Posted on: 13 May 2020
Shabda Brahman - Sound as God?
Note: This article is meant for intellectuals onlyDr. Nikhil asked: Padanamaskarams Swamiji! In one of recent online satsangs among Your devotees, an interesting topic came up. It was related to the idea of the Veda being the manifestation of Śabda Brahman—God in the form of sound. The concept of Śabda Brahman is found in the Veda and the Gita (śabda-brahmaṇi niṣṇātaḥ paraṃ brahmādhigacchati—Maitra. Up.6.22; Śabda-brahmāti vartate—Gita VI.44). A concept similar to Śabda Brahman i.e. God in the form of sound (Word); is also seen in the Bible, where it is said “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.—John 1.1”. Given below are some of my thoughts on this topic. I request You to kindly correct me wherever I am wrong and enlighten me with a comprehensive correlation of this theory with Your philosophy. [Click to read detailed question→]
Miraculous Effects from Inert Sound are Impossible
Swami replied: O Learned and Devoted Servants of God! The Pūrva Mīmāṃsaka idea that sound produces some effects beyond what can be explained scientifically, is not at all valid. It does not matter even if the sound is the sound of the recitation of the Veda. Apart from the scientifically-explainable physical effects of sound, the sound of certain words may produce some effects in human beings, but such effects are based on the human beings understanding the meaning of those words. For instance, when you tell a person to bring a pot, the person brings the pot to you. Here, it cannot be said that the sound of the word ‘pot’ has the power to bring or create a pot. The person has awareness and he understood the meaning of the statement. Being an intelligent agent, he brought the pot to you. So, such additional effects of sound are based on awareness. They are based on the receiver of the sound being an intelligent person, who understands the meaning of the words (sound).
Sound, by itself, is only a form of inert energy and it does not have even a trace of awareness. It is an inert item of creation and has nothing to do with the Creator, who is the unimaginable God. It can definitely not have any miraculous or supernatural effects. The unimaginable God or Parabrahman has awareness, which is to say that He is not inert. But the awareness of God is completely different from the ordinary awareness we find in living beings. God’s awareness is said to be unimaginable since it is produced without matter or energy. Ordinary awareness requires a material nervous system and inert energy in the form of electrical impulses flowing through it. In fact, our awareness is a specific work form of the inert energy, which gets converted into awareness in the functioning nervous system. Before creation, God existed as an absolute unimaginable awareness, in the absence of matter or energy. That unimaginable awareness cannot be like the awareness of human beings. Human awareness is imaginable to us. It is part of the relative world. God is the absolute and creation is relative with respect to Him. Awareness found within creation is imaginable and it is called relative awareness. It is produced from inert energy in a material nervous system.
We say that a stone has no awareness since it does not have a material nervous system. Using the same logic, we would say that since God could not have had a material nervous system before the creation of matter, He too should not have awareness. Yet God indeed has awareness. We cannot imagine how God’s awareness could have been produced in the absence of both matter and energy and hence, we say that His awareness is unimaginable. We cannot say that sound, which is a form of inert energy, has any such unimaginable awareness to spontaneously materialize items in creation or have any supernatural effects as claimed by the Pūrva Mīmāṃsakas. The inert sound cannot even produce the relative awareness found in animals and humans. Sound cannot bring awareness in a dead person and raise him from the dead, no matter what frequency of sound is produced.
Is there any awareness—imaginable or unimaginable—to be found in sound? None at all! When sound does not possess any awareness, how can it cause the claimed effects? Imaginable awareness is only found in living beings and unimaginable awareness is uniquely found in God alone. Imaginable awareness is the characteristic of items in creation that have material nervous systems. The unimaginable God is not available in creation and hence, we shall exclude Him and keep Him in a distinguished position, which is beyond the imaginable creation. Sound energy has no relative awareness due to the absence of a nervous system. Of course, sound energy can produce some specific physical effects on nearby objects, as we see in the case of ultrasonic techniques. But there too, some agency having awareness is needed to carry out the ultrasound experiment. You may say that some ultrasound was accidentally generated and it produced the same effect on nearby objects, even without an intelligent agent. Another example would be that of an electric arc from electric cables broken in a storm, which can strike and kill a person. Here, even without an intelligent agent to operate the electricity, the inert electricity produced the effect of killing a person. Sound too could produce a similar effect, even in the absence of an intelligent agent. We completely agree with this and conclude that a specific inert power can produce a certain physical effect, whether there is an intelligent agent to operate it or not. Since this is purely a matter of physical science, it is true irrespective of the presence of a living agent.
Miraculous Effects of Vedic Chants?
As mentioned in a previous discourse, a supporter of the Pūrva Mīmāṃsaka view claimed that a person reciting Vedic hymns was able to shatter a glass prism due to the sound of the hymns. With this, he wanted to prove the extraordinary power of the Vedic hymns recited using the traditional accents. I suggested that the experiment should be repeated making an atheist learn the Vedic hymn with its proper accents and recite it before the glass prism. That would rule out the possibility that the prism was broken by God using His miraculous powers to favor the reciter who was devoted to God. If the atheist can similarly shatter the prism, then even a tape recorder playing the same hymn would be able to do the same. If this happens, I will agree that the sound of the Vedic hymn has that inherent effect, irrespective of the presence of any living agent. It would then merely be a concept explainable by physics, based on the frequency and intensity of that sound energy. It would definitely not be a miracle or a supernatural phenomenon. But if only a theist devoted to God utters the same Vedic hymn and the prism breaks, whereas, the prism does not break when the same hymn, at the same frequency and intensity is uttered by an atheist or when it is played by a tape recorder, I say that the effect is not due to the sound energy of the uttered hymn. It must be a miraculous action performed by that devotee, due to the grace of God.
A concept is proved through a combination of positive proof and negative proof. Anvaya is the positive proof, which shows that under certain conditions, a certain effect is observed (Yad bhāve tad bhāvaḥ). Vyatireka is the negative proof, which shows that in the absence of those particular conditions, that effect is absent (Yadabhāve tadabhāvaḥ). The first hypothesis is that the breaking of the prism was purely a scientific phenomenon. In that case, sound energy at that specific frequency and intensity should be able to break the prism, irrespective of whether the sound is produced by a theist or an atheist or even a tape-recorder. This is the positive proof or anvaya. The negative proof or vyatireka is that in the absence of the sound of the exact frequency and intensity or when sound of different frequencies and intensities is used, the prism does not break.
The second hypothesis is that the breaking of the prism was a miraculous phenomenon. The positive proof or anvaya for this hypothesis comes when a theist, who is devoted to God, is able to break the prism with his recitation of the hymn. The miraculous power granted by God to that devotee causes the prism to break. The negative proof or vyatireka of this hypothesis comes when an atheist or a tape-recorder fails to break the prism, in spite of reciting the hymn at that same frequency and intensity. This is because, the atheist or the tape-recorder does not have God’s grace which brings miraculous power and causes the prism to break. God alone possesses miraculous powers. His wish materializes in creation as reality (Satyakāmaḥ…—Veda). His wish, which exists in His unimaginable awareness, becomes reality. When a human being wishes, that wish, which exists in his relative awareness, does not automatically materialize in creation. When the devotee recites the hymn and wishes for the prism to break, God favors the devotee’s wish and breaks the prism with His wish. That wish of God itself is God’s miraculous power. When the atheist recites the same hymn with the same traditional accents and wishes for the prism to break, it does not break since the atheist’s wish existing in his relative awareness, is incapable of producing that effect in the real world. God does not support the atheist’s wish using His miraculous power since the atheist does not even believe in God. The tape-recorder of course, possesses neither imaginable awareness nor unimaginable awareness and so, there is no question of it having any supernatural effect.
No matter how you try to twist logic; the truth remains the truth and falsehood remains falsehood. The truth is that God, who possesses unimaginable awareness alone can perform a miracle and no item other than God—whether inert or living—can perform any miracle which is beyond the laws of science. Living beings or souls only possess relative awareness, which depends on a material nervous system and inert energy. On their own, they cannot perform miracles. Certain devoted souls can perform miracles, but that too, only because God has granted them those limited miraculous powers. It is God alone who performs the miracles through them. He supports their wish with His miraculous power. It does not mean that the souls can perform any miracle by themselves.
Sound Can Symbolize God
A specific sound can be treated as God, in the sense of a representative model. It is just like the national flag being treated as the nation. It only means that the flag represents the nation. In reality, neither is the flag the nation nor is the nation the flag nor even is the nation in the flag. Actually, the reverse is true; the flag is located in the nation!. The Gita says that creation is in God and that God is not in creation (Natvahaṃ teṣu te mayi…). One can take the holy sound of the Veda as a representative model (pratīka) for God. Such faith is the faith in God and not the faith in the sound. That faith on God can produce a miracle. But such faith can only exist in an agent who possesses the imaginable relative awareness. Only agents possessing relative awareness can have faith and not inert items. The scripture is valid, provided it is interpreted in the right manner. For such correct interpretation, logical or scientific analysis is necessary. The analysis should be free of the blind fascination towards one’s own religion and one’s own scripture. Ignorant people think that opposing the wrong interpretations of the scripture is opposing the scripture itself. This is not correct. We are only opposing the wrong interpretation of the scripture and not the original scripture.
In representative worship (pratīka upāsanā), divinity is superimposed on some worldly object to develop faith and devotion to God. It is only an assumption and it does not mean that the assumption is true. The word of God can be called God. It is a metaphor. It means that God’s word should be honored just as we honor God. The meaning of a metaphor becomes clear when it is expressed as a simile. You can call a member of the Lion’s Club a Lion. It does not mean he is actually a lion from the forest! The person is assumed to be a lion since, in serving society, he is daring and courageous like a lion. I have no objection to your belief that the sound energy of the Vedic hymn itself is God, if you are ready to accept that the member of the Lion’s Club is an actual lion from the forest! Śabda Brahma means the word told by God, which is the greatest. It does not mean that the sound of the word is the greatest! It means that the knowledge contained in the words of God is the greatest. Since that knowledge was given by God, it ultimately means that God is the Greatest.
There are two broad categories within creation: (1) The imaginable relative awareness, which is non-inert and (2) Inert matter and energy. Wherever there is the imaginable relative awareness, inert matter and energy must also be present since the relative awareness found within creation cannot be produced without the material nervous system and inert energy. The relative awareness is only a coverted form of the inert energy functioning in the material nervous system. But wherever there is inert matter and inert energy, relative awareness need not be present. When God incarnates on earth, He only enters and merges with a medium that has the inert matter and inert energy associated with the non-inert relative awareness. God does not enter an item that is only made of inert matter and inert energy. Items consisting of inert matter and inert energy alone can only be treated as representative models and they can be used for meditating upon God. In other words, an item consisting of inert matter and inert energy alone cannot become a medium for God’s direct entry. If it were true that God enters and remains present in inert items, the pradhānam of the Sāṅkhya philosophy would have been accepted as the Creator (Puruṣa). Pradhānam means the creation consisting of inert matter and energy, which is not the Creator-God. If God were to be found in inert items, there would have been no need for sage Vyāsa to compose the Brahma Sūtra (Īkṣateḥ nāśabdam), which refutes the idea that God is an inert item. It is only because God does not enter and exist in mere inert matter and inert energy, that the pradhānam, is rejected as the cause of creation.
God is said to be awareness, but He is not the relative imaginable awareness that depends on inert matter and inert energy. God is an absolute unimaginable awareness and how that awareness is produced is unimaginable. The relative imaginable awareness is like coffee that always needs a separate cup to contain the coffee. The unimaginable God, who is called the absolute unimaginable awareness, does not need any separate container. He Himself is the container as well as the contained, due to His unimaginable nature. But since that God, who is the absolute unimaginable awareness, has been referred to simply as awareness in the scriptures, it has led to misunderstanding among people. It was not specified whether the awareness mentioned meant the absolute unimaginable awareness (God) or the relative imaginable awareness (soul). So people think that the relative awareness, we find in creation, itself is God. They thought that since He is said to be ‘awareness’, only to indicate that He is not inert matter and inert energy, but that He is relative awareness. In fact, the awareness referred to by the above Brahma Sūtra is the absolute unimaginable awareness (God) and not the relative imaginable awareness (soul). Hence, God is beyond the creation which consists of the three components namely, soul (relative awareness), inert matter and inert energy.
Only a medium possessing relative awareness can serve as the medium for the entry of the unimaginable God. It could be a material medium, which consists of relative awareness (soul) along with a body made of both inert matter and inert energy. Such a medium is simply a devoted human being on earth. The unimaginable God merges with such a devoted human being to become a Human Incarnation. Alternatively, the medium could consist of relative awareness (soul) present in a body made of energy alone. Such beings are angels or energetic beings and they are found in the upper worlds. When God enters and merges with such an energetic being, He becomes an Energetic Incarnation. In any case, inert matter and inert energy alone cannot be the medium for God. That is to say, God never merges with an inert item made of matter or energy alone. Neither does He merge with an inert item which is made of matter and energy together. His medium must possess relative awareness (soul) and that relative awareness must be contained in a container made of either inert energy alone (energetic being) or a combination of inert matter and inert energy (human being).
Items made of inert matter alone, or inert energy alone or a mixture of both do not contain the relative imaginable awareness or an individual soul and so God never merges with them. They can only be treated as representative models of God. They cannot be treated to be mediated God or Incarnations. Sunlight is inert. The physical globe of the sun is also inert. But the deity of the sun (Sun-god) is an energetic being in the upper world and he possesses relative awareness. Hence, God can enter the Sun-god to become an Energetic Incarnation called Sūrya Nārāyaṇa. Sūrya Nārāyaṇa means the Sun-god (Sūrya) with whom Lord Nārāyaṇa, the first Energetic Incarnation of God, has merged. The Veda says that neither the inert physical sun nor its sunlight is God since God does not exist in both (Nedam yadidamupāsate). The power of the deity (bhargaḥ) mentioned in the case of Sūrya Nārāyaṇa is the unimaginable power of the unimaginable God who has merged with the deity and not the physical inert sunlight. The fate of the sound of the Veda is also like the light of the sun. It neither has relative awareness nor does it have the unimaginable awareness (God). God, the possessor of unimaginable awareness, conveys knowledge through words (sound energy) to a human being who possesses relative awareness.
Words, Meaning and Knowledge
The meaning of the sound of the words is not knowledge. Knowledge requires awareness in the receiver, which is not present in the sound. The meaning is different from knowledge. Meaning becomes knowledge only when it enters the awareness of the being who receives it. The spoken word ‘pot’ is merely sound (energy) and is inert. Its meaning or the item that the sound indicates is the item ‘pot’, which is also inert. Hence, both the word and its meaning are inert until both enter the awareness of the person receiving them. This inert word and its inert meaning become knowledge only when the word received by the awareness of the receiver, also immediately brings up the corresponding meaning in the awareness of the receiver. It means that when the person hears the word “pot”, the meaning of the word, which is the item called a pot must strike his mind. This happens only when the person has already associated that word (sound) with that particular meaning (item). This conveying of meaning through sound is a communication between two beings having awareness. Once the meaning is communicated to the receiver and once the meaning is turned into knowledge in the mind of the receiver, the sound perishes, just as one leaves the cart and the horse upon reaching one’s destination.
Let us examine the propagation of a word as sound and its knowledge with the help of some more sharp logical analysis. Rāma told Krishna to bring a pot. The word “pot” uttered by Rāma travelled in space through the medium of colliding air particles and reached the awareness of Krishna through his ear. The sound of the word ‘pot’ simply travelled as a single item, which is sound energy. There was no second item, such as its meaning that was associated with the inert sound energy as it travelled through space. Let us see the awareness of Krishna. One of the faculties of Krishna’s awareness is cittam, which collects the external information received through the senses and stores it as memories (Citi saṃjñāne smaraṇeca). The cittam of Krishna is like a dictionary which contains words which are associated with their corresponding meanings. The sound of the word that travelled through space is received by the cittam of Krishna and it produces a corresponding pulse (sphoṭa), which is like a wave in the awareness of Krishna. The mind of Krishna immediately retrieves another pulse corresponding to the meaning of the word ‘pot’. Krishna had already developed the association in his mind between the word ‘pot’ and its meaning, which is the object pot, since childhood, as he learnt from his elders. So, the pulse corresponding to the sound of the word ‘pot’ immediately gets associated with the pulse corresponding to the meaning of the word pot. This produces the realization or knowledge of the pot in the mind of Krishna. As soon as the pot-word is heard, the information about the pot strikes the mind of Krishna. If this dictionary of associations between words and their meaning had not already been imprinted in the cittam of Krishna, the word pot would not have been able to produce the knowledge of the pot in the mind of Krishna. If a word which means pot is spoken in an unknown language, Krishna does not get the knowledge of the pot. This is because, in Krishna’s cittam, no association exists between the pulse corresponding the new word and the pulse corresponding to the information of a pot.
Therefore, the sound of the word pot travelling through the medium is mere inert sound energy. There is no second item like meaning or knowledge travelling along with it. The same applies in the case of the sounds of Vedic hymns. When no second item like meaning, knowledge, or the divinity of God is associated with that sound, how can it produce any miraculous effects?
Communication of the Veda
The communication of knowledge can be done by uttering the related sounds of words. But knowledge can also be communicated through books. While reading books with one’s eyes, sound energy is not used at all! Knowledge can even be communicated by the power of the unimaginable God, without using any imaginable means of communication. He can communicate knowledge even in the absence of any means of communication, merely using His unimaginable omniscient omnipotence. Of course, such communication does not come under the present discussion of communicating knowledge through the sound of words. But it is important to know how the unimaginable God or Parabrahman communicated the Veda to the first Energetic Incarnation. The first Energetic Incarnation of God is known by many names including Nārāyaṇa, Hiraṇyagarbha, Īśvara and Datta. This first communication of the Veda by the Parabrahman to Nārāyaṇa was not done using sound because the Parabrahman directly merged with Nārāyaṇa. With this perfect merging, Nārāyaṇa became the unimaginable God Himself. Owing to this perfect merging, Nārāyaṇa can be called Parabrahman Himself. Further, Nārāyaṇa merged with another four-headed energetic form called Brahmā. Again due to perfect merging, Brahmā too is Nārāyaṇa or Parabrahman. It is said that Nārāyaṇa gave the Vedas to Brahmā. We think that the Vedas were literally transferred from Nārayaṇa to Brahmā through the medium of sound. But it is not true. It is only a graphical way of depicting a subtle concept. In reality, the communication of the Veda by Nārāyaṇa to Brahmā happened by the process of Nārāyaṇa merging with Brahmā. Brahmā became Nārāyana Himself (Brahmā ca Nārāyaṇaḥ—Veda). So, the Veda which existed with Nārayaṇa now also exists with Brahmā. Since there is no difference between Brahmā and Nārāyana, Brahmā is also sometimes said to be the author of the four Vedas. Actually, in the merging of Parabrahman with Nārāyaṇa and the subsequent merging of Nārāyaṇa with Brahmā, there was no need of formal communication for the transfer of the knowledge of the Veda through the medium of sound.
Thereafter, the four-headed Brahmā recited the four Vedas by each of His four mouths and the sages heard them. The sages who heard and recollected a portion of the Veda are called ṛṣis (rishis). A ṛṣi is the one who has ‘seen’ (heard) a portion of the divine knowledge. A particular ṛṣi is said to be the author of that portion of the Veda. In that sense, the Vedas are said to be composed by the sages (pauruṣeya). Buddha claimed that the Vedas are pauruṣeya, which means, they are man-made or composed by souls. The Vedas are also said to be apauruṣeya, which means, they are not composed by energetic or human beings, since they actually originated from the unimaginable God or Parabrahman.
The Veda is also called Śruti, which means, that which is directly heard from God (Brahmā). Brahmā’s communication of the Veda to the sages was the first commumication of the Veda in the form of words and sound. It was further communicated by those sages to other sages and priests, who passed it on from generation to generation, in the form of the recited words, which were heard with the ears. Finally, today, we are hearing from the present-day priests, the same Veda which was composed by Brahmā. Strictly speaking, Parabrahman is the author of the Veda since He is present in the Brahmā in the form of Datta (Nārāyaṇa). Recall that Parabrahman merged with Nārāyaṇa (Datta) and Nārāyaṇa merged with Brahmā.
But it is important to note that the sound we are hearing is not the original voice of Brahmā. We are hearing the knowledge communicated through the Veda by Brahmā in the voice of the present-day priests. We can also learn the knowledge of the Veda by reading the printed books of the Veda with our eyes, without any sound. Had the sages tape-recorded the original voice of Brahmā, we would have given at least some importance to that divine voice. But they did not. Hence, we are only receiving the knowledge of Brahmā (or Parabrahman) and not the direct voice of Brahmā. In that case, there is no necessity to give any importance to the sound of the words uttered by the present-day priests. But we must give full importance to the knowledge communicated by Brahmā to us. Even when Brahmā communicated the Veda to sages through His own voice, there was no second item such as meaning or divinity which was associated with that sound as it travelled through space and reached the ears of the sages. The intention of Brahmā was only to communicate His knowledge to humanity though the sages and not to communicate the sweetness of His voice.
The unimaginable awareness (unimaginable God) will not enter any inert item made of mere matter and energy because it would be unnatural and it would create unnecessary excitement among devotees. Suppose, an Energetic Incarnation of the unimaginable God enters a statue and the statue starts moving and talking. The devotees will be too excited to express their genuine doubts and seek clarification. On the other hand, if the unimaginable God enters into a human being to become a Human Incarnation and answers the doubts of the devotees, the devotees will not be unduly excited. They will think that the Human Incarnation is only answering their doubts using the relative awareness present in the human being (medium). In fact, the devotees will not even recognise the hidden unimaginable awareness (God) who has merged with the relative awareness (soul) of the human being which is the medium for God. Due to the lack of any undue excitement in devotees, they will be in a natural state and they will feel free to clarify all their doubts. God wants to mix with devotees in a friendly manner, without causing any excitement. Therefore, there is no chance of God’s entry into inert items including inert sound energy. Hence, the very argument of the Pūrva Mīmāṃsakas, that the Vedic word in the form of sound energy itself is God (Śabdamātra devatā) is absurd.
Atheism and Theism Cannot be Reconciled
We shall correlate all the branches of theism like Advaita, Viśiṣṭa Advaita, Dvaita and so on, but we cannot correlate atheism with theism. Pūrva Mīmāṃsakas are pure atheists, who clearly say that God does not exist (Devo na kaścit bhuvanasya bhartā). They are the misled followers of Sage Jaimini, who was the theistic disciple of Sage Vyāsa. Vyāsa is the founder of the Uttara Mīmāṃsā philosophy or theism. His disciple Jaimini, simply stressed on the performance of sacrifice. In fact, almost 80% of the Veda is about the performance of sacrifice. Sacrifice is the practical outcome of devotion and can be called practical devotion. It involves practically offering food and money as guru dakṣiṇā. Apart from learning spiritual knowledge and developing devotion, which are both theoretical, there exists the practical part of the spiritual effort which is composed of service and sacrifice. This practical part is the major part of the spiritual path. But Jaimini’s emphasis of this major practical part of the spiritual path should not be misunderstood to be a denial of God’s existence. Jaimini was a theist, but his followers are atheists. It is just like the case of Buddha who was a theist, but His followers, the Buddhists, are atheists. This is very unfortunate and ironic since Buddha is the ninth Incarnation in the list of the ten famous Incarnations of God. In conclusion, the assumption that the sound of the Veda possesses either relative awareness or God’s unimaginable awareness so as to produce any miraculous effects is invalid. Such atheistic beliefs cannot be correlated with theism in the way that different theistic philosophies can be mutually correlated.
