...continued from Part 1.
Ontology, Epistemology, Teleology
There is a fair bit of cognitive fatigue around these words1, but they denote things of root importance to how we make sense of the world. They act upon us even without our knowledge or conscious perception, and it can be said that they contain the ‘metadata’ to reality. Simply put, they refer to What Exists, How we Know it Exists, and Why it Exists (or What For). These aren’t things most of us spend our time worrying too much about. After all, things do exist, we seem to have ways of knowing this to certitudes, and as for why- explanations galore and we keep chugging along anyway.
But quite like there are several biological processes constantly rolling inside us, below the level of our conscious perception and without our deliberation, our neurology draws from an accumulated base of impressions, biases, assumptions, acculturations and more that we are not always aware of. This is why lists abound for things like ‘logical fallacies’ and ‘unconscious biases.’ The metadata to meaning making is therefore of supreme salience in understanding the human mind– both as a discrete unit and as a grouping of culture. And to investigate this metadata is a uniquely human privilege. We are the only species (that we know of) that can look into the mirror of consciousness and recognize our own reflection staring back at us. And across time and place, when humans have done so they have hit upon an almost inexplicable intuition.
Reality is made of language.
This is not the stuff of esoterica, nor of literal conformity, it is the serious conclusion of many a considered opinion. We point to three here as examples:
True alchemists do not change lead into gold; they change the world into words.
WILLIAM H. GASSThe world is made of words. And if you know the words that the world is made of, you can make of it whatever you wish.
TERENCE MCKENNAThe structure of language determines not only thought, but reality itself.
NOAM CHOMSKY
What is suggested in these words is that a significant and defining aspect of the conscious experience- the cognitive processing of metadata- happens through the function of language. There is a natural implication to this, which we can add to the base intuition:
Reality is made of language, or code.
and like any code, reality can be hacked.
This is why earlier we referred to ‘decolonization’ as a shedding of the acquired syntactic-semiotic-semantic memeplex of a foreign civilization. And it is why the consequent memeplex to imbibe is one rooted in Sanskrit. What we are attempting in this series is a kind of ‘bootstrapping through language.’ But bootstrapping to what, one may well ask. That is the latter part of our title- reconnection to civilizational consciousness. The argument implicit in our approach is that we can use Sanskrit as a cognitive and self-initiatory tool to claw our way back from deracination, however far on that styx each of us may well be.
To recapitulate Part 1 then, we are building a preliminary schema to structure mental recalibration and deliberation- a design for redesign, if you will. A diagram of the schema in broad is embedded in Part 1, but here are some summary recapitulations:
consonance of ṛta and smṛta
preceding and originator realm of emergence. L1 is emergence-realm of brahma, L2 is emergence realm of ātman
consonance of kṛta and cṛta
created things/ideas/forms that emerge from the previous category but are manifested physically. Are deliberate and done by ātman. L1 by humanity as a species, L2 by human being as an individual
consonance of dhṛta and dṛta
emergent stuff that gets established, entrenched, becomes natural and innate
consonance of ghṛta and śṛta
the best, most refined, most deliberated and produced through pariśrama creations. L1 of humanity, or a group of people. L2 of human being, an individual. In both cases, the output of yajña
consonance of bhṛta and pṛta
things that guide shape, inspire, fulfill, lead. consonance here is not on meaning of the categories but on the spectrum implied. objective of bhṛta is to provide pṛta- to bear and lead is to be steward of fulfillment and purpose
consonance of mṛta and vṛta
stuff that kills- group or individual, body or soul. dangerous and undesirable things, stuff we should be wary of
consonance of nṛt and sṛta
Confounding, slippery, resistant to complete cogitation or simply ṛta/smṛta hampering/discordant things
It should not unsettle us overmuch if the point to all this isn’t quite apparent yet. Even Bhartṛhari claimed, after all, that true meaning is revealed not with the words or constituent parts of speech, but after the end of a complete sentence in a flash of insight called sphoṭa. It makes sense then that looking at the schema through technical tables will not suffice just yet. But there is a way we can experience insight, in this case not with a flash but with a slow bloom. Not with sphoṭa, but with ucchvas– a word we’re using here to mean ‘a gradual mushrooming of meaning and revelation in the mind.’
First we do have to traverse technical terrain once again- some basic working definitions we need to internalize. It does get steep, but the ride isn’t a bumpy one:
Ontical, Ontological, Onomatopoeic
Earlier we spoke of ontical and ontological as two separate categories- known as the “ontological difference.” We lean on side of reductiveness, but in any case we speak of these not so much to understand them as Heidegger meant it but to use them as supplementary scaffolding in our own build.
Ontic describes what is there, as opposed to the nature or properties of that being. For Heidegger, “ontical” signifies concrete, specific realities, whereas “ontological” signifies deeper underlying structures of reality.
The science that studies a being is, for Heidegger, ontic (ontique), and it is necessary to distinguish it from the science of the being of a being which alone is ontological. Ontological is like a level up in relation to “ontic”. Ontological being is not only being, but also being who understands being.
The third sample here articulates the ‘ontological difference’ as salient to our schema. It divides existence into ‘that which exists/comes into existence’ and that ‘which is aware of its existence,’ with the added complexity of whether ‘awareness of existence’ is the true ontological- all else being ontical forms it descends into. Our posited unentangling of the ontological difference is by bringing in a tangential notion- that of onomatopoeia.
What distinguishes the ontological is its self-awareness. It is not just something that exists, it is something that knows what existence feels like. It possesses what the ancients knew as ‘cit’ (चित्) and Pāṇini described as sañcetanā, smṛtyām, saṃjñāna- consciousness, in-descent of thinking, consonance (of awareness, ie., existence)7. It is Being, Heidegger’s Dasien- that which awareness/existence itself is. Luminous such, when Being reflects on its own existence, the same reflects back at it- cit becomes cint, cetana’s ping receives the pingback of cintana. This self-reflected glint is characterized by what we call semantic onomatopoeia. The dictionary meaning and standard usage of this word are straightforward:
The fact of words containing sounds similar to the noises they describe, for example ‘hiss’ or ‘thud’; the use of words like this in a piece of writing.
शब्दों का ध्वनि-विन्यास संबंधित (वास्तविक) ध्वनियों के अनुसार होना, ध्वनि-अनुकरण; ध्वनि-अनुकरणात्मक शब्द
Onomatopoeia therefore can be understood as a kind of ‘consonance’ between sound and meaning- the level at which language brushes against being a reflected shard of reality. Common examples- such as oink and buzz– do not do justice to this critical shard. Some better examples are found in Indian lore. The ancient ṛṣi, Bhṛgu, is credited in the Ṛgveda as having introduced the Bharata Āryas to fire. There is obviously a range of interpretation here, but what need not be doubted is the credit accorded to him in the primeval layer of Vaidika association to/with Agni. The name is built from the root √bhṛ- which is category L1-5 in our schema and also root to ‘Bhārata’: a level of consonance already.
But linguistically, Bhṛgu is built atop ‘bhṛg,’ which is ‘an onomatopoeic word expressive of the crackling sound of fire.’ Bhṛgu literally translates to that which/he who is ‘for the purpose of’ or the ‘doer’ of ‘bhṛg,’ just as dhātu is for the purpose of/ doer of ‘dhā.’
What we are seeing between the Vaidika story and the linguistic derivation is a consonance of meaning- a semantic onomatopoeia. It is the type of consonance that arises through self-awareness, √cit pingbacked as √cint. And the consonance is semantic, which means the reflection is not of arbitrary sound but of deliberately encoded meaning. Owed to the Bhṛgu-onomatopoeia, and a host of other such cases, we find additional support for the sentiment expressed by Prof. Adluri when he says:
Itihāsa represents the empirical world aesthetically to problematize both being-in-the-world and the relationship of ontology, text, and the world. In other words, itihāsa is history that has overcome historicism: history that has become critical and self-conscious.
What we are trying to establish here is that semantic onomatopoeia gives evidence to a thing’s ontological nature- it hints that the thing is a Being for itself- possessed of self-awareness, and not merely an ontical form. The onomatopoeia evidenced by Indian civilization asserts that it is ontological, not ontical- that Bhāratīya sāṃskṛtika cetanā is a real thing (thus making itihāsa, as Adluri describes it, the cintana pingback.) The civilization is self-aware, has agency, and its consciousness impacts its constituents- be they colonized or not. And this onomatopoeia gives us an immensely helpful ramp- we can follow the consonance ripples as if a trail of breadcrumbs and reconnect to the civilizational mind. The vyaṣṭi reintegrating with the samaṣṭi. A ghar-vāaapasi of a different kind. Let us do this now through ucchvas– also called an ontic bloom-a gradual mushrooming of meaning-realization (or consonance dawning). We do this for a very apparent aspect of the schema’s design- its tethering to ṛ/ ऋ in all the category names of L1 and L2. This is bootstrapping through language in action.
The Ontic Bloom of ऋ
Some etymology: Pāṇini defined the root √ṛ as gatau and gatiprāpaṇa- motion/ movement and attainment of motion.
Ṛta is derived from this by affixation or pratyaya- ṛ+kta (ऋ + क्त). This pratyaya denotes a sense of the passive past tense. Ṛta thus means “was put into motion” or “has been done,” (where done refers to the action denoted by the verb, in this case movement/motion.)
Not only is this cosmogony at play, it is the birth of the ontic. Simply the etymological rooting of ṛ informs us of the “moment in time” when motion/ movement/ change/ time came into existence. Since it came into existence, it cannot be Being or Existing in itself. You see, that which is eternal and unchanging is sat (सत् )- it simply Is.
It is not ‘existence,’ a phenomenological thing and thus an ontical form. It is Existing, Being- the Ontological. It derives from the root √as (अस्) which means “is.” सत् is the present participle of अस्, which is to say that it is not exactly “is” but rather “ing”- is happening, going on.
Thus do we say that it is not existence- which implies the coming into existence, or coming into being at some earlier point. As the present participle of is, it is Existing or Being– what the thing is to itself, or the ontological that Heidegger gave up on. To Terence McKenna, it awaits us at the end of time- which is of course true. But it also sits behind us before the emergence of time. It is why sat holds the status it does in dhārmika ontology. Existing such, eternal and unchanging- there is no motion by definition. No movement, no time, no gati. Not a single ontical form in existence
But then, at some point, ṛ + kta has been done -> movement has been attained– gatiprāpaṇayoh comes into being. The cosmic bubble which will contain things, or ontical forms. And so this bubble is called (ṛ+kta) ṛta. This explains the design of our schema. We shape it around ṛta since it denotes the pure, closest branching of sat. It is nothing but motion, rhythm. It is a-sat, yes, but it is still true, right, proper, efficient. It is a consonant reflected shard of reality, and an elaborate trail of ontic blooming is now possible for us:
Sat and Bhava
The ontologically complete interpretation of ṛ + kta is that motion has been attained by “Being,” by “Sat.” This is different to saying that Sat has come into existence.
To come into existence is understood in Sanskrit as bhav– a cognacy to the modern “be” in English. In turn this gives us the word bhāva- expression, form or manner. The phenomenological and experience world is through bhav, through ontical forms coming into existence.
Bhav proceeds at its emergent pace or happening, but ṛta continues- it is both gatiprāpaṇayoḥ and also gatau- the attainment of motion and also movement itself.
Ṛta, Dharma, Ārya
The Indian imperative has been to be in flow and consonance with this motion, ie.- dharma is the endeavor to conduct life and society in consonance with ṛta.
Another pratyaya to ṛ evokes the idea of “wanting to do” the action denoted by the verb, called the ṇyat pratyaya. Ṛ + ṇyat (ऋ + ण्यत्) gives us the word ārya – आर्य, ie. desiring gatiprāpaṇa- wishing to be in step with the rhythm of natural motion. All the expert philology and comparative linguistics of decades has not cared to factor such things in its imagined definitions of ‘Aryan.’ Or it has deliberately not done so. Ignorance or malice- we leave this open.
The Ride is not Free
To be in motion, ie. to exist in ṛta, accumulates entropic debt. In the modern world we understand this through notions like sustainability, ‘give-back-to-community’ and carbon credit. The ancient Indians understood this as ṛṇa, or essential obligation.
Ṛṇa is simply another ‘kta pratyaya’ of ṛ- ṛ + kta = ṛna (ऋ + क्त = ऋण ). The difference is that ṛta is the gatiprāpaṇa of Sat, while ṛṇa is the gatiprāpaṇa of you and me.
Only a few steps above the dhātu ladder, we are able to get core insights into the Indian mind. It perceives a deeper ontology to being and existence than we realize, discerns what existence is at core- motion, change, temporality; and formulates an elaborate set of design principles- dharma– that bring harmony with the motion. And it doesn’t stop here, on the branches of ऋ alone there is further core ontology such as:
ṛṣi – ‘possessed of mastery over gati’, ie., can see beyond the illusions of temporality; or cleaves through it with vision. In similar vein, one who cleaves through land, physically (for agriculture and irrigation- more flow), is kṛṣi.
ṛca – where the ‘ca’ is of the same evocation as the sound holds in notions like citta and cit ⇒ luminosity, sparkle. Ṛca is most literally a ‘throwing of light on ऋ,’ which explains why it took ṛṣi-level vision to compose ṛcas.
To find a tethering within ṛta, a purpose or aim that situates it specifically (a relative but not absolute sthā), is artha (अर्थ).
This demonstrates that the schema we build is capable of fulfilling the first of the two test criteria we had set for validity in Part 1: rooting our thinking in Sanskrit opens new pathways, or seeds reconnection to the civilizational core.
The ontic bloom of ṛ connects us to the civilizational imperative, the harmony and consonance inherent to the design of dharma. Another way to put it is that what ṛta is to Existing, dharma is to Existence. Ṛta is flow, motion, movement in the ontological Sat, dharma is flow, tradition, sustenance in the ontical Bhav. This is why our aspiration is to be Āryas, why we consider rivers- ever in motion- to be sacred, and why flow- pravāha- is valued in sanātana dharma. In this light let us now examine the Ārtava and Ātmya layers again, this time with special focus on the civilizational thinking they reconnect us to. Each layer can yield ontic blooms like ṛ did.
Ārtava and Ātmya Layers Revisited
These are maintained as a separate layer to reaffirm that ātman is an ontological form within the ontical bubble of ṛta. This is the great synthesis of the “ontological difference”. ‘That which breathes on its own,’ or ātman, is akin to that which exists on its own.
Breathing is Existing, you and I are ontological shards of Sat/Brahman, experiencing motion/temporality.
And now, a moment of pause...
We have fleshed to detail layers 1 and 2 of our schema. These cover ontology, with ample space for exegesis on the ontological difference. The 14 categories, in a 7×2 inter-analogous setup, cover the realm of things that exist, ie., what we know, in a design that demonstrates the Indian way of looking at reality, and finds repeated affirmations of it through basic etymological structuring. In parsing the modern world through their filters we are met with our self-identity (Bhārata, Ārya), what our civilization values (ārya, saṃgati, bharaṇa), and how it formulates a navigation through life (dharma, karma, ṛṇa) while acknowledging both the pleasures and dangers on access (pṛta, mṛta, anṛta).
It also gives us a few lessons on physics and philosophy along the way- in intuiting of emission, illumination, vibration, and on harmony, consonance, conciliation. All encoded into the basic roots of language. In the previous part, we have also given an example of the complex ontological forms that can emerge within ṛta- in this case of civilization, or saṃskṛti- described through what we have termed ṛta sūtramaṇḍala. Each layer in the schema is built upon a basic design principle- a kṛta sūtra- and the kṛta sūtramaṇḍala that inspire the four layers are what we will visit in the next part of the series.
