tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post1562040954806488654..comments2023-08-27T12:35:12.308+02:00Comments on sanscrite cogitare, sanscrite loqui: Do Indian philosophers postulate a correspondance between language and external reality?elisa freschihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17068583874519657894noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-68972838470723534462011-04-21T15:32:43.622+02:002011-04-21T15:32:43.622+02:00:-DD
As for your more serious question, yes, the B...:-DD<br />As for your more serious question, yes, the Buddhist point of view would have that language is a conventional reality (hence, anitya, mi rtag pa) and so is the world it describes.elisa freschihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17068583874519657894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-72549415430964768192011-04-21T11:15:04.818+02:002011-04-21T11:15:04.818+02:00Did Karl Potter make the pot or the potter? Your e...Did Karl Potter make the pot or the potter? Your example puzzles me.<br />In any case the pot (whoever made it) will certainly be impermanent as the well-known Tibetan maxim goes: <b>bum pa mi rtag pa</b><br /><br />Now, does this constitute a correspondence between language and reality? You tell me.<br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />Balasubramanian<br /><br />P.S. You posted your pot example on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/420_%28cannabis_culture%29" rel="nofollow">April 20</a>. Got the message!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com