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.