Mahaajanah?VII: How scribes recognise and describe them: Worthiness

In this column’s preceding piece, we discussed that there is no ‘other’ thing in Sanskrit. That makes Sanskrit essentially an attributive language. Therefore, anything described or articulated in Sanskrit always keeps tending towards higher and higher consciousness about describing and knowing what is being described and is known. Still, the reality stays known only partially or, say, unknown in its entirety. Though, the process of knowledge makes it intelligible to knower that something unknown so far is being known more and more and, it is open to be known further incessantly. Provided we know it the way it should be known. Way of knowing that ‘as it/that is’ should be as it is. And, since it has always been open to be known, therefore, there is no reason to say that it is not knowable, only we need to keep making efforts to become more and more worthy to receive or know it—this journey of knowing stays as ‘known unknown in knowers’ consciousness until the goal is attained. Sanskrit is capable of conveying Avaidic, vaidik and para-vaidic knowledge simultaneously. That’s the beauty and capacity of Sanskrit. Upanishadic stories about Guru and disciple relations and related etiquette narrated in Mahabharata in initial chapters make this point much more apparent.

None knows a thing (material) fully, through material sciences either. Be they quantum physicists or cell biologists, or astronomers, to name a few. All material sciences engaged in knowing the material (thing) end up (or, say continue to) knowing more and more tendencies, propensities, and behaviour of things/processes. Therefore, it is much more closer to reality to say that they keep knowing more and more attributes of the thing they happen to engage themselves in knowing instead of saying that they know what they are engaged in knowing.

Can they say that they know a thing fully and nothing more can be known about it without becoming a laughing stock?

In other words, our consciousness about the tendencies, volume or dimensions of ‘that thing’ keep evolving or advancing. Yet, consciousness is not a thing, though, and everything is consciousness as all things materialise through the process of consciousness.

In that sense, Sanskrit and consciousness share a fundamental attribute between them by their absence. Precisely, one doesn’t have ‘other’ thing while another isn’t a ‘thing’. What/who is shared by them in their absence! Ponder over it.

Whether one finds them impressive, influential or attractive, that is analogous to one’s depth of knowledge. Impacting or impressing is the lowest form of consciousness. However, materially it is impacting and impressing, which works as the driving force of the consumer culture and, it is manoeuvred, arbitrated and driven by the market mechanism. Influencing the level of consciousness is its own bit higher form in which human conscience begins to churn between being matter (mind) and consciousness. It is the transformative stage. One may transform if somehow reached in su-sangati (good company). At this stage, it’s no more comparable to pupa evolving into a butterfly. It’s more of (keet-bhrung) bumblebee kind of stage. The attractive level is the highest form of consciousness. It’s indicated as sat-chit-aanand—something like the force of gravity, which is at work whether we know it or not.

If there is a significant gap in consciousness between the writer/speaker and reader, then the description stays beyond comprehension. It doesn’t mean that it is not essentially comprehensive.

Is ‘chunk’ finding itself too feeble-minded and weak-hearted to comprehend and negotiate the gap between its existing level of consciousness and the level of consciousness needed to uphold the grand legacy and undying glory of Sanskrit and Sanskriti (Indian culture)?