tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post1028864252554978731..comments2023-08-27T12:35:12.308+02:00Comments on sanscrite cogitare, sanscrite loqui: Universal problemselisa freschihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17068583874519657894noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-21555202672708005742011-01-17T13:08:17.197+01:002011-01-17T13:08:17.197+01:00He was certainly aware of this problem, but tried ...He was certainly aware of this problem, but tried to eleminate it, shifting from ontological to functional level. He claimed, that in every single situation there would be no anavastha, because the intention of the speaker is focused only on one point: on the universal or on the universal of this universal etc. But ontologically universals are just shaktis of Brahman, therefore they can be manifold and mutually interrelated.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-73655210453186818042011-01-17T12:38:32.249+01:002011-01-17T12:38:32.249+01:00Thanks, Evgenija, very interesting correction. So,...Thanks, Evgenija, very interesting correction. So, Bhartṛhari just does not care about the regressus ad infinitum implied in the theory of a universal's universal?elisa freschihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17068583874519657894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-74307067344607234072011-01-15T22:07:37.785+01:002011-01-15T22:07:37.785+01:00"In fact, everyone agrees that there cannot b..."In fact, everyone agrees that there cannot be a universal of a universal (jāter ajātitaḥ, PS V, 11a)"<br />Probably everyone, except Bhartrihari, who claimed the opposite view in the Jati-samuddesha.<br />Though I remember a similar statement (nihsAmAnyAni sAmAnyAni)from some vaisheshika text.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com