Speaking of Speech...

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

I wrote in a previous post:


na hi kaṣcit svasmin ātmani muhūrtam avatiṣṭhate
or, there is nothing that exists in its own form even for a moment (muhūrta or a moment , instant).
This set me to thinking a bit more about this. My focus as of late has been with the application of etymology ( 'true sense') ,a study of words (called nirukta निरुक्त) and their application. Every day we utter words - vāc¹ (that which is uttered , pronounced , expressed ) and this study is very attractive to me.

The wisdom of, nothing at all that exists in its own form even for a moment , is the notion of dynamism, Śakti.
Every-thing is in motion, movement, vibration, rotation, point-to-point. We as humans do not occupy the same space even for a second. How so ? even if you do not move a muscle, this whole solar system and galaxy has moved 600 km/sec (or 372 miles/sec , so says NASA¹).
An interesting idea yajvan, but what is your point? If everything is in motion, every entity then is a verb , that is ākhyāta-s¹. So we all can agree on a verb, here seems to be a reasonable definition from dictionary.com:

a class of words that typically express action, state, or a relation between two things; that maybe inflected for tense, aspect, voice, mood, and to show agreement with a subject or object.
A simpler view: The part of speech that expresses existence, action, or occurrence in most languagesIt suggests ( to me) a verb is at the root of all names and forms. Names and forms do not come into being without existence, and hence a verb suggests this occurance. It also suggests why words have power because at its root they are vibrations of actions, of movement.
Some call words thought waves. Hence we can without a large leap understand why mantra-s may be potent in themselves as they are movement-vibrations to begin with, and perhaps the guru gives it more energy to really be focused and effective ( again my hypothesis without any references or śastra-s to point to on this matter that are on the tip of my tongue).

Yet the wise grammarian ( that would not be me) called śābdika-s suggest there are 4 parts to speech - they refer to the ṛg ved 4.58.3 as their anchor on this matter. I will not reproduce it in full, yet it says, the great God, bull (of speech) has 4 horns, 3 feet, 2 heads, etc etc. Both Paṇini and Yāska muni-s (both great grammarians of yore) use this as their point of reference on speech. The 4 horns are the 4 parts of speech:

ākhyāta - a verb e.g. run, perform, paint, govern, chase, fly, swim, jump,etc.
nāma - a noun e.g. desk, car, auto, potato, child, man, woman, president, crowd, umbrella
upasarga - a preposition e.g. about, across, down, below, of, off, until, since,with, past, over
nipāta a particle - all adverbs including conjunctions and interjections. There are adverbs of time, place, degree, etc. e.g. afterward, again, before, seldom, almost, hardly, indeed.Now another great śābdikin is Patañjali and he comments on the meaning of a word… he informs us catusṭayī śabdānām pravṛittiḥ , or 4 fold is the currency of words:

jāti - class or type ( we know as species, caste, rank, etc)
kriyā - action
guṇa - quality
dravya - a substance , thing , object some call vyakti which means a specific appearance , distinctness , individuality We can see by inspection that both views are complimentry - one extends the other. Yet it is my opinion & observation that without verbs there is no creation, no voice, no nouns are created.

It is said speech swallows praṇa - when one talks, the breath enters speech and speech swallows praṇa. In that speech there is the dynamism of action ( kriyā ). This breath and mind are intimately connected, hence so must speech and mind (be connected), leading to mind and praṇa connection.
Hence the connection of mind and speech as we think all day long - sometimes randomly, sometimes purposely , yet it is fueled by praṇa. The wise say 'manage praṇa and you can manage the mind'

More on this in future posts, but I thought I would share some of my studies and ideas on this matter.

ahaṃ rudrebhirvasubhiścarāmyahamādityairutaviśvadevaiḥ |
ahaṃ mitrāvaruṇobhā bibharmyahamindrāghnīahamaśvinobhā ||
I travel with the Rudras and the Vasus, with the Ādityas and All-Gods I wander.
I hold aloft both Varuṇa and Mitra, Indra and Agni, and the Pair of Aśvins
- ṛg ved 10.125 - vāc (or vāk) is the ṛṣi and the devatā of this śloka

praṇām

words

vāc is recognized as bhāratī or sarasvatī , the goddess of speech. Yet she is called the mother of the vedas and wife of indra ; At times she is the daughter of dakṣa and wife of kaśyapa ;
ākhyāta आख्यात - a verb.
Rotational speed of the galaxy is ~ 250km/sec - at our distance from the center - so says http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2009/mwrotate/

[Believer]

This stuff is deep and well thought out.
Is there more to come?

[Odion]

Fascinating stuff, yajvan-ji.
May I ask a question? You don't have to answer, but it's one that I am curious about. :)

If someone has a dialectal influence and they pronounce things differently, does that have an affect on the potency of the words, or change something? For example, if someone pronounces a j as a z, or vice versa, or pronounces bh and b identically?

Does the power of words apply to other languages, too, and would this also affect them?

I hope I've not taken the thread too off topic. Please forgive my ignorance. :)

[atanu]

Friends

Speaking of speech, a few thoughts come to mind and now the thoughts will be eaten by the speech. It is well that vac, the speech, is depicted as a lady. Traditionally, it is held that womenfolk cannot hold any secret. If they do so, their belly swell and pain and until the secret is spilled out the pain does not stop.:) Coming to more serious aspects, the Vac is also a graha.

Graha mainly means: seizing, laying hold of, or holding, in addition to the commonly known meaning of graha being the planet. Graha binds and atigraha again eats up the graha. GrahanA is the process of seizing, of covering up. So, graha is not very good. What are the grahas that bind and atigrahas that eat up these grahas?




From Brihadaraynaka U.

1. Then Garatkarava Artabhaga asked. 'Yagnavalkya,' he said, 'how many Grahas are there, and how many Atigrahas?'
'Eight Grahas,' he replied, 'and eight Atigrahas.'
'And what are these eight Grahas and eight Atigrahas?'

2. 'Prana (breath) is one Graha, and that is seized by Apana (down-breathing) as the Atigraha, for one smells with the Apana.'

3. 'Speech (vak) is one Graha, and that is seized by name (naman) as the Atigraha, for with speech one pronounces names.

4. 'The tongue is one Graha, and that is seized by taste as the Atigraha, for with the tongue one perceives tastes.'

5. 'The eye is one Graha, and that is seized by form as the Atigraha, for with the eye one sees forms.'

6. 'The ear is one Graha, and that is seized by sound as the Atigraha, for with the ear one hears sounds.'

7. 'The mind is one Graha, and that is seized by desire as the Atigraha, for with the mind one desires desires.'

8. 'The arms are one Graha, and these are seized by work as the Atigraha, for with the arms one works work.'

9. 'The skin is one Graha, and that is seized by touch as the Atigraha, for with the skin one perceives touch. These are the eight Grahas and the eight Atigrahas.'

10. 'Yagnavalkya,' he said, 'everything is the food of death. What then is the deity to whom death is food?'
'Fire (agni) is death, and that is the food of water. Death is conquered again.'

11. 'Yagnavalkya,' he said, 'when such a person (a sage) dies, do the vital breaths (pranas) move out of him or no?'
'No,'replied Yagnavalkya; 'they are gathered up in him, he swells, he is inflated, and thus inflated the dead lies at rest.'

12. 'Yagnavalkya,' he said, 'when such a man dies, what does not leave him?'
'The name,' he replied; 'for the name is endless, the Visvedevas are endless, and by it he gains the endless world.'

13. 'Yagnavalkya,' he said,'when the speech of this dead person enters into the fire', breath into the air, the eye into the sun, the mind into the moon, the hearing into space, into the earth the body, into the ether the self, into the shrubs the hairs of the body, into the trees the hairs of the head, when the blood and the seed are deposited in the water, where is then that person?'

Yagnavalkya said: 'Take my hand, my friend. We two alone shall know of this; let this question of ours not be (discussed) in public.' Then these two went out and argued, and what they said was karman (work), what they praised was karman, viz. that a man becomes good by good work, and bad by bad work. After that Garatkarava Artabhaga held his peace.



It will take God's grace to fully understand the above, but a few valuable teachings are apparent in the above conversation of Yajnavalkya (my hero). So, the speech is eaten by the name, which alone remains. But where goes the person? Another point that comes from above is that speech is a graha that binds us but good speech is good karma.

------------------------------

Regarding speech as a graha, i have some personal observation. When sadhana is good for a significantly prolonged time, mind becomes peaceful and intuitive -- many clear thoughts arise. The world becomes smooth like sweet flavoured milk. Alongside there is always an urge to share those thoughts, sometime in good mode of true sharing or sometimes in the mode of ego -- to display one's brilliance to the world (i am talking of me alone here). I have experienced that once the speech goes out, the peace and calm appears to recede. The sweet flavour of sweet milk vanishes and again a period of zig-zag movement of mind begins, to be overcome by a period of sadhana to regain the calm. So, it seems that the graha-atigraha cycle reigns. Anyone else has this experience?

Om Namah Shivaya

My Guru teaches that silence is the most potent communication, like free flow of electricity and words are like the light bulbs (that are basically obstructions to the free flow).


Om Namah Shivaya

[kallol]

Little bit of it I thought way back. This thread provoked me to revisit those thoughts.

1. Spoken words are physical in nature and might be the premitive way of communication

2. The languages differ - does not mean we need to have common language for communicating with God.

3. The same mantra in Sanskrit, Tamil, Hindi, Bengali, Kannad, english, etc will sound different - does not mean that the effect may not be there.

4. The words are only movement of air which might have limited purpose.

5. But these words in conjunction with the state of mind or expression of mind can bring in the power - not physically (manifested matter) but possibly through unmanifested matter (energy).

6. The waves out of the mental expression is the basic entity which remains common across languages. This mental expressions create the waves in the cosmic energy surounding us and it is possible to channelise it for a particular purpose (still to reinvent).

7. Ofcourse the mental expressions cannot be taught - so comes the words to direct the mind in a patterned way. A P P L E for apple and we have a picture of apple in mind, etc.

8. Now without the mind synchronising with the words (and its meanings) the whole excercise becomes useless. That is why the mantras are not so powerful now a days. They are recited without the mind exercise.

9. Actually the original purpose and the way to guide the mind or to set the mind is lost long back. To reinvent it we need to go back to the basics of each activity and define the way the cosmic energy need to be channelised. There after train the mind in that and thereafter put words again to support that.

It might be too much for today's spiritual scientists. May be reverse engineering may help a bit !!!.

10. Actually we have lost the art of reading minds or telepathy. We have become more dependent on words and languages which have put walls for our expressions.


love and best wishes

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam kallol et al

Kallol, you make excellent points. Taken scientifically, speech really isn't much, yet there is so much power within it.

I like your last point especially, as I really believe that. Now we have to rely on body language half the time to figure things out.

Lately I have had it reinforced in my life just exactly how much speech is just drivel, totally unnecessary. The adage talk the talk, but not walk the walk comes to mind.

Aum Namasivaya

[atanu]

Vannakkam kallol et al

Kallol, you make excellent points. Taken scientifically, speech really isn't much, yet there is so much power within it.

Aum Namasivaya

Namaste All

This is profound. Speech or rather the sound that we hear is the vibrations of air, generated through the help of gross earth (tongue and vocal apparatus) by fire (by the subtle unknown being and subtle will).

To concentrate on the rise of sound/mantra and see it rising out of nothingness as if, is a profound experience.


Om Namah Shivaya

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam:

One word has so much power. I think it was a British politician (I could be wrong... it was a passing story in the news) who said just the other day that we should stop referring to the obesity problem like that but instead refer to it as the fat problem. I think this might have tremendous effects either way, but mostly negative. Thats why we went to obesity in the first place.

The other thing I've noticed is how a single word can bring dramatically different reactions to two different souls, because of this lifetime's subconscious minds of each individual. The word 'school' can be dreaded for the kid who has a learning disability or is a social outcast. Yet for the smart outgoing friendly kid, it has all positive connotations.

So the life lesson I have learned here is to know not to project your own reactions on to others even for simple things like single word. Everyone's subconscious mind is so unique.

We did the word 'bar' in my school classes to demonstrate this concept to children. "Write down your first meaning." in a class of 25, usually there were about 7 different responses, varying from 'a place to drink' to 'chocolate', 'to a long steel rod'. A side benefit was that it gave me immediate clues to which kids may have alcohol as a factor in their lives.

Aum Namasivaya

[atanu]

Vannakkam:

We did the word 'bar' in my school classes to demonstrate this concept to children. "Write down your first meaning." in a class of 25, usually there were about 7 different responses, varying from 'a place to drink' to 'chocolate', 'to a long steel rod'. A side benefit was that it gave me immediate clues to which kids may have alcohol as a factor in their lives.

Aum Namasivaya

Namaste EM

I think the main purpose of demonstrating to students the concept of same word acquiring different meaning is laudable. But the side issue is an issue to me.

It is told that gurus judge devotees by seeing their aura or chakra or someway, but without a word being spoken.

I feel that a snap judgement of students/employees/job applicants etc, based on their mental pictures of a single word -- such as you mention of the word Bar -- may itself be indicative of the judge's bent of mind. I do not say that it is not possible to have a good judgement or that there are no wise judges, but i say that the coloration from the judge mind is a fact -- though the color may be neutral in case of a truly wise judge.

Then there are cultural and half baked pcsychological/scientific understanding and many other aspects that will also mar such a process.

Om Namah Shivaya

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté odion,


Fascinating stuff, yajvan-ji.
May I ask a question? You don't have to answer, but it's one that I am curious about. :)

If someone has a dialectal influence and they pronounce things differently, does that have an affect on the potency of the words, or change something? For example, if someone pronounces a j as a z, or vice versa, or pronounces bh and b identically?

Does the power of words apply to other languages, too, and would this also affect them?

Let me address some of your questions the best I can ( from my studies, experience and learning).

What is voiced is not always what is thought. Voice brings to the surface what is in the mind. Potency will depend on the strength of the thought. Now that said, some 'formula's' ( siddhi-s) that need to be voiced I suspect will need proper intonation and verbal accuracy. Yet there are many siddhi's that are not voiced and occur within the mental realm.

Words in other languages apply - it is all about frequency and the roots of words i.e. their origins. Yet the closer one gets to the home of all languages more power should be available. Just like a lamp or a candle flame. The closer to the source, the more light , heat, etc.

It is my opinion that saṃskṛt ( some write saṃskṛtam or saṃskṛtā ) is that flame. This sáṃ-skṛta is put together , constructed , well or completely formed , perfected, as a definition. Yet I am biased as this is my study of choice. One could make an argument of Latin also. I find Latin very robust.

I look to the roots of words to see how they are formed, sounded, designed, etc. This saṃskṛt is very profound and as I see it perfected.

Now I am not the expert, just the student. I still have much to learn and understand - and to decipher the differences between classical saṃskṛt and vedic saṃskṛt.

More to come on this overall subject - by the grace of pāṇini-ji , the ancient grammarian.



praṇām

[upsydownyupsy mv ss]

Yajvanji, Namaskar.....

I have to confess something here. I hope I'm not wasting you're time. I think you may already know some things mentioned below. I took Samskrutham in my 8th standard, when I was given a choice to take a language, because I always wanted to know the vedas. But haven't got the ability to even make a proper sentence in samkrutham, till now. I can't even say, "My name is ......" in samskrutham. Recently, about 2 years ago, I came to know that even if 1 knew the language, that would not be enough to understand the scriptures. I was rather disappointed for that moment. After a few days, my father brought a few cds and dvds authored by Bananje Govindacharya. Even though by birth and by choice, I follow advaitha, his dvaitha philosophies have fascinated me. In one of his cds he explains the above that one would not be able to understand the texts with the language alone. In other or same cd he also explained that every name in the universe, every sound, every shabda, especially those in vedas refer to God. I even came to know that to be true from the Mantra Pushpam. In another context he explained the name Gopala. He referred to 'go' or cow from the name and explained that 'go' and other times 'pashu' actually meant vedas or knowledge and pala to be caretaker or owner or even father or even embodiment. Gopala thus is the synonym of Vedathma, Vedaguru, Guru, Brah_ma, etc. I'm a devotee of Shiva, spontaneously, I don't know how, the word 'Pashupathi' flashed in my brain. I could derieve about 10 meanings in 2 seconds for that name, Pahupathi is actually another synonym of Gopala, Pashu, meaning Vedas again, and Pathi giving the meaning of the latter half. Pashupathi also means the remover of ignorance, isn't that Nataraja? Manah sometimes behaves like a Pashu or animal, who controls our thoughts, who controls this pashu(thought), isn't it God. After that Manjunatha flashed before my eyes as soon as I came to know the meaning of 'Nara'(amrutha or moksha) in Narayana. Manju in manjunatha actually refers to that ice that cools us from the fire of ignorance of Maya. It also refers to God as, 'Person(not literally) who removes the ignorance' and also 'Person(not literally) who carries us from this domain to the domain of Moksham'. I could recently tell the meaning of Bhoothanatha. All of this has still surprised me. I, a boy who can't even make a sentence in Samkrutham is getting the inner meanings of Samskrutha Shabda sagara. How could this have been possible? I have no explanation, I'm not a scholar, I'm an ignoramus, I'm a person surrounded by ego, jealousy, tamas and rajas, I've not even gone through the scriptures, I don't know the Geeta, Puranas, Vedas, Itihasas. I don't even know what I know :Roll:! Probably all I know is nothing:o. You are 100% correct Yajvanji when you said, Vedic Sanskrith is different from the usual one. I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THAT ONE.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~


namasté UDU mv,


Yajvanji, Namaskar.....

I have to confess something here. I hope I'm not wasting you're time. I think you may already know some things mentioned below. I took Samskrutham in my 8th standard, when I was given a choice to take a language, because I always wanted to know the vedas. But haven't got the ability to even make a proper sentence in samkrutham, till now. I can't even say, "My name is ......" in samskrutham. Recently, about 2 years ago, I came to know that even if 1 knew the language, that would not be enough to understand the scriptures. I was rather disappointed for that moment. After a few days, my father brought a few cds and dvds authored by Bananje Govindacharya. Even though by birth and by choice, I follow advaitha, his dvaitha philosophies have fascinated me. In one of his cds he explains the above that one would not be able to understand the texts with the language alone. In other or same cd he also explained that every name in the universe, every sound, every shabda, especially those in vedas refer to God. I even came to know that to be true from the Mantra Pushpam. In another context he explained the name Gopala. He referred to 'go' or cow from the name and explained that 'go' and other times 'pashu' actually meant vedas or knowledge and pala to be caretaker or owner or even father or even embodiment. Gopala thus is the synonym of Vedathma, Vedaguru, Guru, Brah_ma, etc. I'm a devotee of Shiva, spontaneously, I don't know how, the word 'Pashupathi' flashed in my brain. I could derieve about 10 meanings in 2 seconds for that name, Pahupathi is actually another synonym of Gopala, Pashu, meaning Vedas again, and Pathi giving the meaning of the latter half. Pashupathi also means the remover of ignorance, isn't that Nataraja? Manah sometimes behaves like a Pashu or animal, who controls our thoughts, who controls this pashu(thought), isn't it God. After that Manjunatha flashed before my eyes as soon as I came to know the meaning of 'Nara'(amrutha or moksha) in Narayana. Manju in manjunatha actually refers to that ice that cools us from the fire of ignorance of Maya. It also refers to God as, 'Person(not literally) who removes the ignorance' and also 'Person(not literally) who carries us from this domain to the domain of Moksham'. I could recently tell the meaning of Bhoothanatha. All of this has still surprised me. I, a boy who can't even make a sentence in Samkrutham is getting the inner meanings of Samskrutha Shabda sagara. How could this have been possible? I have no explanation, I'm not a scholar, I'm an ignoramus, I'm a person surrounded by ego, jealousy, tamas and rajas, I've not even gone through the scriptures, I don't know the Geeta, Puranas, Vedas, Itihasas. I don't even know what I know :Roll:! Probably all I know is nothing:o. You are 100% correct Yajvanji when you said, Vedic Sanskrith is different from the usual one. I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THAT ONE.
There is much to learn and study in saṃskṛt (saṃskṛtam) of this there is no doubt.

You mention the following:


I came to know that even if 1 knew the language, that would not be enough to understand the scriptures


Yes I see your point and I think the ṛg ved can give us an insight. Let me offer it here and make a few observations:

ṛg ved, 1.164.39
　
ṛco akṣare parame vyoman yasmin devā adhi viśve niṣeduḥ |
yastan na veda kiṃ ṛcā kariṣyati ya it tad vidusta ime samāsate ||

That is,
The veda or ṛks, reside in the transcendental field or akṣara the imperishable, undecaying , of the highest (parame) ethereal Being (vyoman) in which reside all the adhi vishve deva's (or impulses of creative intelligence, the laws of Nature), responsible for the whole manifest universe. He whose awareness is not open (na veda) to this field, what can the verses accomplish for him? Those who know this level of reality are established in evenness (samāsate or rest contented) , in That ( Tat or Bhuma, fullness-wholeness of life).

What does this say in short? Of what use is the ved, for he whom is not becoming established in brahman? Where will be the value of this great knowledge other then words... become established in ātman ( some may say parātman) , the avyayam (undecaying), the even-ness is the secret to reap the full value of the knowledge.

So my take-away from this wisdom is study without actual practice of unfolding brahman within one's self is fuitless. The study will not be complimented (stabilized) with the experience of what the śāstra-s have to offer. The śāstra-s are there to bring the knowledge & experience of brahman to one's existence while on this good earth.

The question is what does one do in the interim time if you wish to study the śāstra-s and the wisdom therein? For me, I stand on the shoulders of the wise. Those that have the knowledge and experience of brahman. Insights come , learning comes to those that are attentive. Yet the greatest quality IMHO is to have patience and persistence in one's studies.

praṇām

[upsydownyupsy mv ss]

What is the expansion of IMHO? I don't know.:o

You are absolutely right about the 'establishment(Devotion and Dharma -here righteousness) in Brahman' part. My heart says even the innocent animals devoid of Jnana and Karma sadhana have attained Moksha. Establishment of one's self in Tat Purusha is really most essential, as I have realized and is independent of both Karma and Jnana, I've learnt he is even beyond knowledge as both get disintegrated just by our presence in him, just as everything in space, even stars get sucked into the black hole leaving no remnants.

I've also realized that everything has already been written or something like that, because, everything is the manifestation of god and everyone will definitely get Moksha. After all, the desires and feelings we get and the buddhi we have, are all his 'Prachodanas' (I'm not getting the english word for it).

I'd like to mention that at this moment, I feel very lucky to meet many here who have such deep insights. :grouphug:

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

back to speaking of speech...


There are very interesting points-of-view on this matter - that of speech production. The question (debate) : are speech sounds (śabda¹) created (utpanna¹) or brought into manifest existence (abhivyakta) ?
Hence these views suggest is speech transient ( anitya) ? or is it nitya¹, with no beginning or end?

Also there is a distinction in sounds - those that are not speech-sounds ( a conch shell as a horn, the blowing of the wind within cave, etc) and those that are voiced.

If the sound already exists in vyoman ( space ) then a 'push' is needed to make it manifest. The other view to this is no, this sound is
not waiting in the wings, waiting for its upliftment into the field of action, but is must be created and comes into existence due to
a cause. There is the cause that creates , and there is destruction of this sound, as it is not a permanent entity.

I find this interesting as this is what some of the greatest minds of phonetics and etymology thought of - the origin of sound.
I can see the implications as it spills into the mantra's of the ved, meditative mantras, truth in speech (tattvārtha), the power of speech, its origin and use, etc.

praṇām
words

śabda - sound , noise , voice , tone , note ; (śabdaṃ rooted (√) in kṛ , to utter a sound , raise the voice
utpanna - arisen , born , produced
abhivyakta - manifest , evident , distinct
nitya continual , perpetual , eternal