Ancient sound propagation theories and their Vedic applications (Guest post by R.Ramanathan)

 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

R.Ramanathan

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.”

(Source:- Veena Gayathri's blog)

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.

Related article:-

The connection between sapta swaras and colours.