What is the difference between nouns and verbs (according to Mīmāṃsā authors)? Diaconescu vs. Clooney

What do nouns mean? And what is the difference between nouns and verbs? Pūrva Mīmāṃsā authors are rightly known as having conceived the first textual linguistics in South Asia. In this sense, their theory differs from the Vyākaraṇa one, as Continue reading What is the difference between nouns and verbs (according to Mīmāṃsā authors)? Diaconescu vs. Clooney→

The Role of Imagination in Perception

Imagination is a topic of ubiquitous, varied and profoundly existentially significant philosophical reflection in the millennia-spanning heritages of South Asian thought.  In the Brāhmiṇical traditions that grew out of the śramaṇa movements in ancient India, it was often conceived as Continue reading The Role of Imagination in Perception→

Trusting our sources: manuscripts, archaeology, and what we “cannot know”

I am fresh back from the “Buddhism and Social Justice” conference hosted by Leiden University, The Netherlands. This will be the first in what I hope will be a number of posts in the coming weeks about individual papers and Continue reading Trusting our sources: manuscripts, archaeology, and what we “cannot know”→

Who invented the apoha theory? On Kunjunni Raja 1986

Who invented the apoha theory? If you, like me, are prone to answer “Dignāga” and to add that Dignāga (as shown by Hattori) was inspired by Bhartṛhari’s theory and that Dharmakīrti and Dharmottara later fine-tuned Dignāga’s one, you are ready Continue reading Who invented the apoha theory? On Kunjunni Raja 1986→

Possible applications of Mīmāṃsā deontics: on Chaudhuri and Vardi

There are fields in which the contribution of applied ethics and deontics are more than needed, such as that of the programming of artificial intelligence connected to robots which might interact with human beings. Chaudhuri and Vardi (their article can Continue reading Possible applications of Mīmāṃsā deontics: on Chaudhuri and Vardi→

मीमांसान्याययोः शब्दविषये विवादः -१-

पूर्वमीमांसासूत्रे सू॰ १।१।६ अरभ्य सू॰ १।१।२३ पर्यन्तम् शब्दस्वरूपविषये नैयायिकानां पूर्वपक्षाः प्रदर्शिताः (१।१।६–१।१।११) प्रतिवदिताश्च । १।१।६ विषयं प्रतिजानाति “कर्म एके तत्र दर्शनात्” इति । एके − नैयायिकाः मन्यन्ते, शब्दः कर्मैवास्ति, प्रयत्नानन्तरदर्शनाद् इति यावत् । १।१।७ सूत्रे द्वितीयो हेतुरुक्तः “अस्थानात्” इति । Continue reading मीमांसान्याययोः शब्दविषये विवादः -१-→