306 ఎక్కడి సుద్ది యీ భ్రమనేల పడేరు
(ekkaḍi
suddi yī bhramanēla paḍēru)
INTRODUCTION
In
thousands of his compositions, Annamacharya does not preach devotion. He simply
shows us the condition in which we stand. He indicates how clarity may arise
from this very condition. He questions delusion.
ఎక్కడి సుద్ది యీ భ్రమనేల పడేరు? From where have these conclusions come, and
why fall into such delusion? We, often listen to and speak about spiritual
matters and assume that we possess clarity. He suggests that this condition is
not limited to ordinary human beings. It applies equally to Gods, Sages, Siddhas,
and Gandharvas.
Our present
living is largely nothing more than passing time under the identification
called “the body.” “In this state, even ‘Hari’ may function as a symbol — a conceptual construct within conditioned perception rather than a directly perceived reality.” Seen this way, the entire
structure we have built is like a house of cards — carefully arranged, yet
fragile; a slight wind is enough to bring it down.
It is at
this point that the poet places a sharp question before us: “అక్కటా వో దేహులాల హరినే తలఁచరో” O embodied beings — can you truly think of
Hari? O you who have constructed yourselves out of layers of delusion — can you
genuinely turn toward Hari?
|
అధ్యాత్మ
సంకీర్తన |
|
రేకు: 222-5
సంపుటము: 3-124 |
|
ఎక్కడి సుద్ది యీ భ్రమనేల పడేరు అక్కటా వో దేహులాల హరినే తలఁచరో ॥పల్లవి॥ బలుదేవతలకునుఁ బాయదట వ్యామోహము యిలపై నరులము నేమెంతకెంత కలదట మునులకుఁ గడు రాగద్వేషాలు చలనచిత్తులము మా జాడ యిఁక నేది ॥ఎక్క॥ పరగఁ దొల్లిటివారు పంచేంద్రియబద్ధులట నెరవుగా ముక్తులమా నేఁటివారము అరిదిఁ బ్రపంచము మాయామయమట నేము దురితవర్తనులము తొలఁగేమా ॥ఎక్క॥ ఘన సిద్ధగంధర్వులు కడ గానలేరట దినమత్తులము మా తెలివేఁటిది యెనలేని శ్రీవేంకటేశ్వరు శరణుచొచ్చి మనువార మింతేకాక మరి గతియేది ॥ఎక్క॥
|
|
PHILOSOPHICAL POEM |
|
Copper Plate: 222-5 Volume: 3-124 |
|
ekkaḍi suddi yī bhramanēla paḍēru akkaṭā vō dēhulāla harinē talaṃ̐carō ॥pallavi॥ baludēvatalakunuṃ̐ bāyadaṭa vyāmōhamu yilapai narulamu nēmeṃtakeṃta kaladaṭa munulakuṃ̐ gaḍu rāgadvēṣālu calanacittulamu mā jāḍa yiṃ̐ka nēdi ॥ekka॥ paragaṃ̐ dolliṭivāru paṃcēṃdriyabaddhulaṭa neravugā muktulamā nēṃ̐ṭivāramu aridiṃ̐ brapaṃcamu māyāmayamaṭa nēmu duritavartanulamu tolaṃ̐gēmā ॥ekka॥ ghana siddhagaṃdharvulu kaḍa gānalēraṭa dinamattulamu mā telivēṃ̐ṭidi yenalēni śrīvēṃkaṭēśvaru śaraṇucocci manuvāra miṃtēkāka mari gatiyēdi ॥ekka॥
|
Details
and Discussions:
Chorus (Pallavi):
పల్లవి:
ఎక్కడి సుద్ది
యీ భ్రమనేల పడేరు
అక్కటా వో
దేహులాల హరినే తలఁచరో ॥పల్లవి॥
|
Telugu
Phrase
|
Meaning
|
|
ఎక్కడి సుద్ది యీ భ్రమనేల పడేరు
|
(సుద్ది = word of
mouth, circulated view, received information) From where has this assumed
clarity arisen? Why fall into such delusion?
|
|
అక్కటా వో దేహులాల హరినే తలఁచరో
|
Alas, O you who are identified with the body — can you
truly think of (turn toward) Hari?
|
Literal Meaning:
Where have
these spiritual conclusions come from? Why fall into such delusion? O embodied!
—can you genuinely think of Hari?
Implied
Meaning:
O embodied
beings — we gather ideas, teachings, doctrines, and discussions and assume we
possess clarity. But do we ever pause to examine whether they arise from direct
insight — or merely from hearsay? The poet interrupts this inherited certainty.
Interpretative Notes:
“ఎక్కడి సుద్ది”
What hearsay is this?
What is
this “clarity” you claim?
The
question is not about information.
It is about assumed certainty.
From where
has your conviction arisen?
Is it a direct perception — or a repetition?
“యీ
భ్రమనేల పడేరు”
“Why get
trapped in Delusion”
Why fall
into delusion?
To treat
memory as realization,
to declare truth without direct perception —
is to slip into delusion.
We do not
consciously choose delusion.
We drift into it.
“అక్కటా వో దేహులాల”
“Alas O
Embodied Beings”
This
address is crucial.
We live
under:
Sensory
conditioning
Memory
Fear
Identity
Psychological
security
From within
this structure,
we speak of transcendence.
That is
what is being questioned.
“హరినే తలఁచరో”
“Genuinely Remember
Hari”— The Core
Here,
“Hari” is not a theological demand.
It is a state beyond the structures of delusion.
To “think
of Hari” does not mean:
Recitation
Ritual
Verbal
remembrance
It implies:
Can you
turn toward that which is not constructed by memory?
Can you see
what stands between you and that?
To think of
Hari is not to acquire something.
It is to see what obstructs seeing.
Structural
Summary of the Pallavi
The Pallavi
moves in three steps:
Question
inherited clarity.
Expose
delusion.
Challenge
the embodied mind to turn beyond its own constructions.
This is not
a devotional slogan.
It is an invitation to see clearly
First Stanza:
బలుదేవతలకునుఁ
బాయదట వ్యామోహము
యిలపై నరులము
నేమెంతకెంత
కలదట మునులకుఁ
గడు రాగద్వేషాలు
చలనచిత్తులము
మా జాడ యిఁక నేది ॥ఎక్క॥
baludēvatalakunuṃ̐ bāyadaṭa vyāmōhamu
yilapai narulamu nēmeṃtakeṃta
kaladaṭa
munulakuṃ̐ gaḍu rāgadvēṣālu
calanacittulamu mā jāḍa yiṃ̐ka nēdi ॥ekka॥
|
Telugu
Phrase
|
Meaning
|
|
బలుదేవతలకునుఁ బాయదట వ్యామోహము
|
It is said
that even many gods are not free from attachment and delusion.
|
|
యిలపై నరులము నేమెంతకెంత
|
We, mere
humans on this earth — what of us?
|
|
కలదట మునులకుఁ గడు రాగద్వేషాలు
|
It is said that even sages are subject to
strong likes and dislikes.
|
|
చలనచిత్తులము
మా జాడ యిఁక నేది
|
Our minds
are unstable — where then, do we stand?
|
Literal Meaning:
We
hear that even gods are not free from delusion. We, who live upon this earth —
what are we in comparison? Even sages are said to be subject to strong
attachments and aversions. With such unstable minds, where do we stand?
Implied Meaning:
The
poet dismantles hierarchy. He asserts that Gods are not immune to delusion. Sages
are not beyond attachment. Then, what certainty do ordinary human beings claim?
Status does not guarantee freedom. And practice does not automatically dissolve
conditioning.
Interpretative Notes:
“Even the
gods…”
“Gods” here
represent elevated states — positions of power, subtlety, or refinement. The
statement is not mythology. It is structural observation: Higher position does not equal inner freedom.
Status introduces identification. Identification sustains delusion.
“Even
sages…”
“Sages”
symbolize disciplined seekers — those who have undertaken spiritual practice. Yet
even they are said to be touched by: Attraction, Aversion, Preference And Psychological
reaction. Practice implies effort. Effort may refine the mind — but it does not
necessarily free it.
చలనచిత్తులము
మా జాడ యిఁక నేది
“We,
unstable-minded…Where do we stand”
Here the
tone shifts inward. If Elevated Beings (gods) and Disciplined Minds (sages) are
not immune, what of us — whose minds are visibly unstable? “Unstable” does not
merely mean restless. It means: Easily influenced. Easily disturbed. Easily
persuaded.
Here
instability is not incapacity — it is creative volatility. The human mind is
infinitely inventive. A small stimulus is enough — it builds upon it, magnifies
it, and creates structures of belief. Where, then, is our ground?
Structural
Movement of the First Stanza
This stanza
collapses three assumptions:
That divine status do not bring clarity. (status brings in
ego)
That spiritual practice does not guarantee freedom. (practice
imply effort)
Acceptance of hierarchy implies inner instability. (rejection
of equanimity)
Instability
here is not weakness —
it is the mind’s unchecked creative power.
That same
infinite capacity of the mind,
which is capable of clarity,
is presently operating on assumptions, validations, and inherited conclusions.
It
constructs, reinforces, and defends its own fabrications.
After these
assumptions fall,
the silent question of the Pallavi returns:
From within
such instability,
can one truly think of Hari?
Second
Stanza:
పరగఁ దొల్లిటివారు పంచేంద్రియబద్ధులట
నెరవుగా ముక్తులమా నేఁటివారము
అరిదిఁ బ్రపంచము మాయామయమట నేము
దురితవర్తనులము తొలఁగేమా ॥ఎక్క॥
paragaṃ̐ dolliṭivāru paṃcēṃdriyabaddhulaṭa
neravugā muktulamā nēṃ̐ṭivāramu
aridiṃ̐ brapaṃcamu māyāmayamaṭa nēmu
duritavartanulamu tolaṃ̐gēmā ॥ekka॥
|
Telugu Phrase
|
Meaning
|
|
పరగఁ దొల్లిటివారు పంచేంద్రియబద్ధులట
|
(పరగఁ దొల్లిటివారు = Who we consider
deep, insightful, enlightened) Those we consider profound or discerning are
said to be bound by the five senses.
|
|
నెరవుగా ముక్తులమా నేఁటివారము
|
Are we, then, truly liberated in our present condition?
|
|
అరిదిఁ బ్రపంచము మాయామయమట నేము
|
We declare that this vast and complex world is “illusory.”
|
|
దురితవర్తనులము తొలఁగేమా
|
Yet, being caught in flawed conduct, have we truly
distanced ourselves away from it?
|
Literal
Meaning:
Those
regarded as profound are said to be bound by the senses. Are we, in our present
state, fully liberated? (On what basis) We proclaim that this difficult and complex
world is illusion? Yet, in our conduct, have we withdrawn from being on the
wrong side of Truth?
Implied Meaning:
It is not
merely that gods and sages are unstable. Now the focus turns to us — and what
we claim. We speak of liberation. Speak of illusion. Speak of transcendence. But
does our life reflect what we declare?
Interpretative Notes:
“పంచేంద్రియబద్ధులట”
“Bound by the five senses”
Even those
considered thoughtful or discerning remain conditioned by sensory experience. This
is not an insult. It is structural fact. Senses form perception. Perception
shapes thought. Thought reinforces perception. Bondage perpetuates itself.
ముక్తులమా
నేఁటివారము
“Are we
liberated?”
The question is direct. Liberation is often
spoken of as an attained state. But in our present condition —Are we free from:
Reaction? Desire? Fear? Identification? Or is “liberation” merely a word that
comforts the conditioned mind?
“అరిదిఁ బ్రపంచము మాయామయమట నేము”
“The world
is illusion — we say”
This is one
of the sharpest insertions in the stanza. The key word is “we.” We are the
ones declaring: “This world is illusory.” Is this a direct realization — or a
borrowed metaphysical statement? Calling the world “illusion” does not dissolve
attachment. Verbal negation is not transformation.
“దురితవర్తనులము తొలఁగేమా”
“Have we
truly moved away?”
If the
world is illusion,
why do we still operate within its numerous traps?
If we are
aware of error,
why does conduct remain unchanged?
Knowledge
without transformation is the true illusion.
Structural
Movement of the Second Stanza
This stanza
dismantles four further assumptions:
1.
That intellectual depth frees one from sensory
conditioning.
2.
That speaking of liberation equals liberation.
3.
That declaring the world “illusion” indicates
realization.
4.
That knowledge automatically changes conduct.
After this
collapse, the inquiry sharpens:
If words do
not free us,
what remains?
The
question of the Pallavi deepens:
“ఎక్కడి సుద్ది”
What hearsay is this?
From within
borrowed clarity,
can one truly think of Hari?
This stanza
is indeed more personal and more penetrating than the first.
The dismantling is no longer about hierarchy — it is about self-deception.
Third Stanza:
ఘన సిద్ధగంధర్వులు
కడ గానలేరట
దినమత్తులము
మా తెలివేఁటిది
యెనలేని
శ్రీవేంకటేశ్వరు శరణుచొచ్చి
మనువార మింతేకాక
మరి గతియేది ॥ఎక్క॥
ghana siddhagaṃdharvulu
kaḍa gānalēraṭa
dinamattulamu mā telivēṃ̐ṭidi
yenalēni śrīvēṃkaṭēśvaru śaraṇucocci
manuvāra miṃtēkāka
mari gatiyēdi ॥ekka॥
|
Telugu Phrase
|
Meaning
|
|
ఘన సిద్ధగంధర్వులు కడ గానలేరట
|
Even great Siddhas and Gandharva’s cannot fully perceive
the ultimate limit.
|
|
దినమత్తులము మా తెలివేఁటిది
|
Ours intelligence is intoxicated by the “lighted day” —
what kind of intelligence is that?
|
|
యెనలేని శ్రీవేంకటేశ్వరు శరణుచొచ్చి
|
Turning toward the immeasurable, the unquantifiable Venkateshwara
|
|
మనువార మింతేకాక మరి గతియేది
|
We live by this— what other way is there?
|
Literal Meaning:
Even
accomplished beings like Siddha and Gandhravas cannot fully grasp the ultimate.
What, then, is our intelligence — intoxicated by what is visible? Turning
toward the immeasurable —Sri Venkateswara “What other way remains?”
Implied Meaning”
The
poem now reaches its hardest point. If divine beings are not free from
limitation. Spiritual
refinement does not guarantee total vision and Intellectual clarity is confined
to what appears in the “day,” then our confidence in intelligence itself must
be questioned.
“దినమత్తులము” exposes a subtle condition: We function
within what is illuminated —what can be perceived, processed, and concluded. Yet
we mistake this fragment for the whole. This is not ignorance, but intoxication
with the measurable. When the limits of measured intelligence are clearly seen,
the self-structure built upon it loses ground. In this context, “శరణుచొచ్చి” does not imply emotional surrender or
theological dependence. It indicates structural disarmament: Ceasing to
construct certainty where none can exist. Ceasing to dominate what cannot be
grasped.
“యెనలేని” — the immeasurable — stands beyond
cognitive containment. Living aligned with that immeasurable reality becomes
not a choice, but an inevitability. Thus, the stanza does not conclude with devotion as
comfort, nor with mystical proclamation. It ends with inevitability: Once fragmentation
is seen clearly, what other way of living is there?
Interpretative Notes:
Structural
Position in the Poem
By the
time this stanza arrives, all supports have already been dismantled:
Divine hierarchy does not guarantee freedom.
Sagehood does not guarantee clarity.
Declaring the world “illusion” does not transform conduct.
Intellectual understanding does not dissolve fragmentation.
Now
the poem questions the final refuge — intelligence itself.
“ఘన సిద్ధగంధర్వులు కడ గానలేరట”
Even
refined beings —
symbols
of attainment and subtle perception —
are
said to be unable to grasp the ultimate limit.
This
line removes the last shelter of spiritual accomplishment.
No
level of refinement guarantees total vision.
Attainment
does not equal completeness.
“దినమత్తులము మా తెలివేఁటిది”
This is the
decisive cut.
“Day”
represents what is visible, illuminated, cognitively available.
Human
intelligence operates within this field:
It gathers what appears.
It compares.
It concludes.
It constructs.
Yet what
appears is always partial, like one side of the coin.
Still,
intelligence behaves as if it sees the whole.
This is not
ignorance.
It is
intoxication with that fragment.
What kind
of intelligence is it that mistakes the measurable for the complete?
The poet
does not condemn intelligence.
He exposes its limit.
“యెనలేని” — The Immeasurable
The
contrast is now absolute.
Measured
intelligence stands before the immeasurable.
“యెనలేని” does not describe an object.
It points to that which cannot be counted, defined, concluded, or contained.
Here, “Sri
Venkateswara” functions not as a sentimental deity,
but as the name given to the immeasurable reality that exceeds cognitive grasp.
The limited
cannot dominate the unlimited.
“శరణుచొచ్చి”
This is not
emotional surrender.
It is
structural disarmament.
When
intelligence clearly sees its own boundary,
the impulse to assert, define, and construct weakens.
The “I”
that depended on intellectual certainty loses ground.
No dramatic
union is declared.
No mystical claim is made.
There is
simply alignment —
a cessation of fragmentation.
“మనువార మింతేకాక మరి గతియేది?”
The poem
ends without triumph.
Without
ecstasy.
Without
doctrinal assertion.
It ends in
inevitability.
Living
aligned with the measurable alone has been exposed as fragmentary.
Once
fragmentation is seen clearly,
a life built upon it no longer holds.
Thus, the
line does not persuade.
It does not
promise.
It simply
asks:
What other
way is there?
Not as
rhetoric —
but as final precision.
Laser like
precision.
Final
Structural Insight
The Third
Stanza completes the poem’s arc:
Spiritual hierarchy collapses.
Verbal metaphysics collapses.
Intellectual intoxication collapses.
Identity built on these collapses.
What
remains is not doctrine.
Not
mystical exaggeration.
Not
devotional comfort.
What
remains is unfragmented awareness before the immeasurable.
The ending
does not warm.
It cuts.
And in that
cut, nothing artificial survives.
X-X-The
END-X-X
%20Dali.png)