Śrī Aruṇācala Aṣṭakam verse 3: When thinking of your form without thinking, form will cease

This article is also available in a clearer and more easily readable format on my main website:
Śrī Aruṇācala Aṣṭakam verse 3: When thinking of your form without thinking, form will cease

* * * * *

In continuation of my previous three articles, Śrī Aruṇācala Aṣṭakam: Tamil text, transliteration and translation, Śrī Aruṇācala Aṣṭakam verse 1: When, by its wonderful act of grace, Arunachala enchanted and pulled my mind close, I saw as this is acalam and Śrī Aruṇācala Aṣṭakam verse 2: When investigating within the mind who he who saw is, I saw what remained when he who saw was completely non-existent, in this article I will explain and discuss the meaning and implications of the third verse:

நின்னையா னுருவென வெண்ணியே நண்ண
      நிலமிசை மலையெனு நிலையினை நீதா
னுன்னுரு வருவென வுன்னிடின் விண்ணோக்
      குறவுல கலைதரு மொருவனை யொக்கு
முன்னுரு வுனலற வுன்னிட முந்நீ
      ருறுசருக் கரையுரு வெனவுரு வோயு
மென்னையா னறிவுற வென்னுரு வேறே
      திருந்தனை யருணவான் கிரியென விருந்தோய்.

niṉṉaiyā ṉuruveṉa veṇṇiyē naṇṇa
      nilamisai malaiyeṉu nilaiyiṉai nīdā
ṉuṉṉuru varuveṉa vuṉṉiḍiṉ viṇṇōk
      kuṟavula halaidaru moruvaṉai yokku
muṉṉuru vuṉalaṟa vuṉṉiḍa munnī
      ruṟusaruk karaiyuru veṉavuru vōyu
meṉṉaiyā ṉaṟivuṟa veṉṉuru vēṟē
      dirundaṉai yaruṇavāṉ giriyeṉa virundōy.

பதச்சேதம்: நின்னை யான் உரு என எண்ணியே நண்ண, நிலமிசை மலை எனும் நிலையினை நீ தான். உன் உரு அரு என உன்னிடில், விண் நோக்குற உலகு அலை தரும் ஒருவனை ஒக்கும். உன் உரு உனல் அற உன்னிட, முன் நீர் உறு சருக்கரை உரு என உரு ஓயும். என்னை யான் அறிவுற, என் உரு வேறு ஏது? இருந்தனை அருண வான் கிரி என இருந்தோய்.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): niṉṉai yāṉ uru eṉa eṇṇiyē naṇṇa, nilamisai malai eṉum nilaiyiṉai nī-tāṉ. uṉ uru aru eṉa uṉṉiḍil, viṇ ṇōkkuṟa ulahu alai tarum oruvaṉai okkum. uṉ uru uṉal aṟa uṉṉiḍa, muṉ-nīr uṟu sarukkarai-y-uru eṉa uru ōyum. eṉṉai yāṉ aṟivuṟa, eṉ uru vēṟu ēdu? irundaṉai aruṇa-vāṉ-giri eṉa irundōy.

அன்வயம்: யான் நின்னை உரு என எண்ணியே நண்ண, நீ தான் நிலமிசை மலை எனும் நிலையினை. உன் உரு அரு என உன்னிடில், விண் நோக்குற உலகு அலை தரும் ஒருவனை ஒக்கும். உன் உரு உனல் அற உன்னிட, முன் நீர் உறு சருக்கரை உரு என உரு ஓயும். என்னை யான் அறிவுற, என் உரு வேறு ஏது? அருண வான் கிரி என இருந்தோய் இருந்தனை.

Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): yāṉ niṉṉai uru eṉa eṇṇiyē naṇṇa, nī-tāṉ nilamisai malai eṉum nilaiyiṉai. uṉ uru aru eṉa uṉṉiḍil, viṇ ṇōkkuṟa ulahu alai tarum oruvaṉai okkum. uṉ uru uṉal aṟa uṉṉiḍa, muṉ-nīr uṟu sarukkarai-y-uru eṉa uru ōyum. eṉṉai yāṉ aṟivuṟa, eṉ uru vēṟu ēdu? aruṇa-vāṉ-giri eṉa irundōy irundaṉai.

English translation: When I approach thinking of you as a form, you yourself have settled as a hill on earth. If one thinks of your form as formless, one is like someone who wanders the world to see the sky. When without thinking one thinks deeply of your form, form will cease like a salt doll touching the ocean. When I know myself, what else is my form? You who were as the great Aruna Hill have been.

Explanatory paraphrase: When I approach [you] thinking of you as a form, you yourself have settled [standing firmly] as a hill on earth. If one thinks of [or meditates upon] your form [or nature] as formless, one is like someone who wanders the world to see [or look at] the [omnipresent] sky [or space]. [But] when without thinking one thinks deeply of your form [that is, when one firmly fixes one’s attention only on ‘I am’, which is your true form or svarūpa], [one’s own] form [namely ego] will cease [to exist] like a salt doll touching [coming in contact with, joining or immersing in] the ocean. When I know myself, [other than you] what else is my form? You who were [or have been] as the great Aruna Hill [alone] have [always] been [or have remained (now that the appearance of my seemingly separate form and everything else has ceased to be)].

Padavurai (word-explanation): நின்னை (niṉṉai): you {accusative (second case) form of the second person singular pronoun} | யான் (yāṉ): I {first person singular pronoun} | உரு (uru): form | என (eṉa): as, as if, like {infinitive of eṉ, ‘say’, used as a particle of comparison} | எண்ணியே (eṇṇiyē): thinking, considering {intensified form of eṇṇi, adverbial participle of eṇṇu, ‘think’ or ‘consider’} | நண்ண (naṇṇa): when approaching, when [I] approach {infinitive of naṇṇu, ‘approach’ or ‘come near’} | நிலமிசை (nilamisai): on Earth {nilam means ‘ground’, ‘land’, ‘earth’, ‘soil’, ‘field’, ‘world’ or ‘Earth’, and misai is a locative (seventh case) ending} | மலை (malai): hill, mountain | எனும் (eṉum): as | நிலையினை (nilaiyiṉai): [you] have settled {second person singular past tense form of nilai, ‘settle’, ‘stay’, ‘stand firmly’ or ‘remain permanent’} | நீதான் (nī-tāṉ): you yourself {compound of the second person singular pronoun nī and the intensifying suffix tāṉ} >>> so this first sentence, ‘நின்னை யான் உரு என எண்ணியே நண்ண, நிலமிசை மலை எனும் நிலையினை நீ தான்’ (niṉṉai yāṉ uru eṉa eṇṇiyē naṇṇa, nilamisai malai eṉum nilaiyiṉai nī-tāṉ), means ‘When I approach thinking of you as a form, you yourself have settled as a hill on earth’, which implies:

When I approach [you] thinking of you as a form, you yourself have settled [standing firmly] as a hill on earth.

<<< உன் (uṉ): your {inflectional base and genitive (sixth case) form of the second person singular pronoun} | உரு (uru): form, nature | அரு (aru): formless | என (eṉa): as | உன்னிடில் (uṉṉiḍil): if thinking, if [one] thinks {conditional form of uṉṉu, ‘think’, ‘consider’ or ‘meditate’} | விண் (viṇ): sky, space | நோக்குற (ṇōkkuṟa): to see, to look at {infinitive} | உலகு (ulahu): the world | அலைதரும் (alai-tarum): wandering, who wanders {compound of alai, ‘wander’, ‘roam’ or ‘move about’, and the adjectival participle tarum, used here as an auxiliary} | ஒருவனை (oruvaṉai): a man, a person, someone {accusative (second case) form of oruvaṉ, masculine third person singular pronominal noun formed from the adjective oru, ‘one’} | ஒக்கும் (okkum): it resembles, it equals, it is like {future (but used generically as a continuous present) neuter third person form of o, ‘resemble’, ‘equal’ or ‘be like’, so in this context it can mean ‘it is like’, ‘that is like’ or ‘one is like’} >>> so this second sentence, ‘உன் உரு அரு என உன்னிடில், விண் நோக்குற உலகு அலை தரும் ஒருவனை ஒக்கும்’ (uṉ uru aru eṉa uṉṉiḍil, viṇ ṇōkkuṟa ulahu alai tarum oruvaṉai okkum), means ‘If one thinks of your form as formless, one is like someone who wanders the world to see the sky’, which implies:

If one thinks of [or meditates upon] your form [or nature] as formless, one is like someone who wanders the world to see [or look at] the [omnipresent] sky [or space].

<<< உன் (uṉ): your {inflectional base and genitive (sixth case) form of the second person singular pronoun} | உரு (uru): form, nature | உனல் (uṉal): thinking {verbal noun, poetic abbreviation of uṉṉal} | அற (aṟa): without | உன்னிட (uṉṉiḍa): when thinking deeply, when [one] thinks deeply {infinitive of uṉṉiḍu, ‘think’, compound of uṉṉu, ‘think’, and the auxiliary verb iḍu, which in this case conveys the intensifying force of the adverb ‘deeply’} | முந்நீர் (munnīr): sea, ocean {compound of muṉ, ‘three’, and nīr, ‘water’, so called because it forms, protects and destroys the land, and because it consists of river water, spring water and rain water} | உறு (uṟu): touch, come in contact with, join {root of this verb, used in the sense of an adjectival participle, ‘touching’ or ‘joining’} | சருக்கரையுரு (sarukkarai-y-uru): sugar form, salt doll {compound of sarukkarai, ‘sugar’, and uru, ‘form’, but implying a salt doll, because in some Tamil communities sarkkarai or sarukkarai, ‘sugar’, is used as a polite euphemism for salt} | என (eṉa): like {infinitive of eṉ, ‘say’, used as a particle of comparison} | உரு (uru): form | ஓயும் (ōyum): will cease {future neuter third person form of ōy, ‘cease’, ‘come to an end’, ‘expire’ or ‘die’} >>> so this third sentence, ‘உன் உரு உனல் அற உன்னிட, முன் நீர் உறு சருக்கரை உரு என உரு ஓயும்’ (uṉ uru uṉal aṟa uṉṉiḍa, muṉ-nīr uṟu sarukkarai-y-uru eṉa uru ōyum), means ‘When without thinking one thinks deeply of your form, form will cease like a salt doll touching the ocean’, which implies:

[But] when without thinking one thinks deeply of your form [that is, when one firmly fixes one’s attention only on ‘I am’, which is your true form or svarūpa], [one’s own] form [namely ego] will cease [to exist] like a salt doll touching [coming in contact with, joining or immersing in] the ocean.

<<< என்னை (eṉṉai): me, myself {accusative (second case) form of the first person singular pronoun} | யான் (yāṉ): I {nominative (first case) form of the first person singular pronoun} | அறிவுற (aṟivuṟa): when knowing, when coming to know {infinitive of aṟivuṟu, ‘know’, ‘come to know’ or ‘wake up’, which is a compound of aṟivu, ‘knowledge’ or ‘awareness’, and uṟu, ‘be’, ‘happen’ or ‘come to mind’} | என் (eṉ): my inflectional base and genitive (sixth case) form of the first person singular pronoun} | உரு (uru): form | வேறு (vēṟu): other, different, else | ஏது (ēdu): what {interrogative pronoun} >>> so this fourth sentence, ‘என்னை யான் அறிவுற, என் உரு வேறு ஏது?’ (eṉṉai yāṉ aṟivuṟa, eṉ uru vēṟu ēdu?), means ‘When I know myself, what else is my form?’, which implies:

When I know myself, [other than you] what else is my form?

<<< இருந்தனை (irundaṉai): [you] have been, [you] have remained {second person singular past tense form of iru, ‘be’, ‘exist’ or ‘remain’} | அருணவான்கிரி (aruṇa-vāṉ-giri): Aruna-great-hill, great Aruna Hill {compound of aruṇa, ‘Aruna’, vāṉ, ‘great’, and malai, ‘hill’ or ‘mountain’} | என (eṉa): as | இருந்தோய் (irundōy): you who were, you who have been {second person singular pronominal noun formed from irunda, the past adjectival participle of iru, ‘be’ or ‘exist’} >>> so this final sentence, ‘இருந்தனை அருண வான் கிரி என இருந்தோய்’ (irundaṉai aruṇa-vāṉ-giri eṉa irundōy), means ‘You who were as the great Aruna Hill have been’, which implies:

You who were [or have been] as the great Aruna Hill [alone] have [always] been [or have remained (now that the appearance of my seemingly separate form and everything else has ceased to be)].

1. God or brahman is infinite being-awareness, the ultimate source and substance of all things
2. Being infinite, God is formless, and being awareness, he is the ‘infinite eye’
3. Being the ‘infinite eye’, Arunachala is the ‘eye to the mind-eye’ and ‘space to the mind-space’
4. Bhagavan exemplified ēka-bhakti in his devotion not only to the external form of Arunachala but also to its svarūpa, infinite being-awareness
5. ‘If one thinks of your form as formless, one is like someone who wanders the world to see the sky’
6. ‘When without thinking one thinks deeply of your form, form will cease like a salt doll touching the ocean’
7. ‘When I know myself, [other than you] what else is my form?’
8. ‘You who were as the great Aruna Hill have [always] been [and have alone remained]’

1. God or brahman is infinite being-awareness, the ultimate source and substance of all things

‘सत्यंज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म’ (satyaṁ-jñānam-anantaṁ brahma), ‘Reality, awareness, infinite is brahman’: such is the definition of brahman given in the Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.1.1. This is the most fundamental and all-encompassing definition of God that is possible, as we can understand by considering the meaning and implication of each of these three words: सत्यम् (satyam), ज्ञानम् (jñānam) and अनन्तम् (anantam).

In this context सत्यम् (satyam) means what is real, in the sense of what actually is, so it is synonymous with सत् (sat), ‘being’ or ‘existence’. Since nothing can be other than being, it is ‘एकमेवाद्वितीयम्’ (ēkam ēva advitīyam), ‘one only without a second’, as stated in the Chāndōgya Upaniṣad 6.2.1-2, so insofar as there seem to be many things, being is the one essence of them all.

ज्ञानम् (jñānam) means awareness or consciousness, in the sense of pure awareness, which is the very nature of being, as Bhagavan points out in verse 23 of Upadēśa Undiyār:

உள்ள துணர வுணர்வுவே றின்மையி
னுள்ள துணர்வாகு முந்தீபற
      வுணர்வேநா மாயுள முந்தீபற.

uḷḷa duṇara vuṇarvuvē ṟiṉmaiyi
ṉuḷḷa duṇarvāhu mundīpaṟa
      vuṇarvēnā māyuḷa mundīpaṟa.

பதச்சேதம்: உள்ளது உணர உணர்வு வேறு இன்மையின், உள்ளது உணர்வு ஆகும். உணர்வே நாமாய் உளம்.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): uḷḷadu uṇara uṇarvu vēṟu iṉmaiyiṉ, uḷḷadu uṇarvu āhum. uṇarvē nām-āy uḷam.

English translation: Because of the non-being of other awareness to be aware of what is, what is is awareness. Awareness alone is as we.

That is, to be aware of what is (uḷḷadu), there must be something that is aware, but what is aware cannot be anything other than what is, because what is other than what is is what is not, meaning that there is no such thing. In other words, since there is awareness of being, being (uḷḷadu) is itself awareness (uṇarvu). Therefore, the very nature of being is to be aware of itself, so anything that is not aware of itself does not actually exist but merely seems to exist, and it seems to exist only in the view of whatever is aware of its seeming existence. And since being aware of itself means being aware of its own being, being is aware of itself as ‘I am’, so only what is aware of itself as ‘I am’ is what actually is. In other words, it alone is real being. Therefore, since we are aware of our own being as ‘I am’, we are not only what is aware but also what actually is, so after arriving at the logical conclusion of the first sentence of this verse, namely ‘உள்ளது உணர்வு ஆகும்’ (uḷḷadu uṇarvu āhum), ‘what is (uḷḷadu) is awareness (uṇarvu)’, in the second sentence he points out another conclusion, ‘உணர்வே நாமாய் உளம்’ (uṇarvē nām-āy uḷam), ‘Awareness alone is as we’, thereby implying that as pure awareness (awareness that is aware of nothing other than its own being, ‘I am’) we are what actually is.

Since there cannot be anything other than being, being includes all things within itself, so it is omnipresent, being immanent in each and every thing. However, since being is that from which all particular things derive their being, it is not limited either by any particular thing or by the sum total of all particular things, so it is not only immanent in all particular things but also transcends them. That is, being is necessarily antecedent to all things, including all limitations, because it is that from which everything derives its being, so being is अनन्तम् (anantam): endless, limitless, boundless or infinite. Whereas all particular things are finite, and hence the sum total of all particular things is also finite, being, which is the one underlying reality of all of them, is infinite.

All particular things appear and disappear in awareness, so awareness exists whether any or all of them appear or disappear, and hence it is independent of all of them, including all limitations of any kind whatsoever. Therefore, just as we can logically conclude that being is infinite, we can likewise logically conclude that awareness is infinite.

Infinite being-awareness (sat-cit) is therefore what is called brahman or God. It is the ultimate source and substance of all things, the ground from which and on which they appear and disappear, like the cinema screen on which streams of pictures appear and disappear.

2. Being infinite, God is formless, and being awareness, he is the ‘infinite eye’

Being infinite, God is formless, because forms of all kinds are finite, but though he is formless, he is the one reality that underlies and supports the appearance of all forms. However, so long as we rise as ego and thereby mistake ourself to be a form, namely this body consisting of five sheaths (the physical form of this body, the life that animates it, and the mind, intellect and will that operate within it), we cannot adequately grasp the infinite nature of God, so to us he seems to be a form (a particular thing) of one kind or another, as Bhagavan points in verse 4 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu:

உருவந்தா னாயி னுலகுபர மற்றா
முருவந்தா னன்றே லுவற்றி — னுருவத்தைக்
கண்ணுறுதல் யாவனெவன் கண்ணலாற் காட்சியுண்டோ
கண்ணதுதா னந்தமிலாக் கண்.

uruvandā ṉāyi ṉulahupara maṯṟā
muruvandā ṉaṉḏṟē luvaṯṟi — ṉuruvattaik
kaṇṇuṟudal yāvaṉevaṉ kaṇṇalāṯ kāṭciyuṇḍō
kaṇṇadutā ṉantamilāk kaṇ.

பதச்சேதம்: உருவம் தான் ஆயின், உலகு பரம் அற்று ஆம்; உருவம் தான் அன்றேல், உவற்றின் உருவத்தை கண் உறுதல் யாவன்? எவன்? கண் அலால் காட்சி உண்டோ? கண் அது தான், அந்தம் இலா கண்.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): uruvam tāṉ āyiṉ, ulahu param aṯṟu ām; uruvam tāṉ aṉḏṟēl, uvaṯṟiṉ uruvattai kaṇ uṟudal yāvaṉ? evaṉ? kaṇ alāl kāṭci uṇḍō? kaṇ adu tāṉ, antam-ilā kaṇ.

English translation: If oneself is a form, the world and God will be likewise; if oneself is not a form, who can see their forms? How? Can the seen be otherwise than the eye? The eye is oneself, the infinite eye.

Even if we believe that God is formless, or that he is infinite, our conception of him as such is just a thought or idea, which is a mental form, so through the medium of our finite mind we cannot know God as the infinite and therefore formless being that he actually is, but can only know him as a form of one kind of another. Even for those who believe that God does not exist, the God whose existence they deny must be a form (a particular thing) of one kind or another, because without a finite conception of God we cannot say either that he is or that he is not.

We know the world and God as forms only when we rise and stand as ego, thereby mistaking ourself to be the form of a body, as we do in both waking and dream, but when we do not rise or stand as ego, as in sleep, we do not know any forms at all, because we are then aware of nothing other than our own being, ‘I am’, as Bhagavan points out by saying: ‘உருவம் தான் ஆயின், உலகு பரம் அற்று ஆம்; உருவம் தான் அன்றேல், உவற்றின் உருவத்தை கண் உறுதல் யாவன்? எவன்?’ (uruvam tāṉ āyiṉ, ulahu param aṯṟu ām; uruvam tāṉ aṉḏṟēl, uvaṯṟiṉ uruvattai kaṇ uṟudal yāvaṉ? evaṉ?), ‘If oneself is a form, the world and God will be likewise; if oneself is not a form, who can see their forms? How [to see any forms]?’.

In waking and dream we know forms because we know ourself as a form, whereas in sleep we do not know any forms because we do not know ourself as a form. Therefore the nature of whatever we know (or are aware of) is determined by the nature of whatever we know ourself (the knower) to be, as Bhagavan implies by asking rhetorically: ‘கண் அலால் காட்சி உண்டோ?’ (kaṇ alāl kāṭci uṇḍō?), ‘Can the seen be otherwise than the eye?’. Here he uses the word ‘கண்’ (kaṇ), ‘eye’, as a metonym for what sees, perceives, knows or experiences, namely awareness, and though ‘அலால்’ (alāl), a poetic abbreviation of ‘அல்லால்’ (allāl), usually means ‘except’, ‘besides’ or ‘without’, he uses it here in the sense of ‘otherwise than’, thereby implying ‘of a different nature than’. ‘காட்சி’ (kāṭci) means ‘sight’, ‘view’ or ‘appearance’ in the sense of ‘what is seen’, thereby implying what is seen, perceived, known or experienced, and ‘உண்டோ’ (uṇḍō) is an interrogative verb that means ‘is there?’ but here implies ‘can it be?’, so this sentence implies that the nature of whatever is seen, perceived, known or experienced cannot be otherwise than the nature of what sees, perceives, knows or experiences it. Therefore, when we seemingly limit ourself by being aware of ourself as if we were a form, we will be aware of a myriad of other forms, which seem to be other than ourself but are actually just a series of mental fabrications (kalpanas) and hence nothing other than ourself.

The ‘eye’ (kaṇ) that sees forms is ourself as ego, because ego is what is aware of itself as ‘I am this body’, but this is not the real ‘eye’. The real ‘eye’ is pure awareness, which is infinite and therefore formless, and this is what we actually are, as he implies in the final sentence of this verse: ‘கண்ணது தான், அந்தமிலாக் கண்’ (kaṇ-ṇ-adu tāṉ, antam-ilā-k kaṇ), ‘The eye is oneself, the infinite eye’.

3. Being the ‘infinite eye’, Arunachala is the ‘eye to the mind-eye’ and ‘space to the mind-space’

When he says ‘கண்ணது தான்’ (kaṇ-ṇ-adu tāṉ), ‘The eye is oneself’, what he means by ‘தான்’ (tāṉ), ‘oneself’, is ourself as we actually are, which is what is called ātma-svarūpa (the real nature of oneself), so we as we actually are are ‘அந்தமிலாக் கண்’ (antam-ilā-k kaṇ), ‘the infinite eye’, which is a metaphorical way of saying ‘infinite awareness’. This ‘அந்தமிலாக் கண்’ (antam-ilā-k kaṇ), ‘infinite eye’, is not only what we actually are but also what Arunachala (God) actually is, so it is what Bhagavan refers to as ‘கண்ணுக்கு கண்’ (kaṇṇukku kaṇ), ‘the eye to the eye’ or ‘eye for the eye’, in verse 15 of Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai:

கண்ணுக்குக் கண்ணாய்க் கண்ணின்றிக் காணுனைக்
      காணுவ தெவர்பா ரருணாசலா

kaṇṇukkuk kaṇṇāyk kaṇṇiṉḏṟik kāṇuṉaik
      kāṇuva devarpā raruṇācalā

பதச்சேதம்: கண்ணுக்கு கண் ஆய் கண் இன்றி காண் உனை காணுவது எவர்? பார் அருணாசலா.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): kaṇṇukku kaṇ āy kaṇ iṉḏṟi kāṇ uṉai kāṇuvadu evar? pār aruṇācalā.

English translation: Arunachala, who can see you, who, being the eye to the eye, sees without eyes? See.

Being ‘அந்தமிலாக் கண்’ (antam-ilā-k kaṇ), ‘the infinite eye’, Arunachala is eternal and immutable, because whatever comes into being, ceases to be or is susceptible to change of any kind is thereby bound within the limits of time and hence is not infinite. Therefore, since Arunachala is eternal and immutable awareness, it is the original awareness from which ego not only rises but also borrows its awareness, namely the limited body-bound awareness by which it knows the appearance of forms (objects or phenomena), and hence Bhagavan describes Arunachala as ‘கண்ணுக்குக் கண்’ (kaṇṇukku-k kaṇ), ‘the eye to the eye’ or ‘eye for the eye’. The ‘eye’ (kaṇ) to which Arunachala is the ‘eye’ is ego, the finite ‘eye’ that sees the appearance of finite objects, namely forms of all kinds (both the subtle forms that appear within the mind as mental phenomena and the gross forms that seem to exist outside as physical phenomena).

What we as ego see as a multitude of forms or phenomena is what Arunachala sees as itself, the one infinite and indivisible space of pure being-awareness (sat-cit), so though we see what Arunachala sees, we do not see it as he sees it. As Bhagavan explains in verse 4 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, we see it as a multitude of forms because we see ourself as the form of this body, whereas Arunachala sees it as pure formless awareness because it sees itself as such. This is what Bhagavan implies when he says ‘கண் இன்றி காண் உனை’ (kaṇ iṉḏṟi kāṇ uṉai), ‘you, who sees without eyes’. To see what actually is as it actually is, Arunachala does not need any ‘eye’ other than itself, because it sees it just by being it, whereas to see it as a multitude of forms we need the body-bound mind-eye called ego.

Since Arunachala is the ‘eye’ that is pure awareness, it can never be seen as an object, so it can only be seen by being it. Therefore so long as we rise as ego, we cannot see Arunachala as it actually is, as he implies in this verse by asking rhetorically: ‘கண்ணுக்குக் கண் ஆய் கண் இன்றி காண் உனை காணுவது எவர்?’ (kaṇṇukku-k kaṇ āy kaṇ iṉḏṟi kāṇ uṉai kāṇuvadu evar?), ‘Who can see you, who, being the eye to the eye, sees without eyes?’. Only by the look of his eye, the eye of grace, will we have the love to look deep within ourself to see Arunachala shining within us as our own reality, and we will see it thus only by subsiding and thereby becoming one with it, as he points out in verse 8 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: ‘அம்மெய்ப்பொருளின் உண்மையில் தன் உண்மையினை ஓர்ந்து, ஒடுங்கி ஒன்றுதலே உண்மையில் காணல்’ (a-m-mey-p-poruḷiṉ uṇmaiyil taṉ uṇmaiyiṉai ōrndu, oḍuṅgi oṉḏṟudalē uṇmaiyil kāṇal), ‘[by] investigating [or knowing] the reality of oneself, [and by thereby] dissolving [or subsiding] in the reality of that mey-p-poruḷ [real substance, namely God or brahman], becoming one [with it] alone is seeing [it] in reality’. Therefore, since seeing him thus by being him is possible only by the look of his grace, Bhagavan ends this fifteenth verse of Akṣaramaṇamālai with a simple one-word prayer, ‘பார்’ (pār), ‘See’, thereby beseeching Arunachala to see him in such a way that he is made to see himself as he actually is, namely as ‘அந்தமிலாக் கண்’ (antam-ilā-k kaṇ), ‘the infinite eye’, which is the eye of pure awareness, the eye to the mind-eye.

What exactly he means by the phrase ‘கண்ணுக்குக் கண்’ (kaṇṇukku-k kaṇ), ‘the eye to the eye’, is made even more clear by him in verse 5 of Āṉma-Viddai:

விண்ணா தியவிளக்குங் கண்ணா தியபொறிக்குங்
கண்ணா மனக்கணுக்குங் கண்ணாய் மனவிணுக்கும்
விண்ணா யொருபொருள்வே றெண்ணா திருந்தபடி
யுண்ணா டுளத்தொளிரு மண்ணா மலையெனான்மா —
   காணுமே; அருளும் வேணுமே; அன்பு பூணுமே;
      இன்பு தோணுமே.

viṇṇā diyaviḷakkuṅ kaṇṇā diyapoṟikkuṅ
kaṇṇā maṉakkaṇukkuṅ kaṇṇāy maṉaviṇukkum
viṇṇā yoruporuḷvē ṟeṇṇā dirundapaḍi
yuṇṇā ḍuḷattoḷiru maṇṇā malaiyeṉāṉmā —
   kāṇumē; aruḷum vēṇumē; aṉbu pūṇumē;
      iṉbu tōṇumē.

பதச்சேதம்: விண் ஆதிய விளக்கும் கண் ஆதிய பொறிக்கும் கண் ஆம் மனக் கணுக்கும் கண் ஆய், மன விணுக்கும் விண் ஆய் ஒரு பொருள் வேறு எண்ணாது இருந்தபடி உள் நாடு உளத்து ஒளிரும் அண்ணாமலை என் ஆன்மா காணுமே. அருளும் வேணுமே. அன்பு பூணுமே. இன்பு தோணுமே.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): viṇ ādiya viḷakkum kaṇ ādiya poṟikkum kaṇ ām maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ āy, maṉa-viṇukkum viṇ āy oru poruḷ vēṟu eṇṇādu irundapaḍi uḷ nāḍu uḷattu oḷirum aṇṇāmalai eṉ āṉmā kāṇumē. aruḷum vēṇumē. aṉbu pūṇumē. iṉbu tōṇumē.

English translation: In the heart that investigates within, [just being] as it is without thinking of anything other [than itself], ātmā [oneself], which is called Annamalai [Arunachala], the one poruḷ [real substance], which shines as the eye even to the mind-eye, which is the eye to all the [five] sense organs beginning with eyes, which illumine those beginning with space [namely the five elements], and as the space even to the mind-space, will certainly be seen. Grace also is certainly necessary. Be adorned with love. Happiness will certainly appear.

Annamalai is a Tamil name for Arunachala, and ‘அண்ணாமலை என் ஆன்மா’ (aṇṇāmalai eṉ āṉmā) means both ‘ātmā [oneself], which is called Annamalai’ and ‘Annamalai, my self’, so it implies that what is called Annamalai or Arunachala is both ourself as we actually are and Bhagavan as he actually is. Moreover, it is ‘ஒரு பொருள்’ (oru poruḷ), ‘the one substance’, meaning the one real substance (vastu), the substance that all things ultimately are. It is also what shines as ‘விண் ஆதிய விளக்கும் கண் ஆதிய பொறிக்கும் கண் ஆம் மனக் கணுக்கும் கண்’ (viṇ ādiya viḷakkum kaṇ ādiya poṟikkum kaṇ ām maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ), ‘the eye even to the mind-eye, which is the eye to all the [five] sense organs beginning with eyes, which illumine those beginning with space [namely the five elements]’, and ‘மன விணுக்கும் விண்’ (maṉa-viṇukkum viṇ), ‘the space even to the mind-space’.

‘மனக்கண்’ (maṉa-k-kaṇ), ‘the mind-eye’, is ego, the seeing or knowing element of the mind, as opposed all the other elements of the mind, which are objects or phenomena known by ego. It is described as being ‘கண் ஆதிய பொறிக்கும் கண்’ (kaṇ ādiya poṟikkum kaṇ), ‘the eye to all the sense organs beginning with eyes’, because it is what perceives the appearance of the world as a picture consisting of five kinds of sense impressions, namely sights, sounds, smells, tastes and tactile sensations, which are impressions fed to it by the five sense organs. Since the sense organs are not aware, they do not actually perceive anything, so they are just windows through which ego, the mind-eye, perceives the world. Ego perceives the phenomena that constitute both the external world of physical phenomena and the internal world of mental phenomena because it is endowed with awareness, but it derives its awareness from the light of pure awareness. That is, the awareness that is ego is what Bhagavan called ‘சுட்டறிவு’ (suṭṭaṟivu), ‘transitive awareness’, meaning that it is an object-knowing awareness, so (as he points out in verse 7 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu) it appears along with phenomena in waking and dream and disappears along with them in sleep, whereas pure awareness is what he called ‘சுட்டற்ற அறிவு’ (suṭṭaṯṟa aṟivu) , ‘intransitive awareness’, meaning that it does not know objects or phenomena but only itself, its own being, ‘I am’, so it does not either appear or disappear but shines eternally and without a break, not only in waking and dream but also in sleep.

Since ego is only a temporary awareness, it is not real, whereas pure awareness is permanent and hence real, so pure awareness (intransitive awareness) is fundamental whereas ego (transitive awareness) is secondary and derived. We cannot be aware of phenomena without being aware, but we can be aware without being aware of any phenomena, as we are in sleep. Therefore the source from which ego derives its temporary awareness (transitive awareness) is pure awareness (intransitive awareness), and hence Bhagavan describes pure awareness as ‘மனக் கணுக்கும் கண்’ (maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ), ‘the eye even to the mind-eye’.

Not only is Arunachala ‘மனக் கணுக்கும் கண்’ (maṉa-k-kaṇukkum kaṇ), ‘the eye even to the mind-eye’, but it is also ‘மன விணுக்கும் விண்’ (maṉa-viṇukkum viṇ), ‘the space even to the mind-space’. The space that Bhagavan refers to when he says ‘விண் ஆதிய விளக்கும் கண் ஆதிய பொறிக்கும் கண் ஆம் மனக் கண்’ (viṇ ādiya viḷakkum kaṇ ādiya poṟikkum kaṇ ām maṉa-k-kaṇ), ‘the mind-eye, which is the eye to all the sense organs beginning with eyes, which illumine those beginning with space [namely the five elements]’, is physical space, and since the vast physical space, in which all other physical phenomena are contained, is just a mental impression, the entire physical space (bhūtākāśa) is contained within the mind-space (manākāśa), just as the space perceived in a dream (along with all the phenomena contained in it) is contained within the mind-space. However, neither the physical space nor the mind-space are real, because it is only in the mind-space that the physical space seems to exist, and the mind-space appears in waking and dream but disappears in sleep, so they are both impermanent and hence finite. The space from which the mind-space appears, in which it seems to exist and into which it disappears is the consciousness-space (cidākāśa), the space of pure awareness, which is permanent and infinite, being what alone actually exists. Therefore Arunachala, which is the infinite space of pure awareness, is ‘மன விணுக்கும் விண்’ (maṉa-viṇukkum viṇ), ‘the space even to the mind-space’.

4. Bhagavan exemplified ēka-bhakti in his devotion not only to the external form of Arunachala but also to its svarūpa, infinite being-awareness

Though such is the real nature of Arunachala, we cannot know him as such so long as we rise and stand as ego, because pure awareness can never be an object of awareness, so we can know it only by being it. Though it is what we always actually are, when we rise as ego we seem to be something else, because as ego we always mistake ourself to be the form of a body, and as Bhagavan says in verse 4 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, discussed above: ‘உருவம் தான் ஆயின், உலகு பரம் அற்று ஆம்’ (uruvam tāṉ āyiṉ, ulahu param aṯṟu ām), ‘If oneself is a form, the world and God will be likewise’. That is, so long as we mistake ourself to be the finite form of a body, we cannot know God as infinite being-awareness, even though that is what we always actually are, but can only know him as a form, because whatever conception (or even perception) we may have of him is only a mental form (as Bhagavan points out in verse 20 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu). Even if we consider him to be infinite and therefore formless, that is only an idea, and all ideas or conceptions are just mental forms or phenomena.

Therefore, so long as we rise as ego and consequently mistake ourself to be a finite form, it is appropriate for us to adore and worship God as a form, because whatever form we consider him to be will serve as a focus and support for our love and devotion, as Bhagavan indicates in the first line of this third verse of Śrī Aruṇācala Aṣṭakam: ‘நின்னை யான் உரு என எண்ணியே நண்ண, நிலமிசை மலை எனும் நிலையினை நீ தான்’ (niṉṉai yāṉ uru eṉa eṇṇiyē naṇṇa, nilamisai malai eṉum nilaiyiṉai nī-tāṉ), ‘When I approach thinking of you as a form, you yourself have settled [standing firmly] as a hill on earth’. That is, though he says in the second line of the next verse, ‘இருந்து ஒளிர் உனை அறிவு உறுத்திடற்கு என்றே, இருந்தனை மதம் தொறும் வித வித உருவாய்’ (irundu oḷir uṉai aṟivu uṟuttiḍaṟku eṉḏṟē, irundaṉai matam toṟum vidha vidha uruvāy), ‘Only to make yourself, who exist and shine, known, you have been as various forms in every creed’, thereby implying ‘Only to make yourself, who exist and shine [eternally as the sole reality], known [to those who fail to recognise you shining in their heart as they own being], you have been [appearing] as various forms in every mata [creed or set of religious beliefs]’, among all the many forms in which God has appeared for the sake of his devotees, the form that attracted Bhagavan, pulling him to itself and thereby transforming him into itself, like a magnet pulling iron towards itself and thereby transforming it into a magnet, is this divine hill called Arunachala.

Thus in this first line Bhagavan indicates the importance of ēka-bhakti, one-pointed devotion to a single form of God. Focusing our devotion on just one form of God in this way is not disrespecting other forms of God, but is born out of the recognition that since God is one, it is appropriate for us to be devoted to just one of his many forms, while respecting all his other forms as different manifestations of the one form we love the most. If instead we worship many forms of God, our mind will thereby be scattered and our devotion dissipated.

Every true spiritual path is a journey leading from manyness towards absolute oneness, in which there are no others, because the ultimate reality (brahman) is ‘one only without a second’ (ēkam ēva advitīyam), as taught in the Chāndōgya Upaniṣad 6.2.1-2, so though the path of devotion (bhakti) may begin with the worship of many names and forms of God, it gradually matures into ēka-bhakti, devotion to one form of God above all others. Whichever form of God becomes the focus for our devotion is called our iṣṭa-dēva, ‘beloved God’ or ‘favourite God’, and as our devotion grows by its grace, our iṣṭa-dēva reveals itself first as our guru and eventually as ātma-svarūpa, the real nature of ourself, meaning ourself as we actually are. Thus our devotion develops from the preliminary stages of anya-bhakti, devotion to God as someone other (anya) than ourself, to the more advanced stage of ananya-bhakti, devotion to God as none other (ananya) than ourself, which is the most mature form of ēka-bhakti and therefore the best among all forms of bhakti, as Bhagavan teaches us in verse 8 of Upadēśa Undiyār:

அனியபா வத்தி னவனக மாகு
மனனிய பாவமே யுந்தீபற
     வனைத்தினு முத்தம முந்தீபற.

aṉiyabhā vatti ṉavaṉaha māhu
maṉaṉiya bhāvamē yundīpaṟa
     vaṉaittiṉu muttama mundīpaṟa.

பதச்சேதம்: அனிய பாவத்தின் அவன் அகம் ஆகும் அனனிய பாவமே அனைத்தினும் உத்தமம்.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): aṉiya-bhāvattiṉ avaṉ aham āhum aṉaṉiya-bhāvam-ē aṉaittiṉ-um uttamam.

English translation: Rather than anya-bhāva [meditation on anything other than oneself, particularly meditation on God as if he were other than oneself], ananya-bhāva [meditation on nothing other than oneself], in which he is [understood to be] I, certainly is the best among all [practices of bhakti].

The fruit to be gained by anya-bhakti, devotion to God as other than ourself, is that eventually by his grace we will gain the clarity to understand that since he is infinite being, nothing can be other than him, so even though we now seem to be a finite person, he is actually our own very being, ‘I am’, and hence not anything other than us. He is our own reality, meaning what we actually are, so to know him as he actually is we need to know ourself as we actually are. We seem to be something other than him only because as ego (the soul or jīva) we identify ourself with a set of limiting adjuncts (upādhis), namely a body consisting of five sheaths (the physical form of the body, the life that animates it, and the mind, intellect and will that operate within it), so to know ourself as we actually are we need to know ourself without any adjuncts, which we can do only by attending to ourself so keenly that we thereby cease to be aware of anything else, including any adjuncts, as Bhagavan points out in verses 24 and 25 of Upadēśa Undiyār:

இருக்கு மியற்கையா லீசசீ வர்க
ளொருபொரு ளேயாவ ருந்தீபற
      வுபாதி யுணர்வேவே றுந்தீபற.

irukku miyaṟkaiyā līśajī varga
ḷoruporu ḷēyāva rundīpaṟa
      vupādhi yuṇarvēvē ṟundīpaṟa.

பதச்சேதம்: இருக்கும் இயற்கையால் ஈச சீவர்கள் ஒரு பொருளே ஆவர். உபாதி உணர்வே வேறு.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): irukkum iyaṯkaiyāl īśa-jīvargaḷ oru poruḷē āvar. upādhi-uṇarvē vēṟu.

English translation: By existing nature, God and soul are just one substance. Only adjunct-awareness is different.

Explanatory paraphrase: By [their] being nature, īśa [God] and jīva [soul] are just one poruḷ [substance or vastu]. Only upādhi-uṇarvu [adjunct-awareness] is [what makes them seem] different.

தன்னை யுபாதிவிட் டோர்வது தானீசன்
றன்னை யுணர்வதா முந்தீபற
      தானா யொளிர்வதா லுந்தீபற.

taṉṉai yupādhiviṭ ṭōrvadu tāṉīśaṉ
ḏṟaṉṉai yuṇarvadā mundīpaṟa
      tāṉā yoḷirvadā lundīpaṟa.

பதச்சேதம்: தன்னை உபாதி விட்டு ஓர்வது தான் ஈசன் தன்னை உணர்வது ஆம், தானாய் ஒளிர்வதால்.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): taṉṉai upādhi viṭṭu ōrvadu tāṉ īśaṉ taṉṉai uṇarvadu ām, tāṉ-āy oḷirvadāl.

English translation: Knowing oneself without adjuncts is itself knowing God, because of [God being what is always] shining as oneself.

Since God and we are just one substance (poruḷ or vastu), namely pure being-awareness (sat-cit), he is what we actually are, so he shines within us eternally as our own being, our fundamental awareness, ‘I am’. Therefore to meditate on him as he actually is, we need to meditate on nothing other than ourself, which is what Bhagavan means in verse 8 of Upadēśa Undiyār by the term ananya-bhāva, ‘otherless meditation’ or ‘meditation on what is not other’, thereby implying being self-attentive, so ‘ananya-bhāva’ is a synonym for ātma-vicāra, self-investigation.

Whereas attending to anything other than ourself is a mental activity, attending to ourself alone is not a mental activity but a cessation of all mental activity, because as Bhagavan indicated in verse 25 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, the nature of ego is to ‘grasp form’, which means to attend to things other than itself, because without doing so it cannot rise, stand or flourish, but if it attends only to itself, it will thereby subside and dissolve back into the source from which it had risen, namely our own being. The more keenly we attend to ourself, the more we as ego will subside, and to the extent to which we subside, all our mental activity will subside along with us, so by the keenness, intensity or strength of our self-attentiveness or ananya-bhāva we will subside completely and thereby remain in our natural state of just being, which transcends all mental activity, as he points out in verse 9 of Upadēśa Undiyār:

பாவ பலத்தினாற் பாவனா தீதசற்
பாவத் திருத்தலே யுந்தீபற
     பரபத்தி தத்துவ முந்தீபற.

bhāva balattiṉāṯ bhāvaṉā tītasaṯ
bhāvat tiruttalē yundīpaṟa
     parabhatti tattuva mundīpaṟa.

பதச்சேதம்: பாவ பலத்தினால் பாவனாதீத சத் பாவத்து இருத்தலே பரபத்தி தத்துவம்.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): bhāva balattiṉāl bhāvaṉātīta sat-bhāvattu iruttalē para-bhatti tattuvam.

English translation: By the strength of meditation, being in sat-bhāva [the state of being], which transcends bhāvanā, alone is para-bhakti tattva [the nature, reality or true state of supreme devotion].

In this context ‘பாவ பலத்தினால்’ (bhāva balattiṉāl), ‘by the strength of meditation’, implies by the strength of ananya-bhāva, which Bhagavan extolled in the previous verse, or in other words, by the strength, intensity, firmness or stability of self-attentiveness. By the intensity of self-attentiveness we will subside and remain firmly established in sat-bhāva, ‘the state of being’, which is our natural state of just being as we actually are. Since being as we actually are means being without rising as ego, this state of being (sat-bhāva) is bhāvana-transcending (bhāvanātīta), which in this context implies that it transcends all thinking, imagination or meditation in the sense of mental activity, because in the absence of ego there can be no mental activity.

Since we cannot be in our natural state of just being without ceasing to rise as ego, ‘சத் பாவத்து இருத்தல்’ (sat-bhāvattu iruttal), ‘being in sat-bhāva’, is the state of complete self-surrender, which is para-bhakti tattva, the nature, reality or true state of supreme devotion. Subsiding and thereby being in our natural state of being by means of intense self-attentiveness is therefore the pinnacle of the path of devotion (bhakti), the culmination of all other practices of devotion. Not only that, it is also the culmination of all other forms of spiritual practice, which are generally classified into four groups, namely niṣkāmya karma (action done without desire for its fruit), bhakti (devotion), yōga (the classical aṣṭāṅga yōga, ‘eight-limbed yōga’, as expounded by Patanjali in his Yōga Sūtra) and jñāna (knowledge), as Bhagavan says in verse 10 of Upadēśa Undiyār:

உதித்த விடத்தி லொடுங்கி யிருத்த
லதுகன்மம் பத்தியு முந்தீபற
     வதுயோக ஞானமு முந்தீபற.

uditta viḍatti loḍuṅgi yirutta
ladukaṉmam bhattiyu mundīpaṟa
     vaduyōga ñāṉamu mundīpaṟa.

பதச்சேதம்: உதித்த இடத்தில் ஒடுங்கி இருத்தல்: அது கன்மம் பத்தியும்; அது யோகம் ஞானமும்.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): uditta iḍattil oḍuṅgi iruttal: adu kaṉmam bhatti-y-um; adu yōgam ñāṉam-um.

English translation: Being, having subsided in the place from which one rose [namely sat-cit, pure being-awareness]: that is karma and bhakti; that is yōga and jñāna.

Since subsiding and being as we actually are by means of self-investigation is the culmination of the path of bhakti, and since ēka-bhakti is central to all but the most superficial forms of bhakti, Bhagavan exemplified ēka-bhakti in his devotion not only to the external form of Arunachala but also to its svarūpa, which is the infinite being-awareness (sat-cit) that shines eternally in our heart as our own being, ‘I am’.

5. ‘If one thinks of your form as formless, one is like someone who wanders the world to see the sky’

Having said in the first line of this third verse of Aṣṭakam, ‘நின்னை யான் உரு என எண்ணியே நண்ண, நிலமிசை மலை எனும் நிலையினை நீ தான்’ (niṉṉai yāṉ uru eṉa eṇṇiyē naṇṇa, nilamisai malai eṉum nilaiyiṉai nī-tāṉ), ‘When I approach thinking of you as a form, you yourself have settled [standing firmly] as a hill on earth’, in the second line he says: ‘உன் உரு அரு என உன்னிடில், விண் நோக்குற உலகு அலை தரும் ஒருவனை ஒக்கும்’ (uṉ uru aru eṉa uṉṉiḍil, viṇ ṇōkkuṟa ulahu alai tarum oruvaṉai okkum), ‘If one thinks of your form as formless, one is like someone who wanders the world to see the sky’. ‘உன் உரு’ (uṉ uru), ‘your form’, here implies the real nature (svarūpa) of Arunachala (meaning what it actually is), which is formless, but trying to conceive or know the real formless nature of Arunachala without knowing the real formless nature of ourself is futile, because we can know it only by being it, and we can be it only by ceasing to rise as ego, which we can achieve only by means of keen and intense ananya-bhāva, meditation on nothing other than ourself alone.

That is, as this finite and form-bound mind, we cannot adequately conceive the infinite and therefore formless reality called God or Arunachala, so his real formless nature (svarūpa) is beyond the range of thought or mental conception, and hence if we try to think of him as infinite or formless, we will be thinking only of a mental image, a conception of him, rather than him as he actually is. To illustrate the futility of trying to do so, Bhagavan gives an analogy, saying ‘விண் நோக்குற உலகு அலை தரும் ஒருவனை ஒக்கும்’ (viṇ ṇōkkuṟa ulahu alai tarum oruvaṉai okkum), ‘that is [or one is] like someone who wanders the world to see [or look at] the [omnipresent] sky [or space]’. விண் (viṇ) means the same as the Sanskrit आकाश (ākāśa), namely both ‘sky’ and ‘space’, so this analogy can be interpreted in two ways, which complement each other. If we take விண் (viṇ) in the sense of sky, wandering the world to see the sky implies trying to get nearer to the sky to see it more closely, but though it seems to be touching the distant horizon, no matter how far we wander it will always seem to be far away. If on the other hand we take விண் (viṇ) in the sense of space, we do not need to wander anywhere to see it, because it is omnipresent and hence always here and now.

Likewise, though the infinite and formless nature of God may seem to be far away and out of our reach, it is actually eternally present as our own being, so in order to know it as it is, we need not try to think of it but just need to turn our attention back within to see ourself as we actually are. Trying to think of it as if it were something other than ourself is like wandering all over the world trying to see space, having failed to recognise that space is omnipresent and therefore always closer than the closest.

If we take the formless nature of God to be something other than ourself, we are in effect mistaking the formless to be a form, because otherness exists only in the finite world of forms and not in the formless reality, which is infinite and therefore ‘one only without a second’ (ēkam ēva advitīyam). That is, every form is a limitation, and every limited thing is a form of one kind or another, whereas the formless is boundless and therefore unlimited, so there cannot be anything other than that. What is formless is only sat-cit, pure being-awareness, meaning that it is infinite being (sat), which is itself infinite awareness (cit), so it is the one ultimate substance (poruḷ or vastu), which is the sole reality underlying the appearance of all forms.

6. ‘When without thinking one thinks deeply of your form, form will cease like a salt doll touching the ocean’

Such is the formless nature of God, so it is the reality of ourself, meaning that it is what we always actually are, and hence we can never know it as something other than ourself. We can only know it as our own reality, and in order to know our own reality we need to attend to ourself so keenly that we thereby cease to be aware of anything other than ourself alone. As explained above, attending to anything other than ourself is a mental activity, whereas attending only to ourself is a cessation of all mental activity, so being exclusively self-attentive is what Bhagavan describes as ‘thinking without thinking’ in the third line of this verse: ‘உன் உரு உனல் அற உன்னிட, முன் நீர் உறு சருக்கரை உரு என உரு ஓயும்’ (uṉ uru uṉal aṟa uṉṉiḍa, muṉ-nīr uṟu sarukkarai-y-uru eṉa uru ōyum), ‘When without thinking one thinks deeply of your form, form will cease like a salt doll touching the ocean’.

‘உன் உரு’ (uṉ uru) literally means ‘your form’ but here implies ‘your svarūpa’, so since the svarūpa (‘own form’ or real nature) of Arunachala is ātma-svarūpa, the real nature of ourself (meaning ourself as we actually are), we cannot know it or meditate upon it as anything other than ourself, so ‘உன் உரு உனல் அற உன்னிட’ (uṉ uru uṉal aṟa uṉṉiḍa), ‘when without thinking one thinks deeply of your form’, implies when we meditate deeply on our own svarūpa, which is the svarūpa of Arunachala.

Attending to and thereby being aware of anything other than ourself is a mental activity, which is what Bhagavan means here by ‘உனல்’ (uṉal), ‘thinking’, so since attending to and thereby being aware of ourself alone is not a mental activity but a state of just being, he describes it metaphorically as ‘உன்னிட’ (uṉṉiḍa), ‘when thinking deeply’ or ‘when one thinks deeply’, but clarifies that it is not actually thinking by saying ‘உனல் அற உன்னிட’ (uṉal aṟa uṉṉiḍa), ‘when thinking deeply without thinking’. Therefore ‘உன் உரு உனல் அற உன்னிட’ (uṉ uru uṉal aṟa uṉṉiḍa), ‘when without thinking one thinks deeply of your form’, is a beautifully subtle, clear and profound description of the state of being so keenly self-attentive that we thereby cease to be aware of anything other than ourself as ātma-svarūpa, which is the real ‘form’ or svarūpa of Arunachala.

If we attend to ourself so keenly and deeply that we thereby cease thinking of anything else, the result will be that ‘முன் நீர் உறு சருக்கரை உரு என உரு ஓயும்’ (muṉ-nīr uṟu sarukkarai-y-uru eṉa uru ōyum), ‘form will cease like a salt doll touching the ocean’, thereby implying that our form as ego will cease to exist like a salt doll touching, coming in contact with, joining or immersing in the ocean. Though ‘சருக்கரையுரு’ (sarukkarai-y-uru) literally means ‘sugar form’, in this context it implies a salt doll, because in some Tamil communities சர்க்கரை (sarkkarai) or சருக்கரை (sarukkarai), ‘sugar’, is used as a polite euphemism for salt. If a doll made of salt tries to know what the ocean is by immersing itself in it, it will thereby dissolve and become one with it. Likewise, when we as ego try to know what we actually are by immersing ourself in self-attentiveness, we will thereby dissolve back into our own svarūpa, and thus we will cease to exist as ego and will remain eternally as ātma-svarūpa, which is what we always actually are and also what Arunachala actually is.

‘உரு ஓயும்’ (uru ōyum), ‘form will cease’, implies not only that our form as ego will cease to exist but that all other forms will cease to exist along with it, because forms seem to exist only in the view of ourself as ego, and hence they will no longer seem to exist when ego ceases, as Bhagavan points out not only in verse 7 of this Aṣṭakam, ‘இன்று அகம் எனும் நினைவு எனில், பிற ஒன்றும் இன்று’ (iṉḏṟu aham eṉum niṉaivu eṉil, piṟa oṉḏṟum iṉḏṟu), ‘If the thought called ‘I’ [namely ego] does not exist, even one other thing will not exist’, and in verse 4 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, ‘உருவம் தான் ஆயின், உலகு பரம் அற்று ஆம்; உருவம் தான் அன்றேல், உவற்றின் உருவத்தை கண் உறுதல் யாவன்? எவன்?’ (uruvam tāṉ āyiṉ, ulahu param aṯṟu ām; uruvam tāṉ aṉḏṟēl, uvaṯṟiṉ uruvattai kaṇ uṟudal yāvaṉ? evaṉ?), ‘If oneself is a form, the world and God will be likewise; if oneself is not a form, who can see their forms? How [to see any forms]?’, but also in verse 26 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu:

அகந்தையுண் டாயி னனைத்துமுண் டாகு
மகந்தையின் றேலின் றனைத்து — மகந்தையே
யாவுமா மாதலால் யாதிதென்று நாடலே
யோவுதல் யாவுமென வோர்.

ahandaiyuṇ ḍāyi ṉaṉaittumuṇ ḍāhu
mahandaiyiṉ ḏṟēliṉ ḏṟaṉaittu — mahandaiyē
yāvumā mādalāl yādideṉḏṟu nāḍalē
yōvudal yāvumeṉa vōr.

பதச்சேதம்: அகந்தை உண்டாயின், அனைத்தும் உண்டாகும்; அகந்தை இன்றேல், இன்று அனைத்தும். அகந்தையே யாவும் ஆம். ஆதலால், யாது இது என்று நாடலே ஓவுதல் யாவும் என ஓர்.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): ahandai uṇḍāyiṉ, aṉaittum uṇḍāhum; ahandai iṉḏṟēl, iṉḏṟu aṉaittum. ahandai-y-ē yāvum ām. ādalāl, yādu idu eṉḏṟu nāḍal-ē ōvudal yāvum eṉa ōr.

English translation: If ego comes into existence, everything comes into existence; if ego does not exist, everything does not exist. Ego itself is everything. Therefore, know that investigating what this [namely ego] is alone is giving up everything.

7. ‘When I know myself, [other than you] what else is my form?’

When a salt doll dissolves in the ocean, it loses its separate existence (its form) by ceasing to be a salt doll, but it (as its substance) thereby remains as one with the ocean, its source. Likewise, when we as ego dissolve back into our own svarūpa, we will lose our separate existence (our form) by ceasing to be ego, but by discovering ourself to be nothing other than svarūpa, our source and substance, we will remain as it, as Bhagavan implies by asking rhetorically in the first sentence in the fourth line of this verse: ‘என்னை யான் அறிவுற, என் உரு வேறு ஏது?’ (eṉṉai yāṉ aṟivuṟa, eṉ uru vēṟu ēdu?), ‘When I know myself, what else is my form?’.

‘என் உரு வேறு ஏது?’ (eṉ uru vēṟu ēdu?), ‘what else is my form?’ or ‘what other is my form?’, implies ‘other than you, what is my form?’. So long as we rise and stand as ego, we seem to separate from God or Arunachala, but when we know ourself as we actually are, it will be clear that we are nothing other than him. In other words, our svarūpa (what we actually are) is just his svarūpa (what he actually is).

His svarūpa is the infinite clarity of pure being-awareness (sat-cit), so when we know ourself as that, we as ego will dissolve in that like a salt doll dissolving in the ocean. However, this does not mean that we become his svarūpa, but that by losing ourself in it we discover that it is what we eternally are. Even now, when we seem to have risen as ego and consequently know ourself as if we were a body, we are actually nothing other than his svarūpa. Therefore, since his svarūpa always knows itself as it actually is, it is only as ego that we seem to not know ourself as we actually are, namely as his svarūpa.

Hence, when we as ego turn our entire attention back within to know ourself as we actually are, we will thereby be consumed completely by the infinite clarity of pure being-awareness, which is Arunachala, and hence he alone will remain as ‘one only without a second’ (ēkam ēva advitīyam). Therefore it is only by becoming his food in this way that we can know ourself as we actually are, which alone is knowing him as he actually is, as Bhagavan points out in verse 21 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu:

தன்னைத்தான் காண றலைவன் றனைக்காண
லென்னும்பன் னூலுண்மை யென்னையெனின் — றன்னைத்தான்
காணலெவன் றானொன்றாற் காணவொணா தேற்றலைவற்
காணலெவ னூணாதல் காண்.

taṉṉaittāṉ kāṇa ṯalaivaṉ ḏṟaṉaikkāṇa
leṉṉumpaṉ ṉūluṇmai yeṉṉaiyeṉiṉ — ḏṟaṉṉaittāṉ
kāṇalevaṉ ḏṟāṉoṉḏṟāṯ kāṇavoṇā dēṯṟalaivaṯ
kāṇaleva ṉūṇādal kāṇ.

பதச்சேதம்: ‘தன்னை தான் காணல்’, ‘தலைவன் தனை காணல்’ என்னும் பல் நூல் உண்மை என்னை எனின்: தன்னை தான் காணல் எவன், தான் ஒன்றால்? காண ஒணாதேல், தலைவன் காணல் எவன்? ஊண் ஆதல் காண்.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): ‘taṉṉai tāṉ kāṇal’, ‘talaivaṉ taṉai kāṇal’ eṉṉum pal nūl uṇmai eṉṉai eṉiṉ: taṉṉai tāṉ kāṇal evaṉ, tāṉ oṉḏṟāl? kāṇa oṇādēl, talaivaṉ kāṇal evaṉ? ūṇ ādal kāṇ.

English translation: If one asks what is the truth of many texts that talk of ‘oneself seeing oneself’ [and] ‘seeing God’ [the reply is]: Since oneself is one, how is oneself to see oneself? If it is not possible [for oneself] to see [oneself], how [is oneself] to see God [who is the real nature of oneself]? Becoming food [to God] is seeing [both oneself and God].

When we thus become food to him, he alone remains, shining eternally as our own being, so what sees or knows him is he alone. Thus we see him only by being him. Seeing him in any other way is just seeing ‘மனோமயம் ஆம் காட்சி’ (maṉōmayam ām kāṭci), a ‘mental vision’ or ‘mind-constituted image’, as Bhagavan says in verse 20 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu.

8. ‘You who were as the great Aruna Hill have [always] been [and have alone remained]’

When we thus see him as he actually is, namely as our own svarūpa, it will be clear not only that he alone is what has always been, but also that he was what was shining as the form of the great Aruna Hill so long as we were rising as ego, thereby mistaking ourself to be the form of a body, as Bhagavan implies in the final sentence of this verse: ‘இருந்தனை அருண வான் கிரி என இருந்தோய்’ (irundaṉai aruṇa-vāṉ-giri eṉa irundōy), ‘You who were as the great Aruna Hill have been’.

Being a second person singular past tense form of இரு (iru), which means ‘be’, ‘exist’ or ‘remain’, இருந்தனை (irundaṉai) means ‘you were’, ‘you have been’, ‘you remained’ or ‘you have remained’, so it implies not only that as the one infinite being-awareness (sat-cit) Arunachala is what has always been, even when the devotee rose as ego and therefore did not know him as he actually is, but also that he alone is what has remained now that the seemingly separate form of the devotee has ceased to exist like the form of a salt doll dissolving in the ocean.

அருணவான்கிரி (aruṇa-vāṉ-giri) is a compound that means ‘Aruna-great-hill’ or ‘the great Aruna Hill’, என (eṉa) means ‘as’, and இருந்தோய் (irundōy) is a second person singular pronominal noun formed from இருந்த (irunda), the past adjectival participle of இரு (iru), ‘be’ or ‘exist’, so it means ‘you who were’ or ‘you who have been’. Thus ‘அருண வான் கிரி என இருந்தோய்’ (aruṇa-vāṉ-giri eṉa irundōy) means ‘you who were as the great Aruna Hill’, which implies that so long as the devotee rose as ego and therefore did not know him as he actually is, he was what was shining in the form of this great hill, Arunachala.

Though the real nature (svarūpa) of Arunachala is infinite being-awareness (satyaṁ-jñānam-anantam) and therefore devoid of form, so long as we rise and stand as ego, thereby mistaking ourself to be the form of a body, we cannot know him as the one formless real substance (poruḷ or vastu) that he actually is, so any conception we may have of him will be just a mental form. Therefore, to make his infinite and hence formless nature as pure motionless being clear to us by the power of his silence, he stands shining motionlessly in the form of this great Aruna Hill, as Bhagavan explained in the final line of the previous verse: ‘விண்டிடாது உன் நிலை விளக்கிட என்றே விண் தலம் அசலமா விளங்கிட நின்றாய்’ (viṇḍiḍādu uṉ nilai viḷakkiḍa eṉḏṟē viṇ ṭalam acalamā viḷaṅgiḍa niṉḏṟāy), ‘Only to elucidate [or make clear] your nature without speaking, you stood shining as [this] sky-earth hill’.

This then is the significance of the outward form of Arunachala. Not only does it serve as a focus and anchor for our devotion, but even more importantly by its divine power of silence it is motionlessly working within our heart to suffuse our mind with clarity and love, thereby gently pulling us inwards to face ourself, thus enabling us to see ourself as we actually are. In this way the silent grace of Arunachala ripens our mind and heart, making us fit to become food to be swallowed by the infinite clarity of pure being-awareness (sat-cit), which is his svarūpa.