Spirituality Studies 10-1 Spring 2024 23 Michael James the only way to metaphorically “think of”, “meditate on” or “investigate” the “existing substance” (Ta. uḷḷa-poruḷ) is just to be in the heart as it is. But what exactly does this mean? How can we be in the heart as it is? As we have seen, what is in the heart is only the heart, which is the “existing substance” (Ta. uḷḷa-poruḷ), so “being in the heart” (Ta. uḷḷattē uḷḷadu) means being the existing substance, which is what we actually are, so we can be that only by not rising as ego, because though we are always actually that, when we rise and stand as ego we seem to be something other than that. The adverb uḷḷapaḍi, which means “as it is” or “as one is”, implies the same thing, namely that we must be as the existing substance is, which means we must be as we actually are, because the existing substance, namely brahman, is what we actually are. Since the “existing substance” (Ta. uḷḷa-poruḷ) is pure “being-awareness” (Sa. sat-cit), which is devoid of any thoughts and therefore devoid of any “adjuncts” (Sa. upādhis), and since the root of all thoughts (which includes all adjuncts and all phenomena, because adjuncts and other phenomena are just thoughts) is ego, “being as it is” (Ta. uḷḷapaḍi uḷḷadu) means being without rising as ego and thereby without any other thoughts. In other words, it means being as we actually are, namely as pure “being-awareness” (Sa. sat-cit), which is brahman. Therefore “Being in the heart as it is alone is thinking” (Ta. “uḷḷattē uḷḷapaḍi uḷḷadē uḷḷal”) means that just being as we actually are without ever leaving the heart by rising as ego is alone uḷḷal (Ta. “thinking”, “meditating” or “investigating”), which is a metaphorical way of saying that this alone is true brahma-dhyāna (Sa. “meditation on brahman”) or brahma-vicāra (Sa. “investigation of brahman”). That is, since brahman, the “existing substance” (Ta. uḷḷa-poruḷ or Sa. sat-vastu), is nothing other than ourself as we actually are, we can meditate upon it, investigate it and know it only by being as we actually are, without ever rising as ego. In order to be as brahman, which is what we actually are, we need to cease rising as ego, and in order to cease rising as ego, we need to investigate ourself, the source from which we have risen as ego, as Bhagavan points out in verse 27 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: The state in which ‘I’ exists without rising is the state in which we exist as that. Without investigating the place where ‘I’ rises, how to reach the annihilation of oneself, in which ‘I’ does not rise? Without reaching, how to stand in the state of oneself, in which oneself is that? Say. [34] “The state in which I exists without rising” (Ta. “nāṉ udiyādu uḷḷa nilai”) means the state in which we remain as we actually are without rising as ego, and this is “the state in which we exist as that” (Ta. “nām adu-v-āy uḷḷa nilai”), meaning the state in which we exist as brahman, which is the same state that Bhagavan described in the first maṅgalam verse of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu as “being in the heart as it is” (Ta. “uḷḷattē uḷḷapaḍi uḷḷadu”). This state in which “I” does not ever rise is “the annihilation of oneself” (Ta. “taṉ-ṉ-iṙappai”), meaning the annihilation of ego, which we can achieve only by investigating ourself, the source from which we have risen as “I”, as Bhagavan implies in the second sentence of this verse by asking rhetorically: “Without investigating the place where I rises, how to reach the annihilation of oneself, in which I does not rise?” (Ta. “nāṉ udikkum thāṉam-adai nāḍāmal, nāṉ udiyā taṉ-ṉ-iṙappai sārvadu evaṉ?”). “The place where I rises” (Ta. “nāṉ udikkum thāṉam”) is our own being, “I am”, and we can investigate it only by attending to ourself in order to see what we actually are. Therefore the implication of this second sentence is that we can eradicate ego and thereby be as we actually are only by being keenly and steadfastly self-attentive. The third sentence, “Without reaching, how to stand in the state of oneself, in which oneself is that?” (Ta. “sārāmal, tāṉ adu ām taṉ nilaiyil niṟpadu evaṉ?”), implies that without achieving the annihilation ourself as ego by investigating the source from which we have risen, we cannot remain firmly fixed in our real state, in which we are brahman. Therefore investigating ourself in order to know and to be what we actually are is the correct application of what we are intended to understand after hearing and carefully considering the meaning and implication of the mahāvākyas: prajñānaṁ brahma (Sa. “awareness is brahman”), ahaṁ brahmāsmi (Sa. “I am brahman”), tat tvam asi (Sa. “that you are”) and ayam ātmā brahma (Sa. “this self is brahman”). 17 We Cannot Know God Except by Turning Our Mind Back Within God or brahman is the light of pure “awareness” (Sa. cit) that shines within our mind, giving it the light of “reflected awareness” (Sa. cidābhāsa) by which it knows all other things, so we cannot know God or brahman by any means other than turning our mind back within to face the light of pure awareness and thereby losing ourself entirely in it, like the light reflected from a mirror being turned back to face the sun, its source, and thereby losing itself in the sunlight,
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjkyNzgx