Understanding nirvana (2)

Ancient Sanskrit emerged gradually to become a beautiful language. It evolved by self-elaborating from a few root words (or sounds) and self-organising with a grammar that eventually became highly efficient.

Unfortunately the root words were few and extremely imprecise. In order to gain greater precision, the root words were simply elaborated (for instances with prefixes and word combinations). The words thus invented described a greater variety of contexts, objects or functions and with greater precision.

However, ever increasing word combinations and combination permutations eventually created a serious problem with the transmission of meaning, though it did enhance the potential for suggestive poetic expression. That’s because many Sanskrit words had a number of different meanings. And, moreover, many Sanskrit words are synonymous with several others.

When, 3000 years later, i.e. in the 17^th and 18^th century, western scholars attempted to translate ancient Sanskrit (and Pali) texts they ran into a serious problem. No one knew what the words found in the texts originally meant. Etymologist (like Princeps) reconstructed the meaning of the words from the root words, the later constructions with prefixes and other root words and the particular contexts in which the words were found.

The result was that many words, in particular the significant ones like dharma, karma, nirvana (Pali: nibbana), atman (Pali: atta) and so on, had multiple meanings (because of the multiple meanings of the root words and the multiple contexts in which they were found). In short, what a particular word, like nirvana (or atman or dukkha), actually meant (i.e. then, i.e. when it was used in a particular ancient text) was anybody’s guess.

The word ‘nirvana’, the combination of nir (or nis) ‘no or not’ and vâna (having multiple meanings), one of the most important words (and concepts) of Buddhism, is a multiple meaning (and multiple interpretation) word. Its very ambiguity, indeed fuzziness, contributes mightily to the mystique and longevity of Buddhism (and Jainism too). It’s because no one actually knows (with final closure producing certainty) what the term means (for the Buddha did not define it) that it serves as a red herring, i.e. ‘all things to all men’.

Once the exact meaning of the term is finally decided, then the final outcome of Buddhist reality understanding, and practice in response to that understanding, will be decided. Then individuals can decide whether or not Buddhism makes sense or nonsense.

Obviously, committed Buddhists (and Jains) have a vested interest in preventing the emergence of an exact meaning of the word nirvana.

The Nirvana

Index