FROM SOUND TO SILENCE -A Comparative Study of Vyākaraṇa, Meaning, and Inner Silence in Patañjali, Bhartṛhari, Nāgeśa, Heidegger, and Wittgenstein
Priyanka Kajagar
Master’s in Sanskrit Vyakarana
Karnataka Sanskrit University
Pampa Mahakavi Road, Chamarajpete
Bengaluru – 560018
चत्वारि वाक् परिमिता पदानि
तानि विदुर्ब्राह्मणा ये मनीषिणः।
गुहा त्रीणि निहिता नेङ्गयन्ति
तुरीयं वाचो मनुष्या वदन्ति॥
Ṛgveda 1.164.45
Speech has four measured levels. The wise know them. Three remain hidden within, human beings speak only the fourth.
ABSTRACT
Human beings live surrounded by language, yet despite endless communication, they increasingly experience fragmentation and loss of inwardness. This paper examines whether language can become a path toward silence rather than merely a tool of communication. Drawing from Patañjali’s Mahābhāṣya, Bhartṛhari’s Vākyapadīya, Nāgeśa Bhaṭṭa’s Paramalaghumañjūṣā, and the philosophies of Heidegger and Wittgenstein, the study explores the relationship between sound, meaning, cognition, and silence. It argues that Vyākaraṇa is not merely grammatical analysis, but a discipline through which fragmented speech gradually refines awareness, leading the individual from external sound toward inward unity and contemplative silence.
Keywords:
Vyākaraṇa, Śabda-Brahman, Sphoṭa, Silence, Bhartṛhari, Mahābhāṣya, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Nāgeśa Bhaṭṭa, Consciousness
INTRODUCTION
Human beings speak constantly yet rarely pause to examine the nature of speech itself. Words move endlessly through conversation, media, argument, and information. Language has become immediate, reactive, and excessive. Yet despite this abundance of communication, genuine understanding often feels increasingly distant.
This tension forms the starting point of the present study.
Indian grammatical philosophy does not approach language merely as a mechanical system of communication. In the tradition of Vyākaraṇa, speech is deeply connected with cognition, awareness, and manifestation itself. Language is not treated simply as something human beings use; rather, it becomes the very medium through which reality appears meaningfully. This understanding can already be seen in the Vedic conception of śruti. The Vedas were not regarded as authored compositions, but as truths “heard” by sages. Sound therefore possessed sacred significance. Speech was not merely expressive; it was revelatory. This insight reaches philosophical maturity in Patañjali’s Mahābhāṣya and Bhartṛhari’s Vākyapadīya. In these works, grammar becomes far more than linguistic correctness. It becomes an inquiry into how meaning appears, how sound relates to cognition, and how fragmented speech can lead toward unified understanding.
At the same time, Indian thought repeatedly recognizes that language has limits. Speech can guide understanding but cannot completely replace direct realization. One may describe the sweetness of sugar through endless comparisons, yet no explanation can truly make another person experience sweetness unless they taste it themselves. Language can point toward experience, but it cannot become the experience itself.
This insight gives silence a profound philosophical significance.
The movement from sound toward silence therefore does not reject language. Rather, it suggests that refined language gradually leads beyond fragmentation toward inward stillness. This paper explores that movement through a comparative study of Patañjali, Bhartṛhari, Nāgeśa Bhaṭṭa, Heidegger, and Wittgenstein. It argues that Vyākaraṇa is not merely a science of grammar, but a philosophical discipline through which language itself becomes a path from external sound toward inner silence.
PATAÑJALI AND THE DISCIPLINE OF SPEECH
Patañjali begins the Mahābhāṣya with the famous statement: अथ शब्दानुशासनम्।”
Now begins the discipline of speech.
At first glance, this appears to define grammar merely as linguistic analysis. Yet the term anuśāsanam carries much deeper significance. Patañjali does not present grammar simply as explanation of rules, but as refinement and discipline of speech itself.
George Cardona notes that for Patañjali, grammar was deeply connected with preserving intelligibility and meaningful usage within human communication (Cardona, 1997). Speech is therefore not treated casually. Human cognition itself unfolds through language, and disorder in speech reflects disorder in understanding.
The Mahābhāṣya repeatedly reflects upon a subtle philosophical tension: spoken sounds are unstable and momentary yet meaning remains intelligible. Pronunciations vary from speaker to speaker, sounds disappear immediately after being uttered, and still communication becomes possible.
How does stable meaning arise from unstable sound? This question gradually becomes central to the grammatical tradition. Harold Coward observes that Indian grammarians increasingly moved beyond phonetics into a deeper philosophical inquiry regarding the relation between sound, meaning, and cognition (Coward, 1980). Vyākaraṇa therefore becomes more than technical grammar. It becomes attentiveness toward speech itself. Language, when left mechanical, remains fragmented. But disciplined speech gradually refines thought, perception, and inward awareness. Thus, grammar becomes not merely linguistic analysis, but inward discipline.
BHARTRHARI, ŚABDA-BRAHMAN, AND SPHOṬA
The philosophical depth of the grammatical tradition reaches its fullest expression in Bhartṛhari’s Vākyapadīya.
The opening verse itself is extraordinary:
“अनादिनिधनं ब्रह्म शब्दतत्त्वं यदक्षरम् ।
विवर्ततेऽर्थभावेन प्रक्रिया जगतो यतः ॥”
Vākyapadīya 1.1
“The beginningless and endless Brahman is the principle of language, from which the process of the world unfolds as meaning.”
K.A. Subramania Iyer explains that Bhartṛhari presents śabda not merely as speech, but as the very principle through which differentiated experience becomes manifest (Iyer, 1969).
For Bhartṛhari, language does not merely describe an already existing world. Manifestation itself unfolds through meaningful differentiation within śabda. Language and reality therefore remain deeply interconnected.
This insight becomes clearer through Bhartṛhari’s doctrine of sphoṭa. External sounds are fragmented and sequential. Yet understanding appears inwardly as a unified whole. The listener does not first collect separate phonetic units and then mechanically construct meaning afterward. Meaning appears immediately as indivisible cognition.
Bhartṛhari therefore writes:
“एकोऽनवयवः शब्दः।” “The word is fundamentally indivisible.”
Harold Coward explains that sphoṭa refers to the flash-like revelation of meaning within consciousness, where fragmented sound resolves into unified understanding (Coward, 1980). This movement is philosophically significant. Externally, language appears divided into sounds, words, and sentences. Inwardly, however, meaning reveals itself as unity. Language therefore contains within itself a movement from multiplicity toward wholeness. The grammatical tradition thus begins to move inward from external articulation toward inward cognition.
NĀGEŚA BHAṬṬA AND THE QUESTION OF VĀKYĀRTHA
Later grammarians such as Nāgeśa Bhaṭṭa deepen this inquiry even further in works such as the Paramalaghumañjūṣā.
Nāgeśa’s concern is not merely grammatical structure, but the deeper problem of how sentence meaning (vākyārtha) becomes possible. If language is only a collection of separate words, how does unified understanding arise at all?
B.K. Matilal observes that later Indian grammarians increasingly shifted attention from isolated words toward the cognition of sentence meaning as a unified act of awareness (Matilal, 1990).
Meaning therefore cannot be reduced to isolated lexical fragments. It appears as akhaṇḍārtha – indivisible meaning.
This insight is important because it moves the grammatical tradition beyond ordinary linguistics into a philosophy of cognition itself. Language begins externally as differentiated sound, but inwardly it resolves into unity.
Nāgeśa thus continues the larger movement already present in Bhartṛhari: language does not merely transfer information mechanically. It reveals meaning inwardly within consciousness.
This is precisely why silence gradually becomes philosophically significant within Indian thought. If meaning appears most deeply as inward unity rather than external fragmentation, then language itself begins to point beyond verbal multiplicity toward stillness.
OM, MANIFESTATION, AND SILENCE
The movement from sound toward silence also appears in the Upaniṣadic understanding of Om.
The Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad describes Om not merely as sacred sound, but as the symbol of consciousness itself. The sounds A, U, and M correspond to waking, dreaming, and deep sleep, while the silence following the sound signifies turīya the unmanifest reality beyond differentiated experience. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan explains that the silence after *Om* is philosophically significant because it symbolizes transcendence beyond articulated experience itself (Radhakrishnan, 1953).
Silence here is not emptiness. It is fullness before differentiation. Sound emerges from silence and eventually dissolves back into silence again. The Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad similarly describes manifestation through the image of a spider extending and withdrawing its web:
“यथोर्णनाभिः सृजते गृह्णते च।”
Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 1.1.7
Manifestation unfolds outward and returns inward again. This movement beautifully parallels the grammatical tradition itself. Speech begins externally in multiplicity, yet inwardly it gradually returns toward unity and silence.
HEIDEGGER, WITTGENSTEIN, AND THE LIMITS OF LANGUAGE
Unexpectedly, similar concerns appear within modern Western philosophy.
Martin Heidegger famously writes that “Language is the house of Being.” His point is not merely poetic. Language, for Heidegger, is not simply a human tool used to communicate information. Rather, reality discloses itself through language. David Krell explains that Heidegger understands human beings not as masters of language, but as beings who dwell within the horizon opened by language itself (Krell, 1993).
This bears an interesting resonance with Bhartṛhari’s understanding of Śabda Brahman. Both thinkers reject the idea that language is merely external communication. Language becomes the space through which reality appears meaningfully. Yet Heidegger also recognizes that reality always withdraws beyond complete articulation. Language reveals, but never fully exhausts Being.
Ludwig Wittgenstein approaches the problem differently. In the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, he investigates the limits of meaningful language itself. According to Wittgenstein, language can meaningfully describe only what can be logically expressed. Beyond this limit lies what cannot properly be spoken.
The work concludes with the famous statement:
“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”
Hans Sluga explains that Wittgenstein’s silence is not mere absence of speech, but recognition that certain dimensions of reality exceed propositional language (Sluga, 2011). This insight strongly resonates with the Indian grammatical tradition. Language can guide understanding but cannot fully replace direct realization.
Yet the Indian grammarians offer something distinctive. Rather than abandoning language, they refine it. Speech becomes disciplined, attentive, inward. Through this refinement, language gradually points beyond fragmentation toward silence.
CONCLUSION
The movement from sound to silence is not merely a theory about language. It is a philosophical reflection on human cognition, manifestation, and inwardness itself.
Patañjali’s Mahābhāṣya transforms grammar into discipline of speech. Bhartṛhari’s Vākyapadīya reveals language as a principle through which reality becomes meaningful. Nāgeśa deepens this inquiry through reflections on indivisible sentence meaning and cognition. Heidegger and Wittgenstein similarly recognize that language both reveals reality and reaches limits beyond which silence emerges. Despite their differences, these thinkers collectively suggest that language is not merely external communication. It shapes the horizon within which human beings encounter reality itself. The Indian grammatical tradition, however, offers a uniquely transformative insight: language need not remain trapped in external noise and fragmentation. Through attentiveness, refinement, and disciplined speech, language itself becomes inward. In contemporary life, human beings are overwhelmed by endless communication yet increasingly disconnected from silence. Words circulate constantly, but understanding becomes shallow. The philosophical traditions explored in this paper therefore remain deeply relevant today. Vyākaraṇa does not merely teach how to speak correctly. It teaches how speech, when refined deeply enough, may gradually lead the human being from external sound toward inner silence.
REFERENCES
Bhartṛhari. (1965). Vākyapadīya (K. A. Subramania Iyer, Ed. & Trans.). Motilal Banarsidass.
Cardona, G. (1997). Pāṇini: A survey of research. Motilal Banarsidass.
Coward, H. (1980).The sphoṭa theory of language: A philosophical analysis. Motilal Banarsidass.
Heidegger, M. (1971). On the way to language (P. D. Hertz, Trans.). Harper & Row.
Iyer, K. A. S. (1969). Bhartṛhari: A study of the Vākyapadīya in the light of ancient commentaries. Deccan College.
Kapoor, K. (2002). The word speaks to the Faustian man: The Indian paradigm. D.K. Printworld.
Krell, D. F. (1993). Basic writings of Martin Heidegger. Routledge.
Matilal, B. K. (1990). Language and reality: Indian philosophy and contemporary issues. Motilal Banarsidass.
Nāgeśa Bhaṭṭa. (1985). Paramalaghumañjūṣā. Chaukhamba Sanskrit Series Office.
Patañjali. (1962). Mahābhāṣya of Patañjali (F. Kielhorn, Ed.). Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.
Radhakrishnan, S. (1953). Indian philosophy (Vol. 1). George Allen & Unwin.
Sluga, H. (2011). Wittgenstein. Wiley-Blackwell.
Wittgenstein, L. (1922). Tractatus logico-philosophicus. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
The Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad. (1996). In S. Radhakrishnan (Trans.), The principal Upaniṣads(pp. 695–701). HarperCollins.
The Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad. (1996). In S. Radhakrishnan (Trans.), The principal Upaniṣads
(pp. 671–694). HarperCollins.