Forms of Speech

I often notice myself referring to writing here as “talking” or “speaking”, because this is how it is experienced – I am writing what is being said within. The best material is from documenting the flow.

I’ve written before about the 4 levels of speech. These are:
– Para – the beyond
– Pashyanti – the first impulse, flow
– Madhyama – thoughts, the mind ‘speaking’
– Vaikhari – spoken

We might call writing a 5th level of speech although it’s probably more true to call it a 6th level, after recordings of Vaikhari.

These levels also reflect the age. In a lower age, writing (and now recording) is required to preserve knowledge. (even though “Knowledge in books remains in books”) In a little higher age, spoken words are used to record teachings that are then handed down orally. We see this in examples like Vedic recitation, First Nations, and some religious oral traditions. Modern recordings like YouTube might be seen as a base version of this. In a still higher age, speech is mostly formal and ceremonial. Routine communication is Madhyama, what we would now call telepathy. And in the highest age, group consciousness dominates.

In current Western history, we see development of oral language and then writing as signs of development of civilization. But in the long view, they are actually signs of it’s devolution into materialism. We’re working from some false assumptions about the distant past.

But now the trend is gradually reversing. Media broadcasts orally and some oral traditions are being revived. There is much more to come.
Davidya

Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Forms of Speech

  1. K says:

    What kind of speech is the “still small voice”? It is not from the mind is my take. There is no audible sound but it is in words and is heard but not by the ears. Is it para? Thank you

    • Davidya says:

      Hi K
      When we think of “levels of speech”, we’re talking about the level on which it’s being appreciated.

      So a “still small voice” may be experienced as a vocal prod and thus be mental, Madhyama. It can be sensory without the physical senses.

      It may also be experienced as an impulse without any sensory content (yet), just knowing or intuition. That would be Pashyanti.

      Para is beyond that. We might say intelligence itself. Knowing that doesn’t require experiencing.

  2. Scott says:

    Thank you. Don’t have much knowledge about this, other than my own experience. The written word does seem to have created a disconnect from direct experience. Relatively speaking, it seems as though ‘Para’ is ‘missing’ generally from speech & isn’t being appreciated too much. Speech is a mysterious thing to me, a bit. It seems like mind & speech can get out of synch (either the speech isn’t incorporating enough awareness or the full range of consciousnesses can’t quite embody the speech.
    These levels you mention also make me think of ‘logos’..

    • Davidya says:

      Hi Scott
      Para only arises in speech if it is awake in the speaker.

      Writing can also carry a quality of consciousness but is more removed from source than recordings, which is more removed than live, etc. We might call this layers of darshan.

      But for someone to recognize that, it has to be awake in the listener. Or the speaker needs to be “louder”, so to speak. (curious phrase in this context)

      But yes, speech sits on a spectrum. It can be like a flow of para or it can be entirely disconnected, driven mostly by unresolved emotions. (as in venting or gossip)

      Logos isn’t a term I use as it has multiple meanings among philosophies and faiths. And even within one meaning, like ‘word of God’, there are many ways people may understand that.

  3. Scott says:

    Thanks! I like that about the speaker perhaps needing to be “louder”. That’s has a lot relevance to me.
    I think I’ve used the word logos maybe 3 times in my life… I was wondering about the relationship between expressive sounds (Speech) , concepts & creation … Perhaps I can formulate a question for you later..?

    • Davidya says:

      Of course by louder here, I mean more dominant presence. Someone awake, for example, lives presence but it’s not yet fully expressed into form yet. They’ll resonate with some and not others. Someone fully embodied – and they’re still rare – is recognized by almost everyone. They can be felt for miles. The presence is very alive and stirred within everyone.

      On creation, keep in mind that vibration is the first expression. Traditions talk about this in various ways – the primordial sound, the word, etc. These can be heard in various ways. The way I framed the description was more local rather than universal. We can get into lots of nuance, like Para flowing, then beginning to express into subtle relationship then fields and form.

      Just try to use intuition or feel with this. The first 2 steps are pre-mind.

  4. Scott says:

    I like the way you describe things. Yes, I knew youd didnt literally mean louder, but rather presence is more strongly felt. But is one of the ways presence is felf through speech? even if one isnt speaking – the pranic channels related to speech ( excuse me , if my vedic terms are faulty) if they are opened or cleared would that then be a space through which presence could be felt aswell. It seems there would be more ‘volume’ or boom when presence can flow unobstructed through speech

    I think I understand what you mean about the rarity of fully embodying presence. Again it seems to me that the pranic channels of the body would have to be completely cleared to have presence felt for miles. My impression is at that level the body is experienced as an expression of Para. ..?
    I have to say I received a lot of benefit from your messages.
    You’re a very nice man.

    Thank you
    .

    • Davidya says:

      Thanks, Scott.
      For the most part, presence is recognized by presence. The Self/Divine in me recognizes the same in you.

      However, it expresses through mind, emotions, speech, and physicality which amplifies it in those places in others. Speech, for example, then has more impact and touches much deeper.

      And yes, as the pranic channels or nadis become more clear, it is stronger. In this case, it’s all about the flow. One of the reasons full embodiment is yet rare is that it requires a kind of “melting” of the physicality so even the body is known as flow. Not just experientially but physically. This brings Pashyanti right to the surface.

      This can make seeing such a person very powerful. Time and space seem to bend around them. Like a deep meditation with eyes open. Our questions get washed away. The mind stops.

      Happily, we don’t need to get that far to enjoy large advantages and a rich life. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *