I happened to read about this in a mail with Mr. Steve Farmer’s introduction and
a conclusion too, wondering whether such continuous recitation would suppress the
creativity of the reciting person! He quotes his observation made 15 years ago:-
“ an equally important, but ignored,
question concerns the *negative* neuropsychological and cultural
consequences in premodern societies of intense memorization of texts. A
number of studies of famous memonists suggest that the construction of
extraordinary memories comes at a cost: loss of creativity.”
Aghast at reading his observation, I
rushed to read the paper and found that the authors have not thought so! They
have done an honest research and have only presented their observation which does
not indicate any negative imprint on the brain nor any disorder type of changes
in the brain. Thankfully Steve Farmer could not or did not write such a paper
by joining those researchers though he had expressed his wish in his mail
written 15 years ago, to be the 10th author in such a research. (Read
here). It is good that he was ignored – he who wished to co-author this
research with a pre-conceived notion that Vedic recitation could suppress creativity.
He draws his inspiration for this notion
from one Rajan Srinivasan Mahadevan and thousands of undergraduates he
had taught who could reproduce the lectures verbatim but not create any new
idea of their own. The problem lies not with their brain power but with him or
the teachers who are supposed to inspire them on how to further their lectures with
their own ideas.
Similar problem was faced by none other Shwetaketu, the great learner of Vedas. He was back
home from his Gurukul where he learned Vedas for 12 years. His father sage
Uddalaka asked him what he had learned. He asked whether he acquired the
knowledge by which the “Unheard” becomes
the “Heard” and the “Un-thought of” becomes the “Thought
of” and the “Unknown” becomes the “Known”.
This means with 12 years of Vedic learning / recital, one must have imbibed knowledge
of the unheard, un-thought of and un-known Thing. This “Thing” is Atman and the knowledge is
Atma gyana. In that context Aruni explains the gyana as Tat tvam asi.
This gyana is supposed to be acquired by
one who had learned the Vedas. For Shankara Bhashya
for this narration that occurs in the 6th chapter of Chandogya
Upanishad, read
here.
Earlier in
Chapter 3 of Chandogya Upanishad, it is said that Man himself is the Yajna. “Purusho Vaava yajna” (3 -16). He has to do Mantra
recitation every day throughout his life. By that his creativity is not reduced, but his Ayush – longevity is increased. This chapter details
how the first 24 years of one’s life is protected by Gayatri; the
next 44 years by Trishtup and further 48 years by Jagati.
In all these 3 phases one is protected against diseases. MahIdasa, known as Aitareya,
the son of Itara lived by this recitation for 116 years free of diseases. (Read
here for Shankara Bhashya on these verses)
Here the Chandas - or how the recitation is being done during different stages of life protects one from diseases is emphasized. Chandas plays an important role in any Vedic recital. The basic fruit of Vedic recital is
disease free long life.
Let Farmer and others do research on this or on how the changed brain
structures could impact the health of the Pandits that they have tested.
The complete memory of Vedas owing to
constant practice of recital has been a subject of discussion in the ancient
times too. There was time that age Narada was
not convinced of what he had acquired by the knowledge of Vedas. In the 7th
chapter of Chandogya Upanishad, this discussion comes. (Read
here)
Narada approaches Sanatkumara to teach him. Sanatkumara asks him what he
has known already. For that Narada lists down all that he knows that includes 4
Vedas, the 5th Veda (Ithihasas and Puranas) and all the Shastras.
But yet he did not know the Atma
gyana . For that Sanatkumara says that whatever he has studied is mere Name (naama)!
Sanat kumara says – Rig veda is a name,
Yajur veda is a name and so on. All these are mere names. But meditate upon the
name as Brahman. Shankara explains by comparing this with the worship of the
image of Bhagawan. Though people worship the image, they think the image to be
Vishnu Himself. Like that one who knows a Veda must worship the name of the
Veda as Brahman Himself.
But beyond Name comes speech. It is
speech that makes known the Vedas and other Shastras. So one must meditate upon
speech (Vaak) as Brahman.
But Mind (Manas)
is greater than speech. So, one must meditate upon speech as Brahman.
Sankalpa
or Will is far greater than Mind. Because ‘when one Wills, then he Minds, then
he utters Speech, then he utters it in Name. In the Name, the Mantras become one
and in the Mantras, Performances become one’. (Mantreshu karmani).
All these merge with Will and therefore
one must meditate on Will.
But Intelligence (Chittham) is greater than Will. So, one must meditate
on Intelligence.
But then contemplation (Dhyana) is far greater than Intelligence. Hence one
must meditate upon Dhyana as Brahman.
Learning (Vigyana)
is greater than Dhyana. So, one must meditate on Vigyana as Brahman.
Balam
or Power is greater than Vigyana. Power stands for the capacity to understand,
reflect and apprehend things.
Then Balam is also surpassed by Food, water, Fire and Akasha – in that order with one
being greater than the other and each one being fit enough to be meditated upon
as Brahman.
Beyond them comes Memory (Shraddha) which must be meditated upon as Brahman.
But Hope is far greater than Shraddha.
It gives the desire, the wish and propels one to attain that which is beyond
one’s scope under normal circumstances. The Upanishad names this as ‘Sukha’. It says “yO vai bhUma
tat Sukham”. That which is limitless or exceeding or plenty, is Sukham.
But Atman is greater than Sukham.
That Atman springs from the Atman.
Sukha, memory, akasha, fire, water,
appearance, disappearance, food, power (balam), Vigyana, dhyana, chittha, vaak
(speech) and Name – everything springs from the Atman (here Paramatman or Brahman)
From the constant recital of Vedas and
accompanying meditation on Vedas as Nama and as Brahman, one does not get ‘negative’
neuropsychological side effects or loss of creativity as Steve Famer thinks.
But one gets the ‘purity of objective
cognition’, followed by the ‘purity of inner nature’. In that state ‘Memory
becomes strong (memory of whom? Of Brahman).
And ‘on the strengthening of the Memory, follows freedom from all ties (Moksha).
Sage Sanatkumara revealed this knowledge
to Narada as to how from the recital of Vedas the meditation on Brahman must be
done. It is because he had taken Narada beyond darkness, Sanatkumara was aptly
known as “Skanda” – the learned one – so says
the Upanishad.
The basis of this chain process is
recital of Vedas. Learning the Vedas is a mental reception of a collection of
syllables and repetition of the same. It is known as the Karma Kanda. This gives rise to the knowledge of the
Brahman by meditating on the recitation as Brahman. That is Gyana Kanda.
That is how Brahma
sutra begins. Having done the recitation, one must start the enquiry in
to the Object of the Vedas which is Brahman. The very first sutra of the Brahma
Sutra says “AthatO Brahma jinjyasa” (Then
therefore the enquiry into Brahman). The words ‘Then’ and ‘therefore’ refers to
further course of discourse after one had learnt the Vedas.
By having made memorizing of the Vedas a
pre-condition for enquiry into Brahman, it must be understood, that the memorization
does not decay the brain nor does it reduce the creativity (!), but indeed
helps in knowing the Unknown!
An example of this had happened in the
recent past, say, 1000 years ago in the Tamil lands. The retrieval of the 4000
hymns of the Azhwars known as Divya Prabhandam
happened thanks to the continual recital by Acharya Naadhamuni.
Similar to Sanskrit Vedas are the Tamil
Vedas, the 4000 Divya Prabhandam of Azhwars. (They are also known as Vedas because of the specific rules of Chandas and intonation).They were recited by different
Azhwars in different time periods. They did not write them down and sang in the
temples. These hymns were instantaneous outpourings from the mouths of the
Azhwars in their state of heightened Thought of God. Those verses were not
recorded and were lost.
What helped in retrieving them (from perhaps
ether/ Akasha) through Nammazhwar was the
continuous recitation of just 10 verses of Madhurakavi
Azhwar by Naadhamuni.
Naadhamuni kept reciting the 10 verses
starting as “Kanni nun siru-th-thaambu” for
12,000 times. It resulted in him hearing all the 4000 verses. That shows the
immense power of the 10 verses when recited with devotion. Here Naadhamuni did
that with devotion on Nammazhwar on whose praise these 10 verses are composed.
So he meditated on Nammazhwar yearning to know all the 4000 verses and he got
them.
This is the essence of Chandogya verses
explained above. You get what you contemplate on. For that to happen, a
continuous mental conditioning on the object of contemplation must be there. When
Vedas are recited with a devotion or contemplation on the Brahman, one gets
Brahma Gyana. This is the secret behind the Vedas.
Suppose one recites with no thought on
inspiring the listener with creativity, one will get thousands of undergraduate
students as Steve Farmer got who could just reproduce what he had taught in the
classroom but could not take beyond!
********
Mr. Farmer’s mail is reproduced below. I
didn’t take permission from him to reproduce it here as I could sense mischief
in having planted his pet theory in that mail contrary to the findings of the
research paper and therefore deserved to be told to the Public. I am mailing this blog-post to him:-
Wed Aug 5, 2015
5:18 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
Dear List,
On the Indology List today, James Hartzell, of the Center for Mind/Brain
Sciences at the University of Trento, Italy, announced the publication of a
groundbreaking paper on changes in the brain structure of Vedic reciters.
With James' permission, i repost his post in full below, which includes a link
to the important paper just published by James and his collaborators:
"Brains of visual memory specialists show anatomical differences in
language, memory and visual systems"
A quick link to the full paper here: http://tinyurl.com/pg5sj7t
After giving James' post verbatim below, I add a few comments on this
meticulous article -- admittingthat I'm green with envy reading it. Way back in
2000, on the old Indology List, we had a long discussion of how rote
memorization of texts by premodern reciters changed brain structure.
At one point I speculated on one way to test that idea. Little did I imagine at
the time that someone would actually have the chance to do that. Great work,
James et al.!
Here is james' post. You can see some of the future here: this is cultural
neuroscience at its best.
***********
Originally published on 5 August 2015 on the Indology List:
Dear all,
Herewith a link to the published (in Neuroimage, open access), peer-reviewed
study we did of the brain structure of Delhi-area, qualified Yajurveda Pandits
from government Vedic schools. I hope this may be of some interest and/or use
to some members of the list.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811915006382?np=y
We found very large changes in the grey matter (neuronal tissue) of the
Yajurveda Pandits' brains. The evidence we found strongly suggests that 7-10
years of intensive, professional-level training in memorizing and reciting the
Yajurveda Samhita (and related texts) is associated with some of the largest
changes in brain structure ever reported for a cross-sectional study (i.e. one
that compares two closely matched groups, here two groups that differ primarily
in the Yajurveda training).
Article Title: Brains of verbal memory specialists show anatomical differences
in language, memory and visual systems
Authors: James F. Hartzell, Ben Davis, David Melcher, Gabriele Miceli, Jorge
Jovicich, Tanmay Nath, Nandini Chatterjee Singh, Uri Hasson
Highlights:
• We compared professional Sanskrit verbal memory specialists and well-matched
controls.
• We measured cortical thickness (CT), gray matter density (GM), and
gyrification (LGI).
• Pandits showed increases in CT and GM in lateral temporal cortices.
• Pandits showed relative decrease in subcortical GM and occipital LGI.
• Findings suggest brain organization supporting intensive oral
memorization/recitation.
Abstract:
We studied a group of verbal memory specialists to determine whether intensive
oral text memory is associated with structural features of hippocampal and
lateral-temporal regions implicated in language processing. Professional Vedic
Sanskrit Pandits in India train from childhood for around 10 years in an
ancient, formalized tradition of oral Sanskrit text memorization and
recitation, mastering the exact pronunciation and invariant content of multiple
40,000–100,000 word oral texts. We conducted structural analysis of gray matter
density, cortical thickness, local gyrification, and white matter structure,
relative to matched controls. We found massive gray matter density and cortical
thickness increases in Pandit brains in language, memory and visual systems,
including i) bilateral lateral temporal cortices and ii) the anterior cingulate
cortex and the hippocampus, regions associated with long and short-term memory.
Differences in hippocampal morphometry matched those previously documented for
expert spatial navigators and individuals with good verbal working memory. The
findings provide unique insight into the brain organization implementing
formalized oral knowledge systems.
---
This is the first of two papers from my current PhD project in Cognitive
Neuroscience. The second paper will examine in detail what preliminary evidence
suggests are extensive differences in the white matter (neuronal axon) tracts
in the Pandit brains compared to controls.
We are, by the way, actively seeking postdoctoral funding to continue the
project -- our PhD funding finishes in October 2015. Any suggestions for
potential funding sources are most welcome (off-list), as are any questions
about the published work (either on- or off-list).
Cheers
James Hartzell, PhD
Center for Mind/Brain Sciences (CIMeC)
The University of Trento, Italy
****************
End of James' post.
Personally, I first speculated about expected changes in brain structure in
premodern reciters back in a book (_Syncretism in the West: Pico's 900 Theses_,
p. 135) published way back in 1998.
In 2000 on the original Indology List (which was closed at the end of that
year) a number of us (including James, as I saw today) discussed that issue
theoretically in a long thread on brain structure and premodern reciters and
memorizers -- not only in premodern India, but in China and the West as well.
Here is one of the last posts in that thread, in which I speculated (as i did
in my earlier book) that you could expect heavily dampened originality in the
thought patterns of premodern reciters simply due to the needs of the
continuous overwriting of (plastic) neural networks required due to the process
of rote memorization.
The test here proposed involved use of the Wisconsin Card Sorting test -- a
standard neuropsychological test of flexibility in human thinking -- not the
sophisticated brain imaging techniques used by James' group:
http://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology_list.indology.info/2000-May/021491.html
Before dropping out of this thread myself, I'd like to raise a
question that takes the discussion in a very different direction. It
involves a matter that has troubled me for the last decade. Scholars
normally focus on the *positive* aspects of memorizing canonical texts
-- on faithful oral transmittal, etc. But an equally important, but
ignored, question concerns the *negative* neuropsychological and
cultural consequences in premodern societies of intense memorization
of texts. A number of studies of famous memonists suggest that the
construction of extraordinary memories comes at a cost: loss of
creativity. Many memorists (like Luria's famous subject [Solomon]
Sherishevskii) apparently perform subnormally when it comes to generalizing
knowledge, with their deficits arising directly from their continuous
rehearsal of concrete data. Luria, for example, notes that
Sherishevskii had difficulty escaping his concrete memories, "making
it impossible for him to cross that 'accursed' threshold to a higher
level of thought" (1968: 133). Thompson et al. note something similar
about Rajan Srinivasan Mahadevan, who on exams tended to paraphrase
lecturer's words (like thousands of undergraduates I've taught!) and
had great difficulty creating anything new. The implication is that
Rajan was drowning in his concrete memories.
Shifting to the historical level, I've always wondered if the typical
overreliance of scholastic writers on "authority" in general
wasn't
*directly* related to the amount of time they spent memorizing texts.
Recent studies of neural conditioning (e.g., Michael Merzenich's
famous experiments involving neural plasticity) would seem to confirm
this view.
It is not often that historians can test ideas in the laboratory, but
this may be an exception. Is there anyone on this List who has access
to virtuoso Vedic reciters (I don't) and is capable of administering
to them standard neuropsychological batteries, including above all the
Wisconsin Card Sorting Test? (The Wisconsin Card Sorting Test is a
standard measure of flexibility in thinking; poor performance on it
indicates problems in frontal-lobe functioning.) To end my part in
this thread with a testable prediction: I would predict that anyone
capable of reciting any one of the four Vedas (or any similar canon)
verbatim would do subnormally on tests like these. Verification of
this prediction would have important historical implications, to say
the least, given the fact that the majority of premodern intellectuals
spent an inordinate amount of time memorizing texts. (If anyone gets a
paper out of this into _Science_ or _Nature_ on this, please sneak me
in as 10th author.)
Again, great work James! As I've often argued on this list and in lectures and
many publications over the years, it is inevitable that cultural and
neurobiological studies will eventually meet in revolutionary ways.
James' new paper is a case in point.
Steve
