From: selvakum@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering)
Subject: Re: pattinaththar  --cont'd
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 01:37:59 GMT

In article <5194@gos.ukc.ac.uk> rmv@ukc.ac.uk (R.M.Viknarasah) writes:
>
>>From: kat@doe.carleton.ca (Kathiravan Krishnamurthi)
>>Newsgroups: soc.culture.tamil
>>Subject: Re: pattinaththAr
>>Date: 4 Jan 93 22:31:06 GMT
>>
>>
> [ some deleted]

>  "kandavar vindadhillai
>   vindavar kandadhillai"
>
>ie
>   those who have seen havenot spoken (about it)
>   those who spoke havenot seen it

       There is also a philosophical or spiritual meaning.
       This meaning can be rendered as follows:

       'That which observes is not the observed;
        That which is observed can not observe !'
     
      It may look complicated but it is simple. 
      It talks about 'two' things 'ego' and the 'Self'.
      The 'Self' 'observes' the 'ego' as non-existent.
      ( this may sound logically a nonsense but unfortuantely
       logic is not everything and thus much confusion)
      But the 'ego' "thinks" that it has observed the 'Self' !
      What IS OBSERVED is the elusive 'ego' ( 'which is actually
      non-existent'!!) 'the impersonator' and the 'ego' is incapable
      of 'observing'. 

       

     [ those who are familiar with Philosopher-saint J. Krishnamuthy
       may remember his oft repeated words " the observer is the 
       observed" where he uses the opposite meaning for the 'observer'
       namely the 'ego'. There is much philosophical lore about
       this process of 'observation' as one which DOES NOT involve
       the three 'things' namely (1) observer (2) the observed
       (3) the process of observation. The reason is     ( 

       Now, 'kaNdavar' is the Self in the first line and "He" is
       'indivisible'. Thus 'kaNdavar viNdathillai'
       In the second line, 'viNdavar' means 'that which has been
       shed' ( = ego) and 'kaNdathillai' means 'had not seen'. Because
       'ego' can NOT see the 'Self'. 

       If what is said here is 'intellectually understood' a lot
       puzzles in philosophical discussions will look simple. But
       'realizing' this understanding is what matters NOT the
       'verbal, intellectual understanding'. As is often said,
        reading and understanding the word 'sugar' can not give
        you the taste of sugar. ( the Tamil word 'paal' = milk,
        can be substituted for 'sugar' to give greater import)

        Similar to the 'kaNdavar viNdathillai' there are a few more:

        'kallai(k) kaNdaal naayay(k) kaaNOm
         naayay(k) kaNdaal kallai(k) kaaNOm'

       ( here there is an artistic explanation as well !
          It goes like this: there is a satutue of a 'dog' in 
         stone. The guys who see the dog there, don't notice
         the 'stone' but the guys who notice the stone ( let us
         assume that these guys are geologists who are 
         art-impaired ) don't see the 'dog'; there are also
         well known psychological visual 'optocal illusions'
         where two different things are depicted but which are
         perceptively mutually exclusive)

       ( the sadists view of the above is as follows:
          when you find stone ( to hit a dog) you don't find
          a dog ( to hit), but when you find a dog ( which 
          can be hit) you don't find a stone ( to hit) !!!)

      Another one is by ThirumUlar: 
          'maraththai maRaiththathu paarmuthaR pootham
           maraththil marainthathu paarmuthaR pootham'
      (I'm not sure of the words but is similar)
                
        
   
 [deleted some]
>
>[deleted]
>
>    I enjoyed your etracts from arunagiri.
>(doubt ! I donot think that he is considered as a "siththar". He is
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>one of 63 nAyanmAr. )
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

       There is no standard definition of a 'Siddhar' except 'the one
       who knows THE siththu (magic)'. Saint aruNagirinaathar
       is NOT one of 63 Naayanmaars. He was a devotee of Murugan and
       is considered to be a great Siddhar. His songs are among the 
       hardest and apparently he had 'revealed' many 'secrets'. His
       style of writing is a delightful mixture of Tamil and Sanskrit.
       He is also considered to be a supreme rythmist. 


        
>
>  Thanks for you time , effort & interest.
>
>>
>>   iKathiravan
>>
>
>
>     raj


      Raj your posting did give the impression of
      mocking Saint PattiNaththaar.
      Saint PattiNaththaar had a rich and extremely fullfilling
      worldly life. He was a VERY rich man and had everything 
      one could want to have including faithful wife and a 
      resourceful son . Apparently he took to 'thuRavu' when
      he realized the futility of accumulating wealth and 
      enjoying other pleasures; it is said that by a strange
      incident ( a boy giving him a box full of gold and
      disappearing or something like that) he realized that
      'kaathaRRa Usiyum vaaraathu kadai vazhikkE' ( = even
      a needle with a brocken ear will not come to your final
      journey).. PattiNaththaar's 'thuRavu' is often compared
       with the Buddhaa's 'thuRavu' because like 'Gauthama'
      PattiNaththaar was an extremely rich man almost like a
      king but not a king like Gauthama ( actually prince ?).
      
     PattiNaththaar's words in general reflect the happenings 
     in the world which he can instantly see in view of his 
     enlightenment and not to be taken as happenings in his personal life.  
     As Kathiravan said the movie on PattiNaththaar is an excellent one.
     ( on the same scale as the movie 'nanthanaar' in which thaNdapaaNi
      desikar has acted)

     - Selva
 
       P.S. Please excuse spelling and grammatical mistakes, thanks.
            Sorry for being a long one too !
Xref: sparky soc.culture.tamil:4875 soc.culture.indian:43113 soc.culture.indian.telugu:1565