Sound and Sense are not separated from each other

In the last issue I had discussed about the resonating power and the vibrational purity of the Sanskrit sounds which make it a Mantirc language. Sanskrit always starts from a deeper base. It believes that the Sound and the Word are at the origin of creation. It believes that they have light, consciousness and power – the sound has potency. Therefore the meaning of the fundamental Sanskrit roots is not arbitrary but based on a deeper truth. Through a process of deep contemplation and intuition, it is possible for one to enter into the heart of a sound vibration and discover its meaning. This was the way of the Rishis when they gave meaning to the roots. Thus each seed sound and each root-sound in Sanskrit has a fundamental meaning associated with this. Further the fundamental meaning can give rise to many other meaning related to the root-experience. By a deeper analysis of the Sanskrit sounds and words derived from them one can arrive at the fundamental experiences associated with those sounds and words. Thus we find that the seed-sound a refers to ‘absolute existence’, i refers to ‘relative existence’ and u signifies ‘pervasive existence’.

In this manner each word in Sanskrit has its own connotation, its definite shade of meaning, its special nuance. And further the word and the meaning are inseparable. They fuse into one another and give life to one another.

The idea of synonyms in Sanskrit can add more clarity to the above explanation. Each language contains synonyms, but many words have few, or none. On the other hand, in Sanskrit every word seems to have not just a few synonyms, but often even ten, twenty or even more. In most languages, synonyms are different names for the same object. They are words that grow out of a convention and do not often have any inherent significance. One could have used the same word to denote a completely different object and, if the convention was sufficiently strong, the word would become a synonym for that object. But this is not so in Sanskrit. Firstly, the name is not just a convention but grows out of a root which has a definite meaning associated with it. Therefore, the meaning of a name too is not a convention but is very specific and determined. The synonyms of a word are not just alternate names, where one can replace one by another. Each synonym grows out of and reveals a special quality or attribute of that object which it signifies. One has to choose from the many possibilities the one that conveys best the exact property in mind.

For example, the Amarakosha, a lexicon prepared by Amarasimha, which lists synonyms of Sanskrit words, gives the 34 synonyms for ‘fire’. So we have words like Agni, Vaishvanara, Vahni, Vitahotra, Dhananjaya, Kripitayoni, Jvalana, Jatavedas, Tanunapat, Barhis, Shushma, Krishnavartma, Shochikesha, Usharbudha, Ashrayasha, Brihadbhanu, Krishanu, Pavaka, Anala, Rohitashva, Vayusakha, Shikhavan, Ashushukshani, Hiranyaretas, Hutabhuk, Dahana, Havyavahana, Saptarchi, Srimuna, Shukra, Chitrabhanu, Vibhavasu, Shuchi and Appittam, all referring to fire. Is this a mystery or wastage to have so many words denoting one object or idea?

A deeper analysis of each word in the list reveals that these different words refer to different ways of experiencing the same object. So each word has a specific and definite connotation. For example: the word Vahni comes from the root vah, to carry, and means that which carries (the offerings to the gods); while Jvalana comes from the root jval, to burn, and means that which is burning; similarly Pavaka comes from the root puu , to purify, and means that which purifies; and Shushma comes from the root shush, to dry, and means that which dries (the water). The word Anala refers to the all devouring nature of fire. Fire is the ever dissatisfied. The entire creation can go into its mouth and it is not enough (na alam). Now it is for the writer to decide, which one is the most appropriate word for ‘fire’ in a given context.

All language is an attempt to formulate and communicate the variety and richness of experiences covering the entire gamut of human sensitivity and potentiality. These experiences can be of all ranges and types – the seeing of a physical object through the senses, a feeling, an emotion, a thought, or a vision leading to the highest spiritual realisation. So the language must be able to provide various alternatives and possibilities from which the speaker can choose just the right word and the right structure. The language must also have the capacity to grow, to meet the demands of completely new experiences. From this point of view Sanskrit is a fit vehicle not only for communication but for transformation as well. It is not just a language. It is a self-existent truth and power. Because here, the sound, the word and the meaning become one to form an integrated whole. They arise out of the deeper truths of life and the Reality and not only reveal but lead us in turn to realise these truths. Sanskrit has its own inherent strength and existence and it is no more just a convention or a convenience, but a language more natural and universal in its nature.