Sri Arunachala Ashtakam - Verse 5

This post is prompted by the query put up by Anonymous as a comment to the previous Ashtakam post. He or she wants some ideas on Bhagavan’s statement in verse 5 of the Ashtakam that “the (impure) mind is worked against the wheel of the (pure) mind to free it of its flaws”.

Here is verse 5 in full from the marvellous “Parayana” book, published by Sri Ramanasramam: 

“As the string in (a necklet of) gems, it is Thou in Thy unity who penetratest all the diversity of beings and religions. If like a gem when it is cut and polished, the (impure) mind is worked against the wheel of the (pure) mind to free it of its flaws, it will take on the light of Thy Grace (and shine) like a ruby, whose fire is unaffected by any outward object. When once a photographic plate has been exposed to the sun, can it receive impressions afterwards? O benign and dazzling Aruna Hill! Is there anything apart from Thee?”

Most translations of this verse, as above, add ‘impure’ and ‘pure’, or ‘gross’ and ‘subtle’ or some equivalent terms within brackets before the word ‘mind’ appearing twice in the line under consideration. In the original Tamil however, Bhagavan simply states: ‘… if the mind is worked against the grindstone of the mind to free it of its flaws …’.   

Again, in my humble opinion, this verse has several layers of subtle meanings built into it. At one level then, if we consider just the literal ‘the mind being worked against the grindstone of the mind’, the verse is saying: that the one tool we have is the mind, which usually is working away on the matters of the world; but if we turn it within and have it attend to itself, i.e. to watching the source of thoughts which constitute the mind, or to watching itself (thus mind worked against the wheel of the mind), it will be freed of its flaws and shine as the Self. This then is the call to Vichara, the enquiry ‘Who am I?’. The same idea, more or less, is recorded by Sri Muruganar in verse 962 of Guru Vachaka Kovai: 

962:   To remove the impurities of the mind the enquiry ‘Who am I?’ should be practiced resolutely. By grinding [the mind] through repeatedly rubbing it against the grinding stone of ‘I am’, the light of the sun [of the Self] is kindled and flares up within. You should know that this is true jnana declared by the [Islamic] statement ‘Ana’al haq’ [‘I am the reality’].

[from “Guru Vachaka Kovai”; Pg 420, David Godman’s book]

Another layer of meaning gets added if we consider that the statement is actually saying that the ‘impure’ mind is worked against the wheel of the ‘pure’ mind to free it of its flaws. Personally, I think that this is not unreasonable, given the imagery of a traditional method of cutting and polishing gems employed in the verse; it is the rough, thus impure gem, that is worked against the grindstone, itself studded with miniscule bits of harder, thus purer gems.

So what is a ‘pure’ mind and an ‘impure mind’? We enter doctrine again. And Bhagavan Himself gave the precise definition of a ‘pure mind’ as ‘Isvara’ or God; and ‘impure mind’ as the ‘rajasic or active mind or the ego’. The fascinating exposition is contained in Talk 323, in “Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi”. Talk 323 is one of the longest “Talks” in the book and contains Bhagavan’s explanation of another enigmatic Ashtakam verse, verse 6. Therein, just by the way, Bhagavan explains these 2 terms as well. The relevant extract is:

“… In broad daylight a rope does not look like a snake. The rope itself cannot be seen in thick darkness; so there is no chance of mistaking it for a snake. Only in dim light, in the dusk, in light darkened by shadows or in darkness lighted by dim light does the mistake occur of a rope seeming a snake. Similarly it is for the Pure Radiant Being to rise up as the Ego - it is possible only in Its Light diffused through darkness. This darkness is otherwise known as the Original Ignorance (Original Sin). The Light passing through it is called Reflected Light. The Reflected Light on its own merits is commonly known as the Pure Mind or Isvara or God. Isvara is well-known to be unified with Maya: in other words the Reflected Light is Isvara. The other name - Pure Mind - implies impure mind also. It is the rajasic or active mind or the ego …”.

Now if we look at the structure of the Ashtakam hymn, verses 3 and 4 have the theme that Sri Arunachala, though formless otherwise, when considered with form is God in the guise of the Holy Hill: “When I approach Thee regarding Thee as having form, Thou standest as a hill on earth …”. And thus verse 5 coming next carries on with this ‘form’ theme a bit, telling the devotee that he can either work his mind against itself, i.e. vide Vichara and the process of Self-enquiry, OR he can work it against Lord Arunachala in the form of the Holy Hill. So if the devotee is inclined to work his sadhana ‘with form’ he has to surrender his ego to (or grind his ‘impure mind’ against) the ‘Pure Mind’, Isvara, Lord Arunachala (the grindstone) and thus free it of flaws; and thus expose the ego-mind to the bright sun of the Aruna Hill, in an act of full surrender, and be like the photographic plate wiped clean permanently.

In my humble opinion, both options are deliberately built into the verse by Bhagavan and come forward equally, depending upon the viewpoint of the devotee. Also, since both options are intrinsically contained in the same one statement in the verse, Bhagavan is also saying in a subtle way that the 2 approaches are essentially the same.

Lastly, it may be clarified that no new method of doing Vichara is suggested in this verse. Some may feel that ‘working the mind against the mind’ may point to a different technique altogether, rather than the ‘Who am I?’ enquiry. Not at all. If the formless approach is taken, then it simply implies the doing of Vichara as normally done.

As always, happy to read additional ideas from readers below.

Sri Arunachala Ashtakam - Verse 2

Preliminary

Sri Arunachala Ashtakam ('Eight Stanzas to Sri Arunachala') and Sri Arunachala Padikam ('Eleven Stanzas to Sri Arunachala', though ‘Padikam’ means ‘ten’ actually) are special compositions of Sri Bhagavan’s. I say special, because they happen to be the only 2 works which Bhagavan composed spontaneously without any urging from anyone. It was as if Lord Arunachala Himself spoke these extraordinary words through Bhagavan. The fascinating story was told by Bhagavan Himself and is worth a read in full …  

 “All this is only activity of mind. The more you exercise the mind and the more success you have in composing verses the less peace you have. What use is it to acquire such accomplishments if you don’t acquire peace? But if you tell such people this it doesn’t appeal to them; they cant keep quiet. They must be composing songs … Somehow, it never occurs to me to write a book or compose poems. All the poems I have made were on the request of some one or the other in connection with some particular event. Even Forty Verses on Reality, of which so many commentaries and translations now exist, was not planned as a book but consists of verses composed at different times and afterwards arranged as a book by Muruganar and others. The only poems that came to me spontaneously and compelled me, as it were, to write them without any one urging me to do so are the Eleven Stanzas to Sri Arunachala and the Eight Stanzas to Sri Arunachala. The opening words of the Eleven Stanzas came to me one morning, and even though I tried to suppress them, saying ‘What have to do with these words?’ they would not be suppressed till I composed a song bringing them in; and all the words flowed easily without any effort. In the same way the second stanza was made the next day the succeeding ones the following days, one each day. Only the tenth and eleventh were composed the same day.”

He went on to describe in His characteristically vivid way how He composed the Eight Stanzas.

“The next day I started out to go round the Hill. Palaniswami was walking behind me and after we had gone some way Aiyasami seems to have called him back and given him a pencil and paper, saying, ‘For some days now Swami has been composing poems every day. He may do so today as well, so you had better take this paper and pencil with you.’

I learnt about this only when I noticed that Palaniswami was not with me for a while but caught me up later. That day, before I got back to Virupaksha, I wrote six of the eight stanzas. Either that evening or the next day Narayana Reddi came. He was at that time living in Vellore as an agent of Singer & Co. and he used to come from time to time. Aiyasami and Palani told him about the poems and he said, ‘Give them to me at once and I will go and get them printed.’ He had already published some books. When he insisted on taking the poems I told him he could do so and could publish the first eleven as one form of poem and the rest, which were in a different metre, as another. To make up the required quota I at once composed two more stanzas and he took all the nineteen stanzas with him to get them published.”

 [from "Ramana Maharshi and the Path of Self Knowledge", by Arthur Osbourne, 1970 ed, Pg 159]

Such is the pedigree of these two great hymns! Generally speaking, the Padikam has a strong devotional theme, with verses melting in love for Sri Arunachala. The Ashtakam is more instructional, and has some of Sri Bhagavan’s highest teachings built in. And also, in my humble opinion, some of the deepest spiritual ideas one can find anywhere in written language. I believe that verse 2, in particular, has important doctrinal implications. In fact, the first half of this verse is one of the most enigmatic compositions of Sri Bhagavan’s. It defies a simple explanation. Perhaps it should be thus only because Bhagavan Himself says in the second half that, “Who has the power to convey this in words, when even Thou (appearing as Sri Dakshinamurty) couldst do so in ancient days by silence only?”

This post makes a humble attempt to probe deeper into the first half of this remarkable verse composed by Sri Bhagavan.

Arunachala Astakam verse 2 

Verse 2:   “Who is the seer?” When I sought within, I watched what survived the disappearance of the seer (that is, the Self). No thought arose to say, “I saw”; how then could the thought, “I did not see” arise? Who has the power to convey this in words, when even Thou (appearing as Sri Dakshinamurty) couldst do so in ancient days only by silence? Only to convey by silence Thy (transcendent) State Thou standest as a Hill, shining from heaven to earth.

[From “Parayana – The Poetic Works of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi”, Sri Ramanasramam, May 2008]

Let me start by clarifying what exactly Lord Dakshinamurthy conveyed in silence. From the first verse of the Sri Dakshinamurthy Stotra, “maunvyakhya prakatit Parabrahma tattvam ... ”, it is clear that what is conveyed is “Parabrahma tattvam”, or the “elemental essence of the Supreme Brahman”. And thus the first half of the verse above is describing the nature of the Supreme State; be It called Brahman, the Self, or Siva.

Now we know that the Supreme State is generally described as beyond conception, formless, timeless, beyond attributes and so on, all those terms that we find in any Vedanta text. Which is, what we could say in general, is what the first half of the verse certainly conveying anyway at the basic level. But in this verse an enigmatic element comes in because of the curious choice of words in terms of “I saw” and “I did not see”; and because once it is said that no mind / thought / ego arose to say “I saw”, there is no need to also add with particular emphasis that no mind / thought / ego could arise to say “I did not see”!  The former by itself covers the point. 

This curious choice of words is significant because we all know how Bhagavan would choose each word with care and precision to convey exactly the meaning He wanted to convey. Or to be more accurate, for Him, the great Jnani, the precise words required to convey a particular teaching or idea flowed spontaneously and chose themselves. 

Interpretations

The verse begins with Vichara, the enquiry “Who is the seer?”. As one dives within, deeper and ever deeper to search for it, the ego, the “seer” in the empirical world, whittles down and disappears. What stands revealed then is the real “Seer”, the Supreme Self. Since the “selves”, the “seers”, are not two, who is it that began the enquiry and who is it that stands revealed at the end? The verse uses a compositional style in which the “eye” as the “seer” predominates, but really it is the “eye of the eye” that sees, and so on.

Most interpreters and translations work on the idea that the words “the Self” are assumed at the end of “I saw” and “I did not see”; because this line in the verse carries on from the words: “I watched what survived the disappearance of the seer”, i.e. the empirical seer. The empirical seer has now disappeared, the ego is gone; what remains now is the Supreme Self. And because there is no empirical ego left, there is no mind at all, and so how can thoughts arise to say “I saw the Self”? Or, for that matter, “I did not see the Self”? It is a reasonable enough interpretation. But is a deeper teaching also lying hidden in there somewhere? After all, why did Bhagavan feel the need to add a negation, “I did not see” also into the verse? Once the ego is annihilated, just 'I could not say that I saw (the Self)' should be sufficient, prima facie.

Let me elaborate here a bit on the terminology of the “eye” and “seeing” used in this verse. Bhagavan used it partly to point out the illusory nature of the empirical subject. In the transactions of the world the eye / mind complex appears to see the world; but in reality, since the ego is a ghost, the real Seer is the Self. The following are just a few other examples where He used this approach: 

Anma Vidai, verse V: “Annamalai the Self, the eye behind the eye of mind, which sees the eye and all other senses, which knows the sky and the other elements, the Being which contains, reveals, perceives the inner sky that shines within the Heart. When the mind free of thought turns inward, Annamalai appears as my own Self. True grace is needed; love is added and bliss wells up. Lo, very easy is Self Knowledge. Lo, very easy indeed.”

Ulladu Narpadu, verse 4: “If one’s self is a form, then it follows that the world and the Supreme will have form also. If one’s self is not a form, who is there to see their forms, and how? Is there anything that is seen whose nature is other than that of the eye [that sees]? That eye is in reality the Self, the infinite eye.”

Guru Vachaka Kovai, verse 52: “If one corrects one’s gross vision, transforming it into the eye of jnana, and if one attentively views [the world] with that eye of truth that is wholly jnana, then the world which was previously seen as the form of the five elements, beginning with space, will be only the Brahman that is entirely consciousness.”

[latter 2 verses from the book “Guru Vachaka Kovai”, translated by Dr. T. V. Venkatasubramanian, Robert Butler and David Godman; Pg 27; can also see an extract from “Maha Yoga” given there, and verse 878 as well; thanks to David Godman for the reference – given in a different context].

But is the Self then to be taken as the “Seer” in Absolute terms as well? Ulladu Narpadu above, for instance, says that then the situation is in effect - that the Self is seeing the Self. Does it mean that the Self is the subject, and the Self is the object, and thus the subject-object realtionship still exists? Of course not. All is the Self, period. Only pure Consciousness Is. And so in Bhagavan's teachings, as in Advaita, the Self is beyond the subject-object duad. Though the Self is spoken of as the “Seer” with respect to the “seen” taken as the entirety of creation, this is true only in the plane of empiricity - in “Vyavaharika” and “Pratibhasika” terms. In reality, in the absolute sense, in the “Paramarthika” plane, the Self is beyond the subject-object duality and cannot be called even the Ultimate Subject.

This is exactly the teaching also conveyed by Bhagavan in “Vichara Sangraha”, Chapter III. First there is a table showing how if the object is a pot, then the subject is the eye; then if the object is the eye, the subject is the optic nerve centre in the brain; and so on, thus to regress progressively inward until the final subject is shown as “pure Consciousness”, the Supreme Self. Bhagavan then goes on to say: 

“Since the Self, which is pure Consciousness, cognizes everything, as stated in the classification above, it is the ultimate Seer. All the rest: ego, mind, etc. are merely its objects. The subject in one line [in the table] becomes the object in the next; so each one of them except the Self or pure Consciousness is a merely externalized object and cannot be the true Seer. Since the Self cannot be objectified, not being cognized by anything else, and since the Self is the Seer seeing all else, the subject-object relation and the apparent subjectivity of the Self exist only on the plane of relativity and vanish in the Absolute. There is in truth no other than the Self, which is neither the seer nor the seen, and is not involved as subject or object.”

[Italics above are put by me; from "Sri Maharshi's Words of Grace", Sri Ramanasramam 1996 ed, Pg 21]

We can see thus the underlying concepts that are being used by Bhagavan when He uses the “seeing” approach in the Ashtakam verse. But I believe herein Bhagavan had a secondary purpose as well, one that involves the “I saw” and “I did not see” terms directly. You see (!), the “seeing” approach, though used a lot in Advaita, also happens to be a cornerstone of  Dualistic doctrines! Let me elaborate further.

Sri Ramanuja (CE 1017 to 1137), the first of the great Dual Masters, and the father of what is called “Visistadvaita”, laid down the theory of what is called “Aprthaksiddhi”, the inseparable union of the Jiva with Brahman or God. Thus the Jiva and Brahman share what is called the ‘Sarira-Sariri” relationship; i.e. if the Jiva is the body (sarira), God is the Indweller (sariri). The metaphysics is too complex to be elaborated here, but you can see how the “eye of the eye” concept fits in. So it is not the Jiva who sees with his physical eyes, but the Indweller, the eye of the eye that sees, and so on. Sri Ramanuja repeatedly used for this argument, verses from the Antaryami Brahmana of the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad, which run partly as follows (3.7.3 to 3.7.23):   

“… He who dwells in all beings but is within them, whom none of the beings knows, whose body is all beings and who controls all beings from within, is the inner controller, your own self, and immortal … He is never seen but is the Seer, He is never heard, but is the Hearer … There is no other Seer than He, there is no other hearer than He, there no other thinker than He, there is no other knower than He. He is the Inner Controller – of our self and Immortal. All else but He is perishable.”

[ref: a slender but wonderfully informative book called “Sri Ramanuja: His Life, Religion & Philosophy” by Swami Tapasyananda, Sri R. K. Math]

Thus we see how scriptural authority is certainly possible for the existence of an Eternal Subject, and also, possibly, for the subject-object relationship to exist always. Drawing from these verses from the Brhdaranyaka Upa and Sri Ramanuja’s powerful Bhasya on the same, the “seeing” and “eye of the eye” approach has long been a favourite with all the Dualist thinkers and writers.  

Now we should be clear that in every Dualistic system, from Saiva-Siddhanta, to Visistadvaita, to Dvaita, either the subject-object relationship always exists, or when the objects are withdrawn, the Subject always exists. In fact, the subject-object or subject-alone relationship is never transcended at any point in any Dualistic system except in Saiva-Siddhanta - at the point of Videhamukti for the Jivanmukta (i.e. when the body of the Jivanmukta drops away; otherwise the Jivanmukta in their system has some subtle “anava mala” still remaining that prevents a complete annihilation of the Cognizer).

In doctrine, “I saw” (or “I hear” or “I know”) is technically the expression used to denote the presence of the “Pramatr” (the subject) and the “Prameya” (the object); “I did not see” (“I did not hear”, “I did not know”) is the technical representation of the situation when the “Prameya” has subsided, but the “Pramatr” still exists (as in deep sleep, in all the higher levels of spiritual attainment). In all the Dual systems, it should be always possible for the Jiva when living, to have at least one of these two ‘thoughts’ arising: either “I saw”, or “I did not see”; there is no other option.  

Bhagavan’s Ashtakam verse again

The long-winded build-up above is intended to bring out two very subtle and deep, but important points I believe were imbedded by Bhagavan in the first half of verse 2.

Firstly, on what I had described initially as a curious choice of words: Bhagavan says that (when the ego is annihilated by the process of Vichara), “no thought arose to say, ‘I saw’, how then could the thought, ‘I did not see’ arise?”. Thus He is saying - how absurd is the proposition that any duad or monad could survive; in the Highest State, not just one, but both the statements 'I saw' and 'I did not see', exemplifying the only two options in Dualistic systems, are intrinsically false. There is only the Self, pure Consciousness, beyond subjectivity and objectivity. It is a direct attack and demolition of the Dual position.

And at a still deeper level of subtlety, on the “seeing” metaphor drawn from Scripture:  I believe that Bhagavan specifically and deliberately uses the “eye” and the “seeing” approach here to make the emphasis stronger on what he is saying; as if to highlight the flaws in the Dualistic doctrines using their own pet tool, thus implying that the Scriptural tool itself is used erroneously by them.

Concluding Remarks

Apologies folks if the post was found to be long and complicated. I can hear the knives being sharpened – that this is useless intellectualization, just making things more complicated and what not. But hopefully this will be forgiven as an honest attempt to bring out how seemingly innocuous words of Bhagavan have layers and layers of subtle meanings and teachings built in, only revealed by a little bit of additional work. And I cannot think of any other explanation for the words “I see” and “I do not see” used by Bhagavan in this verse. If anyone has some other explanation, additional ideas perhaps, grateful to have those put up below.

Also, lest I be accused of being biased towards Advaita and thus deliberately reading too much into these lines, let me say that I have tried to objectively lay down facts and conclusions as best I could. Yes, I favour Advaita, but this is so only after I came to Bhagavan and it became clear that His teachings correspond exactly to that. For me anyhow, there is no conflict whatsoever between Advaita and other approaches. Bhakti and worship, I believe, are intrinsic to Advaita in any event. And the way I explain Advaita to my friends is – that it merely carries on from where the other systems leave off.

     

On the Razor’s Edge – I

Experiences on the Path …

This series is intended to be about interesting personal experiences as a seeker. Am generally reluctant to talk about them, but I know how ‘good’ I feel on reading such narratives by other devotees, and hopefully my stories may bring a little something into the dear reader’s life too. Let me try anyway with one story for a start, and we’ll see how it goes.

All this was prompted by my finding a forgotten, rough draft of this write-up sitting in an old folder on my PC. I vaguely remember having written it a few years ago and may have put it up on David Godman’s wonderful blog, in the ‘Open Thread’ somewhere. But do not remember now for sure.

Besides, this is a befitting story to tell as it is about Holy Arunachala, Lord Siva. It had been bothering me a bit that till now I had not written any post directly relating to the Holy Hill. How can He be missed out? Was reminded of the charming story [in “Day by Day”, entry of “24.2.46 Morning”] of how, when composing Anma Vidai (Atma Vidya), Sri Bhagavan specifically added the last, fifth verse, dedicated to Sri Arunachala, saying He had neglected to make a mention of Him in the first four verses: 

Anma Vidai, verse V: “Annamalai the Self, the eye behind the eye of mind, which sees the eye and all other senses, which knows the sky and the other elements, the Being which contains, reveals, perceives the inner sky that shines within the Heart. When the mind free of thought turns inward, Annamalai appears as my own Self. True grace is needed; love is added and bliss wells up. Lo, very easy is Self Knowledge. Lo, very easy indeed.”

Lovely composition on Lord Arunachala Siva, by He Himself!

And then, today is Advent Day, 1^st September, when in 1896, Bhagavan first set foot on Arunachala.

-----------------------

The ‘Shepherd’

This happened many years ago, probably on my first visit to Tiruvannamalai and Sri Ramanasramam. By then I had already read most of Bhagavan’s works and knew Him to be my Guru. And so the first few trips were surreal experiences of joy, of visiting places in and around Sri Ramanasramam that I knew intimately, but had not seen or experienced otherwise. I had landed up in June, and even after so many years can still vividly recall the searing, furnace like heat in Tiruvannamalai that exceptional summer, when the following incident happened.

The story begins when one bright and sunny day, after the lovely idli and milk breakfast at Sri Ramanasramam, I headed out for Skandasramam and Virupaksha Cave from the back gate. As all devotees know, Skandasramam is about a 45 min, mildly strenuous walk up a hilly path. The path is naturally paved with stones taken from the Hill only, and it all makes for a very picturesque setting indeed.

Was determined not to wear footwear on Holy Arunachala. Coming from N. India, where we wear chappals even inside the house, one was actually quite unused to walking barefoot; and the softer soles tend to get sore and blister quickly. But I had reasoned that if I go to a temple of Lord Siva, I remove shoes. And here I am walking ON Lord Siva; so how can I wear shoes? And then Sri Bhagavan Himself had always remained barefoot on Sri Arunachala, thorns, bushes, hot stones et al (not that He is known to have worn any footwear, ever). I suppose this dilemma of wearing footwear or not when trekking up to Skandasramam or Virupaksa cave, or generally even when going for a walk on the Holy Hill, may have struck other devotees too at some point. Also, one must admit rather shamefacedly, that in those early years one was confident and sanguine about one’s ability to handle such silly ‘mundane’ things like heat and even pain; it would be “pain borne for the Lord”, or so one naively thought.

Those days the path up from behind Sri Ramanasramam was rather bereft of shady trees or heavy vegetation. The reforestation initiative had still to really get going and Sri Arunachala had a gaunt, bare-rock grandeur about it.  But in the early morning, the sun was rather balmy, and the stones on the path, lovely and comfortingly warm. It was a peaceful walk up the Hill then, and had a wonderful time at Skandasramam and Virupaksa Cave. Had carried an apple with me, so did not need to rush back for the 11.30 gong for lunch at Sri Ramanasramam. And so, started back at 2 pm or so. Well and truly dumb that.

Initially the path was not so bad. Closer to Skandasramam there was plenty of vegetation around. It was only after one-third distance that the path became bare rock-stones with no trees at all. And in the hot sun, the stones were furnace-hot. Within minutes my feet were in tatters. It was so hot that forget walking, one could not even stand anywhere without hopping about. I had a bottle of water and so decided to keep wetting my feet and walking on, in the hope of finding a sheltered stretch. Big mistake. Made another 100m or so when the water ran out. Now I was even more in the middle of it. Now I could neither go forward nor back, nor did I have water to drink. And so, simply decided that my backside was more suited for the spanking and found a rock to sit on, a large, burning rock by the path, right in the open sun.   

I knew I was in big trouble. There was not a soul in sight; not even any monkeys, birds, or lizards about. And not a breath of wind stirring about anywhere. Had been praying away to Bhagavan all this while. I remembered how He had told the Surya Mantra to Sri Jagadeeswara Sastri when he was unable to walk on hot stones, and one tried that too! But there was a lesson to be taught to me still. The cocky, confidence bit had disappeared long ago. And now one was confused, nauseous and so hot that one thought that one would literally melt away into the red, fire-like rock on which one was sitting.  

Had been cooking like this for perhaps half an hour, maybe 45 mins, when one saw coming down from a distant spur in front of me, a wizened, old shepherd. He was slightly bent and walking with the help of a long stick, almost as tall as he, like that we see being carried by Mahatma Gandhi in popular pictures. I picked him up from quite a distance away and it took him 15 minutes to come down to me, slowly, zig-zagging around stray patches of scraggly brown bush. His form was swaying in the heat haze, and he walked with his head down and bent forward. He didn’t pause or stop to do anything at all in between, but came straight towards where I was sitting; and sat down, close, right next to me on the rock.

He was medium-tall, darkish, aged, with very short snow-white hair. He was wearing a half-sleeved, dirty-white, tattered shirt, many sizes too small and unbuttoned (actually, all the buttons were missing), and a short lungi. He smelt of the trees, and it actually felt as if a big, tall, leafy tree had walked up and sat down next to me.

Sort of automatically I looked down at his feet and saw, to my astonishment, he was wearing, without any socks, a pair of brand new, spotless, gleaming, blue and white, 'air' padded sports-shoes; the ones that cost, in those days, Rs. 5,000/- !

I really cannot describe my feeling of utter bewilderment that time at seeing this simple shepherd sitting just next to me wearing his gleaming sports shoes. Those who have been on the Hill and have seen the occasional local grass cutters or leaf gatherers, or the odd shepherd grazing a few goats, will know what I mean. They are not only too poor to own any shoes of any sort, but even otherwise invariably work and walk-about in bare feet. But what really caused my jaw to drop to my chest was the realization slowly dawning on me that - the shoes that he was wearing were exactly the ones, brand, model, colour and all, that I had been checking out back in Delhi to buy, but had not done so given the steep price!

He did not say a word and my jaw was anyway now stuck to my chest. He gave the briefest of what I can only describe as a wistful, meaningful smile, the slightest of nods, and then he got up and quickly walked away, to my left and up the path towards Skandasramam. There was a slight bend after 10 or 15 metres and he was out of sight even before my jaw came back to meet its upper member. And it was to be a great regret later that I did not catch him then and there and hang on to him for dear life; whoever he had been.

For, I found that amazingly, and immediately thereafter, my head cleared up and it felt much cooler. Somehow, I seemed to be have developed a temporary immunity from the heat and I could sit there on the rock as if I was sitting out in the cool winter sun in Delhi. And that when I got up and started back, I could easily walk the hot, burning stones on the path, all the way back to Sri Ramanasramam. I was back in my room in no time, cool and fresh, as if I had come back from a stroll on the mall in a Himalayan hill-station.

And I learnt my lessons. The naiveté with respect to pain and heat went (along with a lot of the ego!); and I knew that Sri Arunachala had given me an unmistakable indication that it was alright for me to wear footwear on the Holy Hill if needed, though I STILL DON’T. I am just a lot more careful with timings when venturing on to the Hill; and I don’t mind the odd thorn and scratched feet from the tough bushes at all. But in general I now believe that as long as we keep the attitude of a little child playing about in the Great Father’s lap, it should be alright to wear shoes if needed. [Though the injunction of no footwear when OFF the Holy Hill on Giripradaksina stands as absolutely inviolable; there is another story there, for a later time perhaps]. And guess what, my sports shoes now are similar ones to the shepherd's, the same gleaming blue and white, 'air' padded ones, which I could however only afford to buy many years on ! 

So then, you would ask, who was the shepherd really?  Funnily enough, though I can recall all the other details about him and the incident vividly, I just cannot remember the features of his face; except that he had smiled. Also, I must confess, I did not feel any direct spiritual, or Divine sort of emanation from him. That could however be a problem of the receiving radio rather than that of the transmitter! But there was certainly an uncanny or, how do I put it, surreal sort of feeling about it all. Even now I get a thrill run through me and my hairs stand on end when I recall this incident.

Wouldn't want to speculate on who the gentle shepherd actually was. Am just very grateful that Sri Arunachala, our Great Father (and Mother), chose to take care of His young and naive devotee with such love and compassion, one who had the temerity to carry an overblown ego with him up onto the Holy Hill besides. 

And then, also, it is entirely possible that he was just a local villager-shepherd on the Hill, to whom some kindly visitor-devotee had given his own pair of sports-shoes. And my fevered, hot brain just read a whole lot more into it all than was warranted ... 

Scanned photograph of the path about 10 years ago (not
from the time of the story); few trees and generally bare
stones; would have perhaps sat on a stone like the one in
front here; notice the group of langurs hanging about!

Recent picture of the path; a lot more trees!



And again 



The path these days (the straight, slanting line in the
middle of the picture) from the top of a spur nearby

One of the leaves and sticks collecting ladies you might
encounter around the path

 

-----------------

Addendum:

[With reference to the comment of 16.2.2013 by Anonymous below]

Following is a picture of the sports shoes I picked up later. Sorry, these are a little dirty and worn down. The shepherd's shoes were virtually similar, except they were gleaming new. In fact, I still remember how struck I was then, that there was not one speck of mud or any scuff mark on them – they could have come straight out of the packing box ...