Make your own free website on Tripod.com
 
ãýÈ¡õ Ýò¾¢Ãõ: ¬ýÁô À¢Ã¸¡ºõ On the Reality of Self

 

ãýÈ¡õ Ýò¾¢Ãõ

¯ÇÐ ­ÄÐ ±ýÈÄ¢ý ±Éмø ±ýÈÄ¢ý
³õÒÄý ´Îì¸õ «È¢¾Ä¢ý ¸ñÀÊý
¯ñÊÅ¢¨É ­ý¨Á¢ý ¯½÷ò¾ ¯½÷¾Ä¢ý
Á¡Â¡ ­Âó¾¢Ãò ¾ÛÅ¢ø ¬ýÁ¡

±ýÀÐ Ýò¾¢Ãõ

The Third Sutra

uLatu, ilatu enRalin, enatu udal enRalin
aimpulan odukkam aRitalin, kaNpadil
uNdi vinai inmaiyin, uNartta uNartalin
maaya iyantirat tanuvuL aanmaa

¸ÕòШÃ: ±ý ѾĢü§È¡ ±É¢ý, ¬ýÁô À¢Ã¸¡ºõ ¯½÷òоø ѾĢüÚ

karutturai: en nutaliRRoo venin, aanmap pirakaasam uNarttutal nutaliRRu

THE THIRD AXIOM

The psyche(anma) exists as a distinct entity in a machine-like body because; there is the act of denial or negation; there is appropriation of the body as its own; there is consciousness of the five senses being ineffective during meditative moments; when deeply asleep there is no emotional and feeling toned activities, and there is learning on being instructed.

General Intention: What is intended is to further clarify the truths pertaining to the reality and essences of the psychic entities.
 

Notes

1. Having established its metaphysical reality in the first chapter and its eschatological existence in the second, now an attempt is made to explain further the essences of the psychic entities by analysing their bodily embodiment. Existence is not only BWB but also BWW, Being-one-with-the-World. The worldly existence is just as much a truth of the psyches as the eschatological. In this chapter seven different arguments are taken up and criticized in order to disclose the independent existence of the psyche even while embodied.

2. ‘aanmap pirakasaam’ : illuminations pertaining to the truths of the psychic entities viz. that they also exist as independent realities distinct from the body they inhabit during embodiment.

3. There is a slight change in the logical structure of the presentation of thesis and arguments. Here the seven different theses contain both the assertion and the reason supplemented by brief notes. We have taken the liberty to cast  theses into the same logical form as those in the earlier chapters inserting words that would further clarify the thesis. These changes are purely stylistic- do not distort the meanings or introduce extraneous elements.


3.1 Ó¾ø «¾¢¸Ã½õ

3.1 Mutal atikaraNam (The First Thesis)

§Áü§¸¡û: ¬ýÁ¡ (Íò¾ Á¡¨ÂìÌ §ÅÈ¡¸) ¯ÇÐ ±ýÈÐ

meerkooL:

aanmaa (cutta maayaikku veeRaaka) uLatu enRatu

²Ð:  ®ñÎ ­ÄÐ ±ýÈÄ¢ý

eetu: iiNdu ilatu enRalin

¦À¡Æ¢ôÒ¨Ã:  ±ÅüÈ¢¨ÉÔõ «ýÚ «ýÚ ±ÉÅ¢ðÎ, ¬ýÁ¡ ­ÄÐ ±ýÚ ¿¢üÀÐ ¯Ç¾¡¸Ä¢ý «Ð§Å «ù ¬ýÁ¡Å¡õ ±ýÈÐ

pozippurai: evaRRinaiyum anRu anRu enaviddu aanmaa ilatenRu niRpatu uLataakalin, atuvee av vaanmaavaam enRatu

Assertion: The psyche exists as distinct from the cutta maayai, the media of consciousness.

Reason: There is the act of negating (including itself)

Comment: Denying every possible identification, there stands something denying even the reality of its own being. That which stands thus, has a mode of Being such as this, is in fact the self.

±ÎòÐ측ðÎ 3.1.1

«ýÚ «ýÚ ±É¿¢ýÚ «¨ÉòÐõÅ¢ðÎ «ï¦ºØò¾¡ö
¿¢ýÈ ´ýÚ ¯ÇÐ «Ð§Å ¿£ «¨ÉòÐõ  -- ¿¢ýÚ­ýÚ
¾÷ôÀ½õ§À¡ø ¸¡ð¼Ä¡ø º¡÷Á¡¨Â ¿£ Âø¨Ä
¾üÀÃÓõ «ø¨Ä ¾É¢

Argument 3.1.1

anRu anRu ena NinRu anaittum viddu ajncezuttaai
ninRu onRu uLatu, atuvee nii; anaittu - ninRu inRu
tarppaNam pool kaaddalaal caar maayai nii allai
taRparamum allai, tani

That which by the act of negating every possible self-identification and thus standing detached and autonomous with the five syllabic mantra as what it is in itself, is in fact you, the self. The (cutta) maayai stands with every movement of understanding, disclosing the realities like a mirror reflecting objects on which light falls. But you are not this maayai as it is physical and not psychical. The maayai is incapable of negations that the psyche in fact effects. On account of this it also follows that you are not BEING, as BEING has no necessity for such projective identifications and denials. You are distinct, different from both.
 

Notes

1. The maayai, the media of consciousness, of understanding is nonpsychical as it has no vision, a condition of being stretched outside itself and on account of which it is lost and therefore in search of its own identity. The psyche however which is this entity tends, because of this, to identify itself with this and that as a way of overcoming its own unsaturatedness, only to realize that these devices do not really work. Dissatisfaction emerges after a temporary neutralization and the quest for self-identity continues, sometimes resulting in the denial of its own substantiality. That which exists thus is not the inert media that provides consciousness but rather something different , something distinctly psychical.

2. By ‘maayai’ is meant here the ‘cutta maayai’ and not the acutta maayai, the media of the concrecity of the concrete objects which is taken up next. The cutta maayai, also called kudilai, is that media of languages and other symbolic elements that forms and installs understanding as such, consciousness as such for the psychic entities. Because the psychical is most intimately associated with consciousness, with different forms of understanding, streams of consciousness etc., this issue is taken up first and the underlying error pointed out.

3. Since negation is a form of activity and is universal as it is done by all psychical entities, it can be attributed to BEING, the only metaphysical entity capable of praxis. But because BEING is complete and integral, closed within itself, it cannot be that which is in search of its own identity.

4. The ‘ajncezuttu’ is the mantra complex SI-VA-YA-NA-MA, the letters of the primordial language, itself a differentiated form of Om-kaaram, the primordial sound from which emerges all the languages. While the stylus of BEING inscribes everywhere, creating mantric configurations that set into motion the phenomenal world, it is only the psychic entities that can understand it, this competency being its essences and on account of which it can be an agent, a localized agent no doubt in the imitation of BEING.

5. Consciousness and hence maayai is incapable of praxis    -    of producing, retaining, destroying, learning, forgetting, liking, wanting etc. These activities are psychical and hence there is a psyche distinct from it, having as its own form a mantra-complex, itself a gift from BEING.



3.2 ­Ãñ¼¡õ «¾¢¸Ã½õ

3.2 IraNdaam atikaraNam (The Second Thesis)

§Áü§¸¡û: ­É¢, ¬ýÁ¡ (¯¼Ä¢üÌ §ÅÈ¡ö) ¯ÇÐ ±ýÈÐ

meerkooL:

Ini, aanmaa (udaliRku veeRai) uLatu enRatu

²Ð: ±ÉÐ ¯¼ø ±ýÈÄ¢ý

eetu:

enatu udal enRalin

¦À¡Æ¢ôÒ¨Ã: ±ýÀ¾¢ ±ýÁ¨É ±ýÈ¡ü §À¡Ä, ±ý ¨¸ ±ý ¸¡ø ±É ¿¢üÀÐ ¯Ç¾¡Ä¢ý  «Ð§Å «ù ¬ýÁ¡Å¡õ ±ýÈÐ

pozippurai:Comment

enpati enmanai enRaaR poola, en kai en kaal ena niRpatu uLataakalin atuvee av aanmavaam enRatu

Assertion: Now the psychic entity(anma) exists distinct from the body during its state of embodiment.

Reason: It stands appropriating the body it inhabits as its own.

Comment: The psychic entity in its intrinsic incompleteness or unsaturatedness lays claim for territories and abodes that are distinct and stand as alien to itself. There is a similar appropriating claim with respect to the body and body parts such as the hands, feet etc. That which stands thus appropriating the body as its own is the psyche(anma).

Notes

1. The psychic entities exist intrinsically as unsaturated on account of being finitized by the ANTIBEING. However it stands full of desires for fusions because of the presence of BEING that remains concealed though providing for consciousness. In order to be absolutely one with BEING, it fuses itself with whatever stands as the Other, that which is not itself. Thus it identifies with territories, abodes and so forth in these acts of fusion. Since what is possessed, appropriated as one’s own are really that which is distinct from the psyche and since the body itself is thus claimed, it is asserted that the psyche is not the body; in it’s embodied state the psyche does not emerge just as the body, that it is nothing more than the bodily presence.

2. The argument is linguistical and can be critized by invoking such utterances as ‘my soul’ ‘my life’ etc. which are also syntactically similar to ‘my body’ and so forth. But is should be noted that while the former are elliptical and have a deep structure such as ‘I cried’ ‘I yearned’ etc. descriptive of self experiences, the phrase ‘My body’ does not have such deep structures. The self stands as the body, experiences with the body and stands with a peculiar right over it till the point of death. It is peculiar in the sense that unlike territories and abodes that can be lost to others, the body cannot be till the point of death. The body can be destroyed by another by the act of murder but cannot be owned as his own. These are further explained in the argument below.

±ÎòÐ측ðÎ 3.2.1:

±ÉбýÈ Á¡ðÊý ±ÉÐ «Ä¡Ð ±ýÉ¡Ð
¯É¾Ä¡Ð ¯ý¨¸¸¡ø ¡쨸 -- ±É¦¾ýÚõ
±ýÉÈ¢ÅÐ ±ýÚõ ¯¨ÃòÐ ¿£ ¿¢üÈ¢¸¡ñ
¯ýÉ¢ø «¨Å §ÅÈ¡õ ¯½÷.

Argument 3.2.1
enatu enRa maaddil enatu alaatu ennaatu
unatu alaatu un kai kaal yaakkai - enatu enRum
en aRivatu enRum uraittu nii niRRi kaaN
un nilavai veeRaam uNar

There is a peculiarity to the claims of ownership in relation to the body. While abodes and territories do not allow for inalienable rights over them, in the case of the body however such is the case. By the act of claiming as mine, its ownership to another is denied. The body is claimed to be exclusively one’s own, a possibility that does not exist with other things. You stand claiming over the understanding as yours and so forth because of the intrinsic unsaturatedness. Your real essence, however, is different. Seek to grasp this essence.

Notes

1. Ownership over territories, abodes and properties are political in nature and require social approval. A change in the cultural norms, political ideologies may change how one stands in relation to such ownership claims. This applies even to social relationships, a form of labour appropriation in social existence. In the case of the body one is privileged to have as one’s own, no force on earth be it political ideologies, cultic dogmas, cultural norms etc. can alienate it from the person. The person has an exclusive claim over it, it is that which simultaneously cannot be my own and at the same time have the possibility of being that of another.

2. The psychical existence characterised by uniqueness of claim with respect to the body, an exclusiveness in terms of rights, is extended, inappropriately of course, even to things that are other than the body, to the forms of understanding, consciousness, knowledge etc.

3. By ‘un nilavai veeRu’ it is indicated that such self-possessing acquisitive attitude, the intrinsic craving to own as ones own what are in fact Other is not the essence of man. Such mundane acts of appropriating what are not ones own, would not in fact neutralize the basic unsaturatedness. It is explained later in the second part of the book that what ought to be sought after, possessed as one’s own is Civajnaanam, the absolute illumination, which only is fully saturating.


3.3 ãýÈ¡õ «¾¢¸Ã½õ

3.3 MuunRaam atikaraNam (The Third Thesis)

§Áü§¸¡û:  ­É¢, ¬ýÁ¡ (³õÒÄí¸ÙìÌ §ÅÈ¡¸) ¯ÇÐ ±ýÈÐ

meerkooL:

Ini, aanmaa (aimpulangkadku veeRai) uLatu enRatu

²Ð: ³õÒÄý «È¢¾Ä¢ý

eetu:

aimpulan aRitalin

¦À¡Æ¢ôÒ¨Ã: ³õÒÄÉ¡¸¢Â ºò¾ À⺠åÀ ú ¸ó¾í¸¨Ç ­ó¾¢Ã¢Âí¸û ´ýÚ «È¢ó¾Ð ´ýÚ «È¢Â¡¨Á¢ý ­ù ³ó¾¢É¡Öõ ³õÀÂÛõ «È¢ÅÐ ¯Ç¾¡¸Ä¢ý, «Ð§Å «ù ¬ýÁ¡Å¡õ ±ýÈÐ

pozippurai: aimpulanaakiya catta parisa ruupa rasa kantangkaLai intiriyangkaL onRu aRintatu onRu aRiyaamaiyin
iv vaintinaalum aimpayanum aRivatu uLataakalin atuvee av vaanmaavaam enRatu

Assertion: Now the psychic entities exist as distinct from the five senses (or sense faculties)

Reason:  There is integrated perception where the five distinct sensory informations are co-ordinated

Comment: Among the five senses where information pertaining to sound, touch, shape, taste and so forth are available, awareness through one channel is not available through another. However in actual perception there is perceiving an object as a whole and responding separately to each sensory information. The psyche is that which is responsible for such gestaltic perceptions.

Notes

1. The identification of peculiarly psychical with sensory processes, its reduction to the faculties of the senses is denied here by pointing out that sensing is quite different from perception that evokes responses to an object. Perception is gestaltic, involves integration and co-ordination of the different sensorial inputs and simultaneously responding differentially to the different sources of sensory information. Perceiving belongs to seeing and that which sees is NOT the senses but rather the psychical entity

±ÎòÐ측ðÎ 3.3.1

´ýÚ «È¢ó¾Ð ´ýÚ «È¢Â¡¾¡¸¢ ¯¼ø ÁýÉ¢
«ýÚõ ÒÄɡ  «ï¦ºØò¨¾ -- ´ýÚ «È¢¾ø
¯ûǧ¾ ¬¸¢ø «Ð ¿£ ¾É¢ò¾É¢ ¸ñÎ
¯ûÇø ŨŠ´ýÈø¨Ä µ÷
 

Argumenð  3.3.1

OnRu aRintatu onRu aRiyaataaki udal manni
anRum pulanaaya ajncezuttai - onRu aRital
uLLatee yaakil atu nii; tanittani kaNdu
uLLal avai onRallai oor.

The sense faculties come to exist in the body through the various organs of sense and they function in such a way that the awareness gained through one is not available through another. However there is in every act of perception the recognition of the five fold processes: production, retention, annihilation and through them disclosure and concealment. This work of the FIVE MANTRIC  SYLLABLES is recognized and hence perceiving is seeing and that which thus sees is you. That which responds individually to different aspects cannot be the senses but rather you, the anma.

Notes

1. The act of perceiving is an act of learning - the destruction of ignorance, the overcoming of DARKNESS in understanding. And therefore it is a psychical activity and not simply a mechanical process where there exists only sensory stimulations and their recognition. There is the work of the mantras - the FIVE SYLLABLES even here. The recognition of the work of this FIVE SYLLABLES is not something done by the senses. It has to be by the psyche for it is that which learns.

2. The part can be seen only against a whole just as much as the whole can be seen only in terms of the parts. The senses even collectively cannot generate a gestalt and hence cannot appreciate the individual and distinct component parts of an object. Since attending to parts against a whole is also available in perception, that which sees then is the psychical entity and not the senses.



 

3.4 ¿¡ý¸¡õ «¾¢¸Ã½õ

3.4 Naangaam atikaraNam (The Fourth Thesis)

§Áü§¸¡û: ­É¢ (ÝìÌÁ §¾¸ò¾¢üÌ §ÅÈ¡ö) ¬ýÁ¡ ¯ÇÐ ±ýÈÐ

meerkooL:

Ini, (cuukkuma teekattiRku veeRai) aanmaa uLatu enRatu.

²Ð: ´Îì¸õ «È¢¾Ä¢ý

eetu:

odukkam aRitalin.

¦À¡Æ¢ôÒ¨Ã:  ¿ÉÅ¢ý¸ñ ¸É× ¸ñ¼¡õ ±ýÚõ ¸ñÊÄõ ±ýÚõ ¿¢üÀÐ ¯Ç¾¡¸Ä¢ý «Ð§Å «ùÅ¡ýÁ¡Å¡õ ±ýÈÐ,

Pozippurai:
nanavin kaN kanavu kaNdaam enRum kaNdilam enRum niRpatu uLataakalin, atuvee av vannmaavaam enRatu

Assertion: Now the psychical entity(anma) is distinct from the (mantric) bodies that allow transductive perceptions.

Reason: There is becoming conscious of such transductive perceptions.

Comment: While awake and there is vigilance, there is the recalling of dreaming experience or the absence of it. That which thus experiences and later recalls is the psychical entity.

Notes

1. While dreaming and during states of experiences even higher, there is experience as such even though the senses and the motor organs are ineffective. And because there is recalling of such dreams or the absence of them, that which thus recalls and hence that which experiences them cannot be something different, a subtle body of a different kind. It has to be the same as that which experiences while awake the various things in the world. Dreaming and experiences similar to these are psychical experiences of a sort during which there is also seeing, certainly in a manner quite different while awake.

±ÎòÐ측ðÎ 3.4.1

«ù׼Ģø ¿¢ýÚ ¯Â¢÷ôÀ ³õ¦À¡È¢¸û ¾¡õ ¸¢¼ôÀî
¦ºùÅ¢¾¢ý «ù׼Ģü ¦ºýÚ «¼í¸¢  -- «ù׼Ģý
§Å¦È¡ýÚ ¦¸¡ñΠިÇÂ¡Ê Á£ñÎ «¾¨É
Á¡Èø ¯¼ø ¿£ «ø¨Ä ÁüÚ

Argument 3.4.1

avvudal ninRu uyirppa, aimpoRikaL taam kidappa
cevvitin avvudalin cenRu adangki  -   avvudalil
veeRonRu koNdu viLaiyaadi miiNdu atanai
maaRal udal   nii allai maRRu

During sleep and states similar to these, the life processes are active even though the senses and the motor organs remain disengaged. There is a withdrawal from the body and the acquiring of another body-like thing that allows the experiencing of dreams and so forth. The psyche is not to be identified with this mantra-body as there is escaping from it, returning to the normal state and recalling of those experiences.

Notes

1. The experience of the Unconscious during states where vigilance is no more is attributed to a different body- the vinjnaana teekam - a subtle body of mantras that allows the exploration of world unavailable for bodily experiences. The psyche is identified with this dream-body, a notion that is denied by noting that dreams are recalled just as one would recall a past experience of one’s own. Dream-experience though peculiar and requires the cessation of being alert to the sensorial, is nevertheless an experience for it allows for recalling.

2. The psychical, it is affirmed, is not to be reduced to the unconscious processes. Both the conscious and unconscious belong to the psyche - it is psyche that experiences the Unconscious as well by withdrawing itself into realms of the body or bodily facilities that it possibly does not use while awake.

3. We should note here that the second section of the first part, ilakkaNaviyal, deals very extensively with the question of the unconscious or abconscious and how to reduce it. The reduction of the Unconscious, it should also be noted, relaxes the hold of Time either as objective physical time or as the hermeneutical Temporality. The explorations of the Depths involve the gradual neutralization of Time as such and hence overcoming it completely in the course of such developments.

4. The Unconscious that irrupts into the conscious during dream-like experiences is also not to be confused with BEING. BEING is beyond them and the experiences as such, in view of the presence of Temporality is still that of the psychic entities.

5. adangkutal: to withdraw, become subdued. The active commerce with the sensorial world is overcome; there is no attending at all to the sensorial stimulations, a condition that allows commerce with the unconscious.


3.5 ³ó¾¡õ «¾¢¸Ã½õ

3.5 Aintaam atikaraNam (The Fifth Thesis)

§Áü§¸¡û: ­É¢ (À¢Ã¸¢Õ¾¢ìÌ §ÅÈ¡ö) ¬ýÁ¡ ¯Ç¦¾ýÈÐ

meerkooL:

Ini (pirakaruttikku veeRai) aanma uLatenRatu

²Ð: ¸ñÀÊø ¯ñÊÅ¢¨É ­ý¨Á¢ý

eetu:
kaNpadil uNdi vinai inmaiyin

¦À¡Æ¢ôÒ¨Ã:  ´Îí¸¢ÉÅ¢¼òÐ ­ýÀòÐýÀï º£ÅÉõ À¢Ã¸¢Õò¾¢ìÌ ­ý¨Á¢ý, ´Îí¸¡¾Å¢¼òÐ ­ýÀòÐýÀï º£Å¢Â¡ ¿¢üÀÐ ¯Ç¾¡¸Ä¢ý «Ð§Å «ùÅ¡ýÁ¡Å¡õ ±ýÈÐ.

pozippurai:
odungkina vidattu, inbattunbac ciivanam pirakiruttikku inmaiyin, odungkaa vidattu inban tunbajn ciiviyaa niRpatu uLataakalin, atuvee av vaanmaavaam enRatu

Assertion: The psyche exists as distinct from the psychophysical processes.

Reason: While asleep there is no experiencing of pleasures and pains.

Comment: While asleep the psychophysical processes do not cease to be, they are just as active as while awake and alert. But nevertheless during the former states there is no experiencing of pleasures and pains while during the latter there is. Thus the psyche is not the psychophysical processes but that which experiences the emotions.

Notes

1. The ‘odukkam’ is equated with ‘kaN padutal,’ the closing of the eyes, the cessation of active sensorial commerce with the world. uNdivinai: emotional or aesthetic experiences.

2. By pirakiruti is meant the organic substance, the ‘living’ matter, the psycophysiological processes that sustain themselves through the autonomous activities. They are contemporaneous with the presence of the psyche in body and hence an equation between the two can easily be made. The experience of emotions, that of joy and melancholy, exaltations and depressions and so forth are brought in here to explain the nonreducibility. The emotional experiences though have physiological correlates, are more specifically psychical as they are present only when the psyche is alert , active and understands what is happening.

3. A link is established between seeing and emotional reactions. The emotional responses are not purely physiological and if they were, even during sleep (without dreaming of course) there must be emotional exultations, the experiencing of feelings of various kinds. The aesthetical and such other emotion or feeling related reactions pertain to seeing. Only when something is seen as such and such, emotions are aroused, feelings activated. That which sees, must be that which reacts thus and the psyche that does the seeing could not be the same as the physiological, psychophysical processes and so forth.

±ÎòÐ측ðÎ 3.5.1

¸ñ¼È¢Ôõ ­ù×¼§Ä ¸¡ðÎ ´Îí¸ì ¸¡½¡§¾
¯ñÊÅ¢¨É ­ýÈ¢ ¯Â¢÷ò¾Ä¡ø - ¸ñ¼È¢Ôõ
¯ûÇõ§ÅÚ ¯ñάö ´Îí¸¡Ð ¯¼ø¿ñ½¢ø
¯ûǾ¡õ ¯ñÊÅ¢¨É °ý

Argument 3.5.1

kaNdu aRiyum iv vudalee, kaaddu odungkak kaaNaatee
uNdi vinai inRi uyirttalaal - kaNdu aRiyum
uLLam veeRu uNdu aay odungkaatu udal naNNil
uLLataam uNdi vinai uun

While the physiological processes are active and the person is alive, with breathing continuing as usual, there is however no seeing during sleep as the disclosure processes are withdrawn. There is being alive without however any emotional activities. Hence that psyche that sees and hence experiences pains and pleasures has to be something distinct from the physiological processes that keep one alive. There are emotional experiences only when the psyche exists in the body and reflects upon objects seen.

Notes

1. ‘kaddu odungkal’: the withdrawal of disclosures or showing.  The assumption appears to be that seeing is realized only when there is showing, something is disclosed and interest in it is aroused. The psyche is that which responds to various disclosures and hence that which has interests and various other intentionalities underlying the perceptual act. Sleep is induced by the cessation of such interest arousing disclosures - the projections within the mind that creates intentions and intentionalities.

2. uyirttal: to inhale and exhale, the basic processes that keep one alive. What this thesis refutes is the identification of the peculiarly psychical with the psychophysical processes that keep a person alive in contrast to being dead.


3.6 ¬È¡õ «¾¢¸Ã½õ

3.6 AaRaam atikaraNam (The Sixth Thesis)

§Áü§¸¡û: ­É¢ (¦Åù§ÅÈ¡ö) ¬ýÁ¡ ¯ÇÐ ±ýÈÐ

meerkooL:

ini (vevveeRaai udalkaLil) aanmaa uLatu enRatu

²Ð: ¯½÷ò¾ ¯½÷¾Ä¢ý

eetu:
uNartta uNartalin

¦À¡Æ¢ôÒ¨Ã:  «Åý «È¢ó¾¡íÌ «È¢Åý ±ýÚ «È¢Å¢ì¸ «È¢óÐ ¯À§¾º¢Â¡ö ¿¢üÀÐ ¯Ç¾¡¸Ä¢ý «Ð§Å «ùÅ¡ýÁ¡Å¡õ ±ýÈÐ

pozippurai:
avan aRintaangku aRivan enRu aRivikka, aRintu upateesiyaai niRpatu uLataakalin atuvee av vaanmaavaam enRatu.

Assertion: Now, there are different psyches( anma) in different bodies.

Reason: As there are pedagogical processes where on being instructed there is learning.

Comment: A person instructs another using pedagogical processes appropriate to that person. The person thus instructed learns and stands desirous of further instructions. That which learns thus is the psyche (anma).

Notes

1. Ordinary existence is full of the pedagogical processes in various ways - formal, informal and so forth. One has to learn in order to acquire knowledge and just because one learns thus and acquires knowledge it does not follow that everybody also acquires it at the same time. Hence the different bodies are inhabited by different psyches possibly also different in the knowledge they have.

2. The argument can be taken to be directed against panpsychism - the view that there is only one psyche - paraanma - inhabiting the different bodies. The social existence in which there is the pedagogical is brought in to clarify this misunderstanding.

3. uNarttal: to inform, alert , sensitize etc. aRivittal: to instruct, teach, let know etc. upadesi: derived from upadesa: philosophical discourses that are morally uplifting etc. An upadesi is one who is a recipient of such discourses. These terms are used to cover a wide variety of pedagogical processes that exist in social existence.

±ÎòÐ측ðÎ: 3.6.1

«È¢óÐõ «È¢Å§¾ ¬Ôõ «È¢Â¡Ð
«È¢ó¾¨¾Ôõ Å¢ðÎ «íÌ «¼í¸¢  --  «È¢ó¾Ð
±Ð? «È¢×õ «ýÚ ¬Ìõ ¦Áö¸ñ¼¡ý ´ýÈ¢ý
«Ð«Ð¾¡ý ±ýÛõ «¸õ

Argument3.6.1

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

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.

Notes

1. The self-image, the self-understanding one has determines the interests that sustain one’s 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.


3.7 : ²Æ¡õ «¾¢¸Ã½õ

3.7 Eezaam atikaraNam (The Seventh Thesis)

§Áü§¸¡û: ­É¢ Á¡Â¡ Å¢Âó¾¢Ã ¾ÛÅ¢ø ¬ýÁ¡ ¯ÇÐ ±ýÈÐ

meerkooL:

Ini, maayaa viyantira tanuvinuL aanmaa uLatu enRatu.

²Ð: «¨Å¾¡õ ¦Åù§ÅÚ ¦ÀÂ÷ ¦ÀüÚ ¿¢üÈÄ¡ý

eetu:

avaitaam vevveeRu peyar peRRu niRRalaan

Assertion: Now the psyche exists in a complex machine-like body generated out of (acutta)maayai

Reason: Because they have distinct names; are understood differently with distinct appellations.

Notes

1. The focus now is the body which is said to be a complex machine-like entity in view of the fact that it affords the effectuations of different kinds of activities. That language structure accommodates this distinction in morphology itself, indicates that there is a fundamental categorical distinction between the two.

±ÎòÐ측ðÎ 3.7.1

¸¨Ä ¬¾¢ Áñ «ó¾õ ¸¡½¢ø «¨Å Á¡¨Â
¿¢¨Ä¡šõ ¾£À§Á §À¡Ä -- «¨Ä¡Áø
»¡Éò¨¾ ÓýÛ½÷óÐ ¿¡Êø «Ð¾ÛÅ¡õ
¾¡Éò¾¢ý §ÅÈ¡Ìõ ¾¡ý

Argument 3.7.1

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

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, it continuously strives towards absolute illumination despite the vicissitudes of the bodily frame. Hence that which seeks this illumination unceasingly cannot be any of the material evolutes and machine-like organs of the body.

Notes

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 behaviour of the body. There is a pre-understanding of jnaanam - 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 preunderstanding of absolute illumination, the source of all the hermeneutical efforts.

The end of the 1st section , 1st part


HOME