Make your own free website on Tripod.com

 

Lessons on Botham

 

Dr K. Loganathan

 

Sutra Two

 

 

 

Lessons on Botham 2-1 (The Essence of the Second Sutra)

 

Q: What is the overall meaning of the Second Sutra of Botam?

 

Żɧ Ƣ š ¡?

 

 

ŧ ¡ Ţ¢

â ¢

Ȣ

 

(-)

 

Ӿ ɡ øý Ŧ, ¢¡, Ÿ , (), ¢ɡ, (, â¡ ը ¡ ) , (Ţ Ţ) Ţɸǡ , ¢ â , š¢ɢ. âȢ ž

 

The Second Sutra:

 

avaiyee taaneeyaay iruvinaiyin

pookku varavu puriya aaNaiyin

iikkaminRi niRku manRee

 

Meaning:

 

BEING, the Primordial Cause of World Withdrawal, as established in the first Sutra, stands as the anmas themselves as well as different and distinct from them managing all through His decree-like Will that establishes the moral sense of right and wrong and in terms of which the anmas suffer births and deaths with BEING thus standing without ever departing.

 

šâ¡:

 

ŧ ¡ ŧ¡ ¡ ƢЦ. -â- ɧ, Ŧ ¢ ý ¡ . ¢ 측 Ţ¢ ٨. Ȓ ; ɡ š Ȣ . Œ Ӿ Ȣ ( ¢)

 

Ŧ ɡ Ģ ¢ ġ ¢¡ 츢ȡ , ¡ Ģɡ ¢ ȡ 츢ȡ , ¢ ¢á ¡ 񦽡Ǣ¢ 츢ȡ . ȡ Ǣš Ţ.

 

 

Variyar

 

We should take avaiyee taaneeyaay as the two phrases avaiyeeyaay and taaneeyaai meaning BEING stands as they themselves and as distinct and different from them. The word aay meaning becoming indicates that way BEING manages is not like that of the finite selves who use tools or instruments; BEING effects just by willing. The word aaNaiyin should be taken as applicable like the gaze of the lion, to the word iruvinai both before and after. The pronoun avai, the they refers to the world of living things mentioned in the first sutra.

 

Civa, because He stands with the selves like the selves stand with the body they inhabit i.e. as that in itself, He is said to stand the same as the selves. However because substance-wise He is said to stand as the inner light in the eyes, as the indwelling illuminator, He is taken as different too. He is taken also always as along-with and who stands without alienation because He stands like self-understanding within various kinds understandings. All these matters will be explained below.

 

Notes (Loga)

 

It has been established that in the most inclusive realms of objects, BEING stands out as the CaGkaara KaaraNan, the Dissolver of the Whole of the Universe, the Makapralayam, and hence the Power Unto Himself, the TaRparan, the Most High, the Supreme One and who has NOTHING higher than Himself. And therefore He is not only the Ground of the re-issuance of everything but also the Powers that produce sustain and destroy everything within the overall presence of the world as whole.

 

In this second sutra the attention shifts to the way such a BEING stands in relation to the psychic entities, the anmas, those which are sentient and as indicated in the First Sutra, anati, uncreated and unconfigured in their being-there. This being-there-already of the anmas means that they are NOT created out of nothing and made to circulate the phenomenal world for the amusement of BEING, or the gods, the various Presentational forms of Himself.

 

These anmas, though anati and in that the same as BEING, but unlike BEING they are infected with Malam and because of which they are BLIND, incapable of vision. It is for this purpose, that of opening the eyes and make possible visions or darsanas that BEING stands as the Self within the selves but by concealing His presence as such, He leads the anmas think and function as if they are the real agents of the actions they execute. But He stands without absenting Himself ever through the Moral Sense of Right and Wrong. Unknown to the anmas He stands as the Ethical Foundation of their existence and because of which the creatures are moralistic, always torn between the values of right and wrong each time an action is executed.

 

As the Ground of the ethical competence and moral sense of the anmas, BEING is said to be ABOVE them while being as they themselves are. Like a judge who pronounces just and fair judgments, BEING has to be ABOVE all creatures to be the Final Ground of all morals conflicts.

 

 

However since the moral sense is there till Moksa is attained by the anmas, whether embodied or disembodied in the phenomenal circulation through existential repetitions, BEING is said to be ALONG-WITH the anmas without ever departing, always there to guide them along.

 

Lessons on Botham 2-2 (The theses of the Second Sutra)

 

Q: What are axiomatic truths communicated in the second sutra?

 

Ƣ¡ ¡?

 

šâ¡:

 

ý . :

 

Ӿġ : ŧ ¡

 

: ¢ Ţ¢

 

ȡ : â

 

: ¢ Ȣ

 

 

Ӿġ: ¢

 

: ¢ Ĩ ç

 

ȡ : ¢ Ȣ

 

: Ţ¡

 

Variyar:

 

This sutra has FOUR theses. They are as follows:

 

The First : avaiyee taaneeyaay : BEING stands as they themselves

 

The Second: aaNaiyin iruvinaiyin :There is moral sense of right and wrong because of the Decree (aaNai) of BEING

 

The Third: pookku varavu puriya : so that the anmas suffer existential repetition

 

The Fourth: aaNaiyin niikkaminRi niRkumanRee : BEING will stand with the Decree without ever departing.

 

The Axiomatic Truths contained in this sutra:

 

The First: aran uyirkaL iraNdaRa niRpan: BEING will stand non-alien to the anmas

 

The Second: uyirkaLukku kanma palanai aranee koduppan: It is BEING who feeds the action outcome to the anmas

 

The Third: uyirkalL accu maaRiyee piRakkum: the anmas are reborn always in a different mould

 

The Fourth: aran carva viyaabakan: BEING pervades all without any exception

 

šâ¡:

 

š򾢸

 

Ӿġ :

 

š Ӿ ¡ . ġ ɢ, ¢ Ţ ¿򾢨 ¢.

 

:

 

ɢ š Ţ Ӿ ¢ զ. â ʸĢ 츢¡ġ.

 

ȡ:

 

ɢ š Ȣ . Ǿ Ǿ ¡.

 

:

 

ɢ Ȣ . Ȣ Ţ¡¡ ġ.

 

Variyar

 

The various ARGUMENTS of this Sutra( as given by MeykaNdar himself)

 

The First:

 

The anmas will sojourn as if they are BEING themselves. Now if by Advaita is meant the SAMENESS of self with BEING, then the very fact of its assertion implies that by advaita really means the anma stands alienated from BEING

 

The Second:

 

Now the anmas have moral sense only because of the presence of the decree of BEING. This is like a King who establishes various stations to safeguard the city and make them function according to his decrees.

 

The Third:

 

The anmas undergo existential repetition and in that also experience metamorphoses. For only those which have being can enjoy presence in the world and also absence from it.

 

The Fourth:

 

Now BEING will stand without ever departing. For BEING is neither One nor the Many but rather He is present everywhere.

 

 

Notes (Loga)

 

There are many scholars who in the interest of resolving conflicts and differences between philosophies and religions, overlook the important differences that exist between them channeling thinking and behavior if different ways. MeykaNdar is severely critical of the Advaita of Sankara as the whole of Bakti philosophies are for the claim that self is the same as BEING, and the sense of difference is only an error in perception and so forth not only undercuts Bakti but also the whole of moral sense and hence the important place ethics has in the evolutionary movement of anmas towards Moksa.

 

The most important truth that Meykandar brings out here is that anmas suffer existential repetitions, a chain of births and deaths and in that also EVOLVE into higher species and when already human then into higher kinds of individuals. And this is dependent on the ACTIONS the anmas execute during their sojourn and the moral worth of which will determine their Rise or fall. Here it is BEING who is the ground of not only the moral sense but also the one who provides the feedback and the rewards.

 

The main point here and the reason why MeykaNdar cannot go along with the Sankara Advaita is that, if Sankara's interpretation of Advaita is true, and the self is actually Brahman (BEING) then there cannot be moral sense at all! For there to be moral sense the Pure BEING while standing one-with the anmas must also be not only different but always ABOVE the anmas. This is the meaning anniya naatti, standing as alien to BEING. Only when the anma stands ALIEN to BEING and which is the case till Moksa, that the anma can err, do actions that may cause the FALL and hence requiring moral guidance from BEING who is above all and always.

 

These matters will be discussed in great details later.

 

 

 

 

Lessons on Botham 2-3 (The First thesis of the Second Sutra)

 

Q : How does MeykaNdar delineate the relationship between the anmas and BEING?

 

Ҹ š Ţ̸ȡ?

 

 

šâ¡:

 

ý

 

ɢ ը š ý, Ȣ š򾢸ǡ ý 츧ǡ Ţ̧š.

 

 

Ӿ ý -- ŧ ¡

 

(-) Ӿ ¢¡, Ÿ ȡ, ɡ (-)

 

žý ɡ ӾĢ :--

 

Ӿġ, ɡ : -

 

¢Ǣ

 

; :-

 

Ӿ ¢ ?

 

ȡ; : -

 

1.

 

Ӿ ¢ ɡġ . ( š ڧš ¡š)

 

2.

 

Ӿ ¢ Ǣ . ( š ڧš )

 

3.

 

Ӿ ¢ . (š ڧš áâ)

 

 

, Ш н:-

 

Ӿ ɡ Ģ ¢ ¢¡, ¡ Ȣ , â ¢á ¡ 񦽡Ǣ¢ . š ħ Ţ Ħ ž .

 

 

Variyar:

 

There are TEN arguments each expounded in a VeNba verse. We shall expound all these theses along with the statement of axiomatic truths explanations and arguments one by one.

 

 

The First Thesis: avaiyee taaneeyaay

 

Meaning: BEING stands as if the same as the anmas, as if different from them and as if along with them.

 

The five organs of Hermeneutic Logic are as follows.

 

The First - the assertion one makes

 

BEING (Aran) stands in the anmas as if not different from them

 

The Second: the DOUBTS raised:

 

What is the exact relationship between the anmas and BEING: substantially non-different, very different and both different and non-different?

 

The Third: the counter arguments:

 

1.

 

The anmas are non-different from BEING like gold and ornaments made out of it. (So will say the mayavatis (Advaitins))

 

2.

 

Anmas and BEING are absolutely different like light and darkness (so will say the Mathvaites)

 

3.

 

The anmas and BEING are the same and different like words and their meanings (so will say the Panjcarattris, i.e. the Sri VaishNavas)

 

The Fourth: the de-construction of the above arguments:

 

BEING in terms of presence stands as if the same as the anmas. But in terms of substance He stands different like the sun within the eyes (that guides its visions). BEING in terms of the Self (paramatma) within the finite selves (jivatma), also stands along-with. This is the true meaning of Advaita as expounded in the Vedas. (Rig Veda)

 

Notes (Loga)

 

The above indicates that Meykandar offers an interpretation of the relationship between BEING and anmas quite different from those prevalent in the various schools of Vedanta - the Advaita school of Sankara, the Dwaita school of Madhava and the Visistadvaita school of Ramanuja. While central insights are as old as the Tevaram and Tirumantiram, Meykandar re-establishes them by a de-construction of the Vedantic conceptualizations of the relationships of BEING and anmas and consistent with the Fundamental Ontology that Pati (BEING) pacu (the anmas) and Paacaas (the delimiting fetters) are unconfigured and hence anati, a central notion in Saiva Siddhanta. Beginning from the VeNba below, Meykandar provides the various kinds of explanations)

 

šâ¡;

 

; :-

 

ý

 

ý

𼦾 è ȡ -

ġ ɡ

 

(-)

 

¢á, ӾĢȡ Ȣ ӾĢ Ţ 즸 , á , Ч, Ӿ ¢Ǣ ɡ. Ч Ӿ ¢á . ¢ Ӿ . (šȡ¢) Ӿ ¢á ȡ (-)

 

Ţ:

 

¢á ɡ (Ţ) , θ š Ţ, 츢 á žɡ, ¢ 츢 á Ũ 츢, ŧ վĢɡ, š վ Ŧȡոý ¡, Ǩ¡ ¢ ڨ¢Ȣ . ¢ ; ¢á; ¢ ¢, . Ч, Ӿ ¢á ɡ ŧ ɡ ¢á . ¢ Ӿ . Ӿ Ӿŧ. ¢ ¢. šȡ¢ Ӿ ¢á ɢ ȡ . ¢ ġ.

 

, , Ũ 򾡾 󧾸 񼡸š ¢ Ũ¡ Ӿɢ Ţ̸

 

 

The Fifth- the Argument:

 

kaddum uRuppum karaNamum koNdu uLLam

iddathoru peerazaikka en enRaaGku - oddi

yavan uLam aakillaan uLam avanaa maaddaatu

avan uLamaay allanumaay aGku

 

Meaning:

 

An embodied anma stands with a body bundled together with nerves tissues bones cognitive and motor organs and so forth. And when called by the name given to the body, the person answers the call as if he is called, identifying himself with body. In the same way BEING stands with the anmas as the same as the self. However on this account it does not follow BEING is in fact the same as the anma substance-wise and the anma the same as BEING again substance-wise. BEING though substantially different but stands AS IF the same and different from the anmas.

 

Comments:

 

The anmas stands as if it is the same as body, without any sense of separateness suffering all the miseries that actually occurs to it as if it occurring to itself. Also when people call out by the name given to the body, the anma answers as if the call is to the self. There is no other reason except self-identification with the body for such a kind of behavior. So with the rule of Logic that pertains to implicatures, we can deduce that the anma stands without any sense of difference between itself and the body. However despite this kind of behavior and what it implies, the anma is NOT the body, the body is not the anma; the anma remains the anma and body as the body with individual identities of their own. In the same way even if BEING stands AS IF the same as the anma because of presence within the anmas, BEING does not become the anma and the anma BEING. BEING stands substantially as BEING and the anma substantially as anma. However it is also the case that BEING can present Himself AS IF the self and at the same AS IF different and so forth.

 

Notes (Loga)

 

I have capitalized the phrase AS IF to highlight the importance of this notion in the manner in which Meykandar de-constructs the different Vedantic views about the relationship between BEING and anma. MeykaNdar does NOT deny that anmas do behave and claim that it is the SAME as BEING (as in Advaita) absolutely different (as in Dwaita) and in a way different and in way not (as in Visistadvaita). The question he raises: Why is that the self claims such mutually contradictory forms of relationship with BEING?

 

His answer is: it is all because of an AS IF Play of BEING. BEING plays as the same of self, leading them to think that one is BEING itself (aham Brahman asmi). At other times especially during those moments where He stands as the Ground of Ethics, DIFFERENT and ABOVE the anmas leading them to think that they are absolutely different from BEING who stands as the Most High etc. However there are also AS IF plays where while being-along with them in their existential struggles, He stands like a magical reality, a Maayavinootan, at times one with and at times not so.

 

 

 

 

Lessons on Botham 2-4 (Meykandar on Rig Veda)

 

Q: How does Meykandar understand Rig Veda as positing the Fundamental Ontology of Triadism?

 

š ž â иȡ?

 

šâ¡:

 

 

ý

 

, ; š

򧾡 Ǹ - ȡ

ȡ ¢

 

 

, ž Ţ , , ȡ ġ , ž š ž Ţ츢, ¢ǡ (¡) Ģи.

 

 

(-)

 

() ž ¡. ( â) (¡). (Ȣ¡) ( Ǣ ȡ)ͦ Ȣš¡. ( ¡ ͦ ɦɢ), 򧾡 츢ȡ. (ġ ).(¡ ǡɡ, ž ¡¢ զ Ĕ ŧ ɢ) ¢ ¡¢ ¡, . ӨȢ, (ž ¡¢) զ

 

 

Variyar:

 

The Argument:

 

OnRu enRatu onRee kaaN, onRee pati; pacuvaam

OnRu enRa nii paacattoodu uLaikaaN -onRu inRaal

AkkaraGkaL inRaam akara uyir inReel

Ikkiramattu enum irukku

 

This argument seeks to de-construct those who say that while the Vedas assert oneness of self and Brahman (BEING) how is that a contrary can be asserted by showing that the real purport of the Vedas is that BEING stands AS IF the self itself on His Own accord bringing in appropriate analogies for this purpose.

 

Meaning:

 

When the (Rig) Veda declares BEING is one (onRee pati) it means that as a substantial entity BEING is One and not many. Now you who assert BEING is the same as self and without knowing the truth, are in fact a pacu, an anma delimited by fetters. Now if you ask while BEING and I are sentient, how can I be said to be a pacu, something with finite understanding, know that you are infected with Malam, a stuff that installs metaphysical darkness within you. Now substantially if Brahman and I are different why should the Vedas say, without Brahman there is nothing, the answer is : this is so like there being no aksaras if there is not the primordial aksara akaaram. It is only on the dependency of the things for their presence on BEING that is said thus.

 

Notes (Loga)

 

Meykandar does not depend on any authority for saying what he is saying. And so it should not be taken that he is quoting the Rig Veda for substantiating his claims. He practices Hermeneutic Science where the common understanding of the world as tripraxistic, i.e. in historical flux of coming into presence, being there and becoming absent is the starting point of his hermeneutic interrogations. He begins with what all can agree upon and with a sharp intellect of outstanding merits, subjects this common understanding to an in depth hermeneutic interrogations to wrest out the truths, the Axiomatic Truths already in everybodys understanding but only that they remain in depths, concealed from everyday consciousness.

 

These Axiomatic Truths are not like the Euclidean Axioms, intuitive postulates and taken as the premises to deduce further implications from the apriori assumptions about their validity and the efficacy of the rules of inference and so forth. The hermeneutic interrogations are constructing thoughts, verifying them upon some preconceived criteria and baptizing them as truths if there is collective consensus. Meykandar does practice the Deductive or Syllogistic Logic of the Greeks and recent philosophers of the West but rather the Hermeneutic Logic of Tolkaappiyar (Ta. eeraNaviyal) where from the surface level truths of common understanding the hidden truths are wrested out through a form of philosophic thinking that we call here de-construction and which involves the exercise of utties, moves of the understanding that would furnish illuminations.

 

The Axiomatic Truths are universal truths and are already in the mind of all constituting the commonality that exists among human beings all over the over the world.

 

BEING is one and NOT many and on top of that substantially different from the anmas notwithstanding that both categories of objects are sentient (ceetanam or cit). This is where the conflict in interpretations with the different schools of Vedanta emerge

 

It is pointed out while BEING and the anmas are sentient and in that the same qualitatively, but it is also a truth that while anmas are infected even before configured to be present in the world with Malam, that which introduces Darkness, this is NOT SO with BEING, that BEING is always FREE of this Malam. In other words while the anmas are Samalan infected with the atomizing aaNavam, BEING is Nimalan, FREE of this stuff and Pure. Thus we have here the Fundamental Ontology that there are Pati Pacu and Paacam as unconfigured entities but which go into configuration of all with BEING provided with AGENCY of this configuration process.

 

Thus the essence is this: MeykaNdar claims that the Rig Veda and the Upanishads have within them this Fundamental Ontology as Axiomatic Truth embodied within and since the different schools of Vedanta have not grasped this, they are mistaken.

 

BEING configures and NOT the anmas or the Malam and for which reason He is the Nimitta kaaraNan, the Primordial Agentive Cause. It is because of this Agency of BEING that MeykaNdar claims through the analogy of aksaras the world being dependent of BEING for their presence - without BEING configuring appropriately, the world and everything in it cannot enjoy a presence, be there as a phenomenal reality.

 

Such a BEING cannot be more than ONE and also the same as the atomic anmas.

 

This according to MeykaNdar is the purport of Rig Veda, the only scripture he mentions by name in the whole text. What he is doing is NOT justifying his darsanas with the support of the Rig Veda but rather offering his own interpretations on the essence of Rig Veda where he also appears to view that it is Rig Veda that is fundamental and all other Vedas and Upanishads different interpretations of its essence.

 

This line of study will be continued further.

 

 

Lessons on Botham 2-5 (Advaita and the Vedanta Literature)

 

What is the meaning of Advaita as interpreted by Meykandar?

 

Ţ Ģ ?

 

 

šâ¡:

 

ž Ţ ž, á Ţ¡¾ ž ź, á Ţ¡¾ žž . š 󧾡츢 ž .

 

ţ¡’ żƢ¢ ӾĢ æ Ţ Ţ¡” . ٨š. Ţ, ¢ , , ھ ը . ¡š Ţ , Ȕ ٨. š ٨ Ţ츧 , Ţ ġ ɢ ¢ Ţ ¿򾢨 ¢Δ š򾢸 Ǣ .

 

 

Variyar

 

That the Vedas declaring eekam (One) and advaita (Nondifferent?) can be noted in the words of Yajur Veda eeka eevarudroo natvitiiyaayatastee, in the declaration of Sweetaasvatara Upanishad eekoohi rudroo natvitiiyaayatastee; in the words of Santookkiya Upanishad eekameevaattiiyam and in the declaration of Mandukya Upanishad saantam civam advaitam saturttam

 

When the n in the particle of negation na disintegrates from natviitaayaaya it would stand as atvitiiyaaya. The particles of negation na and a have the same significance. When the n disappears, the a that stood there carries the triple meanings of absence of separateness (inmai), nonexistence of difference (anmai) and noncontrariness (maRutalai). Here the Mayavatis would take only the meaning absence of separateness and declare that advaita means absence of duality, only identity. Now it is in order to show that this is erroneous that our MeykaNdar elaborates in his Vaarttikam as follows If the meaning advaita is oneness, then by the very fact declaring oneness, the very word advaita implies that (he who declares thus) stands as an alien being (anniya naatti)

 

šâ¡

 

š򾢸 : --

 

Ţ Ģ ھ ٽ. , Ţ 򾢧ħ զ Ģ, ħž. ġ š . Ȣ, ըǧ Ш¢ Ȣ, Ǣ ھ 򾡨¢ɡ Ţ ý . ɡ Ӿ ¡ ̦ (-)

 

Variyar

 

The meaning of this explanatory note is as follows:

 

The particle of negation in the word advaita has the three senses of absence of separateness, nonexistence of difference and non-contrariness. And among these if only the absence of separateness is taken as the meaning meant, it becomes ridiculous for no substance need to declare thus. Thus it has to be inferred that there is a separate and substantially different thing declaring thus under some circumstances. Now in addition to that, the particle of negation over quantitative terms, normally means non existence of difference and stands neutral in general with respect to other implications. Thus the very word advaita would mean from within itself the nonexistence of difference or alienness. This just shows that the anmas, though substance-wise distinct and different will stand however as the BEING itself under some circumstances.

 

Notes (Loga)

 

We should not fail to note the existential contexts within which Meykandar analyses the meaning of advaita and brings out with that the true meaning of this crucial term in Indian Philosophy. There is declaration to this effect and when taken as a speech act, there is also the one who says it thus. When the person X declares eeka eevarudroo natvitiiyaayatastee, he says about his way of Being in a particular context of situation and in this if he is already substantially Brahman etc, he would NOT make such a speech act as there will be no necessity for such a declaration. But is a fact that he declares thus and hence indicates that even though he is substantially different for Brahman (Rudra) etc, he FEELS a certain SAMENESS, a ONENESS, a NONDIFFERENCE as a possibility of his Being i.e., that he can in fact be the SAME as Brahman etc.

 

And this we see as a result of a certain Play of BEING. In order to purify the souls, BEING leads them think AS IF they are BEING itself and when they are caught up with it, intuit this possibility and declare, I am Brahman, I can be the same as Brahman etc. It is this self-identification with Brahman that leads to such speech acts.

 

 

Lessons on Botham 2-6 (BEING and the anmas are Substantially Different)

 

Q How does Meykandar continue the substantial difference between BEING and Anma?

 

š иȡ?

 

šâ¡:

 

¢ á, է Ë Ë Ȣ š , ž Ë ȡ Æ Ë . žǢ ž ȡ, ¡ȡ . Ţ Ȣ Ȣš Ţ ڨ 츢 ̧ž 컡 Ë , ź쾢 ¡¢ Ȣ Ž Ë . š츢 Ń Ȧ, ȡ, ¢Ȣ ¢ ȡ.

 

 

Variyar:

 

Without realizing that BEING and anmas are substantially different and being confused that they are the same, there are those who declare akam Brahmmam meaning I am Brahmmam. It is out of pity for such people that at the end of Yajur Veda it is declared not as akam Brahmmam but as akam Brahmmam asmi meaning I can become Brahmmam indeed. The best among the Vedas, the Sama Veda declares not tatvam that would mean thou art That but rather tatvamasi meaning You can become That. Noting that BEING stands as the Self within the self of the anmas in the concluding parts of Rig Vedas it is declared Paraknjaanam Brahmmam (The transcendental absolute consciousness is Brahmmam). And noting the self stands having as its deep self Sivasakti itself, AtarvaNa Cirasu declares ayamaatmaabrahmam (The Deep Self within self is Brahmmam). These four Great Declarations do not assert the jivas and BEING either as substantially different or the same but rather they stand as if such.

 

Notes (Loga)

 

What Variyar is laboring to bring out appears to be Meykandars understanding the meaning of these Mahavakkiyas as statements of BECOMING rather than Being, in contrast to Becoming. The anmas can BECOME Brahmmam and which possibility, already there but which is not accessed by ordinary individuals. It is declared in such terms by those individuals gifted with this insight. But if they are statements of possibilities of Being-in-the-World the anmas can enjoy, then ontologically it presupposes that substantially they are different. What are substantially the same need not declare statements about becoming.

 

šâ¡;

 

ý

 

ͨ -

Ţ ȸ ɡ

Ţ

 

(-)

 

ž Ţ Ģ ը ý š¢ġ Ţ츢, ¢ǡ ŧ ¡ ( ) ӨȨ Ģи.

 

ɢ ȡ , ɢ ȡ ͨ , Ţ¡¢ Ӿ , ¢Ǣ ڨ¢Ȣ ġ, â ž ŧ Ƣ¡, Ţ ŢǢ (-)

 

, ž ġ, ¢ǡ Ȩ Ţ ġ Ţ츢 . ɡ ž , Ţ , Ĕ ¡š . ( ŧȡ Ţâ ڧš)

 

Variyar:

 

The Argument:

 

paNnaiyum oocaiyum pool pazamatuvum

eNNum cuvaiyum pool eGkum - aNNal taaL

attuvitamaatal arumaRaikaL enRu ennaatu

attuvitam enru aRaiyum aaGku

 

This argument explains with an analogy the true meaning of the word attuvitam and seeks to show that BEING stands AS IF the anmas and because which they declare thus.

 

Meaning:

 

The various prosodies are identified the same as the musical sounds just as much the taste is identified the same as the fruits. In the same manner and because the Grace of BEING stands as if the same as he anmas and is universally so, the Vedas rare declare this understanding as advaita over and above declaring that BEING is One.

 

Notes:

 

The Vedas declare the Oneness of BEING with the word eekam and the fact that BEING stands as if the anmas themselves with the word advaita. So the real meaning of these words should not be taken as the monistic Only BEING is, there is nothing else besides it as is taken by the Mayavatis. (We shall explain in greater detail later.

 

Notes (Loga)

 

Meykandar in providing this clarification between eekam and advaita distinguishes clearly the questions of ontology, what is really there? from the questions of becoming which are the existential possibilities for the anmas to be. Ontologically BEING is One, and there are innumerable anmas as different from BEING. However despite this substantial difference BEING stands as if the anma and because of which the anmas intuit their existential possibility of BECOMING the same as BEING. It is this understanding of the existential possibility that is the true meaning of advaita. The anma can transmute itself so that while remaining substantially the same, in term of its qualities it can become the same as BEING.

 

It is this possibility; already there as a possibility in the bosom of all that constitutes the foundation of religious life. Thus Meykandar by clarifying the matter in this way also succeeds in providing a metaphysics within which we can see the true foundations of spiritual life. We can all of us BECOME in essence BEING itself and by His Grace and it is this understanding that is meaning of advaita named as Sudhadvaita among the Saivites.

 

 

Lessons on Botham 2-7 ( The AS IF Play of BEING)

 

Q: How does Meykandar explain the different ways in which anma can relate itself to BEING that appear to be mutually contradictory?

 

š ŧɡ ĸ Ţáġ Ţ츢 ٸȡ?

 

 

šâ¡:

 

Ӿ ý Ӿ Ţɡ Ӿ ¢ǡ ŧ¡ () Ȩ, Ţɡ ¡ () Ȩ, ȡ Ţɡ ŧ ¡ () Ȩ Ũǡ Ţ츢, Ţɡ Ӿ Ũ ɡ Ũ¡ Ţ̸ȡ.

 

ý

 

츢 - âȢ

ĸ ̾

¡ Ħ

 

(-)

 

쨸 츢 ɡ ¡ 츢ɡ Ȣ , (Ӿ ¢ǡ) Ȣ ɡ ġ, ¡, ħ¡, ħ¡ ( ). (ɡ ¡ ġ ¢ ڦ ž ɧ, ɡ ¢ Ӿ ħ , , ɡ Ԩɧš ɢ ) Ӿ 𼾢ɢ ɢ¡ Ũ¡ ڨ Ȣ ġ, ¡ Ħġ ¢ (¡ ¢ š Ҩ ȡ) (-)

 

Variyar:

 

So far Meykandar has given three arguments with appropriate analogies where in the first he explained how BEING stands AS IF the anmas themselves and second that He can stand as if on His Own and Above All and in the third that He stands as if one and at the same time different. Now in the following argument he explains all these ways of being are because of the AS IF Play of BEING with another analogy.

 

Argument :

 

arakkodu ceertti aNaitta akkaRpool

urukki udaGkiyaintu ninRu - pirippinRi

taanee ulakaan tamiyeen uLam pukutal

yaanee ulakenpan inRu

 

Meaning:

 

When the gum is melted and the fine stones placed in it, on cooling the stones remain as if the gum itself. In a similar manner BEING can stand glued to the anmas as if the same and because of which the above relationships of being the same, different, being the same and different emerge in the understanding of the anmas. But it is said that the Vedagamas declare that the realized souls declare It is I who stands as the same, as different and as along with and it follows that the anmas too can stand with BEING in the above three ways. But here it should be noted that it is only because BEING enters and overpowers the anmas when they stand Pure and since this constitutes Moksa, this applies only during those moments and not in general.

 

Notes (Loga)

 

The most powerful arguments the Advaitins give for their of substantial identity between Brahman and self is the declarations of mystics that I am the World I am God etc. So it is concluded that the self is God and that under normal circumstances thinks otherwise only because it is deluded into thinking otherwise by a sinister power. Once we extricate ourselves from that power, then we can see that self is none other God (BEING, Brahman etc).

 

MeykaNdar subjects this to an existential analysis and seeks out an understanding of the genesis of such declarations. How is that an individual so finite and restricted in his understanding under ordinary circumstances can leap into some metaphysical moods and in which such declarations are made?

 

BEING stands AS IF the anma and that too in the moments of Moksa or on the way towards it very strongly and quite inseparably so much so that the anma is BLINDED about it though a screen drawn across. BEING plays a game in which the anma is led to feel it is AS IF BEING itself. This game is part of the spiritual pedagogy where the anma is made to identify itself with BEING (civookam paavanai) so that the qualities of BEING get transferred to self itself by an alchemical transmutation.

 

This is Tirobavam, the transcendental concealment, something that happens on the way towards Moksa and which disappears when Moksa in fact becomes available. At that moment the self will also see without seeing that it is qualitatively the same as BEING but all only because of His Grace.

 

 

Lessons on Botham 2-8 ( BEING standing as the SAME as the Jivas)

 

Q: How does Meykandar explain the claims such as I am God etc and which are taken as evidences for the substantial identity of Pati with Pacu, the anma?

 

ĸ šġ Ţ츢 š Ţ ŢҸȡ?

 

šâ¡:

 

ġ ħ¡ В , ¡ ġ ¡ ڔ , ¢¢á ġ ĸ âȢ Ȣɡ.

 

Ŧ ¢ǡ ŧ¡ ŧ¡ ɡ Ȩ ž,

 

ȡ Ӿ ȡ ̽ȡ

ȡ

ȡ ͨ ơ ɡ

ȡ ɡ Ƣ ƨħ

 

̸

 

츢ɡ ý 츢 š , Ţ Ŧ , Ũ ĸ¡ǡ ڸ ý .

 

Variyar

 

To explain the claim I am the World etc it is stated that BEING stands accessible and one-with all and which is the meaning of udanGiyaintu (standing as the same). To explain that BEING stands substantially different and Absolutely Above, which comes through such claims as taaneeyaam (I am Myself) it is stated ninRu, He stands (alone and above all). Despite all these to explain the fact BEING stands as life of all lives (uyirkku uyiraay) He is stated to stand without any fissure (pirippinRi) from the anmas.

 

The Tamil Veda (a hymn of Sambantar) states these ways of BEING as below:

 

iiRaay mutal onRaay iru peN aaN kuNamuunRaay

maaRaamaRai naankaay varu puutam avai aintaay

aaRaar cuvai eezoocai eddeddut ticai taanaaay

veeRaay udan aanaan idam im miizi mizalaiyee!

 

Meaning:

 

This, Tiru Viizi Mizalay, is the location where BEING, the Power that destroys all and thus stands as the ONE above all and the causal ground of everything; who shows Himself as the TWO, the male and female; the THREE in terms of the kuNas, (Satvikam Rajasam and Tamasam); the FOUR Vedas of unchanging essence; the FIVE basic elements that emerge and become the physical reality; the SIX kinds of tastes that are enjoyed by the creatures; the SEVEN kinds melodies that go into all music and dance and the directions EIGHT of the impure Space, shows Himself up ( as the deity of the temple)

 

The Bashya on NjanaavaraNam explains this matter as follows: When I become like the gem stones stuck onto the gum becoming the gum itself, when I see Siva within my anma and seeing that it is because of this I shine forth as Siva, that in realizing Siva standing as the whole world, I also claim the same.

 

Notes (Loga)

 

The issue is why there are such declarations as I am Brahman or I am God and so forth exists in mystical experiences and which are quite universal. They have been taken mistakenly as evidences for the sameness of substance, that the Pacu is the same as Pati and which is very popular in Advaita Vedanta. Now Meykandar does not deny that there are people who claim thus but provides and EXPLANATION of the genesis of such declarations in which there is a forgetting of substantial difference that exists between the anmas and BEING. The fact is in such higher reaches of metaphysical experiences, the anma stands AS IF the same as BEING just like the gemstones stuck onto a gum standing as the gum itself. A more apt example is the iron balls in the thick of intense fire where it becomes indistinguishable from the fire that heats it in the first place. If the fire ball is the anma then during those states of consciousness it experiences Siva Himself and seeing that Siva pervades the whole universe, and forgetful of itself in that state of Being-in-the -World, would declare I am the World I am Siva, I am Brahman etc AS IF no difference between itself and BEING.

 

The forgetfulness that comes to prevail at such moments and the ignorance that even to enjoy such a state the Grace of BEING is required also underlies such advaitic claims. The anma does not realize that such claims come to prevail there as part of ones own experience only because of an AS IF Play of BEING, that BEING plays so that the anmas can enjoy such a state of Being-in-the-World and through that LEARN the essence of Sivahood.

 

 

Lessons on Botham 2-9 ( Being and Becoming)

 

Q: How does MeykaNdar understand Being and Becoming of the anmas?

 

š ¡ š Ţ츢 ٸȡ?

 

šâ¡:

 

š¢, ⢠츢 Ȣȡɡ Ŧġ ȡ š â Ȣɡ øý ڸ. ġ ɡ Ţ¡; ĸ , ɢĢ Ţ츢; ; Ȣ ɡ ¢ ڸ. š ž ŢǢ žɡ Ŧ ħ ɡ §š ɢ . ɢ ɢ¡ Ũ šŨ¡ Ŧ ڨ¢Ȣ ھġ š 󾦾.

 

ɡ, žǢ ( ) , š ( ) Ţ Ũ Ţ ¡ ý ɢ, ռ ã ȡ է Ţ Ũ¡ Ţ Ţ¢ ξ , ǡ Ŧ ǡ Ţ ú žǢ Ţ Ũ Ţ𼦾.

 

Variyar

 

It is said in Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad that Rishi Vemadeva mentions that whoever understands that I have become Manu, I have become the Sun and I am Brahman and so forth, also becomes all that. Now Sarva Njanoottara Agama says something similar but basing on the essence of the souls: I am spread across both the known and the unknown; I am Brahmmam, I am to be known as beyond even the aksaras etc. Now on account of these assertions in both in the Vedas and Agamas, does it follow that the anmas also stand like Siva one-with and at the same ABOVE all? Now it certainly does not follow. Such statements emerge when BEING plays a game where the anmas are led to feel the same as BEING but only when the anmas become Pure by freeing themselves from all binding fetters. Siva stands as if the SAME as the anmas and as result of which the anmas are led to enjoy Sivookam Paavanai, feeling or imagining AS IF the same as BEING.

 

But if asked for what reason the Vedas and Agamas prescribe such a Sivookam Paavanai that issues forth in such utterances, as I am Brahman I am Siva and so forth, we can explain it as follows. The Magician plays the game of AS IF the same as Garuda to relieve someone of the snake poison. So is the case here. When a person persists in this Paavanai, thinking that he is the same as BEING, he undergoes a transmutation of personality whereby he becomes purified, becomes PURE like BEING.

 

šâ¡:

 

žý, Ӿ ¢ š, Ǣ , Ž Ũ , Ӿ ¢ ¢ Ȣ ɡǢ Ũ ġ Ţ . šâ š Ǣ ø:

 

ǡ Ǣ¡

Ҹ Ǩ š

ľ Ǣ

Ȣ

ɡ Ţž ¢

ȢšǢ â Ţ

ɾ ž Ǣš

â ȡ

 

Ȣ ġ Ǣ.

 

Variyar

 

In this thesis the views of the Advaities that the anma and BEING are non-different like gold and golden ornaments, the Dwaita view of Madhava where they are said to be absolutely different like light and darkness, and Vishistaatvaities who maintain sometimes the same and sometimes different and so forth are deconstructed and the truth established. The truth is that while substantially different but sometimes they stand and as if the same like the body and soul, stand as if different like eyes and the sunlight and sometimes the same and sometimes different like the understanding and Lumen Naturale. Umapati Sivaccaariyar explains this in the following verse in his Civapprakaasam:

 

I expound in this book ( Civappirakasam) Saiva Siddhanta that emerges on deconstructing the Vedantic schools of thought and which remains the illuminating light for the insiders and utter darkness for those who stand outside it and which also is the limit of all the logical investigations. The TRUTH is NOT the way explained by the Advaitins or Dvaitins or Vishishtaatavaitins but rather something that emerges through the ethical way of life as enunciated by the Great Book (Civanjana Botham?). The self stands as if the same as BEING just like soul with the body, stands as if different like the eyes and light that enables it to see and the understanding and the inner light that stands sometimes the same and sometimes different.

 

Notes (Loga)

 

It is quite obvious that Meykandar must have written this text after Sankara's Advaita Ramanuja's Visistadvaita and Madhavas Dwaita were formulated and actively present creating philosophical controversies of various kinds(and which continue even to this day). MeykaNdar brings his own genius helped certainly by Tirumular Sambantar Appar and so forth who provided deep metaphysical insights related to this problem which is crucial for understanding the meaning of Moksa, that for which existence is. The understanding that BEING as the Dancer who plays various kinds of GAMES is that insight that is brought in here to deconstruct all these Vedantic schools which do not accommodate it.

 

The point is all these are various kinds of CLAIMS made by individuals, be they rishies or even the baktas. Such claims do not hang in the air belonging to nobody. And if they are claims made by individuals and in their metaphysical journeys, then MeykaNdar questions: How come that they make such claims? And what is purpose of it all? The answer he provides is quite clear: BEING who is substantially different from the anmas plays a GAME where He stands AS IF the same as the anma and because of which the anma is led to claim I am Siva, Brahman etc. And similarly for others. There is GENESIS of such claims and when we look into it, it becomes clear that BEING plays various kinds AS IF games so that anmas caught in this game are led to claim as such.

 

But why this game especially that in which the anma is led feel the SAME as BEING? Such a game is meant for the TRANSMUTATION of the self so that by such a Paavanai, a self-postulation, it can get rid of the malam within, all the dirt within and become PURE just like Siva.

 

Here we must also a difference between Being-in-the-World and simply Being. An anma has Being, it is there as a thing( uLLatu) and hence NOT a non-entity, a nothing (illatu). Now Being-in-the-World is enjoying a PRESENCE as there in the world and is what existence is. In other words it has BECOME something viz that which enjoys EXISTENCE or presence in the world. But how does this Becoming has become possible at all? Certainly NOT by the efforts of the anma as, if it is, then it would have power over its own death and rebirth and which is NOT the case. So we have to understand that there is BEING as the Ground and which blesses the souls with such existences and deaths.

 

Can the anma be the same as this BEING?

 

Certainly it cannot though in its existence it can IMAGINE as if the same and so forth and that too only because of some kind of games BEING plays. Such claims as I am Brahman, I am not, sometimes yes and sometimes not and so forth are claims made within an existential context and which is BEYOND the resources of the anma to configure. So it follows, as MeykaNdar has made it clear, that such claims are made by the anmas only because they are MADE TO CLAIM thus by some games BEING plays on them.

 

 

 

 

Lessons on Botham 2-10 ( The Decree that Regulates all)

 

Q: How does MeykaNdar explain the presence of ETHICS as a fabric of the human mind?

 

š Ǣ Ţ ɨ Ţ̸ȡ?

 

šâ¡:

 

- ý:

 

¢ Ţ¢

 

, ȡ - ɡ : ¢ Ĩ ç

 

- : Ӿ Ш ý ӾĢ Χ? š?

 

ȡ - : Ш측ý Ӿ ; Ţġ 측 ġ , Ӿ Ш측ý ( š ڧš âš)

 

- Ш н :

 

ú 򦾡Ƣ ⢠ĸ¨ , Ţ Ӿ Ţɸ . ɡ Ţ Ӿ ¢ɡ . , Ӿ ; Ţġ 츢 .

 

Variyar

 

The Second Sutra, the Second Thesis:

 

ANaiyin iruvinaiayin: the Moral Judgment is there (among the creatures) on account of the presence of Decree of BEING

 

Here the FIRST component of the Hermeneutic Logic is - what is being asserted: It is BEING (and nobody else) who provides the outcomes of actions (kanma palan) to the anmas

 

The SECOND is - the doubts raised by others: Will BEING require or will not the services of instrumental or associative causes (tuNaikkaaraNam) at the point of configuring another lease of phenomenal existence (for the anmas)?

 

The THIRD - the oppositions raised: If it is said that BEING would require instrumental or associated causes, then this would contradict the essence of BEING that He is totally Autonomous and possesses Infinite Power

 

The FOURTH - the deconstruction of the opposition:

 

The King who rules a city empowers some officers to punish the errant, a Power that only he wields as a King. In the same manner it is BEING who empowers the Karmic Traces to manage the death and rebirth of the anmas and on account of which there is no offending His Autonomy and Infinite Power.

 

Notes:

 

We have seen above that the anma is substantially different from BEING and that while the anmas EVOLVE through enjoying a long series of births and deaths, BEING remains the SAME unaffected by all these historical processes while remaining the foundation of it all. In this evolution there is a sense of DIRECTION - the anmas are directed towards becoming the SAME as BEING and which pressure from within is understood as the impulse in the direction of Advaita, being qualitatively the SAME as BEING but remain substantially an individual as ever.

 

It is now noted that this EVOLUTION towards the anmas BECOMING the same as BEING qualitatively is an ETHICALLY regulated phenomena where there are some actions that are morally right (puNNiyam) and which facilitate the evolving into higher and other actions, the immoral and unethical (Paavam) which are opposed to such an evolutionary ascendance. Thus MeykaNdar links up the evolution of the anmas into higher species and in that finally becoming the same as BEING with the MORAL QUALITY of the actions of the anmas.

 

The MORAL SENSE is there and which allows us to discriminate the RIGHT from the WRONG only because there is a DECREE-LIKE presence of the PULL of BEING unto Himself. This pull serves the anmas to move in the RIGHT DIRECTION with their actions - when they do something there is a feedback mechanism in relation to this direction - one is led to feel it is right when it facilitates movement consistent with the DIRECTION, wrong otherwise. This intuitionist feeling of morally right and wrong provides the necessary guidance to EVOLVE and not to degenerate.

 

We should notice here that such an explanation of Moral Sense that is ALREADY with us, cannot not be given within the metaphysics of Advaita Vedanta where the substantial reality of the anma is NOT recognized and accommodated. The Advaita Metaphysics can only AVOID giving an explanation of it by brushing it aside as mythiya and so forth.

 

 

 

Lessons on Botham 2-11 ( BEING and Karma)

 

Q: How does MeykaNdar explain the relationship between BEING and Karma, the source of Morality?

 

Ţ š Ţ츢 ٸȡ?

 

šâ¡:

 

- : ý

 

ǧ ¢ ׼Ģ

Ǿ Ţ Ǩ -

Ţ §

¡

 

, Ţ , Ч ¢ ɡ , ڦ Ţ , ӾŨ¢Ȣ ¡ ڸ.

 

(-)

 

(Ӿ ɡ ȡ ¢) Ǿ Ũ¡ ﺢŢɧ ɡ , Ÿ Ţâ Ţ, ¢ ׼ Ţɸ Ţ. ( ǡ¡ Ÿ Ţ). ɡ, Ţ¡ Ţ 𦼡Ƣ Ţ¡ Ţ š ɢ, Ţ Ţ š ӨȨ¢ ŢǾ. (, Ţɨ Ţ Ш측ý Ţ 츧 Ţ¡ ) ¡ɡ, Ţ ¢, Ӿ 𧼡 ɢ, Ƣ ¨ ŢŢ Ţ ( , Ţ ŢȢ 򦾡Ƣ ŢŢ𼡾 ) ( Ţ Өȧ á Ţ Ţ ) Ӿŧ ¢ , (šȢ) Ţɸ ¢ ǡ ¡ ( -)

 

Ȣ¡, š š ٨ ġ, ӾŨ . -- پ š ( Ţ š ӨȨ)

 

Variyar

 

The Fifth (in the Hermeneutic Logic): the Argument

 

Here it is shown that there is Karma and that it is this that immediately determines the action outcomes including the form of life in the next birth and that all are made possible only by BEING who serves as the GROUND of all.

 

ULLatee tooRRa uyir aNaiyium avvudalil

ULLataam muRceyvinai uLLadaiavee - vaLLalavan

Ceybavar ceythip payan viLaikkum ceyyeepool

Cevan ceyal aNaiyaa cenRu

 

Meaning:

 

 

It has been established in the First Sutra that what has no being cannot become an existent. Thus it follows only because of apriori presence of the Karma of Good and Evil and the pleasures and pains that they cause there to be that the body assumes a structure and form so that these can be experienced as such. (The body being physical and insentient, does not enjoy these karma products).

 

But how does it happen that karma related to the actions done in the previous birth come to prevail in coming births where they are sublimated by experiencing it in the current birth itself?

 

Here it should be noted that part of karmic elicitations in a certain life are isolated and transferred as if for the next birth. (The feelings of likes and dislikes that accompany the actions get transferred to the next birth).

 

Then it may be asked: if this is so, then Karma alone is sufficient, why the need for BEING?

 

The BEING is the GROUND and it is He who feeds the karmas to the anmas as Akaamiya Karma Piraartta karma and so forth consistent with the quality of the actions done. This is similar to the field that yields consistent with what the farmer does. The field on it's own accord does not raise crops. Also the karmas do not on their own accord reach the anmas determining their fate.

 

BEING is called VaLLal, the most generous in view of the fact He grants whatever is desired by the anmas. The meaning uL adaivu is: being in a shape that allows being experienced.

 

Notes:

 

It is the Moral worth of actions, the rightness and wrongness of actions that are instrumental for the evolutionary growth of the anmas and where BEING is only the reality who FEEDS that appropriate mantra-complexes that are consistent with the actions effected. The mantra-complexes thus elicited are termed karma in view of the fact they are elicited by actions and where Karma is means actions (Su. garu: to do. Ta. kar-: to do, to execute etc, Ta. kaaran: the doer, Ta. karuvi : the instrument of actions)

 

These Karmic traces are classified as Sanjitam Aakaamiyam and Paraaptam where Sanjitam is meant the latent form, Aakaamiyam the elicited form and Paraaptam, that which is isolated as for the next birth and in a form to be experienced. Such karmic traces being inert, cannot on their own accord attach themselves to the appropriate anmas and determine their fate, the future in the present birth and the shape and form of the next birth. Since only BEING is sentient over and above the anmas, it is BEING who regulates and ensures the right karmic traces become attached to the right anma.

 

Among those which is transferred as for the next birth is the AESTHETIC maturity that is attained in the present birth and which determines the likes and dislikes i.e. the value system. These aesthetic elements are not elements of direct experiences like pains and pleasures but rather the apriori determinant of such things. Thus it would follow that it is the development in aesthetics, in the domain of emotions and feelings that persists with the anma even after death.

 

The Piraartta Karma, in addition to acting of the physical stuff for creating the appropriate physical body for the habitation of the anma and thus enjoy re-birth and another of life, also determines the AESTHETIC competence of the anma and hence its spiritual maturity and so forth. It is here that the evolutionary dimensions in existential repetitions are accounted for. Saivism does allow for the evolution of the anmas but it is related to the ETHICAL quality of the actions effected by them.

 

 

Lessons on Botham 2-12 ( Only BEING reinforces Human Praxis)

 

Q: How does MeykaNdar explain that it is only BEING who reinforces Human actions?

 

š ¢Ǣ Ȣ ¨ ŧ Ţ̸ȡ?

šâ¡:

 

ý

 

Ţɨ ž Ţɻ

Ţɨ - Ţɨ

á áɢ Ѹá

Ȣ

 

, Ţ ¡ 츨 š¢, ġ ŧ ¨Ȣ Ţ, ġ 󧾸 ̸.

 

(-)

 

Ģ즸Ч, Ţ ơ Ţ Ӿɡ, Ţɸ , Ţɸ žâ Ȣ ¨ Ţ; š Ţ¡á¢, ( Ȣ ;Ȣ ) , ŧ Ȣ š ( ) (-)

 

Variyar:

 

The Second Argument

 

avvinaiyaic ceyvatin avvinainjar taan cenRu aGku

avvinaiayaik kaanta pasaasampool - avvinaiayip

peeraamal uuddum piraanin nukaaraareel

aartaam aRintu aNaippaar aaGku

 

This argument seek to deconstruct the view that while it may NOT be possible that the Karmic traces, being insentient, act on their own accord and attach themselves to the deserving anmas, it may be possible for the anmas themselves to do so as they are sentient creatures. The anmas may themselves self-reward their actions and thereby determine their own fate.

 

Meaning:

 

Only when one holds a piece of iron in front of a magnet in an appropriate manner, it would pull unto itself the piece of iron. (Otherwise not) In the same manner BEING attracts ( or dispels) unto Himself the anmas by way of reinforcing positively (or negatively) the actions of the anmas. The anmas acquire a physical body that enables the execution of actions and with that enjoy the karma by way of action consequences they have inherited. Now it has to be the anmas that enjoy/suffer these action consequences as fed into them by BEING. And since the anmas are engulfed in Malam and hence blind with respect to the reinforcing effects of their actions, they themselves cannot be self reinforcing.

 

Comments:

 

Having shown that the Karmic traces elicited by effecting actions cannot, being insentient, reinforce the anmas positively or negatively, it is now proposed that this opposition does not apply to the anmas themselves as they sentient, capable of awareness, consciousness and so forth. It is suggested that the anmas by themselves can reinforce their actions in terms of feelings of pain pleasure and so forth. The anmas can move from itself to itself and gravitate towards a condition of effecting only actions that are pleasure producing.

 

Such a view, MeykaNdar notes, overlooks the EVOLUTIONARY dimensions of actions the elicitation of karmic traces and so forth. Each action by its moral worth brings the anma CLOSER to or AWAY from BEING and hence spiritual evolution or degeneration. There is a pre-existent MAGNETIC PULL attracting all anmas unto BEING and the good actions are those, which allow this gravitation act on the anmas and thereby enable them to enjoy spiritual development into higher ways of Being-in-the-World or evolving into higher kind of species.

 

Now can anmas themselves write-in this way their own evolution and hence Fate?

 

Certainly they cannot for they are engulfed in Malam and hence are BLIND with respect to the evolutionary implications or consequences of their actions. If this metaphysical blindness is denied, and the anmas are said to be AWARE of the moral worth of their actions, then there should be no evil as such- no remorse, feelings of guilt and so forth but which obviously exist. The feelings of guilt and so forth cannot be a way of the anma reinforcing itself for it is full of pain and sometimes even may lead bouts of depression that can result in suicide and so forth.

 

 

Lessons on Botham 2-13 ( The Malam is Anati)

 

Q: In addition to Pati and Pacu (BEING and the anmas), how does MeykaNdar establish that Malam and Karma are also anati?

 

š Ţ иȡ?

 

šâ¡:

 

ý

 

Ģ ɢ Ǣ

Ģ Ҿ - Ģ

ĸ š ġ š

.

 

 

, Ţ ¡? ɡ¡? ¡¢ ġ ȡ; ɡ¡¢ ž , Ӿ ¢ Ţ ӨȨ Ţ̸.

 

(-)

 

Ģɢ ɢ Ǣ ¢ á , ɧ ¢š, . ( ), , , ( ) š. Ҿ âɡ Ч, Ŧ á ¢ɡ â¹ (-)

 

â츢ø ¡Ģ Ģ ȡ.

 

Variyar:

 

The Third Argument:

 

NelliRku umiyum nikaz cembiniR kaLimbunj

ColliR putitnaRu tonmaiiyee - valli

Malakanmam anRuLavaam vaLLalaaR ponvaaL

Alarcookanj cey kamalat taam.

 

The question now arises: Is Karma, the action consequences (that are elicited as mantric traces) a configured reality (aati) or an unconfigured reality (an-aati? Now if it is said to be a configured reality then what was not there a priori will not appear. Now if it is NOT a configured reality, then BEING is not necessary to conjoin the karmic traces to the anmas.

 

This verse seeks to explain such oppositions.

 

Meaning:

 

For those who seek to know the origins of the husk of rice grains and verdigrises in copper, what can be said is that these dirts are with them right from the beginning (they are unthinkable without them). In the same manner the three Malams - aaNavam Kanmam and Maayai - are there with the anmas right from the beginning (as intrinsic to them). These things are activated just like the blossoming and drooping of Lotus flowers are activated by the sun.

 

Comments:

 

The most distinctive achievement of Saiva Siddhanta in relation to the hundreds of metaphysical systems developed in India is the Fundamental Ontology: that BEING the innumerable anmas and the various binders or fetters are unconfigured primordial entities and which go into the configuration of all. Anything in the world and the world itself is unthinkable without these three fundamental elements and which do not have any more primordial fundamental elements out of which they are configured. Thus they are the primordial atoms of all without they themselves having any more primordial atoms to configure them.

 

An analogy is brought in to explain the matter. The rice gain has the chaff as part of it and the copper the verdigrises. Can we delineate a time when , say the chaff was not covering the husk grain? No we cannot and neither can we the copper without the verdigrises. Into the structure of rice, there is already the presence of the husk as in integral part of it in such a way that we cannot think of rice without it.

 

According to MeykaNdar, this analogy applies equally to anma - it has always these Mummalams as parts of its structure necessitating the praxis of BEING to FREE them from the delimiting and constraining agents.

 

And since these malams are INSENTIENT, the question also arises: How are these activated?

 

MeykaNdar provides another analogy: the very presence of sun that cause the flowers to bloom on the one hand and droop on the other.

 

The very presence or Cannitanam of BEING is sufficient to energize and activate these malams.

 

 

Lessons on Botham 2-14 ( Existential Repetition of the Anmas)

 

Q: How does MeykaNdar explain that the anmas evolve enjoying existential repetition till the point of Moksa?

 

Ţ: š 쾢 ¡ Ũ Ȣ иȡ?

 

šâ¡:

 

- ȡ ý:

 

â

 

(-) Ȣ (-)

 

Ȣ -

 

, Ӿġ - ɡ : -

 

¢ Ȣ

 

- :

 

째 ġ 񧼡?

 

ȡ - :

 

ž, ̼ ̼ ¢ ( ̼) Ǣ¢ 򧾡 ڧ, ¢ ¢á էǡ Φ Ȣ¢ġ, ¢ . ( ã š )

 

â š š â׸ . է , Ȣ Ũ Ţէǡ Ũ¡ Ţ¡θ Ȣŧ 򾢒 .

 

žý ̼ Ũ Ȣ, ¢â 째¡ šŢ , ̾¢ θ.

 

- Ш н:

 

 

¡ Ȣ ܼ¢, Ȣ

 

 

Variyar:

 

The Second Sutra - the Third Thesis:

 

Pookku varavu puriya

 

Meaning: The anmas suffer deaths and rebirths and in that also evolve.

 

The elements of Hermeneutic Logic- the First: what is being asserted:

 

The anmas always suffer structural changes in each rebirth

 

The Second - the DOUBTS raised:

 

Can there be rebirths for the sentient elements (cittu) just like for the insentient (cadam)?

 

The Third - objections raised:

 

The Kiriidaap Piramavaati claims: The Vedas say that just like pot-space becomes the open space when the pot breaks down, so does the anma -it will fuse with the Brahman when it is relieved of the body at the point of death. Hence it would follow that there is no rebirth or evolution for the anmas.

 

This Kiriidaap Piramavaatam is a species of Advaitin (the eekanmavaati). They maintain that to understand that I am Brahman and changeless and that I in fact play in many different ways with various kinds of things that evolve and change is in fact to attain Moksa.

 

Now Sivaatvaities accept the same metaphor but maintain that changes and evolution is for Siva and NOT for the anmas. The Samkhyas ascribe change and evolution of the Buddhi Tatva, which is a part of the Prakriti Tatva.

 

All such views are deconstructed here.

 

The Fourth - the deconstruction:

 

Death and rebirth, destruction and regeneration apply only to those which are historical, and hence it is the anmas that assume rebirths and in that also evolve.

 

Notes (Loga)

 

The anma, conceived as Brahman, as is done in Advaita Vedanta and its different schools, disallows change and evolution for the anma for that would be tantamount to saying that Brahman itself changes and evolves, contradicting its essence. If they maintain that the anmas change then they have also to admit that ontologically the anma and Brahman are NOT substantially the same as is taken by the Saiva Siddhanties with their Fundamental Ontology of pati pacu and Paacam.

 

Another variation on this theme is the view of Sivatvaties, a school of Saivas who maintain that there is change and evolution but not for anma but to Siva Himself and which is another interpretation of the dance metaphor used to understand the praxis of BEING.

 

The Samkhyas maintain that it is not the Purusha but one component of Prakriti, the primordial stuff of all structural things that evolves and thus undergoes changes.

 

Here by way of deconstructing these views MeykaNdar brings along the HISTORICITY of the anmas and the fact that evolutionary dynamics also belongs to the historical ways of Being-in the World.

 

Brahman is a-historical and hence cannot be the changing and evolving anma and which is an empirical fact. The anmas suffer deaths and rebirths and in that also EVOLVE to higher so that eventually they become qualitatively the same of Siva and this evolutionary dynamics being determined by the ethical sensitivity of the anmas. The close relationship between the ethical quality of actions and evolutionary changes not only rules out Siva as the evolving entity but also the Buddhi Tatva of the Samkhyas and which is an insentient element.

 

It also follows only the sentient entities can evolve and the anmas that evolve thus cannot never be substantially the same as Brahman deconstructing the Advaitins again.

 

 

 

Lessons on Botham 2-15 ( The Mechanisms of Rebirth)

 

Q: How does MeykaNdar explain the metaphysical processes underlying the death and rebirth of the anmas?

 

Ţ: ĸ Ţɸ š Ţ츢 ٸȡ?

 

šâ¡:

 

:

 

(Ӿ)ý

 

ɨ ׽Ţ

Ţ Ţ¢ɡ - Ţ

ǧ š

Ţ Ţ

 

: Ţ ǧ Ţ, ɨ ׽Ţ , , Ţ¢ɡ š Ţ Ţ

 

(-)

 

Ţ ӾĢ 츨Ԩ ׼ Ƣ, ( ƢŢȢ ʸ ø Ũ¢) ⾡ ӾĢš â, ¢á, ⾡ ӾĢ øǢ (Ţ ) Ţ Ÿ ɡ Ȣ ( , ⾡ ӾĢȡ ø Ţ, ) Ȣ , (ۼ Ţ¢ɡ , , Ţ , ø Ũ Ȣ Ţ) ġ, ( Ţ š) Ţ, 򾢨¡ , ( Ǣ Ţ š) Ţ Ţ (-)

 

Variyar

 

The FIFTH : The First Argument

 

UdaaraNa VeNbaa

 

KaNda nanavaik kanavuNarvil taan maRantu

ViNpadarntu attuudu vinaiyinaal - kaNcevikeddu

ULLatee tooRRa uLam aNuvaayc cenRu manan

TaLLa vizum karuvil taan.

 

Meaning:

 

When the physical body having the sense organs of eyes ears and so forth decays at the point of death, the subtle (mantric body) that survives death, becomes the physical-essence body (the puutaacaara udambu) The anma at that point enters the this body and spreads across the metaphysical space enjoying the hells and heavens but which it forgets just like forgetting the contents of the wakeful states on entering the dream states. At this point there are also changes in the constitutional structure of the anma and where there is also the showing of the different kinds of births possible and before it leaves this body of physical essence. These forms of life are that of divine beings, human beings, animal forms, the hellish forms and so forth. Then having chosen a form of life dictated by the inherited karmic traces, it enters the womb in the form of the subtle body.

 

ӾĢ Ţ¡  츢 Ţ Δ . Ǣ â â ̾ ǧ Ȕ . .

 

ǧ Ȓ Ⱦɡ š ã 򧾡 ⾡ źã ӾĢ ġ ھ . Ţ Д Ⱦɡ 츧ġ ӾĢȢ ־ġ ھ . ɨ ׽Ţ Д Ⱦɡ ۼ , ӾĢ ĸ , ŢǢ Ţ Ÿ ġ Ȣ ھ . ȡ ¡¢ ŢǢ ŢŸ Ÿ ȢŢĔ .

 

, â, , ú ý 򾢨 , ý ɡ ׼.

 

It is on account of the fact that it is the sense organs of eyes and ears that decay first at the point of death, that it is said kaN cevi keddu (the eyes and ears decay). In order to clarify the doubts on how the gross physical body can be the product of the subtle body, it is said uLLatee tooRRa (produced by what is already there)

 

Furthermore with the assertion uLLatee tooRRa it is also explained that the anma in addition to taking the subtle (mantra body?) it also takes physical-essence body and hence a change in body forms. Because of the phrase viN padarntu (traveling into the metaphysical space) it is inferred that the anmas experience such worlds as the heavens hells and so forth. Now because of the phrase kaNda nanavaik kanavuNarvil taan maRantu (like forgetting the experiences of wakeful state during the dream states) it is inferred that there is CHANGE in the existential states in moving from the body of physical-essences into that of mantra body. With this it is also explained why the anmas in general do not remember the contents of their past births.

 

The cuukkuma udambu (the subtle body) is that which is generated out of the FIVE tanmattras - the sound-essence, touch-essence, shape-essence, taste-essence and smell-essence and the internal cognitive essences of Manam Buddhi and Agkaaram.

 

Notes( Loga)

 

Matters such as these - what happens to an anma after death- are not that easy to understand for the human mind and are matters that are disclosed to mystic individuals who enjoy the gifts of Transductive Perceptions. Such views as these are gathered through the collective experiences of mankind and over millenniums and which consist an important component of sacred scriptures.

 

Now the physical body is that which allows EXISTENCE and where the anma is able to effect ACTIONS using the various facilities provided in the machine-body, the maaya yantrat tanu, as MeykaNdar would say in the Third Sutra. But when this decays at the point of death, there appears to be TWO different kinds of bodies in which the anma survives prior to its rebirth into a suitable body and live again.

 

The subtle bodies appear to be a Mantra-Body and a Physical-Essence Body. The Mantra-body retains all the karmic traces elicited during the life of various actions and which are organized with respect to the ETHICAL quality of the actions effected, the meritorious actions eliciting mantric syllables that would enable higher forms of birth and the evil actions the opposite. This mantra-body also develops the Physical- Essence Body and which enables the experiencing the Metaphysical World where an understanding of the different forms of births is made available. It appears that the anma is led to CHOOSE its own from at the point of the next birth and which is consistent with its karma. Then at about the point of rebirth, again the anma becomes the mantra-body and enters the appropriate Yoni or womb so that it begins to enjoy another lease of bodily existence onsistemnt with its Prabta Karma.

 

 

Lessons on Botham 2-16 ( The Vedic Panjagni Vittai)

 

Q : How does the theory of Meykandar about rebirth correlates with some Vedic notions?

 

Ţ: ž ﺡɢ Ţ ?

 

šâ¡:

 

Ţɡ ž Ȣ ﺡɢ Ţ . ﺡɢ Ţ¢ : -- Ţ ¢ Ţ ¨ Ţ , ׼ Ţ , 츧ġ Ţ Ţâ ⾡ Ţ ǡ š, Ţ , ﺢ Ţ¢ɡ ãŢ , 򧾡 , 򾢨 ӾĢ ¢ǡ Մ ã 츢 â츢. 츢 򧾡 ¢ š â ħ򧾡 ڸ. š š ׼ Ţ , , , , , 󾢼 Ģɡ 󾢼 츢ɢ¡, Ÿ 츢ɢ¢Ģ ̾¡ ¡ɢ ž 𼦾 Ģ ﺡɢ Ţ .

 

Variyar:

 

With this argument the substance of Panjcaakni Vittai articulated in the Vedas is also implicated. Now this is what is meant by Panjcakni Vittai:

 

For the anmas that have done the meritorious deeds, and in inorder to enjoy the blessings of such actions, the anma leaves behind the physical body and assumes the body of mantra-forms (cuukkuma udambu) and with that assumes the body of physical-essences (puutaacaara udambu) on reaching the Swarka Loka. Here it lives with celestial beings and after enjoying and spending all the blessings, it leaves behind that kind of body because of residual karmic traces. It assumes again the mantric form and enters the world of vegetation such as rice and enters the body of the human beings in the form food eaten and so forth. There it enters the locations of the reproductive mechanisms and becoming the seminal fluids enters the womb and later emerges as a child into the world.

 

On account of the fact the anma after it escapes the physical body enters the FIVE fold realms - the Swarka Loka, the realms of the Clouds, the Earth, the Father and Mother, these FIVE realms are metaphorically understood as Agni. The meditations with this kind of metaphorical thinking assuming the anma to be that which is sacrificed in the Fire is a Sadhana prescribed in the Vedas. For this reason it is also known Panjcaakni Vittai.

 

 

Notes (Loga)

 

While it is certain that anma survives the bodily death and that it is reborn continuously till the point of Moksa and as regulated by Karma, what happens between death and rebirth is a matter that can be learned only as DISCLOSURES by BEING and hence what is more commonly known as REVELATIONS. Such revelations are NOT mere speculations of a fertile mind when it becomes philosophical and hermeneutical. What is searched within the philosophical mood is TRUTH-EXPERIENCES and NOT simply truths. Once we maintain that truths are what are searched for in sciences then there will demands for definitions, evidences proofs demonstrations and so forth. However when the search is taken as a search within the paradigm of Hermeneutic Sciences, what is demanded is the possibility of experiencing the same truth-experince being announced by another. When the SAME truth-experiences are experienced by many others then that experience becomes non-fictional non idiosyncratic and hence authentic.

 

The metaphysical insights that MeykaNdar announces is claimed to be essentially the SAME as that announced in the Vedas in the form Panjcakni Vittai.

 

This similarity is an evidence that the metaphysical insights that MeykaNdar describes and arrives at in a different route is NOT merely a fiction, a product of wild imagination, a mere speculation etc which do not have a place in metaphysical investigations taken as fields of studies belonging to Fundamental Hermeneutic Sciences.

 

 

Lessons on Botham 2-17 ( The Body is Not the Vedic Pot-Space)

 

Q: How does MeykaNdar explain that the Vedic analogy of the Pot-Space for the physical body of the anmas is erroneous?

 

Ţ : š Ǣ ý ̼ žǢ Ţ츢 ٸȡ?

 

šâ¡

 

() ý

 

â

ø - Ţ

̼ š

 

ž ̼ Ũ Ţ ž Ȣ š, ̼ Ţ̸.

 

(-)

 

( Ƣ š ⾡ ӾĢ ھ ž ) â Ҿ¦ ־, Մ ׼ɢ ɡ ־, ¡ Ţ ȡ ã پ, Ũ Ȣ ȡ, ̼ ̼ 򧾡 ȧ . (ɡ ž ̼ Ũ ɢ) ( ) Ţ Ũ ž .

 

̼š ̼ Ţ. ׾ - ġ Ȣ

 

Ţ ŢŨ Ũ ž ھġ, ýš ھ Ө. ġ, â ӾĢ Ţ , ̼ Ţ š. á Ţ ̼ Ũ ھ .

 

Variyar

 

The Second Argument:

 

Aravu tan tool urivum akkanavum veeRu

parakaayam pooyvarum paNpum -paravil

kudaakaaya vaakaayak kuuttaaddam enpatu

adaatu uLLam poomaaRu atu

 

This argument is meant to clarify that the analogy of pot-space for the physical body does not apply for the anma that leaves behind the physical body at the point of death. The true meaning of this analogy is also explicated for those (the Advaitins?) who are confused not knowing its real meaning

 

Meaning:

 

In order to explain that the anma on losing the physical body assumes the essence-body (puutaacaara udambu) and mantra-body (cuukkuma body) the following analogies are mentioned in the scriptures - the Vedagamas. One is that of snake sloughing off its worn out skin and growing another. The others are the anma entering a new subtle body during dream experiences and the Yogies leaving their body, entering that of another and returning to their original body. Now as against these there is also the analogy of the pot-space but which does not apply to these transitional states of the anma. It applies only to the final transition where the anma leaves behind the mantra-body itself when it is subjected to Makapralayam, the final dissolution

 

These two different types of analogies are given in the scriptures and interpretations that do not contradict each other must be given. While the analogy of the snake sloughing off its skin and so forth applies to the losing of the gross body and assuming subtle bodies, that of pot-space analogy applies only to the final situation of losing even the mantra-body

 

Notes (Loga)

 

It is evident more than elsewhere that there are some metaphysical insights which can be communicated only through ANALOGIES where the truth is hinted at and the student is expected to contemplate and meditate deeply so that the truth-experince of the master is also experienced by him. But it also follows from this Argument that there can be ERRORS in interpretations and hence the need for deconstructions.

 

The analogies of the snake sloughing of the skin, dreaming and returning to the wakeful state, entering another persons body and returning and to ones own, all involve the leaving behind the current body and getting or recovering the same. This means there is PERSONAL IDENTITY despite various kinds of body transitions. The dreaming person is FREED from his gross body or motor organs and enjoys dream experiences by being the essence-body and sometimes even the mantra-body where motor organs are cut off. On returning to the physical body, there is nevertheless the feeling continuity with the anma prior to the dream and the self thinks that dream experience is something it enjoyed and hence belongs to its repertoire of experiences. Death is similar except that there is NO RECALLING of the past and because it is wiped out from the memory. Death is just more drastic than dreaming and recovering with memory lose but with experiences similar to those of dream states.

 

Now this is quite different from the transition that takes place at the point of Moksa where it is freed totally from all kinds of bodies including the tenacious mantra-body. The anma is EMPTIED of all bodies so that it is also FREED from being born again and again, with no more samsara or phenomenal circulation.

 

This happens because of Makapralayam, the final dissolution effected upon the anma and by BEING and as an expression of His AruL and only for the deserving.

 

 

Lessons on Botham 2-18 (BEING as Sivam-Sakti Complex)

 

Q: How does MeykaNdar maintain that the Sivam and Sakti are only aspects of BEING?

 

Ţ: š 쾢 Ţ Ǣиȡ?

 

šâ¡:

 

- ý

 

¢ Ȣ

 

(-) Ӿ ¡ 򾢧¡ Ȣ ( -)

 

Ӿġ - ɡ : - Ӿ Ţ¡

 

- : - Ӿɢ ŧȡ, ȡ?

 

ȡ :-

 

(1)   Ӿɢ . ( ﺸ ӾĢ¡ )

 

(2)  Ӿɢ ( ¡¢ ӾĢ¡ )

 

- Ш н :-

 

Ӿ ɸ Ȣ ( վ Ȣ) , Ţ š 쾢¡ ž ( Ȣ) Ţ¡¡ .

 

ž - š򦾡 . š żƢ Ƣ Ȣ Ƣ. Ţ š ; Ģ ¡ ġ ȡ, š Ģ ȡ Ч, ǡ ¡ š ȡ .

 

Variyar:

 

The Second Sutra- the Fourth Thesis:

 

AaNaiyin niikkaminRi niRkumanRee

 

Meaning: BEING stands with His Power as His Decree and without ever separating Himself from it.

 

The First component in the Hermeneutic Logic - what is being asserted:-

 

BEING is present everywhere and in everything(sarva viyaapakam)

 

The Second - the doubts raised : - Is what is called the Decree or Power (aaNai, Sakti) something different from BEING or not?

 

The Third - the oppositions raised :

 

(1)      the Power is wholly different from BEING (This is the critic of the Mimamsakas)

(2)     the Power is non-different from BEING ( This is the critic of the Naiyaayikas)

 

The Fourth- the deconstruction: -

 

BEING stands neither as One nor as Not-One but rather beyond these differentiations standing with His Power as samaveetam, permeating and transcending all

 

Samaveetam - this Sanskrit term is translated here as niikkaminRi niRRal, standing without ever departing. What is meant is co-presence (taataanmiyam) like the hand while being different but at the same is also part of the body and hence belonging to the body.

 

 

Notes( Loga)

 

There are two notions dealt with here, the final thesis in this sutra. One is the POWER of BEING, the Sakti and in its phenomenal presence as Decree-like in its impulsions. The other is the sarva viyaapakam - the universal presence filling everything. Where BEING (Sivam) is, there is also Sakti and vice versa and as they say SaktiyinRi Sivamillai, and SivaminRi Saktiyillai. Thus Sivam and Sakti are ONE and in a relationship of Samavaayam of the type taataanmiyam, a co-presence where in identifying one we also have the other - where there is Sakti there is Sivam and vice versa.

 

Thus BEING is a complex unity which allows Itself to be seen as Sakti as one aspect of it and Sivam as another aspect of it but in itself beyond both these differentiated perceptions.

 

Now it is also the case that as Sakti is BEING-as-Immanent is permeates all and as Sivam is BEING-as-Transcendent and hence ABOVE all and hence may appear as totally DIFFERENT as asserted by the Mimamsakas. The transcendent cannot be the same as the immanent. However MeykaNdar points out that in noting the Mere PRESENCE of BEING, whether as immanent or transcendent, this distinction between Sivam and Sakti collapses within a unity that does not allow for these differentiations.

 

This UNITY of BEING makes it also beyond the quantitative thinking of One- Not One etc. The understanding BEING in itself, both the qualitative and quantitative thinking and hence the above differentiations collapse, become inapplicable.

 

 

 

Lessons on Botham 2-19 ( The Universal Presence of BEING)

 

Q: How does MeykaNdar explicate that BEING in being all is beyond quantificational appropriations?

 

Ţ: š ġ ġ ¡ Ţ¡ɡ 츢ȡ иȡ?

 

šâ¡:

 

- :

 

(Ӿġ) ý

 

Ǩ ; ɢ

; -

Ȣ ɡǢ

ǡ

 

(-)

 

Ӿ ŧ ¡ Ȣ ɡ ǡ ܼ, ( ɢ, ǡ¢ â Ȣ Ţ¡ . Ч ɢ, ¢ ŧ Ţâ ¢ 𼡨 ). Ӿ զǡ ( ȡ) ɢ, ŧ ¡ Ţ¡ ܼ. (ɢ, ɢ򾢧 ڨԨ Ǣ ڨ¢Ȣ Ţ¡ ġ¡ ) ɡ ( ġ ɢ), Ţ 񧼡, Ţ զġ, ( ¢ ¡ڧ), ӾlŨ¢Ȣ ¡, ȡ . (ɡ Ӿ 򾢧¡ ɸɢȢ ¡ɢ), Ӿ â Ǣ (ȡ 񼡾 š Ԧ) .

 

( â á Ţ Ũ¡ , ɢ , ը 측 Ȣ 򾢨¡ ɢ ú , Ȧը 츢 ź 쾢 վ ) (ɡ Ţ¡ ġ Ÿ Ŧ ħ 򾢸ǡ Χɢ, ) ¡, ( š Ţ¡ Ţ¡ Ģɡ) ¡, ǡ ʨ š Ӿɢ (-)

 

Variyar

 

The Fifth (component) in Hermeneutic Logic

 

(the First Argument)

 

eGkumuLan enRu aLavai onRanRu; iRaNdu ennil

enGkumuLan anRu; evaRRu evanum - aGku

avai avan inRi illaip ponnoLi pool iican

avai udamai aaLaam naam aGku

 

Meaning:

 

BEING on account of being-as-all-in-themselves, as said above (avaiyeet taaneeyaay), He cannot be a unique and single substance - a thing in the ordinary sense. For if it is so then He cannot be all and everywhere. An analogy can be given for this- it is like a person being at the same time both on the shores and Ganges and Kaviri and which is impossible. Now on account of this it cannot also be said that BEING is dual, two different substances bundled into one for then it will contradict the fact that He stands as all and everywhere without any exception. One, who has a distinctive feature that uniquely identifies him, cannot be the all without any exceptions.

 

Now on this account can we say that He is not an omnipresent reality?

 

This is NOT possible for (just like there are no aksaras without primordial aksara akaaram); there is NOTHING anywhere that has presence without Him. Then what is the meaning of saying that BEING fills everything as Siva-Sakti without being different from Sakti? Note that this is something like sun and its rays - BEING in itself is like the Sun, BEING as presence is like the rays of light, both are the same and difference appears only in the difference in our visions. BEING is Cutta Caitanyam, Pure Consciousness, at one way of looking at it, it is understood as Sivam, at another way of looking at it, it appears as Sakti.

 

Now since the Pacus and Paacaas, though individual substances, have also presence as such, can they too be considered as standing as non-different from their sakties and hence the same as BEING because of this?

 

No, they cannot be. For these individual substances owe their presence to BEING inside whose presence their presence is wrought. Hence they are properly His properties and we the psychic entities are in servitude to Him - we have no independent presence other than that granted by BEING.

 

Notes (Loga)

 

This is a very terse verse with a deep penetration into metaphysical heights that is so characteristic of MeykaNdar, the most outstanding metaphysician of not only India but also the world as whole. What he is at pains to point out is that BEING is beyond the reach of quantificational thinking with respect to His essence, that He is beyond the reach of such categories as one many something nothing exist and so forth and their negations. The essence of BEING, understanding BEING in Itself, is beyond the quantificational thinking and hence THINKING itself. By THOUGHT we cannot make sense of His essence.

 

However we cannot be free thinking and it is within thinking and understanding that develop from it that He is Sivam and Sakti or even the Siva-Sakti complex. When understanding focuses on BEING as a transcendent reality, we end up saying BEING is Sivam and when on the immanent aspects then BEING is Sakti and so forth.

 

BEING is NOT an individual or a collection of individuals which would allow for quantificational thinking. It is anmas and Paacaas, the psychic and non-psychic physical entities that allow for quantificational thinking - allow for the use of one many something nothing etc and because of which they can never be categorically the same as BEING even though the Sakti and Sivam are there configuring their essence - simply there is NOTHING without being permeated by BEING and hence Sivam and Sakti. But as individuals, as finite entities they BELONG to BEING as its own things for their presence as such is wrought by the presence of BEING in the first place. On this same account the anmas as individuals are also properties of BEING and hence always His slaves, incapable of anything on their own. They can function only on the basis of the Decree( aaNai, the Sakti) that agitates them

 

 

 

Lessons on Botham 2-20 (The Pervasive and Invasive Presence)

 

Q: How does MeykaNdar explain the difference between Pervasive Presence ( viyaapakam) and Invasive Presence ( viyaappiyam) in relation to the Presence of BEING?

 

Ţ: Ţ¡ Ţ¡ š ʨ š Ţ츢 ٸȡ?

 

šâ¡:

 

Ţ¡ ģ , (Ţ¡ ǣ ) Ţ¡ Ţ¡ . Ÿ ǡ.

 

Ţ¡ Ţâ - Ţ¡ Ģ š

Ţ¡ š Ţ - Ţ¡ Ȣ ȧ

Ţ¡ Ţ¡ 󿣧- Ţ¡ Ţ츢

 

Variyar

 

Viyaapakam, the Pervasive Presence is the presence as the CONTAINER of all. The Viyaatti, is the total permeation of the Container as Invasive Presence and Viyaappiyam, is just the Invasive Presence within the already given. For making sense of these notions of pervasion, the Ocean the Waters and Saltiness of the water are used as analogies. The Sivam is like the Ocean, the Viyaapakam, the Sakti like the waters that fills every space available, the Viyaatti and the saltiness that is found wherever there is water is the Viyaappiyam

 

 

žý Ӿ Ţ¡ ¡ Ţ¡ ȡ ܼ, ܼ¡ ɢ Ţ¡ ܼ, Ţ¡ ɢ Ũ Ȣ ܼ , Ӿ ŧ ¢ Ǣ Ԧ վ Ţ¡¡ Ш¢ , ը 측 Ȣ ŢȢ ø Ȣ ¢ , ը 츢 Ħġ ȡ ¢ Ţ.

 

With this thesis it is shown that BEING is beyond the quantificational thinking because He stands as the Container-like Pervasive Presence. Now if as such then He cannot be even something and hence He cannot be such a entity of Pervasive Presence, then it would follow that BEING cannot be present everywhere (as is generally known). Now if the universal Invasive Presence of BEING (viyaabi) is denied, then it would follow that the Pacus and Paacaas can have forms and functions without Him. So in order to avoid all these difficulties, we have to understand that BEING stands as Siva-Sakti with both the Pervasive and Invasive Presence and where when the containing aspects is understood, BEING is understood as Sivam and when the contained aspects are seen then BEING is understood as Sakti and so forth. BEING-as-Sivam is just the Pure Consciousness that stands self-illuminant and autonomous while BEING-as-Sakti is BEING that stands as all the manifest world, capable of standing as ABOVE (veeRu) all and along-with (udan) all instructing all the anmas so that they learn and develop.

 

Notes (Loga)

 

In saying that BEING is beyond the quantificational thinking of one many and so forth, it is claimed that BEING is an Indivisible Unitary Whole that contains all without itself being contained by any. Everything is within BEING but BEING is NOT within anything. This raise problems of making sense of the notion that BEING is the POWER that moves all- here the anmas who are led to EVOLVE on the basis of the ethical quality of their actions. How the same BEING who contains all can also be the Power that moves all and has to be one-with all for that? In order to explain this dilemma it is said BEING is Siva-Sakti complex and that it is Sakti that He Moves all while as Sivam stands as Pure Consciousness simply LOOKING ON but without any involvement, austere aloof and absolutely PURE. But both are only aspects of the SAME BEING - Sivam the containing aspects and Sakti the contained aspects. The Pacus and Paacaas INHERE, as the Naiyayikas would say, within the EXPANSE that Sakti is and which has Sivam as its Ground. Thus it would follow that without Sivam-Sakti as such nothing would move at all.

 

 

Lessons on Botham 2-21 ( The Forms of Power(Sakti))

 

Q: How does MeykaNdar explain the differentiated forms of Sakti without contradicting that BEING is One, a Siva-Sakti complex??

 

Ţ : ŧ Ȣġ š 쾢¢ Ţ Ţ츢 ٸȡ?

 

šâ¡:

 

¢ 򾢦¡ ξ ξ ӾĢ Ƣ š š¡ , ź â§, á  ɺ â¡ 򾢸ǡ Ţâ . 򾢸ǡ ɡ Ŧ .

 

Variyar:

 

It is the Power of Fire that on account of heating up and cooking on different occasions comes to be known as the Heating Power Cooking Power and so forth. In the same way the same Sakti, on account of its different applications comes to be known as the basic five Sakties - ParaSakti, AtiSakti, Iccaa Sakti, Njana Sakti and Kiriya Sakti and countless number of other forms and with that countless number of different names. And Siva as the one-with this Sakti also assumes countless number of forms and names along with that.

 

šâ¡:

 

Ÿ š ŢâШ.

 

Żɺ¡

 

¡ Ţ ¡ ɡɢ ɡ

¡ š¡

š ¡

ȡ

 

򾢾 ɡ

򾢾 ¡ š ġ

򾢾 째

¡ ġ 򾢾

 

Variyar:

 

These notions are explained further by the Sivagamas.

 

Civanjana Cittiyaar:

 

Cattiyaay vintu cattiyaay manonmani taanaaki

OttuRu makeecaiyaaki umai thiruvaaNiyaaki

VaittuRunj civaattikku iGGan varunj catti oruttiyaakum

EttiRa ninRaan iisan attiram avaLum niRpaL

 

Meaning:

 

It is Sakti that becomes the energies of Bintu, ManonmaNi, the Makeesai that conforms to the Makeesa form of Siva, Umai Saraswati and so forth. It is just the One Sakti that becomes all these different forms of Power that provide the basis for Siva. This Woman assumes all the shapes that are willed by Siva, the formless.

 

Cattitaan naatamaaki taanakum civamum antac

Cattitaan aatiyaakun tarum vadivaana vellaanj

Cattiyunj civamumaanj cattitaan cattanukkoor

Cattiyaanj cattan veendiRellaam aam cattitaanee

 

Meaning:

 

It is the Sakti that becomes the Natam and BEING becomes Siva in union with it. In this way the Sakti becomes the Primordial Power and generates all the things with forms and functions. Thus every individual thing is in fact a complex of Siva-Sakti where the Sakti assumes the forms and functions that is willed by Sivan, the BEING.

 

Notes (Loga)

 

Here we have a theory of Individual things, how Reality becomes a digital reality with countless number of individual things, the concrete abstract, and the visible invisible and so forth and including here the ICONS that shape the metaphysical thinking of human beings. Such ideas as these are very ancient in Saivism and Tirumular has described them magnificently in his Tirumantiram. The following is just one of such verses. More are available in Tirumantiram, the Seventh Tantra.

 

5: Atma LiGkam Ģ

 

47.

 

Ģ

Ģ

Ģ

 

:

 

Ц ɢġ ǡ Ȩ 򾢺 ¡ɢ Ģ Ţ ž . ¢â Ţ¢ ý ¡ɢ Ģ ҽ¢ ž. ¡ɢ-Ģ ú ŧ Ӹ . Ч ¢Ǣ þ Ƣ Ģ .

 

47.

 

satti sivamaam iliGkamee taaparanj

satti sivamaam iliGkamee saGkamanj

satti sivamaam iliGakanj cataacivanj

satti sivamaakun taavaran taanee

 

Meaning:

 

All the things that are immobile such as the hills, earth trees plants and so forth are also the product of the union of Sati and Sivam and which is the LiGkam. The various sexual kinds of unions that result in species regenerations are also the product of the union of Satti and Sivam and which is the LiGkam. BEING discloses Himself as Cataaciva with the Five faces and which is also the union of Satti and Sivam. The SivaliGkam installed in the temple as the Icon of worship is also the same.

 

Comments:

 

The SivaliGkam but as AtmaliGkam and different from the Cataaciva LiGkam is that which underlies the birth of INDIVIDUAL things and their essence. This is also the Cataaciva LiGkam with its five faces and which are the basic instinctual forces, the psychotropisms of various kinds - Vaamateevam (seeking sexual happiness) TatpuRudam (seeking self understanding), Akooram (showing love and kindness), Cattiyoocaatam (seeking TRUTH and nothing else) and Icaanam (seeking Moksa).

 

We can see these notions are a further development of the ancient notions of Purushartta that we have seen originated in the SumeroDravidian times and which were listed as ARam (seeking to live the righteous way) PoruL (seeking economic well-being), Inbam (seeking happiness) and Viidu (seeking Moksa)

 

Tirumular points out that the genesis of individual objects, both the living and non-living are ultimately to be traced to the PRESENCE of BEING as Cataaciva and which is the UNION of Satti and Sivam and which is the same as Natam and Bindu. Of some special significance here is the notion of SaGkamam, the union and by which is meant especially the sexually union, the primordial activity in nature that underlies species regeneration. This pressure among the living creatures is also a phenomenal expression of the union of Natam and Bindu or Sivam and Sakti and as symbolized by the Icon of SivaliGkam.

 

The Saivites install this SivaliGkam in the temple as the most important Icon of worship with his kind of DEEP understanding of the dynamics of species regeneration (as well as other deeper notions related to longevity) that the unthinking and immature minds grossly misunderstand it as a symbol of carnal sexuality.

 

It is also implied here that the notion of SaGkamam may also apply to the non sentient as well, a notion that the Siddhas later developed as part of their Alchemical Studies. Each such an object is a union of several different kinds of elements and it is presence of SivaliGkam there that holds the different elements together generating and maintaining a structural whole that is stable and coherent.

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Lessons on Botham 2-22 ( The Saiva Evolutionary Theory of Ethics)

 

Q: What is the overall meaning of the Second Sutra?

 

Ţ : Ƣ š ?

 

 

šâ¡:

 

 

, Ŧ ¢ ¡š, Ǣ , áâ Ũ ¢ , Ǣ , ɡǢ , ¢ ý ¡ š¢ġ Ÿ Ĩ Ŧ , ¢ Ţ 򧾡 ⾡ ã ӾĢ ӾĢȢ Ţ, ﺢ ɡ , Ţ ӾĢ Ţ, Ţ째 Ţ Ţ , Ŧ ŧ Ȣи.

 

Variyar:

 

The Overall Meaning of the Second Sutra:

 

The Mayavata Advaitins maintain that anma and BEING are substantially not different just like pure gold and the ornaments made out of them. The dualist Madhavas maintain that they are absolutely different and always just like Light and Darkness. The Panjarattiris or Sri VaishNavas maintain that they are both the same and different just like words and their meanings. Meykandar deconstructs all these views by showing that these relationships hold only because of the different Plays of BEING, the Siva-Sakti complex and that the SAMENESS issues forth when anma and BEING exist as if the body and soul where the body itself is identified as the soul sometimes; substantially different like the eyes and the seeing and the same and different just the understanding (anma Pootam) and seeing (kaNNoLi). The anmas are substantially real even though they enter into the above kinds of relationships with BEING and get thrown into existence where they also suffer death enjoying rebirth consistent with the Karmic traces they have elicited by doing various kinds actions during their existence. After death and which is simply being freed of the physical body, they assume the essence-body and mantra bodies and enjoy in the metaphysical space some kind of heavenly existence and re-enter the phenomenal world assuming a species form consistent with their innate desires. BEING becoming the Sivam that provides the IDEAL and Sakti that provides the various kinds instrumental facilities for effecting actions and so forth facilitates all this. In all these BEING remains the One who provides the appropriate rewards for the actions effected by the anmas.

 

Notes( Loga)

 

The seeds of Saiva Siddhanta are very ancient and even in Sumerian times there were already a TACIT understanding of the essentials and the various kinds of historical developments being only making more and more explicit what were already there implicitly. The following lines are to the point:

 

 

The lines 504&505 from Enmerkar and Lord Aratta ( which may a mythical tale about Murukar, the VeL Murukan)

 

504: u-bi-a inim im-ma gub-bu nu-ub-ta-gal-la ( Formerly, the writing of messages on clay was not established)

 

505: I-ni-se Utu ude-a ur he-en-na-ma am ( Now, with Utus bringing forth the day, verily, this was so)

 

Here clearly Utu ude-a is metaphorical and where the real meaning is the burst of mental clarity, and inner light, a new understanding and because of which the new skill for writing down language in clay tablets became established.

 

These two lines can pass for good Tamil even now and the metaphysical use of Utu ude-a (Ta. utu utiya) already shows that understanding with clarity comes to be only because of inner sun VIOLATING the pre-existent DARKNESS and that LEARNING and hence becoming competent is a matter of GIFT of this inner Sun. Thus we have here an implicit reference to the aaNavam, the Dark Killing Energy that introduces metaphysical BLINDNESS and because of which man is not only ignorant but also EVIL

 

This is the matter that is dealt in this sutra and MeykaNdar argues that the anma in view of its capacity for evil, it cannot be substantially the same as BEING as claimed by the Advaitins. However despite this MeykaNdar maintains that the anma can become the SAME as BEING but only qualitatively. This possibility of anma becoming the SAME as Sivam and which is the meaning of Moksa is the understanding that deconstructs not only the Mayavata Advaita but also the other Vedantic school ssuch as that of Madhava Ramanuja and so forth.

 

The presence of ethical competence as a fabric of human understanding and the ideal of becoming Pure Love by way of transcending this divisive moral struggles is linked to the EVOLUTIONARY dynamics in Saiva Siddhanta and as regulated by Karma. The ethically GOOD is that which elicits karmic traces that would facilitate the assuming of existence of the higher kind of species and within the human, transmutation of personality so that there is more and more of Sivattuvam and hence Pure Love as part of it.

 

The understanding of enjoying Sivattuvam and hence shining as Siva Himself is already there as part of the human understanding and which gives the overall MEANING for existence, the primordial OUGHT of existence. Here while BEING-as-Sivam stands as the unmoving unchanging eternity, untouched by anything phenomenal, BEING-as-Sakti stands as the phenomenal world and everything in it allowing the anmas assume various kinds of bodies effect actions and with that LEARN as well understand their true potential and the possibility of becoming the same as Sivam in the limiting point of the spiritual ascendance.

 

Now in the course of such a development that the anma assumes births and deaths and through doing the PuNNiyam, the ethically right, acquire the karmas that would ensure species ascendance and if already human spiritual ascendance. Now since this ascendance is directed towards enjoying Moksa, it has to be BEING and nobody else who would reward the anmas with respect to the moral worth of the actions of the anmas.

 

Thus BEING by shape shifting into Sivam and Sakti enables the anmas to struggle, learn, becoming ethically sensitive and by way of transcending even this state of moral struggles become Pure Love and in that SAME as SIVAM.

 

 

HOME