अाप्तवचनविषये कन्तमहोदयस्य मतम्

कन्तमहोदयस्य न्याय-(Logik)विषये प्रकरणेषु कन्तमहोदयेनाप्तवचनं प्रमाणेषु स्वीकृतमिति भाति ।
कुतः?
१ । इन्द्रियानुभवो न सर्वदा संभवति । बहुत्र, अाप्तवचनमेकैव प्रमाणम् ।
२ । अाप्तवचनं सर्वेषामुपयोगपूर्णम्, स्वज्ञानानां सम्यक्करणार्थम् । यदा यदा देवदत्तः "अात्मनः ब्रह्मणश्चाद्वैतम्" इति वदन् यज्ञदत्तेन "अात्मनः ब्रह्मणश्च विशिष्टाद्वैतम्" इति वदता सह मिलति, तदा तदा उभयोः स्वज्ञानानां विषये पर्येषणा कार्या । "देवदत्तो न भवेयं किमहं 'अात्मनः ब्रह्मणश्चाद्वैतम्' इति चिन्तयेयम्?" इति । तथा च यज्ञदत्तेन कार्यम् । इत्थम्, स्वज्ञानां सम्यक्करणार्थं संभाषणं कार्यम् । न तु, प्रलपनमात्रार्थम् ।
३ । पुरुषाः स्वभवतः संभाषणप्रियाः । यो "ममान्येषामाप्तवचनं न किंचिदेव" इति चिन्तति, सः स्वाय्यन्येषु चापराध्नोति ।



प्रलपनं तु न करणीयम्, यथा "देवदत्तेनैतत् कृतम्" ।
कुतः?
१ । यद्यपि "देवदत्तेनैतत् कृतम्" इति सत्यम्, तथापि न वदनीयम्, एकस्य दुष्कृतानि श्रुत्वा "सर्वे दुष्कृतानि कुर्वन्ति । मम पुरुषानां न को ऽपि विश्वासो ऽतिवर्तते" इति मतिर्न भूत् ।
२ । यदि  "देवदत्तेनैतत् कृतम्" इति प्रलपनम् असत्यं, तर्हि न वदनीयम् । असत्यं वदन् पुरुषः स्वमेव माहात्म्यमतिचरति । सो ऽसत्यं वदन् न पुरुषः, किन्तु लपनकुशलं यन्त्रमिव भवति ।
३ । ये तु कल्पितकथाः वदन्ति, यथा "एतानि पुष्पानि खदित्वा पुनः स्वस्थो भविष्यसि" इति, ते अाप्तानामपराध्नन्ति । तेषां कथाः श्रुत्वा, पुरुषाणाम् "अद्यापि स्वस्थो नास्मि, अाप्ता अप्यनप्ताः!" इति मतस्योद्भावनात् ।

एतस्मिन् विषये, एतत् गेल्‌फेर्त्महोदयेन (Axel Gelfert) विरचितं प्रकरणं पठनीयम् ।
कन्तमहोदयेन प्रथमविचारस्य प्रथमभाग इहानुवादितः ।
 

How can one…get a post-Doc position/decide in which area to specialise/publish enough etc.?

from tinizini.com

Beginning with next week and usually on the last Friday each month, I will post interviews of young colleagues asking them about the "secret" of their success, hoping that this will help filling the gap between students and ex-students and full professors who seem beyond reach.
I will ask questions such as "What did you do right to land in your actual position?" and "What would you recommend to younger colleagues?", but also "What do you
think needs to be researched in your area of specialization?" and "What are your research strategies?".

What would you like to know? Suggestions for questions are welcome!

Repetitions in religious texts

illustration of the Egyptian litany of Re

Why do texts contain repetitions? Just because they reproduce oral formulas? If so, there is no need to translate them wholly, since today's readers have the text in a book (or a pdf) and can go back to it whenever they want. If, by contrast, we want to keep repetitions in our translations, this might be a sign of the fact that we are sensing that they might have a deeper meaning.
 
In an interesting post, which does not allow comments (this is why I am writing my thoughts about it here), Naomi Appleton discusses the problems a translator faces while trying to translate Buddhist Jātakas, since they are full of repetitions.

Repetitions are surely a major challenge, especially for contemporary readers and translators (as Naomi notes here, many Sanskrit texts are already boring enough!). However, besides orality, I would add that repetitions may have a transformative effect: it seems to be not a coincidence that many religions have emphasised the importance of repeating formulas/litanies/etc. I guess that the rationale behind it is the idea that by repeating a sentence you are not merely repeating it, you are allowing the text to work deeper within your psyche, so that you will start to savour all the text's "hidden" meanings. For instance, the first time you read about the glorification of the Buddha you will just savour its literary value, the next time, its narrative role within the plot, but after the third one you might start feeling yourself within the group of kinnaras, gandharvas, etc., who are praising the Buddha… 

Which other purposes may a repetition have in today's world? By the last words I mean to exclude mnemonic and rythmic purposes, which are of minor importance for today's readers.

 

I hinted at this topic already here.

 

Sanskrit Tantric Dictionaries

Can one trust dictionaries? Of course not, and not only because they are incomplete or inaccurate, but also because they pretend to represent an objective stand, although they are in fact (like any other human product) the result of also a precise agenda. Moreover, the agenda is even more dangerous if it is not acknowledged, thus:

1. 1. be sure you read the preface of (e.g.) the Monier Williams' dictionary and be cautious once you have become aware of his Christian-proselytist agenda.
2. 2. be even more cautious with works who do not explicitly discuss the aim of their enterprise (i.e., their prayojanaprayojana).

As part of (1) my project of reading more, (2) my project of supporting younger colleagues, I have recently decided to read more unpublished materials by graduate students and discovered on Academia.edu this paper by Nisha Ramayya on the Monier Williams and its androcentric standpoint. The article is enjoyable and stimulating, since it focuses most of all on Tantric terms, an interesting case-study, given that MW is very much against feminine cults, "witchcraft" and related practices.
I only regret the fact that the author did not take into account other dictionaries, and especially the much more specific Tantrikābhidhānakośa. I hope she will enlarge her paper into a publishable article by including a discussion about it.

What are your experiences with Sanskrit general and specific dictionaries?

For a short summary on my views about general Sanskrit dictionaries, check this post. For my praise of reading, see this post. On the need to work as a team, see this post.

Again on artists vs. communicators in Sanskrit (and) philosophy

Source: http://th01.deviantart.net

Some scholars consider their articles like works of art: they should not be touched by the impure hands of the editor or unworthy reader, nor by the impure questions of an unworthy listener. They react to the basic question asked by a younger colleague like a handsome man if courted by an older and not-so-beautiful woman. They also panick at the idea of their articles or books being copied and whenever they need to share a file, they use all possible safety options.

Others focus on communicating some basic facts, independently of the form thorugh which these are communicated. Thus, they might accept all sorts of formal changes (but would fight streneously if they think the content is right and the editor wants to modify it), rejoice because of any basic question (the basic question asked by a younger colleague is for them the sign of his/her interest and attention), share files not only with colleagues, but with as wide a public as possible and so on. They are surprised when they discover that someone has plagiarised their work —as if this were not the point of what they are doing.

Thus, here is a primer guide for dealing with both:

 


What else am I missing in the table?
 As it is probably easy to tell (given that I write a blog), I belong to the second group. Thus, I keep on hurting the feelings of people belonging to the first group. Consequently, if you are an "artist", please let me know what else hurts you.


My first post dedicated to the discovery of these two categories is here.

"There are two kinds of people in the world: those who divide the world into two kinds of people, and those who don't" – Robert Benchley (and the present writer belongs to the first category —unfortunately).

Short Announcement concerning comments

I will be out of town over the next weeks, with little or no internet access and will therefore disable "Anonymous" comments, which are the main source of spam for this blog. Please be sure to post your comments with an Open ID or in any other way.

The possibility of anonymous comments will be resumed in August.

Posts will continue to be published on a regular basis.

What can one delegate in an Indological (and/or) philosophical project?

I tried hard to explain to the authors I have been working with that they have to be consistent in their editorial choices. In some cases, this works, but more often than not, I end up having to re-do all on my own. And, in fact, one does have the right to ignore editorial rules and to focus instead on her research's contents. (Incidentally, this is why I am not completely convinced by D. Wujastyk's appealing arguments about the fact that one no longer needs publishing houses).
 
After having discussed for months with every author I have been working with, I decided I will no longer try to do all. My time is valuable and I prefer to spend money, than to employ it to correct commas.

Concretely, I will delegate (to the author, if she can handle them, or to someone else if she just cannot) the following tasks:

1. —check of bibliographical entries and of references within the text (you can use the style you prefer, but be consistent, don't use "Gadamer 1980: 6" and then "Gadamer 1980, p. 7", followed by "Gadamer, op. cit., p. 8" and by "Gadamer, ibid.")
2. —check of footnote numbers (are they always before or always after punctuation?)
3. —footnote content (don't use footnotes for short bibliographical references which could be added in brackets after the quoted text, e.g., "Gadamer spoke of Horizontverschmelzung (1980: 6)")
4. —check of n-slashes, m-slashes and the like (- within composiste words, e.g., post-mortem; – within numbers' intervals, e.g., 2–4; — for parenthetic sentences such as "If you want —and I assume you do— please come")
5. —check of quotation marks and punctuation (is the punctuation always before or always after the punctuation mark?)
6. —check of the spaces after punctuation
7. —check of the full stops at the end of items in a list (must be either always present or never), titles (always absent) and footnotes (always present)
8. —check of italics for foreign words (all of them should be in italics, apart from the final -s of the English plural, e.g., "the dharmas of a student include: studying, serving one's teacher…") 
9. —check of the use of "we" (I would only use in case of more than one author, but more important is that one does not mix its referents: it cannot be used once to denote the author ("Our case-study indicates…"), then to indicate "whoever" ("After this passage, we read…") and next to indicate the author+his or her readers ("We have now seen that…")
10. —check of the English form (this I have always delegated, to be honest)
11. —check of Sanskrit punctuation (see this post)

Anything else one might delegate? What consumes your time while correcting a text?