Given below is an article by Mr R. Ramanathan, the
Veda adhyayin who has been doing an excellent service to Veda Matha by means of
various types of articles to make the common public understand the supremacy of
Vedas from different angles. In the current article, he is explaining the
Science of Sound which is the basis of Vedas. This article is a kind of twin
article to the previous one on how the
Vedas are preserved through oral tradition. The
basics of oral tradition being the ‘sound’ factor, Mr Ramanathan explains in
the current article the theories of sound propagation found in the various Darshanas and ancient linguistic cognition theories, how they
are used to form the philosophical background for efficacy of mantras and
spiritual/metaphysical inquiry.
Ramblings on ancient
linguistic and sound propagation theories
By
Ancient
Indians have done a very exhaustive study on linguistics principles and sound
propagation. The main contribution to this was from the Poorva Mimamsakas and
the Vaiyakaranas (Grammarians) and to some extent Naiyayikas (Logicians or
people from the Nyaya darshanas). The Poorva Mimamsakas were very concerned
with those theories as they were gung-ho on establishing the infallibility of
the Vedas. We will first deal with the
sound propagation theory posited by the Poorva Mimamsa School.
Sound propogation theory from
Poorva Mimamsa.
Here
I will share material from an article by one Mr N. Siva
Senani, whom I used to communicate with in some groups. I do not know
anything about him or never met him or do not have a link to his article,
except for a PDF. So I could not give the link here. The credit for this info
under this heading goes completely to Mr N. Siva Senani. But I have taken some
liberty to present this in a different way.
“In the Bhāṣya on the mimamsa sutras of Jaimimi, 1.1.13, of the Mīmāṃsā
model of production and propagation of sound is given. The original text and
our translation is given below:
तच्च सयं ोगविभागसद्भािेसवत
भितीवत
सयं
ोगविभागाििेावभव्यञ्जकाविवत
िक्ष्यामः।
उपरतयोः
सयं
ोगविभागयोः
श्रयूत
इवत
चते,्नतैदिेम।्न ननूमपुरमवि सयं ोगविभागाः,
यत
उपलभ्यतेशब्द
इवत।
न
वि
तेप्रत्यक्षा
इवत।
. . . . अवभघातने वि प्रवेरता िायिः विवमतावन िाय्विरावि प्रवतबाधमानाः सितव ोवदक्कान्सयं ोगविभागानत्पु ादयवि। यािद्वगे मवभप्रवतष्ठि।े
तेच
िायोरप्रत्यक्षत्वाा्यं
ोगविभागा
नोपलभ्यि।े
अनपुरतष्वे
िे
तषे
ुशब्द
उपलभ्यतेनोपरतषे।ुअतो
न
दोषः।
अत
एि
चानिुातं
दूरादुपलभ्यतेशब्दः।
As long
as compressions and expansions (saṃyogavibhāgau) [of air particles] are
present, Śabda is heard. Therefore we say that compressions and expansions are
the manifesters of Śabda. If it be said that Śabda is heard after compressions
and expansions have stopped, it is not so. The compressions and expansions,
from which Śabda is perceived, do not cease. It is only that these compressions
and expansions cannot be directly perceived. . . . . The air particles
propelled by the stroke hit against other unagitated air particles and produce
compressions and expansions on all sides. These compressions and expansions
subsist as long as the impetus lasts. Since air cannot be directly perceived
these compressions and expansions are not visible. Śabda is heard only as long
as these compressions and expansions do not cease, but not after they cease. . .
. This is the reason Śabda is heard for longer distances downwind. This
description is, quite remarkably, exactly the same as found in any modern
Physics textbook. An extract is given from a modern textbook (Singh, Singh
Sardar. Longman science Physics 9. New Delhi: DK Publishers, 2009. pp. 107,
108), with the Sanskrit text from Śābarabhāṣya superimposed on the text at
appropriate places.
(अवभघातने वि
प्रवेरता
िायिः
विवमतावन
िाय्विरावि
प्रवतबाधमानाः
सितव
ोवदक्कान्सयं
ोगविभागानत्पु
ादयवि।)
Consider
the original position of layers of air when no sound wave exists (Fig. 5.2(a)).
Now strike a tuning fork against a rubber pad (अवभघातेन वि), so
that both the prongs P1 and P2 begin to vibrate. For convenience we shall
consider the motion of only one prong, say P2. When the prong P2 moves to the
right it pushes the layer of air adjacent to it (प्रेवरताः िायिः). This
creates a region of high pressure close to the prong P2. The air gets
compressed (or a compression is formed) Fig. 5.2(b). This compression is passed
on to the next layers by the vibrating air layers (विवमतावन िाय्विरावि प्रवतबाधमानाः).
The layers vibrate back and forth about their mean positions and the
disturbance, in the form of compression, moves on. When P2 moves to the left of
the original position (Fig. 5.2(c)) and leaves a region of low pressure on the
right side, the layers move apart to form a rarefaction. In the rarefaction,
the particles are farther apart than normal. Like in the case of compression,
the rarefaction is also passed on to the adjacent layers. A compression is
always followed by a rarefaction, which is again followed by a compression (सयं ोगवियोगान ् उत्पादयवि).
This process is repeated so long as the tuning fork is vibrating (यािद्वेगमवभप्रवतष्ठिे).
Thus, the net effect of a vibrating tuning fork is that it sends out the waves
consisting of alternate compressions and rarefactions in the air (Fig. 5.2
(d)).”
So you can see how advanced the thinking of the Poorva Mimamsakas was. The gist
of all the above is that they believed that sound
produced by any source is heard when the energy, travelling in the form of
compressions and rarefactions hit the ear. This is similar to the concept of a
mechanical wave in modern physics. We will also see the view held by various
other schools.
Sound
propogation theories of other schools or darshanas (Both Astika and nastika
schools)
Sankhya: The Sankhya school
held that the Shrotendriya or organ of hearing
(Here we do not mean the gross external ear, but the internal subtle Bhoota
tanmatras that combine to form the organ of hearing). The idea behind such a
concept was this. The bhoota “Akasha” or space has the
quality of hearing, just as air has the sense of touch, Agni has the
qualities of sound, touch and sight etc. In the theory of Panchikarana (Mixing
up of the various bhootas in well-defined proportions) of the Sankhyas,
depending on the nature of the organ created, the corresponding bhoota will
have a dominant presence in the combination. So since the nature of akasha is
of sound, akasha is the bhoota that will be predominant in the bhoota level of
the organ of hearing. This may be the reason the Sankhyas posited an apparently
absurd theory.
Nyaya
and Vaisheshika:
These schools held that sound travelled in the form of waves in ether. So these
schools seem to have an earlier wave notion for sound.
Buddhists: Held that there was
no contact required between ear and sound for hearing.
Theories of language cognition
Speech
or Vaak was conceived as goddess Sarasvati in
the Veda.
And as discussed in a previous article, the Vedas were
transmitted orally and was used extensively in rituals and in Vedantic
philosophical enquiry into Brahman and its nature. The two different kinds of usage of the Veda
resulted in two different theories of linguistic cognition, the Varna vaada, believed to be posited by saga Upavarsha who wrote the most ancient commentary on the
Brahma sutras. The other theory was Sphota vaada
developed by Rishi Sphotayana. Ancient authorities like Bodhayana are
however of the opinion that both karma and jnana kandas of the Vedas are
equally important for the Sadhaka.
The
schools that supported Varna vaada are: Vedanta (Strangely so. We will get into
the “why?” soon), Poorva Mimamsa, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Gaudiya Vaishnavism,
Kashmir Shaiva Siddhanta and Sakta tantra. The schools that support Sphota
vaada are, Vaiyakaranas (Grammarians) like Panini, Patanjali, Katyayana and
Bhartrhari . Barthrhari especially uses this
theory to develop the concept of the Advaitic shabda brahman, which strangely
is refuted by Shankara in his commentary on the Brahma sutra. We will take a
look into a brief description of these 2 theories
Varna Vaada
The
Varna Vaada School proposes that the meaning
conveyed in a sentence is the sum total of the individual letters.
Simply put, the whole is the sum of its parts. Thus the basic linguistic unit
as per this school is the Akshara or the phonemic syllable. As stated earlier
the Poorva Mimamsaka School is the arch defender of this idea. The reason the
Mimamasakas supported this theory was because they had to prove that the Vedic injunctions were the main sources of dharma.
Indeed as per Manu “Vedam akhilam dharma moolam”.
So to do this they had to prove
1. Words are eternal.
2. Words and their meanings are eternal. When one utters the word “Gau” in
Sanskrit, one immediately connects it with the idea of a physical cow along
with its qualities and attributes.
3. The meaning conveyed in a sentence is the sum total of the individual
letters.
But
then a question arises. Sound uttered is surely not eternal as it dies away
soon after uttering. So how can one claim the Vedas are eternal, since a Vedic
chant also dies down like normal speech? The answer here is that the Vedas have
an Aanupoorvi or fixed order of words and
accents. Whenever one chants the Rudram, one has to follow the established
order in the chant. This fixed order or Aanupoorvi of the Veda is the meaning
of the eternity of the Vedas. It is to preserve this Aanupoorvi such great
pains were taken in the oral tradition. In fact the amount of literature and
knowledge generated in this field of angas and lakshana granthas is comparable
to the vastness of the Veda itself.
To
give an illustration of what I mean, the Taittriya shaka in many places says “Purastat
svahakara vaa anye devaha| Uparisthtath
svahakaara anye”. The meaning: Some gods
accept offerings when svahakara is added after the name of the devata
like “Indraya Svaaha”. So this is Uparishtath
svahakara, i.e. svaaha after the name. An example of Purastat svahakara is “Svaaha agnim”. So here the
svaha is before “agnim”. Some devatas
can be both, i.e. “Agnaya Svaha” and “Svaha agnim”. So you see here that though by name
the devata can be the same, for ritual purposes they are considered as two
different deities. That is “Svaha agnim” is an offering for one deity and
“Agnaya Svaha” is an offering for another separate deity even though both are
“Agni”. This is an example of how Aanupurvikam or ordering of words plays an
important role in rituals. Thus if a sacrifice specifies the use of both
purastat and uparishtat svahaakaras for the same deity, both offering have to
be performed as if though they are separate. Then only the final results
accrue.
This theory can be closely connected to the Apoorva or
unseen effect of various acts in a sacrifice. The Mimamsakas maintain
that each step in a sacrifice results in an Apoorvata and each of these
Apporvatas, add up to give the final result. For example to prepare the
offering called Purodasha (Rice flour mixed with
ghee and cooked. Similar to arisi uppuma). Here one has to first collect the
paddy, husk it with a pestle, crush the grains with a stone etc. Each step involves
the chanting of mantras and each step generates a separate Apoorvata. Note the Mimamsakas maintain that each
individual Apoorvata does not give “Some punya or minimal punya” and we can see
only the combined result as stated in the Veda.
Comparing
this linguistically, when we utter the word “Manager”, we do not understand the
“Man” half way through, as a man, because the manager could be a woman also.
But when the word is uttered we immediately get the meaning without caring to
note what individual syllable’s mean. The meaning cannot be over and above the
utterances of the syllables in the word. Thus the Varna vaada is deeply
reflective of the ritual philosophy of the Mimamsakas.
This theory is also the basis of the why mantras have a desired effect. Since the meaning of each word has an actual physical
significance in the world, chanting them in the proper Aanupoorvi results in
the exact physical effects that are desired. This is supposed to be the
background philosophy for why karmas like Abhichara
or black magic works.
Summarizing,
to the Mimamsakas the reality of the shabda brahmam
lies in the Aanupoorvi of the Veda and further in the injunctive statements of
the Veda, only though which dharma can be known. The meaning of a statement
being the sum total of the individual varnas. This could be the reason for why
the Mimamsakas do not comment on the Upanishads, because they contain words
that cannot be related to physical concepts and sometimes, the meanings are
deeper than the apparent meanings of the stated sentence.
For
example to understand the meaning of the word “Tat tvam
asi”, “You are that”, one cannot state to have understood or experienced
the self if one only understands the apparent meaning of the sentence as “You
are that”. It requires deeper mananam and nidhidhyasanam. This is where Sphota
vaada kicks in. But strangely all schools of Vedanta reject the Sphota vaada
and support Varna vaada. This is gets stranger, if one considers the Advaita
School and its focus on the 4 mahavakyas. Shankara very aggressively criticizes
Sphota vaada. I think this is because of the need to establish the
infallibility of the Shruti, including the karma kanda. All Vedanta Schools are
forced to reject Sphota vaada. Now a
discussion of Sphota vaada follows.
Sphota vaada
This
theory says that the meaning of the sentence is much more than just the sum of
its parts. The meaning for the word Sphota is “Sudden”
or “Quick”. The open hood of a cobra also is termed sphuta because of
the deadly speed with which the hood opens. The Sphota vaadins postulate an
entity that actually brings in the desired cognition of a sentence. This entity
is not part of the aksharas in the sentence. This explains why the Sphota
vaadins consider the meaning of the sentence is much more than just the sum of
its parts.
Sphota
vaadins too accept Vyaakarana as an important Anga in preservation of the Vedas
as the Mimamsakas, but they go one step further. They postulate an eternal Shabda brahman like the Brahman of the Upanishads, which
again Shankara rejects totally in his Bhashya on the Brahma sutras. The Sphota
vaadins make a distinction between the existence of the
physical object and its mental notion.
To
the Mimamsakas the word and its relation with physical objects are real. To the
Sphota vaadins the meanings reside in human
consciousness, which has an eternal relationship with sound on various
circumstances. This leads to the
ultimate Shabda Brahman and is represented by OM of the Vedas. Patanjali in
this context states in his Maha Bhashya on Panini’s Ashtadhyayi: “The man who
knows the secrets of words (Vaag-Yoga) attains bliss in this world and the
next”. Patanjalai in his Mahabhashya again says “Maha devaha Shabdaha”. This
means “Sound is the great Lord”. So a
study of sound will help us reach that state.
There
are many statements in the Vedas to support this theory. The Maitrayini Upanishad says at the very beginning “That beginning and endless Brahman whose essential nature is
shabda manifests into all this world and objects”. This statement seems
to directly support Sphota vaada. Bhartrhari especially says that words and
consciousness are interchangeable entities.
Also giving an example from the Purusha sookta “Namani
kritva abhivadan yadastee” “After creating
various forms the Prajapatis or spiritual giants started calling all objects
created by name”. So names were given to objects after creation. Thus
this establishes the idea that “Artha” or
meaning of sounds have mental existences, and have an eternal relationship between
objects, the mental artha existing in the minds of the Prajapati even
before the objects got created.
Thus
to grammarians the Shabda Brahman is not a secondary
reality, as posited by Advaita Vedanta and various other theistic
schools. It is coeval with the ultimate reality itself. The entire model is
based on the Vedic conception of Omkara
and Pranava itself. The additional
meaning bearing entity, in addition to syllables in the sentences is called
“Sphota” by Bharthrhari. Thus to know the actual meaning of Mahavakyas like
“Tat tvam asi” one needs this Sphota which is not a physical syllable but is
more spiritual to understand and actualize the meanings. To Bhartrhari
individual varnas or letters were artificial constructs. They were not real.
This very postulate cuts at the root of the Poorva Mimamsaka doctrine. Thus Kumarilla Bhatta in his Shloka Vaartika has gone the
extra mile to discredit this doctrine totally.
This
concept of Shabda Brahman has been used in yogic practices like Naada yoga of
which music is a part. Music is considered to be
a great way to realize Brahman. This has been greatly encouraged by
sages like Yajnavalkya . He says in a Smriti
with his name that “One can realize the Brahman by playing the veena and
meditating on its notes.”
Thus
the Nada yoga tradition is based on the Sphota vaada concept and use sound to
realize and connect with the ultimate Brahmam. In the mantra shastras this “Sphota
or meaning bearing entity” was concretized in form of Bijaakshara, which are supposed
to give special effects on chanting the mantra and cause the inner meaning of
the mantra to flash in the sadhaka.
This
concept is found in the Sama Veda, where in the middle of a Saman being sung we
find strange syllables like “Auhova”, “ee”, “Oyi”, “Bha
bha” etc that are sung. These are
supposed to be mystic syllables and can be considered to be the “Sphotas” for
the Saman. Also the addition of “Om Bhur Bhuvasuvaha”
to the main Gayathri mantra is another example for the concept of Sphota.
But
there is a problem here. There are sentences in the Veda that are opposed to
this point of view. In the Taittriya shaka, Indra the divine grammarian is
supposed to have partitioned the divine vaak into human language, which
involves Varna and the like. So this point of view is used by the Mimmsakas to
attack Sphota vaada. This concludes
the discussion of the Sphota vaada.
Conclusion
The
conflict between these two theories as I understand (I could be wrong here), is
mainly due to two different applications of the Veda,
ritualistic and Spiritual realization. Personally I would like to retain
the Varna vaada for Karma kanda and the Sphota vaada for the Upanishads. But as
stated earlier all Vedantic (All the 3 schools condemn it in their respective
Brahma sutra bhashyas) and theistic schools seem to be against the Sphota
vaada. Strangely the only Mimamsakas to support Sphota vaada was Mandana Mishra. But actually it was Patanjali and
Bhartrhari who actually took this theory to its logical limits, where it
started to find applications in the later Mantra
shastra and Naada yoga and music schools.
