A group blog of scholars exploring Indian philosophy
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-
As I noted some time ago, the principal language of Indian philosophy was Sanskrit. For some thinkers, Sanskrit’s status as a philosophical language was a direct consequence of its privileged position with respect to meaning and truth: the Sanskrit language Continue reading Linguistic accommodation and philosophical debate
Sanskrit works on philosophy are full of arguments with rival schools. And there is one point in these arguments that seems a bit puzzling. It was quite natural, that one tried to dismiss the rival opinion. And of course the Continue reading Some Remarks on the Mode of Argumentation in Indian Philosophy
Once a month, I publish on my personal blog a post in Sanskrit. Last month, Matthew Dasti suggested to cross-post one here, too. Thus, if you enjoy what follows, praise Matthew, if you don’t blame me (or at least let Continue reading शब्दविषये रसेल(Russell)मत: संस्कृतायां वाचि निरूपितः
One facet of “Indian philosophy” that may be perfectly obvious, but is nevertheless worth talking about at the beginning stages of a blog dedicated to the subject, is that nearly all of the texts we’ve been discussing or will be Continue reading The languages of Indian philosophy
A short terminological excursus: bhāvanā is a rather common name throughout Sanskrit philosophy (it designates, e.g., a peculiar meditation in Buddhism and in Kashmir Śivaism, a linguistic function in Bhāṭṭa Nāyaka’s aesthetical theory, etc.). It is also found in grammar. Continue reading What did Kumārila have in view when he spoke of a “linguistic force” and of an “objective force”?