So verbs are the most important part of Sanskrit, all language is centered about describing how the world changes from one state to another. What about nouns? What about naming those “states”? They surely have to have words to describe objects just like in any other language – you know you make little flashcards with pictures and words to help yourself remember.
Well, apparently in Sanskrit there are no nouns to speak of and there are no words attached to objects that you can draw on you little memory cards.
What they use instead is descriptions of certain features of those objects. So it goes like “something that …”
What is something that drinks with its feet? A tree, of course. Though usually trees are described as something that is cut and felled down – vriksha. I don’t know if it CAN be felled down or has ALREADY been felled down to be qualified as vriksha, that’s not the point now.
So they don’t have words that correlate to objects, with some exceptions. This is surprising because I assumed that in Sanskrit words are non-different from the things they signify, that’s why mantras can produce physical effects, that’s why Krishna’s Name has all His original potencies. This needs to be re-evaluated.
In the meantime, what is important is that things we see around us as real, as objects, have been reduced to manifestations of certain features, nothing more. This is very helpful in trying to see the world as an illusion that is capable of making impressions on us but ultimately is not real.
It is real, of course, in a sense that it consists of gross and subtle elements, but when we interact with it we operate only with impressions. That’s why we get fascinated by a form of a woman but not if she is dead and rotting in the grave. Water is a primary element but when we think of water we might mean something that quenches thirst or something that flows.
When we want to “interact” with water we need it to comply with our conditions. Imagine a question on a hiking trip: “Is there water around here? Yes, but it’s contaminated.” It’s not the kind of water that we want so it’s useless to us, but maybe not to someone who just wants to clean his boots.
This cutting of connections between our desires and our impressions and the material objects that provide them must be very helpful in getting rid of the illusion that there’s some other objective reality besides Krishna and His energies.
It’s fairly easy to apply in everyday life, and, again, women can come very handy because what they say is not always what they mean and we have to look at what they want rather than the literal meaning of their utterances.
Ultimately, however, we must learn to reject our implicit faith in any kind of power or authority outside the Lord. The power and authority of the government and its laws, for example. Hiranyakashipu thought his was solid but Prahlad had none of it and saw that it was only Lord Vishnu’s power, nobody else’s.
Similarly, we trust that science has an explanation or a cure for everything, or that the ground under our feet will not give up because the Earth is solid. It isn’t, all of those things we trust do not have any truth on their own and cannot be trusted.
There’s no reality per se, only our impressions of it, and they are provided either by maya devi or by Krishna Himself.
We must learn to see the world in Sanskrit way, there’s no choice and no other truth our there.