Mahaajanah?IX: How scribes recognise and describe them: Higher forms of language

Etymological roots of the word ‘Truth’ come from a tree. When we decide our consciousness to travel through English or Roman and Greek languages to the origin of truth, it will land us at the root of the earth-bound tree. In Indic tradition, Satyanash (partial truth, not whole truth) is made intelligible through the tree’s allegory, but even that tree has roots going up not, limited to earth like a material tree. The allegorical similarity between the two trees ends at this point (in indicating virtue of firmness). After that point, consciousness through Sanskrit begins to travel in various evolved and ordered forms of language, namely Maadhymaa, Pashyanti and Paraa.

 

We know that in Baikhari form of any language, consciousness is forced to stay within the confines of socially communicable limits; it cannot travel to finer levels. If it does, then its communicability suffers from the shortcoming of transposition (viparyaya). Clarity is lost. While the role of communication is to maintain clarity and share it.

 

However, the above mentioned higher forms of language exist. And the credibility of higher forms of language is established not in Sanskrit alone but in all other Indic languages as well as experiential Indic spiritual culture is the common ground beneath all those languages.

 

But, is it established in Greek-Roman origin languages or any other languages across the world?

 

The precision of Sanskrit language in expression is such that higher meanings of its words lead human consciousness to syllables (akshar), and syllables are end-up leading to silence( shaanti). That’s how one meaning of the word Bhaashaa (light of deep peace) becomes meaningful.

 

Unless you are an adept who has gone beyond the compulsion to communicate through spoken language (Baikhari), it is logical and reasonable to accept language (Bikhari Bhasha) as a limitation of consciousness to the extent it is shareable (consciousness is essentially unlimited) as Baikhari form of language is more or less popular human limitation in maintaining meaningful dialogue.

 

But, can we not have dialogue in any other way, at a much more evolved level of consciousness?

 

 

In spiritual realisation, dialogue through Baikhari (spoken through lips and heard through ears) form is the rudimentary level of communication? Yet, it is utilised by all of us for the maximum time of our life span. Because hardly few among us evolve to attain higher dimensions of consciousness’ (evolved stages) where communication could transform into transmittable levels beyond words. In Indic eternal-Guru-disciple-Parampara its highest level is known as Shruti( means, 1-that which comes from source 2- that which is source 3- that which is heard eternally by eternal being) or Paraa-bhaashaa.

 

Is the academic world ready to explore the possibility that roots of Greek and Roman languages may be found somewhere else in some other language and roots of Sumerian and Mesopotamian culture may also be found ‘elsewhere’? This ‘elsewhere’ may be explored if scholars explore the roots further through the study of the relationship between language and consciousness. This way, the route to reach the roots (origin) of various cultures will be easier. Where is this ‘elsewhere’? Does none have that curiosity?

 

Has the world’s political consciousness yet to reach that level of transparency where knowledge and research are ‘accepted’ without any bias, especially in the field of social sciences, history, literature, etc.? This is a manmade problem.

 

Part of the problem is that in the light of new knowledge and research, the image of one or the other nation-state or civilisations may change. Some nations resist it and want to suppress or lighten it unduly if something ugly tumbles out from their past on the basis of new research. Some even resist accepting, acknowledging, and asserting new knowledge if something beautiful and glorious is discovered about some other nation/culture. An avid newspaper reader may recall quite a few instances to verify it.

 

So far, truth is ‘accepted’ only in disciplines/fields that present undeniable facts like archaeology and astronomy. For example, with recent excavations in India, old knowledge that India learnt growing wheat from Turkey stood changed in the light of new knowledge. Yet, it will take time to accommodate it in history and sociology and other disciplines.

 

Can such an acceptance become a reality in the field of languages? If it happens then, human consciousness will take a giant leap forward.