Kalicharan Tuvij

Author, Artist

Homepage: https://kalicharanveda.wordpress.com

A Hindu-centric World-view


A linguistic framework for a Hindu world-view, based from within the SanAtana traditions, is presented; this finds Indian subcontinent as the geographical focal point of worldly affairs. Reasonably widely known (as implied by the author) among the Astika Wanderers since time immemorial – albeit here drawing upon available empirical detail – this world-view envisions the entanglements of Devata-s with the mundane realm.




         In Figure-A, two red lines are shown drawn across the India map:

   A vertical line running at Longitude [77.5°±1.0°]; a horizontal line at Latitude [10.0°±1.0°]. Their intersection point – just north of Kerala and Tamilnadu, and south of Karnataka – is earmarked here as the Origin point (KumAra-Granthi). Regions falling in the Left nADI of BhAratI are shown in red rectangular shades, whereas the rest of the regions (blue rectangular) belong to the Right nADI of BhAratI.


   The red regions are primarily Devis’ Kshetra-s/domains, the blue ones are primarily Devas’ Kshetra-s. In Deva-Kshetra, societies evolve as conservative, industrial, male dominant, and tend to practise systematized religions (Deva oriented). Devi-Kshetra cultures evolve as socialistic, creative, female oriented, and practise diverse localized religions (Devi oriented).

     These influences also culminate in a specific Triangular representation of India:

1) KaumAra-vertex (South); Prototypical

2) Ashvina-vertex (West); Sarasvati cultures

3) Hanumat-vertex (East); GAnga cultures



   Next, in Figure-B the same red lines are extended throughout the globe. China, Russia (to an extent), South American, South African nations etc – as expected – fall in the Red regions, whereas Europe, Mid-East, Australia, etc are in the Blue. The nations beyond India can hardly be classified as Astika, so the modes of worship are not Hindu (though still classifiable from Hindu perspective), yet other indicators (e.g. socialistic/communist proclivity of Red, and liberal/conservative of Blue, etc) fit in perfectly with the model.

   The North American nations show roughly equal regions between Red and Blue, though not in an as diversified manner as India (which possesses the KumAra-Granthi).

   India’s diversity is a hidden gift, but if not properly handled by the policy makers and the intellectuals can easily devolve into mindless chaos and self destruction. Indians’ own detachment from their roots combined with steadily decreasing levels of intelligence makes the matter no better.

On the Triangular Representation:

1) KaumAra-vertex (South); prototypical

      2) Ashvina-vertex (West); Sarasvati cultures

  3) Hanumat-vertex (East); GAnga cultures

 These are the three orthogonal centres of core-competencies that through interactions amongst themselves create the whole Astika homeland. Linguistically these are the centres of Dravidian, Sanskrit, and Munda families respectively, all other regions in-between being “Krigian geostatistical” mix of the three.

  So even as the KaumAra-vertex can be somewhat seen as the first among equals, the mutual interactions among the three are more on the lines of contemporaneous. For example, the mandAra parvata “used” in Samudra Manthana (a Southern event) is located in the Bihar-Jharkhand region (near Hanumat vertex).

  Another way to understand this is with the analogy of Antenna: the three vertices constitute an antenna array like system — creating a space inside (the triangular region) where internal communication (without interference) happens, and a space outside where signals are transmitted.

  The three vertices, however, are far from being alike: as discussed earlier, the Southern vertex constitutes of both deva & devi kshetra-s within a rather condensed territory. The other two centres — Ashvina & Hanumat are attuned to deva and devi influences respectively and have a lot of freedom for space and movement.

  Ashvina vertex — being deva oriented, outwards looking, and male dominant – was responsible for taking the lead in the codifying of Astika knowledge system in the form of Veda. Both the Veda and the “universal” language it was expressed in were built bottom-up in an industrial-like fashion, even as these truly belonged to the time immemorial inter-communication within the triangle of the insiders’ space.

There is also this (“off-the-radar”) tradition of Veda mUrti-s where each Veda itself is known as a deity having unique face:

Rg-veda: रासभाननः (Donkey face)
Sama-veda: हयाननः (Horse face)
Yajur-veda: अजाननः (Goat faced)
Atharva-veda: मर्कटाननः (Monkey face)

So, even as Ashvin koNa took lead in putting expression to the Veda, this tradition indicates that –
1) the Rk & the sAman come originally from the Ashvin-vertex (donkey and horse both belong to equus genus).
2) Atharvan comes originally from the Hanumat-vertex.
3) Yajus comes originally from the KaumAra-vertex (अज understood as “prototypical”; आदेः जायते).

, , ,


Daksha-Vishnu, Kalki.


, , , ,

Leave a comment

Bālāji, the Lord of Tirupati : meaning of the name

Consider two words: बालाजी and रामाजी.
जी is honorific. Also, बाला and रामा both are in vocative.

Both बाल and राम, fundamentally mean: “male”
So बालाजी (as well as रामाजी) means:
(with a capital h)

Of course that would be Lord Vishnu here.
The actual accents – how people down South here – pronounce बालाजी supports what I said.

The moral of the story:
a) Sanskrit lost accents.
b) Sanskrit lost varied use of vocative.
c) Tradition is therefore, as an authority, higher than a loukika bhAShA, and shouldn’t be doubted so easily.


रामा as a vocative is in universal use in प्राकृतम् (i.e. not only Hindi) throughout Northern India. And this is indeed naturalistic, evidenced by other uses (in a-ending nouns) such as यारा (vocative) for यार (male friend), and therefore is not borrowed.

regarding बाला,

Again, in the North we have:
बालमा (voc.) and बलमा (voc.) for बालम (male friend) and बलम (male friend).

balls : testicles, ball : round object, ballsy : courageous, bald : no hair on (round) scalp (thus exposed), bull, bell, etc.

Hindi: बल manly power, बाल hair growing on (round) scalp, बाला bangle (round), बाली earring (round), बेल a round fruit, बाली Sugreeva’s powerful brother, बैल, etc.

In fact, shaving head at Tirupati could be related to the word root.

जी following a vocative is easy to understand. But the deeper question is indeed of the original uses of vocative that modern Sanskrit has lost. We will come to this point later but for now, let us understand बाला as the vocative qualifying जि: the nominative to produce बालाजि:, or बालाजी: the nominative.

To summarise, I must emphasise again that बालाजी means “He” / पुंदेवता (not related to Bala-Krishna as speculated by some).
The historical questions are highly irrelevant, since the “He” could have been any male deity, theoretically. The exchange of deities, among different dhārmika orientations, in the long histories of temples is a commonly observed phenomenon all over India. There is more unity among dhārmika traditions than what is acknowledged superficially. The point is, the spiritual power remains the same. However, this has not stopped many trouble mongers from peddling unnecessarily, without proper context or acumen, in such matters.

The validation of the meaning “He” (पुंदेवता) comes in the existence of quite a few Hanumāna temples (in Rajasthan) that are also called as Balaji temples, and also at least one Sūrya temple in Madhyapradesha again called a Balaji temple.


बल (= वल) can be said to be the root word here. By applying different vowels and semivowels we get all other instances (including yavana words such as vale, valley, wall, ball, bull, etc etc).

One of Indra’s enemies is known as वल (also बल). वल, just like वृत्र, is a power of असत् that encompasses, encircles, and isolates realms. Since Vaidika words are self-referencing, and original, the purest meaning of वल is this: circle, or something circled. An immediate example: वलय.

The next purest instance I can think of is the vel of vel-murukan. This vel is mystically understood to be the piercer of the barrier (here, वल). From here we can see बल also getting its meaning: manly power, or even the male organ. So we have बैल etc.

In my view, therefore, in the North-West of India (or likely in Maharashtra itself) we had the word mutation of वल as वल and बल (e.g. in Punjabi: वल्ले-वल्ले and बल्ले-बल्ले) and there onwards it spread to IE worlds. However, before the mutation, the word had its origin in the South as वेल.

, ,

Leave a comment

Veda : An Alien Language

Before we delve into the Vaidika universe, let me present a question:
“how do we recognise asat (ignorance)?”

One particularly safe check, kAla and desha accounted, would be to say:
“ignorance is synonymous with unreasonable confidence.”

Or, in this way, when assumptions become synonymous with conclusions, we say this is ignorance. Some of the contemporary discussions conducted — on Vaidika subjects — among the online groups, in my opinion belong to this category, and as such require periodic reviewal and addressal; hence this short piece.

Vaidika studies in bhArata must take a problem solving approach, over and above that of a purely linguistic or history oriented one. It is precisely the failure of publicly funded institutions in this regard that has left wide open the windows on many a problem — right from bhArata’s prehistory, to the possibilities for the future — and has made the “market” rife for speculations, such as to be seen in exchanges within the online world, that predictably, make use of many unsound tools, such as comparative mythology, poor translations of Sanskrit texts, etc.

That AdhyAtmika ideas don’t compare/ translate well at all from one culture to another is a long standing consensus on the issue, really, so when this same translation is still suitably used to “better” understand the fundamental thoughts of the Veda, or say its traditions, one is hard pressed to fathom why this shouldn’t be better seen as a polemical/ ignorant exercise that starts with assumptions (Aryan invasion is one such) and ends with the same in the form of conclusions, in addition to nothing of note returned at all in-between.

Indeed, comparative mythology can be of some value in special contexts —there is admittedly a distinct possibility of the existence of a unique devatA or AdhyAtmika motive that itself could have been the very banner — the propellant force, as it were — associated with the expansion (and remembered accordingly) of certain conquering tribes (from whichever homeland).

The evidence is encouraging, and in Vaidika devatA parjanya we do find the single pan-Indo-European deity remembered both in name as well as in religious import, wide across-the-board.

More importantly, there is this basic homeland requirement of the consistency of seemingly diverse basis ideas — a requirement, which in layman’s terms means, e.g. there can be no vishNu-expression without a garuDa-expression, or there can be no marut-expression without a parjanya-expression, or no mitra without varuNa, no agni without iLA, etc. In other words, when all the expressions in a system are connected to each other in measured (unambiguous) steps, the system is known as being consistent.

Any adequately evolved (“axiomatised”) thought (or belief-, or aesthetic-) system cannot be both complete and consistent at the same time — again, a widely demonstrated proposition, albeit having its origin in Mathematics.

“Complete” in simple words means, any truth (that the system is supposed to express) can be expressed by some finite collection/ application of the expressions of the system.

In simple terms, if the Vaidika system is indeed the original home — as reflected in its consistency of ideas — then it must also be not complete, that is, original ideas should keep coming — springing from the same base — in an ever recursive quest for “to know it all”. HanumAn, kALI, gaNEsha, durgA, krishNa, rAma, chhinna•mastA, and uncountably others — are a testimony to that. On the other hand, all Arya traditions outside bhArata didn’t sustain because they, of necessity, came out as being inconsistent (their disparate elements being historical accidents) and complete (fully expressive of all truths in their narrow domain of mythology).

In the expression of a consistent system, therefore, much more is at stake than the fulfilling of some mythology geared towards festive museum-cum-temple art-and-architecture.

A consistent knowledge system is, of purpose, implemented on real world objects. This is by certain mechanisms, one of which is known — again from Mathematics — as “homomorphism” (saMvartana). The most important class of such homomorphisms in the Veda is the spelling out of the devI equivalents of each Vaidika deva, and vice versa. For example, dakshA and daksha, indrANI and indra, etc.

Or, in the contexts of different Vaidika traditions, in Tantra the iDA and the pingalA, in sankhyA the Zero (shunA) and the One (sItA), in the primeval “left” and “right” of the Hindu sampradAya-s and geographies, in the sisterly mirrors gangA and sarasvatI — and such and such — all exemplarily speak of an exceptionally high degree of consistency running through the veins of Hinduism straddled across vast measures of times and spaces. Remember, this is just one example.

A consistent system, if meticulously revealed, has the capacity to explain all the other real/ abstract world objects. sankhyA — the number system — comes out of the same Vaidika system, and further leads to sAnkhya, Physics. (That the Vaidika system indeed contains the sankhyA-system is no trivial conclusion, and requires more than a passing remark. This also means that Vaidika system has more, not less, to do with modern science.)

“Homomorphisms”, such as explained here, in this way become one of the tools that a consistent system utilises for grasping all truth that is possible. Some other methods are: recursive application, parallel (vector) compilation, fibre connections, etc.

The Veda, literally “the-knowledge”, in a way indeed encompasses all possible knowledge, by the way of containing “all-consistencies.” And since the Veda is not closed knowledge, you will not find the detail of “interplanetary travel” laid out in it : as the ignorants on the other end of the spectrum — in reality the other side of the same coin — love to shout off their rooftops.

Both ends of asata are equally dangerous, because both wrongly assume Veda to be a complete and inconsistent system, and not surprisingly, both come to the same conclusion, “Veda is primitive.” (Or, “Veda is mere ritual”, etc)

The correct view of Veda therefore is, not as “the-knowledge” (vidyA) — which makes it closed (asata)— but as “the-knowing” that acknowledges its consistency (Rta).

The polemical discourse (Aryan Invasion, etc) has the “currency” — literally speaking — that it has because it is backed by big money. In such circumstances, it is convenient to lose faith, and become a conformist. But because one cannot change one’s skin tone as easily (as ones’s convictions), hence the need for “respectful cognition (by the-other-earth-dwellers) of (unique) Hindu identity, also the-being-different” and so forth. This sums up to a large extent the contemporary Hindu trajectories visible in the media.

Back to the matter at hand: what is this Vaidika system in its basic outline — what is this marvellous superstructure like — that has been the ever breathing progenitor, the fountainhead, of originalities among the bhAratIya-s?

Before I answer this question, let us understand the meaning of a system, or a context. Again, a simple example: if shrI rAma is an avatAra, bhagavAna•vishNu is the context. Or, if kAtyAyinI is the devI then amba•durgA is the context. Or, if indra is a vasu then agni, the ashTa•vasu is the context. And so on.

The biggest such context, which is indeed also seen as a deity, therefore becomes very much one and the same as the “Vaidika system” itself.

Well, the name of that deity is Aditi.

Dictionaries give the meaning of this theonym as “unbounded, undivided”, alright, though in my opinion better understood, arguably, as:
ad अद् + iti इति, or “the start to the end”. “From the Alfa to the Omega.”

Aditya-s are therefore the basic devata-s, the pillars, which build up the Reality that surrounds us all, here and now. And, by definition (cf. Yaska), Aditya-s are the ones who are ever present — from the very start (ādi) to the very end (iti).

The widely understood virATa manifolds (lokAH): pRthvI, dyO (svarga), antariksha, and Om : which are further divided into three sub-manifolds each, lead necessarily to the existence of twelve Aditya-s (sometimes exclusively dealt in only the six or seven of dyO•pRthvI context).

The earliest material evidence of toying with this core idea is found in the indu-valley seals, where the various designs — ranging from four mutually tangent circles (each concentric with three circles), to the fully evolved svAstika in the end — are testimony to the creative efforts involved in the shaping of Aditi as this abstract art.

Aditi is still here, you will still find Her devotees, if only you looked harder. svAstika, Aditi’s signature, is alive too — even survived organised misappropriation (courtesy the Nazis). The neo-Nazis, however, are still very keen about their Aryan project as having its logical conclusion in the successful appropriation of the svAstika, even if necessitated by the planting of “minority Aryan tribes” among “majority Dravidian Indu-dwellers” even before the muhUrta of the official “Aryan Invasion”.

No doubt there is much to talk about— the 33 devatAs, the flow of soma, the dyAvA•pRthvI, visvedevA as Aditya-s, the rAmAyaNa and the mahAbhArata, the tantra and the yoga, the sankhyA and the sAnkhya, among others — but I intend to end this essay here with the outlining of the basics already complete.

But not before offering a word of caution to bhAratIya scholars who aspire to become students of dharma. This is regarding the fundamentals of studying (and, quoting) the dhArmika literature. Remember this “parimANa” thumb rule:

(One word of the Veda, aka śabda) = (one line of upanishads, aka vAkya) = (one para of the purANa-s, aka upAkhyAna).

This is only a thumb rule, I agree, but is an important formula which when respected, takes into account all such factors such as synchrony, diachrony, polysemy, the intended depth and measure of thought, etc.

Otherwise, for example, weighing the śabda of Veda against the śabda of purANa, or the vAkya of purANa with that of the upanishads, etc, will only keep you running into circles if not into contradictions.

To sum up, I dealt a complex issue, namely the Veda and its contemporary studies, in simplest possible terms. However, I sense this write-up still sounds unfamiliar, disorienting to the majority (if not the totality) of the readers, who are daily fed the by-far-the-most-dangerous-of-all-theories, the VIP — “Veda-is-primitive” theory (peddled by Western Indologists, muddled by desi-s who have “evolved” beyond “rituals”).

Wake up.

, , ,




Leave a comment

Sanskrit Language : A new Beginning

1. An Overview Of The State-Of-Affairs

What is Sanskrit?

Sometimes it is said, “Sanskrit is a context-free language.”

What is a context-free language? Surely, I caught this phrase earlier on from the Internet, a phrase which actually relates to an entirely different subject domain: software engineering.

So I went to the wiki for info, and understood that a context-free is a set of instructions fed to a computer that is able to calculate it without any glitch (i.e., without any problems of ambiguity in the “meaning” of the instructions). The trick is, in the set of instructions, profuse use is made of parentheses, so the computer at a time “concentrates” on “understanding” (calculating/ parsing) only what lies within a parenthesis, unmindful of what lies without. That is, the whole instruction (“sentence”) can be spread out into many different branches (calculated individually) each based on the occurrence of the parentheses. Within a parenthesis the jargon and the accompanying rules are simple enough for a computer-language, so no problems there either. High end computing languages, e.g. LISP, openly acknowledge the primacy of this parentheses based logic (called “S-expression”) as their very foundation.

Wiki also informs that pANini’s systemisation of Sanskrit grammar rules as algebraic formulas was the motivation behind this subject. Some rAkshasa-s, on the Internet, write in their blogs, “Sanskrit is just another language. That Panini created rule based grammar for Sanskrit is a credit to Panini, not Sanskrit.”

In long and short, there is a whole lot of misinformation and propaganda on Sanskrit, yet the so-called Hindu vidvAna-s, in reality better termed “the cultural Hindus”, who range anywhere between from theoretical physicists to actual Sanskrit professors “sucking-off” in foreign (and Indian) universities, who far from doing nothing to counter the malignant campaign on Sanskrit are doing their best to spread it even further.

Today a full-time career in Sanskrit is seen as a privilege of those below the poverty line who have kinda lost-out on their lives, and once there in their professions are required no more than to translate Sanskrit texts into other languages – thus further killing and rendering Sanskrit obsolete.

What is not told is that Sanskrit was studied by ill-intentioned people (rAkshasa-s) who wanted to create a genuine Artificial Intelligence (AI) by using a language “like Sanskrit” as a medium of direct interaction between humans and machines that could be naturally utilized by both. But this project failed, and today what we have is “fake AI” tidbits that try to convince us otherwise by using brute search power (they can search whole dictionaries in seconds) instead of a natural understanding; and Sanskrit too, features in the wiki article describing the grammar of just plain simple instructions – not AI instructions – for computers.

AI is a sinister project that aims not only at replacing soldiers full-fledged at the war-fronts with AI enabled war-machines, but also in doing so intends to define a world order where – as gauged by AI machines – there will be certain hierarchy of different races on the earth based on their average intelligence – and going still further to the logical conclusion – waging war against those less intelligent races (not capable of building AI machines themselves) and subjugating/ eliminating them, thus ensuring the earth of limited resources secure for the descendants of the intelligent races.

Yet another focus of major conflict is the way rAkshasa-s are propagating the myth – using linguistic mechanics – that Sanskrit is not aboriginal to bhArata. This is in addition to making Panini merely incidental to Sanskrit, as discussed earlier.

Now, this linguistic-mechanics is just like physics where inherently any process occurring in the world is theoretically reversible: that is, for example, it can be shown that if a sugar cube can dissolve in water, then the same sugar cube can come out of the water from the dissolved state: now this second process is not what we observe in our daily lives, but it is shown to be still possible, though with a small probability.

In this way, starting from the basic fact of the existence of Indo-European families of languages, any mechanics can show the direction of language spread from either side. In reality, the mechanics is very conveniently chosen to describe migration into bhArata, and the other scenario – migration out of bhArata – is not spared a thought even by mistake.

The West, overall, is under the impression that the world is moving towards order, opposite to what Hindus believe: that the world is moving from orderliness towards chaos. West is very confident of the material progress it has led, BhArata thinks otherwise.

The West would, therefore, see the orderliness in Sanskrit as a later phenomenon – and thus feels impelled to visualise a much more randomised and chaotic language as a precursor to Sanskrit. A Hindu, on the other hand, sees the order within Sanskrit as the starting point of the language, and understands all the present bhASA-s of today related to Sanskrit – be it Hindi, or Bangla, or English, or German – as corruptions of Sanskrit.

Which viewpoint is right? Is it the best of the times, or the worst of the times?

Seemingly, there has been a lot of progress – forests and wild-life (“less intelligent species”) are replaced with shining metros and civic order; true, there has been a lot of consumption and laying waste of earth’s resources in so doing, but it is hoped that with advance in Science our Technology will finally become 100% green.

However, to better understand the “arrow of time”, to understand why processes only proceed in one direction and not the other (even though otherwise sanctioned by the mechanics), a new language was investigated. This is known as, “the 2nd law of thermodynamics” and it postulates: “processes take place predominantly in the direction of the increase in the chaos of universe.” Therefore, dissolving of the sugar-cube in the water is along the “arrow of time” because when the atoms of the sugar are dissolved and distributed in the water body, randomness “of the universe” is increased.

Just as the sugar cube has crystalline orderliness about it, Sanskrit too – in this view – originally has its own orderliness. The more we go down the “arrow of time”, the more this crystallinity of Sanskrit gets dissolved.

The most inner (and the finest) structure of Sanskrit is the way it is able to express AdhyAtma and Devata-s. And this structure pretty much gets dissolved within bhArata itself where we have seen how in classical Sanskrit onwards, we lost to a great extent what Vedic jargon and Devata-s really meant. And there is no point even going outside bhArata because the mythology outside bhArata though may have a few words cognate with Sanskrit, there is no heads or tails involved as far as transmission of AdhyAtmic idea-s is concerned.

And then, at the second layer of structuring within Sanskrit lies the system of declension – which ensures the free-word-order nature of clauses. We find only a few languages that retain this feature. Free-word-order is what a natural language requires in order to be “context-free” (free from ambiguity) because natural languages cannot employ parentheses to achieve so, the way computer languages do.

At the third layer we have Sanskrit words. We find here a much greater occurrence of transmission but still, the logical structure in the Sanskrit that gives rise to the words in first place – something that is not the handiwork of Panini or any other grammarian but is inbuilt in Sanskrit – is largely missing in other languages.

At the outermost layer we have sound systems. Here also, the chaos and disorder in other languages are apparent, so much so, even the Western Indologists are seen – not without justification – by Hindus as “mlechCha having tongues twisted like dog’s tail” that cannot get simple consonants and vowel sound of Sanskrit straight.

But the purpose of this post ultimately is much more. I talked about the four layers of the structure of Sanskrit; it is clear therefore that to create a clear shared understanding of Sanskrit, we need to get more near to the innermost layers (Devata and declension aspect), instead of wasting our efforts on the outermost ones (rules and sounds).

2. Sanskrit As A Language Of Computation

Can a “parantheses-free” computing language that employs “free word order” of ideas be the future of Computation such as in applications like Quantum Computation?
Surely that is one way forward for Computing & computers. But before that we will see a lot of sociological changes, passing through necessary milestones; one that comes to my mind is: the establishment of “online universities” and freeing up of the control of knowledge off the hands of a few. Knowledge imparting should be freed from commercial profiteering, just like the case in the Vedic age.
To say it in yet another way, “knowledge should be resolved from temporal urges.” This is the very principle that forms the essence of Sanskrit itself: free-word-order.

Programming languages are still English based, that is a huge sociological problem that will, if, take decades to the least to overcome. To understand with an example, let us talk about the state-of-art in Computing today, known as “object oriented programming (OOP)”. Now, programming has three components: data, control structure, and execution. OOP has taken forward programming from its infancy by evolving one of the three aspects – the data – in the correct direction by encapsulating data into “objects”. This is exactly how Sanskrit does it: declension, inflection is nothing but encapsulating data in various objects – be it nouns or verbs. But since the carrier of this idea is still English, the object concept is far from fully integrated; it is implemented by the use of clumsy expressions such as “MyAccount.AccountBalance”.

This is just an example. Computing is still in its infancy, even in the objects there is miles to go before the correct way of encapsulating data is understood. And the less said about the control-structure aspect, the better.

But some credit must be given to the leaders in this field- they stumbled upon a key principle that is going to last. The principle is (relates to the execution aspect of programming), “the resolving of knowledge from temporal necessities”, just what I wrote about earlier. This is achieved via “compiler-interpreter” duo, such as implemented by the programmers in JAVA-language.
This is the real foundation of Computing, just as in the Veda AsviniKumar(s) is the foundation. Computing will surely evolve out of its infancy, but this principle is going to last.

Sanskrit is the language for the Veda, and outrageous as it may sound now, I will not be surprised at all if Sanskrit in one of its avatar becomes the carrier of Computation in a hundred years from today. But as I said already, this should be preceded by other sociological revolutions, led by better evolved, and equipped, humans among us. If someone tries this before that, there is likely to be evil intent behind that, as pointed out in the OP.

3. More On Sanskrit & Computation

Indeed, there is some utility – of the language of computation – in understanding Sanskrit concepts (though one runs the risk of turning into rAkshasa while working at AI!).
Peer-to-peer (P2P) computing is today being increasingly used in applications (such as torrents). P2P is based on the idea of distributive computing – where the data flow takes place among many computers instead of from a single one (known as server). Classically (not P2P), when we request any data from the Internet, it is the owner of that data – the server computer – that decides to reply to our query.

Sociologically, this server-client model belongs to the TV age of communication (most of the 20th century) when the receiver (client) had no options to interact with the info-owner/broadcaster and therefore had to accept whatever came his way. And as we know, TV was to a big extent a propaganda tool in the hands of powerful politicians (who released one sided info and views) and rich industrialists (who used hypnotic advertisements).

So, to sum up thus far, how does distributive computing connects to object oriented programming (OOP)? In applied Sciences, many researchers have realised the limiting effects of linear models (thinking). Linear thinking means: step by step, procedural thinking. What they have found out is that a vast majority of natural phenomena can only be realistically modelled with non-linear models.

Non-linear means: the effect doesn’t strictly follow the cause; the effect itself is capable of changing the cause. Metaphorically, in non-linear models, cause and effect “interact with each other”.What is interesting is, it was found out that the only way to solving the non-linear models was with the help of computers (indeed, it isn’t unusual today to find Ph.D’s submitting their theses containing a lot of colourful graphical outputs generated in computers, instead of old-fashioned mathematically worked out results).
The computation technique used in solving such models is known as “agent based modelling” – and variants thereof – where there are no clearly defined causes and effects (or servers and clients); instead, everything is made equal – called “agents” – and then the agents thus created are simply left to communicate with each other: a solution naturally emerges after they have communicated enough.
Agents are created as objects in the programming stage – so here is the connection with OOP. The actual computation is along the lines of distributed computation since each of the agents is more or less independent of others and therefore can do its own computing sitting anywhere – one agent in Australia, other in Japan, and so on.

Now consider a simple sentence in Sanskrit:
vidyA dadAti vinayam.विद्या ददाति विनयं ।”Education gives humility.”

The English sentence (equivalent to the Sanskrit one) produced here necessarily belongs to a linear paradigm: therefore, “gives” follows “Education” and “humility” follows “gives”. This isn’t just linearity inherent in the basics of English the language – this is also the linearity inherent in the mental constitution of English speakers. And future is pressing us to remove this limitation.
In the Sanskrit sentence, we can express the same without any change in meaning as-
विद्या ददाति विनयं ।
विद्या विनयं ददाति ।
ददाति विद्या विनयं ।
ददाति विनयं विद्या ।
विनयं विद्या ददाति ।
विनयं ददाति विद्या ।
How is this possible?

With our homework already done, it is not very difficult to understand. All the three words in this sentence should be thought of as agents (or objects).
विद्या – feminine, nominative noun
ददाति – present tense verb, third person singular
विनयं – masc., accusative noun

So, each agent encapsulates data – and local computing (inflection) – within. There is no linear flow of knowledge – the agents interact with each other simultaneously. All agents interact with all agents, and the final picture, the understanding, emerges naturally; sounds almost fantastical, doesn’t it?
This is like an impressionistic painting where the color patches “mix” only in the consciousness of the onlooker to give the whole picture. Or, like quanta emerging from an undifferentiated field.
Importantly, in Sanskrit no basic distinction is made between the noun types (#expressions) and the verb types (#statements), as both are seen as agents. The role of #parentheses is performed by the indeclinables in Sanskrit.

4. Sanskrit : A Level Playing field

Sanskrit is a level playing field: Bhakta-s from different sampradaya-s can come here, from time to time, to gage their progress, by seeing how much of Sanskrit they are able to play.

I don’t think that mentally aggressive types – the Raks (rAkshasa-s) – can do that. They can memorise everything – like a rAvaNa – and even become known as great Sanskritists (like the Indologists), or even teach their computers to do all that instead – but the soul of Sanskrit will ever elude them.

Sanskrit as taught today is wholly memory based. This is because these Sanskrit pandita-s themselves are the problem, the reason why this language is in disuse, and how the Raks have been able so far to take away this heritage (yes the outer forms only) from Hindus.

If we don’t have the access to the Devata layer of Sanskrit, we should very well forget about its revival.

5. Sanskrit : The Devata Layer

Eight Vasu-s, Eleven Rudra-s, Twelve Aditya-s, and so on.. indeed, we are in the right place!
One thing, that is always overlooked is, suppose a Devata X is a Vasu. Does that exclude the possibility of Sri X being a Rudra as well? Or an Aditya as well?

That is a point to ponder, particularly in the context of the unitary field of awareness lived by the Rsis.

“Context” – the word is interesting. Is Sanskrit only approachable via a strictly Vedic route? Or, can Sanskrit be equally approachable by each sampradAya of Hinduism in their own unique ways?

The consistency of Dharma demands that indeed all sampradaya-s do have gateways to the core of Sanskrit. But, we thought a short while ago that the core of Sanskrit, the innermost layer, belongs to Devata. That is, it was understood that it is the Devata-s who hold the keys to the core of Sanskrit.

So, does that mean: the same Vedic Devata-s are worshipped under different names in the various sampradaya-s?

The answer is yes and no. Because each sampradaya is a different “context”. And by this “context” I don’t mean a passive word here: the context itself is a deity, is real. For example, in Vaishnavism, the “context” is Lord Vishnu.

In this way, the “context” becomes important. Even in the Vedic knowledge itself; therefore, what we know as Vasu-s, Rudrá-s, Aditya-s or Maruta-s are mostly the “same Devata-s” under “different contexts”. And, as discussed before, they also aren’t the “same Devata-s” at all.

Let us, therefore, start with the “smallest context”, and that would be, the “Eight Vasu”. And we know Sanskrit noun cases are also eight in number.

Maruta-s (marud•gaNa) are the smallest context, smaller than even the EightVasu (beside the point, but their numbers are quoted always in fractally increased orders). Therefore, the “original” Maruta, who is the “leader” of the marud•gaNa, is likely present in other (larger) contexts.Lord Vayu can be said a marut, when He moves together in the marud•gaNa. However, Maruta himself is different from Vayu.

“mara” means, “die”. The “ta” sound is the sound of Death, as in mrtyu, hatya, etc. On the other hand, the sound related to Vayu – who’s murty is the breath – is the “ha” sound, the same as in “hu” which means, “to sacrifice” or “to do Yagya”. Sacrifice is a precursor to Death; we will come back to this important piece of information when(ever) discussing the Sanskrit Noun cases, the vibhakti-s.

6. Sanskrit : More on the Devata Context

An assertion was made in the last part, regarding the “context”. Let me further illustrate that with relevant examples.

Lord Indra is always listed in as an Aditya. In mahA•bhArata, He is also addressed as vAsava {literally, “of the Vasu (community)”}. So we see, the same Devata can be a Vasu and an Aditya, depending on the “context”.Again, this “context” itself can be a deity. We shouldn’t mistake this word for “different regional contexts, evolved due to differently (and, linearly!) evolved local histories”.

To understand this fully — in mahA•bhArata, a man, in flesh and blood, is also called vAsava. Who is that?

Śri Bhishma!

He was not only a vAsava, but “the vAsava”, because he was the eighth issue from mA gangA. Bhishma was thus the “Eight•Vasu”, the upper bound of all perfections and fullness of nAma and rUpa.

Yet, there is still something to be said: we have vAsudeva Sri KrishNa also there! vAsudeva means “the son of vasudeva”, alright, but we know that vAsudeva is among the thousand nAma-s of Lord Vishnu. And then Krishna was the eighth child as well!

So we have a vAsava and a vAsudeva existing right there at the same place and the same time!

So the “context” has nothing to do with place or time. Let us understand this clearly. These are cosmic movements. Bhishma was the son of Mother•gangA, so we may say that the context here, the dynamics, is Lord Shiva. Or it could be that the ashTa•vasu itself be the context here.

And when KrishNa is addressed as vAsudeva, we know this under the dynamics of Lord Vishnu. On the mundane level, Krishna is “the son of Vasudeva”, and is addressed as such, but the inner meaning many a time is different: Lord Vishnu Himself is called out, who we know — that by “in-to mapping”/ ava•taraNa — can come to be born a Vasu, or an Upendra, or the varAha, so on.
The bottom line is, we don’t even need to go to mahA•bhArata to see it — this great play is unfolding full throttle right here and now in front of our very own souls.

, , ,

1 Comment

Name nArAyaNa नारायण : A truer understanding

Calling shrI viSNu instead as “nArAyaNa” is a serious disrespect, even if borne out of ignorance, towards shrI viSNu: Narayana is a proper name of shrI sUrya, a Vedic god. Narayana as an epithet of shrI viSNu, no problems, but as a proper name itself — is a huge denigration of both shrI viSNu and Vedic Dharma.


nAra means waters, also means woman, mother.
And AyaNa : let us just say, it means “refuge”.
Indeed, we are not talking about “Samudra” (the Father) here, instead we are talking about Apah, nAra, Mothers’ expanse.

Who is the first born of Mother? In Shaiva tradition it is gaNesha, and equivalently in Vedic it is shri agni, also called “apAma-napAta” i.e. waters’ child.

Surya is the highest deity in the span of shri agni the aSTa-vasu and therefore understood as the very first manifestation of Creation from Mother’s womb of Infinity. The first God that we can understand in terms of forms and worship accordingly. The overlord, as well as the guide, of all Creation.

shri viSNu, a “composite God” like shri agni, has a still far greater scope (pervading virtually everything within it) than even shri agni, and therefore He obviously “contains” Surya also within Himself (in the infinite unbroken continuity of His being).
In this way He can assume any of the various deities’ names as His adjectives. This is not the same as calling His proper name as something which is a proper name of some other deity.

However, the avatAra who can indeed take Narayana as His proper name is the Avatara of Lord who comes in the Surya-mode of shri viSNu.

And that would be, shri rAma. Ever heard of “rAmAyaNa”? The sacred book that is the refuge of all mortals? Ramayana is Narayana.

Does Rama-Narayana ring a bell? yes?
Does Krishna-Narayana ring a bell? No?

If we try go deeper into the famed “nara, nArAyaNa, hari, kriSNa” found in the purANa-s, by comparing with the mahA-mantra “hare kriSNa hare kriSNa..” we find that hari and kriSNa are common to both listings.

nara is nothing but the divine human inflated within us. So we are left with the word nArAyaNa being same as the name rAma of the mahA-mantra.

shri rAma – the superhero of rAmAyaNa, when exhausted in the war against rAvaNa, was advised to worship shri sUrya (in Aditya stotram) in order to regain strength by tapping into His very own source (sUrya).

But do I mean then that shri rAma was an incarnation of sUrya deva, not of shri viSNu?

No. karNa in the mahAbhArata was a manifestation of sUrya. But when we talk about avatAra, we say: “shri rAma was viSNu’s avatAra in the mode of sUrya.” We can, otherwise, find many similarities between karNa and shri rAma. But karNa wasn’t an avatAra. People in the anga-pradesha even to this day remember the rule of karNa as fondly as the rest of Hindus remember the rAma-rAjya.


rAma nAma and nArAyaNa nAma:

Many Hindus cultivate a habit of using the rAma nAma frequently, such as by greeting each other using the nAma (“Jai shri rAma”, etc). The secret behind this is no secret at all: we do it so that the nAma is on our lips for one final time again when we are about to die.

RAma is the shortest path to what Vedanta knows as “moksha”. I equated rAma nAma to nArAyaNa earlier in this thread. Notice the “rA” sound common to both (same that occurs in surya who is bhArata-bhAratI).

So, yes, we are not talking about finite entities here at all. We are talking strictly about the “Infinites”, the “its” here.

Read the following carefully to understand this:

Let me explain the idea using the material analogy (a valid method). Let us then talk about the material space (bhaga-AkAsha) that we are surrounded with. How do we characterise this space?

Clearly, bhaga-AkAsha is attribute less. Yet we say, “here we have so and so length, so and so width, and so and so depth”. Thus, we still are able to talk about the infinite in terms of “length”, “width”, and “height” which are very much finites. This is known as understanding the infinite using the language of finite.

In surya who is bhArata-bhAratI, the bhArata-component is an aMsha of Sri Indra, while the bhAratI-component (a mighty Devi as well) is an aMsha of Narayana.

In this way, to the Vedic Rsis all knowledge was expressed in terms of the aindra (Vedic Sanskrit is called Aindra): Indra classifies the finites by “divide-and-rule”, but also makes out the infinites using the Aindra reception (also known as “inducing”, “induction” etc – these words are rooted in Indu and Indra).

To come back to the original analogy, what do the Aindra description of bhaga-AkAsha (material space) using length, width and depth (there could be actually many more such finites such as position, momentum, energy, etc) tell us?

This description by the three finites tells us about the existence of three Infinites within the space. What are their names?


Let us now come out of the analogy. The point I tried to demonstrate here was that: “there are more than one Infinite”. There are more than one States of what Vedanta calls “mOkSa”. And Narayana is the deity, the “it”, who is the closest such state. Narayana is therefore also the first deity of this class encountered by our specially talented ancestors, the Rsis, when they were on their “straightest path”, when they toiled hard to pave the way forward for humanity.

The names nara, nArAyaNa, hari and krishNa – spell out a very important formula (though still not the whole of the sanAtana-truth), and all these four names are seen on an equal footing, yet they are different from each other: nara is all the finite worlds combined, whereas the three others are three different Infinites, three different “its”.

I hope I made myself clear here.


On the intellectual plane, let me point out that the Rsis nara, nArAyaNa, hari and krishNa belonged to Satyuga (ref. MahAbhArata). In satayuga shri viSNu doesn’t incarnate: there is no need for it.

So these four were Rsis who specialised in four very important modes of shri viSNu. This is how these names today are quoted more in the context of Vaishnavism. Though, these four names, and the deities behind them, can in a still valid way appear in Shaiva or any other Dharmika paradigm as well. Thus, for example, we see Swamy Satya-narayana’s vigraha (in the ancient and important satya-narayana temple in Annavaram, Andhra Pradesh), though still considered on some kind of equivalence with shri rAma (who is believed to be the kshetra-pAlaka of the said temple), is also traditionally considered as “belonging” to all the three paradigms (also called deities): Shiva, Vishnu and BrahmA.

, , , ,

Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: