|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bhartrhari: Language, Thought and Reality IN his Philosophy of History, Hegel mistakenly believed that "Hindoo principles" are polar in character. Because of their polarity which vacillates between "pure self-renouncing ideality, and that (phenomenal) variety which goes to the opposite extreme of sensuousness, it is evident that nothing but abstract thought and imagination can be developed". However, from these mistaken beliefs, he rightly concluded that grammar in Indian thought "has advanced to a high degree of consistent regularity". He was so impressed by the developments that he concluded that the development in grammar "has been so far cultivated that no language can be regarded as more fully developed than the Sanscrit".
Panini’s Ashtadhyayi (5000 BC) has been proclaimed as the greatest inventions of human mind by Bloomfield—the father of American linguistics. Bhartrhari (fifth century AD) revived the linguistic tradition and propounded the doctrine of shabda-brhaman—word is the eternal, beginningless, ultimate reality. Buddhist logicians and Kashmir Shaivas picked up Bhartrhari’s ideas on language, especially the idea that language operates at multiple levels, and used it to support their own theories. Language is intimately related with our life like the warp and weft in a cloth. Our concepts determine the way we look at our world. Any aberration in our understanding of language affects our cognition. Despite the cardinal importance of language, the questions like "What is the nature of language?" "What is the role of semantics and syntax of language? " What is the relationship between language, thought and reality?" How do we understand language—do we understand it by understanding each of the words in a sentence, or is the sentence a carrier of meaning?" "How does the listener understand the speaker?" are the questions which have been an enigma. It was only after the Western thinkers like Russell, Wittgenstein, Chomsky, Searle, Saussureet al in the 20th century started discussing the importance of language in philosophy that some Indian scholars started taking interest in the nearly forgotten grammatical and linguistic philosophy of Panini and Bhartrhari. This volume contains 27 articles, many of them by well-known, dedicated scholars of Bhartrhari. The papers cover almost all areas relating to Bhartrhari’s theory of language as contained in his monumental work Vakyapadiya. Some papers in the volume compare Bhartrhari with the Buddhist, Jaina, Kashmir Shaivism, Shaiva Siddhanta, German and Cognitive linguistic traditions, while others explore Bhartrhari’s relationship with the Vedic tradition, and still others explain some specific technical aspect of language. A few articles which had nothing new to say could have been easily eliminated resulting in a less bulky but more focused volume. In its present form with "Keynote Address", the volume looks more like the proceedings of a seminar, which of course it is. The seminar was organised in 2003 by Motilal Banarsidas publishers on the successful completion of100 years in the publishing industry. Yves Ramseier’s bibliography on Bhartrhari is extensive, exhaustive and up to date. It will be of great use to the scholars who wish to carry out their research on an aspect of Bhartrhari’s Vakyapadiya and Mahabhashyadipika. However, it is worth noticing that Bhartrhari’s magnum opus Vakyapadiya has so far not been completely translated into Hindi or English. As a result, the wisdom of Bhartrhari is limited to a few who are well versed in the Sanskrit language. It’s a pity that a
nation which spends crores on the celebration of Sanskrit Year
(1999-2000) does not have the translation of even the basic texts of
its tradition. Because of this apathy, the Mimamsa tradition has
almost vanished and the day is not far when the grammatical tradition
would meet the same fate.
|
||
|
|
||
Despite this
endorsement, (though Indian philosophy does not need any) in the
1830s, the Indian contemporary thinkers ignored almost completely the
grammatical tradition in India. This was primarily because of their
pre-occupation with the six orthodox and two heterodox schools of
Indian philosophy.