Make your own free website on


The Third Sutra


Lessons on Botham 3-1 (The Essence of the Third Sutra)


Q: What is the overall meaning of this Third Sutra ?


Ţ: ȡ š ?





ĸ 򾸡ý Ӿ ɡ Ţ츢, Ш측ý , ȡ ĸ â Ţ츢, ȡġ ¨ â Ǣ ȡ Ţ̸ȡ.






Ţ ¢ Ģ

¡ Ţ Ţ




־ġ (š ) . ھġ ( ȡ) . (ȡ) Ȣġ (Ȣ ȡ) . ɾ ȢĢɡ . 򾢨¢ ( ) () (áš) ġ¡ ( ȡ) . ȢŢ Ȣġ ( ȢĢɢȢ Ȣš Ȣ ȡ) . ¡âǡ (ġ Ӿ ȡ) (-)





Having clarified in the First Sutra that there is BEING as the Primordial Causal Agent for the whole world and having brought out in the Second Sutra the truths of the presence of ancillary powers of Arudsakti (the Pure Energy) and Maayai (the causal matter) and how the whole world is configured out of them, he goes on to explain in this Third Sutra the reality of the anmas as substantial entities that enjoy the benefits of all these Play of BEING (for whom the whole Play is, anyway)


The Third Sutra


uLatu ilatu enRalin enatu udal enRalin

aimpulan odukkam aRitalin kaNpadil

uNdivinai inmaiyin uLartta uNartalin

maayaa viyantirat tanuivil aanamaa




The anma exists as an independent and substantial entity because it NEGATES every self-identification with anything else. It exists as distinct from the physical body as it claims that as its own possession. Now because the anma understands the five senses as distinct from itself, it exists as distinct from the cluster of sensorial processes. Now since there is experiencing and recalling them even during dream-states and states similar to that, there is anma as different from these cluster of unconscious processes. Now during deep sleep while there is breathing there is no experiencing of pleasures and pains as such, the anma exists as different from PraaNa, the vital life breath. Now since there is learning on being taught and that also involves forgetting and recalling, there is anma as distinct from BEING (Brahman) who is beyond all these. Now the anma exists as distinct from the complex-machine like body and which is an assembly of several things (because of the presence of temporality)


Notes( Loga)


In the first and second sutras the reference to anmas is already implicit as is also the Malam, the primordial Dark Killing Energy against which BEING acts. This necessitates the question: For whom this is done and in that implicating that it is for the anmas who are engulfed in the Malam and BLIND because of that. In the second sutra it is more clearly shown that the anma exists as an independently reality that undergoes repeated births and deaths and enjoys evolutionary climb conditioned by the ETHICAL quality of the actions done. Even here again the substantial reality of anmas is not directly dealt with but only indirectly - as that which is capable of EVIL and hence something different from BEING who can never be EVIL at all.


This Third Sutra handles this question directly and brings to bear several issues to establish the independence and substantial reality of the anma and the fact it is anati, just like BEING and Malam, unconfigured entities which always pre-exist any form earthly existence.


Saivism is a religion of Bakti and which is impossible without an I-Thou encounter with BEING and which is possible only if the anma is an independent reality and not a spark of BEING or anything insubstantial like that. There was a host of metaphysical systems that denied the substantial reality of the anma- the Lokayatas who reduced it a cluster of sense perceptions, the Buddhists to the flow of consciousness, the Mayavata Advaitins to Brahman etc. All these are taken one by one in this sutra and each view disconstructed magnificently.


Let us recall that this again is a very important notion and indicated by the PERSONAL note with which BEING is addressed and within some kind of I-Thou relationship where it is an encounter of two independent conscious realities. Thus in EnHudu Annas Sirbiyam ( c. 2200 BC) we see this personal note when she says: 92: ki-ji-sa- gal-la-ka ga-e a-na-me-en (In the place of sustenance what am I, even I). This ga can be read as ngaan or njaan and which exists as such in Malayalam and as naan in Tamil with meaning I. This personal reference is also available in Paripaadal (3rd cent BC - 1st cent AD) in such words as: (1: 73-75) Ninnadi talaiyuRa vaNaGkineem panmaaN yaamum : I (and my family members) praised your divine feet bowing our heads in various ways. Now coming to the Bakti period we can see that the whole of Tevaram and Divviya Prabantam is immensely PERSONAL where BEING is held as Father Mother Friend the Loved One and so forth. The ARputa Tiruvantati of Punitavati begins with an autobiographical note of: piRantu mozipayinRa pinnelaaG kaatal ciRantu nin ceevadiyee ceernteen: after birth and after being capable of language, overcome with LOVE for you, I came to be at your divine feet.


All these immensely personal encounters with BEING presuppose the autonomous and independent reality of the anmas and which is inquired into here by Meykandar and who deconstructs on the way all the different schools of thought which did not condone it.





Lessons on Botham 3-2 (The Individual Reality of Self)


Q: What are the theses of MeykaNdar and their essences in relation to establishing the substantial reality of self?


Ţ: šȡ Ǣ ȡ ɢǡ иȡ?




ȡ ý.


ȡ - ĦĢ


- Ģ


ȡ - ȢĢ


- ȢĢ


- Ţ ¢


ȡ - Ģ


ơ - ¡Ţ Ţ


ýǡ ɢ¡š, š, â¡š, š, ýš, Ţﻡɡš, 㸡š Өȧ ¢ θ.




The Different Theses of the Third Sutra


The First: Because there is negation (of every reduction?) there is self as a distinct substance.


The Second: Because the self says my body, the self exists as different from the body.


The Third: As there is understanding of all five senses, there is self as distinct from them.


The Fourth: Since there is consciousness of even dream-states, there is self as a distinct substance.


The Fifth: As during deep sleep there are no emotional experiences, there is self as a distinct substance.


The Sixth: As there is learning on being instructed, there is self as a distinct substance.


The Seventh: The self lives inhabiting the machine-like body.


These seven theses are directed at disconstructing the different views on the essence of anma. These are the Cuunyanmavaati (who maintains that the self is vacuous, there is nothing there as such), the Teekanmavaati (the self is the body and nothing else), the Indriyanmavaati (the self is the collectivity of the cognitive utensils or processes), the Cukkuteekaanmavaati (the self is only a complex of mantras), the PiraaNanmavaati (the self is the same as the vital breath), Vinjananmavaati (the self is a complex of elements of transductive perceptions) and finally the Camuukanmavaati (the self a collectivity of different elements and not a single substance)






ȡ - Ȣ׼ ֨¢ɡ Ȣ¢


- м â ƨ¡ ֨¢ɡ Ȣ¢ .


ȡ - ŧ ȢĢ, š Ȣ ȡ ¢ .


- ׼Ţ ׼Ģ ը¢ɡ ׼ ȡ ¢


- 򾢨¢ áš Ƣ , ã Һ Ƣġ¢ɡ, áŢ ȡ ¢ .


ȡ - 츢 ¢ɡ š 츢 ȡ ¢


ơ - ġ 쨸¢ɡ, ȡ ¢





The Essences of Third Sutra


First - As there is negating and understanding proceeds with such negations, there is an anma that understands this negation.


Second - As there is claiming the body as if ones own property and hence something alien to self, the anma exists as distinct from the body


Third - Over and above perception of the information from a single sense, there is also perception where the information from all the five senses is used as a whole. Thus there is self as that which does this.


Fourth - Now after dreaming experiences there is recovery of normal consciousness where the dreams are recalled, there is an anma as distinct from the dream processes.


Fifth - Now even while the vital air functions but there are no emotional experiences affecting the body, there is an anma as distinct from this vital air (piraaNan).


Sixth - The self learns and which also forgets and recalls in that process and hence its different from BEING who does not have such cognitive processes.


Seventh - Now all the different Tatvas have their distinct names indicating their substantial difference. Hence it follows that there is anma as distinct from these named Tatvas.



Notes (Loga)


Among all the different metaphysical systems that have been developed in India over millenniums, Saiva Siddhanta stands out as unique in holding to the Fundamental Ontology where BEING the Anmas and the Malam or Anti-BEING are taken as anati- are NOT CONFIGURED and hence primordial and as such they enter into the fabrication or configuration of all that enjoy existence or simply being-there as such and such. This notion of CREATION is also peculiar to Saiva Siddhanta where it is seen simply a process of CONFIGURING out of pre-existent elements which are themselves already there unconfigured. Such configurations bring into PRESENCE entities, made to sustain themselves for a while and then later annihilated or resolved into their primordial elements. While BEING does all these configuring destroying etc, the anma gets configured and annihilated but in that itself remaining indestructible.


This is the essence of the notion of self in Saiva Siddhanta and which MeykaNdar seeks to establish on firm grounds in this Sutra. The details will follow as we proceed.





Lessons on Botham 3-3 (The Arguments for Individual Self)


Q: What are different philosophical arguments MeykaNdar forwards by way f deconstructing the contrary views?


Ţ: Ũ š򾢸 Ƣ ɢǡ 츢Ȧ 츢 иȡ?





ȡ š򾢸


Ӿġ - , ĦĢ Ǧ, Ţ Ħ ǾĢ Ч šš


- ɢ, Ģ Ǧ, ȡ ǾĢ Ч šš .


ȡ - ɢ, ȢĢ Ǧ, ɡ â ú , â Ȣ Ȣ¡¢, ɡ ȢǾĢ Ч šš .


- ɢ, ȢĢ Ǧ, Ţ 񼡦 Ħ ǾĢ Ч šš .


- ɢ Ţ¢¢ Ǧ, Ţ ø츢¢ Ţ Ţ¡ ǾĢ Ч šš ,


ȡ - ɢ, Ģ , Ȣ Ȣ ȢŢ Ȣ ¡ ǾĢ Ч šš .


ơ - ɢ, ¡ Ţ Ǧ, ȡġ.




The Arguments of the Third Sutra


First: Now saying there is an anma because everything is negated means: that, which stands negating every identification with something else, is the self itself


Second: Now arguing that there is a self distinct from the body on account of it saying my body etc means: like claiming ownership with cities and houses and such other material objects, and the same with hands legs and so forth, that which stands claiming thus is the anma that is distinct from the body and so forth.


Third: Now saying there is anma because it is conscious of all senses together means: while the sense that is conscious of any of the tanmattras of sound, feel, taste, shape and smell does not also understand another while there is Gestaltic perception where all the five sense inputs are collectively comprehended, there is a self distinct from the any on these senses that does this.


Fourth: Now saying there is consciousness of deep sleep and hence there is anma as distinct from the unconscious processes means: while during dreaming and such states there may not be self-awareness however on waking up there is recalling that one had a dream or not. This that RECALLS thus has to be the anma.


Fifth: Now in saying when a person is asleep there are no emotional experiences and hence there is self that experiences thus means: there is the experiencing pleasures and pains while awake but not so when deeply asleep showing that that there is a psychic entity that experiences thus while awake and that it is different from psychobiological processes that are still active even during such deep sleep.


Sixth: Now saying there is self because there is learning just as instructed means: there is something that stands as that seeking instruction etc and where instructions are given with the understanding that no matter how the instruction proceeds, the instructed will grasp everything only his own way. That which learns thus in its own way is the anma


Seventh: Now saying there is anma as a distinct entity in the machine-like body means: they all stand with different appellations of their own indicating substantial differences.


Notes (Loga)


Most of the arguments presented here by Variyar are actually the comments given by MeykaNdar himself as part of the original text and are designed to deconstruct practically all the views on anma that existed in his time and which is quite exhaustive. While we shall attend to all these in great details later, something must be said about the Seventh argument which seems to have been not fully grasped by the commentators, including the great Civanjana YogikaL that Variyar follows here.


The central point of the seventh argument is that the self is NOT the caar-maayai, the historical processes attributed to ever fluctuating Prakriti, that physical stuff that is in perpetual movement, always in historical flux. The self that identifies itself with this historical and ever moving reality is the asat-self. But the self has also another dimension to it, the sat-self, that which stands ABOVE the historical and with a pre-understanding of Civanjanam and which it seeks (njanattai munnuNarntu naadil) to enjoy. The sat-self is also the self that seeks Moksa in seeking Civanjanam and in understanding itself thus it also understands itself as distinct from the body in inhabits and which belongs the flux-prone historical reality.






Lessons on Botham 3-4 ( Negation and Self as the Negator)


Q: How does MeykaNdar deconstruct the Cuunyanmavaati who claims that the self is in fact referentially empty ?


Ţ: § ¡š š





ý .


ȡ - Ӿ ý




(-) ־ġ (š ) (-)



Ӿġ - ɡ : - ־ġ š


- : - ӾĢ ξĢ ¡¡ ǧ ħ?


ȡ - :- Ȣ. ־ Ħɢ Ũ . ( . . ġ ɢ¡š . ɢ , )


- Ш н : - Ȣ ɢ¡š šǡ ȡ, Ȣ Ţ ġ ڔ ȡȡ Ƣ ġ ƢξĢɡ Ģ, Ÿ š šȡ Ƣ Ȣ Ǿġ Ȣ š.






This sutra has altogether seven different arguments( utaaraNa veNbaas)



The First Thesis of the Third Sutra


ilatenRalin aanmaa uLatu


Meaning: Since there is negating (saying I am not this, that etc) there is the anma as that which negates thus.


In this the Elements of Hermeneutic Logic are as follows


First - the assertion: because there is negating of every self-identification there is an anma as that which thus negates.


Second- the doubts raised: since the anma is not perceived like the physical body and so forth (but only verbally mentioned) is there anma as a substantial entity?


Third - The opposition: - There is no such a substantial thing as anma. Saying anma exists is equivalent o saying the horns of rabbit exist. (This is the view of Madhyamika Buddhists (of Nagarjuna) who claims that the anma is in fact Sunyam, an emptiness. Such philosophers are known as Cuunyanmavaati. By Sunyam is meant neither existent nor inexistent nor both nor different but simply a nothingness (paaz))


Fourth - the desconstruction: - Now this Cuunyanmavaati in his negation without directly showing inexistence, resorts to identifying positively with the body, the various cognitive utensils and so forth and then says this cannot be the anma and thus proceeding maintain that since there is nothing that can be identified as the anma without being negated, it follows there is nothing that can be said as anma. But they forget there stands something intelligent as that which negates all such self-identifications. The anma is in fact that which NEGATES all self-identifications.


Notes (Loga)


This has reference to the famous demonstration of Nagarjuna in relation to the chariot where he shows that over and above an assembly of elements there is nothing called the chariot as that which is named. The point is that such names as these can be empty in terms of naming a substantial entity - names do not always name a substantial entity. Proceeding along these lines, the Madhyamika Buddhists argued to show that the word anma is similar to such words as chariot which are only seemingly names but in fact do not name a distinct substantial entity like body hand leg tree hill etc. There is a failure of reference and which is shown by the fact that NOTHING can be isolated and identified as that which is referred by the word anma. They provide as other examples names of inexistent objects but for which there are verbal descriptions such the horns of the rabbit. There are also similar descriptions as standard examples in Indian Logic such as the flower in the sky the child of barren woman etc. All such descriptions only SEEM TO REFER but actually there are no substantial realities that are in fact referred.


There is a parallel here with Russells famous Theory of Descriptions where he reduced such statements as The King of France is Bald to a conjunction of an existential statement there is king of France and the attributive pr predicative statement whoever is x, that x is bald etc. He said thus viewed the above referential statement is FALSE as the existential component is false. But P.F. Strawson has deconstructed this by saying the failure of reference is not the same as the falsity of the existential and therefore such statements are neither true nor false but something that is not a statement at all.


We can see such views also in the commentary to Tol. Collatikaaram by such famous linguists as Teyvacilaiyar and so forth.


But here the brilliant Meykandar points out that in each such a failure of referential identification, there is an implicit reference to the self as that which proposes the different self-identifications, denies them and proceeds towards a position where it stands as that which cannot be identified with anything at all. Over and above overt reference by naming and describing there can be covert or implicit reference and the self is such an entity - that which cannot be overtly referred but only implicitly.


There is implicit reference to self and the realization that it cannot be reduced to any one of the objects with which it was sought to be equated with.





Lessons on Botham 3-5 ( The Implicit Reference to Self)


Q: How does MeykaNdar elaborate further that the self is presupposed in any negation of self-identification?


Ţ : Ţ ž š ɧ Ч š š иȡ?








Ţ 了

ȡ Ч - Ȣ






( Ȣ Ţ ӾĢ) ġȢ (Ч¡) , ( á Ÿ Өȧ šȡ, Ƣ Ƣ), (Ţ) ﺡ Ȣ š Ȣ ĦǾš, Ȣ Ȣš¡. ɡ ¡, ( â) ӾĢ ɡ п ʧ Ȣ Ţ츢 ç Ȣ Ȣž; (ġ Ȣ ǡ) , , Ţ (-)




The Fifth - the Argument


UtaaraNa VeNpaa


anRu anRu ena ninRu anaittum viddu anjcezuttaay

ninRonRu uLatu atuvee nii - ninRinRu

tarppaNampool kaaddalaal caar-maayai nii yallai

taRparamum allai tani.




Standing as if the same as the body senses and other objective particulars, and negating each such self-identification on seeking the essence of self, there remains something as the mantra-complex Namasivaaya at the end of all such negations. You are in fact this stuff that stands as this mantra. The various objects that are evolutes of Maayai, the Primordial Root Matter, is simply an insentient object that lights your consciousness like a mirror would reflect the objects . Since it is NOT something that LEARNS, and hence cannot be the same as you, who learns. Now because of this it cannot also be the BEING (Brahman etc). You are different and a substance on your own right.


Ţ Ȣ (šâ¡)


š ġ - . ﻡ ׼ Ȣ ӾĢ ɡ ŧ ɡ


Ţ ﺡ , Ţ ﺡ츢.


ӾĢȢ , šȡ Ƣ Ȣ, ȡȢ š Ƣ ɢ, š Ƣ Ƣ Ȣ ¡ ¢. ġ, 了 , Ч ȡ.


ӾĢ ǡ ¡, ŢΧ ȢŢ Ȣ . ġ Ȣ¡ ɢ, ¡ Ţ Ȣ  Ǣ 츢â¸ Ţ Ţ Ȣ Ȣ ; ġ Ȣ ǡ ġ Ĕ ȡ. ¡ Ţ Ȣ ¡ Ĕ ȡ.


Notes ( Variyar)


atu atuvaay niRRal means standing as if the same as the object one conjoins. During the state of metaphysical blindness, the anma stands as if the same as physical body identifying the body and the organs as if the same as self and sojourning without an awareness of the difference.


Here by Panjcakkaram is meant the subtle complex born out with the mantras akaaram, ukaaram, makaaram and the Siva Tatvas Natam and Bindu.


Now it may be asked: There can be another intelligence that can negate even this negating self. Then it should be noted that there would be an endless regression - this deeper negating intelligence would require another deeper negating intelligence and so forth. In order to avoid this endless regression, MeykaNdar says that the self remains as the Panjcakkra mantra as its ultimate shape and essence.


In the first TWO sutras, the truths of BEING and the Maayai, material basis of all were established. Now can it be that these two fundamental objects do these negations? Such a view will also not lead to infinite regress. Now the problem here is that the Maayai serves only as that which serves to light up and activate the anmas lost without any competence swallowed by the Malam, the Dark Killing Energy. And so MeykaNdar says that because the anma is a LEARNING entity and not simply a passive reflecting entity like Maayai, the self cannot be the Maayai or as he would put it, Since the Maayai just simply reflects like a mirror, you cannot be this non-learning stuff


Now since the anma is something that LERANS with the help of Maayai, it cannot also be the same as BEING (Sivam, Brahman) etc for BEING does not learn at all.


Notes (Loga)


We can see here that Meykandar brings the fact that there is LEARNING in every act of perception to show the substantial reality of the anma and in that deconstructs not only the Madhyamika Buddhists who maintained that the self is referentially vacuous but also the Advaita Vedanti (also known as the eekanmavaati) who would claim that the anma is the same as Brahman, and that the feeling to the contrary is due to some sinister power, freeing self from which it will dawn that self is the same as Brahman etc.


This is NOT possible for there is learning of truths helped by Maayai and hence it is not only the case this Maayai is not a sinister power but also the case that the learning self cannot be Brahman or BEING which has no necessity to learn at all.





Lessons on Botham 3-6 ( The Self and the Body)


Q: How does MeykaNdar show that the self is not the body despite the normal self-identification with it?


Ţ: š , ¢á ɡ Ţ, иȡ?




ȡ - ý.


м Ģ


(-) м Ȣ ƨ ھġ ȡ . (-)



Ӿġ - ɡ - м Ȣ ƨ¡ ֨¢ɡ, ȡ ¢


- - ¡, ŧȡ?


ȡ - - Ȣ ɢ ¡, , վġ , š.( š . ġ¾ á)


- Ш н - â ɢ ̽Ţ ¢째Ȣ , ¡ , ¡ , ¡ ̾ĢȢ ɦ ڨ ¡ ̾Ģɡ, ȡ ¢ .




The Third Sutra- Second Thesis


enatudal enRalin aanmaa uLatu


Meaning: on account of saying my body as if a property is owned, there is anma quite distinct from the body


The elements of Hermeneutic Logic here.


First: what is being asserted: On account of saying my body as if a property is owned, the self stands as different from the body.


Second- the doubts raised- Is the self the same as the body or something substantially different?


Third- the objections raised by others: the anma is seen only with the body and not elsewhere independently and furthermore since there are self-identification with the body in such claims as I became fat I became thin, it follows that it is the body that stands as the anma (This is the opposition raised a branch of the Lokayatas or Materialists also known as Teekanmavaati- those who maintain the self stands as the body itself)


Fourth- the deconstruction: Even though in saying I became fat, thin, I am dark, I am a human being, I am a Brahmin and so forth where the qualities and features belonging to the body are appropriated and ascribed to the self elliptically, there are NO claims such as I am the body and nothing else I am the hand, nothing else I am the leg, nothing else and so forth and since all these objects mentioned are taken as something like properties owned, it follows that there stands the self as distinct from the body.




- : -




ġ ɡ

ɾġ ¡쨸 - ɦ


Ĩ ȡ .


: ġ ɡ , ġ ¡쨸 Ȣ Ȣ, ɢ, ȡ .


(-) (ġ¾, ġ¾ ġ Ţ ӾĢ ըǧ ¢ š? , Ÿ) ȡ ɢ ɢ ƨ ǡ Ȣ즸 ȡ, ġ ¡쨸 ɢɢ ɦ, šȢ Ȣ ȢŦ ƨ ǡ Ȣ즸 ¡ ȡ . (ġ¾ á Ţ ӾĢ ȡ¢ Ȣ, ӾĢȢ Ҹ ӾĢȡ) á ¡ɡ, ӾĢ ɢ; Ȣš¡. ( -)


Ȣ: ƨ â ƨ ȡ ڨ ǡ. ƨ¡ ը Ч ɡ ڨ . Ȣ ƨ ǡ ţ Ч ɢ ȡ.


Fifth - the Argument


UtaaraNa VeNbaa


Enatu enRa maaddin enatu alaatu ennaatu

Unatalaatu un kai kaal yaakkai enatenRum

EnnaRvatu enRum uraittu nii niRRikaaN

Un nilamai veeRaam uNar


Meaning :


During the state of naive existence, you stood identifying the self with the alienable things like home spouse and so forth as if they are the same as the self. Now similarly during that state of undifferentiated consciousness, you also do the same with your hands legs body and the understanding you have of such things. When you reflect and gain a proper understanding, just you realize that home spouse and so forth are substantially distinct from you, you would also realize that your self is different from the body and body parts with which you identify yourself ( in your ignorance).


Notes (Variyar)


There are two kinds possessive relationships indicated (in Tamil) by the sixth case marker (-atu, -a). One is in relation to the alienable objects like house etc (Porud piritin kizamai). The other is in relation to non-alienable(TaRkizamai) such as the body color, height, size and so forth.


Notes (Loga)


It is granted now that there is a self and because of the implicit self reference in all negations of self-identifications, it exists as opposed being vacuous and also that it exists as distinct from Brahman etc. However since the self-reference always involves reference to the body, the self must be taken as that which stands as the body itself, something that grows as the body grows and disappears as the body disintegrates and disappears. This is the view of the Teekanmavaati, one kind of Materialists.


This view, because it denies anma surviving even after death and which then gets resurrected with bodily embodiments in which EVOLUTINARY ascendance is written and connected with ethics, it becomes important to see whether such a view can be in fact true.


Meykandar points out that there are states of being-in-the-world, the naive where the anma identifies itself as if the body just as it stands identifying itself with the home spouse and so forth. However when this naivet is broken through with reflection where dawns the understanding that one is NOT the same as the home spouse, nation, language, knowledge, religion and so forth, so would one realize by the same processes that one is different from the body, the body parts and so forth. Whether that with which one identifies are alienable like home etc or non-alienable like the body etc, both are objects that are understood as ones properties and not the same as self showing both are substantially different.



Lessons on Botham 3-7 (The Self as Different from the Sense Faculties)


Q: Even if different from the body the self can simply be the collection of sense falculties that produce the sense particulars(tanmattras) and nothing more than that. Now how does MeykaNdar dispose off this view?


Ţ : ɢ Ģ ȡ ȡ¢ ǡ â ú Ǣ Ŧȡ š ̸ȡ?




ȡ - ȡ ý




(-) ( ӾĢ) ( ȡ) Ȣġ ( ȡ) . ( -)



Ӿġ - ɡ :- â ú Ȣ Ȣ š.


- : - ħɡ, Ȣ ŧȡ?


ȡ - : - ͧá ӾĢ Ȣ ӾĢ ȢԦ ź. ġ . Ȣ, м Ȣ ƨ Ȣ, , ƨ ǡ ̾ġ ¢á . ( â¡š . ġ¾â á)


- Ш н : - ɡ â ú šȧ š â Ȣ. â ȢŨ ȡ â Ȣ¡. ġ, âǡ Ȣ Чš Ч š




The Third Sutra- Third Thesis


Aimpulan aRitalin aanmaa vuLatu.


Meaning: Since there is seeing with all the five senses as a whole, there is a self (as distinct from the senses)


The elements of Hermeneutic Logic


First - that which is being asserted: - that which comprehends as meaningful the sense data of sound touch shape taste and smell is the self (as distinct from senses)


Second - Doubts raised: - Can the anma (though distinct from the body) be the same as the five senses?


Third- the opposition offered: - It is quite agreeable to all that sense organs like ears perceive the sense data s sound particulars and so forth. But these sense faculties (as distinct from the sense organs) are not insentient. And furthermore, unlike claiming ownership as if of alienable objects (piRitin kizamai) sense perception are stated as ownership of the non-alienable kind such I heard I saw: and so forth. Because of such an intimacy the self should be taken as the collectivity of the five senses. (Thus is maintained by the Indriyanmavaati, a species of Lokayatas)


Fourth- the Saiva deconstruction: - Each sense faculty understands only what pertains to that sense; a particular sense faculty cannot crossover and sense also that which sensed by another. However there is a seeing where the import of each is collectively perceived. Thus that which crosses over all the senses and sees collectively all together is the self (as distinct from the sense faculties)




- : -




Ȣ Ȣ¡ ɢ

ɡ 了 - Ȣ

ǧ¡ ɢɢ


- ɢ Ȣ Ȣ¡, ɡ 了 Ȣ ǧ ¡, ɢɢ , .



( -)


Ħ Ţ Ȣ â ȡ Ţ Ȣ¡; š ӾĢ ﺡ áȢ ȢǢ Ƣ, ( Ţâ ȢԦ ) Ԩ§ ( Ħȡ Ȣ ơ, ġ ) ǧ¡ ɢ, š է ¡ . ( š Ţâ ȡ ɢ) Ţâ Ţ ڧ Ȣ Ȣ š Ȣ Ȣ š¡, ( ɨ Ȣ Ũ Ƣ Ȣ, ȡ ¨ Ţ ) Ȣ ȡ, áȢ.


- . - Ĩ á. - ġ. 了 Ȣ 了 ̦.


Ⱦýǡ 츢 Ҧ Ţ .






The Firth- the argument


Utaarana VeNbaa


onRu aRintatu onRu aRiyaataaki udal manni

anRum pulaanaay anjcezuttai- onRarital

uLLateeyakil atu nii tanittani kaNdu

uLLal avai onRallai oor




The sense faculties in the body are such that what one apprehends is not apprehended by another. But there is something that understands the different inputs of all the senses collectively and as ordained by the five fold processes of production maintenance destruction and through all these that of disclosing and concealing. That which understands all the senses as such is you, the self as distinct from the sense faculties. If the senses are said to do this, then not only cannot they have a differentiated understanding of the sensory inputs but also the fact that there cannot be an understanding of the different processes in each one of the senses and how they contribute towards the collective perception of an object. This entity that understands thus cannot be one of the senses but has to be the self that stands above all and with an understanding of each one of the senses.


Notes (Loga)


I think MeykaNdar is at pains to differentiate between seeing and sensing where while the sensing can be attributed to the different sense faculties like hearing tasting and so forth, that of seeing in the most general sense cannot be. For seeing involves generating a Gestalt, a collective whole where the different inputs from the different senses are selectively utilized to generate a PICTURE of what is perceived and which is MEANINGFUL to the person. The pure sensing, which is simply recording information from an object by itself, does generate a picture of the object that is meaningful to the person. Neither can all the information from all the senses put together without any organization can do it. There are processes like selecting, maintaining in memory, eliminating some as irrelevant, understanding collectively the picture generated as that of an object and in that also concealing some as not clear and so forth. In other words what is seen is a TEXT, with a Surface Structure with features that are obvious but at the same concealing within it some others and hence as having a Deep Structure.


The senses individually or collectively cannot generate such a TEXT-like pictures of objects and which are MEANINGFUL to the individual. That which SEES an object as thus has to be the anma and nothing else.




Lessons on Botham 3-8(The Self and Dream Mechanisms)


Q: The self, now seen as distinct from the body and the sense faculties can be the same as the dream mechanisms. How does MeykaNdar deconstruct this view?


Ţ: Ģɢ Ǣ ¡ š ġ ̸ȡ?




ȡ - ý




(-) Ţ ȢĢɡ šȢ Ȣš (-)



Ӿġ - ɡ : - ׼ Ţ ׼Ģ ը¢ɡ ׼ ȡ ¢


- : - ׼ġ, ɢ ŧȡ?


ȡ - : - âǢ ȡ Ȣ ¡. ơ¢ â Ȣ. ġ š Ȣ š. ( š . ġ¡ á)


- Ш н : - Ţ ׼ š¢, ɦšƢ Ţ Ĩ ʧ ȧ. Ȣ¡ ھġ, 츢á ׼ ɡ Ţ, 츢 Ţ ȡ , Ţ 츢 ھ ȡ Ȣ Ȣ š.




The Third Sutra - Fourth Thesis


odukkam aRitalin aanmaa uLatu


Meaning: Because there is recalling while awake, the dreams one had and where the senses were inactive (odukkam), there is the self (as distinct from the dream mechanisms)


The elements of Hermeneutic Logic


First - what is being asserted: - Since there is something that leaves behind the dream mechanisms, comes to the wakeful state (and recalls that dream), this something must be the self and different from the dream mechanisms.


Second- the doubts raised: - Is the anma the dream body or something different from it?


Third - the opposition of others: - That which perceives and different from the senses is in fact the dream mechanism. This though not available externally but in fact is that which ordains the senses and understands the external things as well. Hence it must be this dream-body self that sees. (This is the view of the Cuukkumatekaanmavaati, a species of the Lokayatas or the materialists)


Fourth - the Saiva deconstruction: - Now if the self is in fact the dream mechanism , then after dreaming something, in recalling that dream, it must recall exactly as experienced. But this not the case- there are many kinds of confusions doubts distortions, and hence the two cannot be same. Further more there is recognition that in dreams there are elements of wakeful states some of which admitted while others are deleted and during wakeful state some of the dream elements are deleted and so forth. That which comprehends all deletions distortions and so forth must be the self (as distinct from the dream mechanism)




- :-




׼ ¢ Ȣ

Ţ ׼Ģ - ׼Ģ

Ŧȡ Ţ¡


- ׼Ģ ¢ Ȣ , ׼Ģ Ţ , ׼Ģ Ţ¡, .




ɢ ¢š Ȣ, (׼ħ Ƣ š, ( š , Ƣġ) ׼Ģ ġ , ҧ, ȡ§ 즸 ( Ŧȡ Ţ ¢ ) Ţ¡, Ȣ ־ġ (, ɡ Ţ 츢á â ¨ġ) , ɢ ȡ.


¢ - ¢. - . - ġ.


׼ š Ţ ¢ .


â ú ý 򾢨ø , ý ɡ .




Fifth - the argument: -


Avvudal ninRu uyirppra aimpoRikaL taam kidappa

Cevvitin avvudalil cenRu adangki - avvudalil

VeeRonRu koNdu viLaiyaadi miiNdu atanai

MaaRal udal nii allai maru.




There is something that exists in the physical body and which enters some deeper realms of the body when the senses remain inactive (during deep sleep and so forth). There it uses different cognitive mechanisms and after enjoying playing with them, then leaving those mechanism returns to the wakeful states of sensory consciousness. Thus because of these transitions, the self cannot be the dream mechanisms.


Notes (Loga)


This species of Lokayatas are bent on reducing the self to the various cognitive tools available in the body and conceding that it is different from the sense faculties now claim that the self is the same as the inner mechanisms that are responsible for dream fabrications. These mechanisms, just as they configure various kinds of dream experiences while the senses are disengaged, must also be the mechanisms that configure sensory experiences during states of wakeful alertness by ordaining the senses. However Meykandar points out many problems here.


There is recalling of dream experiences along with awareness that some elements of the dreams are lost and that there can be distortions introduced. Similarly it is noted that while some elements of wakeful experiences are available in the dreams, some are not. Also the quality of dream experiences is quite different from that of wakeful sense experiences and about which there is awareness. The dream experiences can be weird, fantastic with unearthly episodes occurring there and hence qualitatively different from sense experiences bond the natural.


If that which sees during states of wakefulness through ordaining the senses is the SAME as that which fabricates the dream experiences, then there should NOT be such qualitative differences. The sense experience must be just another version of dream experince and vice versa without there being any qualitative differences between these modes of experiencing. But there are such differences and which are cognized. Hence there must something that does the dreaming as well as the seeing with the senses. This something is the self as distinct from the dream mechanisms.




Lessons on Botham 3-9 ( The Self and the PraaNa, the Vital Air)


Q: Can the self now understood as different from the dream mechanism be the same as the vital air that accounts for the breathing processes that are even more primordial than dreaming?


Ţ: ɡ¢ , ¢ áš ̧?




ȡ - ý


Ţ ¢ .


(-) 򾢨¢ (áš ) ( ) Ţ () ġ¢ɡ( áš ȡ) .



Ӿġ - ɡ :- 򾢨¢ áš Ƣ ã Һ Ƣ ġ¢ɡ, áš ȡ ¢ .


- :- ášԧš, ɢ ŧȡ?


ȡ - :- 򾢨¢Ȣ Ƣ Ȣ âǢ Ƣž ášԧ ̾ Ţξ Ȩ¡ ášԧ š. ( áš . ġ¾ á)


- Ш н :- ŢƢ Ȣ ɢ áš ȢĢȡĢ, . ¢Ģ Ţɸ Ţ ͸ ¢ Ȣ Ȣ š.




The Third Sutra- The Fifth Thesis


kaNpadin uNdi vinai inmaiayin aanmaa vuLatu.


Meaning: During deep sleep even while breathing is active, there is no configuring of experiences of pleasures and pains (like in the state of wakeful alertness). Hence there is anma as distinct from this PraaNa, the vital air.


The elements of Hermeneutic Logic:


First - what is asserted: - During the state of deep sleep, even when the breathing is active, there are no feelings of pleasures and pains as is the case while awake. Thus there is self as distinct from the vital air.


Second- the doubts raised: - Can anma actually be the PraaNa or something different from this?


Third- the opposition raised by others: - Unlike the dream mechanisms that do not function outside dream experiencing, we have the PraaNa, the Vital Air that functions even during Cuzutti Turiam and such states of consciousness free of dreams. This PraaNa functions activating the life processes of inhaling exhaling and so forth, and hence the anma cannot be anything other than this PraaNa. (So will say the PiraaNanmavaati, a species of Lokayatas)


Fourth- the Saiva deconstruction: - While awake there is the experiencing of pleasures and pains while during deep sleep, even though the PraaNa is present and active, we do not have any consciousness of such experiences even though they are had. For when the person wakes up and becomes alert, he recalls that he had a pleasant sleep and so forth. this that recalls thus is the anma.




- :-




Ȣ ׼

Ţ¢Ȣ ¢ġ - Ȣ





Ȣ ׼ , Ţ, Ƣ , ( Ƣ) Ţ () ¡, (áš) Ħ ̾ġ, Ȣ â ¢ (ášŢ) ȡ . (¢) Ģɢ ¢¢, ׼ Ţ , Ȣš¡ -)


Ţ ȢҸ( šâ¡)


Ѹ. Ţɦ Ƣ. , Ȣ զ Ƣ. .




Fifth - the Argument


kaNdaRiyum ivvudalee kaaddu oduGkak kaaNaatee

uNdi vinaiyinRi uyirttalaal - kaNdaRiyum

uLLam veeRu uNdaay odungkaatu udan naNNil

uLLataam uNdi vinai uun





This body, which is the locale for seeing and knowing, ceases to see and learn and experience pains and pleasures when the cognitive tools cease to be active. But even then the PraaNa is active as ever and thus that which sees and learns has to be something different from the PraaNa. Only when the anma remains with the body without withdrawing itself, there is the experience of pleasures and pains.



Notes (Loga)


The line kaaddu oduGkak kaaNaatee can be understood as: when the showing ceases, there is no seeing. This means MeykaNdar notes the emotional experiences of pains and pleasures as something that arises because of SEEING and which he attributes to the anma and NOT to the vital air. Even during dream experiences there is showing and seeing and because of which there are emotional experiences of joys, miseries, fear, phobia and so forth. When the showing ceases (kaaddu oduGka) there are no seeing even though there is being alive as the vital air is still active. This absence of showing and because of which there is deep sleep and the enjoyment of peace of a kind is recalled by something when the person wakes up. That which sees what is shown and also that which sees the absence of showing cannot be the Vital Air as it is not capable of seeing both the showing and the absence of it.


More on this later.



Lessons on Botham 3-10 ( The Self and the PraaNa, the Vital Air-Continued)


Q: Can the self now understood as different from the dream mechanism be the same as the vital air that accounts for the breathing processes that are even more primordial than dreaming?


Ţ: ɡ¢ , ¢ áš ̧?






áš Χš áš ̾Ģɡħ Ȣ žɡ ášԧ Ȣ Ȣ. 򾢨¢ ɢ򾢧 áš ɡ Ȣǡ Ţ ġ¡ ȢŢ. ġ ášԧ Ȣ ǡ š. ġ ȡ ¢ , Ũ , ášԧ Ȣ Ԩ ǡ¢ áš Ţ Ţξ ܼš. ġ Ţ 츢 Ţ ášԨ Ȣž ¢ Β ¢ , , ¢ ¢ Ţ ¢̦ Ч, ášԧ Ţ 츢 Ţ Ȣ Д , áš ¢ Ţ վ¡ ר¾ ̸. ɡ Ȣ վ¡¢Ȣ Ţ Ȣ ¢ Ȣ¡ ġ ášŢ ȡ Ψ . է â 츢 Ţ ášԨ Ш¡ Ȣž ¢ ¢ š.


žý âǢ ¢ .


Ũ¢ Ӿľý Ӿ Ţ Ĕ Ⱦ Ģšȡ


Notes (Variyar)


The PiraaNanmavaati maintains, It is only on account of the active presence of PraaNa that here are processes of consciousness, and hence it must the PraaNa that which perceives using the five senses. During deep sleep even though the PraaNa is active but because the sense faculties remain deactivated, there is no perceiving. Hence it is the PraaNa thats the anma and it is not necessary to presume an anma different from PraaNa.


Now this view is deconstructed by noting that If it is the case that it is the PraaNa that perceives, then during deep sleep, it is impossible that the senses become deactivated even when the PraaNa is there. Thus there must be something that activates and deactivates the senses and using piraaNa (for surviving) and understands all and which is the anma.


Now this is countered with the question: Now if it is said that even when the anma is there, in Deep Sleep (cuzutti) the senses remain deactivated, why it cant it be said that it is PraaNa that perceives or does not activating and deactivating the senses? This is countered as follows. Now the PraaNa functions the same way during dreamless deep sleep and dream-sleep. But understanding functions generating consciousness while awake and but not so during moments of deep sleep. That which generates consciousness while awake but not so during deep sleep must be something different from PraaNa that is present in both states. It must be this thing that activates and deactivates the senses and perceives with using PiraaNa for enduring as living entity



Notes (Loga)


Variyar interprets the crucial phrase kaaddu oduGkak kaaNaatee as meaning the absence of perceiving (kaaNutaL) because of the deactivation of the senses (kaaddu oduGka). He also attributes both the activation and deactivation of the senses that are the tools for generating consciousness to the self and which may not be the intend of MeykaNdar. The meaning of kaaddu oduGkak kaaNaatee should be taken as no seeing when the showing (kaaddu) is withdrawn.


It is BEING who activates and deactivates the senses - such deeper configuring processes being beyond the resources of self. If it possible for the self to do such things then it can always configure sleep such that it can always enjoy dreamless deep sleep but which is impossible. A person does not have any control over sleep and hence on that of having dreamful or dreamless sleep.


BEING allows the enjoyment of dreamless deep sleep by withdrawing the SHOWING that keeps the anma active and perceive this and that with intentionality permeating all so that there the emotional experiences of pleasures and pains. It is the presences of INTENTIONALITY that makes possible the emotional experiences while awake.


The fact is such experiences are ABSENT during dreamless deep sleep. What this shows is that during such states of being, there is absence of INTENTIONALITY and this not because of deactivation of the senses but because of the withdrawal of the SHOWING and which is that which configures intentionality itself. However when a person wakes up from this deep sleep, he is aware that he had a deep and dreamless sleep and which is a recollection of the state of being without any intentions and hence without any emotion producing perceptual acts.


This entity that is intentional during states of wakeful alertness and non-intentional during moments of dreamless deep sleep cannot be the PraaNa which is simply the vital air, a necessity for surviving but the anma, that which can be CONSCIOUS and hence sentient.





Lessons on Botham 3-11 ( The Self as Different from Brahman)


Q: Now since praaNa is ruled out as the anma, can it be that it is in fact the Brahman, the Paramatma?


Ţ: ɢ á š , ǡ ?




ȡ - ȡ ý


Ģ .




ȢŢ Ȣġ ( ȢĢȢ Ȣš Ȣ ȡ) (-)



Ӿġ -ɡ - ȡ ¢ .


- - էǧ¡ ɢ ŧȡ?


ȡ - - Ȣ Ȣ ǡ¡ Ч ¢á. ( š ڧš Ţﻡɡ ¡š)


- Ш н - Ƣ Ţ Ȣ ¢ Ȣ, ӾĢ Ţǡ ȢŢ Ȣžɡ, 측 Ȣ Ȣ Ȣ 򾡸 ȡ ž .




The Third Sutra - The Sixth Thesis


UNartta uNartalin aanmaa uLatu


Meaning: Because there is learning on being instructed there is anma as distinct from Braham, the remains conscious of all without entering into learning and hence forgetting and so forth.


Elements of Hermeneutic Logic


First - the assertion of thesis: - there is anma as substantial entity different from Brahman.


Second - Doubts raised: Is the anma the same as Brahman or something different from it?


Third - the objections raised by others: - Since Brahman is unlike the insentient substances above, is sentient, it has to be same as the anma (which is also sentient) (This thesis is put forward by the Vinjananaanma vaati who are actually a species of the Mayavatis (advaita Vedanties)


Fourth- the Saiva deconstruction: - There is something that remains not learning anything when in the states keevaatiitam, a state of being with total dissociation with all the cognitive utensils. However this same entity learns when it is in association with these cognitive utensils and as informed by them. Thus this entity that LEARNS while in conjunction with the cognitive tools but no so when in dissociation has to be something different from the Brahman that does not learn at all in this way at any state.


- :-




Ȣ Ȣŧ¡ Ȣ¡

Ȣ󾨾 Ţ -Ȣ

Ȣ ȡ Ȣ




(Ţġȡ 츢þɢ Ţ Ȣ Ȣ ) Ȣɧ Ȣ, Ȣ Ȣ ž, Ȣ Ȣ Ȣ¡Ƣ, š šȡ Ȣ Ţ ŢȢ Ţ Ţ ,( Ȣ վ ξġ š) Ȣ ¡ . ( ɧ ) , Ȣ . ɢ ¡ Ȣ¢ 󧾡 ¡ ɦ á¢, ( Ǣ ȡ 񦽡Ǣ ȢŢ ȡ) Ч ( Ȣ Ҩ) ¢á.


Ȣ Ȣŧ¡ . Ȣ¡ Ţ .




Fifth- the Argument:

aRintum aRivatee yaayum, aRiyaatatu
aRintataiyum viddu angku adangki - aRintatu
eetu aRiyum anRaakum meykaNdaan onRin
atu atu taan enum aham



While awake and alert, (i.e. during the states of caakkiram) there is selection at work in learning about something in what has been learned and what is sought to be learned. There is also a letting go all that has been learned out of disinterest. There is also continuous learning - it takes place with disruptions occasioned by shifts into various states of consciousness with recovery after returning to the state of alertness. What can be the thing that learns thus? It cannot be something insentient. It cannot also be the Brahman that does not learn at all. Thus if you examine as one who would want to know the objective truth, you can see it has to be the anma, that which becomes or stands as the object that learns as itself projectively.

Notes (Loga)

The above interpretations of Variyar may not bring out adequately the INTENTIONAL dimensions and the existence of INTEREST as an important element in the learning dynamics of the creatures. I think the verse should be translated as follows

There is relearning what has already been learned because of deep and sustained interests. There is also antipathy towards learning what one does not know, towards retaining what one has learned and realizing that one is so. The interest and disinterest towards learning something appear to be directed towards the attainment of Truths, to be one who knows the TRUTH. Each person in this journey appears to proceed holding onto a projected image (or persona) as that oneself is.

Also note:

1. The self-image, the self-understanding one has determines the interests that sustain ones pedagogic activities - why one shows sustained interest in learning, relearning something while another is not at all so, not interested even in learning. These varying and contradictory dispositions cannot be that of the same entity but rather different ones.

2. The primary purpose of all learning, it is noted, is the attainment of TRUTH. The term MeykaNdaan onRin means to be one who knows the TRUTH. Interest and disinterest alternate, wax and wane but nevertheless it is a directed affair, a directed activity which ultimately aims at the attainment of TRUTH.

3. The differences in the disposition to learn is explained in terms of self-image that one has and is retained as what one wants to be. Each person has a persona, what kind of person one wants to be and this ultimately is that which determines his psychodynamics.





Lessons on Botham 3-12 ( The Self as a Distinct Fundamental Object)


Q: The anma is in a physical body and therefore how can it be a distinct fundamental object?


Ţ: ¡ Ģ , š ǡ?





ȡ - ơ ý


¡Ţ Ţ


(-) ¡âǡ ¡â ¡ Ӿ ȡ ¢.



Ӿġ - ɡ :- ¡â Ӿ ȡ ¢.


- : - Ӿ§, ɢ ŧȡ?


ȡ - - ( Ȣš) ӾĢ š . ̨ Ȣ ơ¡, ġ § Ȣ ġ, ¡ Ӿ§ ¢á. ( 㸡šǡ á󾢸, ʸ . Ӿ Ӿ Ţ . Ӿ Ӿġ¢, Ȣ ý . , , , Ǣ Ũ . § Ӿ . Ӿ ̾. Ȣ ý ž Ȣ š Ũ Ӿ)


-Ш н : -


Ÿ, žɡ, ɸ, Ȣ, šɡ ¡â ȡ ġ, Ӿ վŢ ȡ Ţâ ǡ ¡ âǡ ŧ ӾĢȢ Ӿ ȡ ¢ .


Variyar :


The Third Sutra - the Seventh Thesis


Maayaviyantirat tanuvinuL aanmaa uLatu


Meaning: The anma exists in a machine-like body generated out of many physical parts and as distinct from an assembly of all.


The elements of Hermeneutic Logic


First - what is asserted: - there is anma as distinct from the assembly of various kinds of physical parts that is the body


Second - doubts raised: - Can the anma be an assembly of various body parts that are in fact physical?


Third- the opposition raised: It is already established the anma cannot be anyone of the different body parts. But as there is no consciousness even if one them is absent and all are collectively required for generating consciousness, the anma is appropriately the collectivity of all such elements that go into the composition (Such an Assembly view of self is proposed by the Sautrantika and Vaibashika Buddhists. They divide the whole world into the psychological and material complexes. The material world is the earth and so forth. They are generated out of elementary absolute atoms (paramaaNu) of earth-aNu, water-aNu, wind-aNu and fire-aNu. When these atoms come together, the physical elements earth and so forth are created. Now as distinct from these we have the mental world constituted by Cittam and various component parts of it. As constitutive elements of these we have various mental gestalts - that of shape, feelings, consciousness, intentions and karmic scripts. )


Fourth- the Saiva deconstruction: -


These various gestalts such as that of shape etc and their assemblage do not get the name anma as applied to them but stand as individual objects with their own and distinct names. And therefore the self exists in a body generated by these various physical parts and which is machine-like and as distinct from the assembly of such body parts.




Variyars interpretation that MeykaNdar is concerned here with the Sautrantikas view that an anma can be reduced to an assemblage of physical and mental bodies or complexes may not be accurate. This has already been dealt with in the above six thesis where not only the substantial reality of anma and its difference from not only from physical and cognitive bodies but also from Brahman is already established. What remains to be established is the Absolute character of the anma, that it is just as uncreated or anati as BEING and so forth.


I will draw attention to this next.




Lessons on Botham 3-13 ( The Self as a Distinct Fundamental Object- Continued)


Q: The anma is in a physical body and therefore how can it be a distinct fundamental object?


Ţ: ¡ Ģ , š ǡ?




- :-





¡š - ¡

۽ š





, Ӿ ¡Ŧ á 츢, Ӿ ȡ ¡, ġ ¢ âǡġ ĢȢ Ƣš. ¡ Ӿ Ţ ¡ ¡츢 Ӿ ¡ á¢, Ӿ Ţ ¢ ǡ . (ġ Ţ츢 ȡ¢ɡ ) ¢ ׼ ȡ ( -)





kalai aati maN antam kaaNil avai maayai
nilaiyaavaam tiibamee pool - alaiyaamal
jnaanattai munnarNtu naadil atu tanuvam
taanattin veeRaakum taan.


When we examine this assembly of physical parts, they are the Tatvas (basic realities) from promatter (kalai) to the earth. All these evolutes are not permanent, being evolutes of protomatter, they come into presence, stay there for a while and then get annihilated. Now if you examine this assembly focusing on the ILLUMINATIONS (njaanam) that become available there first and then the essences of the assembly, it will be realized that this assembly is only a TORCH for illuminating both the open and hidden realities and hence only another species of bodies. Thus it follows that the anma is different from them.

Notes (Loga)

I think, this verse should be translated as follows:

When we examine the evolutes of protomatter from kalai to earth, it is clear that they are subject to flux and are fleeting just like a flame. But there is something in the body which because of a pre-understanding it has, continuously strives towards absolute illumination despite the vicissitudes of the bodily frame. Hence that which seeks this illumination unceasingly (over the different evolutionary vicissitudes) cannot be any of the material evolutes and machine-like organs of the body, including their totality


1. Here the hermeneutical category of understanding is brought to explain that the psychical cannot be reduced to the physical including the cognitive that underlies the machine-like behavior of the body. There is a pre-understanding of njaanam - the absolute illumination - and hence always hermeneutic efforts to clarify that pre-understanding, the source of its Temporality. The psychical as distinct from the cognitive, is always ahead of itself, oriented towards a future, a future of absolute illumination, which is in fact the full clarification of the pre-understanding it already has.

2. Jnaanattai mun uNartal: a pre-understanding of absolute illumination, the source of all the hermeneutical efforts. The absolute permanence of the anma follows from the fact it has a pre-understanding of the Civanjanam, that which affords Moksa. It is this pressure towards Moksa, which is already there as something always present that makes the self also something not only different from the physical evolutes of various kinds but also something the survives the historical flux of these physical evolutes.

3. This also shows that the anma is not only different from Brahman but also anati, unconfigured. The pre-understanding of Njanam is NOT the kind of learning that is facilitated by the physical evolutes and cognitive tools produced. The pre-understanding of Njanam is NOT at all cognitive by rather something DISCLOSED by BEING. The moment the anma sees even vaguely the presence of BEING it has already an intuitive and vague understanding of it. The whole sequence of various life forms is there to bring about a CLARITY of this intuitive Njanam. Since such an understanding is free of the physicalistic learning but something that is intimated by BEING Himself, it has to be there just as BEING, anati i.e. unconfigured.

This lesson concludes the lessons on the Third Sutra