Spirituality Studies 10-1 Spring 2024 25 Michael James investigation who am I” (Ta. “nāṉ-ār eṉṉum vicāraṇai”), as he does in the first sentence of this paragraph: “Only by the investigation who am I will the mind cease” (Ta. “nāṉ-ār eṉṉum vicāraṇaiyiṉāl-ē-y-ē maṉam aḍaṅgum”). As we saw earlier (in section 5), aḍaṅgu means both “subside” and “cease”, so it can mean subside either partially or completely, and when it means subside completely or cease, it can mean cease either temporarily or permanently. In this case it means cease permanently, because though there are other means by which the mind can subside partially or completely but temporarily, the only means by which it can subside completely and permanently is self-investigation. In the second sentence, “the thought who am I, destroying all other thoughts, will itself also in the end be destroyed like a corpse-burning stick” (Ta. “nāṉ-ār eṉṉum niṉaivu maṯṟa niṉaivugaḷai y-ellām aṙittu-p piṇañ-cuḍu taḍi-pōl muḍivil tāṉ-um aṙiyum”), “the thought who am I” (Ta. “nāṉ-ār eṉṉum niṉaivu”) is a metaphorical description of the investigation who am I (Ta. “nāṉ-ār eṉṉum vicāraṇai”), because directing our attention towards anything other than ourself is a thought, meaning it is a mental activity, so directing our attention back towards ourself can be described metaphorically as a thought, even though it is actually not a mental activity but a cessation of all mental activity. In this context, therefore, “the thought who am I” implies the effort we make to keep our mind fixed firmly on ourself in order to know what we actually are, and since the mind will subside to the extent to which it is thus fixed firmly on ourself, this effort that we make to be steadfastly self-attentive will eventually destroy the mind entirely, as Bhagavan implies in the adverbial clause “destroying all other thoughts” (Ta. “maṯṟa niṉaivugaḷai y-ellām aṙittu”). When the effort we make to investigate who am I has thereby destroyed all other thoughts, it “will itself also in the end be destroyed” (Ta. “muḍivil tāṉ-um aṙiyum”), because it is only as ego that we can make such effort, so when ego, which is the first thought and the root of all other thoughts, is destroyed together with all its progeny, its effort to keep its attention fixed firmly on itself will be destroyed along with it. The analogy he uses to illustrate this, “like a corpse-burning stick” (Ta. “piṇañ-cuḍu taḍi-pōl”), refers to a stick that is used to stir a funeral pyre to ensure that the corpse is burnt completely, because the stirring end of such a stick will gradually be burnt, so once the stick has served its purpose it will be discarded on the pyre and will thereby be burnt entirely on the dying embers. “If other thoughts rise” (Ta. “piṟa v-eṇṇaṅgaḷ eṙundāl”) means if our attention is diverted away from ourself towards anything else, because what he means by “thought” is a mental impression or mental phenomenon of any kind whatsoever, so since all phenomena are mental impressions, everything other than ourself is a thought in this sense. What he means by “investigating to whom” (Ta. “yārukku eṉḏṟu vicārippadu”) is turning our attention back towards ourself, the one to whom all other things appear, and having turned our attention back to ourself, we need to keep it fixed firmly on ourself without allowing it to be diverted away towards anything else, which is what he means by “investigating who am I” (Ta. “nāṉ-ār eṉḏṟu vicārippadu”). If we thus keep our mind fixed firmly on ourself without allowing it to be diverted away towards anything else, it will thereby subside back into our own being, “I am”, which is its “birthplace” (Ta. piṟappiḍam), meaning the source from which it had risen, as he implies by saying: “If one investigates who am I, the mind will return to its birthplace” (Ta. “nāṉ-ār eṉḏṟu vicārittāl maṉam taṉ piṟappiḍattiṟku-t tirumbi-viḍum”). Since whatever thought had arisen will thereby be deprived of our attention, it too will subside, as he says in the next sentence: “the thought that had risen will also cease” (Ta. “eṙunda v-eṇṇamum aḍaṅgi-viḍum”). If we patiently and persistently continue practising “self-investigation” (Sa. ātma-vicāra) in this manner, trying to keep our attention fixed firmly on ourself, and turning it back towards ourself whenever it is diverted away towards anything else whatsoever, we will thereby cultivate the power of love that is required to keep our mind fixed on ourself so firmly that it becomes less and less inclined to be diverted away towards anything else, as he implies by saying: “When one practises and practises in this manner, for the mind the power to stand firmly established in its birthplace increases” (Ta. “ippaḍi-p paṙaga-p paṙaga maṉattiṟku-t taṉ piṟappiḍattil taṅgi niṟgum śakti y-adhikarikkiṉḏṟadu”). The reason why such patient and persistent practice is necessary is that volitional “inclinations” (Sa. vāsanās) have no strength of their own, because whatever strength they seem to have is strength that they derive from us, and they derive their strength from us to the extent to which we allow ourself to be swayed by them. That is, the more we allow ourself to be swayed by any particular inclination, the stronger it becomes, and the more we refrain from being swayed by it, the weaker it becomes. Inclinations to seek happiness in and therefore attend to anything other than ourself (namely viṣayas: “objects” or “phenomena”) are called viṣaya-vāsanās, whereas the inclination to seek happiness in and therefore attend to our own “being” (Sa. sat) is called sat-vāsanā. Therefore when we attend to anything
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjkyNzgx