Thinking Dialectically on Indian Tradition of Knowledge and Western Knowledge System with Special Reference to Bhartṛhari and Saussure (original) (raw)
Related papers
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2021
Study of language and communication has been an important concern in India's intellectual and cultural tradition. All streams of Indian philosophical thinking included in their considerations the basic problem of language and communication. While the seeds of the study of language in India may be traced in the Rig Veda, and the study of the structure of language as authoritatively established in the Ashtadhyayi, a full-fledged statement and discussion of a science and spirit of language was given in Bhartrihari's Vakyapadiya. It was Bhartrihari who first systematically equated Brahma (Absolute Reality) with Sabda (language), going on to argue that all language arises as a manifestation of the Sabda Brahma. From the early investigations in the Veda, Pratisakhyas and Siksha, through the grammar of language in Ashtadhyayi and Mahabhasya, to the highest levels of consciousness of Sabda Brahma in Vakyapadia, and Spanda in Tantraloka, India's linguistic tradition bears clear imprint of the recognition that while grammar is important for good language, righteous language is good for coordination and integration in human communication. The connective potential of insightful language needs to be used to address the manifold problems of communication in interpersonal and intercultural relations. Enormous creativity is enfolded in the concept of Sabda Brahma. A deeper and wider understanding of the concept can help to establish a framework for further research and applied work in this direction.
Knowledge and Language in Classical Indian Linguistics: Some Observations
Forms of Knowledge in India: Critical Revaluations. Ed. by Suresh Raval, G.M. Mehta, Sitanshu Yashaschandra. Pencraft, Delhi. 89-104., 2008
Whatever stand scholars might choose to take in the context of the orientalism debates, the study of ancient Indian linguistics calls for particularly sensitive handling of methodological issues, for at least two reasons. One of these is familiar -and will drive most of the discourse in the present exposition: contemporary generative grammar works with presuppositions and procedures very close to assumptions that were standard in ancient Indian grammatical thinking. Another, less familiar reason has to do with the role of classical Indian categories in the normative grammars of modern languages in South Asia.
Sabda Brahma: Science and Spirit of Language in Indian Culture
kalakalpa, IGNCA Journal of Arts, 2021
Study of language and communication has been an important concern in India's intellectual and cultural tradition. All streams of Indian philosophical thinking included in their considerations the basic problem of language and communication. While the seeds of the study of language in India may be traced in the Rig Veda, and the study of the structure of language as authoritatively established in the Ashtadhyayi, a full-fledged statement and discussion of a science and spirit of language was given in Bhartrihari's Vakyapadiya. It was Bhartrihari who first systematically equated Brahma (Absolute Reality) with Sabda (language), going on to argue that all language arises as a manifestation of the Sabda Brahma. From the early investigations in the Veda, Pratisakhyas and Siksha, through the grammar of language in Ashtadhyayi and Mahabhasya, to the highest levels of consciousness of Sabda Brahma in Vakyapadia, and Spanda in Tantraloka, India's linguistic tradition bears clear imprint of the recognition that while grammar is important for good language, righteous language is good for coordination and integration in human communication. The connective potential of insightful language needs to be used to address the manifold problems of communication in interpersonal and intercultural relations. Enormous creativity is enfolded in the concept of Sabda Brahma. A deeper and wider understanding of the concept can help to establish a framework for further research and applied work in this direction.
Word and the Big-Small World or on the Universals in Bhartṛhari’s View
Revue Roumaine de Philosophie , 2018
Abstract. In the Classical Indian theories of language, there are two fundamental directions of primary word meaning: the jātivāda, words as universal (jāti) propounded by Vājapyāyana, and the vyaktivāda, words express individual (vyakti) by Vyāḍi. The first import of the word is what encompasses the philosophical relevance, whereas the latest one refers rather to the grammatical aspects of word analysis such as word grammatical categories and its syntactical capability. The universal of a word is considered as the basis on which stands the individual and is the efficient cause (nimittakāraṇa) of the existence of a word. There is a constant balance between the two theories that go hand and hand one implying the other one. The 16th century Bhaṭṭoji Dikṣita reconciles the two theories in rather grammatical terms. Prior to him, the grammarian-philosopher Bhartṛhari, 5th AD century, builds on the inventory of all the possibilities of primary word meaning the unique theory of the universal of the universals. In this paper, I am attempting to survey the classical philosophical arguments of both the universal and individual word meaning theories with a close focus on Bhartṛhari’s postulation of the universal of universal as the link to the ultimate reality, seen as the brahman śabda-tattva, the core of his philosophy.
Some Aspects of the Paradigm of Sanskrit Learning
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Contemporary Education, Social Sciences and Humanities (ICCESSH 2018), 2018
The main issue of this article is the verification of the thesis on existence in Indian culture of a special paradigm of learning-the paradigm of Sanskrit learning. The verification is made through the investigation of two aspects of the paradigm, close but not identical with the aspects of paradigm of Western epistemology and logic. The first (unchanged evaluation of knowledge as a necessary instrument for the implementation of main goals of human existence) contributed to the humanitarization of the system of traditional knowledge. The second aspect of Sanskrit paradigm is the limitations of reason's capabilities. Together with close relations in India between philosophy and religion this limitation determined the unfolding of logical argumentation simultaneously on two levels: logical and metaphysical, and the existence of paradoxical structures in Indian discourse. Keywords-paradigm of Sanskrit learning; traditional Indian knowledge; paradoxes of Indian discourse I.
SABDAPURVAYOGA: Language and Reality in Indian Tradition
SSRN Electronic Journal
he unifying vision of language in Indian tradition as established in the Vedas, Upanishads, and the works of scholars and sages like Panini, Patanjali, Bharatmuni, Bhartrihari, and Abhinavagupta, embraces structure and rules of language, objective reality, and the absolute reality. The search for general rules underlying the diversity of languages is ultimately an exploration of the very nature of human mind and its relation with reality. It reveals the interconnections between language, thought and reality. Panini's grammar, Bharatmuni's view of dramatic performance as an integrated entity, and Bhartrihari's view of sentence as a meaningful unit reveal the unifying relationship of the parts and the whole, and between the objective reality of the world and the Absolute Reality. The essential message of Indian classical texts with regard to language and communication is that there are different levels of language between the two extremes termed as Vaikhari and Pasyanti, which correspond to different levels of consciousness of the Absolute Reality. The Absolute Reality lies outside human perceptions of space and time and is, therefore, is not expressible in ordinary language. The experience of that reality can only be indicated by words that try to go beyond words. Meaningful thought and communication requires constant interplay of lower and higher levels of speech, symbolizing constant interplay of the relative and Absolute Reality.
Houben 1995 - Bhartrhari's Perspectivism (2) Bhartrhari on the primary unit of language.pdf
History and Rationality: the Skoevde Papers in the Historiography of Linguistics (Acta Universitatis Skovdensis, Series Linguistica, Vol. 1.), 1995
According to Ferdinand de Saussure, "the linguistic entity is not accurately defined until it is delimited, i.e. separated from everything that surrounds it on the phonic chain" (Saussure 1916: 145 [103]). However, what are the units to be isolated? The question is important, pragmatically, for anyone trying to learn an entirely new language from the speakers of that language. And it is of crucial theoretical importance for anyone setting out to describe, analyse and study a language. Just as the use of language to communicate is a universal human feature, the problem of delimiting the units of language can be considered a universal problem in reflection about language. It may therefore be of interest to see how the problem was perceived and dealt with in an entirely different cultural and intellectual environment than that of early and modern Western linguistics. Bhartrhari's work the Vakyapadlya is definitely the oldest and it is moreover the only work for which the problem of the nature of words and sentences forms the main subject. In order to have a good basis for theoretical evaluations of early Indian discussions on this problem, it is therefore expedient to start with this older and more elaborate source. In the present paper, the aim will not be to arrive at a final evaluation of Bhartrhari's theory, but rather to arrive at a better understanding of his argument and position.
Religions, 2024
The semantic internalist–externalist debate is one of the central themes in contemporary philosophy. The present paper aims to explore the dispute between Śāntarakṣita and his opponents over the meaning of words (śabdārtha) in the śabdārthaparīkṣā chapter from the perspective of the internalist–externalist debate in semantics. The present paper consists of three main parts. In the first part, I will elucidate the internalist character of Śāntarakṣita’s apoha theory and the externalist characters of his opponents’ theories. The second part will be an examination of an Indian Externalist Argument against Śāntarakṣita’s apoha presented in the chapter. In the third part, I will explore how Śāntarakṣita attempts to refute this argument by resorting to the Dharmakīrtian notion of adhyavasāya (false ascertainment). Additionally, to emphasize a contemporary approach, I will offer and highlight the intercultural interpretations of these Indian externalist and internalist arguments.