(From a lecture on Gauòéya philosophy by Çréla Bhaktisiddhänta Sarasvaté Öhäkura at the Albert Hall, Calcutta, on 11th August 1929. Translation by Prema Prayojana däsa)

 

Sound (çabda) is of two types, eternal and non-eternal. The Sanskrit grammarians beginning with Päëini consider that sound in its original unmanifest form as sphoöa is eternal, whilst sound in the form of manifest audible syllables is non-eternal. Pataïjali also agrees with the opinion of Päëini.

Sphoöa-väda-vicära – Investigating the Theory of Sphoöa

 

Päëini’s analysis

 

Päëini considers unmanifest sound, referred to as sphoöa, to be eternal. This eternal sphoöa is the original cause of the universe. Thus, he identifies sphoöa with Brahma, the absolute truth.

 

jagan nidänaà sphoöäkhyo niravayavo nityaù çabdo brahmaiveti

 

“The first primary cause of the universe called sphoöa is the indivisible, eternal sound, which is

itself the ultimate reality, Brahma.”

 

Another grammarian, Bhartåhari (5th century), has stated in the Brahma-käëòa (1.1) of hisVäkyapadéya:

 

anädi-nidhanaà brahma çabda-tattvaà yad akñaram

nivarttate’ rthabhävena prakriyä jagato yataù

 

“The beginningless and endless Brahma is the principle of sound. From this imperishable sound alone, the functions of the universe are initiated.”

 

The question may be raised, “What is it that gives rise to clear knowledge of the meaning of any particular word? Is it the individually articulated syllables of the word, or is it the effect of all the syllables collectively?” The great sage Päëini says that neither individual syllables nor a combination of syllables have the capacity to awaken a sense of meaning. Individual syllables are obviously incapable of relating meaning. For example, the word bhakñaëa (eating) cannot be inferred from any of the separate syllables bha, ka, ña, and ëa. Furthermore, since all the syllables are temporary, it is also impossible for them to exist collectively. In pronouncing a word, the sound of each syllable disappears before the sound of the next syllable appears, so there is no opportunity for the syllables to form a collective entity capable of inspiring an awareness of their intended meaning. A commonly given example is that of a needle piercing through a stack of a hundred lotus petals. It seems as if the needle pierces them all at once, but actually the tip of the needle pierces each petal individually in rapid succession with the result that all the petals attainthe state of being connected by the needle shaft. However, this example is inapplicable in regard to the formation of a word from its component syllables because each syllable disappears before the next one appears. Thus, there is no opportunity for them to form a composite entity.

 

Yet the meaning cannot be accomplished in any way other than these two options, namely, by the divided or the connected syllables. Consequently, it remains unproven that something other than the sphoöa, the subtle unmanifest form of all syllables, has the self-evident power to convey meaning. As such, it must be concluded that there is an agent possessed of the potency to awaken the experience of meaning. This agent is called the sphoöa.

 

tasmäd varëanäà väcakatvänupapanno yad balärthapratipattiù sa sphoöa iti varëätirikto varëäbhivyaìgo’rthapratyäyako nityaù çabdaù sphoöa iti tad vido vadant | ataeva sphuöyato vyajyate

varëair iti sphoöo varëäbhivyaìga sphuöébhavaty asmadärtha iti sphoöo’rthapratyäyak iti sphoöa-

çabdärtham ubhayathä nirähuù ||

 

“Since it is inconsistent to assume that the power of reference is present in all syllables, the agent upon the strength of which the experience of meaning arises is called sphoöa. Learned persons who have realized the principles of reality say that distinct from the syllables of a word, that which fully manifests clear awareness of the meaning of words is only the eternal sound referred to by the term sphoöa. Its name is sphoöa because it is varëäbhivyaìga. Abhi means ‘in all respects’, and vyaìga means vyakta, ‘revealed’ by the syllables. Vyaìga can also mean sphuöita, ‘burst’. That which causes the clear meaning of a word to burst into one’s consciousness is called sphoöa. Thus, the meaning of the word sphoöa has been explained in these two ways.”

 

The grammarian Pataïjali; Kaiyaöa, the author of Pradépa, a commentary on Pataïjali’s Vyäkaraëa Mahäbhäñya; and others have presented their various deliberations upon the nature of sphoöa. The Bhaööäcäryas who adhere to the principles expounded in the Mémäàsä-çlokavärttika of Kumärila Bhaööa have also analyzed sphoöa-väda (with a view to refute the conjecture of the grammarians). I present herein a summary of Çré Madhava Äcärya’s reflections on the sphoöa based on his Sarva-darçana Saàgraha (Compendium of all Philosophies).

 

Päëini and the main sphoöa-vädés (proponents) of the grammarian tradition state that the meaning of words cannot be understood by the sound of articulated syllables without the intervention of the sphoöa. For example, the four letters a, g, n, and i, combine to make the word agni, which is understood to mean ‘fire’. The sense of fire cannot be derived from any of the individual letters. When the four letters are combined we understand they refer to ‘fire’, but this understanding cannot be accomplished merely by the combination of the letters. If the meaning could be conveyed by each one of the four syllables, then why do we not comprehend the sense of ‘fire’ upon hearing the syllable ‘a’ or just from the utterance of ‘g’? If someone proposes that it is not possible to understand the meaning from the individual syllables, but when combined they convey the sense of ‘fire’, the proponents of sphoöa theory reply that this type of reasoning is simply puerile boisterousness because every syllable is rapidly destroyed. As each syllable arises, the previous syllable disappears. Furthermore, what to speak of semantic comprehension of the combined syllables, there is no foundation for their combination to take place. Therefore, it should be understood that comprehension of meaning has two phases. First of all, the sphoöa is revealed by the four syllables. Then, by the manifestation of the sphoöa, one comprehends the meaning of the word ‘fire’.

 

Some have objected on the grounds that if one accepts sphoöa to be revealed by each syllable, then one contradicts the foundational premise of sphoöa theory itself, to wit, that meaning cannot be conveyed by individual syllables. Furthermore, if one accepts that the sphoöa is revealed by all the syllables, then again the same contradiction arises since the sphoöa theory’s second foundational premise is the impossibility of combination. When this glaring inconsistency is present in both of the two possibilities, what is the necessity of invoking the theory of sphoöa?

 

Responding to this objection, sphoöa-vädés analogize that the purport of a treatise, read only once, is not clearly understood, but by repeated analyses, one can firmly grasp its essential meaning. Similarly, although there is a slight manifestation of the sphoöa by the first syllable ‘a’, with the utterance of the second, third, and fourth syllable, the sphoöa becomes progressively more manifest until the complete manifestation of the sphoöa reveals the meaning, ‘fire’. It is not that by a slight manifestation of the sphoöa the comprehension of meaning occurs. Just as complete knowledge of a substance is not garnered from a first impression, but clear cognition occurs within the consciousness after some time. Similarly, the consciousness of the living entity is first attracted by the sound; then on maturity of the manifestation of the sphoöa with the articulation of the final syllable of a word, the intelligence ascertains its meaning.

 

Pataïjali’s analysis of the Sphoöa

 

Pataïjali comments that unless all the syllables of a word arise simultaneously, they cannot assist each other to establish the meaning. The individual syllables do not touch the word or illuminate the word since they immediately appear and disappear before the word can be illuminated. Therefore, the individual syllables are not counted as components of the constitutional form of the word. Rather, every syllable is itself a complete word endowed with the potency to illuminate all meanings. Although words convey different meanings and have distinct forms due to variations in the sequencing of their syllables, there are fixed rules established in regard to the sequence of the syllables for the ascertainment of any particular meaning. Thus, it is demonstrated that meaning is indicated only by the aggregate of syllables in compliance with the rules of sequencing. It is only because each of the articulated sounds ‘g’, ‘au’ and ‘ù’ contain the potential to illuminate all meanings that when they are arranged in a specific sequence, such as in the form of the word ‘gauù,’ the meaning becomes evident as a reference to a particular type of creature with a dewlap, horns, and tail. Therefore, after the utterance of all syllables, although the syllables themselves are destroyed, one can ascertain the meaning of the word on the strength of recollection of their sequence. The illumination of the intelligence that takes place the very moment one catches the meaning of the word is called pada-sphoöa, and the object referred to is firmly understood in the form of its signifier.

 

Jaiminé’s analysis of the Sphoöa

 

In order to establish the eternality of çabda, Jaiminé Rsi argues:

 

nityas tu syäd darçanasya parärthatvät (1.1.18).

 

Why should one accept the eternality of sound? Jaiminé points out that one must accept the eternality of sound because the articulation of a previously comprehended sound is the only cause of understanding that sound later. Sound preexists its articulation. Before becoming situated in the intelligence (buddhi), the preexisting sound is already inherently related with one specific meaning. First, the sound and its meaning are seen within the intelligence of the speaker. Then the speaker reveals the sound in its audible form.

 

Afterwards, the hearer, on becoming aware of the sound, realizes its meaning by the appearance of sphoöa. Sphoöa is different from audible sound (dhvani). For example, one may say, “By the combination of light and the power to see, a substance has now become the object of my vision.” This statement does not imply that the substance was newly created by the light. Similarly, with the assistance of the act of speaking, when the çabda appears in the intelligence, it cannot be considered newly created. In reality, çabda is an eternal real substance that does not depend for its existence upon the appearance of audible sound.

 

The Säìkhya perspective

 

The sphoöa theory of the grammarians is completely rejected by the followers of the Säìkhya tradition.

 

pratétyapratétibhyäà na sphoöätmakaù çabdaù (Säìkhya Pravacana Sütra 5.57)

 

All syllables are considered subject to destruction in the third moment. The effort required to make the sound takes place in the first moment, the syllable is spoken in the second moment, and the syllable vanishes in the third moment. Since the syllables are incapable of establishing any meaning in their combined form, authors such as Pataïjali do not accept the eternality of çabda in its form of articulated syllables. However, by uttering the syllables, a separate substance called sphoöa is revealed. This sphoöa is the inherent nature (svarupa) of sound, which the grammarians imagine to be the establisher of meaning.

 

To refute this conception, the author of Säìkhya Pravacana replies in this sütra (5.57), “You accept (imagine) a substance called sphoöa to be the direct cause of the apprehension of meaning. If this sphoöa were directly perceived, the meaning of all words would be comprehended just by uttering them (which is not proven by experience). Then there would be no need to imagine an additional ‘sphoöa’ substance mediating between the audible sound and its meaning. Alternatively, if you say that sphoöa is not directly experienced, rather, it is the cause of apprehending meaning, then it must be admitted that any substance that is not an object of experience is incapable of being the cause of apprehending another substance. (For example, light is both seen and the cause of seeing other objects. If light were invisible, it would not be able to make anything else visible.) Therefore, since it is impossible to establish the value of the sphoöa as either perceived or not perceived, sound is not of the nature of sphoöa.

 

The Internal Sphoöa

 

Some äcäryas have proposed the simultaneous existence of two kinds of sphoöa, antara-sphoöa (external) and bahiù-sphoöa (internal). In regard to the internal sphoöa, the Çrémad Bhägavatam (12.6.39) states that the indivisible Brahman, the unmanifest source, becomes self-manifest automatically in the heart from the vibration of the illuminating sound composed of three letters A, U, and M. This oàkära is the door to understanding Brahman, Paramätma, and Bhagavän, and is a feature of the intrinsic nature of the Absolute.

 

tato 'bhūt tri-våd oàkāro

yo 'vyakta-prabhavaù sva-rāö

yat tal liìgaà bhagavato

brahmaëaù paramātmanaù

 

Now the eternality of the syllables of präëava (oàkära) will be proven in accordance with the evidence of Çrémad Bhagavatam. Since space is an eternal substance, it follows that sound, a quality of space, is also eternal. Logic dictates that the qualities of an eternal substance must also be eternal, nityaà gataà nityam (Tarka-saìgraha 3.6). Since çabda is an eternal substance, either it is manifest to our perception, or it remains unmanifest, depending on whether or not the opportunity for its appearance is instigated by the movement of air. The experience of this eternal syllable in the antaù-karaëa is called antara-sphoöa or çabda-brahma. This antara-sphoöa is indivisible, being without parts. Thus, it is non-different from the syllable itself. And since this sound and its meaning are inseparable, it is the embodiment of eternal knowledge. It naturally follows that all the Vedas have manifest from präëava, oàkära. Because it is realized within, präëava is the example of the unmanifest antara-sphoöa. Those who propound this viewpoint say that the precise ascertainment of the meaning of çabda takes place spontaneously in the antaù- karaëa even of one who is blind, deaf, and dumb from birth. Although the visual and auditory senses of such a person are not functioning, the meaning of words and statements is still awakened: this is the antara-sphoöa.

 

The External Sphoöa

 

Grammarians have pointed to bahiù-sphoöa as the cause of understanding çabda. In their opinion, a word’s meaning becomes apparent when the final impression (saàskära) created by hearing the last syllable of a word connects with the accumulation of saàskäras made by hearing the previous syllables. This comprehension based on the final impression of the word (pada) is called pada- sphoöa.

 

Similarly, the impressions created by hearing words in the present reveal and connect with impressions made by the previous words in a sentence. Thus, the comprehension of a whole statement (väkya) based on the final resulting impression revealed with the completion of the last word is called väkya-sphoöa.

 

The cause of comprehension of an extensive thesis (mahä-väkya) made of many words such as advitéya (one without a second), nitya (eternal), padäbhivyaìgya (made perceptible by a word), väkyäbhivyaìgya (made perceptible by a statement), and akhaëòa (undivided), is called jäti- sphoöa. Grammarians consider that jäti-sphoöa manifests the meaning of a thesis with the assistance of väkya-sphoöa. In their opinion, when a word is spoken, the sound is only understood through the sphoöa and that this theory can be proven both by direct perception (pratyäkña) and inference (arthäpatti). For example, from the sound ‘gauù’ (cow) one does not apprehend the meaning as a reference to the letters ‘g’, ‘au’ and ‘ù’, but rather to a creature with a dewlap, horns, and tail. This is pratyäkña-pramäëa, the evidence of direct experience. Neither do the letters ‘g’, ‘au’, and ‘ù’, individually or collectively, arouse the experience of understanding. As previously mentioned, grammarians posit that the individual syllables cannot be responsible for comprehension. If it were so, we would understand every word upon hearing the first syllable and the rest of the syllables would become redundant. And since syllables disappear as soon as they are uttered, there is no possibility of their being understood as a composite entity called the word. Thus, the existence of sphoöa has been established on the basis of arthäpatti- pramäëa, inferential evidence.

 

The impression left by the first syllable of a word undergoes successive modifications with the utterance of each of the following syllables until the final modification is made by the last syllable. This proposition must be so since syllables produce impressions, but the impressions themselves have no inherent sequence. The nature of bahiù-sphoöa is that it awakens an understanding of the word by utilizing the final impression. If one does not accept this conclusion, but rather mistakes the cognition of a word for the knowledge of each syllable, then instead of ‘rasa’, one might understand ‘sara’, or instead of ‘nadé’, one might understand ‘déna’. Furthermore, one might comprehend the sound in both ways. However, the same experience of a sound can never arise by uttering the syllables in reverse order due the impression of the natural order of the syllables. If it were not so, there would be no difference in the perception of a word whether pronounced forwards or backwards.

 

Çréla Jéva Gosvämé on Sphoöa-väda

 

The spiritual master of Gauòéya philosophers, Çréla Jéva Gosvämé, has thoroughly demolished the aforementioned common theories of sphoöa and established the eternality of Vedic sound in the form of syllables imbued with inherent meaning. His analysis in Sarva-saàvädiné is as follows:

 

“Now it will be explained how words manifest meaning. All words are devätmaka, that is, they both refer to God and also embody the presence of God. As such they are self-evident in regard to all their meanings.

 

“Some philosophers contend that since all syllables are destroyed in the third moment, they are incapable of being combined to establishing meaning. Therefore, they claim that meaning is illuminated when the last syllable is combined with the saàskära arising from the utterance of the previous syllables. This saàskära, being apratyäkña, not experienced by the senses, can only be inferred on the basis of one’s experience of its effect, namely, the revelation of meaning.

 

“Others say that as the previous syllables are gradually uttered in sequence, the effect of saàskäras in the form of memory is also experienced in a sequence, not simultaneously. Therefore, the assistance of the last syllable cannot possibly give rise to the cognition of meaning because all the syllables are not experienced at once. With this intention, they say that there must be a special substance responsible for awakening the awareness of meaning, to wit, the ‘sphoöa’.

 

“Since all syllables are individual in nature, a single cognition is impossible. Therefore, it should be understood that a saàskära arises from the cognition of each of the articulated syllables of a word. When this seed saàskära is joined with the cognition of the last syllable, then the sphoöa makes the subject visible in the form of a single cognition.

 

“Therefore, the Veda is eternal because it is sphoöa-svarupa, inherently of the nature of sphoöa. The reason being that knowledge of the previous successive saàskäras is present in the utterance of every syllable.

 

“To refute sphoöa-väda, the proponents of varëa-väda cite the opinion of Bhagavän Upavarña, the earliest known commentator on Brahma Sütra. Bhagavän Upavarña says, varëa eva tu çabda - ‘Articulated sound is exclusively of the nature of syllables'. This perspective is illustrated by the following example: dvir-go-çabdo’yam uccaritaù na tu dvau go-çabdäu - ‘If the word “cow” is spoken twice, it is to be understood that the same word has appeared twice, not that two words have been spoken.’ Therefore, even çabda in the form of syllables has been accepted as eternal because words are eternally related to their specific meanings. The spoken syllables, situated in a line like a row of ants and received in a sequence, are bound together with a particular meaning. Even in conventional experience, after uttering each syllable, it is the intelligence that recognizes all the syllables in relation to a particular prescribed meaning. Therefore, the use of imagination is minimized in the explanation of the followers of varëa-väda.

 

“Two faults arise in sphoöa-väda by neglecting the function of the observed syllables in the cognition of meaning: first, the denial of direct experience, and second, acceptance of the unobserved. Furthermore, sphoöa-väda proposes that when all the syllables of a word are uttered in a sequence they illuminate the sphoöa, then again this sphoöa illuminates the meaning of the word. Thus, kalpanä-gaurava-doña occurs, the defect of overly cumbrous argumentation due to the needless multiplication of causes. Therefore, it is accepted that Vedic sound in the form of syllables is both eternal and possessed inherently of the power to awaken realization of its own significance.” Thus concludes the analysis of sphoöa-väda from Sarva-saàvädiné 11.

 

A great deal of analysis of sphoöa-väda can also be found in commentaries on Çäìkaräcärya’s Brahma Sütra Bhäñya such as Govindänanda’s Ratnaprabhä; the Nyäya-nirëaya of Änandagiri; Väcaspati Miçra’s Bhämaté; and the Nyäya-maïjaré of Jayanta Bhaööa. However, a deliberation on sphoöa-väda as exquisite as that presented by Çréman Mahäprabhu in his pastimes as both a teacher and a spiritual figurehead (äcärya) has never been seen before in the entire history of spiritual realizations. Çréla Jéva Gosvämé, by refuting the mundane sphoöa-väda in his commentary on Tattva Sandarbha, has accepted the eternality and potency to convey meaning of Vedic sound in the form syllables (varëa). By this he has established the vidvad-rüòhi understanding of sphoöa- väda that Çréman Mahäprabhu had shown during his pastimes as a teacher. Çré Jéva Gosvämépäda compiled his Çré Harinämämåta Vyäkaraëa with the intention of refuting the ordinary sphoöa-väda of Päëini and establishing the factual meaning of sphoöa as envisioned by enlightened sages.

 

The semantic power of a term as it presents itself before the pure consciousness of a perfectly realized person is called vidvad-rüòhi (from vidvat: enlightened visionary, rüòhi: conventional meaning). This vidvad-rüòhi of sphoöa-väda has been fully developed only in the essential instructions of Gauòéya philosophy in regard to Çré Näma-bhajana. In Çikñäñöakam, the victory drum of Çré Näma-saìkértana has been loudly resounded through the words ‘vidyä-vadhu-jévana’. This is the fully blossomed expression or vidvad-rüòhi form of sphoöa-väda.

The Vedäìga scriptures defining the proper methods of pronunciation of Vedic mantras are called ‘çikñä’. The science of pronouncing the mantras with the correct intonations such as udätta and anudätta is the subject examined in çikñä, the Vedic sub-branch of phonetics. However, Çréman Mahäprabhu’s Çikñäñöakam is not merely like that Vedäìga. All the Vedas along with their six äìgas are included within Çikñäñöakam. The çikñä within Çikñäñöakam, not being limited merely to the vidvad-rüòhi exegesis of the Vedäìga scriptures, incorporates the Vedas themselves and all their auxiliary texts. In Çikñäñöakam the subject revealed is the sphoöa-väda of the Holy Name, the transcendental wish-fulfilling gem who is non-different from the Named, the fully independent, conscious embodiment of rasa, Çré Kåñëa.

 

Considering meaningful words or the sphoöa to be different from the syllables, grammarians create disagreement among the various philosophical traditions. However, all the sectarian disputes arising from ordinary sphoöa-väda are resolved in the Gauòéya philosophy of Çré Näma. In ordinary sphoöa-väda there is a difference between the syllables of a word and the subject to which they refer because this deliberation on the nature of sound takes place within the ether of prakåti or this material universe. However, the vidvad-rüòhi perspective on sphoöa-väda precludes any type of intervention or obstruction of maya, the material energy. In this sphoöa-väda there is no difference at all between the syllables and their referent, the sound and its meaning, the signifier and the signified. There is no impossibility of all syllables bearing meaning because the syllables and their referent, the sound and its meaning, the signifier and the signified, are all subjects of the spiritual space (paravyoma). In regard to the vidvad-rüòhi sphoöa-väda it has been stated in Çrémad Bhägavatam (12.6.41):

 

çåëoti ya imaà sphoöaà supta-çrotre ca çünya-dåk |

yena väg vyajyate yasya vyaktir äkäça ätmanaù ||

sva-dhämno brahmaëaù säkñäd väcakaù paramätmanaù |

 sa sarva-mantropaniñad veda-béjaà sanätanam ||

 

“When the sense of hearing does not function in its covered state, the Puruña, who by nature is full of knowledge, hears the sphoöa, that is, the unmanifest sound of the präëava, oàkära, without the assistance of material senses. He is the Paramätma. The statements of the Vedas, which illuminate all meanings, are expanded only by this sphoöa. The sphoöa personally manifests from the paramätma in the ether of the heart. The sphoöa directly denotes Brahman, which is its own shelter, and Paramätma. This is the mystery of all mantras and the eternal seed of all the Vedas.”

 

The purport of Sphoöa from the realized perspective

 

Sphoöa is the direct appellation of brahma-vastu, the supreme substance of reality. From the general point of view, the word ‘sphoöa’ means brahma. The best philosophy surpasses all narrow- minded deliberations. In that philosophy brahma refers only to the most elevated of visions. Indeed, the truth has been called ‘brahma’ only to assert the philosophy that makes one aware of båhatva, the ultimate greatness. One must vanquish all petty, limited conceptions. Only then can one deliberate on the sphoöa, which signifies the ultimate greatness, for the purpose of experiencing the appearance of çabda-brahma (spiritual sound), meaning brahma-sambandhi, sound which is inherently brahma.

 

The followers of Hiraïyagarbha propose that this deliberation on sphoöa is confined to the subject of Paramätma. Such a subject cannot be grasped by this type of deliberation. The words ‘nava’ (new) and ‘vana’ (forest) consist of the same syllables, but their meanings are completely different. The words ‘nadé’ (river) and ‘sara’ (motion) indicate objects distinct from the words formed by the same syllables in reverse order, ‘dina’ (wretched) and ‘rasa’ (juice). But the word ‘brahma’ is not a word like all these words. The true meaning of the word ‘brahma’ is not illuminated by explanations proffered by the material mind (manodharma). The actual meaning is self-manifest only in the presence of those who have taken shelter of the lotus feet of Çré Guru.

 

Three types of conventional meaning (rüòhi)

 

When deliberation on sphoöa is complete it reveals rüòhi. (Rüòhi refers to the power of the word to clearly manifest a meaning that is not derived from its etymology.) Rüòhi is of three types – ajïa-rüòhi, sädhäraëa-rüòhi, and vidvad-rüòhi. Vidvad-rüòhi makes visible advaya-jïäna, nondual awareness. Sädhäraëa-rüòhi binds the functions of the material intelligence to concentration on substances as they are customarily defined in worldly dealings. Ajïa-rüòhi increases the contraction of meaning even more than sädhäraëa-rüòhi and establishes the customs of rajo-guna and tamo-guna in the world of general experience. These distinct angles of vision in relation to the meaning of words arise in conjunction with the various perceptions of the living entities. Factually, the vidvad-rüòhi of sphoöa-väda indicates Para-brahma. In this case, sphoöa is not merely a meaning-bearing sound (väcaka), rather, experience of the referent (väcya) is fully manifest within it. From this we can understand that the name and the named are non-different.

 

The Path of Hearing (çrauta-panthä) and rendering the Sphoöa ineffectual

 

Çrauta-panthä, the path of hearing, embodies the practical application of the Vedic epistemology. The factuality of çrauta-panthä cannot be obstructed by any other opposing method of argumentation. If the vidvad-rüòhi of sound is covered grossly or subtly in one’s consciousness, the sphoöa is rendered ineffectual. Then sound conveys insignificant paricchinna-vastu-jïäna, limited knowledge in the form of fragmented information of things in isolation from their participation in the complete whole. Although the sound is sung and it enters in to the ears, it has no opportunity to enter into the truly discerning ear in the spiritual ether (cid-äkäça). When one fails to discover the factual realization of the sphoöa, it remains covered, and instead sound is experienced as a conveyance for fragmental knowledge (paricchinna-jïäna), contracted knowledge (saìkérëa-jïäna), distorted knowledge (vikåta-jïäna), and delusive knowledge (vivarta-grasta- jïäna).

 

Çréman Mahäprabhu and the Gauòéya Äcärya’s on Sphoöa-väda

 

Teachers of Gauòéya philosophy such as Çréla Jéva Gosvämé and Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa Prabhu have presented their deliberation on sphoöa-väda in terms of acintya-bhedäbheda-siddhänta. Çréman Mahäprabhu’s Çikñästaka presents the fully developed realization of the nature of sphoöa. He has summarized sphoöa-väda in very few words – kértanéyaù sadä hariù – Çré Hari’s name, form, qualities, and pastimes are to be glorified at all times. Çréman Mahäprabhu has not given instruction to cover the whole world with words that will impede advaya-jïäna, nondual awareness. In vidvad-rüòhi-våtti every word indicates Viñëu, the para-brahma. In every word the vidvad-rüòhi is revealed through the sphoöa-dharma. When the karëa-vedha saàskära, the purificatory ritual of ear-piercing, is performed by the mahänta-guru, in other words, when divya- jïäna is attained through dékñä, at that time the vidvad-rüòhi arising from sphoöa-dharma is revealed. Vidvad-rüòhi-vrtti illuminates Çré Mürti, the divine form of Çré Kåñëa. In ajïa-rüòhi and sädhäraëa-rüòhi, there is a difference between the signifier and the signified, the sound and its referent; thus, pauttalikatä or präkåta-sahajiyä-väda becomes present. Pauttalikatä means idolatry, an imitative worship of the divine directed to matter. Präkåta-sahajiyä-väda involves accepting one’s conditioned nature (saha-with ja-born) arising from prakåti (material energy) to be capable of accommodating the transcendental reality. However, in vidvad-rüòhi there is no place for pauttalikatä because there is no covering between the word and the reality it indicates. Çréla Jéva Gosvämé in his Ñaö-sandarbhas, Çréla Rupa Gosvämé and Sanätana Gosvämé in their Laghu and Båhad-Bhägavatämåtas respectively, and all genuine Gauòéya philosophers present this specific deliberation spoken by Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu.

 

Inert shape, Conscious shape and Çabda-arcä (Sonic shape)

 

As long as a substance is not united with the quality of form, then it remains invisible. The conception of mistaken philosophers that only formlessness lies beyond the element of ether is simply imagination. A formless, impersonal substance that maintains a gross or subtle inert material shape for some time and then dissolves it again is incapable of maintaining a purely conscious shape. Such a substance is wholly imaginary and can never be the embodiment of eternity, consciousness, and bliss.

 

The sac-cid-änanda-vigraha, the cause of all causes, the ultimate governing Lord of reality described in Gauòéya philosophy is the eternal conscious form. This Parameçvara, the supreme master of reality, is the fundamental principle established by genuine philosophers. Parameçvara is revealed by the vidvad-rüòhi of sphoöa in the ears and instructions of spiritually realized bona fide disciples in the form of çabda-arcä-vigraha, the sound deity.

 

By the influence of our relationship with those who carry the shoes of the gurus of Gauòéya philosophy, we are declaring at every moment that one should not listen to these discourses as if they were discourses upon ephemeral worldly activities. In Gauòéya philosophy there is a heaven and hell difference between ‘karma’ and ‘lélä’. Karma is experienced through the extrovert inert mundane sense organs, whereas lélä is experienced only through spiritual senses that are rapt in uninterrupted devotional service. It must be understood that lélä cannot be illuminated by knowledge arising from the material senses as is the case with insentient objects of worldly enjoyment. The concentration that can be focused on inert forms by the mind establishes the categorical distinction of those forms from the genuine form of the real substance. However, çabda forcibly cleaves one’s consciousness from the impenetrable citadel of the body-mind complex and becomes self-manifest upon the platform of sandhiné, its own inherent potency of transcendent existence. The direct experience of this sound in the form of the personal audience of Çré Hari is the central thesis of the Gauòéya philosophers.