TALLAPAKA
ANNAMACHARYULU
322 ఎంత చదివి చూచిన నీతఁడే ఘనము గాక
(eṃta
cadivi cūcina nītaṃ̐ḍē
ghanamu gāka)
INTRODUCTION
What is
visible to us and what is not — both seem to be interlinked, functioning like a
complex, interdependent system. Yet, no one has been able to clearly determine
the inner working of this world. However much we examine, it does not fully
come within our grasp.
The
opinions we form about this mystery themselves become a cause for division
among us. Whether the world is mechanical or not is also an opinion. Even the
thought “I am being neutral” is yet another opinion.
One thing
needs to be observed here: the mind works by piecing together scattered
images — that is both its strength and its limitation. Because of this,
what we perceive also appears fragmented.
Here,
Annamacharya’s words come to mind: గట్టిగాఁ
దెలుసుకొంటే కన్నదే కంటి కురుమ” “If one
sees clearly, the obstruction lies in the eye itself.” That is to
say: the obstacle to seeing is not the world, but the veils within the mind. The
world is not distorted — Our seeing is.
Then the
question shifts: Is it possible to see clearly, stepping out of this well of
opinions? This composition points in that direction of enquiry. If we can
observe without holding on to what appears as a reference, that observation
stands on its own.
From that
impartial understanding emerges the line by Annamacharya “ఎంత చదివి చూచిన నీతఁడే ఘనము గాక" —all the research
and observation lead to the same conclusion — this one
truly stands.
Progression
of Ideas in the Kirtana
Pallavi — Is there
anything, truly stands on its own?
First stanza — Can we can look
without distortion?
Second stanza —Are the
inner and outer are truly separate?
Third stanza — is not the problem the very
seeing that divides?
|
అధ్యాత్మ సంకీర్తన
|
|
రేకు: 117-2
సంపుటము: 2-98
|
|
ఎంత చదివి చూచిన నీతఁడే ఘనము గాక యింతయు నేలేటి దైవ మిఁక వేరే కలరా ॥పల్లవి॥ మొదల జగములకు మూలమైనవాఁడు తుదఁ బ్రళయమునాఁడు తోఁచేవాఁడు కదిసి నడుమ నిండి కలిగివుండెడివాఁడు మదనగురుఁడే కాక మఱి వేరే కలరా ॥ఎంత॥ పరమాణువైనవాఁడు బ్రహ్మాండమైనవాఁడు సురలకు నరులకుఁ జోటయినవాఁడు పరమైనవాఁడు ప్రపంచమైనవాఁడు హరి యొక్కఁడే కాక అవ్వలనుఁ గలరా ॥ఎంత॥ పుట్టుగులయినవాఁడు భోగమోక్షాలైనవాఁడు యెట్టనెదుర లోనను యిన్నిటివాఁడు గట్టిగా శ్రీవేంకటాద్రి కమలాదేవితోడి పట్టపుదేవుఁడే కాక పరు లిఁకఁ గలరా ॥ఎంత॥
|
|
PHILOSOPHICAL POEM
|
|
Copper Plate: 117-2 Volume: 2-98
|
|
eṃta cadivi cūcina nītaṃ̐ḍē ghanamu gāka yiṃtayu nēlēṭi daiva miṃ̐ka vērē kalarā ॥pallavi॥ modala jagamulaku mūlamainavāṃ̐ḍu tudaṃ̐ braḻayamunāṃ̐ḍu tōṃ̐cēvāṃ̐ḍu kadisi naḍuma niṃḍi kaligivuṃḍeḍivāṃ̐ḍu madanaguruṃ̐ḍē kāka ma\ri vērē kalarā ॥eṃta॥ paramāṇuvainavāṃ̐ḍu brahmāṃḍamainavāṃ̐ḍu suralaku narulakuṃ̐ jōṭayinavāṃ̐ḍu paramainavāṃ̐ḍu prapaṃcamainavāṃ̐ḍu hari yokkaṃ̐ḍē kāka avvalanuṃ̐ galarā ॥eṃta॥ puṭṭugulayinavāṃ̐ḍu bhōgamōkṣālainavāṃ̐ḍu yeṭṭanedura lōnanu yinniṭivāṃ̐ḍu gaṭṭigā śrīvēṃkaṭādri kamalādēvitōḍi- paṭṭapudēvuṃ̐ḍē kāka paru liṃ̐kaṃ̐ galarā ॥eṃta॥
|
Details
and Discussions:
Chorus (Pallavi):
ఎంత
చదివి చూచిన నీతఁడే ఘనము గాక
యింతయు నేలేటి దైవ మిఁక వేరే కలరా ॥పల్లవి॥
eṃta
cadivi cūcina nītaṃ̐ḍē
ghanamu gāka
yiṃtayu nēlēṭi
daiva miṃ̐ka vērē kalarā ॥pallavi॥
Literal Meaning:
However
much one investigates or examines — what ultimately remains is that alone. Is there anything else, apart from that which brings together what is seen and
unseen? (None.)
Interpretative Notes:
“ఎంత చదివి చూచిన నీతఁడే ఘనము గాక" — here, ఘనము” refers to
that which truly exists and endures. No matter how much we investigate, what
truly exists cannot be proved through something else; it stands on its own.
What we
generally examine are things that either do not have independent existence or
are subject to change over time. We may frame them as equations, principles,
categories, or assumptions, and through these, “interpret” their nature to some
extent.
That which
is not subject to such conditions cannot be grasped through this kind of
enquiry, because it does not depend on anything else.
“యింతయు నేలేటి దైవ మిఁక వేరే కలరా” “Is there any other divine principle apart from this?” — this is not a question to be proved, but to be examined. It is easy to dismiss it by saying we do not have sufficient information. But we rarely examine the opposite possibility.
If we observe what is around us, we see that nothing has an independent existence of its own; everything depends on something else. If we continue this observation, it becomes clear that even the mind that is observing is itself dependent.
Then the question that remains is: What is that which stands independently? At this point, the question is no longer whether there is something else, but what it is that truly stands on its own.
Concluding
Insight
Through
this Pallavi, a profound idea is expressed in a simple manner. It is not asking
us to believe, but to examine.
Therefore,
when it is said that the same principle stands as the worlds, dissolution,
atoms, the divine beings, and beyond life and death — it need not be dismissed
as mere theory. Therefore, Annamacharya ’s question opens the door to enquiry —
but that requires the utmost attention. This same insight resonates in the
teachings of realized beings.
One-line
essence: It is not
about accepting a claim — but about seeing what, if anything, truly stands on
its own.
First Stanza:
మొదల
జగములకు మూలమైనవాఁడు
తుదఁ బ్రళయమునాఁడు తోఁచేవాఁడు
కదిసి నడుమ నిండి కలిగివుండెడివాఁడు
మదనగురుఁడే కాక మఱి వేరే కలరా ॥ఎంత॥
modala jagamulaku mūlamainavāṃ̐ḍu
tudaṃ̐ braḻayamunāṃ̐ḍu tōṃ̐cēvāṃ̐ḍu
kadisi naḍuma niṃḍi
kaligivuṃḍeḍivāṃ̐ḍu
madanaguruṃ̐ḍē kāka
ma\ri vērē kalarā ॥eṃta॥
Literal
Meaning:
He
is that which exists before creation; He is that which remains even after
dissolution. He is that which pervades and fills everything in between. He is
also the force that draws the senses—who else is there?
Interpretative Notes:
If
we observe carefully, this stanza speaks of that which is said to be present at
the beginning, at the end, and throughout what lies in between—all that is
bound by time. But can we truly determine these? Or is Annamacharya merely
restating what has already been said? Let us examine.
Beginnings: What
we call history is shaped by the perspective of those who record it. It is also
influenced by political and social fluctuations and is therefore incomplete.
Endings: If
we do not fully know what has already occurred, can we know what is yet to
happen?
That
which pervades the middle
It
is said to be that which is present here and now, pervading everything across
time. Then, is it not enough to simply see it? Here lies the difficulty.
To
confirm what is seen, we rely on standards or measures. But all such standards
are formed from prior experience. Therefore, what we determine through our
seeing is always compared with the past. It may or may not be real. In this
way, the past continues.
What
follows from the above
From
this, it becomes clear that we cannot definitively determine any of these.
However, what cannot be determined need not be accepted. But that does not mean
that it cannot be seen.
It
may be known through direct observation—through a neutral, factual seeing. All
living beings function through instinct. But in humans, this natural state is
obscured by layers of conditioning, giving rise to distorted ways of seeing.
Therefore, such neutral observation is rare—but not impossible.
One-line
essence: On
careful observation, one may see that Annamacharya is not pointing to thought.
What is being indicated does not begin with thought, nor depend on it. Thought
itself is conditioned and does not endure.
Therefore,
truth cannot be determined through thought—but it may be seen, if we can look
without distortion.
Second
Stanza:
పరమాణువైనవాఁడు
బ్రహ్మాండమైనవాఁడు
సురలకు నరులకుఁ జోటయినవాఁడు
పరమైనవాఁడు ప్రపంచమైనవాఁడు
హరి యొక్కఁడే కాక అవ్వలనుఁ గలరా ॥ఎంత॥
paramāṇuvainavāṃ̐ḍu
brahmāṃḍamainavāṃ̐ḍu
suralaku narulakuṃ̐ jōṭayinavāṃ̐ḍu
paramainavāṃ̐ḍu
prapaṃcamainavāṃ̐ḍu
hari yokkaṃ̐ḍē kāka
avvalanuṃ̐ galarā ॥eṃta॥
Literal
Meaning:
Interpretative Notes:
If we look
at the first two lines, we are led into a certain difficulty: if we consider
ourselves as a collection of countless atoms, then those very atoms are also
part of the larger cosmos. In such a view, what is seen and that which sees
begin to blur, leading to a sense of uncertainty.
Looking at
the last two lines: “Transcendent” refers to that which cannot be
directly touched by our awareness. “Beyond” refers to that which appears
unrelated to what is known—something that seems to stand apart from this side
of experience.
Thus, the
line “Is there anything beyond Him?” opens up a striking possibility—it
brings together what is seen and what is unseen.
If we take
all four lines together: Truth is not confined to inside or outside—it pervades
everything, from within to without. It is not something that can be grasped
through mental enquiry. It is not contained within personal awareness, yet it
is not apart from it either.
Though
everything exists within it—gods and humans alike—the inability to perceive
that reality remains a limitation in our present seeing.
One-line
essence: What
appears divided as inner and outer may not truly be separate—and this very
division gives rise to confusion.
Third Stanza:
పుట్టుగులయినవాఁడు
భోగమోక్షాలైనవాఁడు
యెట్టనెదుర లోనను యిన్నిటివాఁడు
గట్టిగా శ్రీవేంకటాద్రి కమలాదేవితోడి
పట్టపుదేవుఁడే కాక పరు లిఁకఁ గలరా ॥ఎంత॥
puṭṭugulayinavāṃ̐ḍu bhōgamōkṣālainavāṃ̐ḍu
yeṭṭanedura
lōnanu yinniṭivāṃ̐ḍu
gaṭṭigā śrīvēṃkaṭādri
kamalādēvitōḍi-
paṭṭapudēvuṃ̐ḍē kāka
paru liṃ̐kaṃ̐ galarā ॥eṃta॥
Literal Meaning:
He is birth
itself; He is both enjoyment (experience) and liberation. He is what appears
before us, and what is experienced within. “He is both the outward and the
inward” — this is not merely poetic ornament. As long as what is seen and
the one who sees are taken as separate, the conflict of life continues. When
this division becomes clear as one unitary entity, it no longer remains an
external matter. Only when this separation completely dissolves do the inner
vision of the Lord arise.
Interpretative Notes:
He who is
birth, enjoyment, and liberation: We have already seen that neutral observation is
difficult. When there is no attachment to the body, the mind is no longer bound
by its habitual patterns and can see without bias.
In such a
state, one may observe birth and death, pleasure and liberation, as movements
occurring simultaneously—both within and around—without division. This is not
something imagined beforehand; it appears contrary to our usual way of
thinking. Therefore, it requires great steadiness to grasp. Otherwise, it gets
mixed with prior notions and loses its clarity.
This is not
something maintained through effort, like a performance. What is sustained by
effort will fall. That which stands without effort alone endures.
Liberation
(moksha) simply means freedom from bondage—nothing more. It does not
grant any special exemption. Life remains limited; what is not limited is the
seeing.
As this
becomes clear, the question “Is there something else?” gradually dissolves.
When division no longer holds, what remains is observation. Then the question
shifts: is not the problem the very seeing that divides?
X-X-The
END-X-X
%20Dali.png)
No comments:
Post a Comment