Illuminations on Benjaminlluminations on BenjaIlluminations on Benjamin’s Language as such min

7/28/2019 Illuminations on Benjaminlluminations on BenjaIlluminations on Benjamins Language as such min

1/21

Illuminations on Benjamins Language as

such part-1

Mental construction is devoid of a corresponding object and is conjured up by knowledgewhich arises from words.Yoga Sutra""

Objects can only be named. Signs are their representatives. I can only speak about them: I

can not put them in words.Wittgenstein,Tractatus logico philosophicus

Benjamin was not a philosopher in the traditional sense of the word. He was a critic of culture

and a journalist voyager in to truth and life. He lived his life in search of something originary andin many of his works on aesthetics we find new illuminations. Benjamin was maddened in

esoteric and metaphysical longing like his famous author Goethe but he remained a faithfulMarxist throughout his life. He was not an orthodox Marxist perhaps because he was a culturecritic and theologically inclined, he was the first Marxist however who tried to infuse something

that Marxism lacked. In many sense He was like Karl Gustav Jung who did not agree to Freuds

Descartesian objectivism of psychoanalysis, Benjamin too did not agree with Marxist objectivist

reason. Benjamins search after new theory of language is search for a metaphysical language inname. His essay On language as such and on the language of man is possibly his first

adventure into theology and language. In it he doesnt evolve a new theory of language rather

describes what has been revealed in Judo-Christian tradition. Jewish mystics used to endlesslyrearrange the letters of Gods name to produce the one true name that could address God.

Benjamin seeks this language of manthe namer who produces names but cannot name, perhaps,

because he cannot truly know, but we can, and must, gesture. Benjamin has followed thelinguistic doctrine of theKabbalistsand Ecclesiastical tradition of Christianity in his theory oflanguage of name. What he has pursued and wanted to reveal in his revelatory essay has been

revealed thousand year ego but his speculation and mystificatory writing makes it interesting. I

have read it from Indian point of view but I havent written this post in scholarly manner likepolemics but it is critical to his text and passage by passage illumines truths. I wanted to follow

my own tradition of criticism, hence, I have tried to explain in length what has been said in

text, have tried to say what hasnt been properly said and what remained unsaid has also beenexplained. It should be read however as a draft text as I have written it as such keeping in view

that I will finish it later with some more illuminations. In my pointed illuminations I have tried to

be fair to his texts in spite ofobscurity of his terms and writing. Benjamin havent defined terms

of the texts as usually theoreticians do, therefore few terms like language of things mentalbeing and language, mental being as who expresses itself etc. are vague term, in his text there

is also confusion of language and word, word and varna etc, it is frustrating initially but as you

enter into text it becomes clearer. Such theory texts however should have been written inphilosophical manner by explaining each and every term to readers but Benjamin finished it like

a mystic. You have to extract the meaning and in it there is possibility to extract something new

or rather to convert it in to a new text as he expects. I would like to tell my blog readers that

Indian texts have been translated in western languages two centuries back as Hegel himself refers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga_Sutras_of_Patanjalihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga_Sutras_of_Patanjalihttp://www.amazon.com/Tractatus-Logico-Philosophicus-Wittgenstein/dp/0710009623%3FSubscriptionId%3D0G81C5DAZ03ZR9WH9X82%26tag%3Dzemanta-20%26linkCode%3Dxm2%26camp%3D2025%26creative%3D165953%26creativeASIN%3D0710009623http://www.amazon.com/Tractatus-Logico-Philosophicus-Wittgenstein/dp/0710009623%3FSubscriptionId%3D0G81C5DAZ03ZR9WH9X82%26tag%3Dzemanta-20%26linkCode%3Dxm2%26camp%3D2025%26creative%3D165953%26creativeASIN%3D0710009623http://www.amazon.com/Tractatus-Logico-Philosophicus-Wittgenstein/dp/0710009623%3FSubscriptionId%3D0G81C5DAZ03ZR9WH9X82%26tag%3Dzemanta-20%26linkCode%3Dxm2%26camp%3D2025%26creative%3D165953%26creativeASIN%3D0710009623http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalahhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalahhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalahhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalahhttp://www.amazon.com/Tractatus-Logico-Philosophicus-Wittgenstein/dp/0710009623%3FSubscriptionId%3D0G81C5DAZ03ZR9WH9X82%26tag%3Dzemanta-20%26linkCode%3Dxm2%26camp%3D2025%26creative%3D165953%26creativeASIN%3D0710009623http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga_Sutras_of_Patanjali


2/21

to it; it means western thinkers have been reading Indian scriptures for a ling time. They have

gained insight from it; they have used it as sacred science and have enriched their culture. They

have taken a lot from it, written books according to their cultural needs but they did notrecognize it and name it. In naming and recognizing others they are quite conservative. I havent

referred any western texts on linguistics and its philosophy as my purpose was to read it in the

light of Indian texts. Among Indian texts I have referred to Vakyapadiya, Sloka Vartika, and fewVedanta texts like Kalpa Taru, Vivaran, Panchadasi, Acharya Sureshvars Vartika, and otherslike Patnjalis commentary together with Yoga sutras commentaries especially that of Vigyan

Bikshu. I have finished it like blog post therefore readers should not expect it to be scholarly

stuff. It should be read like unfinished draft work. I cant post it all at once as it is almost twentyeight pages long post. I have decided it to post in series as it would be easy to read for everyone.

Enjoy the first part of iluminations:

Benjamins Point 1-To use the word language is in no way metaphorical. For to think that we

can not imagine anything that does not communicate its mental nature in its expression is

entirely meaningful; consciousness is apparently bound to such communication to varyingdegree, but this can not alter the fact that we can not imagine a total absence of language in

anything. An existence entirely without relationship to language is an idea; but this idea can bear

no fruit even within that realm of ideas whose circumference defines the idea of God. All that isasserted is that all expression, insofar as it is communication of contents of mind, is to be classed

as language. An expression, by its whole innermost nature, is certainly to be understood only as

language. On the other hand to understand a linguistic entity it is always necessary to ask of

which mental entity it is the direct expression. That is to say: the German language, for example,is by no means the expression of everything that we couldtheoreticallyexpress-through it, but

is direct expression of that which communicates itselfin it. This itselfis mental entity [...]

what does language communicates? It communicates its metal being corresponding to it. It is

fundamental that this mental being communicates itself in language and not through language.Languages therefore have no speaker, if this means someone who communicates through these

languages. Mental being communicates itself in, not through, a language, a language which


3/21

means that it is not outwardly identical with linguistic being.

My Illumination:- Benjamin considers two kinds of being that are mental being and linguistic

being. It is like vedantic seer and seen, mental being sees or speaks while linguistic being isspoken or named. Benjamins mental being is like consciousness for in other passages he

endows it revelation. His conceptualization of a seer is clear from this line (in mental being

there is) someone who communicates through these languages. Benjamin however narrows thepossibility of Mental being when he says that it is language itself. Mental being whocommunicates itself in language is language itself! Benjamin states something illogical however

when he says, An existence entirely without relationship to language is an idea. Can idea exist

without object, sign and language? Act of thinking and generation of idea only starts with sign,thinker is only interpreter of sign in which God speaks. Sign is name and name is in God, later

Benjamin tells us. What Indian philosophers call sanklpa-vikalpa is idea of something formed in

language or words. Yoga Sutra is not a Manuel of linguistics but it has clearly stated Mental

construction is devoid of a corresponding object and is conjured up by knowledge which arises

from words. It means every thought construct whether it isvikalpa or sankalpa arises only when an object is perceived and perception is expressed in words;

but in this perception object perceived or cognized is not given, perception is devoid of object.Hence, in absence of word no idea can arise whatsoever, allworldly knowledge pertains to word. If everything is name then logically it must be an

indisputable fact.In absence of language there is mental state devoid of thought constructs and mind modifications

called as asamprajnata, for it has no support whatsoever except subliminal impressions of

memories and ignorance. In Indian philosophy it is not name but also object name is negated asboth are manifestations of absolute reality and considered mithya. Cognition of object and its

naming doesnt bring knowledge as such in Advaita or Spiritual sense (parmartha satyam)

however, objective and worldly knowledge is not denied because world is not denied. AcharyaSuresvara in his Vartika on Murtamurta Brahman states that from absolute Advaita point of

view all three viz. concept of knower, object known and false comprehension of it (all vikalpas),


4/21

are negated as nothing exist other than Brahman,

In Upanishad statement the repetition of neti-netiproceeds to negate whatever is sought to be taken up ( or postulated by any objector) and,therefore, this repetition is the negator of all that is sought to be known. Moreover, it is name in

the end that is negated if we consider it manifestation of word of God.Now from above point of view, If Benjamin would have said that mental being is light of

consciousness () whose nature is Gyana itself then it would be a metaphysically correctconceptualization.

He says later that man communicates his mental being in his language of words by naming all

other things. But Benjamin did not ask why man needs to communicate his mental being by

naming? Also he should have asked, can merely by naming an object man is able tocommunicate his mental being? Isnt this a fact that by naming an object one puts it into word

and communicates it to others! In this case, mental being is not communicated rather object itself

is communicated. If we believe what Wittgenstein formulates name means object, we can even

say that object itself is given in name. Sloka Vartik however says that The cognition of object,as produced, are not in the form of identification with words. Nor can an object be said to be not

cognized, simply because it has not been identified by word. Therefore the question of man

communicating object by naming is a false notion from another metaphysical point of view.Naming an object and communicating it is just a worldly affair (loka vyavahar). Another

important thing to be noted is that a knower or seer (if Benjamin considered it mental being)

cant be mere Idea or language. If it has the potentiality of God or if it has revelatorypotentiality, it should be possessor of idea or language; for idea or language is produced when

object is recognized whether in past or in present. If he considers language as innate quality of

mental being who communicates, as he says in language not through language then the case

would be altogether different. At this juncture of speculation he perhaps wanted to say that

language as word is the ray of light of the subject (pramata) and one with consciousness. Heshould have more clear view on it. What does he mean by in language not through? He

distinguishes between language as such and language of mental being (of man)! And what doeshe mean by someone who communicates? Is this someone is God or seer? He must be

thinking mental being and someone (other/god) who communicates in language. At this point of

speculation too he seems to reach at the notion of Advaita individual I consciousness which is

said to be expanse of Gods I consciousness, as Bhagwad Gita says The Lord resides in the

heart of all creatures . interestingly

Krishna says Hridaya that means he is stating the same truth stated by Lord Shiva -transcendental I consciousness. The power which resides in the Heart is self-luminous,

unsurpassable absolute not obstructed by sankalpah and viklapah . It is this Heart where all name comes to an end known as -. In later illuminations I

have quoted from Upanishad that in there is no penetration, no movement whatsoever. It isthe power of ones freedom; it is called heart in which God resides and reflects. Benjamin had

perhaps no idea of such nameless name. He says however following Biblical tradition that nameis in God but it is not clear.


5/21

Concerning mental being and linguistic being, perception and knowledge etc. another Indian

linguist says:

, In fact there is one power of God thatis the consciousnesses of his essential nature as I. The same power in the form of perceiving or

feeling is known as Gyana or knowledge; in the form of its volitional activity, it is known asactivity. If Benjamin did think I as language itself then he must be conceptualizingsomething else. There is no language and knowledge that is not name, all is name. The

modification is only a name arising from speech, as leaves are covered by arteries, so all name

are pervaded by Aum . The essential nature stated above as I consciousness of Lord is

reflected in individual consciousness as I; as Lord says in Gita I am

(Supreme Being -Purushottam) the seed of beings. In individual I He

is the ultimate seer and revealer of truth, as he would instruct later

..Those who recite my sacred name to them I endow the yoga of

intelligence by which he enters in me.

Since the essay is about name and name alone therefore I must state the absolute name of God

before I proceed further. In Hindu scripture the name God is , in its first feet all names andform end. Every thing proceeds from it from Vedas to all other form of knowledge. He who

knows or doesnt know it, works through it alone; nothing is beyond its gaze. Pranava is theessence of existence. Sun moves by uttering it, ones Prana moves by uttering it. Pranava isabsolute unity of speech and Prana; he who knows it enters in Pranava. The knower of science of

Prana sage Patanjali too wrote this sutra: God is denoted by Pranava . It is

eternal light and light of light

. The Vakya Padiya, philosophical treatise on philosophy of grammar states thus:

The true and pure knowledge alone proclaimed by that one word, is stated there in Vedas in the

form of Pranava ()- A truth which has accepted by all school of philosophies in India.

Western grammatology doesnt go beyond Indian linguistics. As for Example, following Andre

Martinet that The fundamental traits of human language are often to be found behind the screenof words, what Derrida subscribes to if not the other aspect of word, what Vakya padiya says

Phonetic writing? Indian linguisticians have said even more clearly

that is, when hymn is recited in spite of its meaning its own form is majormeaning as Gayatri mantra. Its meaning is great but greater than its meaning is its form and

force. Name of God is not the meaning of name God rather that other aspect of word, its realform and force that leads one to God. If we consider this verse creation of meaning itself seems

to be a fallacy:


6/21

Word itself is of the nature of reflective awareness hence they themselves are lit with meaning

and capable to expose it, beyond it they possess a flood of energy as well that leads one to theOther.

Derrida laments and emphasizes on force concerning writing, 'form fascinates when one no

longer has the force to understand force from within itself. That is, to create. Writing is not just

form with force rather becoming form of force.

OUM as in Gurumukhi (Panjabi)

Indians have realized it long ego, what is form of Gayatri meter? Is it just a meter! If it wouldhave been just a meter, a hymn, then entire Brahmastra vidya and others would not have come

into existence and great people would not have practiced it. In Upanishad age it was consideredeverything and in Mahabharata we find several histories related to this divine weapon made of

Gayatri . Possessors of this vidya were invincible in those days. Form of Gayatri meter is the

body of divine energy Savitri, and from its repetition God Savita is invoked. It can dissolve

entire universe if it is properly aroused. We should remember this Sutra of Lord Shiva bydissolution of wheel of energies (that is garlands of letters) into consciousness, world is

dissolved.

Part two:


7/21

All theory is gray and green is the golden tree of life--Goethe

Benjamins Point 2-Mental Being is identical with linguistic beingwhat is communicable in

mental entity is its linguistic entity. Language therefore communicates the particular linguistic

being of things, but their mental being only insofar as this is directly included in their linguisticbeing, insofar as it is capable of being communicated. LANGUAGE COMMUNICATES THE

LINGUISTIC BEING OF THINGS. The clearest manifestation of this being, however, is

language itself. [.] The linguistic being of all things is their language. The understanding of

linguistic theory depends on giving this proposition a clarity that annihilates even the appearanceof tautology. The proposition is untutological, for it means that which in a mental entity iscommunicable isits language on this is everything dependsnot that which appears most

clearly in its language is communicable in a mental entity, as was just said by way of transition,but this capacity for communication is language itself. Or: the language of a mental entity isdirectly that which is communicable in it. Whatever is communicable of a mental entity, in this it

communicates itself. This signifies that all language communicates itself. Or, more precisely

that all language communicates itself in itself; it is in the purest sense the medium of thecommunication. Mediation, which is the immediacy of all mental communication, is the

fundamental problem of linguistic theory and if one chooses to call this immediacy magic, then

the primary problem of language is its magic. At the same time notion of magic of languagepoints to something else: its infiniteness. This is conditional on immediacy. For precisely nothing

is communicated through language, what is communicated in language can not be externally

limited or measured and therefore all language contains its own incommensurable, uniquely

constituted infinity. Its linguistic being, not their verbal content defines its frontier.My illumination: As in first illumination I have pointed out that Benjamin considers two

entities mental entity and linguistic entity and tries to unite it in process of communication.

Precisely he distinguishes between communicating through human language and communicatingin language itself. He thought that nothing is communicated through language. That is, nothing

like content is communicated through human language. But in the process of language,

something is communicated. Linguistic entity can communicate itself to mental entity only if it is

already their, already its part. As for example, in the case of object cow he would consider its


8/21

linguistic being as its name cow this is already in mental being.

Mental being is

identical of linguistic being of thing. That means, language itself in its purest sense is that whichneither word nor name can represents, it is something magical. Interestingly Benjamins

contents of the mind , it is like thought or consciousness, which is communicated in language

and which is sometimes language itself and sometimes not. There is nothing more to languagethan the mental entity which language communicates. Another remarkable words that he says is

that The linguistic being of all things is their language. As in case of cow, her linguistic being

is name cow. It will be clearer to you in later illuminations as he would say that Name islanguage of language. Name cow which communicates itself to mental entity IS already

present. Benjamin tries to evolve a kind of unitary theory of language here in which everything

would exist in mental being of man but he is not very clear in his exposition. If we do

consider mental entity as formed entity in immediacy, that is in immediate cognition, because

only after having cognized it is communicable then theory of unity crashes out. On this

hypothesis he can not say that mental entity and linguistic entity of thing is one and is alreadypresent in it. However other way round he thought as follows: Linguistic entity of thing cow is

cognized by man forming his mental entity and becomes communicable and then it iscommunicated in language but since this communicable word cow and its potentiality is

mental entity already present even if one cognizes it later and it formed after cognition, therefore,

he would emphatically say that which in a mental entity is communicableisits language. It isthis is-ness as he says all depends on this is which appears in language. It is something that

can be a point of detailed discussion.


9/21

Second important thing to note is his emphasis on immediacy of all mental communication

which is magical in nature perhaps because of immediate encounter and cognition of ones own

mental entity via linguistic entity of things. In immediate perception perhaps there is somethingintuitive and points to us: its infiniteness. Mental entity in which the linguistic being directly

cognized through mediation is qualified by word which is there in mental entity therefore even if

one cognizes cow outside, it is mental entity which communicates itself to itself. Hence, hewould say later in passages that it is language itself and all linguistic expressions are itsexpression. One communicates contents of mind. It is pretty much clear from above analysis

rather short that it is consciousness itself. We should read it from Hegelian linguistic point of

view in which it is non other than reason (pure and singularly universal). Benjamin had his ownreading of Hegels phenomenology and his essay seems to be rooted in it. Not only from

reason/thought/ consciousness point of view but also from the name point of view as Hegel

have already shed sufficient light on it and his logic itself is an exposition of name. Hegel

thought that self-consciousness that comes through language *in name* is universal becauselanguage says things, but it also says the I which speaks and it establishes communication

among diverse Is, it is the instrument of mutual recognition. Self-consciousness is universal,

my I becomes everyones I because this I is universal and originary. I is originarybecause it is language itself and it realized in language not through language. It is name in which

Hegels phenomenology begins for it designates pure subject without concept and its discourse is

universal. Discourse in its true form and force is universal, it is transcendental by nature whether

it realizes it or not. Interestingly Benjamins mental being it not other than Hegels mental being(discourse of self-consciousness) and for both it is name and language itself.

In this essay as a whole the mental being of man is language itself should be considered the

key phrase because . Advaita point of view will be put forward in remaining illuminations but

one should keep it in mind that Vedantas is none other than this realization oforiginary language. Indian linguistics have said that it is in discourse that knowledge, knower

and known all there are united in it lies freedom and it is the way Pure reason and pure logic is the way to grasp the word of god. Those who are more


10/21

accomplished in linguistics can do more reading on it, I am leaving this passage hear by saying

that Benjamin had in his mind Hegels notion of experience of language of things in which at

particular point of realization one speaks to himself that there is something more as in GoetheAll theory is gray and green is the golden tree of life. I do not agree with professors and

commentators on his texts who think that Benjamin was a materialist. He renounced Marxian

materialism the day he took metaphysical turn as both are antagonistic to each other, especiallyconcerning Marxian ontology of materialist being. I would like to remind my blog readers thatvarious notions which are speculative and vague will be clear gradually in remaining

illuminations as I will proceed further into essay. It is 2 of 26 illuminations. Enjoy the discourse

on name and dont forget to remember Tulsi Baba too in this discourse of name who have saideverything in bhasha :

In general perception and understanding name and form are one but in both there is a mutual

affection like master and devotee. (As when name is called subject is called upon) Name andform both are Gods upadhi and are indescribable and eternal; its true nature can be known only

through pure intelligence.

(Note: limiting adjunct is not correct translation for upadhi therefore I prefer to use it as it is

in my translation as Tulsi Das uses it in Advaita term of Maya

Durtaya means that which is tough to betransgressed easily but its another poetic meaning is easy to understand-

It is like a damsel whose rati is difficult to be deceived as another reading of the word goes du-ratya-ya vz. du- difficult to be deceived, ratya- rati, ya- whose-- that is whose rati is difficult tobe deceived and transgressed. Many of such terms can not be translated for example Prana is

not just breathe, air or lan vital as it has been translated in English.)

Part-3


11/21

..- *1In every name Gods name is invoked by knowing which one attains supreme state of

Vishnu.

Wakefulness of images is the realm of name.Hegel

Benjamins point 3- Linguistic being of thing is their language; this proposition applied to man,

means: the linguistic being of man is his language. Which signifies: man communicates his own

mental being in his language. However, the language of man speaks in words. Man, thereforecommunicates his own mental being (insofar as it is communicable) by naming all other things.

But do we know any other language that name things? It should not be accepted that we know of

no languages other than that of man; to identify naming language with language as such is torobe linguistic theory of its deepest insightsit is therefore the linguistic being of man to name

things.

Why name them? To whom does man communicates himself?but is this question, as applied

to man, different when applied to other communications (languages)? To whom does the lampcommunicates itself? The mountain? The box?But here the answer is: to man. This is not

anthropomorphism. The truth of this shown in human language .further more and if the lamp

and the mountain and the fox did not communicate themselves to man, how should he be able toname them? And he names them; he communicates himself by naming them. To whom does hecommunicates?

Before this question can be answered, we must again inquire: how does man communicates

himself? A profound distinction is to be made, a choice presented, in face of which anintrinsically false understanding of language is certain to give itself away. Does man

communicates his mental being by naming that he gives thing? Or in them? In the paradoxical

nature of these questions lies their answer. Anyone who believes that man communicates his


12/21

mental being by names can not also assume that it is his mental being that he communicates, for

this does not happen through the names of thingsthat is words by which he denotes a thing.

And, equally, the advocate of such view can assume only that man is communicating factualobject matter to other men, for that does happen through the word by which he denotes a thing.

This view is bourgeoisie conception of language, the validity and emptiness of which will

become increasingly clear in what follows. It holds that means of communication is words, itsobject factual and addressee a human being. The other conception of language in contrast knowsno means, no object, and no addressee of communication. It means: in name, the mental being of

man communicates itself to God.

My illumination: Before I start interpretation of this passage let me clear what I suggested in

previous passages about Hegel. In second illumination I pointed out that Hegels I as self

consciousness is language itself. It is name in which Hegels phenomenology begins for it

designates pure subject without concept and its discourse is universal. Discourse in its true form

and force is universal, it is transcendental by nature whether it realizes it or not. InterestinglyBenjamins mental being it not other than Hegels mental being (discourse of self-consciousness)

and for both it is name and language itself. If we read Hegelian I as language itself then wecan very easily reach Indian linguistic point of view in which Aham is said to be substratum of

language in its orginary form. Vedantas is none other than this realization oforiginary language. In Hegel I has two ways, one is towards pleasure another towardsdissolution or death that is its eschatological aspect knowledge, as it is said in Bhgagwad Gita

. Knowledge is eschatology in the end; it cant be other thaneschatology. Now, I in its expansion is intention of this that Vedanta says the intention of

and it is sankalpa-vikalpa-sanjalpatmaka while towards dissolution the same I is called

pure that which is expressed in Aham Brahmasmi. There is minute difference in both

form of Is, one is in and on and is limited , as Hegel would sayvictim of logic ( sankalpa-vikalpa) while other has completely turned itself to realize its true

universal nature as it is by nature pure. According to Hegel when I is not turned towards itself,

towards knowledge; it is victim of logic because it is subject to triad of knowledge, knower andknown. Dialectic of logic exerts its force of self consciousness when self-consciousness is not

this dialectic for itself. In both forms that I as consciousness of idam and I as aham it is


13/21

language itself but difference is that in Idam level it has descended to the lower level, as Indian

scripture says At transcendental level it isIConsciousness itself that shines fourth (as pure knowledge) and in Idam form it is the same

in its creative aspect. I consciousness as is transcendental as it has turned itself into its

own discourse, thus, Hindu scripture describe it in short . When ahamdescends to lower state is rajas or its creative aspect dominates and when it turns back it is

knowledge or sattva that dominates as Bhagwad Gita says . Self-consciousness as Aham in its Idam aspect is towards and it is the discourse of its own

expansion. If there is no language there is no discourse, it ends in the first feet of Pranava

dissolving all Varnas from A to H and establishes himself into transcendental Advaita

nature. is said to be seed of all Varnas and substratum all discourses. As I have already

quoted a verse from Upanishad all speech is A-kara therefore if we believein Biblical In the beginning was the Word (and it manifested existence) then logically all

manifestations are dissolved in it. However in front of Advaita metaphysics word as causeof the world doesnt sustain because discourse of I is not real from absolute point of view as it

is not realized in sleep state. I am not going to expand it here but it is clear that self-

consciousnesses comes into being like let me project let there be light, it is in the form ofcreativity of ones own God nature.

Now In this passage Benjamin begins by saying that linguistic being of things is their language

and similarly linguistic being of man is his language and he communicates his own mental being.He would refute the bourgeois logic of language that man communicates other man through

words and communicates some fact in words. Benjamin tries to establish that language does not

communicate anything other than itself. He says that the linguistic being of man to name things.

[] he names them; he communicates himself by naming them. Benjamin puts this statement

forward that Language lies in naming; it is name that is language. It means: in name, the mentalbeing of man communicates itself to God. This is his most important hypothesis around which

entire essay revolves. Benjamin says that language is eternal hence name is eternal. Allexpressions are language because one communicates contents of mind. But question is, is

language eternal? Perhaps not, Language is not eternal; word (rather varna) is eternal. Language

is always produced by naming or in idea of object or subject. Language is vikalpa. Language is

not eternal can be recognized by childs first utterance, when a child utters words for the firsttime it is no language rather it is an unrecognized sound of varnas to which mother responds

what he is speaking? and then she teaches him speak Maa and then he gradually learns to

speak Maa . He recognizes later who is denoted by his play of word Maa as we see childplays with the word (he repeats several time in playfulness) for the first time when he learns it.

Hence, Name Maa and idea of Maa is produced. However important to note that according to

Indian point of view sound is an attribute of Sky (-akash) which is created matter, hence,sound too is a product from metaphysical point of view. According to Vedanta if it is not aproduct, scriptures would have taught that Speech reaches Brahman not from where speech

return without reaching it, that means its potential is limited. Absolute I consciousness

possesses multitude of letters in the form of supernormal sound or in the form of naad thatoriginate from it like droplets of ocean and manifests gross forms of sound, hence it is also


14/21

logical that it contains the potentiality of I consciousness. Word never losses its potential in

the same way as seer doesnt loss its vision in any state of consciousness.

To be precise, in the I consciousnessunutterable highest sounds exists uninterruptedly, undivided and without succession in originary

two alphabets AND like a bowl containing all remaining alphabets in its subtle form. Hence,Vakya Padiya says that Naad is eternal, what is produced is speech-sound in the form of words

(word should not be mistaken with Varna as naad):

Naadis neither a previous nor a subsequent because it is the speech-sound which is produced in

sequence. But non-sequential is revealed as sequential as if it were divided. From the originary

Naad speech-sound is produced in sequence from to last letteris not counted insequence as it is considered death of consonants. Sloka Vartika too says that Sound is undivided

like space but appears to be divided like space as in jaar etc spoken in sutra such as

. Another fact about word is that even if it is undivided and changeless yet its utteranceseems to be non-eternal because its order follows the will of the speaker. To it Sloka Vartikresponds that the order of words and the shortness, length, and acuteness (of vowel sounds) only

mark different division of time; and thereby come to qualify the sound. He further says hrasva

and dirgha etc are not property of Varna orshabda but sound and are not any non-eternalproperties of the word. Interestingly in Brahman, word in its supernormal form calledpara

exists not as sound rather as knowledge therefore naad ceases into shakti and then into Shivawho is said to be . Sound in its various forms is just an expression ofknowledge itself. As in example of infants utterance we see how infants uttered sound is still

unrecognizable as specific word. In Indian cosmology, in macrocosm expression ofnaadisthrobbing of I consciousness of lord in macrocosm that brings forth the first manifestation Sky.

Sky is created and its attribute is sound, without sound it is not recognized. Wherever there is

sky, there is sound, as in our day to day life we experience that more solid has less sound whileless solid has more sound. Sound is impossible without sky or space and since sky is the first


15/21

matter it exists in all the rest hence fire sounds, water sounds, air sounds, earth sounds . All the

four matters are experienced directly with our sense organs but sky is experienced indirectly

when sound is heard. Hindus are habitual to worship alphabet as chinmayathat is full of Iconsciousness of Lord.

Benjamin situates his essay in metaphysical zone by situating every thing into metal beingwhether it is language itself or formed of language. His mental being should be interpreted from

both points of view. In his view it seems as if nothing is beyond mental being as it is language

itself. Things have its linguistic being but that itself is mental being, for it is identical to it orlinguistic being dwell in mental being and communicates itself to itself. If Benjamins mental

being is consciousness in its transcendental form as I have hinted in relation to Hegel then we

can say that all language as well as its physical manifestations is rooted in it. It will be clear in

his Biblical interpretation in later passages. If we consider language as produced entity thenfrom that point of view mental being is something else it would be formed of language, it is a

produced linguistic entity. It would be like Lacanian mental entity subject which is produced

by language and a formed. But Benjamins entity is different; it is certainly not like subject

because he says language is not its means of communication rather it communicates in it. Inlanguage, means it is situated in it. It can not be produced by language rather it produces

languages. He conceptualizes perhaps it as an entity that is pervasive as for as communication isconcerned, for linguistic being of things and mental being are not distinguished entities ratherboth are united in languagein name. Language is of mental entity, it formed of language. What

he says concerning the other of linguistic expression of mental being has been conceptualized by

Indian linguistics long ego, Vakya Padiya says:

This word Agni(fire) besides being related to word agni (meaning of fire) is also related to thatreferred to by word agni namely form agni. The word which is uttered (in every day use) is never

linked with grammatical operation (but) its capacity to convey that its other form (that is, its own

form as meaning) is not obstructed.

This is what exactly Benjamin says about expression of mental entity in language. Elsewherein passages when he says that name expresses other than the name, same truth is illumined.

His formulation In the name mental being of man communicates itself to god. Comes from

Judo-Christian tradition in which everything revolves around name in God. However, one can

ask, can man name God? Atma cant be named by word

ATMA. And there are words of revelations Or

. Sanat kumar has taught thus , ,

Whatever you have studied and learned so far isNAME for manifestation is established on vaak and name alone..This Rigveda, Samveda,

Yajurveda is merely name meditate on Name. But this is not higher, therefore, he taughthigher truths and says Vaak is higher than Name since alphabet is name therefore vaak is said

to be higher than this for it is vaak that manifests name. Then he says mind is higher


16/21

than vaak etc. Benjamins thinking was perhaps this that naming in other language that is more

subtle forms of linguistic expressions, one precedes towards God. He would try to explain

revelation of this language from Bible point of view but that is quite backward from Vedantic

point of view which says from where mind together withspeech returns without reaching it. Another important aspect of naming is that in naming mental

being doesnt name itself rather it names object hence in naming it doesnt communicate itself.It communicates things in language but not things itself. Question always remains however, is

naming possible?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

*1

In the beginning of the verse the word is used to indicate that every form, force and

meaning refers to transcendental () that one should read throughnegation.

In verse the term by knowing which means ( ) that is bynegation.

Note: The threads that I have remarked and put forward in these blog posts on Benjamin will be

taken forward later on when I will start my own hypothesis on name. Discourse on name needs a

pure theological turn.

Part-4

-


17/21

the knower of name gains the power of movement to the point name reaches. Hebecomes subject to name.

Our father who art in heaven, hollowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done--

Matthew

Benjamin point 4- The name, in the realm of language, has as its sole purpose and its

incomparably high meaning that it is the inner most nature of language itself. The name is thatthrough which and in which, language itself communicates itself absolutely. In the name, the

mental entity that communicates itself in its absolute wholeness, only there is the name and only

name is there[ ] mental being of man is language.(but} the quintessence of this

intensive totality of language as the mental being of man is the name. Man is the namer[through] him pure language speaks. All nature insofar as it communicates itself,

communicates itself in language and so finally in man. Hence, he is the lord of mature and can

give names to things. Only through linguistic being of things can he get beyond himself and

attain knowledge of themin name. Gods creation is completed when things receive their

names from man, from whom in name language alone speaks. Man can call name language oflanguage. Name is not only the last utterance of language but also the true call of it. Thus in

name appears the essential law of language, according to which to express oneself and to addresseverything else amounts to same thing. Language, and in it a mental entity, only expresses itself

purely where it speaks namethat it, in its universal naming. So in name culminates both the

intensive totality of language, as the absolutely communicable mental entity and the extensivetotality of language, as the universally communicating (naming) entity. [] language is

incomplete wherever the mental entity that speaks from it is not its whole structure linguistic

that is, communicable.

My illumination: All that is name alone is an absoluteUpanishadicstatement; from it we can

derive all logic of languages. Language begins in naming and ends in name. Indian linguisticshad realized long ego that even if all is name alone, it is nothing. Form and name both aremithya and hence described as indescribable. In the second illumination I have quotedTulsi Das

Name and form both are Gods upadhi and are indescribable and eternal; its true nature can be

known only through pure intelligence.

Therefore, the question of linguistics is very much the question of knowledge rather an

authoritative knowledge and experience. We have to investigate whether knowledge andexperience is possible in name? Before I proceed into it, let me state what Upanishad says the

knower of name gains the power of movement to the point name reaches. He becomes subject to

name. It is clear enough that names power of movement is limited. Now, it is a well know fact

thatKnowledgebecomes upadesh only when it is authoritative. Any ordinary sentence cant beauthoritative and cant endow right knowledge. Similarly any name is not a name of God even if

ever y name is eternal and a manifestation of same originary principle. Concerning name one

would say that by name-ing of cow, cow is known but it is a fact that naming is a mentalconstruction and doesnt bring knowledge as such. Yoga sutra says Mental construction is

devoid of a corresponding object and is conjured up by knowledge which arises from words.

. In earlier illumination this sutra has been discussed. Here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upanishadshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upanishadshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upanishadshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsidashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsidashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsidashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledgehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledgehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledgehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledgehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsidashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upanishads


18/21

we can explain it with example, as when one says the arrow is at stand still, it will come to

stand still, it was at stand still in thisperceptionthere is no true knowledge only of the

meaning of the root stand still qualified by present time, whereas the arrow being the agent andthe present tense of the agent , the three meaning of knowledge is only fancy, because there is

absence of action conducive to rest after movement, in the arrow.

Secondly in nameof cow, cow is known only in two ways, eitheretymologicallyor by convention. Etymologically

cow doesnt mean cow, in knowledge of cow it is convention that prevails (in general sense ofcommunication). If there is no convention or prior knowledge of cow, a city dweller where cow

is not found, having seen it in image would ask what is it? It looks like deer . Grossly words

function is fourfold According to Mahabhsya that is genus, quality,action and substance. Genus is : action , quality < white, black etc>: substance . Namingfrom

difference point of view as tree and fig tree, .naming tree does not describe all tree. Shabda

or word however is not just limited to fourfold function, another texts describe few more

functions Aword my be 1-etymological 2-etymological-cumconventiona 3-metaphorical, 4-primary 5-

indicative 6-qualitative. Rhetoricians add in it another function of word suggestion. For moreexplanation on it refer to the texts of Indian Grammarians. Main gross points on the word are

that naming cow and its knowledge depends on prier memory of cow (of convention or if one

independently acquires knowledge of cow), in absence of prier memory man questions whatanimal is this? Sloka Vartika says perception cow at present time is always tainted by memory

in other cases one perceives it either as animal or an animal of some genus or something else.

Thirdly, Naming is related to perception, one does name only when one perceives object orsubject and acquires some form of knowledge of it. Knowledge doesnt depend on naming

however it is name in which it is communicated. Another important thing to be noted is that,

knowledge of cow is not just communication of name cow rather communication of perceptionof knowledge to some extent (not knowledge as such in absolute sense) that cow is milk giving

animal etc. In naming there is also some inferential knowledge, as soon as one names Lion one

infers it is a dangerous animal. Naming is not just naming and by naming knowledge doesntcome in general sense to man as Benjamin thinks. Sloka vartika says that object is independent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception


19/21

of word or NAME. It means that name is not that object, it is not name that is out there.

However after naming we can say that it is name cow that is out there; it is in this sense we can

say that in naming gods creation is completed. In naming God it done, his name is perhapshollowed. In relation to creation and naming perhaps Matthew utters Our father who art in

heaven, hollowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done. How it can be read if not

this context? I leave it here to take it later. Indian thinkers have different thought about nameand form. It is said that name and form is eternal and exist together, it means name doesnt comelater after form comes into existence. In let me project fire name is already there because God

projects it from knowledge. If God is an absolute consciousness, he must think name before he

projects it as form. However in existence both appear simultaneously and in it God himself

entered. Here too God is

hollowed and perhaps the great invocation is read inthis sense. I will come to the both utterances in my later illuminations. Some more serious

metaphysical questions in relation to naming can be invoked here, as for example such questions

"what one gives when one gives in the name of God? How misfortune etc. is given in the nameof god?, How such potentiality or virya is obtained in the name of god? very serious in nature

as for as language is concerned but I have left it, as it is not possible in blog post. But one thing

is certain that it cant be obtained in fall. The utterance Valmiki made in the beginning of Ramayana was not a fall of language, as it brought

astonishment to him and God Brahma visited him as soon as it was uttered and says

this vaak (saraswati) comes to you because of my impulse. It is notlanguage of man; it is language of God as he says it will be a hymn. I will discuss it later in

full detail in relation to fall as well as word of judgment. How the potentiality or virya of such

speech is obtained in the name of god?, is a very serious theological question in the realm oflinguistics. We will be able to understand the language of mantra shastra of Hindus if we can

understand it. Entire theology of linguistics revolves around it.

Now let us take his last point in this passage. Benjamins Name is utterance of last language is

a metaphysical statement but he didnt explain it. Name is utterance of last language can be true

only in . Because it is the first and the last utterance of man, all names ends in Pranava. It islife death of all utterances. Name as last utterance of language is absolutely correct; even if

Benjamin did not know it. Name as word is nothing more than Varna as we consider it, and fromthis point of view it is destined to utter its last Verna , and in fact, all names irrespective

of their forms utter it; as in it all languages dissolve. For example is said in

scriptures because in it all consonants die, similarly in all garlands of letters including

- dissolve as well as rise from it. Concerning Name, Hegel thought that the universe ofthe Word, logos, can only emerge from the experience of an abyss, a night of the world. Man


20/21

realizes true nature of language when it turns back to its own dialectic, in the inwardness of the

pure self he realizes its inherent power and as he says thereafter he must enter also into

existence, become an object, oppose itself to this innerness to be external; return to being. This islanguage as name-giving power. . . . Through the name the object as individual entity is born out

of the I." Hegels metaphysics of language and name is very close to Indian linguistics as in

both everything is born out of I. It is discourse of I. In Indian linguistics name is none otherthan as universal self-consciousness (sva-samvita) from absolute point of view. In

consciousness situates itself in its innate freedom , hence, it iscalled pure and of the nature of Shiva himself. However, from the word as name point of view it

can be the law of language for it is name that is all. Upanishads sages have stated it thus:

All that is name alone.1

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: This discourse on name will end in Vedanta when I will finish all twenty six

illuminations. In fact, it is already a Vedantic discourse in the name of Benjamins theory of

language. Even if I havent written it as a philosophical text, it is philosophically structured.

You cant expect much on blog. In this discourse on name, later on I will also bring the view ofpsychoanalysis because Freud had situated it in language. I will also discuss three subtle mind

modifications dream, memory and Sanskar in relation to linguistics and psychoanalysis. I would

like to show you how psychoanalysis has been a total failure as for as interpretation of thesethree subtle mind modifications are concerned. In this regard I have taken Yoga Sutra and other

yoga texts in a new way. How to read these great texts in relation to contemporary thought

should be our job. We Indian are parasite and fools; we renounce kalpa vriksha for ber trees.

Yoga Sutra is not just a manual of yoga, it is the highest work written till today onpsychoanalysis. Indians never visited it to get illuminations as western thinkers have visited

Biblical canon. Only in meditation these texts of great Sages reveal anything to you. I cant write

great texts but I will tell you why I say so. Strangely the hypocrisy of western thinkers is thatthey take each and every word uttered in Bible and other priestly texts as word of God and yet

they call themselves modern. Which western thinker are not a blind faithful animal? Who is not

faithful to words of gospels? Their hypocrisy of negation is for others, they are politicallydestructive and work for material benefit.

If font is unreadable Please refer to blog

http://rajcritic.wordpress.com/2012/07/22/illumina

tions-on-benjamins-language-as-such/

http://rajcritic.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/llumina

tions-on-benjamins-language-as-such-four/
http://rajcritic.wordpress.com/2012/07/22/illuminations-on-benjamins-language-as-such/http://rajcritic.wordpress.com/2012/07/22/illuminations-on-benjamins-language-as-such/http://rajcritic.wordpress.com/2012/07/22/illuminations-on-benjamins-language-as-such/http://rajcritic.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/lluminations-on-benjamins-language-as-such-four/http://rajcritic.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/lluminations-on-benjamins-language-as-such-four/http://rajcritic.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/lluminations-on-benjamins-language-as-such-four/http://rajcritic.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/lluminations-on-benjamins-language-as-such-four/http://rajcritic.wordpress.com/2012/07/22/illuminations-on-benjamins-language-as-such/http://rajcritic.wordpress.com/2012/07/22/illuminations-on-benjamins-language-as-such/


21/21

http://rajcritic.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/llumina

tions-on-benjamins-language-as-such-three/
http://rajcritic.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/lluminations-on-benjamins-language-as-such-three/http://rajcritic.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/lluminations-on-benjamins-language-as-such-three/http://rajcritic.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/lluminations-on-benjamins-language-as-such-three/http://rajcritic.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/lluminations-on-benjamins-language-as-such-three/http://rajcritic.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/lluminations-on-benjamins-language-as-such-three/

Documents

Illuminations on Benjaminlluminations on BenjaIlluminations on Benjamin’s Language as such min