Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

SPHOṬA DOCTRINE IN SANSKRIT SEMANTICS DEMYSTIFIED

Author(s): Narayan R. Joshi
Source: Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Vol. 88 (2007), pp. 183-197
Published by: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41692093
Accessed: 20-03-2016 11:50 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annals of the
Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Sun, 20 Mar 2016 11:50:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 SPHOTA DOCTRINE IN SANSKRIT
SEMANTICS DEMYSTIFIED

By
Narayan R. Joshi

Abstract

From the time of the great grammarian Panini (about

400 B . C. E.) to this day , Indian Sanskrit scholars are preoccupied
with language on one hand and with philosophy on the other. In
the past 2500 years of known history Indian linguists are
discussing the semantics of Sanskrit. In this discussion on the
philosophy of word and meaning all schools of thought belonging
to Vedic, Buddhist and Jain-traditions have participated. The
problem of meaning in Indian linguistic philosophy revolves
around the ancient Sphota doctrine discussed by Patañjali.
Different authors have interpreted Sphota in various ways from
the high level mystic concept down to the physical property of
articulated sounds. In this paper the ancient Sphota doctrine in
Sanskrit semantics is revisited and de mystified by using Physics
of sound. This step leads us next to the study of Varnavãda freeing
us from confusion generated by unnecessary mysticism
associated with Sphota doctrine.

Introduction

It is said that language in its primitive stage was not dissolvable

into parts. Analysis of language into parts of progressively decreasing
segments like vãkya, pada, šabda and finally Varna are thought of
in connection with the main function of the language which is to convey
meaning. Vãkyavãdin says that the ultimate meaningful element is
sentence. Padavãdin says that it is pada while Šabdavadin says that it is
šabda. Even possibility of individual varnas of Sanskrit alphabet
being associated with systematic fundamental semantic units (or categories)
is discussed by Varnavãdins. Sphota vãdins discuss Vãkya- sphota, Pada-
sphota, and Šabda-sphota. Sanskrit texts starting from Vedas to the
recent scholarly publications indicate a long tradition of discussions on
Sanskrit semantics in India. The tradition of addressing semantics

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Sun, 20 Mar 2016 11:50:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
184 Annals BORI, LXXXVIIl ( 2007 )

problems reached a high level of sophistication and specialization at an early

date in India.

There might be reasons not to add or change words or even sounds in

Vedic Samhitãs. May be for that purpose, one of the branches of Indian
philosophy for the past two thousand years, is engaged in discussing Šabda
and Artha and Šabda Pramãna or in short, the semantics of Sanskrit or Vedic
language. If the meanings associated with words are conventional, what was
necessity to preserve Vedic words sound by sound? If one sound in a word
is replaced by another sound, will there be a change in its meaning? I think
ancient reason for preserving Vedic knowledge sound by sound was forgotten
long ago. This resulted in scholarly discussions years after years on 'Šabda
Pramãna' without tangible results. But books after books are published in
recent years on 'Šabda and Meaning' , and 'Šabda Pramãna' by great scholars
like Kunjunni Raja1 , Bimal Matilal2, Gaurinath Sastri3, S .D, Joshi4 , Bilimoria5
and Guy Beck6. One enjoys reading terminology abhidhã , laksanã , vyañjaná
and tätparya developed by Indian linguists in describing various types of
meanings. But what is next? Where does this discussion flowing from Patañjali
to the authors of present time lead us to? Is it good just to talk and write about
them without tangible outcome? Dr. Houben7 identified eight landmarks in the
Sanskrit semantic theories presented over the period of 2500 years of the known
history of India. He further suggested that research projects revolving around
Sanskrit semantics could be designed to make concepts from semantics sharper
and easy to grasp. However, from time to time Indian tradition runs into
mysticism during linguistic or philosophical discussions thereby making
picture hazy instead of clearer. Efforts are made in this paper to clear mysticism
surrounding Sphota doctrine in Sanskrit semantics.

l K. Kunjunni Raja, Indian Theories of Meaning, The Adyar Library and Research Centre.
2 Bimal Krishna Matilal, The Word and the World : India's Contribution to the Study of
Language , Pub: Oxford University Press, Delhi, 1990.
3 Gaurinath Sastri, The Philosophy of Word and Meaning , Pub. : The Principal, Sanskrit
College, 1 Bankim Chatterjee Street, Calcutta-6, 1959.
4 S.D. Joshi , The Sphotanirnaya ofKaunda Bhatta , Pub . : University of Poona, Poona, 1 967 .
5 Purushottama Bilimoria, Sabdapramãna : Word and Knowledge , Pub . , Kluwer Academic
Publications, 1988.
6 Guy L. Beck, Sonic Theology : Hinduism and Sacred Sound , Pub. : University of South
Carolina Press, 1993.
7 Jan E.M. Houben, "Semantics in the History of South Asian Thought", in Indian Linguistic
Studies-Festschrift in Honor of George Cardona , Editors : M .M . Deshpande and P. E .Hook,
Publisher : Motilal Banarasidass, Delhi, 2002,

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Sun, 20 Mar 2016 11:50:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Narayan R. Joshi : Sphota Doctrine in Sanskrit Semantics Demystified 1 85

What is the Source of Sanskrit Terminology in Philosophy?

In the following discussion English word phoneme will be used for
Sanskrit word varna. Dr. Beck6 presented almost all aspects of the central
problem in the Indian linguistics of Sanskrit. The problem is formulated as
follows : whether the phonemes of Sanskrit are meaning bearing units or not.
Those who believe that phonemes are the smallest significant units in the
language are called Varnavãdins. They are supported by the Mimãmsã school.
The grammarians posit the theory of Sanghãta and Sphota. The Sphotavãdin
holds that meaning of a sentence is conveyed in a 'flash' or 'burst' of cognition
known as Sphota which is objectively real, eternal and said to operate over
and above the individual words themselves. Since the school of Grammarians

believed in a sentence as meaningful unit in the language, the question of

phonemes having atomic meanings is not addressed by them.

With this introduction to the subject, let us now turn to discussions of

Sphota doctrine in semantics of Sanskrit. This doctrine has generated interest
from all kinds of writers, philosophers, linguists and non-linguists alike.
Dr. R. C. Pandeya has written book on the problem of meaning in Indian
philosophy8. This point is also brought into focus by Dr. Y. J. Padmarajiah9.
He says in his book that after dialectical exercises , scholars of Nyãya, Mimãmsã
and of other schools finally arrive to the central problem of Sanskrit words and
their meaning. Quoting from the book of Dr. Padmarajiah^- Closely allied to
this problem of word-meaning relation is the question whether the meaning
of a word resides in the word as a natural power ( svabhãva ) or is associated
with it as a mere convention ( saňketa ). In the debate on this question the
Mimãrhsaka takes the former view and Naiyãyika takes the latter view. The
Jainas take middle position . They say "Power is natural , but it is made effective
by convention". The effective presentation of the subject matter of any
technical or scientific research paper depends on the terminology used specific
to that discipline. The scientific terminology of modern scientific papers written
in English is derived from Latin and Greek sources.

Around 500 B. C. when the ancient Indian scholars were composing

treatises in Sanskrit on varied topics like philosophy , grammar, poetics, music,
drama, dance, astronomy, mathematics, how were they used to coin the
8 R. C. Pandeya, The Problem of Meaning in Indian Philosophy , Motilal Banarasidass,
Delhi, 1963.
9 Y. J. Padmarajiah, A Comparative Study of Jain Theories of Reality & Knowledge , Jain
Sahitya Vikas Mandai, 112, Ghodbunder Road, Ville Parle, Bombay, 56.

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Sun, 20 Mar 2016 11:50:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
186 Annals BORI, LXXXVIII ( 2007 )

terminology specific to their discipline? They did not have other languages
like Greek and Latin as a source to create new technical words. They had only
Sanskrit. So when we use today words like ãtmã,paramãtmã, while discussing
religious philosophy or words like pratyaya, upapada sanghãta , saňhati from
Sanskrit grammar, we rarely give attention to the origin of these words.
However, scholars in ancient India realized that philosophy could be a linguistic
problem because they were using Sanskrit terminology in discussions. Heated
debate continued on Sanskrit terms dravya, guna, paryãya, and sphota.
Recently Dr. Peter Scharf10 has presented in his book all aspects of the single
term akrti appearing frequently in semantics of Sanskrit. Discussions on
terminology lead to the understanding that Epistemology (Theory of
Knowledge) and Ontology (Theory of Reality) are interdependent and in all
philosophical discussions language plays a basic role. So the subject of Sanskrit
words and their meanings, although extremely important from the point of
view of discussions on natural philosophy or religious philosophy, is rarely
addressed in popular lectures. But the topic is alive and discussions on the
semantics of Sanskrit continue to attract the attention of scholars all over the
world. Bhartrhari's Vãkyapadiya and Sphota doctrine is discussed even after
centuries. A detailed review on the Sphota is published recently by
Dr. Anirban Dash11 in 2004.

Who talked about Sphota first?

Pãnini (Around 4th century B.C.) mentioned the name Sphotãyana in
his Astãdhãyi. However, the reference does not indicate clearly that Pãnini
knew anything about Sphota doctrine or its origin from the sage scholar
Sphotãyana. Another indirect reference to the Sphota theory is found in the
writings of Audumbarãyana quoted by Yãska in his Nirukta. In recently
published review on Sphota theory by Dr. Anirban Dash1 1 , one could get more
details of the historical overview of the Sphota theory. Only brief information
taken from his article is presented here. Vyãdi, the author of Sangraba , might
have recorded some discussion about the Sphota theory, as the distinction
between Prãkrta dhvani and Vikrta dhvani. Kãtyãyana, the author of Vãrttika,
explained that letters of a word are fixed and the style of vrtti depends upon
speech habits of the speaker.

10 Peter M. Scharf, The Denotation of Generic Terms in Ancient Indian Philosophy : Grammar,
Nyãya, and Mimãmsã, Pub. : American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, 1996.
U Anirban Dash, Ine Doctrine oj bp nota, source : internet site (aeptemoer zuU4):
IndianCivilization @ yahoogroups .com .

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Sun, 20 Mar 2016 11:50:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Nara y an R. Joshi : Sphota Doctrine in Sanskrit Semantics Demystified 1 87

Sphota as a Unifying Factor

Mãdhava brings together the views of various scholars as to the meaning
of words and its cognition. The brief review by Mãdhava presented here was
taken from the book of Lakshman Sarup12. Vãjapyãyana maintains that all
words express a generic meaning and a particular substance is apprehended
after the apprehension of the genus which has an intimate relation with them.
Vyãdi maintains that words mean individual things, that they explicitly express
the individual substances, while the genus is implied. But the next question
is how does cognition of the meaning, whether generic or individualistic, take
place? Is cognition produced by single letters composing a Sanskrit word or
by their aggregation? The first alternative is not tenable, for the cognition of
the object cannot be the result of a string of separate and individual letters
without some unifying cause, as a garland cannot be made from a collection
of separate flowers without the unifying string. If each letter of Sanskrit
alphabet has a separate manifesting power, then the pairs of words rasa, sara'
vana, nava ; etc. should have the same meanings due to presence of the same
letters in their composition. We know that members of these pairs have different
meanings. So it is not possible for letters to have meanings by themselves. We
have to accept therefore the hypothesis of a unifying factor which is all
pervading and whose existence is independent of letters. This unifying factor
is technically called Sphota. Next we come across entirely different view on
Sphota by Patañjali.

Patañjali on Sphota
Certain important philosophical issues were discussed by Patañjali
(Around 2nd century B.C.) in the introductory passages of his Mahãbhãsya,
which perhaps makes it the earliest philosophical text of the grammarians . One
should keep in mind that the Sphota doctrine appears in connection with
meanings of Sanskrit words. The brief review presented here is based on two
books, the first of Dr. S.D. Joshi4 and the second of Gaurinath Sastri3. The
main point of contention is whether the isolated phonemes are the smallest
significant and meaning-bearing units existing separately on their own in
Sanskrit language or not. The following review is therefore, strictly related to
phonemes, morphemes, words, terms or forms, and sentences of Sanskrit
language only.

12 Lakshman Sarup, The Nighantu and the Nirukta , Publisher : Motilal Banarasidass, 1984,
page 217.

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Sun, 20 Mar 2016 11:50:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
188 Annals BORI, LXXXVIII ( 2007 )

Patañjali admits that words küpa , süpa and yü pa are distinguished

from one another by their initial single phoneme: nevertheless, the meaning
is neither cognized through the distinctive phonemes /k/, / s / and tyl, nor is it
conveyed by the identical segment l-üpal. His view is that the isolated
phonemes are not directly connected with meaning. As far as the meaning
is concerned, words are indivisible into phonemes. Patañjali, therefore,
postulates a single entity sanghãta as the meaning bearing unit for a word.
He keeps the two levels of language apart. Accordingly, the function of
language at the sound level is to differentiate one significant unit from another,
while at the word level the function is to signify meaning. The later
grammarians hold the view that the Sphota is the single meaning-bearing
entity-either word or sentence. Patañjali does not identify Sphota with the
meaning-bearing nature of language. According to Dr. S. D. Joshi4 the
term Sphota did not imply consideration of meaning to Patañjali. This is so
because Patañjali has used the term Sphota (probably "heard sound") strictly
to point out its relation with Dhvani ("spoken sound"). The idea that the
meaning-bearing word is the Sphota is not implicitly or explicitly stated
by Patañjali, although such a concept has occurred to later Indian Sphota
theorists.

According to Patañjali, the Sphota aspect of word, which is suddenly

revealed to the listener's ear, is quite different from Dhvani which refers to
the distinctive or non-distinctive sound elements uttered by different
speakers in varied tones, pitches etc. Thus the term Sphota refers to the
constant element in the auditory image of the varied articulated sounds,
whereas the term Dhvani refers to the physical articulated sound which
is associated with length, tempos and other peculiarities of the individual
speaker. The speech properties belonging to the individual speakers are
regarded as non-distinctive from the point of view of the perception of
the Sphota. Patañjali says that phonemes are fixed ( avasthita ) and tempos
or intonation depend on the speech-habits of the speaker. Dr. S.D. Joshi4
points out that the distinction between the Sphota aspect and Dhvani
aspect of a word is analogous to the distinction between the phonematic
and the phonetic patterns of word. In short, a chosen šabda can have
different Dhvanis (that is, it can be pronounced differently), but it always
have the same Sphota.

Patañjali is thus consistent in using the terminology of Dhvani and

Sphota aspects of words. According to him, the phoneme (varna) is the

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Sun, 20 Mar 2016 11:50:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Nara y an R. Joshi : Sphota Doctrine in Sanskrit Semantics Demystified 1 89

Sphota which remains the same in all different modes of utterances. The
word šabda as used b.y Patañjali, may stand for Dhvani or Sphota on the
one handy or for the meaning-bearing word ( sanghãta ) on the other. While
his term šabda is common to all these three, the terms Dhvani, Sphota
and Sanghãta are not interchangeable. It could be said that what is pro-
nounced is Dhvani , what is heard is Sphota and what is understood is
Sanghãta.

Bhartrhari on Sphota
According to the observations of Dr. S.D. Joshi4, Bhartrhari has
used the term Sphota only nine times in Vãkyapadíya and that too occurs
in the first chapter of it. Like Patañjali, Bhartrhari has also invariably used
the term Sphota in its relation with the Dhvani. Without referring to Dhvanis,
he has nowhere used the term Sphota. Bhartrhari has nowhere clearly stated
in his work Vakyapadiya that ' Sphota is over and above the sounds, it is
indivisible and without any inner sequence, and it is meaning bearing unit of
language' . He stated that Sphota did not involve the difference in the speed
of utterance ( vrttibheda ). Bhartrhari differentiated between the 'form' of the
word and its 'object' . According to him it is the 'form' of the word which
changes, while its object remains the same. And this unity of 'object' is carried
by the Buddhist concept of Šabda, which is mentally retained 'self' of the
word.

Sphotavädins (Later Grammarians)

The later grammarians, also known as Sphotavädins hold that
the sentence Sphota conveys the meaning of a sentence which is a single
meaning-bearing unit indivisible into smaller grammatical components
and into phonemes. We are calling Sphotavädins the later grammarians
because they built their theory of Sphota on the Sphota concept of earlier
grammarians , Patañjali and Bhartrhari . However, in the view of Dr . S . D . Joshi4 ,
the later grammarians changed the concept of Sphota from the original one as
understood and used by the two great earlier grammarians.

According to later grammarians, there is no Sphota without meaning.

It is meaning-bearing nature of a word or of an expression that makes it Sphota .
The timeorder of sound ( dhvani ) is merely a means for revealing the timeless
and partless Sphota. The function of phonemes in a word is to reveal the
indivisible meaningful single entity Sphota progressively. With each of the

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Sun, 20 Mar 2016 11:50:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
190 Annals BORI, LXXXVIIl ( 2007 )

successive phonemes the Sphota is increasingly revealed. The phonemes

have no meaning of their own. The significance of phonemes lies
in differentiating or progressively revealing the single entity Sphota
(meaningful unit). But the differentiating unit is not necessarily the
meaningful unit.

In postulating the hierarchy of various Sphotas like Varna-Sphota,

Pada-Sphota, Vãkya-Sphota, Akhanda-Pada-Sphota and Akhanda-
Vãkya-Sphota, the grammarians are indicating to longer and longer
segments of speech as meaningful units of language. The longer meaning-
ful units tell us 'how the language is used' while the shorter meaningful
units tell us 'how the language functions'. If the purpose of a specific set
of Vedic Mantras is to produce a specific net result, then the whole unit of
Mantras or its Sphota is that what matters. For example, the literal meaning
of the famous Vedic 'Gãyatrí Mantra' may not appear to be smooth in
understanding, but when chanted millions and millions of time it produces
the exact expected result. Could we say then that it is the Akhanda-Vãkya-
Sphota that is producing the result? On the other hand if the whole structure
is important in relation to its constituents, then why was so much emphasis
laid on preserving every Vedic syllable from corruption? Perhaps the later
grammarians should have used a word different from Sphota in order to stress
the implied concept of meaning. As a matter of fact such distinction is shown
by the technical terms Jãti-Sphota and Vyakti-Sphota.

Jãti-sphota and Vyakti-sphota

According to Dr. S. D. Joshi4, the ancient grammarians are followers
of Jãti-Sphota, while the modern grammarians (the latter grammarians
Nageša Bhatta and others) accept Vyakti-Sphota. Jãti means class and
Vyakti means individual. What items one would like to categorize under
these two titles? Is it semantic fact (Artha-contcnt) or phonetic fact ( Uccãra -
expression)? For the ancient grammarians, Sphota represented merely
generic aspect whose individual members are not designated as Sphota.
To express it differently, Dhvanis (the individual sounds) are always
Vyaktis and their common denominator revealed by the individual
instances is always Jãti. Sphota was thus used by the ancient grammarians
to describe phonetic facts. For them there never existed Vyakti-Sphota
but existed Vyakti-Dhvanis (plural) and Jãti-Sphota (singular).

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Sun, 20 Mar 2016 11:50:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Nara Yan R. Joshi : Sphota Doctrine in Sanskrit Semantics Demystified 191

Differences over Vyakti and Jãti

Semantics of Sanskrit have attracted attention from all schools of Indian
Philosophy. Each school has slightly different position on the use of Vyakti
and Jãti terminology. According to Dvaita school, Vyakti is the meaning of
a word. Sri Jayatirtha in his Pramãna Paddhati 13 mentions the views of the
other schools of Indian philosophy and finally states the Dvaita position.

(A) Jãti h èva vãcyãh padãnãm vyaktayastu lakshyãh iti bhãttãh

(B) Jãtivisistãh vyaktayah vãcyãh iti vaisesikãh .
(C) Kvačit jãtih kvačit vyaktih iti vaiyãkaranãh.
(D) Kvačit jãtih kvačit vyaktih kvačit ãkrtih iti naiyãyikãh
(E) Anyãpohah iti bauddhãh.
(F) Vyaktayah eva vãcyãh samayapratipattau tu sãdrsyam upadhãnam
iti ãcãryãh

Šaňkara and Sabara on Sphota

It is also interesting to note that Adya Šaňkara criticizes the doctrine of
Sphota and spares the doctrine of the Šabdabrahman which generally agrees
with his philosophical thinking. Šabara discusses the propriety of Upavarsa's
theory - Varnã eva tu šabdah iti bhagavãn upavarsah - according to which
word (šabda) means a number of phonemes and not Sphota. Ãdya Šaňkaracarya
referred in respectful terms to Upavarsãcãrya as an opponent of the Sphota
doctrine and Šabaraswami also cited the authority in a similar context. Šabara
asserts that the theory of Grammarians is based on two unwarranted
assumptions. In the first place, the Grammarians are required to posit Sphota
itself; and secondly, they must admit that the impressions (samskãra) due to
the perception of phonemes are competent to manifest Sphota (of Grammarians
and not of Patañjali).

Back to Bhartrhari

In the view of Bhartrhari, in the Sphota perception non-distinctive

redundant phonetic features are eliminated. In the generic view, Sphota is
opposed to Dhvani as a class (jãti ) to individual (vyakti). According to him
the term Vyakti-Sphota does not exist. For him Vyaktis are always sounds and
Jãti is the Sphota . Bhartrhari' s final view is that the division of sentence into

1 3 Sn Jayatirtha, Pramãna Paddhati (A Work on Dvaita Epistemology) , published by Dvaita

Vedanta Studies & Research Foundation, Bangalore 4, 1991.

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Sun, 20 Mar 2016 11:50:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
192 Annals BORI, LXXXVIII ( 2007 )

words and that of words into stems and suffixes is a grammatical fiction,
although a useful one, for the description of language. Sentence, as he says,
is one single undivided speech-unit as for as meaning is concerned.
According to him the words prakrti, pratyaya, šabda, pada, and vãkya are
used to represent the meaning-bearing aspect of language while Varna-Sphota,
Šabda-Sphota, Pada-Sphota and Vãkya-Sphota show distinctive aspects of
language. From the physical signal to the mental understanding of meaning
the sequence is Dhvani, Sphota, Sanghãta and Artha where the last word Artha
means meaning.

In the end Dr . S . D . Joshi4 summarizes the Sphota doctrine as understood

by two traditions of Indian grammarians: linguistic and philosophic. For
Patañjali and Bhartrhari the term Sphota stands for the unit-sound grasped but
not necessarily understood. The later grammarians, however, have shifted the
earlier conception of the Sphota from the feature level of language to the
semantic leveL They maintained that the discussion on the nature of Sphota
must deal with the significative aspect of language. They have also attributed
the metaphysical aspect of word doctrine to the Sphota. By identifying the
higher reality of Šabda-brahman with the lower reality of Sphota, they
indirectly contributed to the misunderstanding of Sphota being a mysterious
entity.

Sphota Doctrine Demystified

Harivrsabha in his commentary on Vãkyapadiya says that the sound is
of two kinds: primary (prãkrta dhvani ) and secondary ( [vikrta dhvani ). That
sound is primary which causes the perception of the Sphota and without which
the form of the Sphota remains unmanifested. That sound is secondary which
is caused by modifications (such as frequency change in speaker's voice) of
the primary sound. According to the modern physics, sound is a traveling wave
comprising of successive compressions and rarefactions in air. This fact was
known to the ancient Indian linguists and grammarians like Bhartrhari from
the descriptions about spreading of sound like Vici Tarañga and Kadamba
Golaka as explained by Dash1 1 . A sound wave has both subjective and objective
criteria. For every objective criterion ascribed to sound, there is a corresponding
subjective attribute how it is perceived. The frequency of a sound wave is
perceived as a pitch, the amplitude as loudness, spectrum as timbre, phase
difference as presence, duration as length and reflection-absorption as
ambience. So if the same word is pronounced by a child, a woman and a man,
the listener immediately recognizes who is saying the word. This is so because

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Sun, 20 Mar 2016 11:50:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Narayan R. Joshi : Sphota Doctrine in Sanskrit Semantics Demystified 193

in the voice of a child and a woman higher frequency components are present
while in the voice of a man lower frequency components dominate. Depending
on their vocal organ's physical characteristics, timbre would be different. In
short the listener hears the same word although its sound characteristics were
slightly different in three utterances. Now using the language of Patañjali one
can say that in three cases the Sphota remained the same but in the pronunciation
by each of them, Dhvani has different frequency distribution. For the
connection between Sphota and Dhvani, Bhartrhari points out that the
perception of Sphota is not identical with the perception of sound. One can
think a second analogy in order to explain the difference between Dhvani and
Sphota. The English letter, 'A' can be written using different types of fonts
like

A, A, A, A, A, A
and so on. No matter how the font looks like, we still understand it is the
English letter ' A' . Here Akrti (form) of these letters is different while the letter
"A" is the same. When a word is pronounced by different persons, it may
sound different to ears of listeners but it produces the same Sphota. In short,
using algebraic equation, one could say that

(Uttered word - its phonetic variations) = Sphota.

or

(Vyãharanam - Vyäkrti) = Sphota.

Sõdhu and Asãdhu Words

According to Mimãmsã and Vaišesika-schools Sanskrit language is the

only standard {sãdhu) language and its use alone can engender merit. They
also say that meaningfulness is coextensive with sãdhutva. The words in Vedas
have no beginning, yet they are meaningful. Other words used in folk languages
have a beginning of meaning by way of convention, and thus their meaning
is not eternal . Hence they ( asãdhu ) cannot be the sources of our duty . Meanings
associated with asãdhu words rise out of human convention. Language using
asãdhu words is thus a conventional language. Ancient Indians were debating
about the special status of Sanskrit. Is it a conventional language like any other
language or is it a special one because it was the language of Vedic revelations?
Let us assume that it is the special language with stock of sãdhu words. In
ancient India the debate did not end here. There were various opinions about
meanings of sãdhu words of Sanskrit. As regards the meaning of a word all

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Sun, 20 Mar 2016 11:50:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
194 Annals BORI, LXXXVIII ( 2007 )

schools of Indian philosophy have their own views revolving around

Sphotaväda and Varnavãda.

Many modern languages are conventional languages. It means if we all

decide from tomarrow to call Table a Chair and Chair a Table, it is all right
as long as everybody agrees with the new usage. If Sanghãta of Varnãs produces
meaning in Sanskrit without referring to fixed atomic meanings of individual
Varnas, then Sanskrit is conventional language. However, if the meaning of
a Sanskrit word arises by adding atomic meanings of its constituent Varnas,
then new situation arises. Such arrangement of fixed semantic categories
associated with phonemes is denied by modern linguistics. However,
fascination with some kind of ideal language continued for centuries in human
history. One theoretical concept of an ideal language is discussed next.

The Second Law of Themodynamics and Phonetic/Phonemic Symbolism

William Ralph Bennett offers interesting discussion on entropy and
anthropology in his book14. Associating entropy with the degree of statistical
disorder, the second law of thermodynamics means that thermodynamic
systems tend to proceed from states of lower probability to states of higher
probability (or equivalently from higher order to lower order). There are some
qualitative reasons why we might also expect languages to obey the second
law in some sense. The fact that large numbers of people use them introduces
the statistical element. If a language is developed initially by one or a small
number of persons at one point on the globe, it seems inevitable that the
structure of the language will become less ordered as it diffuses throughout
the world. The condensed (and therefore specialized) meanings originally given
to symbols by the creator of the language will tend to be broadened and require
more additional description through common usage. In other words, it seems
likely that there will be a tendency for the minimum average number of bits
per message required to convey meaning in normal use of the language to
increase with time.

One linguistic tendency is observed where the more concise declensions

of single words are replaced by sequences of words. This process generally
makes language easier to learn and use but also results in requiring more bits
per message on the average. The redundancy of the language tends to go up.

14 William Ralph Bennett, Introduction to Computer Applications for Non-Science Students

(BASIC), Pub. : Prentice-Hall Inc., 1976, p.140.

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Sun, 20 Mar 2016 11:50:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Narayan R. Joshi : Sphota Doctrine in Sanskrit Semantics Demystified 195

One, of course, has to look over really long periods of time to see if the effect
occurs; otherwise, variations in individual style will tend to mask the
phenomenon. Obviously, it is desirable to try to make comparisons between
old and recent versions of the same text. Some efforts made in that directions

lead to the new phenomenon. Although there is a definite indication that the
total number of bits for the same message has increased with time, the result
has occurred in a rather surprising way. The total number of characters per
message has gone up , but the entropy per character has remained astonishingly
constant over periods of at least 2000 years (at least within the languages
studied belonging to the Indo-European family). The result suggests the
involvement of some fundamental physiological limitation. For example, the
nearly constant values for the entropy per character may just reflect the finite
number of sound sequences that can be easily produced by the human voice.
Such limitations would get into the written language the minute an alphabet
based on some kind of phonetic spelling arose from more elementary
ideographs. Thus the condensed original meanings for the individual sounds
of an alphabet of a language using the phonetic spelling for words is not a
farfetched idea. But then how to crack the linguistic phonemic or phonetic
code if it exists?

Varnavãda versus Sphota vãda

So now the confusion over Dhvani and Sphota is behind us. Let us
concentrate on the main point of contention. To start with the main point of
contention was whether the isolated phonemes are the smallest significant and
meaning-bearing units existing separately on their own in Sanskrit language
or not. The most important topic of Mantra-sãstra in Indian religious
history is closely related to the linguistics of Sanskrit. The topic is whether
the meanings of Sanskrit words are conventional or there is something
intrinsic about them. The majority of the ancient Indian scholars and the modern
Sanskrit scholars believed that the meanings of Sanskrit words are
conventional. But Acãryas like Upavarsa, Kumãrila-Bhatta, Prabhãkara,
Madhva, Rãmãnuja, Šaňkara, Jivagoswâmï and schools of Nyäya, Sãnkhya,
Vaišesika, Mimãmsã, Vaisnava, Kãsmiri áaivãs and Šaiva-Siddhanta
theorists all support Varnavãda. However none of these, to the best of the
knowledge of this author, offers keys of decipherment of the atomic meanings
of Sanskrit Varnas or phonemes.

In the modern linguistics, sound symbolism or phonetic symbolism is

discussed in research papers. The sound symbolism in expression of human

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Sun, 20 Mar 2016 11:50:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
196 Annals BORI, LXXXVIII ( 2007 )

emotions (the Universal sound symbolism) is different from the sound

symbolism for meanings of words. The modern linguists tried to discover the
language specific phonetic symbolism in languages like English, Arabic etc.
It did not work beyond few words. One of the reasons for breaking down of
the sound symbolism could be changes in sounds of words from these languages
over many centuries. Did not sounds from words of Sanskrit undergo changes?
Let us assume that not all present words from Sanskrit are pure and original
and there entered certain changes in their sounds. There is still nothing wrong
in trying to decode the Phonetic/Phonemic Symbolism of Sanskrit as long as
the position of a researcher remains honest and open to the outcome of research
efforts. Is there a history of such efforts in the case of Sanskrit? The answer
is both yes and no. Sometimes efforts were explicit and other times they were
not so open. This is so because the Sanskrit letters, words and sentences were
considered to be sacred sounds and were mysterious components of the grand
Indian sonic theology.

Abhidhäna, Abhidheya and Abhidhi

It is said that Vãk (speech) is divided into four categories-Parä , Pasy anti ,
Madhyamã and Vaikharï. All discussion in this work is only for Vaikhari Vãk.
Sanskrit words can have many different types of meanings. The main ones are
Abhidhã (the primary meaning) , Laksanã (the secondary of extended meaning) ,
Vyanjanã (the suggested meaning) and Tãtparya (the intended meaning).
According to Bhartrhari if any possible law governs the semantic behavior of
a word or speech, it can be only the 'Direct' one or ' Abhidha . This is so
because ultimately the word is Abhidhäna or 'name' and the meaning is
Abhidheya or 'to be told' depending directly on each other. This mode of
relationship has been named as Abhidhi. Therefore, only Abhidhã meanings
of Sanskrit words are given attention in this work. Other meanings relate to
poetics and figures of speech. Within the realm of Abhidhã meaning, a given
word may have many meanings by convention or one fixed meaning by some
intrinsic mechanism. What could be the intrinsic mechanism other than each
individual letters of the Sanskrit alphabet carrying fix atomic meanings adding
up to the final fixed meaning of the Sanskrit word? This is called Varnavãda.
Although there were discussions in the ancient India on Varnavãda, to the best
of knowledge of the present author, no details of atomic fixed meanings
associated with Sanskrit Varnas were offered anywhere. From time to time
there are references to multiple meanings being associated with individual
Varnas as discussed in Aksamãlikã Upanisad or in Ahirbudhnya-Samhitã of

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Sun, 20 Mar 2016 11:50:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Nara YAN R. Joshi : Sphota Doctrine in Sanskrit Semantics Demystified 197

the Pañcarátrágama15 or in Visvãmitra Samhitã16. Out of multiple meanings

of Vyañjanas and vowels which one to choose when and where is the problem.

Analysis by means of Syllables and Single Sounds

There is an interesting article about analysis of meaning of Sanskrit
words through single sounds in the book of Dr. Kahrs17. It is a kind of extreme
form of Nirvacana analysis, namely that which is based on the semantics of
single sounds. A good example of this is provided by the lengthy analysis of
the word Bhairava presented by Šivopádhyáya in his commentary on
Vijñanabhairava-tantra. Šivopádhyáya breaks the term Bhairava down into
the four syllables bhã-ai-ra-va and then tries to present meanings for each of
the syllables , finally adding and leading to the meaning of the word . The degree
of success of this method is a different subject. The article offers evidence that
such methods were tried in the past. Moreover Sanskrit has many single syllabic
roots having meanings. This logic could be stretched further to the fixed
semantic categories associated with phonemes instead of syllables of Sanskrit
words. The question is will this extreme Nirvacana analysis work.

Conclusions

In the light of the Sphota doctrine demystified , what is left is V arnavãda .

Now Sphota of the chosen word becomes the target whose meaning needs to
be explained through Varnavãda. For that to happen one needs to perform
Viketana (decoding) of Varna Sanketana (coding) if it exists. "The Problem
of Meaning in Indian Philosophy" thus appears to be the open problem even
after contributions of well known , philosophers , linguists and religious scholars
over the past 2500 years of the known history of the discussion on the topic.
The ancient Indian discussions on Sanskrit semantics might be related to
recovering the lost science of phonemic symbolism (Varna Sañketanam). The
decoding of the wide scale phonemic symbolism may explain coining of the
technical terminology used in the ancient Sanskrit treatises on varied subjects.
It may help in generating new Sanskrit technical terminology for modern
scientific English words and avoid funny Sanskritization based on phonetic
similitude. The extreme Nirvacana analysis of Sanskrit words using the tool
of Varna Sanketana may reveal the internal beauty of Sanskrit words.

15 Pandita M. D. Ramanujacharya, Ahirbudhnya Samhitã of the Pañcarátr agama [I], The

Adyar Library and Research Centre, 1986.
16 Dr. U. S. Bhatta, Visvãmitra Samhitã , Rashtriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha, Tirupati, 1991.
17 Eivind Kahrs, Indian Semantic Analysis , Pub., Cambridge University Press, UK,
1998, p.89.

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Sun, 20 Mar 2016 11:50:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions