Make your own free website on


Lessons on Botham


Dr K.Loganathan ( 2003)




[ This series of lessons is based on the Tamil commentary written by Krupananta Variyar. I have translated it adding notes wherever possible. The divisions into various lessons with appropriate questions for each lessons are additions of mine. Civanjana Botham is not an easy book and I believe this is perhaps the easiest way to master it -Loga]


The First Sutra


Lessons on Botham 1-1


Dear Friends


Civanjana Botam of Meykandar is certainly one of the greatest metaphysical treatises of the world that far exceeds the accomplishments of most of the Indian thinkers as well as the Western. But unfortunately it is not that well known and the Tamil Saivites have not done enough to popularize it in the modern world. I have been studying this book for several decades and having unlocked its secrets to the best of ability, have written commentaries in both English and Tamil. However I understand that these commentaries, which understands the text as belonging to Hermeneutic Science proper, are rather difficult to follow and hence there have been requests that I give a simple exposition of the book so that an average person too can understand at least the essence. The latest request has been from W. Pillai from S. Africa where there is a sizable number of Saivites young and old who are very interested to have understanding of this book.


So I thought the best would be to take an already existent simple account of it and render it into English adding explanatory notes wherever needed. Fortunately I have in my possession an excellent and straight forward commentary written by no other than the famous Saivite scholar of recent times Kirupananda Wariyar himself who has also written a definitive commentary to the Tirupukaz and other works of AruNakiri Natar. Nellai Appar ArutpaNik Kazakam published this book in 1956


So my plan is as follows -- give the original in Tamil as it is and provide an English translation with comments when necessary. Wariyar follows quite closely the Mapadiyam and CiRRurai written by Madavac Civanjana YogikaL and with which I am not in full agreement. I shall provide my own interpretations in the notes to be added.


I have inserted questions throughout just a help to understand the text properly.

Loga ( 15-5-03)




Q1. What is the Meaning of Civanjana Botam?


Ż ȡ ?





Żɧ Ȣ Ţ¡ Ţ .


򾡸 .


ը 󧾸 ŢãȢ Ƣ š Ȣ.


š Ǩ¡ Ȣ ը ⾢ ¢


, Ǣ 츽 ġ, â ¢ Ȣ ¡ 츢 Ч, ɢ ¢ ɢ 츢 , ħž ¢, ġ ġ¢ ɺ.





By Civanjana Botam is meant a scriptural text instrumental for understanding BEING (or Sivam) and which embodies the understanding f Cuttaatvaita Siddhanta i.e. the definitive metaphysical understanding that expounds the Pure Oneness of Self (cuttaatvaitam) with BEING


Now BEING (Sivam) is a substantial reality that is an Absolute, Intrinsically Pure and already forever enjoying Moksa.


Now by Absolute Understanding (njaanam) is meant the gaining of an awareness of BEING as it is in itself beyond any doubts and uncertainties and with the His Grace helping out ( in this hermeneutic efforts)


Now by Botam is meant the assimilation this insight as part of oneself by investigating into its TRUTH by appropriate logical measures as well as seeking out how it all stands in relation to one own personal experience.


Thus this treatise expounds all the qualities of the ontologically fundamental objects of Pati Pacu and Paacam, containing within itself, like a small mirror would a huge mountain, 12 sutras that encrypt enormous depth of metaphysical understanding. In this way it expounds the essence of all the scriptures and hence stands as the Mother Text for all metaphysical treatises.


Notes (Loga)


These comments communicate the UNIVERSAL applicability of the essence of Botam to ALL scriptures and hence also to the Bible Al Koran and so forth over and above the usual Vedas and Agamas of the Hindu tradition. The UNDERSTANDING that Botam expounds is NOT peculiar to the Saivites alone but rather something applicable to any person who is metaphysically inclined. The truths expounded here are universal truths and hence also something already there but perhaps concealed in the important scriptures of mankind.


This understanding that is universal , common to all mankind , he Civanjanam, is what I have called Metaphysica Universalis


(To continue) 1-1



Lessons on Botham 1-2





How does Botam stand in relation to other scriptures?


Ȼ ǡ Ż ?




ɢ -

¢ ͨ¡



The Pure Vedas is the cow and the true Agamas its milk

The Sacred Tamil of the Four is the ghee of that milk and

As the sweet taste of this ghee is the text composed in Tamil by the

Great MeykaNdaan of TiruveNNey Nallur.



ž ; ͨ . ; Ţɢ . Ŧ Ĩ Ǣ ǢŢ. š š Ģɢ . Żɧ ¢ ͨŨ .



żƢ Ƣ . żƢ Żɧ Ŧɡ Ǣ . Żɧ ĸ Ż򧾡 զâ ž , 򾢧ħ ġš¡ 狀 ɢá ɡ , 째¢ Ǣ¢ ġ ¡ ޸ Ǣ ž Ǣ ¢ á Ǣ .


Ţâ ž ɢ Ǣ 츢 ¢ ը, żƢ ƢǢ ը, ը ¡áġ! ž żƢ¢ ġ ɡ ɢ 츢Ǣ ħ, Ƣ¢ ɢ Ǣ 츢 ȢǢɡ ɢ, Ũ Ţŧæ žȢ ¡ ?




The Pure Vedas is the common source of all metaphysical wisdom and hence a Divine Cow in a sense. The Agamas are something special like the milk that oozes out from the cow. They expound the essence of BEING in a manner that is absolutely clear. The Tevaram and Triuvasakam (and such other divine hymns) are like the ghee that permeates the milk. And this Civanjana Botam is like the very sweet taste of that ghee itself.


This text exists both in Tamil and Sanskrit. Siva Himself revealed the one in Sanskrit as part of the Agamas themselves. But this Tamil Civanjana Botam was written by MeykaNda Tevar who was born in TiruveNNey Nalluur for redeeming the whole of mankind and who was instructed even as child by Paranjcoti Munivar from Kailash and who learned all the scriptures from Vinayaka who as Pollaap piLLaiyaar had taken a temple there. Meykandar composed this text after deep meditations on such matters.


It is impossible to measure the greatness of this text that compresses within 12 sutras the truths of all the scriptures, the languages Tamil and Sanskrit in which they are written and the author of it. And just as SIVA Himself has told all the truths in 12 sutras in Sanskrit, if MeykaNda Tevar has done it in Tamil, we can assume that MeykaNdar was Siva Himself!


Notes (Loga)


There are a number of inaccuracies here. First of all, recent scholarship has shown that Civanjana Botam in Sk and as found incorporated in the Raurava Agama is actually only a translation of the original written by Meykandar. The Tamil Botam written by Meykandar is complete and self-contained, has all the 12 as well as the veNbas that serve as the arguments for expounding the sutras. The Sk version was found only in some copies of Raurava Agama and those too inaccurate translations of the sutras alone.


Having said this we must note something very interesting said about the interrelationship of Botam with other scriptures. Here I must point out that by Veedam is meant NOT the Four Vedas the Rig etc but rather the Pure Vedas, the Primordial Logos that stands there always BEYOND any language and hence perhaps the Om or the mantras even beyond it. The human mind reaches this Pure Vedas, the source of Vittai or Civanjanam only in DEEP SILENCE and hence only when it transcends all languages.


While the language of understanding of this Civanjanam is Deep Silence, its language of communication is Cin Muttirai.


Agamas are verbal articulations of the human understanding of such communications and since they originate from BEING, are said to be written by Siva Himself. It is claimed that the understanding thus embodied in the Agamas forms the basis of the metaphysical experiences embodied in Tevaram Tiruvasakam and so forth.


I would add here not only the Divviya Prabantam but also all other world scriptures like Bible Al Koran and so forth. All scriptures embody a metaphysical understanding such as those expounded in the Saivagamas.


But here Botam stands as something quite unique for it isolates and captures the AXIOMATIC TRUTHS underlying ALL the scriptures and hence something that can serve us to UNDERSTAND the hidden depths of all the scriptures.


The sweet taste of the ghee of the scriptures is the Axiomatic Truths Botam embody within the 12 sutras and which are also in every scripture.


(to continue) 1-2



Lessons on Botham 1-3



Q 3: All great metaphysical treatises in India have also a tradition of commentaries. Is this true also of Botam?


ġ Ȼ Ţ â . Żɧ â ?




â ͼ

â¡ - â

츢 Ǣ



BEING even beyond transcendental perceptions stands always inseparable from the beautiful and brilliant Woman. This BEING also brings about such a transcendent states within the states of normal consciousness (caakkiram) of individuals and furthermore for the lovers of BEING will also inform He playing thus.



â¡ . ŧ ġ ¡ Ǣ š򾢸 ƢҨ Ǣ . ( ӾĢȢ ը ĺ ź ) Ż ɢ š򾢸 ý ڨ ը Ǣ. ʦ ר ŢԨ â. ţ â š 󾢿 Ż źþ .


Great scholars in the past have written many commentaries to this text. MeykaNdar himself has written a commentary called vaarttikam and which was guided by the Essences as disclosed to him by Pollap PiLLaiyaar. Civanjana Munivar wrote two commentaries, a concise one and a very elaborate one. PaNdip PerumaaL wrote a commentary along with elucidation of key terms. A novel kind of commentary called Sri VasanalaGkaaraa Tiipam was written recently by Sri Kacivaaci Centinaataiyar (of Sri Lanka)


Notes: (Loga)


Historically the earliest commentary was that PaNdip PerumaL (14th cent?) where he uses also Civanjana Cittiyaar of AruNandi to write his commentary. Subsequent to this, I understand, a massive commentary was written by Agora Sivaccaariyar of Suuriyanaar Atheenam. It is said that Civanjana Munivars Mapaadiyam is based on this. The most widely studied commentary is the CiRRurai of Munivar and which have several editions sometimes with explanatory notes added by great scholars.


Lately a very scholarly and historically very informative commentary (but following in essence Civanjana Munivar) is the Civanjana Botat TiruneRi Urai of AruNai Vadiveelu Mutaliyaar (1992) where as an integral part of the commentary appropriate verses from Tevaram are also cited.


Towards the beginning of the 20th cent, the great Vedanta Philosopher, VadiveeLu Cettiyar, has also written a commentary but on advaita lines.


There have been also several other commentaries quite simple in nature.


To this list we can add my own commentary called Nuuliya ARiviyal Urai where I point out that the whole text is a treatise in Hermeneutic Science where the Logic is in fact Hermeneutic Logic, essentially the same as that in Tolkappiyam


¡ Żɧ Ǣ ç ɦɢ, Ƣ¢ ̨ áԨ¡ ĺ ȢЦ š¢. ġ, , Ȣ Ȣ š, , ̾ ž Ǣš ɢ ž󾢸 Ģ , ¢ھ ⨺, ¡ ⨺, á츾ý ӾĢ Ţ ŧ Ƣ츢ȡ.


ġ, Żɧ ¢ɡ â ոġ , ¡Ǣ ʸ ¡ɢ, ¢  ġ ը , Ũ¢ Ǣ š , Żɧ ̼ Ģ ɡ Ũ¢ ¡ Ǣ Ţš .


All these great commentaries though written to make clear the axiomatic truths in Civanjana Botam, but are rather difficult to follow by those only with a limited understanding of the Tamil language. And because of this, though born into the Saiva religion, like not eating by pounding the rice grains but only the chaff, many neglect the study of this great text and spend their time reading other texts more for enjoying vain disputations and parade the world as Njanies and Vedanties neglecting also in that process the soul strengthening Worship of Civa, the Worship of Civan Adiyars, the wearing of the sacred ash Rudraksa and so forth and waste their time.


And because of all these, even though I am not fit even to touch this supremely divine text, invoking the blessings of the devotees of Civa and Civa Himself who plays all like spinning a top with a string, I venture to write this commentary expounding the axiomatic truths as simply as possible, guided in this by the commentaries already written so far.


(to continue) 1-3



Lessons on Botham 1-4


Q4: Is there a preface to this Botham and if so who wrote it and what is its essence?


Ģ ¢ 񧼡? ɢ ¡á ؾ? о ?




â ¡â



ĸ ¢

Ҹ ¢ â Ĩ




ɢ Ǣ

Żɧ 򧾡



Ҩ Ĩ ¡





Ԩ , ĸɢ , â () ǡ, á Ҹθ â, (¸â¢ɢ) øġ, Ƣ 𼡾, ɡǢ , âýɡ š츢 ӾǢ Ǣɡ, ȢŢ 񼡸 ﻡ Ţ , â 즸ġ () , () š š ( Ǩ¡) Ţâ Ȣ (ŸǢ ), (ŸǢ ) ⾢¢ , (Ө¡) š , 󾢧 ɡ, (¢ġ çâ 츢ø ʧ), ɢ ơ, 츢ø , () ġ Żɧ , ¡ á զ ¡ Ǣ, ͧž տ , ը ĸǢ Ţ (측ý ) ( âǢ) տ , Ţ¡ Ģ ¢ , 򧾡 ʸ, 즸 š ʨ ¡


Special Preface


Malartalai ulakin maayiruL tumiyap

Palarpukaz njaayiRu padarin allaathaik

KaaNdal cellaak kaNpool iiNdiya

Perumpeyark kadavuLil kaNdu kaN iruL tiirntu

Aruntuyark kurambaiyin aanmaa naadi

MayarvaRa nanti munikaNattu aLitta

Uayrcivanjaana Bootam uraittoon

PeNNayp punal cuuz veNeyc cuveetavanan

PoykaNdu akanRa meykaNda teevan

Pavanani vanvakai kadanta

Tavaradi punainta talami yoonee




In this wide world unless the Sun emerges and dispels the Darkness, on one will be able to see anything. Similarly unless one sees BEING, of the Great Name and substance of Maha Vakkiyas (great words) no one can dispel the inner darkness of ignorance and gain clear understanding about self and BEING through examining the painful experiences of the bodily selves and inferring the hidden realities. Nanti, a form of BEING continuously instructs on this Civanjanam to the various illustrious individuals, munis. And now this Cuveethanan, who hails from TiruveNNey Nalluur girdled by the River PeNNai, gained these illuminations and becoming the Truth Beholder by removing himself from all falsities, wrote this Great Civanjana Botam and because of which he has achieved a spiritual excellence that has led many philosophers pay abeyance to him.


Notes (Loga)


This rightly famous Preface is said to have been written by AruNandi himself, the family Guru but later Meykandars foremost student. It should be noted that nowhere it is stated here that Meykandar translated any book from Sanskrit in order to compose Botam and hence it follows that Botam is an original composition in Tamil.


Now it should also be noted that while Meykandar is said to have studied all religions or metaphysical systems, what he sought is TRUTH and in that he was intellectually OPEN and hence did not compose this book by way of continuing either Agamic or Vedic traditions. The METHOD implicit is essentially that of Hermeneutic Science, that of seeking truths and retaining only them ensuring that such truths are not seemingly so but really are. Hence we can say that Meykandar articulates in this Book what can be called Axiomatic Truths, insights into the depths that are also objectively there and hence something anyone can also access understand and enjoy.


The visions of TRUTH are compared to the light that dispels darkness and hence such visions are ILLUMINATING, insights that serve to destroy the Inner Darkness that we recognize as our Ignorance. And this is the same as witnessing BEING, the Inner Sun. Thus Botam is unusual in the sense that it embodies axiomatic truths and any one reading and understanding it, will also gain metaphysical illuminations that would destroy the inner darkness of Ignorance, the an-njaanam.


There is reference here to the mythical theme of Nanti, a presentation of Siva instructing on Civanjanam to the seers who are the sons of Brahma, Canakan and so forth. This indicates that Civanjanam is not something that one can be gained by an ardent of study of scriptures; the sons of Brahma, the Lord of Scriptures have to take instructions from Siva to understand Civanjanam. Thus one has to transcend scriptural exegetics for an understanding of Civanjanam and something Meykandar succeeded in achieving and because of which he authored this treatise itself. The slaves of sastras can never understand Civanjanam and hence also would fail in the darsana of BEING Himself. The mind must be freed of all attachments, including the attachments towards scripture and sastras, to glow fully in the radiance of Civanjanam and something Meykandar achieved to his great credit. It is this singular achievement that has made Meykandar someone highly respected even by the seers who are forever in thirst for visions of Truth.


This preface also shows that while the real name was Cuveetavanan, the honorific name given by others by dint of singular achievement is that of MeykaNdan, the Truth Beholder, a name given in recognition of the fact he, in writing the Botam, has succeeded in articulating the Axiomatic Truths, something that should be agreeable to all provided they can follow him in his profundity.


Now it is also said that existential repetition, becoming embodied and suffering various ways, can be overcome by gaining the Civanjanam and that this Absolute Illumination is that which will truly redeem the soul and lead one to the enjoyment of Moksa.



Lessons on Botham 1-5


Q5: Did MeykaNdar himself compose an invocation seeking divine guidance?


쨸 ¢ 񼡧 Ģ š ɡá?







Ţġ Ǣ


ġ Ҩŧ




(¢ġ򾢧 š) Ģ ( Ǣ ), ( Żɧ ġ) Ǣ Ӿġâá Ŧ, Ǣ, ( ¡) ġ ¡ը, ʸ, Ǣ Ż , ¢ 즸.


Ȣ : Ţġ , Ĩ Ţġ ŨǢ Ŧ Ǣ .


Ǣ’ ¢’ š Ţɦ , ը پ پ .






kallaal nizal malai

villaar aruLiya

pollaar iNaimalar

nallaar punaivaree




The good people who seek out Civanjanam and enjoy it, will place on their head the lotus-feet of Pollap PiLLaiyaar, the Murrti generated by Siva, the ever illuminant and who sitting in the cool shades of the Bodhi Tree instructs Nanti and all on this Civanjana Botam


Notes: The term malai villaar can also be understood as the One who bent the Hill of Meru as a bow. The terms aruLiya as belonging to the VP type ceyyiya can mean also to bless all the souls continuously out of His Care for all.


ee here is simply a sound filler (asai)



Notes (Loga)


Meykandar was not only a believer in Siva but also in the fact that He has the so-called sons Vinayaka, Muruka and so forth. Thus he sees BEING as One-Many i.e. while being is One, also shows Himself in many different icon shapes. We see here also the ancient theme of Bodhi Tree (kal: botham) emerging here. Right from ancient times the TREE has been a natural object that evoked the sense of the sacred in Indic cultures and perhaps also in many other ancient cultures. Tree worship still survives among Tamils today where every major temple has also a talavirutcam, the Tree of the Location of the Temple. Traditionally while the banyan Tree is ascribed to Siva (Ta. aal amar celvan) the Neem Tree has been ascribed to the Mother, the Amman. Sometimes there are even marriage rituals where some neem trees also has the Banyan growing within


But why this?


The shape of the TREE is the closest visible object we have to akkara-cakkarram, the mantra-wheel which is an invisible reality but very potent in determining the events in the life of a person. While at primitive level man responds to this analogy at an intuitive level, but later understands the divine significance of the tree and sees the Icons within and erects temples around it wresting out the Divine Power within and giving a separate icon shape to it. This may be one of the etymologies of the term kadavuL, meaning god but literally that which is inside (uL) the tree (kadam)


Meykandar in wording the invocation in this way, shows that he subscribes to such notions and which will be amply argued for in the main body of the text.


This invocation, in excluding the praise of gurus, agamas, Vedas and so forth but only Siva and Vinayaka, also shows that Meykandar was writing a text that owes to the direct disclosures of BEING, something going on all the time any way. Botham is not simply a essencing out the contents of Upanishads as is the case with the Vedanta Sutras of Badrayana and so forth but rather a product of independent plunging into the metaphysical depths where BEING as TatciNamurti, sitting beneath the Bodhi tree keeps on instructing on Civanjanam for whoever reaches those metaphysical grounds.



Lessons on Botham 1-6


What is the attitude of MeykaNdar towards his would be critics?


š ?





Ԩ š

ơ -

á á

ҽá ǡ


( )


( ǡ Ţ ¢á) , ʧ , ʨ¡ Ũ ( ), ǡ Ģ, ( 츢 ̽ áš ġ) ¡. (ġ š ơ ). ¢ á, ɡ Ũ . (Ģ) 즸 á ( ), Ш ȦƢ ǡ 𧼡.


Self Declaration


tammai uNarntu tamaiyudaiya tan uNarvaar

emmai udamai emai ikazaal - tammai

uNaraar uNaraar udaGkiyaintu tammil

puNaraamai keeLaam puRan.




There are scholars or njanies who have understood their essence truly and in which they understood that they do not have an independent existence other than that blessed by BEING. Such people will also accept me as belonging to them and hence will accept the truths I say and reject the untruths, if there are. However there are also those who do not possess such self-understanding (even intuitively) and because of which when they encounter each other there will not be any agreements among them. When such people criticize my book, I will not bother to take them seriously.


Notes (Loga)


A number of important aspects of the way Meykandar understands the scholars in general especially in his time is brought out here. First of all, it is understood that no writer of metaphysical treatise can get away without inviting serious scrutiny on the part of other scholars. It is built-in as part of Saivite culture that the writer be open to severe criticism even when the text is divinely inspired, as is the case here. Meykandar does not shut their mouth by saying that being a book of divine inspiration, it is beyond any criticism etc.


But he also notes that all criticisms are NOT equally valid and that there will be some that are best passed over in silence.


There are those who have a preliminary understanding that their self is whatever it is only because of the blessings of BEING and therefore always indebted to BEING for whatever they are. Such are those with tan uNarvu, a true self-understanding and such scholars will see the contents of Botam elucidating further the preliminary and perhaps an intuitive understanding they already have. They will see the treatise as contributing further in their metaphysical quest and hence will be immensely appreciative, though critical, of its essence.


Now there are also the metaphysically blind individuals with no true self-understanding (tammai uNaraar) and hence incapable of ever coming to an agreement among themselves and hence forever in discord and disagreement. Since such people will simply criticize destructively and not at all constructively, MeykaNdar boldly declares that he will just ignore them.


This view also shows that to agree with Botam and enjoy the axiomatic truths unfolded there, is NOT possible for all and that there will be always individuals for whom such truths are beyond their reach or understanding.




Lessons on Botham 1-7


What is the essence and peculiar importance of the first Sutra of Botam?


Ż Ӿ â ɢ ¡?





Ӿġ ž






Ц Ţɨ¢


ɡ .


( )


̾ , ( ھ ) 򦾡Ƣ ¡, ɡ է¡. ̾ š Ǣɢ, ¡, ž. ġ Ƣ ק ĸ Ӿ Ǩ ֽ󧾡 .


First Part: Metaphysica Generalis


First Chapter: On Axiomatic Truths


The First Sutra


avan avaL atuvenum avai muuvinaimaiyin

tooRRiya titiyee ocuGki malattu uLataam

antamaati enmanaar pulavar.




This world that is understood as an assembly of elements understood in terms of he she and it, that and so forth is actually a collectivity that is tripraxistic (muttozil) i.e. one with the activities of coming into being, staying as there and then disappearing. Because of this it is a reality that is sustained as so by BEING (who is beyond it). It also follows that when it makes it appearance it is from BEING which is also the Ground of its resolution and that it reappears only because of the inalienable presence of intrinsic Darkness within. So will say the philosophers who affirm that it is the BEING who is the Primordial Causal Ground for its resolution and re-issuance


Ţ Ȣ:


Ũ¡ Խ ξġ Ƣ νŢ Œ . Ȣ Ƣ Ģɡ Ȣ Ƣ ġ Ţ¢ . ĸ ȡ ǡ Ţ¡ Ȣ ɡ Ȣ’ . š Ч, , է ’ . ( ĸ ). â 񼡾 Ǣ žɡ Ǿ . ( Ǿ - Ǿ) ý Ŧ ĸ Ӿġ . ( - ; )


Ǩ¡ ĸ ר Ӿġ Ţ ¡, ɡ Ǩ ֽ󧾡 ٨.




In order to communicate this vast universe is understood as a collectivity of many things that are appropriated as elements of the-tic consciousness (cudduNarvu), he describes it as a totality understood in terms of the pronouns he 'she it, that. He describes the whole world as tripraxistic in order to point out the world is a non-self sustaining entity and hence something that would require a BEING beyond it and who is Himself free of this Tripraxism. The verb tooRRiya is used instead of toonRiya in order to communicate the need for a causal agency. Now unlike some philosophers who claim the world is irreal, a pure mental fiction like the inexistent horns of the rabbit and so forth , he says it is a titi, that which continues to be as real. In order to clarify the reason for its re-issuance as becoming free of the Darkness, he says oduGki maLattu uLataam i.e. withdrawn and re-issued because of malam, the Darkness. In order to establish that it is BEING-as-Destroyer (caGkaara kaaraNan) who is the Primordial Causal Ground, he says of BEING that He is antam-aati: He who resolves and re-issues.


The term enmanaar pulavar is taken to mean, so will say whose who are experts in Logic (philosophers) as the whole book seeks to establish the truth BEING entirely on the basis of appropriate Logic.


Comments (Loga)


Compared to Vedanta Sutras and such other metaphysical treatises in India, Botam is unusual in that it does to show the truth of BEING on the basis of the authority of Agamas Vedas or any such scriptures or even as the words of gifted mystics and so forth. Meykandar himself also does not claim to be a messiah or a Rishi of a sort who was fortunate enough to receive messages from the heavens (though in fact he might have). Whatever the genesis of his metaphysical insights, he is NOT functioning in writing this as someone whose words must be taken as the words of God Himself and hence some kind of Bagavath Gita, Sruti and so forth.


He is assuming the role of a pulavar, which can be translated as philosopher or scholar but actually and more specially Hermeneutic Scientist. For obviously he in enunciating something also seeks to demonstrate its truth so that the other pulavars would AGREE with him. This opening up himself for agreement or disagreement with others and purely on the basis of a certain Logic shows that the text is a Scientific Treatise but in the hermeneutic sense.


He points our a universal feature of our understanding, that all human beings understand the whole world as an objective reality that is tripraxistic and as an element of CudduNarvu, the thetic consciousness, where every element is known as this and that and sexual differentiations into male and female and number categories of one and many figure as inalienable part of it. Meykandar seizes hold upon this universal feature of human understanding and infers from that the presence of BEING-as-Destroyer as the Primordial Causal Ground of the World as a whole.






Lessons on Botham 1-8


Q: What are the methodological principles implicit in Botam?


Żɧ 츢 Ө¢ ?





վ Ũ. , , վ , . ġ Ȣ .


‡ -- Ţ š âǡ Өȧ , , þ, , â Ÿ Ȣġ. (‡ - â Ţ. -â) , þ Ǣ .


򾡧 ѧ Ȣ. ý -- Ҩ ( ) Ȣ




The Valid Means of Understanding


The valid means of understanding are three: sensory perception, inferential perception and understanding through reflecting upon scriptural texts (agamas). All other valid forms of understanding can be included in these three basic categories.


In this the method of sensory perception is seeing with senses of eyes ears nose mouth and the body and sensing through them the shape noise taste smell and texture of objects. The word aksa, though means the eyes but it stands as a generic term for the physical senses. The term pirati stands normally for light but here for the objects of sense perception in general.


The Inferential Method involves inferring the presence something invisible or hidden from what is already available for the senses. When we infer the presence of invisible fire from the visible presence of smoke, we have an instance of this kind of knowing.


The Agama Method is the coming to know something through the studies of texts especially the Agamas.


Notes (Loga)


I believe this way of describing the Method of Botam is quite misleading and perhaps all because of the strong influence of Naiyayika who worked in terms of Valid Methods of Knowing (Piramaa karaNam piramaaNam: the valid method is that which yields true understanding). There has been extensive debates on this issue on the commentaries to Civanjana Siddhyar where finally it is established that it is CiRsakti that confers validity and not the various processes of attaining perception and understanding.


Also MeykaNdar nowhere mentions that he is taking the Agamas or any scripture as valid in itself.


There is an occurrence of the phrase in Botam kaaddu odungkak kaaNaatee i.e. a self ceases to see and hence understand anything at all when the showing (kaaddu) ceases to be there. . This shows that there is seeing on the part of anmas only because there is SHOWING and which what he is doing also through this book. MeykaNdar has SEEN some deep truths, the piramaaNam and has written this book in which the sutras articulate these and commentary he himself has written seeks to make others SEE what he has seen himself.


The commentary he has written has a sutra broken down into several MeeRkooL (thesis) where each MeeRkooL is given an eetu (reason) and edutukkaddu (a showing). This kind of commentary was called KaaNtikai Urai in Tol. Marabiyal and MeykaNdar who was a great Tol. scholar, is RECOVERING this KaaNdikai Urai in its original shape here.


The Logic implicit in Botam in Communicative Logic and hence Circular in which the thesis ( sutra; pratiknja) reappears as the agreed upon, the Nigamana and where in this reappearance there is also the agreement of others with the thesis and hence success in making others SEE what one has seen.



If others can be made to SEE what one has seen, it also follows that what is thus seen and understood is an objective truth and NOT a fiction of the mind or something idiosyncratic.






Lessons on Botham 1-9


Q: The methodology implicit in Botam is Hermeneutic Logic where it is organized on the basis of showing and seeing. Now does this mean that Logical Competence is alone sufficient for enjoying Civanjaanam?


â Ө¢ Ģ Ģ ýŢ . ȡ Ţ Ч Ż ž ȡ Ţ?


ǡ ר ǡ âǡ Ȣ ܼ. ǡ âǡ Ȣɦġ ǡ . ġ ‡  ɡ ר Ȣġ. Ũ Ȣ . ɡ, š ǡ Ȣ ɧ; ¡ ɢ, š. š ǡ Ȣ , Żɺ¡â:


¢ɡ ɡ ġ ɡ š측

̨Ţġ Ţɡ ܦȡɡ

ɡ ¡

¢ɡ ̽򧾡즸ġ ¢


Ǣ, š ǡ Ȣ, ž Ţǡ ǨŸǡ оâ Ǣ . ɡ á ɡ Ȣá , ǡ . á ¡ ç¡ ȡ Ţ. ġ, ɡ á Ȣ , ը Ȣ ȢŢɡ Ȣ Ȣšȡ


BEING who is sentient cannot be known through sensory perceptions, which are physical and hence only disclose the physical entities. Hence the method of knowing through sensory perception is useless for perceiving the presence of BEING who is Consciousness Truth and Bliss. Thus it becomes imperative to use inferential and texts related to transductive perceptions (agamas) to understand and acknowledge His presence. However it is said that BEING is absolutely beyond the mind words and bodily actions. So what can this mean? It is true that BEING is absolutely BEYOND such means. In Civanjana Cittiyaar it is said:


Those in True Understanding will laugh at my silly attempt

To explain the Lotus Feet of BEING who stands however

Beyond the scriptures the gods Brahma VishNu mind words and

Faultless Logical measures.


This is also brought out: BEING beyond all the Vedas and such other scriptures, the disclosure of deities like Brahma VishNu and so forth and any kind of logical reasoning. But if BEING is totally unknowable in any way, then He is inexistent serving no purpose at all. So the real meaning is: BEING is unknowable by any HUMAN EFFORT, He can known only by His own blessings, if He wills that we come to know Him only then we will come to know Him.


Ȣ ¡âħ,


Ǣɡ Ȣġ Ţɡ

ġ Ũ ¡

զġ šġ Ţ ¡

զġ âġ §á ġ


Ǣ . ȡ Ǣġ ׾ ɡ , ٨¡ Ţ츢šȡ


It is only because of this, in the same Cittiyaar it is said:


With the Grace of BEING helping out we can understand BEING through the agamas

We can also become clear with the help Logic; and with metaphysical reflections on BEING

Clear the mind of all confusions and live with burning off all bewilderments of existence

And be in the company of the truly divine individuals.


All these means of metaphysical illuminations are useless unless there is Grace of BEING helping out.




Metaphysical illuminations accrue to one within the Showing and Seeing paradigm only if the shown manages to see. The showing through the scriptures, valid and efficient logical demonstrations such as in Botam and so forth are not in themselves efficient to bring about an understanding of the TRUTHS unfolded. A person suffers from metaphysical ignorance, there is a VEIL covering up his eyes, including the mental whereby the Deep Visions remain blocked. In studying such texts, this VEIL, the Tirotakam, a curtain that conceals the visions, has to be removed. But a person on his own efforts cannot remove this veil of concealment and as long as this veil persists to be there no amount of the study of the scriptures metaphysical treatises of faultless logic and so forth will be useful.





Lessons on Botham 1-10


Q: How well these fundamental metaphysical insights also permeate the Sacred Tamil?


Ǣ׸ Ţ Ƣ ?





Ȣ ¡ ¢


Ȣ ¢ ý

Ȣ¢ģ Ҹ!


Tiruk kuRuntokai


kuRikaLum adaiyaaLamum kooyilum

neRikaLum avar ninRatoor neermaiyum

aRiya aayira aaraNam ootinum

poRiyiliir manam en kol pukaatatee!


In order to understand

the meaning of the signs, the identifying marks the significance of the temple and

the various righteous ways and how BEING stands as the cause of all

even if you study thousands of scriptures

you will not understand anything at all unless you are

graced by BEING!



 ¡

š¡ ɢ ġ




񽡸 ġ

ؾ 𦼡


Tirut taaNdakam


Maipadinta kaNNaalun taanum kacci mayaanattaan

Vaar sadaiyaan ennin allaal

Oppudaiyan allan oruvan allan

Ooruuran allan oor uruvam illi

Appadiyum anniRamum avvaNNamum avan arulee

KaNNaakak kaaNin allaal

Ippadiyan inniRattan iv vaNNattan ivan iRaivan

EnRu azutik kaaddoNaatee!


Unless BEING with the Woman of eyes dark , the Lord of cremation grounds of Kacci

And with flowing hair wills it thus

that BEING is Comparable not, the One not, One belonging to a particular city not , one with a definite form not

And these and the colors and different shapes

Unless we see with His Grace filled eyes, we cannot even write and show that

He is thus, of this color nature essence and so forth



ո ɢ ɢ զ

Ȣ¡ Ȣ ç

Ǿ ľ



murukan taniveel muni naG kuruvenRu

aruL koNdu aRiyaar aRiyun taramoo

uruvanRu aruvanRu uLatanRu ilatanRu

iruLanRu oLiyanRu ena ninRatuvee


Unless one understands with the Grace of BEING that

Muruka with a unique Spear is our real Guru

Will not understand that BEING stands

Neither of form nor Formless Neither the Existent nor the Inexistent

Neither Darkness nor Brilliant Light !



Notes (Loga)


The verses cited here range from that Appar (6th cent AD) to that of AruNakiri Natar (14th cent) One can cite hundreds of such verses from other Divine Tamil including the 19th cent Tiruvarutpaa all emphasizing the fact that unless helped along by the Grace of BEING, one can never understand the metaphysical truths. The truths are there already in Nature but remain INACCESIBLE for lack of the appropriate EYES. Our normal vision remains of limited reach and while it reaches very readily the sensorial and hence physical, it remains BLIND to the hidden forces within Nature that give structure and substance to the natural. The eyes must be OPENED UP so that the hidden and concealed are also ACCESSED and enjoyed as darsanas and which also initiates the Icon Thinking.


No matter how high the birth, how well placed in society, how intelligent one is and how arduously one studies the scriptures and so forth, these will count as nothing unless the Grace opens up the inner eyes that would enable the person to SEE the depths and enjoy the darsanas.




Lessons on Botham 1-11


Q: If it is said aruL is necessary and that given the AruL of BEING one can enjoy Civanjanam, then what is the purpose of such treatises as Civanjana Botam?


Ţ: Ż ɢ, 측 Żɧ ?


Ǣ Ǣ . ġ, ٨¡ Ǩ ɢ, . ը ȡ .




ɡ, ¡ Ţ¡ը Ө 򾢧ħ ٨ ¡ ɺá Ţ â ġ. ɡ ľ ǡ Ģɡ ¡ â̧ Ȣ, ģ̇ š ¡ â측.



It is true that if one gets the Grace of BEING, all kinds of understanding will emerge on their own. So let me explain why even such people require the agamas and logical reasoning and so forth. It is true the Grace of BEING can bless one with all kinds of metaphysical illuminations. As said in Tiruvarutpayan, this follows.


NaR kunjarak kanRu naNniR kalainjaanam

KaRkunj carakknRu kaaN


With the blessings of Vinayaka, all the understanding

Will become something that need not be learnt


This also follows from the history whereby on drinking the Milk of Njanam, Sambantar became one endowed with Civanjanam. But the anmas are of different maturities and hence BEING will grace them differently, each in accordance with his own competency.


ɢ Ӻ, ſ¢, áվ . Ǣ, Ӻá ŢǢ â â ¡ , Ţ Ż򧾡 , ȧ . Ŧ â 츢ø . ġ žȡ. ſ¢ š Ǣ Ц â Ţ ź žšǡ Ӿ Ȣ Ҩ , Ȣ Ţš ظ š. áվ Χš ĸ š쨸§ Ԩ , 𺡧 Ȣ, Ƣ Ţ, ո ͸. á Ӻ á áվ ž, á ſ¢째 .


People can be categorized into Caamucittar, Vainayikar and Praakirutar. Among these the Caamucittar are those who in their past births have practiced the Sariyai Kriyai and Yoga rituals and are born now with this previous understanding and who now are desirous of only Moksa. BEING will grace such people directly from within. So such people do not require any scriptural or metaphysical treatises. Now in their previous births those who adhered to other religions but because of meritorious deeds done are born now into Saivism and are keen to study the Vedagamas and the derivative texts follow the prescriptions there and seek through that Moksa are the Vainayikar. Now Praakirutar are the worldly individuals for whom the physical world is the only reality and will live without seeking Moksa like animals, eating and sleeping forsaking religious rituals.


Among these the noble Caamucittas and the lowly Praakirutar do not need metaphysical treatises. Only the intermediate Vainayikar require such texts.






ţ Ģ

ã â Ҹ ȡ




ž Ţ (Ӻá) , Ӿɢ ( Ţ) , ( Ƣ¡Ȣ Ӿ) , â Ÿ¢ . (ġ ž)Żɢ Ȣ 즸 Ƣ¡ 򾢦 Ţ ſ¢á¢, ۨ ʸ ӨȨ¢ ڸȡ.




PaNdai naRRavattaal toonRip paramanaip patti paNNum

ToNdarait taamee tuuya katiyil tokuppan maarkkar

KaNda nuulkaL ooti Viidu kaatalipparkku iisan

PuNadariikat taaL ceerum paricinaip pukalal uRRaam.




BEING with His own instructions from within will grant Moksa for those individuals (the Caamucittar) who have attained the necessary maturity with performing the appropriate yogas and tapas in their previous births. (So such people do not require any scriptures) But for those (the Vainayikar) who seek Moksa through the study of appropriate and valid metaphysical treatises, I describe in this book, the right ways for reaching the Lotus Feet of BEING


Notes (Loga)


Tirumular and Meykandar use the categories of Vinjnjanakalar, PiraLayaakalar and Cakalar, which parallel the categories Caamucittar etc here. While the kalar concepts use the notions of Mummalam with the Vinjnjaana Kalar said to be only with aaNavam, the PraLayaa Kalar with both aaNavam and Kanmam with Cakalar having the Maaya Malam as well, here it appears to be recast in terms of the tapas and yogas in the previous births. However the point is that the really matured individuals do not require scriptural studies because they are beyond them and BEING instructs them directly, and Praakirutar do not need them at all because it is just ABOVE them, beyond their comprehension, it is the intermediate people with only a partial and perhaps an intuitive understanding who require the studies of such metaphysical treatises. They serve to clarify further what is already there in their mind but only as intuitions.




Lessons on Botham 1-12


Q : What is the essence of the Hermeneutic Logic implicit in Botam?


Żɧ ɢ Ţ ýŢĢ Ҹ ¡?



, , Ũ Ƣš째 . š Ƣ 񼡸. ħ â¡ ۨ  ħ š ġ. ġ Żɧ Ӿ , ĸ Ӿ Ũ¡ Ģи.


One gains the Arul of BEING only if one infers from the truth of the visible world, the truth of the invisible presence of BEING using both the Agamas and Hermeneutic Logic and worships BEING in good trust. Those who do not worship may not be granted this Arul. We can see the truth of this from such declarations as in Tiruvasakam: When will the time come when I seek to enjoy your presence just taking the world alone as the evidence! Consistent with this the First Sutra seeks to reason out the truth of BEING as the Causal Ground for world, taking the clue from the Agamas but seeking to establish only through Hermeneutic Logic.


Notes (Loga)


There has been considerable amount of confusion in understanding the methodological principles underlying Botam and where the Logic was extracted but unfortunately put in line with Naiyayika, the most prevalent Logical System in India, little realizing that Meykandar in fact recovers the ancient Logic in Tolkaappiyam which I call the Hermeneutic Logic. The sense of PiramaaNa as used of by Meykandar is that of Axiomatic Truth and he seeks to show that from the observable factical structure of the world, the presence of the unobservable realities can be intuited. The Axiomatic Truths are there already in the world only that they remain HIDDEN and beyond the normal vision of individuals. Since these Axiomatic Truths are also articulated in the Agamas, they are also taken as sources of such insights but to be recovered only by the exercise of Hermeneutic Logic.


This aspect also discloses that Meykandar accomplishes something indeed of very remarkable - the transformation of metaphysical life into a field of science, not that of the positive sciences where theory building hypothesis testing, experimental verification and so forth are central but rather as that Hermeneutic Science where taking whatever that becomes available as a TEXT, a True Understanding is sought to be gained through appropriate INTERPRETAIONS of the text.


The Metaphysics developed is also Natural Metaphysics and NOT the reconstructive or idealistic metaphysics such as that of some Buddhists and Vedanties. The NATURAL is NOT dismissed as untrustworthy and recast into a form in which certain ideological notions become well entrenched like reality is endless flow of momentary particulars of the Buddhists or The appearance of the world, the world of names and forms is not to be trusted etc of the Vedanties and so forth. The world of experience is taken as real but at the same infinitely complex and in the depths of which lurk the divine powers fabricating in various ways what transpire as the Historical and Phenomenal. Thus the general thrust is to OPEN UP the eyes, make people gain visions that are penetrative and through that SEE directly the hidden and concealed. This kind of movement of understanding guided by a logic inherent to it, is the substance of Botam as a whole. As we move along with Meykandar, sutra after sutra, we will have our eyes opened up so that what remains invisible at first become immensely visible provided we UNDERSTAND faultlessly what he says.


The apodictic certainty is a product of Direct Vision and this is what Meykandar seeks to accomplish. And Disconstruction of what is stated with the assumption that it is true becomes the METHODOLIGAL aspect of the Hermeneutic Logic which is the Logic of Hermeneutic Science.




Lessons on Botham 1-13 (The Method of Disconstruction)


Now begins detailed consideration of Botham proper and which begins expounding the essence of the First Sutra which incorporates within itself the Method Disconstruction as the essential Method of Philosophy taken as a species of Fundamental Hermeneutic Science.


Q: How do the elements of Hermeneutic Logic with its Method of Disconstruction show themselves in the First Sutra of Botham?


ýŢĢ ڸ ȡ 󾡾(disconstruction) š Ӿ 츢츢?



Żɧ š Ţ째 øýǡ 츢. ɡ , , , Ш н, ý


ɡ ý Ţ. Δ Ţ 󧾸. 󧾸 Ⱥ¢ ɸ. Ш нҔ ¢ ɸǢ 측 Ÿ н. Ғ нҸ ǡ ǡ Ģ


Each sutra of Botam has been analyzed into number thesis (atikaraNam) in accordance with the matter it deals with. Each thesis (atikaraNam) is the location for the following elements: what is asserted by the author, the doubts raised on it by others, the reason for those doubts, the disconstructing of these doubts and establishing the truths, and reinforcing the fact of the truth with appropriate logical arguments so that a collective agreement comes to prevail.



Notes (Loga)


I have been asked about the meaning of disconstruction that I have coined to distinguish it from such related notions as destruction deconstruction and so forth in Western philosophy. In the above passage of Kirubananta Variyar, we have a succinct description of this method and which is a summary of traditional wisdom on this matter. The central notion is that Citaantap paduttal and which means making it acceptable as a truth and doing whatever so that what is asserted becomes something acceptable even to those who stood initially in doubt about it.


The notion of AtikaraNam and where each sutra is taken as number of related atikaraNams is something like logical demonstration where the thesis invokes antithesis and which in turn the showing of the antithesis as invalid and hence thereby destroying the refutations and further providing evidences and reasons for its acceptance. Thus disconstruction is the showing of the antithesis as invalid and further providing appropriate arguments and evidences for the thesis to be accepted and hence a Siddhanta.


Both the proponents and critiques are concerned with Siddhantas, truths that are objectively there and common to all and disconstruction emerges when a certain thesis is doubted for some reasons or other and all just to show that what is asserted is in fact a Siddhanta, a truth.


Let us take an example. The Lokayata take perception to be only sensory and they equate this with human understanding. This is their thesis and the question arises: Is it a Siddhanta? No, says AruNandi for understanding is ekstatic, historical where the past is incorporated into the present and from the present there is a projection into the future. The presence of TIME as past present and future and as parts of human understanding in general shows that Lokayatas thesis about perception and its equation with understanding is untenable. Thus AruNandi by stating the Siddhanta that understanding is ekstatic and therefore cannot be same as sensory perception successfully disconstructs the thesis of the Lokayatas.


In the body of Botam itself these will be explained further as we go along.





Lessons on Botham 1-14 ( The Essence of First Sutra)


Q: What are the theses of the First Sutra and how are their truth established?


Ӿ Ƣ ¡? š θ?




ý š, Ш, š򾢸 ƢҨ , ý 츨 . Ӿ ý .


1. Ţɨ¢


2. Ȣ Ǿ


3. ɡ .


վġ .




In each thesis there is a statement about the Axiomatic Truths ( cuurNikai) and justifying them in terms reasons and explanatory notes that validates them i.e. explication (vaarttikam) The First Sutra contains the following theses:


1. The various objects of the world understood in terms the referential pronouns avan ( he) she( avaL) , it / that ( atu) individually and collectively ( avai) are tripraxistic ( muuvinaimai)


2. Therefore they are objects that are existents ( titiyee) brought into being-there( tooRRiya) and which suffer withdrawal ( oduGki) because of Malam but reissued ( uLaataam) ( by BEING)


3. The destruction and re-issuance follows because of BEING-as-Destroyer-Regenerator (antamaati). So will say the philosophers( pulavar)


These three are put together because the latter follows from the former.




1. Ƣ .


2. ɡ


3. Ȣ 򦾡Ƣ


The Axiomatic Truths of the First Sutra


1.The world is tripraxistic in terms of coming-into-presence, being-there and then becoming-absent


2.This is so only because of BEING-as-Aran, the Destroyer


3.The other deities ( VishNu and Brahma) will also suffer Tripraxism


Ӿ š򾢸


  1. Ǿ Ģ, Ǿ , .


  1. ɢ, ľ ¢, Ǿ šâȢ Ţ ¢, Ƣ .


  1. ɢ νš νŢȢ Ƣ ;Ȣ ġ, ç Ӿ .


The Explications in the First Sutra


  1. On account of the co-presence of productive and destructive processes within the present , the world understood in terms of the referential terms one male one female one this, that etc also has coming into presence, being-there and then becoming absent.


  1. Now the irreal ( illatu) can never become a presence, and what enjoys presence cannot enjoy it unless acted on by something else, and therefore unless by way of that which causes the absence of all, there cannot be the presence of anything at all.


  1. Now since the world of the-tic consciousness ( cudduNarvu) does not have an independent presence of its own and without being sustained as so by the Destroyer (CaGkaaram) who stands free of that kind of consciousness, it is this Destroyer who is the Primordial Causal Ground of all.


Notes( Loga)


We must notice some central features available in this First Sutra itself. There are some Axiomatic Truths communicated across as insights Meykandar has attained and which can be doubted, rejected and so forth. Meykandar does NOT claim the TRUTH of what he asserts in terms whatever authority, the Vedas and Agamas or even as mystical gifts he is privileged with by God and therefore must be accepted without any questioning. He allows for refutations and diffuses them with his own explications.


The whole context is that of COMMUNICATION in which the Other is assumed as one who has to be made agreeable to what one has seen as Axiomatic Truths and hence anticipating objections and refutations that have to be diffused by counter arguments and so forth. Thus the whole context presupposes Communicative Logic, that of saying something, receiving objections and diffusing them and so forth.


This Communicative Logic, because organized on the basis of Showing and Making another See, is also one of Hermeneutic Logic, that which is designed to make another person SEE what one has SEEN and thereby have the SAME understanding that one already has. Meykandar has a certain understanding and which he sees as Axiomatic Truths and enters into an explication so that he can make others see what he himself has seen so that eventually an AGREEMENT comes to prevail.


We shall see all these in greater details next.



Lessons on Botham 1-15 ( Meykandars Disconstruction of Lokayata etc)


Q: How does Meykandar disconstruct opposition to the notion of World as in Historical flux?


š ĸ Ţɨ 츢ȡ?




Ӿ â ý .


ɢ, Ӿ Ӿľý ը â š򾢸ǡ ý 츧ǡ Ţ̧š.




This first sutra has five arguments ( in the meter of VeNpaa).


We shall now expound the meaning of the first Thesis of the First Sutra along with the statement of the Axiomatic Truths, Explications and Arguments.


Ӿ ý.




(-) 򦾡Ƣ ¾ Ģɡ.


žý ɡ ӾĢ : --


Ӿġ -- ɡ : 򦾡Ƣ .


-- : 򦾡Ƣ §? ȡ?


ȡ -- -- Ȣɦġ â . ġ, ĸ Ȣ¦, ɢ¡ ƢԦ 즸 . Ȣ ¢ . ( š ڧš ȧ 즸 ġ ﺸ)


-- Ш н : Ǿ Ģ, ( ¢ 츢Ģ) .


, ȧ 즸 ġ, ﺸ Ȣ Ƣ Ţ츧 Ǣ ̾¡¡, š Ȣ š Ȣ Ƣ , Ȣ ̾¡ š Ȣ Ƣ ¾



The First Thesis :


Because the objects understood as the individuals he she it/that and their collectivity are tripraxistic (i.e. in Historical Flux) . . .


In this statement, the elements of Hermeneutic Logic such as what is claimed etc are as follows:


First : What is in fact claimed: This world as a whole is tripraxistic i.e. has the processes of being brought into presence (PiRappu), sustaining in presence (iruppu) and eliminating from being present( iRappu)


Second- Doubts cast upon the claim: Is it TRUE that the world is tripraxistic as claimed?


Third- The opposition raised by others: What is not reachable by the senses cannot be admitted as true. Thus the claim that this World came into presence sometime in the past and that it will not be present sometime in the future are not admissible. The world is there as ever and will continue to be so even in the future - this is very certain and hence the truth.


Fourth - The disconstruction of the doubt and establishing the truth: Whenever we use referential terms like that male that female that thing and so forth, in that very indication of PRESENCE of an object thus, there is already implicit the claim that that thing has been brought into presence and that it will also become absent sometime in the future.


Within the framework of the understanding of physical objects that the opponents, the Lokayatas and Mimamsakas bring in, it is pointed out that the referential understanding of objects (and hence the thetic consciousness of objects) the very claim that x is present contains within it the claims x has been brought into presence and x will be eliminated from being present. If this applies to any object of reference, then this must also be true of the World as a Whole as it also becomes an individual but a collective one.


- : ý


⾡ Ӿ Ш¡

¡ Ȣ¢ -- á






¨Ǩ¡ Ȣ𼡾 š, Ӿý , â , Ш측ý . ( Ȣ á. ɡ ĸ Ƣ ȡ Ȣ ġ Ȣ, , Ƣ 񸢧ġ ɢ), š Ţ Ȣ Ȣ, , Ƣž , ( Ţ š ʦʸ ӾĢ Ȣ, , Ƣġ, â š, ӾĢȡ Ħ Ƣ ġ) ȡ¢ â զ ĸ šȡ 측 Ȣ á ġǡ, ¢ġ( ( , ĸ Ȣ šá Φ 측 Ȣר¡ á š


Firth - the Argument that brings about Agreement ( iyaibu)


Puutaati iiRum mutalun tuNaiyaakap

Peetaay titiyaakum peRRimaiyin -ootaaroo

OnRu onRil toonRi uLatay iRakkaNdu

AnRu enRum uNdena aayntu




O you ignorant fool who does not understand even the nature of perception! In the world of physical objects that you approve of, the notion of presence of an object or its existence contains within itself the notions of being brought into presence and it being caused to be absent. (The notion of presence does not come without the notions of being brought into presence and caused to be absent. Now if you say that this does not apply to the world as a whole but only to individual objects as we do not see the world as a whole disappearing) then you should note that in nature there are objects which disappear collectively when the time comes and hence it would follow that this would apply to the world as whole. Things may disappear collectively because of natural disasters like earthquakes, floods, volcanic eruptions, wars pestilence and so forth. So will say the scholars who analyze such matters)


Notes (Loga)


There seems to be some confusion in the interpretation of Meykandars argument, the meaning of the UtaaraNa VeNpaa. What MeykaNdar is at pains to point out is that the notion of presence of the physical object that which is referred to as this and that and over which there is NO disagreement between the Lokayatas and Mimamsakas (unlike the Idealist like Advaita Vedanties who deny this), i.e. the notion of existence of a physical object, living or nonliving contains within it the notions of 'being brought into presence, and will be caused to be absent.


This sharp insight of MeykaNdar should be compared with the notion of Time where as it enters into human understanding enters always as ekstatic i.e. always with past, present and future together and where one notion is impossible to understand with the others. Just as this is the universal feature of how TIME is understood by all who understand the world events, so is the case with respect to existence of physical objects. Any object understood as an existent, contains within it the notions of being brought into presence (uRpatti) and will be caused to be absent (naasam) . This applies not only to individual objects and which is a matter of empirical experience, but also to the world as whole for it is also an object of referential understanding, as a that or this even though it may be an immense collectivity the full extension of which may not be known and we may even experience it.





Lessons on Botham 1-16 ( Meykandars Disconstruction of the Buddhists Samkhyas etc)


Q : How does Meykandar validate the presence of BEING disconstructing the contrary views ?


θ š иȡ?




ɢ Ӿ ý Ţš.


Ӿ - ý.




(-) ɡ Ţ𼾡 է¡. ̾ š Ǣ ¡ 򧾡ž (-)


Variyar :


Now we will expound the second thesis of the First Sutra


The first Sutra- Second Thesis


TooRRiya titiyee oduGki malatuLataam


Meaning: This world is reality that has been brought into presence by someone, an Intelligent Power. It continues to be re-presented from the same Causal Ground that makes it absent and all because to free itself from the Malam (the Dark Stuff, the Giggosum) that remains intrinsic to it.


Notes (Loga)


Notice that for the Saivites, as is the case with al those who trust their everyday experience, the world is REAL and not a mental fabrication as is the case with many idealists like some Buddhists and Advaita Vedanties etc. Furthermore it is stated that it is a reality that enjoys continuous presence despite being made absent during the cosmic dissolution. But why? The reason is the anmas continue to be in Darkness, in Metaphysical Blindness as is also the case with the world as a whole




žý ɡ ӾĢ :


Ӿġ - ɡ : ɡ


- : ɢ ŧ? ɡ 𼧾?


ȡ - :


ǡ ȢƢ. ġ ȢƢ ( )


ǡ Ӿýɢ ȢƢ. ġ 򾸡ýɡ ( )


, Ţ Ţ ŧ ž . Ƣ Ƣ . ( ý¸ áâ )


- Ш н:


ҧ ǡ¢ 측 ġ . ӾĢ ξġ , է. ( )


ը âȢ Ƣ á¡, Ǿ Ţɡ šȢ 񼡸 ( ¨ )


ɢ ̧ ɢ ¡ Ţɡ, š ɢ ɢĢ . ( ý¸ áâ )






The components of Hermeneutic Logic in this thesis are as follows:


First - what is claimed: The world has its presence because of Aran (BEING-as-the-Destroyer)


Second - the doubts raised: Is the world something that is of the nature of dependent production or an absolute reality brought into presence by Aran?


Third - The Objections raised by others:


The world is not absolutely real but rather something that comes into being as a dependent reality ( and hence only seemingly real)- clusters of momentary particulars (This is the view of the Buddhists)


The world is absolutely real but does not require a Causal Agent as it evolves and relapses on its own accord from the primordial basis (This is the view of the Samkhyas)


The world is real and has a Causal Agent but this agent cannot be Aran, the Destroyer but only either Brahma, the God of creation or VishNu, the God of preservation. (This is the view of the IraNiyakaruppan and Panjarattiri, a sect of VaishNavas)


Fourth- the Disconstruction of the objections:


If the universe is irreal or simply a mental construction like the horns of a rabbit, then at no time it would have a presencing. But it a common understanding that the world as a whole is understood as an existent, something that enjoys a presence and hence something brought into being present. ( This disconstructs the Buddhists)


There cannot simply be praxis, an act of presenting the world without also an AGENT of such praxis. Thus the world as an existent reality must have a Causal Agent for its presence as such ( This disconstructs the Samkhyas)


Now from the logical basis that what is resolved can be reissued only that which resolves it, it follows that it is Aran who resolves the universe as a whole can re-issue it ( This disconstructs the IraNiyakaruppan and Panjcarattiris)




: : ý


¢ ɢ ¢򾾡

¢š Ǿ - ¢

򾢾¢ ɢ Ƣ¡ Ƣ



() ¢ ¢ɢ . ¢š Ǿ. ¢ 򾢾¢ ɢ, Ƣ¡. 򾢾 Ƣ.




, Ǣɢ ý . () ʧ 񼡸. š ŢŢ , Ţ . š Ţ, Ÿ , ¡ ɢ Ţš.




Fifth - argument to bring about agreement:


Ilayitta tannil ilayittataam malattaal

IlayittavaaRu uLataaka veendum ilayittatu

Attitiyil ennil aziyaatu avai azivatu

Attityum aatiyum aGku




That which is resolved ( ilayittatu) is re-issued from that into which it was resolved and all to free it from Malam the dark Stuff. Now what was resolved must be reissued just as it was resolved ( to account for the continuity). Now if you say the absenting the universe is contained within the sustaining and hence VishNu, the Power of the preservation of the Universe, then the absenting of the universe as a whole will be impossible. But this happens at cosmic dissolution ( Makaa PraLayam ) Hence the productive and conservative praxis and hence VishNu and Brahma must already be contained within Aran, BEING as the Power that dissolves the whole Universe.



Notes( Loga)


The disconstruction is focused upon the VaishNavites who claim that it is VishNu, who as the preserver and who contains as part of Himself Brahma, who can be also the Causal Ground for the universe as a whole. Meykandar brings attention to the fact only the Power that dissolves the universe as a WHOLE and NOT individual parts of it, can be the Primordial Causal Ground and hence a Power who includes within also the icons of VishNu and Brahma.


The Buddhists objection are easily ruled out by showing that in common understanding the objective presence of individuals and the universe as a Totality of such individuals is already PRESUPPOSED. So even the purely theoretical or constructive attempts of the Buddhist to INVENT a new metaphysics of momentary particulars and explaining the presence of physical objects and so forth, does NOT DENY the common presupposition and hence they are wrong in giving the impression that this common presupposition itself is being recast.


The objection to Samkhyas rests on the understanding that ACTIONS require Agents, that there cannot be praxis as such without an Intelligent Power that executes it. This hinges on the understanding that the Tripraxism , the muuvinai, is INTENTIONAL , not simple processes but rather acts and thus requiring an agent.


All these will be considered in greater details next.





Lessons on Botham 1-17 (The Icons as Hierarchically Organized)


Q: How does MeykaNdar validate his hierarchical view of deities and that Aran , BEING-as-Destroyer is Supreme over Brahma and VishNu?


š 򾢸Ǣ Ƣ ǡ ç Ӿ иȡ?


šâ¡: ( â ý Ţ Ţ)


ĸ ( ), Ţɢ ž. ( ĸ ڦɢ) ĸ 򧾡 ¢ġ, â , â 󧾡. ( ɡ ɢ , ɡ, ﺧ ڦ ɢ), š ȡ, šš Ȣ Ǿ .


ĸ Ӿý øվ š šͧ Ţ ¡¢, š Ǣ ¡â ̾ ب Ţ . ̾ šͧ Ţ¡ġ¡, š Ţ þ ̾¢ ̧Ȣ Ÿ Ţ¡Ĩ ¡ , ¡ ĸ ¡ š. ( ɡ ¡ â ̾ ̦ɢ) š á½ɡ š ɡ ھ ý øŢ ( -)


Vaariyar ( a more elaborate exposition of the above argument )


The world that was withdrawn totally, when it is re-issued, it is done from where it was withdrawn. Now if asked why it has to be re-issued, it is because the world as a whole is infected with Malam (Black Hole), and it is withdrawn to dissolve the existing karmic traces and re-issued to defeat the Black Hole. Now if asked why the universe re-issued is not said as something different from that which was withdrawn but rather the same, this is because what was withdrawn must be reissued as the same (to account for the historical continuity)


Now if you say that the withdrawal was into Muulappirakiruti, and hence done by Vasudeva, the God of sustenance, even if you believe thus, but the whole of the manifest reality will not be withdrawn into this Muulappirakiruti. Vasudeva has NO POWER beyond that realm and hence only the realms below it and which are local and sustained by the kalais Nivritti and Piratishddai and only these will be resolved into it. There are realms ABOVE it, that of Acutta Maayai where pervades the Kalai of Vidya and that of Cutta Maayai, where pervades the Kalais of Caanti and Caantiyaatiitai and which will NOT be withdrawn into Muulappirakiruti. Now if asked where will even all these realms collectively will be withdrawn, then note that it is withdrawn by the Agent of the Great Dissolution, Aran and who is also that from which even Narayana, the God of sustenance and Brahma, the God of production also originate.


Notes (Loga)


While the technical terms of the Saivite Cosmology may be difficult to understand, overall it appears that MeykaNdar, according to Variyar, notes a graduated involution of the whole universe in which VishNu, the competitor to Siva is localized to the realms of Muulappirakiruti and the worlds BELOW it and hence having no power beyond that realm. The Muulappirakiruti is a very ancient notion that is central in Samkhya philosophy and which is understood as that from which the GuNas, Satvika Rajasa and Tamasa are said to issue forth. However the Saivites also note in their ontology the presence of Malam, the Black Hole lodged in realms deeper than the primordial stuff of the Three GuNas. VishNu reigns over the realms of GuNas and hence the Prakriti but NOT the realms of where pervade the Malam, that which wipes out everything into an emptiness by swallowing whatever present as such and such. Among the living creatures it is present as that which causes the DEATH and in the universe as that which would cause an Emptiness to prevail. Now this emptiness and hence absolute DARKNESS with nothing shining forth as there, is NOT is the resolution of the GuNas into the Prakriti for even as Muulapprakiriti something is there and the presence of the universe as a whole in that form i.e. as Prakiriti. Thus resolving everything back into Muulappirakiruti, the original stuff from which emerge the GuNas, the various qualities both physical and spiritual, is NOT total resolution for Muulappirakiruti as such is present. It follows then that there are processes of withdrawal even DEEPER than these and these are concerned with the withdrawal of Acutta Maayai and Cutta Maayai where the these are transformations of Pure Energy itself, the former physical and the latter the mental, the realms physical and mental objects and where pervades also the Malam, the Black Hole.


Aran is BEING who has power over this Malam, the Black Hole and hence over the death of individual creatures and the universe as a whole. VishNu as the Power over the sustenance of all, does not have power over DEATH (and Regeneration) of individual creatures as well as the world as a whole.





Lessons on Botham 1-18 (MeykaNdar on the China - Box Universe)


Q: How does MeykaNdar show that BEING is beyond all Tatvas?


š ġ Ţ иȡ?





á ġŢ, ġ áɢ¢, áɢ , , ĸ , Ȣɡ . š Ţ Ţ. Ţ Ţ, ̧ , ̧ ; ̧ , Ţ; ̧ ; ̧ ; ̧ . žá Ŧ Ţ ġ Ӿ Ģ â ý¸ ӾĢ վ ̸. š Ȣ¡ ŧ Ƣ Ƣ , ɡ Ӿ Ǣ .


Many villages are included in a district; many districts in a kingdom; many kingdoms in a nation; many nations in a continent, many continents in the world. In this manner are organized the world of Tatvas, those fabricated by the basic manifest realties. Each such realm has its own overlords where the Lord of one becomes subservient to the Lord of the realm that includes it. Above Brahma we have VishNu, above VishNu Rudra; above Him Makeswara, above him Cataaciva; above him, Bindu; above that Natam, above that Para Sakti and above it all Sivam. The Upanishads Kaivalyam Taitiriya AraNiyaka and so forth declare that ParaCiva who is ABOVE all the realms of Tatvas is in fact the Primordial Power ABOVE Brahma VishNu and Rudra. The same understanding is echoed in Tiruvasakam as: The BEING even beyond the reach of the King of gods and stands as the King of the Triad is He who brings into presence preserves and withdraws all


â¡ Ŧ ǡ , , Ţ, , , , , Ũ¢ ; . ¢ . , ̽Ģ øվ ɡ Ũ â. Ţ . á, ź ¡ úŨ á ¡ , š 츢 žʸ ŧ - Ŧ áɡ Ţ âŧÔ ȢǢ.


The Pure Unconditioned Murrti of ParaCiva assumes the nine root archetypal forms of Sivam Sakti Natam Bindu Cataaciva Makeswara Rudra VishNu and Brahma. Among these, Rudra Vishnu and Brahma belong to the species of living entities (who suffer birth and death). Among these Rudra who is above the other two, destroys the realms of guNas and Prakriti (and NOT the realms beyond that). These three deities get resolved into that of Makeswara when the time comes. Without realizing this distinction and because of which some confuse Rudra with ParaCiva, who resolves the World as a Whole that Manikkavasakar sang lamenting : Confusing BEING, the ParaCiva with the Trimurties and hence as one who lords the heavenly world and earth, they roam around as if they know the Truth; I just dont know what evil they have done for this ignorance!


Notes (Loga)


The Saivites make a distinction between the Icon of Rudra and that of ParaCiva, the BEING-in-itself and the Rudra form He assumes. The total withdrawal of the universe as a whole so that there is NOTHING including Space is what is understood as Makapralayam, the Total Withdrawal of the world as a whole so that even the icons are no more there. At this stage only DARKNESS prevails hence not even Rudra Vishnu and Brahma Only after the presenting of the World by violating the DARK, that there can the deities and hence Rudra Vishnu and Brahma and so forth for the management of the world as a reality already present with only LOCAL processes of production, sustenance and annihilation and which are ascribed to the Trinity Brahma Vishnu and Rudra.


Now we have to note also the China-Box kind of organization of the World. First we have the physical world, the Mulataram, common to all but which hides within the Hermeneutic world of MEANINGS and which are accessible only if the languages are investigated. This realm of semantics, of word meanings and so forth is the realm of Brahma, also known as the Veetan, the Lord of Scriptures. And when we explore to the limits this world, then emerges the World that has remained Unconscious, that which becomes available to dreams and related experiences. This is the realm of VishNu, the one of ARituyil or Yoganidra, the realms of transductive perception. This world is also that of Icon Thinking where in experiences similar to Lucid Dreams, the Icons are encountered directly and deep metaphysical truths learned. After this comes the realms of Rudra, the Anakatam where all the worldly desires are singed to ashes and the soul made PURE.


There is a hierarchical organization in this metaphysical development - one hiding the other and disclosing at the appropriate times but which end up with PURIFYING the soul, making it fit to enter the higher realms.


The purification processes involve cleansing the soul of the Mummalam and in stages with Anakatam and hence Rudra removing the presence of aaNavam in the soul and which is the source of egotism itself. The self becomes egoless and only such selves are allowed the Vicutti, the realms of Makeswara. But what is done by Makeswara when the soul already pure?


While the soul may be egoless but at this point another kind egotism sets in, that of declaring that I am God etc and seeking, out of ignorance of another kind, to become God, the Messiah. This is because of the Tirobavam, the Transcendental Concealment of BEING Himself and is which also considered a malam of a different kind. From Vicutti what happens is Disclosure of BEING Himself as what He is Himself, the Coruubam knowing which the messiah-self becomes humiliated with the recognition that it is all BEING and that He plays the AS-IF games and because of which he has been seeking to become a Messiah etc.


Thus we see in this account an explanation of spiritual development as a process that develops in stages with the higher stages gained by accessing a deeper in the already given and Para Civa reaming above all these phenomenal processes




Lessons on Botham 1-19 (The Images and Projects of BEING)


Q: How does MeykaNdar maintain that while BEING manages the world but remains at the same time unaffected by it all?


š ɡ ; 츢ġ ȡ Ţ̸ȡ?






Ţ š ø

Ţ¡ - Ţ

ɡ ا ը

𼡧 Ǣ.




Ǣ, () Ţ Ǿ , ŢĢ Ө Ȣšڧ, (¡) Ţ ¢ɢ Ǿ ġ, Ƣ Ţ츣 측â Ţ ơ ¾. šǢ¡ Ţ¡̾ Ţ Ţ šǢ¡ Ţ ڧ, Ţ Ţ .( ġ Ц ; 즸?)


ġ Ц ; 즸ɔ Ȣ. , Ģ Ţ . .




The Argument:


vittuNdaa muulam muLaittavaa taarakamaam

attan taaL niRRal avar vinaiyaal - vittakamaam

veedduvanaam appuzupool veeNduruvait taan koduttuk

kuuddaanee maNpool kuLirntu.




When the earth cools with moisture, if already there a seed then it will sprout and issue out the radical. In the same way, if even the basis of all things, the Maayai, is already there, unless there is the decree of BEING, the Sakti, there will not be the production of the bodily forms all consistent with the karmic traces already there with them. In this just like the Grasshopper which provides its form to the caterpillar that desires it, so does BEING - He provides the various IMAGES that are desired by the creatures and like the cool earth, provides also the conditions for them to realize those images.


Since BEING provides only what is desired by the creatures and feeds also the consequences of realizing such images, BEING remains an autonomous reality, unaffected by the experiences of the creatures.




, ĸ Ӿ ý ¢ ̧Ȣ, 򾸡ý Ǣ ɢ . ̧ Ө, ¢ ĸ § Ţ; ž . š , ̼ Ţ; ġ Чġ. ̼ ɾ ý, ý, ġ ý. ýǢɡ ̼ ¢. , Ӿ ý, Ш ý, ġ 򾸡ý. Чħ, ĸ Ӿý, н측ý, 򾸡ý. ýǢɡ ĸ ¢.




The Samkhyas maintain: The world is finally resolved into Maayai, the primordial material basis. Now as such it will not be resolved into BEING, the Agentive Cause. And since it is natural to assume that something is re-issued only from that into which it was resolved in the first place, it is Maayai that will re-issue the whole world; we do not need an Agentive Cause. This is akin to saying that clay into which the pots are resolved, will re-issue the pots from within itself on its own without requiring the actions of the Potter. It should be noted that the clay is the Material Cause, the wheel and rod the Instrumental Cause and the Potter the Agentive Cause. A pot as a reality comes to be present only by the joint actions of these three different causes. Extending this analogy to the world as a whole, we can see that the Maayai is the Material Cause, the Power (Sakti) the Instrumental Cause, and BEING the Agentive Cause.




Ȣ Ө ¢ Ţ; Ţ ¢ . Ţ . ӨǨ ĸ. ź쾢. ŢĢ Ө Ȣɡ, Ţ ǢȢ Ө ȡ. Ч, ¢Ģ ĸ ¢, ź쾢 Ȣ (¡) Ĩ Ţ측. ɢ ȡ¡, ġ ŧ ĸ 򾡦 н.


Ӿ ĸ Ũ Ţ 󧾸 , šǢ Ȣšȡ.


And furthermore, the basis for the radical is the seed and the earth is the basis for the seed. The Maayai is like the seed and the world is like the radical. Here Civa Sakti is like the earth. Even though the radical emerges from the seed, but this will not happen unless the earth cools with moisture. In a similar manner, even though it is true that the world emerges from Maayai, unless this Maayai is agitated by the decrees by Civa Sakti, the Maayai will not issue forth world on its own from within itself. Now since Sakti is inseparable form Civa and gets resolved into Civa Himself, it follows that it is Civa who is the Real Agentive Cause for the world.


The analogy of the Grass Hopper is brought in to explain the varied nature of structural and functional forms of the worlds and things in it.


Notes (Loga)


The central observation is that even though the various kinds material basis for configuring the various things are already there, but nothing will materialize as a concrete thing unless there is the DECREE from BEING, here Civa Sakti complex. While BEING-s-Civa provides the IMAGES and all consistent with the karmic traces of the things or creatures, BEING-as-Sakti provides the energy and hence motivational dynamics for the creatures to become the IMAGE. Thus the Images become the PROJECTS that hover there but in the unconscious for the creatures to realize an existential form. An analogy, perhaps not very apt, is brought in to explain it. The caterpillars desire to become a grasshopper is made possible by the various mantra-syllables within and some of which will create an image of the adult grasshopper so that the metamorphoses is guided by that image within. Without the presence of this IMAGE within, there will be no sense of direction for the various biophysical processes to proceed. Thus the IMAGE and ENERGY are both required for anything to become a reality through metamorphoses.


The production of the world out of the material Maayai is compared to these metamorphoses. There must be a combination of IMAGES and ENERGY, hence Civa Sakti for the presencing of the world as reality.


Now since BEING as Civa Sakti is only the source of IMAGES and POWER which may be assumed or rejected by the anmas, BEING remains autonomous and uninvolved in the evolutionary processes in the sense that BEING does not become any of the images that He projects.


BEING always remains the BEING, does not ever become any of the Avatars as is the case with VaishNavism. The Avatars in Saivism are understood as the IMAGES projected by BEING.





Lessons on Botham 1-20 (BEING as Beyond Temporality)


Q: How does Meykandar explain that BEING manages the world but remains unaffected by it all?


š ĸ , ɡ ȡ ȡ Ţ̸ȡ?




측 츢

측 - 측

׽Ţ ׽

ɢ ȡ




Ӿ, ( ӾĢš ġ Ƣ ŢȢ ) 򨾧 Ţ , ý ¡ 򾢧ħ , š ý š , ý Ƣ측 Ƣġ, ȡ, ; ( Ȣ 񽡾š ) Ţ , Ţ Ȣ ׽Ţ , ŢȢ Ȣ 񽡾š , (-)




Nookkaatu nookki nodittu anRee kaalattil

Taakkaatu ninRu uLattiR kaNdu iRaivan - aakkaatee

KaNda navuNarvil kaNda kanavuNarak

KaNdavanin iRRu inRaaG kaaddu




The Primordial BEING like Time that remains the same despite being differentiated into past present and future, remains unaffected and unchanging. He makes the world present not through any instruments but by WILL alone. In the same way He preserves and destroys not with instrumental actions but by WILL alone. On account of this way of managing the world, BEING remains uninvolved and hence unchanging. This is like the state of the mind when the contents in the memory store become available again. It is also similar to seeing something in the world but recognizing it as what one has already seen in a dream before.




Ө ̼ ĸ ¡¢, Ũ ¡ɡ? ɢ, Ũ ӾĢ ӾĢ ý Ĩ . ġ, ӾĢȢ ȡ. ɢ, Ģ ȡ 񽡾 ¢, Ÿ 츢 Ȣ Ţ 񽡾 ¢ .


-; ɢ . Ӿ Ҩ ŨȢ, ڨ.





It is questioned: if your creator God functions like a potter and would into presence the world etc, then He is effecting an intentional action and hence bound as such it is replied that BEING does not effect all these either with organs or tools like the mind etc. He just simply WILLS all and hence remains uninvolved, not bonded to the world etc. It is like the mind remaining unaffected when contents of the memory store emerge and there is only recognition. It is also similar to the experince of seeing in reality what has already been seen in dream there is only recognition.


anRee is simply a sound filler, it can also be taken as anaatiyee i.e, nonconfigured. The analogy of potter is applicable only partially, not fully.




Notes (Loga)


I think there is a fundamental error on the part of Variyar in understanding the essence of this argument, an error that was committed by Civanjana YogikaL also who is followed here by Variyar. The crucial term kaalattil taakkuRaatu ninRu and where TIME is taken as an analogy for the essence of BEING does not seem to be the view of Meykandar. Actually the term means: BEING stands WITHOUT time consciousness, in fact beyond Time and hence who can be Kaalakalan, He who can destroy time consciousness itself. BEING remains uninvolved with the world processes even though He is the Causal Ground in the sense that He does NOT LEARN anything at all by His managing the world. Involvement means LEARNING and hence the destruction of IGNORANCE. When a potter produces a pot of his own design, there is LEARNING, destroying ignorance pertaining to the production of pots and what it involves. This is true of all productive activities of the human beings. Such a kind of LEARNING is not available with BEING for He is Amalan, the Absolutely Pure, there is no any dark patch of ignorance, He is fully conscious of all.


That Meykandar means only this is very clear from the analogies he gives. He subscribes to the widely known fact that most of the dreams are prophetic, they foretell an event before it occurs. Thus a person who had a dream of such a kind and later sees as reality, there is nothing NEW in that event and hence there is nothing that he LEARNS as it would be the case if he had not had that dream. There is only RECOGNITION and NOT a genuine seeing. The same applies when the contents of memory crops up and become elements of consciousness. There is only RECOGNITION and not learning as such.


This is also the meaning of Meykandars cudduNarvu iRantu ninRa caGkaaram, the Agent of Total Withdrawal who stands beyond the-tic consciousness.


Because of this recognition-like awareness of BEING, He is said to see without really seeing (nookkaatu nookkaL), and effecting all (noditaal) within this state of Being with the world.



Lessons on Botham 1-21 (The Destroyer is the Primordial BEING)


Q: How does Meykandar resolve the conflict among the different religions as to the essence of the Primordial BEING?


š Ţ ġ øýɡ Ӿ Ӿ иȡ?




Ӿ - ȡ ý


(ɡ )


(-) Ƣ ק Ӿ (-)


žý ɡ ӾĢ .


Ӿġ - ɡ : ý Ӿ ǡġ Ȣ 򦾡Ƣ.


- : Ӿ ɡ? ɸɡ?


ȡ - : ĸ Ӿ ¡¢, Ӿġ žɡ, Ÿ 츢 Ţ ĸ á Ӿ . ( šǢ )


- Ш н :


ӾĢ á , Ƣ áġ, ž šâǢ á½ ŧ , Ӿ , ç ɢ Ē , 즸ġ Ӿ¡ 츢ɢ , , ĸ ǡ â ¡ š츢Ǣ á½ ӾĢ¡ ý, Ƣ ӾĢ¡, š ý Ȣ ¡ġ, Ŧġ (úɡ ¢ ¡ ¢ ) ̦á øýɡ Ӿ רǧ ġ, Ţ ġ Ƣ ŢӾġ Ӿ ø ŧ.





The First Sutra - the third Thesis:


Antamaati (enmanaar puavar)




The Primordial BEING is One who is the terminator-initiator and not the others (so will say the philosophers)


The elements of Hermeneutic Logic in this thesis are as follows:


First - the proposition stated: Among the Trinity, it is the Destroyer Aran who is the Primordial BEING while the other two i.e. VishNu and Brahma will be subject to tripraxis and hence not the Primordial Power


Second- doubts raised:


The Primordial BEING, one or many?


Third- the reason given for the counter point:


This is the statement of the Aneekaccuravaati i.e. those who claim that there are many Primordial BEINGS (Gods)


We see that a complex entity like a chariot is produced only by a team of experts, skilled in the different arts required. Now the whole universe, being infinitely more complex than the chariot and things like that would require the joint functioning of several primordial Powers.


Fourth- the Disconstruction of the counter point:


In any complex activity where teamwork is coordinated there is a DIRECTOR whose decrees are followed by all others. In the Vedas (and other scriptures) we find claims like At the beginning only NaaraayaNa was there, Only Brahma was there at the beginning of all; Indra! There is no power greater than you! It is Agni who is the greatest amongst all the celestial beings For the world that dies and re-issued, it is the Sun that remains the self. In such statements, the different deities are claimed to be the primordial BEING, only because like the potter and gold smith, they are intermediate agents (avaantara kaaraNam) and hence cannot be the Primordial Agent. The attribution of final causality to such deities is similar to saying that the architect who raises the temple is the temple builder even though it is raised at the behest of the King and with his financial support.






ġ Ǿ š

ġ Ȣ ȡ - ġ

Ӿ ɢ ġ š




̾, ( Ũ ) ġ ǡ, , š , Ǣ , ̾, ŧ ĸ Ӿ . (ɡ, νŢȢ 򧾡 ¢̦ ž žɡ Ÿ Ӿ š ɢ) , ը ħ, ƢŢȢ ¢ ( ¢ǡɨ) , ţΧȢ ( ¢) Ƣ¡ ʨ¡ ( Ӿ ) (-



Fifth - the Argument:


OnRaala onRu ulataaki ninRavaaRu

OnRalaa onRil avai iiRaatal onRalaa

IiRee mutal atanin iiRalaa onRu palavaaRee

Tozumpaakum aGku




The realm of living creatures have presence and sustenance because of the ParamPorul who is NOT either of the world of forms or the formless. And because all such entities are finally resolved into this ParamPoruL, this that withdraws all must be the Primordial Cause of all. Now if it is claimed by the Vedas and Agamas that the souls who attain Moksa will the ame as this BEING and hence would also count as Primordial Power just like BEING, it is NOT so. Even though such anmas are there non-configured or unoriginated (anati) just like BEING, and always there, but they remain always subservient to BEING


Notes (Loga)


I believe the real meaning of Meykandar and how he establishes the Primordiality of BEING who is also understood as that which terminates all, over and above being also as the one who presents and sustains all, is not brought out very well here. The translation of the VeNba should be as follows:


The One which in not really a one (onRalaa onRu) presents itself and sustains itself as there (requiring for this no power beyond itself) ( uLataaki ninRavaaRu). Now all the other sentient beings, including the gods, being not such an AUTONOMOUS Power, suffer finally withdrawal into this (OnRaal onRil avai iiRaatal). Thus because of this, this One which is not really one among them but which terminates the presence of all, must be the Primordial Cause. (OnRalaa iiRee mutal). And because of this even those anmas who attain Moksa and enjoy deathlessness (iiRalaa onRu) cannot be identical with this BEING but remain in servitude of kinds.


What Meykandar seeks to convey is that BEING is a Mystery, an indeterminate thing for anyone who would seek to THINK and categorize BEING. BEING is neither Rudra nor VishNu nor Brahma even though these forms are there only because of Him. The most the thinking mind can capture is that such root archetypes cannot exists without BEING presenting them as such.


BEING is the unconditioned and totally autonomous Reality who presents and absents Himself on His own accord. This is the grammar of Primordial BEING and since these are self terminating and self presenting, something that is manifest in the Destroyer form of BEING, the BEING as such is taken as the Primordial Cause. The other deities, devoid of this destructive power of their own, cannot be the autonomous BEING who is Power unto Himself.


Now while the anmas are anati and at the point of Moksa, are same as BEING in terms of quality, but they cannot self sustain themselves the way BEING does and hence are always dependent on the Grace of BEING for enjoying even Moksa.




Lessons on Botham 1-22 (BEING is ONE and not Many)


Q: How does MeykaNdar establish that the primordial BEINg cannot be more than One?


ĸ Ӿġ ŧ () š ħ иȡ?




¢ â ¡, ¢ Խž ġ, ŢŨ ĸ ¢ Ȣ Ƣ. ġ, Ÿ Ȣ Ƣ Ÿ ȡ Ӿ . , ĸ Ţ ξĢɡ, š Ӿ ڽ, Ţġ, , ; ӾĢ þ ̽ . ɡ ŧ ¢ . 츽 šȡ ڨ¢ Ƣ 츢 š ġД . , Ȣ ڨ¢Ȣ ġ 츽Ǣɡ ո á. ġ, ġ ڽ, Ţġ ӾĢ Ȩ ̽ ¡. Ţ Ӿר ġ ڔ ȢǢɡ.





The realms of the physical stuff (aceetanap pirapanjcam) is insentient (cadam: non-intelligent) and the realms of sentient beings (ceetanap pirapanjcam) is constituted by anmas which are bound by various kinds Paacaas i.e. finitizing chains and because of which they enjoy only the-tic consciousness (cudduNarvu) Thus this world as constituted by these two realms of objects lack the capacity to self-destroy self-regenerate and self-sustain. Hence it follows, (to account for the world being tripraxistic) that there is an intelligent BEING beyond and different from themselves which is causal grounds for their presence sustenance and withdrawal. Now since this world is infinitely complex and enormously variegated, this BEING who manages it all must be One with Full and Integral Understanding (muRRuNarvu), Infinite Power (aLavil aaRRal), Boundless Grace (PeeraruL), Unconditioned Supreme Autonomy (cutantiram) and so forth. Now from this it does not follow that there are many BEINGS for the management of the world. It is said, Where there are no differences whatever in the grammar there cannot can not different kinds of literature. It means that there are no objects, which agree upon in every detail, and hence indistinguishable from each other, there must be some differences for their individuality. So it is not sensible at all to consider that there are different BEINGS rather than just a BEING because of the above qualities. It is to explain this that MeykaNdar describes BEING as onRalaa onRu, the One that is NOT one of these in the world.




Ţ â Ȣ š , ¢ š ۼ Ӿ ȢŢȢ Ȣ¡. š 측 ʸ ¢ ġ, ¢ ɢ Ҩ . Ȣ, ¢ 򧾡 Ţ¡ Ȣ, Ţ즸Ǣ¢ 񦽡Ǣ, Ţ¡ Ţ¡¡ . 측ýǡ Ƣ¡ ¢ Ӿ ʨ¡ ڽ. (ɡ ¢ ﺸ źš š )




When the Darkness disappears, the eyes will not see unless the (inner) sun arises and guides the seeing. In the same way in the state of Moksa where the anma is pure and free of any constraints (or fetters), it will not see unless BEING shows by standing the same as that anma. The essence of anma is to be what it is one with. Just like a crystal in this - it reflects only the colors that falls on it, itself lacking any radiating powers. Even in Moksa, the anma remains dependent on BEING for whatever it is; it cannot be an autonomous reality of its own. Even though during this state the anma enjoys equal expansion and spread as of BEING, but like the light of the eyes being an integral part of the light of the lamp, the anma remains an integral part of the initial expansion and spread of BEING Himself and NOT something outside it. In this way it is shown that the anma even during the state of Moksa is dependent on BEING for whatever it is and hence not at all an independent and autonomous reality equal to BEING (This explanation also disconstructs the Civasamavati, those who claim that at the point of Moksa, the liberated anmas can execute the Panca Kritiyas, the Universal Praxis of BEING)




¢ Ȣ ¢ ʨ ̨Ƨ¡ ǡ ǡ ¢ɧ ڸɡ ǡ ʨ 째 ǡ Ȩ 񼡧 ž ǡ ġ.




We can get evidences for the truth that anmas, not only during the non-liberated state but also during the liberated reamin dependent on BEING, from such declarations in the Tamil Vedas as As subservient to Siva, who stands wearing the white conch shell in one of His ears, (to show the Female as an integral part of Him) we approach His Lotus Feet as ones who can never escape being subservient to Him. As the ever irredeemable slave and servant to you and in that not seeking no one else etc.


Notes (Loga)


There are several points that are brought out there. The first is BEING is One, the eekattuvam whether He is called MahaVishNu Para Brahma Allah Christ the Un-nameable etc. For BEING is the only one who can self-destroy, self-emerge and self-sustain i.e. become ABSENT from the world and hence cause its total withdrawal, re-present Himself and cause there to be the world again and, self-sustain Himself in that state and hence cause the world to sustain itself in its presence. From this it a follows that the root archetypal forms (or avatars in general) are in fact various kinds of presentations of one and the same BEING.


The second point is that anmas while being indestructible at any point, i.e. even during the Total Withdrawal of the Universe, the Makapralayam, and hence just as anati as BEING, but can never EQUAL BEING even during the state of Mukti where they enjoy the SAMENESS with BEING qualitatively. For even during these moments, they depend for such a way of BEING on the Grace of BEING; BEING can always withdraw the Grace, as He is the Power unto Himself. The anmas are not so at any point even during Moksa.


The third point is that the Tevaram Corpus, called here Tamil Veda here, have a distinctive character about them viz. they embody this notion of Moksa and understanding of metaphysics and in that perhaps differ from the Vedas and Upanishads. The Metaphysics of Triadism, i.e. Saiva Siddhanta is the foundation of the Divine Tamil, the Tevaram Corpus collectively.




Lessons on Botham 1-23 (The Essence of the First Sutra)


Q: What important accomplishments in metaphysics prevail in the First Sutra of Botham?


Ȣš Żɧ Ӿ ?





ɡ ĸ Ȣ Ƣ ӾĢȡ Ȣ ܼ¡ էǔ ﺸ ĸ¾ , ĸ ǡ ǡ Ȣ Ƣ , ĸ ǡ¢ ; 񼡔 , Ƣ Ţϧ Ӿ ǡ á , Ţ ĸ á ܼ¡, š 了 Ӿ Ǣ .




Meykandar disconstructs the following notions and establishes, on the basis of them, the truth and essence of BEING. The views disconstructed are: that of the Mimamsakas and Lokayatas who claim that the world should be taken as eternally there as its total dissolution and so forth is not perceived at all; the Buddhists view that the world is not absolutely real but only something that appears to be so and has only dependent origination; the Samkhyas view that if the world is real let be it so but it does not require any power beyond itself to be as such; the view of Panjarattiris who claim that only the God of Preservation, VishNu can be the Primordial Power and the view of Anekaaccurar that the world being such an immensely complex kind of reality should have several Powers as the authors of it.


Notes (Loga)


Variyar notes only the substance of what in fact Meykandar accomplishes in the First Sutra by way of disconstructing the various views put forward as alternatives and critiques of his own. The argument of Meykandar is fact CIRCULAR - he already knows what is the truth and enters into a disconstruction of contrary views against the presupposition of the truth that he already has a grasp. Thus disconstruction is actually clearing the ground for self and others to see what one has seen and seen as Axiomatic Truth, i.e. PiramaaNa in one sense of that word. The presence of BEING and He being the only Power that is capable self-destruction, self-regeneration and self-preservation and hence requiring no Power other than itself for it presence absence and so forth, BEING as CaGkraa kaaraNan is the understanding that is Axiomatic Truth for Meykandar which can be also be the same for all. The Axiomatic Truths are objectively for anybody to see and understand.


When there is refusal to acknowledge this such as by the Mimamsakas Lokayatas and so forth, Meykandar has no choice but to enter into a dispute or dialogue with them with the intention of showing where they are wrong and how he is right.


In this attempt to shows others what he has seen as axiomatic truths , he follows the rules of Hermeneutic Logic and in this he becomes the most revolutionary philosopher the world has ever seen. Meykandar does not establish the truth of BEING on basis of authorities whatever - the Vedas Agamas, Rishies Messiahs etc. He does not even claim any special mystical powers that has enabled him to understand this and that others too would agree with if they also happen to have the same mystic powers etc.


The foundation of religious life is torn away from the priests and messiahs and made a way of life that any body can enter into and enjoy and without any assistance from the priests and messiahs. The authorities of scriptures and the priests and messiahs who claim special privileges are UNDERMINED here by the supreme brilliance of Meykandar.


He boldly throws away all authorites and stakes his claims of REASON alone. He has a certain understanding that he believes is truth beyond any shadow of doubt, i.e. something he holds with apodictic certainty and ventures to ILLUMINATE those who differ and make them see what he has seen and become convinced of it as truth and thereby come to an agreement with him.


The TRUTHS are such that they are NOT idiosyncratic, truth only for one or some and not for others and revealed only during some important moments in History and that too only through the mouth of some individuals especially chosen etc. That BEING is there and that He is CaGkaara KaaraNan is NOT also a construction of Meykandar applicable to the world processes but rather a vision of TRUTH and hence something that can also be seen by any others provided they are sufficiently open enough.


Thus the Logic implicit here is: Seeing and then showing others what one has seen so that others also begin to see what one has seen. Disconstruction emerges here as the method of destroying the mental blocks and other such prejudices that stand in the way of freeing oneself to see what is being shown.


While it may be possible that disconstruction as a philosophic method was prevalent even before Meykandar in a rudimentary way, but it belongs to greatness of Meykandar to provide a new foundation for metaphysics itself on the basis of this method and which became the main organizing principle for AruNandis massive Civanjana Cittiyaar which extends and elaborates Botham in numerous ways.


What is most relevant for religion is: Believe in God need not be just a matter of faith; while it may be so initially such intuitive understanding can be analyzed hermeneutically and appropriated as the most certain Axiomatic Truth, a truth that generates apodictic certainty and hence make one commit oneself to a religious way of life but this time with an UNDERSTANDING as to why one is so committed.