Continuing from my earlier post, I want to spend some time on the Sanskrit language here. This is especially relevant today in the context of a Muslim professor being appointed to a specific post at Benaras Hindu University. There is a Twitter handle called @TIinexile which is the new handle of a guy who goes by the name True Indology. Paraphrasing what he said, in Sanskrit, the divine and the language are intertwined. Once you take away the divine, the language loses its essence, its beauty. This is a surefire way of killing it.
The depth of Sanatana Dharma, this whole topic, in fact is primarily due to this language. Look at the English language. I am not sure if anyone knows why the alphabets are arranged from A to Z. Sanskrit and its derivative Indian languages have a clear logic. This applies whether it is a North Indian or South Indian language. In fact, possibly South Indian languages have preserved features of Sanskrit better. Definitely, in my personal opinion, a South Indian poojari pronounces mantras much better than a North Indian one. The Hindi version of Sanskrit has to many halants.
The language is a phonetic language. What we write is what we pronounce and vice versa. The alphabet starts with vowels which form the base sounds. Consonants do not have existence independent of the vowels. As we cross each varga - ka cha Ta ta pa, the sound moves from the back of the mouth to the lips. Thus there is a beauty and logic to the structure.
The very alphabets are said to have been derived from the sound of Lord Siva's dhamarukam or damroo.
Sanskrit also has the concept of beejaakSharaam (बीजाक्षरम्, బీజాక్షరము) or "seed letter". I do not have enough knowledge to elaborate on these. Further this is not a topic that must be publicly discussed. The base concept is that sound has power. This is the concept behind mantraas, and why they should not publicly broadcast or spoken. For that matter, one must not even utter these without proper initiation.There is the Sanskrit shloka shared by the PM some time back.
amantram akSharam naasti naasti moolam anauShadham
ayogyo purusho naasti yojakah tatra durlabhah
अमन्त्रम् अक्षरम् नास्ति नास्ति मूलम् अनौषधम्
अयोग्यो पुरुषो नास्ति योजकः तत्र दुर्लभः
అమంత్రం అక్షరం నాస్తి నాస్తి మూలం అనౌషధం
అయోగ్యో పురుషో నాస్తి యోజకః తత్ర దుర్లభః
There is no letter (of the alphabet) that is not a mantra. There is no root that is not medicinal. There is no man (person) that is unworthy. However, it is extremely difficult to find the one that can put them to use.
Thus the presence of a lot of hidden meanings in Hindu literature is precisely because of Sanskrit. This is obvious in a way. There is a message that must be conveyed. Unless the medium offers that flexibility it is not possible for the message to have multiple meanings.
Now, in any language there may be words with multiple meanings (if I remember what an old Guinness Book of World Records said, the word "set" in English has the maximum meanings). There are also multiple words to convey the same meaning (synonyms basically, fire, blaze, conflagration etc). What sets Sanskrit really apart is that the meaning of an entire sentence or shloka can change.
I will explain this with an example and get into the Ramayana in the next post.
References:
- https://www.lexilogos.com/keyboard/sanskrit_devanagari.htm
- http://vadirajaacharya.blogspot.com/2006/06/making-anything-happen_03.html
No comments:
Post a Comment