இல்லறமே நல்லறமா மென்று சொன்னால்
இன்பமெனப் பள்ளியறைக் குள்ளாகாதே
தொல்லறமே துறவறமே தனது வண்ணம்
துறந்திடடா பற்றறவே துறந்தி டாமல்
சொல்லறமே யுலகமெலாம் கண்ணின் ரூபம்
சொர்ணமய மாம்சொர்க்கம் சுகவை போகம்
கல்லறமே கனகமணிப் பூஷ ணங்கள்
கமலத்தைக் காத்திடுவான்ட பத்ம யோகி
illara-mē nallara-mā meṉṟu coṉṉāl
iṉpameṉap paḷḷiyaraik kuḷḷākātē
tollara-mē tuṟavara-mē taṉatu vaṇṇam
tuṟantitaṭā paṟṟaṟavē tuṟanti ṭāmal
collara-mē yulakamelām kaṇṇiṉ rūpam
corṇamaya māmcorkkam cukavai pōkam
kallara-mē kaṉakamaṇip pūṣa ṇaṅkaḷ
kamalattaik kāttituvāṉṭa patma yōki
If you say that household life (illaram) is “good virtue,”
Do not get shut up inside the bedchamber calling it “pleasure.”
The ancient dharma—renunciate dharma—has its own nature/colour;
Renounce (attachment), O one “without clinging,” yet without renouncing (outwardly).
The dharma of speech/teaching: the whole world is a form within the eye (as-seen);
A golden “heaven”—sweet comfort, pleasure, enjoyment.
A stone-/tomb-like dharma: gold and gem ornaments;
He who protects the lotus is the Padma-yogi.
If you defend the householder path as righteous, do not reduce it to sensual life.
True renunciation is not merely a change of costume; it is the dropping of attachment while remaining where you are.
What you call “world,” “heaven,” and “pleasure” is largely the eye’s construction—what appears and seduces.
Gold, jewels, and ornaments can become a kind of living tomb when they harden the heart.
The Padma-yogi is the one who safeguards the “lotus” within—preserving inner purity and the subtle center where awakening unfolds.
The verse stages a critique of confusing dharma (aram) with socially approved life-patterns. “Illaram” (householder life) is conceded as potentially “nallaram” (good/auspicious virtue), but the poet immediately warns against its common degeneration into “palliyarai” (the bedchamber) mentality—i.e., making pleasure the governing principle. This is not an anti-householder polemic so much as an insistence that the ethical/spiritual quality of life depends on inner orientation (pattru/attachment vs. pattr-attru/non-clinging), not on external status.
The middle lines juxtapose two kinds of renunciation: (1) “thuravaram” as an established renunciate dharma with its “own colour/nature” (its proper discipline, austerity, and values), and (2) the Siddhar ideal of renouncing attachment “without renouncing”—an inward dis-identification that can be practiced amid ordinary roles. This preserves a classic Siddhar tension: outward renunciation may be real, but it can also be theatre; inward detachment is decisive but can be misunderstood as license unless disciplined.
“The whole world is the form of the eye” points to a phenomenological/advaitic insight: the world that binds is the world-as-perceived, shaped by desire, aversion, and habit. In that sense, “golden heaven” and “sweet pleasures” are not denied as experiences, but they are exposed as unstable appearances that seduce the senses. The final contrast—ornaments as “stone/tomb-dharma”—treats wealth and adornment as dead weight: they can beautify the body while entombing the awareness.
The concluding image of the “lotus” and the “Padma-yogi” shifts the critique from morals to yoga. “Lotus” (kamalam/padma) is a standard symbol for an inner center (a chakra, especially heart or crown), for the mind’s purity, and—within Siddhar/Bindu-oriented contexts—for guarded vitality/sexual essence. “Protecting the lotus” thus implies disciplined containment: guarding attention, guarding breath and senses, and (possibly) guarding bindu so that the inner ‘flower’ is not trampled by indulgence. The verse remains intentionally cryptic, allowing multiple yogic readings while keeping its ethical edge: do not let pleasure, possessions, and appearances replace the work of inner safeguarding.