And the Sanskrit Language debate continues with good inputs
Dear
Kalyanaramanji,
Message from
Shri.S.Kalayanaramanji in brackets here [I have posited mleccha (meluhha) as
the spoken version of Samskrtam, a Prakrit, Proto-Indian lingua franca of 7th
millennium BCE. Later chauvinists created the dravida maaya and austro-asiatic
family of languages in contradistinct categories to Proto-Indo-European,
forgetting the essential semantic foundations of languages. See my Indian
Lexicon available online.http://www.hindunet.
My response:-
I
have not done detailed research work like you. So I grab every opportunity to
go through any research work someone else has done and taste it as it is easier
like savoring readymade noodles!
So,
I have gone through both these works you have mentioned already as V. Sundaram
mailed me long back and enjoyed reading them. I know it contains lot of useful
and pertinent information. Of course, let us take away the hoax called Dravidian
theory out of any discussion because it is waste of time and it is a good idea
to engage in research as suggested by you.
I
have made it very clear that language evolution has too many complicated
features and every language has too many facets that it does not allow any over
simplified generalization that easily. So, the language debate will continue forever.
The factors contributing to the greatness of Sanskrit are too many to enlist
but primarily they could be classified as:-
1.
Its ancientness,
2. Its great structure,
3. Its flamboyant syntax,
4. Its enormous literature [many yet
unearthed],
5.
Its multiple layers of meaning- its ability
to express one thing on the surface while ensconcing something esoteric for the
perceptive interpreter with a profound
knowledge unraveling the multiple layers of meaning as Mike Magee mentions in http://www.shivashakti.com
[This fact I feel has not yet been fully explored especially
from texts like Devi Bhagavatham]
6.
Its geopolitical life- Most importantly
the geopolitical influences which did a great damage to Sanskrit as excellently
written by the great scholar Rajiv Malhotra almost a decade ago
in this link which I have been repeatedly posting in my facebook page
7.
Its socio- cultural and religious connotations [which in the case of Sanskrit
cannot be denied at all [that’s why the geopolitical damages have been
intentionally inflicted on it].
I
also see several other reasons for this which are all the result of some
inherent malady in our mentality [ I mean Hindus] approach to many
subjects or perhaps, almost all subjects. I can classify them as:-
1. Failure to document and preserve for
posterity.
2. We have stressed and glorified
reverence over research.
3. Exaggeration over exact reporting.
4. Deification over delving deeper into
details of real merit [a]
5.
Lack of openness in certain areas [this may sound contradictory, for,
other religions are far less open comparatively]. I mention this here because
we have been rather indifferent to include esoteric studies made by
clairvoyants like H.P. Blavatsky especially in text like ‘The Secret Doctrine’
where she resorts to great interpretations with gay abandon unhindered by any
constraints of tradition and comes out with some really great revelations.
In
fact Steven Pinker and David Crystal have been doing so much research for the
past four decades with all the materials available to them and still they have
not been able to arrive at very clear cut categorization with linguistic
justification even for one language which is of a comparatively recent origin, namely
English. Steven Pinker thrashes many established rules with great logic in his
latest book ‘The Sense of style’ which may unsettle the traditional grammarians
because the
expressive possibilities of language often rely on the rules being bent
and almost all great poets, novelists have done it as getting across human
thoughts, creativity, imaginations etc get a precedence over sticking to rules.
It is in the nature of creative genius never to stop the flow and flamboyance
by sticking to prescribed rules.
These are all because language
is more a medium for expression than a
tomb of rules. That’s why nowadays we come across many good ideas, opinions
and suggestions emanating from many in internet and social media which may be
with poor grammar or no grammar, bad punctuation or no punctuation etc.
Even
some of the great spiritual and philosophical truths [expressed as an
experience by enlightened souls] become a bit difficult to understand as
language sometimes becomes an inadequate tool to communicate the real communion
of a soul.[b]
Regarding Dr.
V.S. Ramachandran's views it only from neuro anatomical perspective and
presents his views and from that angle I accept his views for the simple reason
he goes through a very strenuous and methodical scientific research based on
many case studies and he is precise when he uses the terminologies and never
delivers anything as a sort of conclusion with axiomatic certitude and he
adopts the same method here too with careful observation when he says "But
there were multiple exaptations with fortuitous interactions which resulted in
language." Besides more importantly most of our knowledge in the subject
he handles is only theoretical and half baked. Probably one may fault
him as one would with Freud's psychoanalysis saying his studies were based more
on examples who were all his patients and not many on normal people.
Of
course
"But this by-product view is highly
unlikely, as language is too complex. Exaptation -- a re-use of an existing
structure -- is undoubtedly a powerful force in evolution. But in all
documented cases, complex structures are used for simple purposes, and not vice
versa. A type of wading bird uses its wings as a sun shade: there is no
evidence of any bird using what was originally a sunshade as wings. You can use
a television as a paperweight, but you can't use a paperweight as a television.
The complexity of language, and the interwoven adaptations of the mouth, larynx
and brain make it unlikely that language developed as an accidental
by-product." [Aitchison (1996), pp.74-75.]
Besides all these I keep on insisting about context to unravel
the inherent strength and utility because words and expressions in any langue primarily
derive their meaning from one- the things they refer to and two -what it means
to the mind of the person who uses it. For, all said and done even for ordinary
words referring to things there are many abstract aspects attached.
For
example when I say Dosa it may appear to refer to the edible item but it could
include its appealing taste, the irresistible aroma, the many other things
associated with it like the shape, size, texture, components, side dishes, it
could also mean I want to eat a dosa now or feel like having a Dosa now etc.
If
even a word within a language depends on so many factors or reflects too many
aspects, then we can imagine the role and significance of a language or
languages in life.
For
example you ask any Indian what is the meaning of Rangoli or Kolam, you will
come up with many answers or those born in the last decade and confined to
living only in modern marble floored or granite floored apartments may just
blush. But for me that is one of the best forms of learning art and producing
multiple designs with manipulation of dots and lines. I cannot deny others
views nor can anyone put aside my observation.
Word
meanings are not static but dynamic that’s why connotations have in many cases
totally erased the original denotation.
The
meaning of meaning by itself is a debatable issue and meaning making sense is
more contextual than anything else. http://www.anti-dialectics.co.uk/page_13_03.htm#Meaning-Of-Meaning
That’s
why human vocabulary constantly gets expanded to express more and more
feelings, emotions, new technologies, inventions, imaginations, concepts,
discovery of or creation of new substances, space, time, causation etc like as
Steven Pinker says, ELBONICS to refer to action of two people maneuvering for
one armrest in a movie theater or SHOEBURYNESS to refer to the vague uncomfortable
feeling you get when sitting on a seat which is still warm from someone else’s
bottom.
a]
[For example all great composers starting from Appar, to Annamacharya to Saint
Tyagaraja everyone's biography has an episode where some deity appeared to
their parents just the day before they were born and declaring that they would
get a saint as a child, everyone of them were despised by the king or some
family member and the next day the king had stomach ache and after they went
and sang and pardoned the king the stomach ache vanished etc. All of them were
painted as very poor whereas what ought to have been given importance or
stressed and studied in detail after putting in proper perspective that they
all were normal human beings who had normal family life with children etc but
they had extraordinary genius which produced some of the unmatched, unthinkable and unrepeatable
feats like the number of ragas that Saint Tyagaraja created with such subtle
nuances making an unbelievable appropriate blend of stresses, pauses,
intervals, vibrations etc delivering one of the greatest
architectural designs of sound coupled with thousands of words
of alliteration that too mostly on a single subject of Rama's life.
It is easier to produce vast literature on many subjects. The nuances are so
subtle that unless they are exact it can make a person slip into a different
raga. I can only think of only one analogy that of canine sense of smell [ it
is said a dog can differentiate between some 1. 2 million different
smells] so Saint Tyagaraja in way enhanced the auditory sense of human beings
as whole through so many ragas. One of the greatest contribution to the world
of music. Instead of studying this, we were propagating his cruel brother,
his poverty etc
In
fact he made the optimum utilization of the very musical language Telugu
because of its excess of vowel sounds. I even use to joke to my Telugu friends
on Ugadhi as 'Haapilu Newoo yearlu'.]
[b] "One of the best-known facts about mystics is
that they feel that language is inadequate, or even wholly useless, as a means
of communicating their experiences or their insights to others. They say that
what they experience is unutterable or ineffable. They use language but then
declare that the words they have used do not say what they want to say, and
that all words as such are inherently incapable of doing so.
"According to the Mandukya Upanishad the
unitary consciousness is 'beyond all expression'. According to Plotinus, 'the vision baffles
telling.' In a passage which I shall quote more at length later, Eckhart says that 'the
prophets walking in the light...sometimes were moved to...speak of things they
know...thinking to teach us to know God. Whereupon they would fall dumb,
becoming tongue-tied.... The mystery they found there was ineffable.'
"And modern Europeans and Americans who report
having had mystical experiences feel the difficulty just as much as do the
ancient or classical mystics. R. M. Bucke says that his
experience was 'impossible to describe'.Tennyson says that his was
'utterly beyond words'. J. A. Symonds states that he 'was
not able to describe his experience to himself' and that he 'could not find
words to render it intelligible'. Arthur Koestler says
of his experience that 'it was meaningful though not in verbal terms' and of
his own [p.278] attempts to describe it that 'to communicate what is
incommunicable by its nature one must somehow put it into words, and so one
moves in a vicious circle.' Probably hundreds of similar statements could be
collected from all over the world." [W T Stace, Mysticism and
Philosophy, taken from here. Quotation marks altered to conform to the conventions adopted at this
site. Links added.]
No comments:
Post a Comment