கண்ணிலே யுன்னைக் கண்டே உன்னிலே கண்ணைக் காண
மண்ணிலே விண்ணைக் கண்டே எண்ணிலே உன்னைப் போன்றே
தன்னிலே தானுய்த் தன்னந் தனியனாய்த் தனித்துத் தாளை
நண்ணிலே நண்ண நாடி நடப்பதே யோக மாகும்
kaṇṇilē yunnaik kaṇṭē unn ilē kaṇṇaik kāṇa
maṇṇilē viṇṇaik kaṇṭē eṇṇilē unnaip pōṉṟē
taṉṉilē tāṉuyt taṉṉan taṉiyaṉāyt taṉittut tāḷai
naṇṇilē naṇṇa nāṭi naṭappatē yōka mākuṁ.
Having seen You within the eye, to see the eye within You;
Having seen the sky within the earth, to have You within one’s reckoning/thought as one’s own likeness;
Having, within oneself, oneself be liberated—becoming the utterly solitary one, set apart—(and) holding fast to the Feet;
Seeking to draw near where nearness is (and) moving/abiding in that—this alone is yoga.
Yoga is the practice of reciprocal seeing: the Divine (or Guru/Self) is recognized in one’s very faculty of seeing, and the act of seeing is recognized as belonging to That. When the ‘heavenly’ is perceived within the ‘earthly’ body, and the mind’s measures (numbers, reckonings, concepts) begin to mirror the nature of That, the practitioner becomes inwardly self-redeemed—standing as the solitary, undivided awareness—yet anchored in the ‘Feet’ (the foundational principle, the Guru’s ground, or the final state). Continually seeking the subtlest nearness and abiding in it as one walks and lives: this is yoga.
The verse stacks paired inversions—You-in-eye / eye-in-You; sky-in-earth—to point toward Siddhar non-duality and microcosm–macrocosm identity.
1) “Seeing You in the eye; seeing the eye in You”: This is both yogic and epistemic. Yogically, “eye” can be the organ of perception or the inner eye (ajñā). Epistemically, it reverses subject–object: the seeker first objectifies the Divine as ‘seen’, then turns around to see the very seer/perception as arising in (or identical with) the Divine. It implies that perception is not merely a human faculty but a mode of the Absolute.
2) “Seeing sky in earth”: A classic Siddhar move—rejecting a strict split between mundane body (mண், earth) and transcendent space/consciousness (விண், sky). The ‘heavenly’ is discovered within embodied life, suggesting that liberation is not elsewhere but immanent in the body-temple and its subtle spaces.
3) “In thought/number, as Your likeness”: “எண்” can mean number, reckoning, calculation, or thought. The line can indicate purification of cognition: even conceptualization, measurement, and discriminating intelligence becomes conformed to the Divine pattern. It may also hint at inner ‘counts’ used in breath/mantra disciplines, where numerical practice becomes a mirror of the Divine.
4) “Within oneself, oneself is liberated; solitary; holding the Feet”: Liberation is described as an inward event (self-by-self, in-self), culminating in “tannam taniyan” (the utterly alone/unique one)—a phrase resonant with advaitic aloneness (no second). Yet the verse retains devotional grounding: “Feet” can be the Guru’s feet (disciplic surrender), Śiva’s feet (grace), or an alchemical-yogic ‘base’ (a foundational state or seat). The coexistence of solitary non-duality and ‘holding the Feet’ preserves the Siddhar tension between self-realization and grace/anchoring.
5) “Seeking nearness and walking in it”: Yoga is not framed as posture or mere technique but as lived abidance—approaching what is already ‘near’ (inner-most presence) and conducting one’s life from that proximity. The repetition “naṇṇilē naṇṇa” (near-in/near-to) suggests that the sought reality is not distant; practice is the art of turning toward the ever-near.