THIS POST IS CONTINUED FROM PART 112, BELOW--
Panini's ( 5500 BC ) Ashtadhyayi, its commentaries, and the Vakyapadiya of Bhartrihari ( 7000 BC) constitute the fundamental texts for the school of Panini’s grammar.
Patanjali ( 5000 BC ) wrote the Mahabhashya, an interpretation of some of Pânini’s rules written in dialogue form, and it is this work that is the basis for later commentaries on grammar and philosophy.
The Dharmashâstras or Treatises on Law, including the well-known Laws of Manu ( 8300 BC ) , were composed much before .
With the Vakyapadiya, Bhartrihari moves grammatical analysis squarely into the realm of philosophy, arguing that grammar can be consider a darshana, a "view," or an official philosophical school, providing perspective and insight into ultimate reality.
The first verse articulates the fundamental view of his newly envisaged school:---
The Brahman is without beginning and end, whose essence is the Word, who is the cause of the manifested phonemes, who appears as the objects, from whom the creation of the world proceeds.
It is the project of the Vakyapadaiya to explain this verse, with all of its philosophical, linguistic, and metaphysical implications.
At base, we contextualize Bhartrihari's philosophical inquiry into language as being conditioned by the Indian culture and scriptural tradition, in which this type of intellectual pursuit had a soteriological purpose -the realization of absolute knowledge and the spiritual liberation which ensues; thus, it is a distinctively ontological reflection on language which Bhartrihari added to the thought of earlier grammarians.
The Brahminic view of the cosmos put forth in the Vedas is one of constant and cyclical creation and dissolution. At the dissolution of each creative cycle a seed or trace (samskara) is left behind out of which the next cycle arises.
What is significant here is that the nature of the seed from which each cycle of creation bursts forth is expressed as "Divine Word" (Daivi Vak). If language is of divine origin, it can be conceived as Being Brahman expressing and embodying itself in the plurality of phenomena that is creation.
Bhartrihari considers Brahman, the basis of reality, to be "without beginning and end" (anadi nidhanam), as a concept that is not subject to the attributes of temporal sequences of events, either externally or in the succession of mental events that form cognitions.
The word principle, shabda Brahman, is not defined in terms of the temporal nature of our cognitive states, because it functions as the inherent, primordial ground of all cognitions. meaning of the term "eternal" or “akshara” as Bhartrihari applies it to the word-principle.
Bhartrihari's specialized way of referring to phonemes, the minimal units of meaningful sound. It seems that phonemes understood in this way explain how it is the case that Word appears as objects.
Eternity is “that which appears as objects, and from whom the creation of the world proceeds.”
Phonemes are thus the eternally possible elements that can be combined in inexhaustible ways to manifest the plurality of nature.
This principle accounts for creation on a number of levels: it is the origin of consciousness, of cognition, sensation, language use, cognitive and experiential aspects of the world. In other words, objects of thought and the relations between them are word-determined, regardless of whether they are objects of perception, inference or any other kind of knowledge.
When we perceptually apprehend external reality, we always do so in terms of names, for without names objects are neither identifiable nor knowable.
In the Vakyapadîya, kanda I, Bhartrihari defines the scope of his inquiry as the subjects of grammar. Our speech takes the form of the basic structures of language, and grammar deals with this communicatively spoken language.
The correct understanding of speech can take us to the limits of our conventional and spiritual capacities, and so language analysis must operate at all the following levels: 1. sentences and words, 2. meanings corresponding to sentences and words, 3. the fitness or compatibility between sound and sense, and 4. the spiritual merit obtained by using the correct language.
In his linguistic theory, Bhartrihari distinguishes between two forms of language, the spoken, or “language-in-use” and the analytic. The analytic or formal language emerges from a formal, abstract analysis of communicative language.
If we were to gather and compare various sentences and words from different contexts of use, we would logically infer the basic segments (roots, stems, suffixes) that account for a common logical or formal basis of denotation.
This hierarchical conception of language use and language meaning can be understood in the following way, with the term on the far right of each column understood as the originator of the term in the middle, and the term in the middle being the originator of the term on the left.
In other words, Bhartrihari's conception of utterance and understanding can be grasped with the following schema under the rubric of:--
sentences and words
word stems, suffixes, etc..
sentence meaning and word meaning
stem meaning and suffix meaning
sound and sense relations
In the first chapter of the Vakyapadiya, Bhartrihari explains the naturalist view. Following the padavadins (those who regard the word as the primary indivisible unit) who consider word-constituents, such as roots and suffixes, to be mere fictitious abstractions from words, so also the vakyavadins (those who regard the sentence as the indivisible unit) consider words to be imaginary abstractions from the sentence.
The naturalists, such as Panini, believe that language has an invariant form expressed in grammar. They therefore give epistemic primacy to spoken language; formal language is only an “appearance” and secondary aid to understanding.
The conventionalists, on the other hand, hold that the analytic language is primary in that it contains within it all the structural features that may be used to create meaningful speech.
Bhartrihari puts forth a theory of language which, rather than starting by taking fundamental ontological, epistemological or social sides in these well-established debates, starts from the question of how meaning happens, how it emerges from the acts of both speaker and audience, and, constructing this theory first, what he believes to be appropriate metaphysical, epistemological and soteriological implications are drawn from it.
For Bhartrihari, linguistic meaning cannot be conveyed or accounted for by the physical utterance and perception of sounds, so he puts forth the sphota theory: the theory which posits the meaning-unit, which for him is the sentence, as a single entity.
The meaning of the sentence, the speech-unit, is one entire cognitive content (samvit). The sentence is indivisible (akhanda) and owes its cognitive value to the meaning-whole. Thus, its meaning is not reducible to its parts, the individual words which are distinguished only for the purposes of convention or expression.
The differentiated word-meanings, which are also ontological categories, are the abstracted "pieces" we produce using imaginative construction, or vikalpa.
Sphota entails a kind of mental perception which is described as a moment of recognition, an instantaneous flash (pratibha), whereby the hearer is made conscious, through hearing sounds, of the latent meaning unit already present in his consciousness (unconscious).
The sentence employs analyzable units to express its meaning, but that meaning emerges out of the particular concatenation of those units, not because those units are meaningful in themselves. We analyze language by splitting it up into words, prefixes, suffixes, etc….but this is indicative of the fact that we “misunderstand” the fundamental oneness of the speech-unit.
Words are only abstracted meaning possibilities in this sense, whereas the uttered sentence is the realization of a meaning-whole irreducible to those parts in themselves. This fundamental unity seems to apply, also, to any language taken as a whole.
It is only those who do not know the language and grammar thoroughly who analyze it into words, in order to get a connected meaning. This is why pretenders like Wendy Doniger and Sheldon Pollock ( with a Monier Williams dictionary between their legs ) always get it wrong.. Sanskrit is not a stupid language like English.
Bhartrihari's recognition of the theoretical indivisibility of the sentence resonates with the contemporary linguistic view of learning sentences as wholes—in Sanskrit you don’t build new sentences from learned first sentences through analogical reasoning..
We might think of this unit of linguistic potency, the sphota, as the cognitive/propositional whole content of meaning that can be transposed into different languages, while the actual word-sounds comprise the contents of the "speech-act". But what holds the act to its ability to convey intended meanings?
The words sounded by a plurality of speakers comprise the physical manifestation of vâk or vaikharî-vâk and it is upon this form of vâk that physical objects as objective forms are modeled.
The unity that underlies these objective referents and meanings, however, is known as the intuited vâk-pashyati-vâk, which makes possible the unmediated understanding of a complete linguistic expression.
This intuitive level of understanding, constitutive of the sphota, is teleological in its nature and structure in that it contains all potential possibilities of meaning-bearing dhvanis and their order of manifestation.
But, what guarantees that the hearer of speech properly comprehends what is uttered?
In the second book of the Vâkyapadîya, Bhartrihari states:--
Sentence meaning is produced by word meanings but is not constituted by them. Its form is that Intuition, that innate "know how" awareness (pratibha) possessed by all beings. It is a cognitive state evident to the hearer…not describable or definable, but all practical activities depend on it directly or through recollection of it.
Pratibha intuition can be characterized as shabda, the very same speech principle externalized in the utterances of speakers, as it operates within the hearer, causing her to instantaneously comprehend the meaning of the utterance.
However, linguistic convention, shared by speaker and hearer, cannot account for the flash of comprehension. If that were the case, we would not have instances where communication breaks down in spite of the shared language between speaker and hearer.
The comprehension of meaning lies in the sphota that is already present in the hearer's awareness. As he hears the succession of audible phonemes, the latent and undifferentiated language potency within him is brought to "fruition" in the form of grasping the speaker’s meaning.
Thus, while the audible words are necessary for such verbal comprehension to occur in the hearer, they are not sufficient. It is his own ability to understand meaning referred to by these words, by virtue of sharing the same sphota with the speaker, which completes the act of cognition.
Just as various sentences might sound different in the mouths of different speakers and yet convey the same meanings, various Vedas may seem different in form and style, but there is a unity carried by the underlying sphota, which ensures that it is the same truth, or dharma that is expressed throughout the texts.
Bearing in mind that Brahman is the ultimate referent of all speech forms, this higher reality is manifested in the sacred texts-whose efficacy (ritual, soteriological, epistemological) depends upon our ability to correctly apprehend its meaning. The sphota concept makes such interpretation possible.
Again, the sphota expresses a meaning-whole behind individual letters and words. The implication for the truth of Vedic discourse is clear, for that truth is already present in the speaker (the Veda) and is potentially present in the consciousness of the hearers (the practitioners).
There are three kinds of evidences accepted by the learned scholars in Vedic culture. One evidence is pratyakṣa. Pratyakṣa means direct perception. Just like I am seeing you, you are seeing me. I am present, you are present. This is direct perception.
And there is another evidence which is called anumana. Suppose in that room, and I am coming just now, I do not know whether any person there is or not. But there is some sound, I can imagine, "Oh, there is somebody."
This is called anumana. In logic it is called hypothesis. That is also evidence. If by my bona fide suggestions I can give evidence, that is also accepted. So direct evidence, and, what is called, hypothesis or suggestion evidence.
But the strong evidence is Shabda-pramana. Shabda-pramaṇa means as soon as there is evidence in the Vedic literature, "This is this," you have to accept. That's all. Then your knowledge is perfect because you are accepting things from the perfect source.
According to Bhartrihari's theory, we can justify this particular philosophical method as revelatory by using the concept of shabda pramana. Vedic evidence should be taken in such a way that no argument. There is meaning; there is no contradiction.
Shabda-pramāṇa means to take the truth from the highest authority. Veda srutis have no mortal author. They have been downloaded from Akasha by Maharishi seers.
Shraddha is faith in Vedanta as a Pramana, a means of knowledge. Pramaṇa refers to epistemology in Vedanta-- Yukti which means active application of epistemology or what one already knows..
Shraddhaavaan labhathe jnanam--- That person alone who has shraddha can secure wisdom.
Shraddha means unwavering faith in the Vedas. No spiritual progress is possible without shraddha. From shraddha comes nistha or one-pointed devotion and from nistha comes self-realization. If the faith is flickering, it will die soon and the aspirant will be drifted aimlessly hither and thither.
Shraddha is a Sanskrit /Malayalam word -- an unshakable conviction in our journey. Experience can never remove ignorance, as experience does not negate ignorance. Neither action nor experience can remove ignorance.
The scriptures give a technical definition to pramana
There are five conditions for a thing to be a pramana;
1) It has to produce knowledge. 2) It has to produce a new knowledge. 3) It has to produce uncontradicted knowledge. 4) It has to produce a doubtless knowledge. 5) It has to produce a useful knowledge.
anadhigata, abAdhita asandigdha phalavat jn~Ana janakam pramANam.
--. The pramANa should produce knowledge (jn~Ana janakatvam). Mystic experiences or actions cannot produce knowledge, hence they are not pramANas. Upanishadik statements do reveal the self and hence produce knowledge.
---. What a pramANa talks about should not be talked about by any other pramANa. (anadhigatatvam). It should be a new knowledge not gained in any other way.
---. What a pramana reveals should not be contradicted by any other pramana (abadhitatvam); for e.g., the eye gives form knowledge, so it is giving us a knowledge which is new. Also, the form knowledge given by the eye can never be negated by the ear.
The ear can never come up with a knowledge that says, the form reported by the eye is wrong.
Pramāṇa forms one part of a tripuţi (trio) of concepts, which describe the ancient Indian view on how knowledge is gained. The other two concepts are knower and knowable, each discussed in how they influence the knowledge, by their own characteristic and the process of knowing.
The two are called Pramatŗ ( the subject, the knower) and Prameya ( the object, the knowable).
Pramana, a valid means of knowledge for revealing the corresponding objects.
We should have a similar trust in Vedanta because Vedanta is a Pramana for the truth about the Self. The Self is not available for perception. It cannot be grasped by the organs of perception, the mind, or words.
The Self cannot be comprehended by any means of knowledge other than Vedanta.
Shraddha, is surrender to the Pramana so that the Pramana can operate.
Pramana literally means "proof" and "means of knowledge". It refers to epistemology in Indian philosophies, and is one of the key, much debated fields of study in Hinduism
It is a theory of knowledge, and encompasses one or more reliable and valid means by which human beings gain accurate, true knowledge.
Ancient and medieval Indian texts identify six pramanas as correct means of accurate knowledge and to truths: perception (Sanskrit pratyakṣa), inference (anumana), comparison and analogy(upamana), postulation, derivation from circumstances (arthapatti), non-perception, negative/cognitive proof (anupalabdhi) and word, testimony of past or present reliable experts (Śabda).
Each of these are further categorized in terms of conditionality, completeness, confidence and possibility of error, Pramaṇa literally means "proof". The word also refers to a concept and field of Indian philosophy.
The concept is derived from the Sanskrit root, prama which means "correct notion, true knowledge, basis, foundation, accurate notion". The concept Pramana implies that which is a "means of acquiring prama or certain, correct, true knowledge"
Accepting Veda (sruti ) as a pramana is first step of vedantik enquiry.
Vedanta being a pramana, no experience can ever contradict it; since the definition says that a pramana can never be contradicted. It is absurd to call vedanta (sruti ) a non pramana. It would be equally absurd to call shraddhda in veda as ‘rigid belief’. ShraddhA cannot be translated into belief at all.
The Shraddha or trust that we have in Vedanta enables us to maintain a certain frame of mind wherein we don’t question what Vedanta says, but try to understand what it says.
Shraddha or trust does not mean that we have to blindly accept whatever the teacher tells us. It only means that we give it the benefit of the doubt and look upon it with a certain reverence.
Shraddha, trust / faith, must arise in its own way. It must be discovered. It cannot be commanded. This reverence for scripture cannot be thrust upon anybody.
We discover it as we get exposed to Vedanta, appreciate its profundity and clarity, and see how it releases us from different notions and complexes.
Just as we cannot make ourselves love someone, we cannot make ourselves have Shraddha. Love has to manifest itself. Similarly, Shraddha is not something that we can command; it has to happen. Shraddha, trust and reverence, is essential to learn and enjoy an open mind. An open mind is willing to shed its conclusions and prejudices and is ready to learn and change
In having Shraddha, there is trust, faith, reverence, devotion, openness, and freedom. In fact, this is the trust where there is freedom.
The word “faith” scares a Hindu.
A Hindu free of dogma ( like in other single holy book religions ) is skeptical when this question of trust / faith arises because faith is always understood to be blind faith.
But here we are talking not about blind faith, but enlightened faith, a faith that we discover as a result of self verification. As we listen and understand Vedanta and try to assimilate and implement it in our lives, we discover its validity and take the next step. We do not simply believe it, but proceed as we discover the validity of the truth.
Vedanta says that happiness is not to be found outside, but is to be discovered within ourselves as it is our own nature.
Shraddha or reverential faith enables that learning frame of mind and, therefore, is freedom. Such a mind remains free from doubts and questions and open to the teacher and the teaching.
Lord Krishna also gives importance to Shraddha and says in the Bhagavad Gita:--
One who has Shraddha ( not BHAKTI ) gains knowledge. Shraddha is defined as trust or faith in the words of Vedanta pending verification.
Shraddha is faith in Vedanta as a Pramana, a means of knowledge for knowing the Self, just as eyes are a means of knowledge with respect to colour and form.
Vedanta is not to be looked upon as speculation or philosophy. Again , shraddha is not blind faith, but enlightened faith based on verification. We discover faith when we implement Vedanta in our lives and verify whether what the teachings say is true.
Faith is the ability to believe what we do not see. The reward of faith is to see what we did not believe.
Shraddha is more than mere faith. It also implies self–reliance, an independent sense of right and wrong, reliance on conscience and the courage of one’s own conviction
Faith in Sanatana Dharma begins as an experiment and ends as an experience.
Faith expressed in action is a sure means of realization. Faith is not blind. It is the willingness to try free of threats of dogma.
Faith is the belief in the unknown. Faith heals, faith creates, faith works wonders, faith moves mountains. Faith is the searchlight for finding brahman.
He who has no faith in himself can never have faith in God.
Shraddha hrudayya yakutyaa shradhayaa vindate vasu. --(Rig Veda 10/151/4) 5000 BC.
Meaning: Shraddha (faith) is the symbol of the high sentiment of the heart.
Shraddha cannot be aptly translated into English. Loosely put, it may be be called faith / trust.
In the context of Vedanta it is the trust that one has in Veda ( sruti ) , where the Veda is taken to be a valid means of knowledge(pramana). It is the deep trust that the Veda is a means to knowledge, hence a means for liberation.
Vedas are timeless and apaurusheya (not a fabrication of human mind). They are eternal and are revealed to mankind by seers ( maharishis). This vedic wisdom has provided many with knowledge.
The spiritual stalwarts are living examples for us as a proof for the validity of the vedas.
Single messiah , single holy book religions cry “God is there to save you”, “You have sinned and need a saviour” etc; under such contexts a blind faith props up.
You believe in the saviour thinking that you have sinned. You are doomed if you do not believe the saviour. That will be YET YENOTHER sin !
Vedanta says you need not be saved at all. You alone are the truth, the non dual truth. There is no rescue work needed! Where is the question of blind faith, when all that is needed is knowledge.
Liberation for us is through knowledge, and here, there is no role for blind faith to play.
A Hindu is allowed to question and discuss; but the attitude matters. If one questions with the idea of throwing shit on Veda, then it is lack of shraddha (ashraddha). Instead if one says, veda cannot be wrong, but there is some confusion in my understanding and the concept of me being the whole, the truth, is not sinking; then it is shraddha. The person has doubts, conviction is not there, but he has trust in the veda as being a valid means of knowledge.
Many of our Upanishads are in the form of dialogue between guru and disciple. The student asks questions till he gains conviction.
Neither the guru nor the upanishad expects you to listen once, blindly accept and pack up.
There is a gradual unfolding of Vedanta by an adept guru. The whole learning environment is open, graceful, friendly, encouraging, logical and of course filled with shraddha.
SHRADDA WAS REPLACED BY BHAKTI (BLIND DEVOTION ) AND SANATANA DHARMA WAS HIJACKED BY JEW ROTHSCHILD ..
AT EVERY DESH DROHI LITERARY FEST, A HUGE CHUNK OF TIME IS LEFT ASIDE FOR THE FAKE AND BACKDATED CREATIONS OF ROTHSCHILDs BHAKTI MOVEMENT
FROM NOW ON I ASK MY READERS TO WATCH THESE FOREIGN FUNDED DROHIS
Shraddha is the first step in one's search for God. In the fourth chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, Sri Krishna says, "shraddhavan labhate jnanam, one with shraddha gains knowledge.
Thus shraddha is like a stepping stone; with the help of a teacher, believe in God eventually leads to direct knowledge. Shraddha is indispensable, because without it, knowledge of the Lord will forever be beyond ones grasp.
Check out the FAKE Bhakti movement heroes-- 12 Alvars , 63 Nayanars, Andal, Basava, Bhagat Pipa, Allama Prabhu, Akka Mahadevi, Kabir, Tulsidas, Kabirdas, Kalidas, Ramdas, Chandidas , Surdas , Ravidas, Gusainji, Ghananand, Ramananda Sripadaraja, Vyasatirtha, Purandara Dasa, Kanakadasa, Vijaya Dasa, Six goswamis of Vrindavan , Raskhan, Jayadeva Goswami, Namdev, Eknath, Tukaram, Mirabai, Ramprasad Sen, Sankardev, Vallabha Acharya, Narsinh Mehta, Gangasati,Chaitanya Mahaprabhu etc etc
EVEN ADI SHANKARACHARYA WAS CONVERTED TO A BHAKTI CHARACTER
THIS FOUL AND CUNNING SUBSTITUTION OF SHRADDHA WITH BHAKTI, IN THE WARP AND WEFT OF HINDUISM BY JEW ROTHSCHILD REDUCED THE GREAT SPIRITUALITY OF SANATANA DHARMA TO THE ABSURD LEVEL OF SINGLE HOLY BOOK/ SINGLE MESSIAH RELIGIONS ..
Sabda-pramana as a concept which means reliable expert testimony. The schools of Hinduism which consider it epistemically valid suggest that a human being needs to know numerous facts, and with the limited time and energy available, he can learn only a fraction of those facts and truths directly.
In order for one to give their assent to a worldview that renders to language the cosmic and salvific roles Bhartrihari does, a theory that posits that language is the medium of ultimate knowledge, one must be convinced that language in general has the capacity to yield ordinary knowledge.
Given the way Bhartrihari conceptualizes language, as not primarily referent directed, but instead as referent-constructing, we need to look at how the grammarian thematizes the knowledge-conferring power of language within his own peculiarly unique framework.
Sphota may be characterized as the intersubjective, universal "store-house" of meaning, the ground of all linguistic activity and communication. Sphota is the unifying principle that connects the word, the grammatical form of the word, and the meaning.
Furthermore, just as words and sentences represent “pieces” of the meaning extracted from the whole, the objects and states of affairs these pieces represent actually refer to a “whole of objects meant” or an entire reality.
In classical Indian thought, objects are thought to be constituted of substance (dravya), but in Bhartrihari , substance can be distinguished into two kinds, the substance of all things, which is Brahman, and the other individual, empirical substances.
The empirical notion of substance here may be derived from the grammatical operation of ekashesha, explained by Panini as using individual word-tokens to refer to individual objects-substances.
Thus, names or singular terms are said by the earliest grammarians to refer to one substance at a time, therefore substance is defined through the relation of reference, and the nature of each substance is so specific that we cannot posit any general properties possessed by all of them.
Bhartrihari defines "actual" or empirical substance as that which we refer to by using indexicals and quantifiers, which refer to anything in our ontological reality: 'this' ‘that’ ‘something’ or ‘anything.’
The term ‘this’ points out an existence given to perception, while ‘that’ refers to something whose existence can be validated by some other means of knowledge but which is not available to perception.
Bhartrihari acknowledges the pragmatic and common sense view of “substance” as “a relative concept being dependent on our concept of quality (guna). A substance is that which is said to be distinguished and a quality is that which distinguishes the substance.
Bhartrihari's contribution to this debate changes the very notion of substance into a much more inclusive and general concept, since anything we refer to using a name or substantive term, even generic properties and verbs, become substances in that they are distinguished by words
In the third book of the Vakyapadiya, Bhartrhari defines the concept of ‘quality’/guna as dependent upon, as arising from substance. . For him, qualities, existing in relation to substances serve to further differentiate those substances by “delimiting their scope.”
Bhartrihari's contribution of his particular theory of the "imaginative construction" of perceptions and language once again emerges within the context of debates with competing theories of knowledge.
Bhartrihari’s theory posits knowledge as a matter of specifically linguistic construction. The concept of vikalpa for him implies the following: the structure of language shapes how we categorize the objects of our experience and our descriptions of reality as a whole.
Even at the most immediate levels of awareness), we must conceptualize and therefore interpret the contents of sense perception. Thus, at the level of pure sensation, the sensory core is already saturated, as it were, with the “deep structure” of language.
Bhartrihari, as an ontological monist, does not distinguish between a pure perception and a constructed perception such that the former is concept-free and ineffable and the latter concept-loaded and autonomously constructed, because he thinks that perception is inherently verbal.
Not only are sense data and linguistic units non-different, but they are expressive of the unitary principle of Brahman-which is differentiated into the plurality of linguistic objects that make up the world.
Bhartrihari says that the act of perception, rather than acquiring linguistic clothing after the bare particular has already been presented to consciousness, can only be aware of the object before it as a 'this’ or ‘that’, that is, as an awareness of something only as a particular and as such, identifiable
For Bhartrihari, the word makes the thing an individual, and as one moves further and further along the refined categories of what is conventionally known as denotation, the word makes the thing what it is.
For Bhartrihari, the difference the Logicians posit between the ontological and the linguistic would make meanings of all kinds, mundane ones and religious ones, contingent on the circumstances and speaker.
But if perception is innately verbal, no perilous bridge need be suspended over some supposed abyss between vision and truth, both in our mundane lives and for the Maharishis who pronounced the Vedas.
The word then makes the thing, and Brahman makes the world, and so it is entirely proper to speak of words as the creator of all things (shabda-Brahman).
The shallow Western mind cannot fathom the depth of Bharthari’s intellect.
His explorations into the relations between language, thought and reality reflect contemporary philosophical concerns with meaning, language use, and communication, particularly in the work of thieves Chomsky, Wittgenstein, Grice, and Austin.
Noam Chomsky has lifted his entire works from ancient Indian Grammar. His works are useless as he lifted without understanding from a perfect divine language Sanskrit for application to a ridiculous language of syntax called English.
The grammar of the Sanskrit language has a complex but perfect verbal system, rich nominal declension, and extensive use of compound nouns. Sanskrit has ten classes of verbs divided into two broad groups: athematic and thematic. The thematic verbs are so called because an a, called the theme vowel, is inserted between the stem and the ending.
This serves to make the thematic verbs generally more regular. Exponents used in verb conjugation include prefixes, suffixes, infixes, and reduplication. Every root has (not necessarily all distinct) zero, guṇa, and vṛddhi grades.
Because of Sanskrit's complex declension system, the word order is free. In usage, there is a strong tendency toward subject – object – verb (SOV), which was the original system in place in Vedic prose.
S is the subject, V is the verb and O is the object; the three exhaustive elements of a simple sentence.
Malayalam is subject–object–verb (SOV) language is one in which the subject, object, and verb of a sentence appear or usually appear in that order.
If English were SOV, " Dick apple ate" would be an ordinary sentence, as opposed to the actual Standard English " Dick ate apple". Hindi is SOV.
Hebrew is subject–verb–object (SVO) is a sentence structure where the subject comes first, the verb second, and the object third. English is SVO.
BILBLICAL HEBREW WAS VSO LIKE CLASSICAL ARABIC .
SANSKRIT IS THE MOTHER OF ALL LANGUAGES
Simple sentences in Sanskrit do not need to follow any specified structure. They are attached either to the subject or the object in form of ‘vibhakti’. Thus, in principle, every simple sentence in Sanskrit can be condensed into three distinct words: the subject, the verb and the object. We can write these three words in any order we want (all 3! = 6 ways) and the sentence will bear the same meaning. A unique meaning.
Sanskrit like Malayalam is usually used in SOV format though.
Sanskrit's grammatical structure, words carry extra information with them. Because of this extra information, word order is more flexible in Sanskrit than in English.
IN STUPID ENGLISH BANANA CAN EAT ELEPHANT, WHICH CANNOT HAPPEN IN SANSKRIT.
Sanskrit, uses inflection to a great extent. In Sanskrit, a complex idea can exist as one word and still carry a single and precise meaning.
Malayalam and Hindi employs postpositions, whereas English employs prepositions
Grammar/The set of rules that describes or defines a language
Grammatical/used to describe an expression that follows the rules of grammar.
Subject/ In a sentence, the thing that performs an action
Verb/ In a sentence, the word that describes the action
Object/ In a sentence, the thing that is affected by the action
Emphasis/ a quality that tells us to pay attention to certain words
Inflection/ the act of changing a word to further clarify its meaning
Thief Noam Chomsky showed that syntax is independent from phonology and semantics. This led to major advances in linguistics but the analysis continued to be phrased in terms of rules..
Then Chomsky made another radical change- he showed that the formal properties of syntax may be derived from more abstract principles.
Jew Noam Chomsky, is called the the greatest linguist since Panini—BALLS !
He lifted everything halfbaked from Sanskrit Grammar. Panini's work is purely grammatical and lexicographic, cultural and geographical inferences can be drawn from the vocabulary he uses in examples.
Predecessors of Noam Chomsky were all Sanskrit scholars—Today they admit “None of us drink from wells that we have dug and Chomsky is no exception”.
There is a baggage of sources that each scholar carries that originates years, decades, centuries, even millennia before. It is a composite of prooftext sources that receives occasionally a side reference in a footnote or short comment, but which indicates the philosophical stream that the writer or scholar is tapping for inspiration. .
Thief Noam Chomsky has admitted that great ancient Indian Sanskrit grammarians contributed to his inspiration( sic ). His Jew got inspired after stealing?
All the “great” spirits that he cites as his pioneers all had one thing in common: they studied Sanskrit and admired Panini the Hindu grammarian. And this is where this article originated.
“Anyone who has but just a glimpse of understanding of Hindu philosophy and religion will know that this pantheistic religion views all the sounds of language as gods. The gods are eternal and thus language in a person has an eternal ring to it in us
Panini left his gurukula and went far away into the Himalayas to do severe Tapas to please Lord Siva. Satisfied with his austere penance, Lord Shiva emerged before him and granted him the bonus of extreme intellect.
Shiva then danced his Tandav in his ecstasy and gave birth to fourteen holy Sutras Aphorism by beating his drum ( Damaru ) fourteen times.
Blessed with astuteness, Panini accepted them and returned home.
Then he composed a grammar of Sanskrit language which became the first and the most perfect grammar that could ever be composed. There has been NO changes in Panini’s Grammar for the past 7500 years.
Dimirti Mendeleyev modeled his Periodic Tables after Panini’s 54 Sanskrit alphabets .It just shows that Sanskrit is a divine language.
Noam Chomsky's concept of "deep structure" and "surface structure" was lifted from Bhartrhari. Deep structure and surface structure (also D-structure and S-structure, although these abbreviated forms are sometimes used with distinct meanings) are concepts used in linguistics, specifically in the study of syntax in the Chomskyan tradition of transformational generative grammar.
The deep structure gives the semantic component of a sentence, while the surface structure gives the proper phonological information to express that thought.
Chomsky coined and popularized the terms "deep structure" and "surface structure" in the early 1960s. Chomsky DID NOT BORROW from Hockett as written by the white man --- thief Chomsky lifted it from Bhartrhari..
Chomsky first referred to these concepts in his 1962 paper The Logical Basis of Linguistic Theory (later published as Current Issues in Linguistic Theory in 1964).
There is no such thing as a language without grammar.
The Vedic srutis had divine Math embedded ..and precision Sanskrit Grammar was developed on those lines.
MERU, PASCALSs TRIANGLE , SIERPINSKI TRIANGLE, GOLDEN MEAN, FIBONACCI SERIES , LUCAS NUMBER, ULAM SPIRAL , ISOTOPE MAGIC ARE ALL EMBEDDED IN VEDIC SRUTIS
Bharthari’s theory of language recognizes that meaning is conveyed in formalist terms where meaning is organized along syntactical rules.
But it makes the leap, not made by modern Western philosophers, that such a view of language does not merely serve our mundane communicative purposes and see to the achievement of practical goals, but leads to paramount metaphysical knowledge, a knowledge carrying with it a palpable salvific value.
CHECK OUT HOW THE IMMORAL WHITE MAN HAS BEEN RUNNING DOWN SANSKRIT, THE OLDEST LANGUAGE ON THIS PLANET..
THERE ARE NO SYNONYMS IN SANSKRIT. THE MONEIR WILLIAMS DICTIONARY HAS ONLY 40% OF SANSKRIT VOCABULARY..
The LIAR Daniel H. H. Ingalls Sr.Professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University gives the below BULLSHIT— nay WHITE KOSHER LIE ..
This BASTARD studied Sanskrit in India to inject poison in our ancient scriptures..
Lying JEWESS Wendy Doniger is his student..
QUOTE: Peculiar characteristics -In the introduction to his celebrated translation of Vidyakara's 'Subhashitaratnakosha', Daniel H.H. Ingalls describes some peculiar characteristics of the Sanskrit language. He refers to the enormous vocabulary of Sanskrit, and also of the presence of a larger choice of SYNONYMS IN SANSKRIT than any other language he knew of. Further, he writes, just as there exist a VAST NUMBER OF SYNONYMS for almost any word in Sanskrit, there also exist synonymous constructions. Ingalls writes that in elementary Sanskrit examinations he would ask his students to write in Sanskrit the sentence 'You must fetch the horse' in ten different ways. Actually, Ingalls explains, it is possible to write the sentence in Sanskrit in around fifteen different ways 'by using active or passive constructions, imperative or optative, an auxiliary verb, or any of the three gerundive forms, each of which, by the way, gives a different metrical pattern'. Ingalls emphasizes that while these constructions differ formally, emotionally they are identical and completely interchangeable. He comments that in any natural language this would be impossible. Ingalls uses this and other arguments TO SHOW THAT SANSKRIT IS NOT A NATURAL LANGUAGE BUT AN ARTIFICIAL LANGUAGE . By 'artificial', he explains he means it was learned after some other Indian language had been learned by simple conditioning. ( HEY WAS THAT TAMIL—YOU CUNT ? ). Ingalls writes: 'Every Indian, one may suppose, grew up learning naturally the language of his mother and his playmates. Only after this and if he belonged to the priesthood or the nobility or to such a professional caste as that of the clerks, the physicians, or the astrologers would he learn Sanskrit. As a general rule, Sanskrit was not the language of the family. It furnished no subconscious symbols for the impressions which we receive in childhood nor for the emotions which form our character in early adolescence.'
SANSKRIT IS A VERY PRECISE LANGUAGE –ONE WORD ,ONE MEANING
THERE ARE NO SYNONYMS IN SANSKRIT—LIKE THE STUPID LANGUAGE ENGLISH.
BY INTRODUCING FAKE SYNONYMS IN SANSKRIT, THE BASTARD WHITE INVADER
---- MADE OUR VEDAS LOOK LIKE MINDLESS MONKEY CHATTER
---- PLACED MONKEY HANUMAN ON KRISHNAs CHARIOT FLAG INSTEAD OF GARUDA
---- CONVERTED KING VALI INTO A MONKEY
Check out the different meanings of the English word SET. You can hardly call English a precise language.
1. to put (something or someone) in a particular place: to set a vase on a table.
2. to place in a particular position or posture: Set the baby on his feet.
3. to place in some relation to something or someone: We set a supervisor over the new workers.
4. to put into some condition: to set a house on fire.
5. to put or apply: to set fire to a house.
6. to put in the proper position: to set a chair back on its feet.
7. to put in the proper or desired order or condition for use: to set a trap.
8. to distribute or arrange china, silver, etc., for use on (a table): to set the table for dinner.
9. to place (the hair, esp. when wet) on rollers, in clips, or the like, so that the hair will assume a particular style.
10. to put (a price or value) upon something: He set $7500 as the right amount for the car. The teacher sets a high value on neatness.
11. to fix the value of at a certain amount or rate; value: He set the car at $500. She sets neatness at a high value.
12. to post, station, or appoint for the purpose of performing some duty: to set spies on a person.
13. to determine or fix definitely: to set a time limit.
14. to resolve or decide upon: to set a wedding date.
15. to cause to pass into a given state or condition: to set one's mind at rest; to set a prisoner free.
16. to direct or settle resolutely or wishfully: to set one's mind to a task.
17. to present as a model; place before others as a standard: to set a good example.
18. to establish for others to follow: to set a fast pace.
19. to prescribe or assign, as a task.
20. to adjust (a mechanism) so as to control its performance.
21. to adjust the hands of (a clock or watch) according to a certain standard: I always set my watch by the clock in the library.
22. to adjust (a timer, alarm of a clock, etc.) so as to sound when desired: He set the alarm for seven o'clock.
23. to fix or mount (a gem or the like) in a frame or setting.
24. to ornament or stud with gems or the like: a bracelet set with pearls.
25. to cause to sit; seat: to set a child in a highchair.
26. to put (a hen) on eggs to hatch them.
27. to place (eggs) under a hen or in an incubator for hatching.
28. to place or plant firmly: to set a flagpole in concrete.
29. to put into a fixed, rigid, or settled state, as the face, muscles, etc.
30. to fix at a given point or calibration: to set the dial on an oven; to set a micrometer.
31. to tighten (often fol. by up): to set nuts well up.
32. to cause to take a particular direction: to set one's course to the south.
33. Surgery. to put (a broken or dislocated bone) back in position.
34. (of a hunting dog) to indicate the position of (game) by standing stiffly and pointing with the muzzle.
a. to fit, as words to music.
b. to arrange for musical performance.
c. to arrange (music) for certain voices or instruments.
a. to arrange the scenery, properties, lights, etc., on (a stage) for an act or scene.
b. to prepare (a scene) for dramatic performance.
37. Nautical. to spread and secure (a sail) so as to catch the wind.
a. to arrange (type) in the order required for printing.
b. to put together types corresponding to (copy); compose in type: to set an article.
39. Baking. to put aside (a substance to which yeast has been added) in order that it may rise.
40. to change into curd: to set milk with rennet.
41. to cause (glue, mortar, or the like) to become fixed or hard.
42. to urge, goad, or encourage to attack: to set the hounds on a trespasser.
43. Bridge. to cause (the opposing partnership or their contract) to fall short: We set them two tricks at four spades. Only perfect defense could set four spades.
44. to affix or apply, as by stamping: The king set his seal to the decree.
45. to fix or engage (a fishhook) firmly into the jaws of a fish by pulling hard on the line once the fish has taken the bait.
46. to sharpen or put a keen edge on (a blade, knife, razor, etc.) by honing or grinding.
47. to fix the length, width, and shape of (yarn, fabric, etc.).
48. Carpentry. to sink (a nail head) with a nail set.
49. to bend or form to the proper shape, as a saw tooth or a spring.
50. to bend the teeth of (a saw) outward from the blade alternately on both sides in order to make a cut wider than the blade itself.
Now let us go to the ancient Indian language SANSKRIT-- which is the oldest language in the world , with the most immense vocabulary, clear speech, perfect pronunciation, accurate expression and politeness.
Since Panini wrote the adaptable Sankrit grammar 7500 years ago, there has been NO changes, it is that perfect-- the work of a genius!!
Sanskrit has a construct like geometry in cymatics and can be digitalised.
There is no communication every year , like for English " the following new words have been added to the Oxford English dictonary in the year 2009". Sanskrit has no meanings by connotations and hence cannot age. It has perfect morphology that leaves no room for error.
NASA had declared that sanskrit is the only unambiguous spoken language on the planet. Its alphabets are impeccably arranged. There are no proper nouns in Sanskrit. Every single Sanskrit word has a meaning built into the word itself.
The principles of sound harmonics working precisely and consistently through the entire language, from the basic four sounds through thousands of words and their variations. The way words unfold from their seed forms is amazing. The mathematical precision throughout the language and give it its extraordinary power in MANTRAS
There is a direct link between the sound and signs,it is phonetic. The writing of Sanskrit language is based on the sound of the spoken form. Sanskrit has no spelling, nor there are any silent letters . There is logic in its sound system, and a natural continuity in its word-making as well as sentence-making. Sanskrit sentence structure is flexible--to hell with syntax. The order of words in a sentence does not matter.
Sanskrit has three genders (masculine, feminine, and neuter), three numbers (singular, dual, and plural), and eight cases (nominative, accusative, instrumental, dative, ablative, genitive, locative, and vocative), although only in the singular of the most common declension does a noun show different forms for each case. Adjectives are inflected to agree with nouns. Verbs are inflected for tense, mode, voice, number, and person.
There is a vibration or resonance in the sounds of Sanskrit and hence is the choice language for mantras.( CYMATICS )
Sanskrit grammar has extensive grammatical tenses. There are ten tenses: one form for the present tense, three forms for the past tense and two forms for the future tense.
There is also imperative mood, potential mood, benedictive mood (called asheerling, which is used for indicating a blessing), and conditional. Each tense has three separate words for each of the three grammatical persons (first person, second person and third person), and it further distinguishes if it’s referring to one, two, or more than two people (called eakvachan, dvivachan and bahuvachan).
There are three categories of the verbs called atmanepadi, parasmaipadi and ubhaipadi. These forms indicate whether the outcome of the action is related to the doer or the other person or both. In this way there are ninety forms of one single verb.
Sanskrit words are formed of a root word called dhatu. For instance: kri root word means ‘to do,’ gam root word means ‘to go.’ So, there are ninety forms of each of these verbs like, karoti, kurutah, kurvanti, and gachchati, gachchatah, gachchanti etc. There are ready-made single words for all kinds of uses and situations.
There are words for all the three genders and each word has twenty-one forms of its own which covers every situation. Then there is a very elaborate and precise system of composing, phrasing, making a sentence, joining two words and coining any number of words according to the need.
Sanskrit grammar has the capacity for creating any number of new words for a new situation or concept or thing.
The morphology of word formation is unique and of its own kind where a word is formed from a tiny seed root (called dhatu) in a precise grammatical order which has been the same since the very beginning.
Any number of desired words could be created through its root words and the prefix and suffix system as detailed in the Ashtadhyayi of Panini. Furthermore, 90 forms of each verb and 21 forms of each noun or pronoun could be formed that could be used in any situation.
Its vowels are the actual ‘voice pattern’ of the sound and consonants are only the ‘form’ of the ‘voice pattern’ of the sound. So a consonant alone cannot be pronounced as it is only a ‘form’ of the ‘voice pattern’ until it is attached to a vowel. hus, a vowel, which itself is a ‘voice pattern,’ can be pronounced alone (like,) or it can be modulated by adding a consonant to it (like,).
Mantras have to be in a divine language compulsorily. Only Sanskrit qualifies.
A language for mantras must be/have—
1) More than 7000 years old
2) Accurate expression
3) Clear speech and perfect pronunciation
4) No changes since it was first made
5) Must have a meaning built into every word and hence must have immense vocabulary.
6) Must have precise golden ratio sound harmonics ( Fibonacci/ Sri Yantra )
7) Mathematical and geometrical precision
8) Phonetic—direct link between sound and signs
9) Script must be based on the spoken form
10) Cannot have spellings like English
11) Cannot have silent alphabets
12) Words must unfold from seed forms
13) Natural continuity is word making
14) Natural continuity in sentence making
15) Sound must have vibration
16) Sounds must have resonance— (this is just the tip of the iceberg )
17) Alphabets must form in cymatics when uttered
18) Must not have proper nouns
19) Must be polite with no bad words in the un- abridged dictionary
20) Mantras in this language must be approved by a gifted seer and the effect felt on his chakras
---Mantras are Scalar energy based sounds which resonate in the Zero Point Field Aakashik hyperspace.
---Mantras resonate your pineal gland . Pineal glands of Vedic seers were the size of a lemon. Ours in this 21st century is the size of dried raisin .
---Mantras reprogramme your DNA. The human DNA can produce longitudinal scalar waves
---Mantra is a carrier wave with potent information within it.
---Mantras vibrations on DNA , chakras and pineal gland purifies and raises human consciousness
---Mantras have immediate soothing effect makes the brain produce and release magic healing chemicals. Errant and disturbing thought are killed! ( what happened on Big Boss 4 )
---Mantras must begin and end with OM or AUM – the bible uses a lifted version Amen. OM resonates with the earths heartbeat of 7.83 hertz. NASA kept 7.83 hertz generators on their Apollo space crafts.
---Mantras cleanse the environment and can reduce crime in a city—if chanted by sufficient numbers , the right way, and right number of times. Some call this transcendental. It is about quantum consciousness.
---Mantras increase Prana or life force, sharpens intellect and boosts metabolism.
---Mantras can reduce the surface tension of water. Sages kept Saraswati and Ganges water in copper lotas with them
---Mantras centres your mind ( effect on subconscious ) and slows down your breathing .
---Mantras increase your Auras as seen by Kirlean photography—due to the effect on symphathetic and para sympathetic nervous systems.
---Mantra chanting must be done with intent, to make it more powerful. This is about consciousness again.
Today no painful and damaging surgery is done for kidney stones—sond is used to pulverize the stones.
People under estimate sound of music so much. Longitudinal sound wave is everything!!
Noam Chomsky's concepts of "deep structure" and "surface structure" is lifted from Bhartrhari.
In modern times, scholars of Bhartṛari have included Ferdinand de Saussure, who did his doctoral work on the genitive in Sanskrit, and lectured on Sanskrit and Indo-European languages at the Paris and at the University of Geneva for nearly three decades.
Saussure lifted from Bhartṛari, particularly the sphota theory. His description of the sign, as composed of the signifier and the signified, where these entities are not separable - the whole mapping from sound to denotation constitutes the sign, is lifted from Bhartrhai’s sphota theory.
Many other prominent European scholars around 1900, including linguists such as Leonard Bloomfield and Roman Jakobson may have been influenced by Bhartṛari ..
NOAM CHOMSKY , A JEW OF INFERIOR INTELLECT , WOULD NOT BE FAMOUS TODAY IF HE HAS NOT LIFTED FROM PANINI AND BRARTRHARI ALBEIT WITH HALF BAKED UNDERSTANDING AND MIND BOGGLING OBFUSCATION.
THE LINGUISTICS PART OF NLP - FOUNDED BY CONMAN BANDLER AND CONMAN GRINDER ARE DERIVED FROM NOAM CHOMSKYs LINGUISTIC SHIT - TRANSFORMATIONAL GRAMMAR, SYNTAX AND DELETION PHENOMENA
Transformational grammar is a theory of grammar that accounts for the constructions of a language by linguistic transformations and phrase structures..
Noam Chomsky's BULLSHIT book Syntactic Structures on transformational grammar dominates the field of linguistics today
Noam Chomsky’s BULLSHIT book Aspects of the Theory of Syntax developed the idea that each sentence in a language has two levels of representation — a deep structure and a surface structure.
The deep structure represents the core semantic relations of a sentence, and is mapped onto the surface structure..
THIS BLOGSITE CAN SEE THE NAKED EMPEROR –ALWAYS !
NLP LINQUISTICS LIFTED FROM AN ORIGINAL TIME TESTED INDIAN VEDIC METHOD-- THAT SANKRIT MANTRAS CAN AFFECT A HUMANs PSYCHE
BUT THESE NLP LINGUISTIC CUNTS LIKE NOAM CHOMSKY DO NOT KNOW THAT SANSKRIT MANTRAS AFFECT THE HUMAN BY “SOUND” -- NOT “MEANING”
THE MAGIC IS IN SHABDA BRAHMAN
ENGLISH IS A STUPID LANGUAGE . ENGLISH IS NOT SANSKRIT
ANYBODY WHO TRIES STUNTS WITH NLP LINGUISTICS IS A CUNT OF THE FIRST ORDER— USING PATHETIC “TAG QUESTIONS “
A NLP tag question is added to the end of a statement to invite agreement. Tag questions are a deliberate device that distracts the conscious mind of recipients with something they can agree with.
The effect is that the statement in front of the tag question goes directly to the unconscious mind and is acted upon ( BALLS ) :--
## This is easy, isn’t it?
## Your health is important, you know?
## You can, can’t you?
## It’s time to relax, don’t you know?
The cognitive revolution is the name for a PSEUDO intellectual movement six decades ago. It began in the modern context of greater interdisciplinary communication and research. The relevant areas of interchange were the combination of psychology, anthropology, and linguistics ( mindless bullshit of Noam Chomsky ) with approaches developed within the then-nascent fields of artificial intelligence, computer science, and neuroscience.
THIS WAS MINDLESS REVERSE ENGINEERING OF THE HUMAN THOUGHT PROCESS.
THE CONMEN DAZZLED EVERYBODY WITH THEIR BRILLAINCE , MADE SURE NOBODY UNDERSTOOD IT –AND BY THE MID EIGHTIES THE COGNITIVE SHIT HAD BECOME ZE DOMINANT RESEARCH LINE OF INQUIRY IN MOST PSYCHOLOGY RESEARCH FIELDS
The five key ideas that made up the cognitive revolution:--
"The mental world can be grounded in the physical world by the concepts of information, computation, and feedback."
"The mind cannot be a blank slate because blank slates don't do anything."
"An infinite range of behavior can be generated by finite combinatorial programs in the mind."
"Universal mental mechanisms can underlie superficial variation across cultures."
"The mind is a complex system composed of many interacting parts."
ALL ABOVE WAS WORSE THAT MAD MAN CHARLES DARWINS SHIT –WHICH WE STILL TEACH IN OUR NCERT TEXT BOOKS ( IN THIS DNA AGE )
WHEN INTELLIGENT PEOPLE OUTSIDE THIS CLOSED GROUP— ASKED WHAT THE FUCK IS ALL THIS COGNITIVE SHIT—THEY GOT CAUGHT WITH THEIR PANTS DOWN AND SEAMLESSLY CROSSED OVER TO POSTCOGNITIVISM
PEOPLE LIKE NOAM CHOMSKY MUST BE SHOT WITH THEIR OWN SHIT
Transformational grammar (TG) is, the study of linguistics, part of the theory of generative grammar, especially of naturally evolved languages, that considers grammar to be a system of rules that generate exactly those combinations of words which form grammatical sentences in a given language.
Noam Chomsky developed the BULLSHIT idea that each sentence in a language has two levels of representation — a deep structure and a surface structure. The deep structure represents the core semantic relations of a sentence, and is mapped onto the surface structure (which follows the phonological form of the sentence very closely) via transformations.
All this in a BULLSHIT language called English.
Noam Chomsky invented something called 'universal grammar' which is somehow programmed into us at birth. In India almost everybody knows atleast 3 languages . It is pretty obvious to us that there is no such thing as 'universal grammar'.
It is bullshit that we formulate 'deep structures' in our heads using 'universal grammar'—and that too in a stupid language called English
The combination of junk science and junk politics has made Jew Noam Chomsky an attractive - and unstoppable - juggernaut in the kosher controlled Western academic world.
Linguists who reject the bullshit Chomskyan paradigm are marginalized , blackballed and shut out of the profession entirely
Jew Chomsky is a Rothschild backed prophet who demands that people believe him. Since his claims cannot be proved, they have to be taken on faith.
Universal grammar (UG) in linguistics, is the theory of the genetic component of the language faculty, credited to Noam Chomsky.
The basic postulate of UG is that a certain set of structural rules are innate to humans, independent of sensory experience. With more linguistic stimuli received in the course of psychological development, children then adopt specific syntactic rules that conform to UG
Chomsky argued that the human brain contains a limited set of constraints for organizing language. This implies in turn that all languages have a common structural basis: the set of rules known as "universal grammar" ( sic )
Sanskrit is the mother of all language .
I know Sanskrit— Chomsky does not.
My mother tongue Malayalam is the closet language on this planet to Sanskrit-- and I studied Sanskrit in school
Sanskrit is the oldest language on this planet , while Malayalam ( the language of Danavas ) is second oldest.
Every vestige of ancient Indian knowledge is Danava . I am a Danava.
In Sanskrit every word (except adverbs and particles) is inflected, and the grammatical inflexion itself shows the. relation in which one word stands to another. Thus grammatically speaking, there is no order as such that need be much attended to ....
But if there is no grammatical order, there is a sort of logical sequence of ideas, which must follow one another in a particular order. ... Words must be so arranged that the ideas will follow one another in their natural order, and the words in their natural connection
Sanskrit grammarians were interested in grammar but not in syntax. Only stupid languages like English have syntax and spelling. Syntax is the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language
In Sanskrit the grammatical inflexion itself shows the relation of one word to another, and no harm or inaccuracy occurs, if the student does not observe the usual order of words in a sentence. Take, for example, the English sentence, "Rama saw Govinda."
If the order of the words 'Rāma' and 'Govinda' be changed, there will be a very great difference in the meaning; it will, in fact, be a different sentence altogether. If the order of the words be changed, in Sanskrit no difference occurs in the meaning thing.
Sanskrit and Malayalam is a word-order free language . You can take a Sanskrit sentence, jumble its words the way you wish and the resulting sentence would still mean the same as the original one
All the sentences given below mean exactly the same.
“A man abandons worn-out clothes to wear other new ones.“
वासांसि जीर्णानि विहाय नवानि गृह्णाति नरः अपराणि ॥
विहाय जीर्णानि वासांसि नवानि गृह्णाति नरः अपराणि ॥
नरः विहाय वासांसि जीर्णानि गृह्णाति अपराणि नवानि ॥
विहाय वासांसि जीर्णानि नरः नवानि अपराणि गृह्णाति ॥
गृह्णाति नवानि अपराणि नरः विहाय वासांसि जीर्णानि ॥
जीर्णानि विहाय वासांसि गृह्णाति अपराणि नरः नवानि ॥
and so on…till thousands of permutations are exhausted!
Try to change the position of even a single word in the stupid language English and you will see the sentence become meaningless.
English is a weakly inflected language. An inflection of a word is a different form of that word and is used for enhancing the meaning of the original word. English rarely uses different forms of a word, to convey enhanced meanings of that word. Instead, it uses totally new unrelated words to convey the enhanced meanings.
For example, to convey “the meat was eaten by a dog“, we are using a totally new unrelated word ‘by’, instead of using a different form of the word ‘Dog’
Highly inflected languages are those which depend heavily on inflections to convey the enhanced meanings of a word. For example, the sentence “the meat was eaten by a dog” written in Sanskrit, would be-
मांसं खादितं कुक्कुरेण ॥
The meat was eaten by a dog .
In English, to convey the information that dog is the agent by whom the action(of eating) is being performed, we are using a totally new unrelated word by. But in Sanskrit, we are using a different form(inflection) of the word कुक्कुर .
Here, कुक्कुरेण is an inflection of the original word कुक्कुर, which conveys the extra information that कुक्कुर is the agent by whom the action is being performed. Similarly, while English used the word was to convey that the meat is already eaten, Sanskrit uses खादितं – a different form of the word खादन – to convey that the action(खादन) is already performed. The word खादितं is an inflection of the original word खादन .
Sanskrit grammarians were interested in sambandha and not in abhisambandha, and accordingly in grammatical relations but not necessarily in word order
Sambandha is the relation of one word to another within a sentence (as shown, e.g., by grammatical inflexion)'.
The grammar of the Sanskrit language has a complex verbal system, rich nominal declension, and extensive use of compound nouns.
CHOMSKY HAS NO RIGHT TO CALL HIMSELF A LINGUISTICS EXPERT WITHOUT BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF SANSKRIT—THE MOTHER OF ALL LANGUAGES .
SRUTI OF VEDAS IN SANSKRIT IS 400 CENTURIES OLD.
Con-man Chomsky spAke—“A grammar contains a syntactic component, a semantic component and a phonological component...The syntactic component consists of a base and a transformational component. The base, in turn, consists of a categorial subcomponent and a lexicon. The base generates deep structures. A deep structure enters the semantic component and receives a semantic interpretation; it is mapped by transformational rules into a surface structure, which is then given a phonetic interpretation by the rules of the phonological component”
In above grammar model of CHOOT CHOMSKY , syntax is given a prominent, generative role, whereas phonology and semantics are assigned secondary, interpretive roles
The theoretical constructs and principles of the generative grammar introduced by Chomsky such as deep structures, transformations, autonomy and primacy of syntax, etc. deserve to be shat on and thrown on Chomsky’s face.
I am sorry, I have been reduced to this – hurling abuse .
Mindless Chomskyanism has been the dominant paradigm in linguistics for nearly forty years.
So, so , so-- If you toe CHOOT Chomsky’s line, you are a genius ?
Not any more !
A blogger named Capt Ajit Vadkayil is in town—who can fit the entire intellect of a 100 Jew Chomsky’s intellect under the forsskin of his uncircumcised prick and have space for 99% more.
Linguistics is the scientific study of language, and involves an analysis of language form, language meaning, and language in context.
Structural linguistics is an approach to linguistics originating from the work of Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure and is part of the overall approach of structuralism. Structural linguistics involves collecting a corpus of utterances and then attempting to classify all of the elements of the corpus at their different linguistic levels: the phonemes, morphemes, lexical categories, noun phrases, verb phrases, and sentence types
Ferdinand de Saussure is considered one of the founders of 20th-century linguistics
Noam Chomsky placed himself explicitly in the tradition of saussurean linguistics.
Epistemology in Indian philosophy ( 5000 BC ) is divided into six pramanas. The six pramanas as correct means of accurate knowledge and to truths are:--
Upamāṇa (comparison and analogy),
Arthāpatti (postulation, derivation from circumstances),
Anupalabdi (non-perception, negative/cognitive proof) and
Śabda (word, testimony of past or present reliable experts).
Each of these are further categorized in terms of conditionality, completeness, confidence and possibility of error, by each school of Indian philosophies.
The white historian must know that ancient Greek philosophy was stolen from Indian philosophy. Every Greek stalwart studied in Kodungallur University owned by the Calicut King ( except Aristotle who used his mentor Plato’s notes )
Pramaṇa refers to epistemology in Vedanta-- Yukti which means active application of epistemology or what one already knows, innovation, clever expedients or connections, methodological or reasoning trick, joining together, application of contrivance, means, method, novelty or device to more efficiently achieve a purpose.
The focus of Pramana is how correct knowledge can be acquired, how one knows, how one doesn't, and to what extent knowledge pertinent about someone or something can be acquired
In pramāṇa, “knowledge sources.”--the principal candidates are perception, inference, and testimony. The central notion throughout classical Indian epistemology is the “knowledge source,” pramāṇa, which is a process of veridical-cognition generation.
Pramaṇa concept is derived from the Sanskrit root, prama which means "correct notion, true knowledge, basis, foundation, accurate notion".
Yukti and Pramana are discussed together in some Indian texts, with Yukti described as active process of gaining knowledge in contrast to passive process of gaining knowledge through observation/ perception.
The texts on Pramana, particularly by Samkhya, Yoga and Advaita Vedanta schools of Hinduism, include in their meaning and scope "Theories of Errors", that is why human beings make error and reach incorrect knowledge, how can one know if one is wrong, and if so, how can one discover whether one's epistemic method was flawed, or one's conclusion (truth) was flawed, in order to revise oneself and reach correct knowledge.
In some texts such as by Vedavyasa, ten pramanas are discussed. Vedanta gave importance to circumstantial implication (arthāpatti), which appeals to common sense (e.g., one does not see the sun move from minute to minute, but, as it is in a different place at different times of day, one must conclude that either earth or sun has moved.
The word ‘pramāṇa’ (“knowledge source”) along with the words used for individual knowledge sources, for perception and so on, are commonly used such that the truth of the resultant cognition is implied.
This runs counter to Western usage.
The knowledge, perceived by the mind and sense organs is known as Pratyaksha. The means of perceiving the knowledge is known as Pratyaksha Pramana. In this case, knowledge is the result and the contact of the object and the sense organs is nothing but means of knowledge.
The instrumental cause of a true cognition is called ‘ pramana ’. A pramana theory is one which theorizes about the (causal) modes by which true cognitions are acquired and their truth claims validated.
According to Noam Chomsky, the mind comprises an extensive cluster of innate “modules,” one of which is language. Each module operates automatically, independently of individual control, on the basis of a distinct, domain-specific set of rules that take determinate inputs from some modules and yield determinate outputs for others.
In earlier work these operations were called “derivations”; more recently they have been called “computations.” The various modules interact in complex ways to yield perception, thought, and a large number of other cognitive products.
For example, a bee’s genome does not have to direct it to build hives in a hexagonal lattice. The lattice is a requirement imposed by physics, since this structure is the most stable and efficient of the relevant sort. Analogous points can be made about the growth, structure, and operation of the human brain.
SORRY CHOOT CHOMSKY PAAJI , THIS IS SHABDA BRAHMAN AT WORK
Panini's work ( 5500 BC ) were the first systematic investigations of language. The motivation was the precise and accurate preservation of Vedic texts on oral route . 500 years latter Vedas would be penned down..
Sanskrit language was studied against the background of literary studies as well as philosophical enquiry.
Phonological and phonetic study of words as isolates and words as part of sentences (also morphemes as part of words); the technical term sandhi i.e. ``joining together'' is now accepted in Western linguistics.
Bhartrihari distinguishes language into two aspects:-
--Communicative language : that which is found in use in the speech community for communicating ideas
-- Analytic language: developed by absraction in order to show the correctness of communicative language.
The abstraction is made on the basis of anvaya-vyatireka, copresence and coabsence. Different sentences are compared and contrasted.
On the basis of similarities and differences, one extracts:--
- words and word meanings from sentences
- bases and formative elements with segmented meanings from words
Just as samhita-patha is shown as derived from pada-patha of the vedic hymns by the pratishakhya texts, the grammarians show the sentences as being formed by concatenating words with different case-relations (karakas), just as pearls in a necklace...
This idea appears to have influenced the Sanskrit scholar de Saussure, who in his Course in General Linguistics, calls a version of this distinction that of parole (individual acts of speech and the "putting into practice of language") and langue (the abstract system of language that is internalized by a given speech community).
In linguistics Chomksy’s main contribution is the influential transformative-generative grammar “which is an attempt to describe the syntactical processes common to all human language mathematically”
Later on, Noam Chomsky would call a related distinction as that between e-language and i-language, which was related to the competence (the knowledge that allows people to construct and understand grammatical sentences), and performance (the actual sentences).
Language has been thought to be the object of linguistics. But Noam Chomsky insists that language as a useless notion for linguistic science. He argues that linguistics should be concerned with grammar.
He renames language and grammar, externalized language (E-language) and internalized language (I-language) respectively. According to Chomsky, E-language (language) is something abstract externalized from the actual apparatus of our mind and I-language (grammar) is the physical mechanism of our brain.
If we are endowed with Universal Grammar (UG) at birth and get I-language after parameters built in UG are set one way or another and I-language generates E-language, then I-language will be the object of linguistic science.
But if there is nothing but language (E-language) spoken or written around us and grammar (I-language) is regularity derived from language (E-language), then we will have a quite different story
Noam Chomsky (1965) , a THIEF of inferior intellect, claimed the Paninian grammar to his ‘generative enterprise’ because of the recursive properties manifested by the latter,--but he did not have the cerebral wherewithal to understand the metaphysical and epistemological ideas that underlie Indian grammatical system..
Karak are the words which are commonly used before a noun, noun phrase, pronoun or verb. The karakas are basic semantic notions that pivot sentence constructions. They are similar to the case roles/relations proposed in the case grammars.
But karakas are much more than these, and their crucial role as a common substratum of ontology, cognition, and grammar can be understood only if we regard them as a manner of classifying ‘actions’ in the real world.
Panini himself was probably merely projecting the karakas (literally, ‘a factor of action’) from morphological occurrences in the form of cases to a set of possible actions in the world.
Panini identifies six karakas corresponding to six cases, viz., the nominative, accusative, dative, instrumental, locative, and ablative. Possessive and vocative are conspicuous by their absence in Panini’s grammar.
This is how Panini defines the six karakas (Ashtadhyayi, I.4.24-54):--
Apadana (lit. ‘take off’): "(that which is) firm whendeparture (takes place). This is the equivalent of the ablative notion which signifies a stationary object from whicha movement proceeds.
Sampradana (‘bestowal’): "he whom one aims at with the object". This is equivalent to the dative notion which signifies a recipient in an act of giving or similar acts.
Karana ("instrument") "that which effects most". This is equivalent to the instrumental notion.
Adhikarana (‘location’): or "substratum". This is equivalent to the locative notion.
Karman (‘deed’/’object’): "what the agent seeks most to attain". This is equivalent to the accusative notion.
Karta (‘agent’): "he/that which is independent in action". this is equivalent to the case of the subject or the nominative notion.
Patanjali’s Mahabhashya defines karakas in relation to the notion of kriya, or the ‘distinctive mode of action of the accessories’ (karakanam pravrttivisesaha kriya). The following points of Mahabhashya are relevant:--
the root can be defined as something which expresses kriya, it is necessary to understand kriya or action in terms of karakanam pravrttivisesaha kriya = ‘a particular mode of behaviour of accessories’
Kriya is different from all the accessories which play a part, direct or indirect, in its complishment- it is not pratyaksha, it can only be inferred.
The Mahabhashya approves that existence, the meaning of the root ‘as’ (exist) is one of the transformations of bhava or satta and therefore, action.
Even though the dictionaries give word meanings, no word can signify any meaning in isolation unless its referent is connected with an action expressed by a verb... In the same way, a word is formed by the combination of segments called root, suffixes, etc.
Grammatical Analysis: may be sentence based - terminating when the sentence is reached (vakyavadhikanvakya); or terminating with the word (padavadhikanvakyana).
The karakas (strictly, that which effectuates a verbal action) bear names of strongly individualized aspects, among which the most important is a group derived from the root kr- : karman, karana, kartr, adhikarana. Karman, "action" (equally, direct object, the object of the transitive verb) belongs to the rituals where the word, since the Rig Veda, denotes the act par excellence, that is, rite
Bhartrhari says-- whenever something, finished or unfinished is presented as something to be accomplished (i.e., sadhya), then it is called ‘action’ because of its having acquired the form of sequence.
The Brahmakanda (Chapter I) of Vakyapadiyam is a treatise on the metaphysics and ontology/physics of the form and meaning aspects of language.
It dwells primarily on the following relations: --
1. between word in the intellect and the word spoken;
2. between sequenceless and the sequential in language;
3. between the universal and the particular;
4. between the word and the world..
In the philosophy of grammar that is presented in Bhartrhari’s Vakyapadiyam, there are important references to the nature of word and meaning. The form of the word is the result of eternal transformations of the Sabdabrahma or the primordial word/sound.
Meaning is the particular instanciation of the activation, through an explosion or ‘bursting forth’ (sphota) in the intellect (pratibha) of the hearer. What is important in these views is the dynamic perspective attached to both meaning and form.
The main feature of Bhartrhari’s ideas is the constancy of and the omnipresence of transformations in the universe. Both word and the world are the result of manifest transformations and/or apparent differentiations of a cosmic unity, which takes the name of shabdabrahman. (Brahman, or the Ultimate reality is of the nature of the word, i,e, sabdatattva)
From a eternal point of view these transformations/differentiations are unreal and illusory. Time, as one of the properties of the unchanging cosmic unity, is the material force which produce these transformations, which are in turn perceived and cognized as activities of particular things.
The shabdabrahman is initially differentiated into its mental and material media, and the time-force (kalashakti) effects both these aspects.
In the domain of the world, there are essentially two kinds of transformations, effected by the power of time, namely birth or manifestation and death or hiding. More specifically, there are essentially six kinds of transformations in the world: birth, existence, change, increase, decrease, and death.
The transformations between the intellect and its verbal manifestation at least three stages. These are para, pashyanti and madhyama. The fourth stage or vaikhari is that of differentiated speech..
Important to Bhartrhari’s philosophy of the word, is his assumption of a ‘word in the intellect’ which is the ’cause’ of the spoken word. Probably, he believes that the word in the intellect is undifferentiated, therefore sequenceless, in contrast to the spoken word. The meaning of the spoken word could be an object ‘which is connected to some action.
Bhartrhari asserts that the action referred to by the word — which is itself an activity — will have the ‘fitness’ when it corresponds to the word in the intellect which could be an (isomorphic) schema of the action in the world. Bhartrhari’s notion of sphota coincided with the word in the intellect, or with the spontaneous ‘bursting forth’ of recognition of meaning. Both have a role in meaning grasping..
The word-in-the-intellect aspect of sphota is a kind of mental (transcendental) schema.
Bhartrhari insists that a new-born child possesses innate knowledge, he does not see this knowledge in terms of some semantic or other universals that can be inventoried. The innate knowledge is thought of as some sort of ‘action-schemas’. the idea seems to be that just as the infant has the ability to breathe, or to make the simplest of movements (which no one has taught it), similarly it is the possessor of a thread of (the eternal) knowledge.
The relation between the word in the intellect and the spoken word is not construed as the relation between the internal and the external, but as the one between fixed and static on the one side side and the mobile and the dynamic on the other.
"Just as the form of the self (i.e., the senses) is involved in the perception/cognition of objects, so the meaning form is involved in the recognition of the word." (partially improvised translation) (Vakyapadiya, I.50 –7000 BC)
In Bhartrhari’s view, only the sentence can completely express ‘reality’, and not the word which may denote objects. Moreover, "reality is expressible only in the form ‘it exists’ which means that a word in order to express a reality has to be compounded with a verb, namely ‘exists’."
Therefore, "a verb has to be part of a sentence… If the verb is mentioned as expressing an action to be conveyed, nouns are required to effect the action.. The verb constitutes the essential and minimal content of a sentence.
Sentence-meanings which are primarily in the nature of an action are also relative to the speaking subject. The ancient grammarian … makes a distinction between word-meanings which mention an object, and the meaning of the sentence which is primarily an action, effected by men through objects..
For the grammarian, reality is understood only through speech (language) and it is understood only in the form it is presented by speech (word/language). But language cannot describe the intrinsic nature of things, although we know things only in the form in which words describe them.
Bhartrhari rejects the existence of meanings of individual words. Individual word-meaning is an illusion, according to him. Only the undifferentiated sentence-meaning is real.
A cognition which embraces many objects at the same time is a complex cognition. As a cognition, it is one but because of the many objects which figure in it, one sees plurality in it, though it is indivisible..
Following his top-down approach, Bhartrhari considers the sentence-meaning to be primary, and the word-meaning the result of rather artificial analysis. The relationship between sentence-meaning and word-meaning is compared to the relationship between a holistic picture and its component-parts..
Just as an unified perception of composite (picture) can be analyzed (into the preoccupation of component parts) depending upon which part is required to be perceived so likewise is the understanding of the meaning of the sentence.
Just as a single homogeneous picture is described through various features as being blue (green, etc.) as a result of its being perceived in different ways, similarly the sentence which is single and does not possess expectancy is described in terms of words which possess mutual expectancy.
Bhartrhari discusses a possible set of cases under the name of Sesa (the rest or the extras). Sesa does not represent a karaka relation but may involve or be preceded by one of the karaka relations.
Panini and Patanjali, and etymologists like Yaska were clearly concerned with human speech in the everyday empirical world; but they also made room for metaphysical study.
Similarly, the great Indian philosopher of language, Bhartrhari, begins his Vakyapadiya with a metaphysical enquiry into the nature and origin of language in relation to Brahman, but then goes on in Chapters Two and Three to explore technical grammatical points involved in the everyday use of language
The great creative intellectual giants of ancient India, take care to explain their thought not as creation but as a retracing of forgotten eternal truth. They compare their activity to the clearing an overgrown ancient path in the jungle, not to the making of a new path .
Language ( vak) has a prominent place in the Vedas. In the Vedas language is directly identified with the divine ( Brahman). The Rigveda states that there are as many words as there are manifestations of Brahman. In the Upanishads , there is a continued equating of speech and Brahman.
Vag vai brahmeti, “Speech, truly, is Brahman."-- Brhadaranyaka Upanisad 4.1.2 - 5000 BC
The Rig-Veda, in its several hymns, contains glorious references to the power of speech. An entire Sukta (RV. 10.7l) is devoted to the subject of speech; its various kinds ranging from the articulated to the in-articulate sounds in nature and to the gestures (ingita).
For the Vedic seers who herd and spoke about their experiences, speech was the most wonderful gift from the divine. The splendour and beauty of Vac, the personification of wisdom and eloquence, is sung in several hymns. Maharishis secured the power of divine speech through Yajna; studied it; and, revealed it for the benefit of the common people.
Yajnena vaeah padavlyan ayan tam anv avladan rslsa praviatam i tam abhnya vy adadhnh pnrutra tarn sapta rebha abhi sain navante (Rig Veda .10.71 – 5000 BC)
Vac is the inexplicable creative power of speech which gives form to the formless; gives birth to existence and lends identity to objects by naming them. It is the faculty which gives expression to ideas; calms the agitated minds; and, enables one to hear, see, grasp, and then describe in words or by other means the true nature of things.
Vac is intimately associated with the Rishis and the riks (verses) that articulate or capture the truths of their visions. Vac, the navel of energy, the mysterious presence in nature, was, therefore, held in great reverence. Many of the later philosophical theories on this unique human faculty, the language, have their roots in Vedas.
While the Rishis of the early Vedas were overwhelmed by the power of speech, the philosophers of the Upanishads asked such questions as: who is the speaker? Who inspires one to speak? Can the speech truly know the source of its inspiration?
They doubted; though the speech is the nearest embodiment of the in-dweller (Antaryamin) it might not truly know its source (just as the body cannot know its life-principle). Because, they observed, at the very beginning, the Word was un-uttered and hidden (avyahriam); it was silence.
Ultimately, all those speculations led to the Self. But, again they said that Self is beyond mind and words (Avachyam; yato vacho nivartante, aprapya manasaa saha)
Ultimately, all those speculations led to the Self. But, again they said that Self is beyond mind and words (Avachyam; yato vacho nivartante, aprapya manasaa saha)
In the Indian traditions, it is believed that it is only in its oral form that the language becomes fully alive and reveals its true nature , provided it is spoken properly. For Indian thinkers, language was primarily the spoken word or speaking itself (vac); while the written word, as a secondary aid, was only a coded-representation of the spoken word; but, without its nuances.
Perhaps the most salient feature of ancient Indian linguistic culture was its concern for preserving the purity of the spoken word.
Speech was regarded as the verbal expression of a thought that arises in a person’s consciousness. If there is no consciousness, there would be no speech. Speech (Vac) is indeed an outward form of consciousness (chetana). Vac is the word principle that gives expression to the latent or unmanifest thoughts and feelings.
That was meant to say; thinking is, in fact, a sort of internal speaking. Such inaudible speech was regarded the seed or the potent form of explicit speech that is heard by others. It was also said; all knowledge is interpreted in terms of words; and, it is quite not possible to have any sort of cognition that is free from words (tasmād arthavidhāḥ sarvāḥ śabdam-ātrāsu niśritāḥ– Vakyapadiya: 1.123)
The process of transformation of a thought or an impulse arising in ones consciousness into a cognizable, explicit speech is said to resemble the evolution of the Universe from the un-manifest (A-vyakta) to the manifest (Vyakta) material world.
It was the speech, the spoken word not the written letter that is at the base of the Sanskrit grammar. All speculations and practices are concerned with the oral. Panini’s Astadhyayi is also based on the sounds of spoken Sanskrit. The spoken language in Sanskrit was/is the real language.
Therefore, right from the earliest period, the study of speech has been one of the major concerns of various Schools of Indian traditions. The power of the spoken word or still more of the potent un-spoken sound was well recognized.
Chatvaari vaak parimitaa padaani / taani vidur braahmaanaa ye manishinaah. Guhaa trini nihita nengayanti / turiyam vaacho manushyaa vadanti. (Rigveda Samhita – 1.164.45- 5000 BC)
There are four levels of speech. Only the wise who are well trained, endowed with intelligence and understanding know them all. As for the rest; the three levels remain concealed and motionless. Mortals know only the fourth. ( the classification of speech into four strata: Para; Pashyanti; Madhyama; and, Vaikhari)
Sound has four divisions: Para manifested in Prana (vital energy); Pashyanti manifested in the mind (Manas); Madhyama manifested in the senses (Indriyani); and, Vaikhari manifested in articulate expressions (Vac). While Para Vac is pure consciousness; the three other forms are its transformations.
The three lower forms of speech viz. Pashyanti, Madhyama and Vaikhari which correspond to intention, formulation and expression are said to represent ts powers , such as : iccha-shakthi (power of intent or will) , jnana-shakthi (power of knowledge) and the power of becoming (bhuti sakti) or the power of action (Kriya shakthi ). Thus, out of the transcendent Para, the three phases of its power (Shakthi) emanate.
The urge to communicate or the spontaneous evolution of Para into Pashyanti, Madhyama and Vaikhari epitomizes the Cosmic act of One becoming many; and, the subtle energy transforming into a less- subtle matter.
The speech, each time it emanates, is an enactment, in miniature, of the unfolding (Vimarsa) of the One into many. And each time, when that speech is grasped by the listener and each time it merges into her/his intellect, it re-enacts the process of absorption (Samhara) of the many into One.
The process of manifestation of speech is, compared to the evolution of the Universe. And, that process is said to take place in four stages.
First, in the undifferentiated substratum of thought, an intention appears. This first impulse, the self-radiant consciousness is Para-vac (the voice beyond). This latent, un-spoken, un-manifest, silent thought (Para) unfolds itself in the next three stages as Pashyanti (thought visualized), Madhyama (intermediate) and as Vaikhari (explicit) speech).
Para represents transcendental consciousness; Pashyanti the intellectual consciousness; Madhyama the cerebral consciousness; and, Vaikhari the physical consciousness.
Further, these levels of consciousness are said to correspond with varying levels of awareness: Turia (the fourth, the transcendental or the one-beyond); Shushupti (deep sleep); Svapna (dream state) ; and Jagrat ( wakeful state) , in that order.
And again, these states of consciousness are said to relate to different states of being (bodies). Para which is referred to as the Supreme form; the first form; the pure and resplendent Highest-light etc, is indeed beyond all forms (Turiya); and it is formless.
The sphere of consciousness at Pashyanti is said to be the causal body (Karana-sarira); at Madhyama, the subtle or psychic body (Sukshma-sarira); and at Vaikhari, the physical body (Sthula-sarira).
In the Vritti accompanying the main text of the Vakyapadiya (1.14), Bhartrhari describes and offers explanations on the process of evolution or transformation (Vivarta) of the thought arising in one’s mind into audible speech.
Madhyama tu antahs-amnivesini parigrihita-krameva buddhi-matropadana sukshma prana-vrtti-anugata
As that cognition crops up and takes a shape within, he grasps it. Here, one looks for and identifies appropriate words, phrases, and their sequence, which are capable of conveying ones’ intention, clearly. “he recognizes the verbal parts, which he is about to verbalize either to himself or to another as distant and separable from the Artha or thought.”
[That sequence of thoughts results in definite and clear array of words. This is the intermediate stage – The Madhyamā vak, a sequenced but a pre-vocal thought –described as the voice of silence; perhaps best understood as internal speaking.
Here, there is no perceptible sound (Nada). The Madhyamā vak is in an inaudible wave or vibratory (spandana) form.
Thus, Madhyamā is the stage at which the initial idea or intention is transformed into series of words, as conceived by the mind, before they are actually put out. It may even be regarded as introspection or as a sort of internal dialogue.
All the parts of speech that are linguistically relevant are present here in a latent form. At this stage, which corresponds to Prakrta-dhvani, the word and the meaning are still distinct; and the word order is present. Therefore, temporal sequence may also be present.
While Para is pure consciousness, the other three are said to be its powers through which it differentiates as its power of will (iccha shakthi) at the subtle level of Pashyanti; as the power of discrimination or knowledge (Jnana shakthi) at the mental level of Madhyama; and, as its power of action (Kriya Shakthi) at the physical level of Vaikhari.
Mantra is said to connect, in a very special way, the objective and subjective aspects of reality. The Mantra, in its sublime form, is rooted in pure consciousness.
The theory underlying the evolution of speech is an extension of that faith; and it asserts, though there are several levels in the hierarchy of language, they all emanate from one indivisible reality Sabdabrahman.
And again, the Sabdabrahman is identified with Para Brahman, the Absolute. The various levels of language from the most subtle to the gross are, therefore, treated as hierarchy or the levels of a unitary language-system.
Most of the philosophical speculations on the process of manifestation of language; and, the discussions upon its various stages – from the subtlest (Para) to the most explicit (Vaikhari) – are based in that principle.
According to Nirukta (Etymology), the language of the three Vedas (Rik, Yajus and Saman ) and the speech commonly used for dealings in the world , together make the four quarters of speech – (Rg-yajuh-samani-caturdhi vyavharikiti nairuktah – 13,8 )
In the Rig-Veda, Vac, generally, denotes speech which gives an intelligent expression to ideas, by use of words; and it is the medium of exchange of knowledge. Vac is the vision, as also, the ability to turn that perceived vision into words. In the later periods, the terms such as Vani, Gira and such others were treated as its synonyms.
In the Sanskrit, the vowels and consonants sounds are classified and arranged dependent on their origin (pronunciation) in different parts of mouth, such as throat, palate, teeth or lips.
The vowels and consonants are so arranged that those emanating from the throat come first. These are followed by those pronounced through tongue; the palate; teeth and the lips. All sounds are arranged as those from the inside of the mouth proceeding outwards, in that order. No other ancient system of writing seems to have been so systematically thought out.
The vowels (Svara-s) , alternating long and short, come first : अ (a) आ (aa) इ(i) ई(ee) उ(u) ऊ (oo) ऋ (r) ॠ (r) लृ (lr) ए (e) ऐ (ai) ओ (o) and औ (au)
The commencing vowels अ (a) and आ (aa) are pronounced in the throat – Kantya (कण्ठ्य). They are followed by vowels इ(i) and ई(ee) produced by the tongue touching the base of the teeth , Taalavya (तालव्य). The vowels उ (u) and ऊ (oo) are produced using the lips making a rounded opening – Oshtya (ओष्ठ्य). The vowels ऋ(r) and ॠ(r) are produced by the tip of the tongue curling back against the roof of the mouth- Murdhanya (मूर्धन्य). The vowel लृ(lr) is produced by the tongue touching the upper teeth – Dantya (दंत्य). The vowels ए (e) and ऐ (ai) are produced near the throat by the tongue touching the bottom of the teeth and sucking in the air – Kanta-taalavya (कंटतालव्य). The vowels ओ (o) and औ (au) produced near the throat by the rounding of the lips are called Kantoshtya (कंटोष्ठ्य).
The two ornamental nasal (Anusvara) letters अं (am) and अः (aha ) ,which are used to decorate the vowels, are called the Visarga , meaning sending forth . These sounds, which are neither consonants nor vowels, add a softening short burst effect at the end. These are usually listed as a part of the vowel -group; but are shown at the end.
Similar is the emanation of the consonants – from throat outwards to the lips .
The set of consonants – क (ka) , ख (kha) , ग (ga) , घ (gha) , and ङ( nga) – are guttural (throaty) consonants – Kantya (कण्ठ्य). Then the consonants – च (cha) , छ (chha) , ज (ja) , झ (jha) , and ञ (nja)- are pronounced on the palate- Taalavya (तालव्य). The next set of consonants – ट (ta) ,ठ (tha) , ड (da) , ढ (dha) and ण( na) – is produced by the tip of the tongue curling back against the roof of the mouth– Murdhanya (मूर्धन्य). Next are those on the teeth (दन्त्य), like – त (ta) , थ(tha) , द (da) , ध (dha) and न (na) . And last come those on the lips प (pa) फ (pha) ब(ba) भ (bha) and म ( ma) – (ओष्ठ्य). Oshtya (ओष्ठ्य).
The list is rounded off with semi-consonants like – य (ya) , र (ra) , ल (la) and व(va) ; and the aspirated and sibilant sounds like श (sha) ष (sha) , स (sh) and ह (ha ).
Such unique organization of the alphabet underlines the attention paid to the patterns of articulated sound; points of its location; and , to degree of resonance, in a way that has not been attempted in any other language—though every language on this planet has lifted from Sanskrit
Maharishi Yaska ( 5800 BC ) wrote the Nirukta-- the discipline of "etymology" (explanation of words) within Sanskrit grammatical tradition.
Nirukta is a technical treatise on etymology, lexical category and the semantics of Sanskrit words. Nirukta is the study concerned with correct interpretation of Sanskrit words in the Vedas
Nirukta (Sanskrit), means "uttered, pronounced, explained, expressed, defined, loud". It also refers to the etymological interpretation of a word, also the name of such works
The related Sanskrit noun niruktiḥ means "poetical derivation" or "explanation of a word”
Yaska developed a semantic analysis of words, by breaking them down into their components, and then combined them in the context they were used to propose what the archaic words mean.. He pointed out that meaning and the etymology of words are always context dependent.
The Nirukta attempts to explain how certain words get to have their meanings, especially in the context of interpreting the Vedic texts. It includes a system of rules for forming words from roots and affixes, and a glossary of irregular words, and formed the basis for later lexicons and dictionaries.
It consists of three parts, viz.:(i) Naighantuka, a collection of synonyms; (ii) Naigama, a collection of words peculiar to the Vedas, and (iii) Daivata, words relating to deities and sacrifices.
The Nirukta was one of the six vedangas or compulsory ritual subjects in syllabus of Sanskrit scholarship in ancient India.
Words are created around object-agent, according to Yaska, to express external or internal reality perceived by man, and are one of six modifications of Kriya (action) and Bhava (dynamic being), namely being born, existing, changing, increasing, decreasing and perishing
Nirukta covers etymology, and is the study concerned with correct interpretation of Sanskrit words in the Vedas. Vyakarana deals with linguistic analysis to establish the exact form of words to properly express ideas, while Nirukta focuses on linguistic analysis to help establish the proper meaning of the words, given the context they are used in.
Sanskrit noun niruktiḥ means "poetical derivation" or "explanation of a word”
Words are created around object-agent, according to Yaska, to express external or internal reality perceived by man, and are one of six modifications of Kriya (action) and Bhava (dynamic being), namely being born, existing, changing, increasing, decreasing and perishing.
Yaska views words as the main carriers of meaning -- that words have a primary or preferred ontological status in defining meaning,
Nirukta, means "uttered, pronounced, explained, expressed, defined, loud". It also refers to the etymological interpretation of a word, also the name of such works.
Yaska defines four main categories of words:--
nama – nouns or substantives
akhyata – verbs
upasarga – pre-verbs or prefixes
nipata – particles, invariant words ( prepositions)
The meaning of Vedic passages has to be understood through context, purpose stated, subject matter being discussed, what is stated, how, where and when.
Yaska, in his famous text titled Nirukta, asserts that Rigveda in the ancient tradition, can be interpreted in three ways - from the perspective of religious rites (adhiyajna), from the perspective of the deities (adhidevata), and from the perspective of the soul (adhyatman)
The fourth way to interpret the Rigveda also emerged in the ancient times, wherein the gods mentioned were viewed as symbolism for legendary individuals or narratives.
The original idea of Sphota goes back to the Vedic age when Vak or speech was considered to be a manifestation of the all – pervading Brahman , and Pranava (Aum) was regarded as the primordial speech sound from which all forms of Vak were supposed to have evolved.
This provided the model upon which the Vyakarana philosophers based their concept of Sphota. Indeed Sphota is often identified with Pranava.
For Bhartrhari, Vac or speech is the means to all knowledge and is the essence of consciousness. He regards speech as the verbal expression of a thought that arises in a person’s consciousness. If there is no consciousness, he argues, there would be no speech. Speech (Vac) is indeed an outward form (Vargupta) of consciousness (chetana ).
Yaska describes speech (Vac) as the divine gift to humans to clearly express their thoughts (devim vacam ajanayanta- Nir. 11.29); and, calls the purified articulate speech as Paviravi – sharp as the resonance (tanyatu) of the thunderbolt which originates from an invisible power (Tad devata vak paviravi. paviravi cha divya Vac tanyatus tanitri vaco’nyasyah – Nir. 12.30).
Vac, the speech-principle (Vac-tattva), has numerous attributes and varied connotations in the Rig-Veda. Vac is not mere speech. It is something more sacred than ordinary speech; and , carries with it a far wider significance. Vac is the truth (ninya vachasmi); and, is the index of the integrity of one’s inner being.
A true-speech (Satya-vac) honestly reflects the vision of the Rishi, the seer. It is through such sublime Vac that the true nature of objects, as revealed to the Rishis (kavyani kavaye nivacana), is expressed in pristine poetry. Their superb ability to grasp multiple dimensions of human life, ideals and aspirations is truly remarkable.
Vac is thus a medium of expression of the spiritual experience of the Rig Vedic intellectuals who were highly dexterous users of the words. Being free from falsehood, Vac is described in the Rig-Veda as illuminating or inspiring noble thoughts (cetanti sumatlnam).
dharmam cadharmam ca satyam canrtam ca sadhu casadhu ca hrdayajnam cahrdayajnam ca; yad-vai van nabhavisyat na dharmo nadharmo vyajnapayisyat, na satyam nanrtam na sadhu na’sadhu na hrdayajno na’hrdayajna vag-eva etat sarvam vijnapayati, vacam upassveti.
Chandogya Upanishad (7.2.1) asserts that Vac ( speech) is deeper than name (worldly knowledge) – Vag-vava namno bhuyasi – because speech is what communicates (Vac vai vijnapayati) all outer worldly knowledge as well as what is right and what is wrong (dharmam cadharmam) ; what is true and what is false (satyam canrtam ca); what is good and what is bad (sadhu casadhu ca); and, what is pleasant and what is unpleasant ( hrdayajnam cahrdayajnam ca). Speech alone makes it possible to understand all this (vag-eva etat sarvam vijnapayati). Worship Vac (vacam upassveti).
Vac when translated into English is generally rendered as Word. That, however, is not a very satisfactory translation. Vac might, among many other things, also mean speech, voice, utterance, language, sound or word; but, it is essentially the creative force that brings forth all forms expressions as also the existence.
It is an emanation from out of silence which is the Absolute. Vac is also the river and the embodied or god-personified as word, as well. It may not, therefore, be appropriate to translate Vac as Word in all events. One, therefore, always needs to take into account the context of its usage.
As speech, the term Vāk or Vāc (वाक्), grammatically, is a feminine noun. Vac is variously referred to – Syllable (akshara or Varna), word (Sabda), sentence (vakya), speech (Vachya), voice (Nada or Dhvani), language (bhasha) and literature (Sahitya).
While in the Rig-Veda, the Yajnas are a means for the propitiation of the gods, in the Brahmanas Yagnas become very purpose of human existence ; they are the ends in themselves. Many of the Brahmana texts are devoted to the exposition of the mystic significance of the various elements of the ritual (Yajna-kriya).
The priests who were the adepts in explaining the objectives, the significance, the symbolisms and the procedural details of the Yajnas came into prominence. The all-knowing priest who presides over , and directs the course and conduct of the Soma sacrifice is designated as Brahma; while the three other sets of priests who chant the mantras are named as hotar, adhvaryu, and udgatru
Here, Brahman is the definitive voice (final-word); while the chanting of the mantras by the other three priests is taken to be Vac. Brahma (word) and Vac (speech) are said to be partners working closely towards the good (shreya) and for the fulfilment of the performer or the patron’s (Yajamana) aspirations (kamya). And, Brahma the one who presides and controls the course of the Yajna is accorded a higher position over the chanters of the mantras.
It was said; Vac (chanting) extends so far as the Brahma allows (yaávad bráhma vistham taávatii vaák– RV.10.114.8).
It was said; if word is flower, speech is the garland. And, if Vac is the weapons, it is Brahma that sharpens them – codáyaami ta aáyudhaa vácobhih sám te shíshaami bráhmanaa váyaamsi. (RV 10.120.5 and 9.97.34)
Bhartṛhari also asserted that, all knowledge is illumined through words, and it is quite not possible to have cognition that is free from words (tasmād arthavidhāḥ sarvāḥ śabdamātrāsu niśritāḥ – Vakyapadiya: 1.123); ‘no thought is possible without language’; and ’there is no cognition without the process of words’.
‘Bhartrhari’ glorifies in his ‘Vakyapadiya’, the greatness of the Goddess of speech. And he also asserts that it is ‘Vak’ alone created the entire Cosmos.
And, Bhartrhari declares- ‘It is Vac which has created all the worlds’- vageva viswa bhuvanani jajne (Vakyapadiya. 1.112)
The concept of Vac was extended to cover oral and aural forms such as : expression , saying , phrase , utterance sentence, and also the languages of all sorts including gesture (ingita).
Vac is the word principle that gives expression to the latent or un-manifest thoughts, feelings and impulses. And at the same time, for Bhartrhari, all forms of awareness imply the presence of words. That is to say; language is an integral part of our consciousness.
Unfolding of speech (Vac) takes place, at least, in two stages. The first one is the thought that flashes and takes a form within. And, the other is that which comes out as audible speech riding the vehicle of words and sentences; attempting to transport the idea that arose within.
The former is intuition (Prathibha) the flash of insight that springs up; and, the latter is the effort that is exerted, both internally and externally, to put it out.
Yaska says that all kinds of creatures and objects created by God speak a language of their own, either articulate or in-articulate (devastam sarvarupah pasavo vadanti, vyakta vac-ascha- avyakta- vacacha – Nir. 11.29).
He says that the Vac of humans is intelligible, articulate (vyakta vaco manushyadayah) and distinct (Niruktam); while the speech of the cows (animals) is indistinct (avyakta vaco gavayah).
It was said; the extant of Vac is as wide as the earth and fire. Vac is even extolled as having penetrated earth and heaven, holding together all existence. As Yaska remarks: Vac is omnipresent and eterna1 (vyaptimattvat tu Sabdasya – Nir.I.2)
Vac (word) belongs to both the worlds – the created and un-created. It is both the subject of speech and the object of speech.
The Tantra ideology identified Vac with the vibrations of the primordial throb (adya-spanda) that set the Universe in motion; and , said that all objects of the Universe are created by that sound –artha-srsteh puram sabda-srstih.
Vac is, verily, the very principle underlying every kind of sound, speech and language in nature.
And, Vac goes beyond speech. Vac is indeed both speech and consciousness (chetana), as all actions and powers are grounded in Vac. It is the primordial energy out of which all existence originates and subsists. Vac is also the expression of truth.
Chatvaari vaak parimitaa padaani / taani vidur braahmaanaa ye manishinaah. Guhaa trini nihitaa neaengayanti / turiyam vaacho manushyaa vadanti. (Rigveda Samhita – 1.164.45- 5000 BC)
“Vac has four quarters; only the wise that are well trained, endowed with intelligence and understanding know them all. For the rest; the three levels remain concealed and motionless. Mortals speak only with the fourth (RV. 1.164.45).”
Vac is sometimes identified with waters, the primeval principle for the creation of the Universe.
In the Vak Suktha or Devi Suktha of Rig Veda (RV.10. 10.125), Apah, the waters, is conceived as the birth place of Vac. And, Vac who springs forth from waters touches all the worlds with her flowering body and gives birth to all existence. She indeed is Prakrti. Vac is the creator, sustainer and destroyer. In an intense and highly charged superb piece of inspired poetry Vac declares “I sprang from waters there from I permeate the infinite expanse with a flowering body. I move with Rudras and Vasus. I walk with the Sun and other Gods. It is I who blows like the wind creating all the worlds”.
Ultimately, Vac is identified with Brahman, the Absolute.
It is the Vac that brings the cosmos into existence.
Bhartrhari, places the word-principle – Vac – at the very core (Bija) of existence That Vac, – according to Bhartrhari is not merely the creator and sustainer of the universe but is also the sum and substance of it.
Bhartrhari’s concept of the speech-principle Sabda-tattva or Sabda-Brahman the fundamental basis of the all existence and of speech, virtually equates to the concept of Para Vac, the Supreme Consciousness
And, Vac as Sabda-Brahman is the creative force that brings forth all existence. Vac is also the consciousness (chit, samvid), vital energy (prana shakthi) that vibrates (spanda). It is an emanation from out of silence, which is the Absolute.
That Sabda-tattva (Sabdasya tattvam or Sabda eva tattvam) of Bhartrhari is of the nature of the Absolute; and, there is no distinction between Sabda Brahman and Para Brahman the Supreme Principle (Para tattva).
Vac was considered manifestation of all-pervading Brahman; and, Pranava (Aum) was regarded the primordial speech-sound from which all forms of speech emanated
The Maharishis believed in a cyclic view of creation with no absolute beginning. The whole of the cosmos, has constantly been going on through cycles of creation-dissolution, creation-dissolution. . .beginning- lessly. At the dissolution of each cycle a seed or trace ( samskara) is left behind out of which the next cycle arises. It is an agricultural image of seed-flower-seed. . . .
The significant thing to note in relation to the Vedas is that the nature of the seed, from which each cycle of creation bursts forth, is described as “Divine Word.”
The language of the Veda is “rhythm not composed by the intellect but heard, a divine Word that came vibrating out of the Infinite to the inner audience of the man who had previously made himself fit for the impersonal knowledge.”
While the Vedas contained in seed form the essence of later Indian thought on language, it fell to the PratiSakhyas to prescribe rules for prosody, phonetics, accentuation and sandhi and thereby ensure that the oral form of the Veda would be preserved and passed on with little loss or distortion. In the Indian tradition, language is thought to be truly and most fully experienced only in its oral form
Sandhi is a technical term in Sanskrit grammar which refers to the rules of euphonic combination experienced only in its oral form. The written word is a secondary thing developed only for heuristic teaching purposes and as an aid for those too dull to remember the important texts by heart. For the Indian the criterion form of language is not written but oral, and the .
Pratishakhyas play the important role of keeping the oral form disciplined and pure in its presentation. Pratishakhyas collectively constituting four treatises, are the earliest of the Shikshas: works dealing with the phonetic aspects of the Sanskrit language used in Vedas.
These works mainly pertain to euphonic permutation and combination of letters and special characteristics of their pronunciation as they prevailed in various schools of Vedic studies. One of the Pratisakhyas deal with the phonetic aspects of the Rig Veda.
The Pratisakhya works are neither concerned with the sense of words, nor with their division into bases and affixes, nor with their etymology. They contain, more or less,Vedic passages arranged from the point of view of Sandhi.
Sandhi (joining) is a cover term for a wide variety of sound changes that occur at morpheme or word boundaries. Examples include fusion of sounds across word boundaries and the alteration of one sound depending on nearby sounds or the grammatical function of the adjacent words.
Sandhi belongs to morphophonology. It is the process whereby the form of a word changes as a result of its position in an utterance (e.g. the change from a to an before a vowel). In Sanskrit, small words (morphemes) are combined to form compound words through a process known as Sandhi.
Sandhi splitting is the process of splitting a given compound word into its constituent morphemes. Although rules governing word splitting exists in the language, it is highly challenging to identify the location of the splits in a compound word.. Sandhi is modification of the form or sound of a word under the influence of an adjacent word
Knowledge of the Vedas, therefore, is not simply “book-learning” of the contents or main ideas, as is promoted by modern western scholarship. In the Indian tradition, language is considered to be fully alive only when spoken.
Thus knowledge of the Vedas includes and requires the ability to speak the text with correct accent, metre and so on. The fact that the vast majority of the Vedic hymns are poems made attention to the details of form specified in the Pratishakhyas even more important.
Pratishakhyas is concerned mainly with the changes, euphonic and others, in the Pada text of the Samhita as compared with the running text, the Samhita itself. The Pratisakhya works are neither concerned with the sense of words, nor with their division into bases and affixes, nor with their etymology. They contain, more or less,Vedic passages arranged from the point of view of Sandhi.
Bhartrhari, begins his Vakyapadiya with a metaphysical enquiry into the nature and origin of language in relation to Brahman, but then goes on in Chapters Two and Three to explore technical grammatical points involved in the everyday use of language.
Stress on the oral or spoken form is an important aspect of the Indian view of language. Thinking is seen as internal speaking to which not enough prana or breath energy has been added to make it overt.
Writing is merely a coded recording which can never perfectly represent all the nuances of the spoken word, and is therefore always secondary. With regard to the relationship between written and spoken language, the Indian approach is opposite to that taken in modern western scholarship. .
In the earliest PratiSakhyas, or rules for speaking the Vedas, the first formulations of Sanskrit Grammar may be found. Vak or speech was taken as a manifestation of the all-pervading Brahman.
The mantra AUM was regarded as the primordial speech-sound from which all forms of vak are thought to have evolved.
Bhartrhari develops his theory of language by maintaining that the sphota, the meaning-whole, is something over and above the uttered or written letters. . At first the word exists in the mind of the speaker as a unity or sphota.
When he utters it, he produces a sequence of different sounds so that it appears to have differentiation. The listener, although first hearing a series of sounds, ultimately perceives the utterance as a unity—“the light bulb coming on” image of the cartoon.
This “ah ha !” experience of the listener is his mental perception of the same sphota with which the speaker began, and it is then that the meaning of the word first seen by the speaker is also known by the hearer.
Contrary to most theories of communication, Bhartrhari’s view is that meaning is not conveyed from the speaker to the hearer, rather, the spoken words serve only as the stimulus to reveal or uncover the meaning which was already present in the mind of the hearer.
.According to Bhartrhari these are the three levels through which vak or language passes whenever one speaks. Vak, which is at first quite internal, is gradually externalized for the purpose of speaking. Hearing of course operates in the reverse direction.
In this way Bhartrhari accounts for the complete continuum of cognition. Whether one is dealing with factual scientific language or a poem which can be understood on various levels, Bhartrhari’s Sphota Theory would seem to provide an adequate explanation.
In this way Bhartrhari accounts for the complete continuum of cognition. Whether one is dealing with factual scientific language or a poem which can be understood on various levels, Bhartrhari’s Sphota Theory would seem to provide an adequate explanation.
The logic of Bhartrhari’s philosophy of language is that the whole is prior to the parts. This results in an ascending hierarchy of speech levels. The word is subsumed by the sentence, the sentence by the paragraph, the paragraph by the chapter, the chapter by the book, and so on, until all speech is identified with Brahman.
Bhartrihari’s Vakyapadiya ( words in a sentence ) is written in verse form so that it will be easier to memorize. For this reason it contains highly compressed treatments.
The first chapter of his renowned work the Vakyapadiya, asserts the identity of the Sabda tattva (the Word principle) with the Absolute Reality, the Brahman (vāg vai brahmeti) which is without a beginning (Anadi), without an end (Nidana) and is imperishable (Aksharam).
That Brahman, he avers, is One (ekam eva) and is the essence of Sabda from which the whole of existence is derived. And, it transforms (Vivartate) itself into speech; as words, their meanings (Artha) and also the universe (jagato yataha).
(Anadi-nidhanam Brahma sabda-tattvam yad-aksharam / vivartate artha-bhavena prakriya jagato yatah – VP. 1.1)
Thus, according to Bhartrhari, Sabda Brahman is the ultimate ground of all existence; and, the Sabda tattva is the first principle of the universe.
At a metaphysical level, Bhartrhari conceives the ultimate Reality as One-without–a second (Ekam Eva). It is of the nature of the Word (Sabda eva tattvam) and from it are manifested all objects (including speech) and the whole of existence.
Bhartrhari was a Advaita philosopher; and, he explained everything in terms of his metaphysical view point. Thus, at the top of the language hierarchy there is only one indivisible reality present; and that transforms into many.
At a metaphysical level, Bhartrhari conceives the ultimate Reality as One-without–a second (Ekam Eva). It is of the nature of the Word (Sabda eva tattvam) and from it are manifested all objects (including speech) and the whole of existence.
Bhartrhari said that the language we speak is the medium of expression of the Ultimate Reality communicated through meaning-bearing words. It leads us across the external appearances and diversities to the core of the Reality which is the source and the underlying unity beneath everything.
Here, the Real is the luminous Truth which needs to be rediscovered by every speaker. The Real breaks forth (sphut) through the medium of speech (Sabda). And, Sabda is not mere means to the Reality, but it is the very Truth and Reality (Shabda-Brahman).
The Vakyapadiya is based on Bhartrhari questioning of why something that exists comes into being and how something that does not exist comes into being . For him, language is the manifestation of Brahman, and it constitutes the world .
Vakyapadiya is split into three kandas, respectively called Brahma-kanda (Agama-kanda), Vakya-kanda, and Prakirna-kanda, all of which are composed in karikas .
The first two chapters discuss metaphysical ideas concerning the concept of sabdabrahman and the structure and meaning of sentences, while the third deals with issues relating to words.
According to Bhartrhari, the sentence is indivisible and is the unit of expression, which is why the focus of first two kandas is on the vakya sentence . The real structure of language is formed from the words and sentences in our speech and written records , and from this,
Bhartrhari notes that knowledge and the proper use of words reveals spiritual dharma, which leads to an understanding of pratyaya. According to the Vakyapadiya, there are eight subjects within grammar that must be dealt with.
These subjects are: sentences and words, word and sentence meanings, fitness or compatibility, spiritual merit, stems/suffixes (etc.), meanings of stems/suffixes (etc.), causality, and knowledge of the meaning of the correct words. These are each discussed in their respective chapters of the Vakyapadiya.
Bhartrhari explains; at first, the intention (iccha) exists in the mind of the speaker as a unity or Sphota. In the process of giving an outward form to that impulse or thought, he produces a series of different sounds in a sequence where one sound follows its previous one.
It might appear as though those word-sounds are separated in time and space. But, they are indeed part and parcel of one and the same single entity – the sentence which puts out, in full, the intention of the speaker.
The communication of a sentence and its meaning is not complete until its last word is uttered. Thus, though the word-sounds reach the listener in a sequence, eventually they all merge into one; and, are grasped by the listener as a single unit.
The same Sphota which originated in speaker’s mind re-manifests in listener’s mind, conveying the intended meaning.
In the Vakyapadiya, the concept of Sabda occupies a central role; Bhartrhari equates it with Sphota to show the metaphysical nature of the language.
According to Bhartrhari, the perfect perception is that in which there is identity between the object (namely, the Sphota) and the form of its cognition (namely, words or the letters of sounds). This special kind of perception is held to be function of mind, rather than of the external senses.
The sphota is the perfect gist of language and is the cornerstone of all linguistic process. The etymological meaning of sphota is that which bursts. In this context, the gist of language which bursts itself is the sphota. It is the internal realness of the sentences which establish language.
Bhartrhari formulates his sphota theory in order to show that without the internal realness of language there can be no arrant realizing of the meaning and operation of language.
According to Bhartrhari, sphota is the original sound produced by various vocal organs with the contact of various places of articulation
Bhartrhari says that word and meaning are inseparable units. If we go to the theoretical sense of sphota, we can realize that the ‘word’ means sabdatattva (sound principle), arthatattva (meaning principle) and pratibha (intuition).
According to Bhartrhari, the term sabda is only an equivalent word for sphota. The real word or the real sphota is the ‘Brahman’ itself and it is the Ultimate Reality, hence it bears for the akhandavakyasphota.
Bhartrhari believes that sphota is a two sided coin that is indivisible and changeless. One of its proportions is the sound form and the other is the meaning assuming unit. It is believed that sphota along with expressing the meaning also expresses itself..
Bhartrhari supposes that a word has a double power, i.e. a word can express both the meaning and the expressed thing. To him, the eternal word Sphota is without parts. The cause of the word is Brahman.. He begins the discussion on the theory of Sphota with the observation that words or sentences can be considered under two aspects, as sound patterns and meaning-bearing symbols.
Sphota is classified into a number of varieties. They are Varnasphota, Padasphota and Vakyasphota.
It is of three types: 1) 'varnasphota' which conveys the meaning of letters, 2) 'padasphota' which communicates the meaning of a word, and 3) 'vakyasphota which communicates the meaning of the sentence
Meaningfulness is the fundamental aspect in all these cases.
The Sphota shabda which si nothing but the consciousness of the speaker appears in the form of prakrita dvani and vaikraita dvani which are destructible. The invisible sphota appears as divisible in the stages of prakrita dvani and vaikraita dvani by taking on it , the qualities of sound.
While prakrita dvani and vaikraita dvani are only appearance ( vivarta ) of sphota , one word in a sentence or one phenome in a word should be enoughto communicate the shhota shabda in the mind of the listener.
The abstract sound; pattern with the time sequence is - called Prakrta dhvani. It is the external aspect of the language. The internal aspect of the language is phota and is directly attached to the meaning.
Bhartrhari emphasizes the fact that a word has double power.
It can convey an idea of the form of an expression as well as its content. He explains it by means of various illustrations. Language is similar to light and consciousness as that it can reveal itself and also other things.
The process of revelation of word by the sound is from the indeterminate stage ,to the determinate stage, it begins from complete ignorance, passes through practical knowledge and ends in complete knowledge.
He gives an analogy to illustrate the process of omprehension of Sphota. It is that of a student trying to learn a verse byheart by reading it repeatedly. It is the last reading aided by the impressions left behind by the previous readings helps the student to know the verse fully.
To Bhartrhari the eternal word Sphota is without parts. He said that everything is a manifestation of the. ultimate Reality, Brahman. The speaker, the words which he utters, the object which the words denote and the listener are all emanations from this ultimate principle.
He declared it in the first part of his Vakyapadiya. He begins the discussion on the theory of Sphota with the observation that words or sentences can be considered under two aspects - sound-patterns and meaning-bearing symbols.
According to Bhartrhari, the speechprinciple has three stages in the course of its manifestation, namely, para, madhyama and vaikhari. Pasyanti is the supreme reality, sabdabrahman. It has been has been identified with pratibha, the principle of consciousness. There is no real distinction between speech and thought at this stage.
Madhyama is the intermediate stage which lies between PasyantI and Vaikhari. It can be comprehended by the intellect. All the elements linguistically relevant to the sentence are present in a latent form at this stage. This corresponds to prakrtadhvani.
Sphota is the inner mystical sound.. It is Sphota that makes the meaning comprehensible. The divine nature of speech, rather its being the great God himself, the creative and illuminative power of the word, and the different levels of speech—these doctrines which formed the main plank of the philosophy of language in Indian thought,—all stem from the Vedas which is 400 centuries old..
The word Sanskrit, in Sanskrit, is spelled Saṁskṛta, and means "refined" or "well made."
The ancillary disciplines of the Veda, phonetics (Sikfa), grammar (Vyakarana language analysis) and Nirukla (definitions of terms) were directly connected with the Veda.
The sciences of yoga, medicine (Ayurveda), astronomy/astrology (Jyotisha), sound (Mantra), mathematics, and many others, developed over thousands of years, and the accumulated knowledge was recorded in Sanskrit, both aurally (via chanting) and in writing.
Sound is the highest priority in Sanskrit. In the beginning, the sacred texts called Veda-s were not written down, only chanted. Having a language that is 100% phonetic makes it much easier to preserve these sacred sounds.
Because most people automatically blend words together when speaking fast, sound blending rules were created, ensuring the spoken and the written always match. Pronunciation has always been extremely important, since all sound has an energetic effect.
The science of Mantra developed from this idea, and Sanskrit sounds are made in specific mouth positions long the human palate, each causing vibration to travel in a different direction.
Sanskrit is 100% phonetic: each written character is always pronounced the same way. This makes Sanskrit very easy to learn and pronounce. A spelling bee in Sanskrit would be impossible. Rhythm is built into the language, each syllable being either short (one beat) or long (2 or more beats).
Sanskrit is a natural language, meaning its sounds are said to truly represent what they mean.
Reading Sanskrit words rendered in English letters with no diacritical marks, and pronouncing them as an English word, almost always results in poor pronunciation, and often the expression of a completely different energy.
Here are some blatant examples: mAla means "impurity" and in Ayurveda translates to "SHIT" mAAla means " 108 bead rosary" .
Chanting a mantra, especially a single-seed "bija" mantra (click here for examples), releases specific energy into the world.
The more the sound (̥śabda), intention, meaning (artha) and visualization (yantra) align, the more powerful the desired effect will be. Even if the mantra is recited mentally, it is still based on the audible sound.
Chanting divine names of gods and goddesses invokes the energies they represent. If these are mispronounced, then the resulting vibration may shift into something that is not intended.
The word Vak comes from the root of Vac, which means “ to speak”. In the book "Aitareya Brahmana" Speech has been compared to the ocean on account of its inexhaustible nature.
The vowels were compared to the day and the consonants to the night. The consonants were considered pearls in the String of vowels, perhaps due to the superior perceptibility of the vowels in normal speech.
Indian grammarians had given so much importance to speech that they even considered speech the only ornament of human beings and they said that there is nothing beyond speech. They tried to define speech and to understand the phenomena of speech production and perception.
Phonetics included, the study of speech sounds, their pitch, duration, intensity, modulation and conjunction. It is concerned with the physical properties of speech sounds or signs (phones): their physiological production, acoustic properties, auditory perception, and neurophysiological status.
Phonology, on the other hand, is concerned with the abstract, grammatical characterization of systems of sounds or signs.
Vedas were transmitted orally for 330 centuries before they were penned down 70 centuries ago ..
When Vedas were penned down we had Kerala Namboodiri oral route Veda sruti experts ( including Panini) settling down on the banks of the river Saraswati.
The Saraswati river dried up a thousand years later by which time most of the ancient knowledge has been penned down, except for some Atharva Veda vahikaran mantras which could be misused. ..
pade na varṇā vidyante varṇeṣv avayavā na ca / vākyāt padānām atyantaṃ pravibhāgo na kaś cana // VP:1.74 //
“ There is no phonemes (Varna) in the word; and, nor are there any parts of the phonemes. It is entirely not possible to separate words from the sentence ”.
All phonetics has three basic areas of study:--
Articulatory phonetics: the study of the organs of speech and their use in producing speech sounds by the speaker.
Acoustic phonetics: the study of the physical transmission of speech sounds from the speaker to the listener.
Auditory phonetics: the study of the reception and perception of speech sounds by the listener.
Panini’s grammar formed the basis of modern linguistics and described a number of important phonetic principles. Pāṇini provided an account of the phonetics of voicing, describing resonance as being produced either by tone, when vocal folds are closed, or noise, when vocal folds are open..
Speech sounds are generally produced by the modification of an airstream exhaled from the lungs. The respiratory organs used to create and modify airflow are divided into three regions: the vocal tract (supralaryngeal), the larynx, and the subglottal system.
The airstream can be either egressive (out of the vocal tract) or ingressive (into the vocal tract). In pulmonic sounds, the airstream is produced by the lungs in the subglottal system and passes through the larynx and vocal tract.
Glottalic sounds use an airstream created by movements of the larynx without airflow from the lungs. Clicks or lingual ingressive sounds create an airstream using the tongue.
A midsagittal view of the mouth with numbers marking places of articulation.
Passive and active places of articulation: (1) Exo-labial; (2) Endo-labial; (3) Dental; (4) Alveolar; (5) Post-alveolar; (6) Pre-palatal; (7) Palatal; (8) Velar; (9) Uvular; (10) Pharyngeal; (11) Glottal; (12) Epiglottal; (13) Radical; (14) Postero-dorsal; (15) Antero-dorsal; (16) Laminal; (17) Apical; (18) Sub-apical or sub-laminal.
The overall aim of Sanskrit Grammar was not to list out the rules and to standardize the language; but, to aptly bring out the intended meaning of the structure of words..
Sanskrit Grammar was an attempt to purify (samskruta), to discipline and to explain the behavior of the spoken language, so that the inner meaning could shine forth unhindered.
Bharthari’s major work, Vakyapadiya, discusses the ways in which the outer word-form could unite with its inner meaning.
CAPT AJIT VADAKAYIL