Speaking to a ‚master’ in meditation and yoga is established on the echo of the teachings (on his ‘mental’) he previously announced. But the repetitions of Sanskrit names are also involved in the exercises, as representations of linguistic elements. Kirpal Singh constantly stressed, that such names actually have no significance, but that their being loaded with his ‘strength’ were substantial.
Pure verbatim translation of the names from Sanskrit would, thus, not offer any advantage.
He also often said that Sanskrit is not the lingua franca of spirituality. That wouldn’t be what it's all about. But, just because it is in the mind ... – and, of course, I’ll again express it this way: … in the unconscious that the seemingly monotonous formula names, the just-names combine with the wording of theory, is why such ‘mystical conversation’ can be grammatically, syntactically and lexically correct. The sentences may possibly be restricted in content (here, the mythical, ‘mental’ versions in yoga are meant), but they simultaneously, have structure, are not designed in much difference to a famous sentence used by linguists: “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.”
This correct sentence only makes sense, if at all, in the most distant cranny of language. But, that is just what makes it efficacious for a meditative method, just as the sentence would have an effect in a dream, or in interpreting the dream. So, the sentences have the effect of a theoretical discussion in a master’s ‘astro-mental’, and at least, lead in a more ‘realistic direction’.
On the one hand, they bear the entirety of serious, ascetic theory in that they are designed with echo-discourse’s. On the other, they also carry the sense, or nonsense, of the efficacious, formula-like Sanskrit names. And this is substantially a phenomenon of psychoanalysis (extracting a hidden sense from the nonsense of a dream). A mystical conversation with a ‘master’, then, is nothing more than a good ‘understanding each other’, which also means: an only-understanding, not a comprehensive cognizance that would go beyond it, or in which the individual would intellectually be involved!
That’s why I call it echo-discourse. The introverted dialogue does at first not surpass the extraverted dialogue, or the ‘master’s extraverted rhetoric (what I have called the ‘mental’). Only when it may have additional effects through the application of Sanskrit names it leads especially in the direction of the ‚Other’s’ word and with the ‘assignment of the O’, even to ‘causality’, to the code- and passwords.