நீதியெல்லாம் நெறியெல்லாம் நீங்கிப் போக
நிண்ணயங்க ளவைமாறி நிலைகெட் டோடச்
சாதிமத பேதமெலாம் தான்மிக் கோங்கத்
தர்மமெலாம் கர்மமெலாம் தகையற் றேங்க
ஒதறுமந் தணரொழுக்கம் உளுத்துச் சாக
உலகமெலா மகங்கார்த் தொடுங்கி வேக
ஆதரவா மாத்திகமும் மறைந்து போகும்
அப்பப்பா நாத்திகந்தான் வெளிகொண் டாடும்
Neethiyellaam neriyellaam neengi-p poga
Ninnayanga lavaimaari nilaiket toodach
Saathimatha bethamelaam thaanmik kongath
Dharmamelaam karmamelaam thakaiyar renga
Odharuman thanarozhukkam uluththu saaga
Ulagamelaa makangaarth thodungi vega
Aadharavaa maaththikamum marainthu pogum
Appappaa naathikanthaan velikon daadum
When all justice (nīti) and all proper paths/ways (neṟi) depart,
when determinations/verdicts (niṇṇayam) change and stability is lost and runs away,
when all caste- and religion-based differences swell and rise on their own,
when all dharma and all karma languish, stripped of their proper quality/nature,
when the conduct/discipline of the antaṇar (the “learned/holy ones,” often ‘Brahmins’) is pulverized and dies,
when the whole world tightens/shrinks and hastens under ego (ahaṅkāra),
supportive āstikyam (theism/orthodoxy/affirmation of the sacred) will also disappear;
Alas, atheism (nāstikam) alone will come out and dance openly.
A time is described in which moral discernment and right conduct recede; judgments become unstable; caste and sectarian divisions intensify; the living force of dharma-karman becomes hollow; the ethical discipline of those meant to uphold sacred order collapses; ego compresses the whole world into anxious haste; faith/orthodoxy fades—while disbelief and denial become publicly triumphant.
The verse reads like a Siddhar diagnosis of an age of decline (often resonant with Kali-yuga descriptions), but it can also be read inwardly as a map of psychological and spiritual degeneration.
1) Social-ethical layer (outer): “nīti” (justice) and “neṟi” (right way) leaving indicates the breakdown of shared moral reference points. “niṇṇayam” shifting suggests that institutions of judgment—law, custom, communal discernment—lose steadiness. With that vacuum, “sāti–mata bhedam” (caste/religion divisions) “swell”: identity markers inflate when inner virtue is thin. “dharma” and “karma” becoming “without proper nature” points to action divorced from right intention and cosmic order—ritual or duty continues outwardly, yet its inner correctness is missing.
2) Critique of custodianship: “antaṇar ozhukkam” (discipline of antaṇar) being ‘crushed’ can be read as the collapse of those expected to embody learning, restraint, and sanctity. Siddhar literature often uses “antaṇar” both as a sociological term (Brahmin) and as a spiritual category (one who knows Brahman / a true knower). Either way, the warning is: when exemplars of restraint fail, the larger culture loses orientation.
3) Psychological-yogic layer (inner): “ulakam ellām ahaṅkār toṭuṅki vega” can suggest that the ‘world-experience’ contracts under ego—everything becomes interpreted through ‘I’ and ‘mine,’ producing hurried agitation. In yogic terms, when ahaṅkāra dominates, discrimination (viveka-like discernment) weakens; practice becomes performative; the inner ‘dharma’ of aligning with reality is lost.
4) Metaphysical/epistemic layer: “āstikyam” here is not only belief in God; it can signify affirmation of an underlying order (dharma), trust in liberation-knowledge, and respect for revealed/attained wisdom. Its disappearance is paired with “nāstikam” ‘dancing openly’—not merely private doubt, but a cultural celebration of denial (of sacred order, moral causality, or liberative disciplines). Siddhar critique often targets hypocrisy and empty ritual, yet this verse laments a swing from hollow orthodoxy into triumphant negation rather than into genuine realization.
Overall, the verse functions as both prophecy and admonition: when outer structures and inner discipline erode, identity-conflict and egoic acceleration fill the gap, and denial becomes the loudest public posture.