இருப்பதுபோ லில்லையென்பா ரில்லை யானால்
இருப்பதிலே பயனேது மில்லை யில்லை
இருப்பதெலா மணுவென்பான் இல்லை யென்பான்
இணையென்பான் பிணையென்பான் எல்லாம் வேகப்
பொருப்பதனால் விளைவென்பான் வேக மேற
பொருளெல்லாம் கனக்குமென்பான் வேகந் தீர
கருப்பொருளாய்ச் சுற்றுமென்பான் கணக்கும் சொல்வான்
கருத்தறியான் விஞ்ஞானக் கருமான் தானே
iruppathupō lillaiyenpā rillai yānāl
iruppathilē payanētu millai yillai
iruppathelā maṇuvenpān illai yenpān
iṇaiyenpān piṇaiyenpān ellām vēkap
poruppathāl viḷaivenpān vēka mēṟa
poruḷellām kanakkumenpān vēkan tīra
karupporuḷāych chuṟṟumenpān kaṇakkum solvān
karuttariyān viññānak karumān tānē.
“If there is no one who says, ‘What appears to exist is not (truly) as it is,’
then within what merely ‘exists,’ what use is there?—none, none.
He says, ‘All that exists is (only) atom (aṇu),’ and he says, ‘There is no (other).’
He says ‘pairing,’ he says ‘bonding’; he says everything is (just) speed.
By pressure/weight (or force) he says there is an effect; as speed increases,
he says all things become weighty/heavy; when speed subsides,
he says it goes around as a dark/base substance; he speaks calculations.
He does not know the inner purport—he is that “science-man” (vijñāna-karumān) indeed.”
The verse targets a certain type of reductionist knower: one who explains reality solely through atom, combination, motion, force, mass/weight, and orbital cycles, and who prides himself on measurement and calculation. Such a person may deny any deeper principle beyond matter and mechanism. Karai Siddhar says this is not true understanding: without grasping the “karuththu” (inner intent/meaning) behind existence, mere accounts of atoms, bonds, speeds, and numbers are ultimately barren.
1) Critique of merely ‘objective’ knowledge: The repeated “illai” (“no / there is not”) creates a deliberate rhythm of negation, echoing debates about sat/asat (being/non-being). The Siddhar’s complaint is not that observation is false, but that it becomes sterile when it claims finality.
2) Atomism and mechanistic causality: “maṇu/aṇu” (atom, minute particle) evokes classical Indian atomist schools (Vaiśeṣika/Nyāya) as well as any later “scientific” materialism. “iṇai / piṇai” (pairing / binding) points to combination, aggregation, or ‘bonding’—yet also resonates with the Siddhar register where “piṇai” can imply bondage (attachment).
3) Motion, force, mass, and cycle: “vēgam” (speed/impetus) and “poruppu” (weight/pressure; also ‘burden’ and even ‘mountain’) allow a double reading. On one level, it resembles physical explanation (force → effect; motion → measurable weight/impact; orbiting cycles). On another level, it mirrors yogic-psychological language: rajas-like agitation (vēgam) produces consequences; when agitation ceases, what remains is the dark/basic substrate (“karupporuḷ”), and the being continues to ‘circle’—a hint toward saṃsāric cycling under ignorance.
4) “karupporuḷ” and Siddhar alchemy/medicine: “Black substance” can be read as (a) inert primal matter, (b) karmic ‘blackness’ (mala, impurity), or (c) a literal dark alchemical base-metal/substance (e.g., lead/impure matter) that ‘circulates’ in processes. The verse does not force one meaning; it lets the critique land in both metaphysics and praxis.
5) गणக்கு vs கருத்து (counting vs meaning): “kaṇakku” (calculation/accounting) is contrasted with “karuththu” (inner sense, intention, realized meaning). The Siddhar implies that quantification without gnosis (direct knowing of the Real) is incomplete.
6) “vijñāna-karumān”: The closing compound is intentionally biting and cryptic. It can be taken as “the dark fellow of science” or “the (mere) science-person,” but it also carries the sense of a one who is ‘blackened’ (unillumined) by ignorance even while speaking in the name of vijñāna. The thrust is epistemic humility: without inner realization, ‘science-talk’ becomes another form of blindness.