Dear Dr Kannan,
Thank-you very much and it is certainly nice to hear from you again. I shall attempt again to explain the view of Meykandar with which I am in agreement. He provides philosophic clarity to the Funadamental Ontology that was first articulated by Thirumular in terms of "Pathiyinaip pool pasu paasam anathi" ie. the psychic entities, the pasus and the paasaas i.e. that which binds and finitises the anmas  are just as uncreated and eternal as BEING. The crucial term "un-aathi" means " have no origination"  exactly in the sense in which BEING or God is uncreated. The rest of my observations I give below your comments. 

At 05:21 AM 12-10-99 PDT, you wrote:
Dear Dr.Loganathan:

Apropos your mail on Meykandar & Child development, I ask the following questions for my own understanding and probably of others. I would like  to participate more when time permits in the near future.  You say :

this sutra Meykandar argues that the psychic entity is NOT to be confused with the various cognitive mechanisms that furnishes the various states of consciousness of adult mental life, a notion that is abhorent to the Western psychologists to this day and which a lot of the Asian educationists buy rather blindly, I think.

Do you mean to say that the "psychic" entity is exclusive of human body-mind continuum? If so, is this "psychic" entity is universal or belongs to any one individual and expresses itself as time demands. What is the difference between brain, thought, mind and this "psychic" entity. A clarification by way of working defition is important for further understanding. I guess you might have given answers to such questions in your extensive study somewhere, however, I believe it won't tire us by going through it once again.
This is a fasicinating field as this enquiry have divided the Indian religious world into two large sections, the one who believes in "metaphysical" and the other into "existential". As you are aware the Saiva, Vaishnava and Advaita schools belong to metaphysical interpretation and the various schools of Buddism to existential interpretation.

It is really interesting that Meykandar & other scholars of the past gave their understanding in poetic form. Poem by itself being 'metaphorical" gives the right choice to understand the truth not by mere intellectual domain but by using the"entire being". I suppose that gives every one of us to see the truth through our own eyes. 

Loga:

First of all I am not sure whether the Sutra style of writing can be called poetical though the VeNba metre can be. I consider the sutra style as very scientific, hermeneutic scientific in fact. Where there is a profound insight into  a deep kind of TRUTH, the understanding comes out with a sutra style of articulation. Meykandar is peculiar in this for he is the most rigorous  among the njaanies who does this. All others use metrical structures also used in poetry. But any way we shall look into it later ,  a fascinating question by itself.
Now let me come to the issue of the independent existence of the psychic entities. In the Third Sutra Meykandar provides seven different arguments and I have translated the whole lot in my Metaphysica Universalis available in the Dravidian Philosophy Campus. That which really convinced me was the last argument.

        ¸¨Ä¬¾¢ Áñ «ó¾õ ¸¡½¢ø «¨Å Á¡¨Â
        ¿¢¨Ä¨Â¡šõ, ¾£À§Á §À¡Ä -- «¨Ä¡Áø
        »¡Éò¨¾ ÓýÛ½÷óÐ ¿¡Êø «Ð¾ÛÅ¡õ
        ¾¡Éò¾¢ý §ÅÈ¡Ìõ ¾¡ý

        kalaiaathi maN antham kaaNil avai maayai
        wilaiyaiyaavaam, thiipameepool -- alaiyaamal
        njaanaththai munnuNarwthu waadil athuthanuvaam
        thanaththin veeRaakum  thaan
 

I translated this as follows: When we examine the evolutes of protomatter from kalai to earth, it is clear that they are subject to flux and are fleeting just like a flame. But there is something in the body which because of a pre-understanding it has, it continuosly strives towards absolute illumination despite the vicisitiudes of the bodily frame. Hence that which seeks this illuminaion unceasingly cannot be any of the material evolutes and machine-like organs of the body.

The thanu, the bodily frame is only a "thaanam", an abode , a temporary location but something without which the aama can't see and be conscious.

Here the most important notion is that of  pre-understanding of Absolute illumnation that all of us have and because of which we strive intellectually and non-intellectually. This absolute Understanding is the Meynjaanam which meykandar mentions as "anRee uLLathu", it NOT NEW , it is already there but only vagued grasped.  That which has this pre-understanding cannot be any of the cognitive utensils or  mental mechanisms.  For it is this preunderstanding that underlies the presence of TEMPORALITY, the kuRippukkaalam, that mode of time consciousness that is pasychological and is related to states of "awaiting for the yet to come. " This form of time consciousness is inherent to the psychic entities and it is only because of this that they can reckon world time , the suttukkaalam, in terms of the physical processes, the movements of the sun , moon etc.
This Temporal mode  of time consciousness is ultimately related to existence of Absolute Understanding only as a pre-understandung, something only vaguley understood. Thispre-understanding survives the bodily death and therfore that which has this understading also survives bodily destruction. The temporality ceases only the meynjaanam is totally grasped and at which point temporality is no more. This is waht is called Mukti, Moksa, Nirvana etc..

The sixth argument of Meyakandar in the same sutra claims distinct anmas in distinct bodies and he brings the pedagogical processes to convince us of this truth. I provide that part form MU:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
3.6 AaRaam atikaraNam (The Sixth Thesis)

meerkooL:

ini (vevveeRaai udalkaLil) aanmaa uLatu enRatu

eetu:

uNartta uNartalin

pozippurai:

avan aRintaangku aRivan enRu aRivikka,

aRintu upateesiyaai niRpatu uLataakalin

atuvee av vaanmaavaam enRatu.

Assertion: Now, there are different psyches in different bodies.

Reason: As there are pedagogical processes where on being instructed there is learning.

Comment: A person instructs another using pedagogical processes appropriate to that person. The person thus instructed learns and
stands desirous of further instructions. That which learns thus is the psyche.
 
 

Notes

1. Ordinary existence is full of the pedagogical processes in various ways - formal, informal and so forth. One has to learn in order
to acquire knowledge and just because one learns thus and acquires knowledge it does not follow that everybody also acquires it at
the same time. Hence the different bodies are inhabited by different psyches possibly also different in the knowledge they have.

2. The argument can be taken to be directed against panpsychism - the view that there is only one psyche - paraanma - inhabiting the
different bodies. The social existence in which there is the pedagogical is brought in to clarify this misunderstanding.

3. uNarttal: to inform, alert , sensitize etc. aRivittal: to instruct, teach, let know etc. upadesi: derived from upadesa:
philosophical discourses that are morally uplifting etc. An upadesi is one who is a recipient of such discourses. These terms are used
to cover a wide variety of pedagogical processes that exist in social existence.
 
 

edutuk kaaddu 3.6.1

aRintum aRivatee yaayum, aRiyaatatu

aRintataiyum viddu angku adangki - aRintatu

eetu aRiyum anRaakum meykaNdaan onRin

atu atu taan enum aham

There is relearning what has already been learned because of deep and sustained interests. There is also antipathy towards learning
what one does not know, towards retaining what one has learned and realizing that one is so. The interest and disinterest towards
learning something appears to be directed towards the attainment of Truths, to be one who knows the TRUTH. Each person in this
journey appears to proceed holding onto a projected image (or persona) as that oneself is.
 
 

Notes

1. The self-image, the self-understanding one has determines the interests that sustain one’s pedagogic activities - why one shows
sustained interest in learning, relearning something while another is not at all so, not interested even in learning. These varying and
contradictory dispositions cannot be that of the same entity but rather different ones.

2. The primary purpose of all learning, it is noted, is the attainment of TRUTH. The term ‘MeykaNdaan onRin’ means to be one
who knows the TRUTH. Interest and disinterest alternates, waxes and wanes but nevertheless it is a directed affair, a directed
activity which ultimately aims at the attainment of TRUTH.

3. The differences in the disposition to learn is explained in terms of self-image that one has and is retained as what one wants to be.
Each person has a persona, what kind of person one wants to be and this ultimately is that which determines his psychodynamics.

Here we must note that the psychic entities cannot enjoy any form of understanding,  consciousness, knowledge etc outside the peadagogical. The whole of existence is pedagogical and an an anmaa LEARNS thoroghout its existence taught directly or indirectly by  BEING and because of which HE is known as MahaGuru.

The remaining questions can be answered in terms of these two.

I shall attend to the rest later as this is already heavy.
Thanks for your interest.

Loga.