Vol.

LXXXVIII

Annals

of the

Bhandarkar Oriental

Research Institute

2007
EDITED BY
M. G. Dhadpha\e G. U. Thite

PUNE

Published by Saroja Share

at Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune 411 004

Pt-inted at M:lc Script, Aundh. Pune 411 007

2008
 SPHOTA DOCTRINE IN SANSKRIT

SEMANTICS DEMYSTIFIED

By
NARAYAN R. JOSHI

Abstract
From the time of the great grammarian Paryini (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 Spho!a doctrine discussed by Patafijali.
Different authors have interpreted Spho!a in various ways from
the high level mystic concept down to the physical property of
articulated sounds. In this paper the ancient Spho!a doctrine in
Sanskrit semantics is revisited and de mystified by using Physics
of sound. This step leads us next to the study of Van:zaviida freeing
us from confusion generated by unnecessary mysticism
associated with Spho!a 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 viikya, pada, sabda and finally Var~a are thought of
in connection with the main function of the language which is to convey
meaning. Vakyavadin says that the ultimate meaningful element is
sentence. Padavadin says that it is pada ",,:hile Sabdavadin says that it is
sabda. Even possibility of individual var(1as of Sanskrit alphabet
being associated with systematic fundamental semantic units (or categories)
is discussed by Varryavadins. Sphotavadins discuss Viikya-spho!a, Pada­
spho!a, and Sabda-spho!a. 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
184 Annals BORI, LXXXVIIl ( 2007 )

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

date ill India.

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

Vedic Sarhhitas. May be for that purpose, one of the branches of Indian
philosophy for the past two ,thousand years, is engaged in discussing Sabda
and Artha and Sabda Pramal~a 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 'Sabda
Pramana' w:thout tangible results. But books after books are published in
recent years on 'Sabda and Meaning' , and' Sabda PramaQa' by great scholars
like Kunjunni Raja l , Bimal Matilal 2 , Gaurinath Sastri 3 , SD, .foshi4 ,Bilimorias
and Guy Beck 6 . One enjoys reading terminology abhidha, lak~a1Jii, vyafijanl'i
and ttitparya developed by Indian linguists in describing various types of
meanings. But what is next? Where does this discussion flowing from Patafijali
to the authors of present time lead us to? Is it good just to talk and write about
them without tangible outcome? Dr. Houben 7 identified eight landmarks in the
Sanskrit semantic theories presented over the period 0[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 Spho!a doctrine in Sanskrit semantics.

I K. Kunjunni Raja, Indian Theories ofMeaning, The Adyar Library and Research Centre.
2 Bimal Krishna Matilal, Tht 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. Ca1cutta-6, 1959.
4 S. D. Joshi, The Spho{anirl}-aya of Kau~uj.a Blw{{a, Pub.: University of Poona, Poona, 1967.
5 Purushottama Bilimoria, SabJapral1lii(lQ : 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-Festschriji in HOllor ofGeorge Cardona, Editors: M.M. Deshpande and P .E.Hook.
Publisher: Moti1al Banarasidass, Delhi, 2002,
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 atma,paramatma, while discussing
religious philosophy or words like pratyaya, upapada sanghata, sanhati 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, gu,!a, paryaya, and spho!a.
Recently Dr. Peter Scharf lO 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 Vakyapadlya and Spho!a doctrine is discussed even after
centuries. A detailed review on the Spho!a is published recently by
Dr. Anirban Dashll in 2004.

Who talked about Spho!a first?

PaDini (Around 4th century B.C.) mentioned the name Spho!ayana in
his A~tadhayL However, the reference does not indicate clearly that PaDini
knew anything about Spho!a doctrine or its origin from the sage scholar
Spho!ayana. Another indirect reference to the Spho!a theory is found in the
writings of AudumbaraYaI:la quoted by Yaska in his Nirukta. In recently
published review on Spho!a theory by Dr. Anirban Dash II, one could get more
details of the historical overview of the Sphota theory. Only brief information
taken from his article is presented here. Vyac,li, the author of Swigraha, might
have recorded some discussion about the Spho!a theory, as the distinction
between Prakrta dhvani and Vikrta dhvani. Katyayana, the author ofVarttika,
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 ofGeneric Terms in Ancien/Indian Philosophy,' Grammar,

Nyliya, and Mimlitilsa, Pub. : American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, 1996.
II Anirban Dash, The Doctrine of Spho!a, Source: Internet site (September 2004):
IndianCivilization@yahoogroups.com .
 NARAYAN R. JOSHI: Spho!a Doctrine in Sanskrit Semantics Demystified 187

Spho!a as a Unifying Factor

Madhava brings together the views of various scholars as to the meaning
of words and its cognition. The brief review by Madhava presented here was
taken from the book of Lakshman Sarup l2. Vajapyayana 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.
Vya4i 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 Spho!a. Next we come across entirely different view on
Spho!a by Pataiijali.

Patafijali on Spho!a
Certain important philosophical issues were discussed by Patafijali
(Around 2 nd century B.C.) in the introductory passages of his Mahtiblui~ya,
which perhaps makes it the earliest philosophical text of the grammarians. One
should keep in mind that the Spho!a 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 Sastri 3 . 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 Nighan!u and the Nirukta, Publisher: Motilal Banarasidass, 1984,
page 217.
188 Annals BORf. LXXXVIII ( 2007 )

Patafijali admits that words kiipa, siipa and yiipa are distinguished
from one another by their initial single phoneme: nevertheless, the meaning
is neither cognized through the distinctive phonemes Ikl, lsi and Iyl, nor is it
conveyed by the identical segment I-iipal. His view is that the isolated
phonemes are not directly connected with meaning. As far as the meaning
is concerned, words are \ndivisible into phonemes. Pataiijali, therefore,
postulates a single entity sQlighdta 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 Spho!a is the single meaning-bearing
entity-either word or sentence. Pataiijali does not identify Spho!a with the
meaning-bearing nature of language. According to Dr. S. D. Joshi 4 .the
term Spho!a did not imply consideration of meaning to Pataiijali. This is so
because Pataiijali has used the term Spho!a (probably "heard sound") strictly
to point out its relation with Dhvani ("spoken sound"). The idea that the
meaning-bearing word is the Spho!a is not implicitly or explicitly stated
by Pataiijali, although such a concept has occurred to later Indian Spho!a
theorists.

According to Patafijali, the Spho!a 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 Spho!a 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 Spho!a. Patafijali 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 Spho!a 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 sabda can have
different Dhvanis (that is, it can be pronounced differently), but it always
have the same Spho!a.

Pataiijali is thus consistent in using the terminology of Dhvani and

Spho!a aspects of words. According to him, the phoneme (var~a) is the
 NARAYAN R. JOSHI: Sphota Doctrine in Sanskrit Semantics Demystified 189

Spho!a which remains the same in all different modes of utterances. The
word sabda as used b-y Patafijali, may stand for Dhvani or Spho~a on the
one hand; or for the meaning-bearing word (sanghiita) on the other. While
his term sabda is common to all these three, the terms Dhvani, Spho!a
and Sanghiita are not interchangeable. It could be said that what is pro-
o nounced is Dhvani, what is heard is Spho!a and.what is understood is
Sanghiita.

Bhartrhari on Spho!a
According to the observations of Dr. S.D. J oshi4, Bhartrhari has
used the term Spho{a only nine times in Vakyapadlya and that too occurs
in the first chapter of it. Like Patanjali, Bhartrhari has also invariably used
the term Spho!a in its relation with the Dhvani. Without referring to Dhvanis,
he has nowhere used the term Spho!a. Bhartrhari has nowhere clearly stated
in his work Vakyapadlya that 'Spho!a 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 Sphora did not involve the difference in the speed
of utterance (v!,ttibheda). 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 Sabda, which is mentally retained 'self' of the
word.

Sphotavadins (Later Grammarians)

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

According to later grammarians, there is no Spho!a without meaning.

It is meaning-bearing nature of a word or of an expression that makes itSphota.
The timeorder of sound (dhvani) is merely a means for revealing the timeless
and partless Spho{a. The function of phonemes in a word is to reveal the
indivisihle meaningful single entitv Sohota oro2:ressivelv. With each of the
190 Annals BORl, LXXXVllI ( 2007 )

successive phonemes the Spho!a is increasingly revealed. The phonemes

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

In postulating the hierarchy of various Spho{as like Van:za-Spho!a,

Pada-Spho!a, Vakya-Spho!a, AkhQ1:z4a-Pada-Spho!a and Akha1:zcJa­
Vakya-Spho!a, 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 Spho!a is that what matters. For example, the literal meaning
of the famous Vedic 'Gayatd 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 Akha1:zcJa- Vakya­
Spho!a 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 Spho!a in order to stress
the implied concept of meaning. As a matter of fact such distinction is shown
by the technical terms Jati-Spho!a and Vyakti-Spho!a.

lati-spho!a and Vyakti-spho!a

According to Dr. S. D. Joshi4, the ancient grammarians are followers
of Jati-Sphota, while the modern grammarians (the latter grammarians
NageSa BhaHa and others) accept Vyakti-Sphora. Jati means class and
Vyakti means individual. What items one would like to categorize under
these two titles? Is it semantic fact (Artha-content) or phonetic fact (Uccara­
expression)? For the ancient grammarians, Sphora represented merely
generic aspect whose individual members are not designated as Spho!a.
To express it differently, Dhvallis (the individual sounds) are always
Vyaktis and their common denominator revealed by the individual
instances is always Jati.Spho!a was thus used by the ancient grammarians
to de~cribe phonetic facts. For them there never existed Vyakti-Spho!a
but existed Vyakti-Dhvanis (plural) and Jati-Spho!a (singular).
 NARAYAN R. JOSHI: Spho!a Doctrine in Sanskrit Semantics Demyslified 191

Differences over Vyakti and Hiti

Semantics of Sanskrit have attracted attention from all schools ofIndian
Philosophy. Each school has slightly different position on the use of Vyakti
and Jiiti terminology. According to Dvaita school, Vyakti is the meaning of
a word. Sri Jayatirtha in his PramiilJa Paddhati 13 mentions the views of the
other schools of Indian philosophy and finally states the Dvaita position.
(A) Jiiti~ eva viicyiilJ, padiiniim vyaktayastu lakshyiilJ, iti bhii!!ii~

(B) Jiitivisi~!iiJ:t vyaktayalJ, viicyiilJ, iti vaisqikiiJ:t.

(C) Kvacit jiiti~ kvadt vyakti~ iti vaiyiikaralJii~.

(D) Kvacit jiitilJ, kvacit vyaktiJ:t kvadt iikrti~ iti naiyiiyikiiJ:t

(E) AnyiipohalJ, iti bauddhiilJ,.
(F) Vyaktayaf,t eva viicyiif,t samayapratipattau tu siidrsyam upadhiinam
iti iiciiryiiJ:t

SaIikara and Sabara on Spho!a

It is also interesting to note that Adya Sankara criticizes the doctrine of
Spho!a and spares the doctrine of the Sabdabrahman which generally agrees
with his philosophical thinking. Sabara discusses the propriety of Upavar~a' s
i:heory-Var(tii eva tu sabdaJ:t iti bhagaviin upavar~af,t- according to which
word (sabda) means a number of phonemes and not Spho!a. Adya Sankaraciirya
referred in respectful terms to Upavar~acarya as an opponent of the Spho!a
doctrine and Sabaraswami also cited the authority in a similar context. Sabara
asserts that the theory of Grammarians is based on two unwarranted
assumptions. In the first place, the Grammarians are required to posit Spho!a
itself; and secondly, they must admit that the impressions (samskiira) due to
the perception of phonemes are competent to manifest Spho!a (ofGrammarians
and not of Pataiijali).

Back to Bhartrhari
In the view of Bhartrhari, in the Spho!a perception non-distinctive
redundant phonetic features are eliminated. In the generic view, Spho!a is
opposed to Dhvani as a class (jiitO to individual (vyakti). According to him
the term Vyakti-Spho!a does not exist. For him Vyaktis are always sounds and
Jiiti is the Spho!a. Bhartrhari' s final view is that the division of sentence into

13 Sri Jayatlrtha, Pramiina Paddhati (A Work on Dvaita Epistemology), published by Dvaita

Vedanta Studies & Research Foundation, Bangalore 4, 1991.
192 Annals BORI, LXXXVIIJ ( 2007 )

words and that of words into sterns 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, sabda. pada. and vdkya are
used to represent the meaning-bearing aspect oflanguage while Van:/Q-Spho!a,
Sabda-Spho!a, Pada-Spho!a' and Vdkya-SphoJa show distinctive aspects of
language. From the physical signal to the mental understanding of meaning
the sequence is Dhvani. Spho!a. Sanghdta and Artha where the last word Artha
means meaning.

In the end Dr. S. D. Joshi4 summarizes the Spho!a doctrine as understood

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

Spho!a Doctrine Demystified

Harivf$abha in his commentary on Viikyapadlya says that the sound is
of two kinds: primary (pn:lkrta dhvani) and secondary (vikrta dhvani). That
sound is primary which causes the perception of the Spho!a and without which
the form of the Spho!a 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 Vlci Taranga and Kadamba
Golaka as explained by Dash 11. 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
 NARAYAN R. JOSHI: Spho!a 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
shor~ the listener hears the same word although its sound characteristics were
slightly different in three utterances. Now using the language ofPataiijali one
can say that in three cases the Spho!a remained the same but in the pronunciation
by each of them, Dhvani has different frequency distribution. For the
connection between Spho!a and Dhvani, Bhartrh?ri points out that the
perception of Spho!a is not identical with the perception of sound. One can
think a second analogy in order to explain the difference between Dhvani and
Spho!a. 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) = Spho!a.

or
(VyaharaI~am - Vyakrti) = Spho!a.

Siidhu and Asiidhu Words

According to Mlmamsa and Vaise~ika-schools Sanskrit language is the
only standard (sddhu) language and its use alone can engender merit. They
also say that meaningfulness is coextensive with sddhutva. The words in Vedas
have no beginning, yet they are meaningful. Other words used in folk languages
have a beginning <;>f meaning by way of convention, and thus their meaning
is not eternal. Hence they (asddhu) cannot be the sources of our duty. Meanings
associated with asddhu words rise out of human convention. Language using
asddhu 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 sddhu words. In
ancient India the debate did not end here. There were various opinions about
meanings of sddhu words of Sanskrit. As regards the meaning of a word all
194 Annals BORI, LXXXVlfl ( 2007 )

schools of Indian philosophy have their own views revolving around

Sphotavada and Va~avada.

Many modem 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. IfSanghataofVarryas produces
meaning in Sanskrit without referring to fixed atomic meanings of individual
Va~as, then Sanskrit is conventional language. However, if the meaning of
a Sanskrit word arises by adding atomic meanings of its constituent Van)as,
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 PhoneticlPhonemic Symbolism

William Ralph Bennett offers interesting discussion on entropy and
anthropology in his bookl4. 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.l40.
 NARAYAN R.JosHl: Spho!a Doctrine in Sanskrit Semantics Demystifled 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
~essage 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?

VarI].avada versus Sp-hotavada

So now the confusion over Dhvani and Sphora 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-sastra 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 modem
Sanskrit scholars believed that the meanings of Sanskrit words are
conventional. But Acaryas like Upavar~a, Kumarila-Bhana, Prabhakara,
Madhva, Ramanuja, Sati.kara, Jlvagoswaml and schools of Nyaya, Sati.khya,
Vaise~ika, Mimarhsa, Vai~l)ava, KiiSmirl Saivas and Saiva-Siddhanta
theorists all support Vafl)avada, However none of these, to the best of the
know ledge of this author, offers keys of decipherment of the atomic meanings
of Sanskrit Vafl)as or phonemes.

In the modem linguistics. soun~ symbolism or phonetic symbolism is

discussed in research papers. The sound symbolism in expression of human
196 Annals BORI, LXXXVlII ( 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.

Abhidhana, Abhidheya and Abhidhl

It is said that Yak (speech) is divided into four categories-Para, Pasyantl,
Madhyama and VaikharL All discussion in this work is only for Vaikhari Yak.
Sanskrit words can have many different types of meanings. The main ones are
Abhidhd (the primary meani ng), Lak:fa~la (the secondary of extended meaning),
Vyafijana (the suggested meaning) and Tatparya (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 Abhidhana 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 Abhidha meanings
of Sanskrit words are given attention in this work. Other meanings relate to
poetics and figures of speech. Within the realm of Abhidha meaning, a given
word may have many meanings by convention or one fixe.d 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 VaI1).avada.
Although there were discussions in the ancient India on Varllavada, to the best
of knowledge of the present author, no details of atomic fixed meanings
associated with Sanskrit VarQas were offered anywhere. From time to time
there are references to mUltiple meanings being associated with individual
VarQas as discussed in Ak~amalika Upani~ad or in Ahirbudhnya-Samhita of
 NARAYAN R. JOSHI: Sphola Doctrine in Sanskrit Semantics Demystified 197

the Paficanltragama 15 or in Visvamitra Samhita 16. Out of multiple meanings

ofVyafijanas 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. Kahrs 17. 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 Sivopadhyaya in his commentary on
VijiiCinabhairava-tantra. Sivopadhyaya breaks the term Bhairava down into
the four syllables bha-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 sy llabic
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 Spho!a doctrine demystified, what is left is VaI1)avada.
Now Spho!a of the chosen word becomes the target whose meaning needs to
be explained through Varryavada. For that to happen one needs to perform
Viketana (decoding) of VaflJ<l 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 (Van~a Sanketanam). 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 Varrya Sanketana may reveal the internal beauty of Sanskrit words.

15 Pandita M. D. Ramanujacharya, Ahirbudhnya Sarhhita of the Paficaratragama [I], The

Adyar Library and Research Centre, 1986.
16 Dr. U. S. Bhatta, Visvamitra SQ/izhitti, Rashtriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha, Tirupati, 1991.
17 Eivind Kahrs, Indian Semantic Analysis, Pub., Cambridge University Press, UK,