ensnared by them?

Sometimes we dream that we are flying in the air, or leaping over precipices hundreds of feet wide, or stopping a running motor car with a light touch of the hand, or doing things which, in the waking state, would appear miraculous, yet prove unreal on waking. The siddhis exhibited in the waking state appear to the man who has freed himself from illusion exactly like the dream miracles – utterly false. The greatest of all miracles and all siddhis is the discovery of and eternal abidance in, oneself.

In the olden days occasionally a youth used to come to Ramanasram with the intention of using Bhagavan’s presence to promote the success of his pursuit of siddhis. One or two of them were reasonable enough to listen to the advice of the devotees and quit the Ashram before it was too late. But one, more persistent that the others, continued to interfere with his uvula and the posterior membrane of his tongue, ignoring all advice to desist, until after two or three weeks his people had to be called to take him away. These were lucky to be saved from the pitfalls of siddhis. Many others had their siddhis turned on them like boomerangs adversely affecting their physical and mental constitutions. Siddhis come naturally to the very few, due to yogic practices carried out during their previous sadhana and karmic determinations. These people are safe and sometimes helpful to humanity, if the behave reasonably in the sadhana of this life. They are likely to attain mukti if they are lucky and favorably disposed – sattvic in other words.

“That which is always attained” refers to the Self, which is always present at the true nature of the ego whether ego is conscious of it or not (see comment on verse 30) before the birth of the body, during its existence and after its disintegration at death.

Michael James
Verse 35: Knowing and being the ever-accomplished real substance is the real siddhi, whereas all other siddhis are unreal, like siddhis experienced in a dream.

English translation: Being knowing the substance, which exists as accomplished, is accomplishment. All other accomplishments are just accomplishments achieved in dream; if one wakes up leaving sleep, are they real? Will those who, standing in the real state, have left unreality be deluded? Know.

Explanatory paraphrase: Being [as one actually is] knowing poruḷ [the one real substance, which is oneself], which exists as siddham [what is always accomplished], is [real] siddhi [accomplishment]. All other siddhis [such as the aṣṭa-siddhis, eight kinds of paranormal powers that some people try to achieve by meditation or other yōga practices] are just siddhis achieved [or experienced] in dream; if one wakes up leaving [this] sleep [of self-ignorance], are they real? Will those who, standing [firmly] in the real state [of pure awareness], have left unreality [or illusion, namely the unreal states of waking and dream] be deluded [by such unreal siddhis]? Know.

Nochur Venkatraman
With the deep ‘innering’ to know the Self, that forever shines as the ‘ever-attained reality’, and to be established as ‘I am That’ alone is truly the perfect siddhi (attainment). All other siddhis (attainments of supernatural or occult powers) are as unreal as the attainments seen in dreams. Will they be real on waking up from sleep? No. Will those jīvanmuktas (the liberated ones) who are firmly poised in the Self, having woken up from the sleep of delusion, ever be deluded by the lure of siddhis? Be convinced of this and abide.

Sri Sadhu Om
If we think, having delusion, that we are the body, thinking, ‘No (we are not this body), we are That (the Reality)’, will be a good aid for (reminding and encouraging) us to abide as That. (However) since we (in truth ever) abide as That, why to think always, ‘We are That’? Does one (always) think, ‘I am a man’? (That is, in order to be a man, does a man always need to meditate, I am a man, I am a man?)

Note: Refer to the note to verse 29 of this work, where it is explained how meditating, “I am not this body, I am That”, may in the beginning be an indirect aid for reminding and encouraging us to know and abide as That. However, so long as we meditate, “I am not this body, I am That”, is it not clear that we still feel ourself to be the body and that we do not actually experience ourself to be That (the reality or Brahman)? Just as there is no need for a man to meditate, “I am a man”, so there would be no need for us to meditate, “I am That”, if we were actually experiencing the truth that we are always That.

S.S. Cohen
36. It is not necessary to go on meditating ’I am THAT’, for one always is THAT.

The thought “I am not the body” helps on to meditate “I am not this: I am THAT” and to abide as THAT. But why should one forever think “I am THAT”? Does a man need to always think “I am a man”? We are always THAT.

Verse thirty-two discourages the use of the thought “II am not this”. However, this verse avers that even this negative meditation is useful to the extend that it leads to the positive meditation “I am THAT”. But even the latter meditation appears to the jnani superfluous, in that it is already granted that one is always THAT-“That which is always attained” (verse thirty-five). That we are not the body any thinking man can discover for himself without even attempts at Self-realization. For what dullard can find no difference between himself and, say, a chair or table which does not move, think of speak like him, yet is made of the same elements? There must certainly be something in the human body, over and above what there is in the other objects. That something is life, or mind, or knowledge, or THAT, which sadhakas try to isolate from the body and perceive by itself, in its aloneness (kaivalya). That is the Self-realization or self-cognition we are after.

Michael James
Verse 36: If we think that we are a body, thinking ‘No, we are that’ will be just a good aid, but since we are already that, why should we always be thinking ‘We are that’?

English translation: If we think that we are a body, thinking ‘No, we are that’ will be just a good aid for us to stand as that. Since we always stand as that, why thinking ‘We are that’? Does one think ‘I am a man’?

Explanatory paraphrase: If we think that we are a body, thinking ‘No [we are not this body], we are that [brahman]’ will be just a good aid for [reminding and encouraging] us to stand [firmly] as that. [However] since we always stand [abide or exist] as that, why [should we be] thinking ‘We are that’? Does one think ‘I am a man’ [that is, does one need to always think ‘I am a man’ in order to be aware of oneself as a man]? [Therefore instead of just thinking ‘I am not this body, I am that’, we should look keenly at ourself to see what we actually are, because only when we see what we actually are will we see that we always stand firmly as that.]

Nochur Venkatraman
So long as we think ‘we are this body’, the meditation with the attitude of ‘this body we are not, that Brahman we are’, will be a help and support to destroy that thought. Since we ever abide as Brahman, why should we ceaselessly think ‘we are Brahman’? Will a man ever keep thinking, ‘I am a man’?

Sri Sadhu Om
Even the argument which says, “Duality (dvaita) during practice (sadhana) – which one undertakes (due to) not knowing (the truth that one is always Brahman) – and nonduality (advaita) after attainment (that is, duality is true during the time of practice and non-duality becomes true only after the attainment of Self-realization)”, is not true. Who else is one except the tenth man, both when one is anxiously searching (for the tenth man) and when one finds oneself (to be the tenth man).

Note: This verse (v.37) and verse 40 were both composed earlier than the other verses of Ulladu Narpadu, and were written for the benefit of Iswara swami under circumstances which are not now known.

Note: According to some schools of thought, duality is true during the time of ignorance and non-duality becomes true only after the attainment of Self-knowledge. However, Sri Bhagavan says that even this is not true, because nonduality (advaita) is always the truth and duality (dvaita) is always unreal. That is, the one non-dual Self alone exists and is real even when in the ignorant outlook of the individual it seems to appear as this unreal world of duality and diversity.

In order to emphasis that duality is unreal even during the time of its seeming existence, Sri Bhagavan cites the parable of the ‘lost’ tenth man. Ten foolish men forded a river, and on reaching the other side they wished to make sure that all had crossed safely. So all of them began to count the number of persons on the shore, but since each one forgot to count himself, they all counted only nine. Believing that one of their companions must have drowned, they all began to weep, until a passing wayfarer who understood the situation asked each one to count himself, whereupon they realized that they were always ten men, both during the time of their seeming loss and after their ‘finding’ the missing man. Similarly, when we attain Self-knowledge we will realize that non-duality (advaita) is always the sole truth, both during the time of our seeming ignorance (when nonduality appears to be lost and duality appears to prevail) and after our ‘attaining’ Self, the non-dual reality.

It is to be noted here that, though non-duality is the truth even during the time of seeming ignorance, this does not mean that no spiritual practice (sadhana) is necessary, as some theoreticians/theorists have wrongly concluded. long as the tenth man appears to be lost, it is necessary for each one of the ten to enquire and find out ‘Who is lost?’ , for then only will the truth be realized that the so called ‘lost’ tenth man is only oneself, who has in fact never been lost. Similarly, so long as the experience of non-duality appears to be lost, it is necessary for us to enquire and find out ‘Who am I, who have lost the experience of non-duality?’, for then only will the truth be realized that the seeming individual ‘I’ who does not experience non-duality is merely an unreal appearance, and that the real ‘I’ has in fact never lost the experience of non-duality.

S.S. Cohen
37. Non-duality prevails always, whether as the world or as the Self.

The theory that in practical life duality prevails, whereas non- duality prevails in the (spiritual) attainment, is false. Whether one is still anxiously searching for the Self, or has actually attained it, one is not other than the tenth man.

Non-duality always prevails, whether viewed from the viewpoint of the world or from that or the realized yogi. The realization of Self cannot turn the dual into the non-dual. The truth of non-duality stands eternally true, as verse one has shown.

The tenth man refers to the story in which ten men travelled together. After fording a river, they decided to count themselves to make sure that none of them had been lost in the crossing. The man who counted his nine companions forgot to count himself, which resulted in their starting a search for the tenth man-actually always present as the counter himself. The same applies to man, who is always present as the eternal non-dual reality, but imagines himself always in duality due to his perception of multiplicity- “I” and “you”, the chair, the door, the window and a million other objects. But the realized man is free from this false imagination: he knows himself to be the tenth man.

Michael James
Verse 37: Even the contention ‘Duality in spiritual practice, non-duality in attainment’ is not true, because even while one is searching for the tenth man, who is one other than him?

English translation: Even the contention that declares, ‘Duality only in spiritual practice, non-duality in attainment’, is not true. Both when one is eagerly searching and when one has found oneself, who indeed is one other than the tenth man?

Explanatory paraphrase: Even the contention that declares, ‘Duality [exists] only in spiritual practice, [and] non-duality [exists only] in attainment’, is not true [because even when one is seeking to know one’s real nature, what actually exists is only oneself and not anything else]. Both when one is eagerly searching [for the missing tenth man] and when one has found oneself [to be him], who indeed is one other than the tenth man? [Here daśamaṉ, ‘the tenth man’, refers to the supposedly missing man in the analogy of the ten foolish men who, after fording a river, each counted the other nine but forgot to count himself, and therefore concluded that one of them was missing. Just as each of them was actually the tenth man even while they were anxiously searching for him, we are never actually anything other than the one reality that we are seeking to know, so just as all that each of the ten men needed was to count himself, all that we need is to look keenly at ourself, because when we look at ourself keenly enough we will see that we alone exist and are therefore eternally non-dual.]

Nochur Venkatraman
In the phase of spiritual practice, the duality as jiva and iswara or sadhana and sadhya is real. Once realization is attained, advaita is the result’ – this argument is not true. Who else is he but the tenth man (of the parable), both when he anxiously searched for himself, thinking he was lost (as he forgot to count himself), and at the time he found himself to be the tenth man?

Sri Sadhu Om
If we are the doer of actions (karmas) which are like seeds, we shall experience the resulting fruits. (But) when one knows oneself by enquiring ‘Who is the doer of actions?’ (in other words) ‘Who am I?’, the sense of doership (kartritva) will disappear and (hence) all the three karmas (agamya, sanchita and prarabdha) will slip away (since the ego, the doer of the actions and the experiencer of their fruits, will no longer exist). This (the resulting state which is devoid of the ego and which is consequently devoid of the bondage of karma) indeed is the state of liberation, (which is eternal that is, which is our ever-existing and natural state)

Note: The word ‘oneself’ (tanai) in the clause ‘when one knows oneself’ may here be taken to mean either the ego or the real Self, for if the ego (the doer) is known it will be found to be non-existent, while if the real self is known it will be found to be the sole existence. In either case, both the sense of doership (kartritva) and the sense of experiencership (bhoktritva) – which are the two faces of the one ego, like the two sides of one piece of paper – will necessarily cease to exist.

The three karmas referred to in this verse are (1) agamya karma, that is, the actions that the individual newly performs in this life through his face of doership, (2) sanchita karma, that is, all the results of his past agamya karmas which are now stored up and which are yet to be experienced by him, and (3) Prarabdha karma, that is, the portion of the results of his past agamya karmas which God has selected from his sanchita and ordained for him to experience in this lifetime through his face of experienceship. For a more detailed explanation, refer to chapter three of The Path of Sri Ramana – Part Two.

S.S. Cohen
38. The sense of doership reaps the fruits of action (karma): karma ends when the doer realizes his true nature.

So long as a man feels himself the doer, he reaps the fruits of his actions. But as soon as he realizes through inquiry who is the doer, the sense or doership drops off and the threefold karma comes to an end. This is the final Liberation.

Who is the doer? If the body is the doer then we have to attribute intelligence to it, an intelligence which it does not possess. The identification of the instrument of an act with the actor is the cause of much trouble. An illustration will be to the point. A man has a grudge against another man and plans to do away with him. He waylays him on a dark night, takes a stone and kills him with it. Who is the killer? Certainly not the stone, although it is the stone that has done the evil deed, nor is the hand which holds the stone, nor the body of which the hand is a part, and which is as insentient, and there as innocent, as the stone. It is the mind which, with hatred, planned and executed the crime, using the instrumentality of the body and the stone. Therefore the mind is the empirical man, or ego who, so long as he believes himself to be the actor, has to reap, the fruit of his actions effected through a body. But this belief, like the ego itself, is not permanent: it passes away immediately an inquiry is made into the identity of the doer.

The triple karma which hangs around the neck of the doer is made up of the sanchita (accumulated karma), the prarabdha (the karma which is destined to be worked out in this birth), and the agami (the karma which becomes active in future births). The last class of karma will remain unfulfilled in the case of the person who has attained Liberation in the present body, and who will have no other births for karma to be worked in. Questions are sometimes asked concerning the jnani’s prarabdha as to why it does not cease with his attainment of jnana, thus sparing him suffering that may arise in the form of virulent disease, with which some famous jnanis are known to be burdened. The answer is that prarabdha of the jnani had been allotted to him at or before birth, when he was still liable to the working of karma prior to his attainment of jnana. As for his suffering, it is not as painful to him as it appears to others: it is greatly mitigated by the Realization which unceasingly wells up in his heart.

Some Biblically-oriented Westerners seem to think that the suffering of the jnani is due to his taking upon himself the sins of his disciples. Vedanta denies to transfer of sins and its responsibilities. Strict justice is the law of karma which tolerates no one to suffer for another’s crimes, least of all a Guru, who comes to show the way to Truth. Far from being punished he is rewarded by the service, love and devotion of the disciples. Thus the belief in a Salvation through the vicarious suffering of the Master is totally unacceptable in this path, where each man is regarded as working out his own liberation through hard word, self-purification, worship of the Guru, self-control, spiritual practices and a full sense of moral responsibility. In the whole Vedantic literature one does not find a single reference to the transference of sins, but always to karma.

Michael James
Verse 38: If we are the doer of action, we will experience the resulting fruit, but when one knows oneself by investigating who is the doer, actions and their fruits will cease to exist

English translation: If we are the doer of action, we will experience the resulting fruit. Investigating who is the doer of action, when one knows oneself, doership will depart and all the three actions will slip off. The state of liberation, which is eternal.

Explanatory paraphrase: If we are the doer of action, we will experience the resulting fruit. [However] [by] investigating who is the doer of action, when one knows oneself [as one actually is], [ego, which is what seemed to do actions and to experience their fruit, will thereby be eradicated, and along with it its] kartṛtva [doership] [and its bhōktṛtva, experiencership] will depart and [hence] all [its] three karmas [its āgāmya (actions that it does by its own will), sañcita (the heap of the fruits of such actions that it is yet to experience) and prārabdha (destiny or fate, which is the fruits that have been allotted for it to experience in its current life)] will slip off. [This is] the state of mukti [liberation], which is eternal [being what actually exists even when we seem to be this ego].

Nochur Venkatraman
If we consider that we are the doers of actions, the fruit of these actions will have to be experienced by us. When by enquiring, ‘Who am I, the doer of deeds?’ we know the real nature of the ‘I’, the sense of doership along with the three karmas – sañchita, prārabdha and āgāmi – will drop off. This state, devoid of karma of any kind, is liberation indeed.

Sri Sadhu Om
Only so long as one being a mad man (that is a person being devoid of true knowledge), feels ‘I am a bound one’, (will there exist) thoughts of bondage and liberation. (But) when one sees oneself (by enquiring) ‘Who is the bound one?’ (in other words, ‘Who am I?’) and when (thereby) the ever-liberated one (the real Self) alone remains as the established truth, since the thought of bondage cannot remain, can the thought of liberation remain?

Note: When one knowns oneself by enquiring ‘Who am I, the individual who is in bondage?’ one will find that the individual or ego is non-existent and that the real Self, which is ever-liberated, alone exists. Since bondage and liberation are both mere thoughts, and since all thoughts depend for their seeming existence upon the first thought, which is the ego, the feeling ‘I am so-and-so’, when the ego is found to be non-existent the thoughts of bondage and liberation will no longer be able to stand.

S.S. Cohen
39.Bondage and Liberation are mere notions in the mind: they cease when he who is bound is inquired into and realized.

Bondage and Liberation exist so long as thoughts of bondage and liberation exist. These come to an end when an inquiry is made into the nature of he who is bound or free, and the ever-present and ever-free Self is realized.

This has a close resemblance to the last verse, which makes the sense of doership to be the cause of karma. Likewise the sense of being bound or free makes bondage and liberation exist. Thus wrong notions about oneself are responsible for all the acts of destiny: birth, death, bondage, ignorance, etc. But wrong notions can be rectified by right knowledge, which can be had only throuh and inquiry into the nature of the person who is the victim of wrong notions. Then his real Self will reveal itself and will dispel all notions, all senses, and all thoughts, including the sense and thought of jivahood (individuality) itself.

Michael James
Verse 39: Thoughts of bondage and liberation exist only so long as one seems to be bound, but when one looks at oneself to see who is bound, one will see that one is ever liberated

English translation: Only so long as one says ‘I am someone bound’, thoughts of bondage and liberation. When one looks at oneself as who is the one who is bound, when oneself, the one who is eternally liberated, remains as accomplished, if thought of bondage will not remain, will thought of liberation henceforth remain?

Explanatory paraphrase: Only so long as one says ‘I am someone bound’ [that is, only so long as one experiences oneself as if one were bound] [will there be] thoughts of bandha [bondage] and mukti [liberation]. When one looks at [observes, examines or scrutinises] oneself [to see] who is the one who is bound, and when [thereby] oneself, the one who is eternally liberated, [alone] remains as siddham [what is firmly established or always accomplished], since thought of bondage will not remain, will thought of liberation henceforth remain?

Nochur Venkatraman
So long as the thought, ‘I am bound’ remains, thoughts about either bondage or mukti will also be present. ‘Who am I so bound?’ For whom, is the bondage?’ – When one enquires thus, seeking the Self, the direct experience of ‘being’ shines as the eternally free, ever-attained Atman. In such a state, if thoughts of bondage cannot rise, how then can thoughts about attaining mukti stand their ground?

Sri Sadhu Om
If it is said, so as to suit (the maturity of) the mind, that the liberation which one will attain is (of) three (kinds), with form, without form, or with or without form, I will say that liberation is (in truth only) the destruction of the form of the ego which distinguishes (liberation as being of three kinds), with form, without form, or with or without form. Know thus.

Note: Though the scriptures describe various different kinds of liberation, they do so only in order to suit the various different levels of maturity and understanding of the human mind, because there is in truth only one real kind of liberation, namely the destruction of the ego or sense of individuality. All other kinds of liberation are nothing but mere thoughts, which can stand only so long as the ego seems to exist. When the ego is found to be non-existent, the state which remains will be completely devoid of all thoughts such as ‘I am a form’, ‘I am formless’ or ‘I am free either to become a form or to become formless’.

S.S. Cohen
40.True Liberation has no form, and destroys the very ego which distinguishes between one kind of it and another.

It is said that Liberation is with form or without form, or with and without form. Let me tell you that Liberation destroys all three as well as the ego which distinguishes between them. All these forms of liberation, some of which are said to take place in a disembodied state in some supersensuous worlds – Vaikuntha, Satyaloka, etc. are hypothetical. At best they offer encouragement to the sadhakas who are partial to them. The fact of the matter is that true and absolute Liberation results only from jnana (knowledge of the Absolute), which alone can destroy ignorance, either in this body or in one of the following bodies. For there are no planes or states of consciousness where radical salvation is possible, other than the waking state, i.e., in a body, where bondage and ignorance are felt and attempts for redemption made; least of all in the state of after-death where there is no body to feel the limitations and retributions of karma.

Therefore he who aspires to reach the highest has to exert himself hard here and now, preferably by the vichara method which Bhagavan has so graciously propounded and so often reiterated in these verses. The determined sadhaka will not fail to verify these truths by his own experience if he puts them to the test, full of confidence, in his own self and the unfailing silent support of the Master, who is not other than the very Reality he is so earnestly seeking, and who ever and ever abides in his own heart as Existence, Consciousness and Bliss-Sat Chit Ananda.

Michael James
Verse 40: If it is said that liberation is with form, without form, or either with form or without form, I will reply that only destruction of the ego is liberation.

English translation: If it is said that liberation that one will experience is three, form, formless, form-formless, I will say: The ego-form, which distinguishes form, formless, form-formless, being destroyed is liberation. Know.

Explanatory paraphrase: If it is said that mukti [liberation] that one will experience [or that one will attain, or that will happen] is of three kinds, with form, without form, or either with form or without form [that is, a state in which one can alternate back and forth between being a form or being formless], I will say: [Only] destruction of the ego-form [the form-bound ego], which distinguishes [these three kinds of liberation], with form, without form, or either with form or without form, is mukti. Know.

Nochur Venkatraman
If one opines that the kind of mukti which a jnani attains on release may be threefold – mukti with form, mukti without form, and mukti with and without form – know for certain the truth. The form of the ego that investigates whether mukti is with form, or without form, or with and without form, totally extinguished, the state which remains is real deliverance. Know it thus and realize.