Language is fraught with many battles, loss of life and property. It has divided families and friends and has reunited foes. It got me thinking today, when there was a sudden burst of anger from a friend in one of my whatssapp groups. He was commenting on the use of Sanskrit in Hindu rituals, where his contention sits on the premise that any hyms, gospels or mantras should be recited in a language that is understood by its congregation. Well he has a valid point, because blind prescription is definitely meaningless.
But my question to him was, is he angry with the language or is he angry that he don't understand the language. And that brought me to case study that my students presented this morning about the failed alliance between Swedish Volvo and French Renault way back in 1990. One of the highlights of the said failure was the language barrier between the Swedes and the French. Neither spoke each other's language so they opted for English as a medium of communication. But the French are known for their historical aversion to English. So it seems that the marriage was already doomed even before it got started.
Which then brings to the question of which is the oldest language in the world. That has been the subject of much debate and historical misrepresentation since the Renaissance. The Aryan invasion theory mooted by Western scholars like Max Mueller and Mortimer Wheeler and the likes who called themselves the Indologist have given legitimacy to Sanskrit as being the oldest language in the world by peddling the idea that it was a European import. Whereas scholars like K Loganathan with latter research have linguistic evolutionary evidence indicating that Sanskrit was actually Sumeru (Sumerian) Tamil, originating from the Middle East.
Regardless of the nature and origin of languages, I believe that every language has evolved with its own contextual relevance.
In the case of the Bible, it was originally recorded in Aramaic, and much later in Latin, and today it is translated almost in all languages. As far as the Quran is concerned, it was originally written in Classical Arabic, and today the complete text has been translated in 47 languages. What about the Vedas then, the ancient Vedic text? It was originally written in Sanskrit, and today it has been translated in many languages, mostly by scholars. However as far as the use of Sanskrit is concerned, it is still actively used in Hindu rituals. The obvious reason is that the temple priests have somewhat became the guardian of the language owing to its relevance in their profession. Of course owing to language liberation and awakening in India, many temples in India have started using translated versions in their respective regional languages.
So this is where the distinction between Shabdha Pramana and Artha Pramana comes in. Shabdha Pramana is the evocation of sounds where the vibration of the sound is supposed to create certain physio-psychological reaction to the beholder. Whereas Artha Pramana is the evocation of words or sentences that are supposed to create socio-psychological reaction on the beholder.
The utterance of the sound "Aum" in Hindu practices, vocalised as "aa-uu-eemm", is an example of Shabdha Pramana. This word itself does not have any meaning but making the said sound in the manner described is suppose to create vibration in three different parts of one's body. The "aa' invokes vibration on the navel and abdominal area, the "uu" would focus on the chest, and the "eemm" then brings the vibration to the throat. Basically by vocalizing AUM one is actually bringing the energy from the abodomen right up to the brain. Hence the sound AUM cannot be translated in any other language, because it is not a word at all, but merely an invocation of a particular vibration. There are many such sounds in Sanskrit, Tamil and other languages which are known as vocables, uttered to produce specific vibration. Another example would be the native American chants, which basically does not have any specific words but each sound denotes specific vibratory elements of the nature.
In the case of Artha Pramana, it focusses on the meaning of the word, sentence or even a particular mantra or hymn. For exampe the famous Triyambagam Manthra,
Om Try-Ambakam Yajaamahe
Sugandhim Pusstti-Vardhanam
Urvaarukam-Iva Bandhanaan
Mrtyor-Mukssiiya Maa-mrtaat
Meaning In English,
We worship the three-eyed One, who is fragrant and who nourishes all. Like the fruit falls off from the bondage of the stem, may we be liberated from death, from mortality.
So in the case of Artha Pramanam, the meaning of the mantra is supposed to establish certain conditioning in the mind of the beholder. Therefore such mantras can be translated and used in respective languages, so that it will be uttered with absolute understanding and eventually leading to a purposeful action.
I suppose critics and revisionists should look at the contextual use and application of a particular language before they overtly criticize it.
To my friend I would say, if you are intereseted in The Republic, by Plato, it's best read it in Greek, to fully understand the mindset of the philosopher, otherwise look up for the many translations, which are not bad at all. So the onus is on the beholder to quench his/her thirst rather than blaming the poor tree that has been there for time immemorial providing shade for those seeking its shelter.
By the way Rajendra Chozhan I, is one of the greatest maritime King of the Choza Kingdom, a Tamil Kingdom that ruled supreme, extending his empire to South East Asia up to the present day Vietnam. Inscriptions left by Choza's were all written in both Tamil and Sanskrit. Even the Khmer Kingdom, in present day Cambodia, which was credited to the building of the Angkor Wat, has incriptions written both in Tamil and Sanskrit. The use of dual language or multi language was very common in ancient times. In the case of the Chozha Kingdom, Tamil was used as an administrative language and Sanskrit for religious purpose.
Thus is the fate of languages, over time either it expands further, branches out into different languages or eventually meets it's death.
So why fret, lets embrace whichever makes one comfortable, after all language is merely a tool for us to understand each other.
Only if more people understand this, the world will be better place to live.
0804
Subang Jaya
271020
No comments:
Post a Comment