東華大學圖書館 |

Thinking Spi|Ritually : = Grammar, Action and Embodiment in and Before Advaita.

Record Type:	Electronic resources : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Thinking Spi\|Ritually :/
Reminder of title:	Grammar, Action and Embodiment in and Before Advaita.
Author:	Nagar, Dhruv Raj.
Description:	1 online resource (292 pages)
Notes:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 85-02, Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International85-02A.
Subject:	Religion. -
Online resource:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=30572072click for full text (PQDT)
ISBN:	9798380140805

Thinking Spi|Ritually : = Grammar, Action and Embodiment in and Before Advaita.
Nagar, Dhruv Raj.

Thinking Spi|Ritually :Grammar, Action and Embodiment in and Before Advaita. - 1 online resource (292 pages)

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 85-02, Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--The University of Chicago, 2023.

Includes bibliographical references

This dissertation centers action as analytic category in the study of Indian philosophy, particularly applied to the interpretation of Advaita that is best understood, as argued, through application of actional frames of interpretation (including such key categories as kriya, karman, karakatva, kartṛtva, sadhanatva, phalavattva, aṇgatva and bhava). Its intellectual priorities are therefore articulated in terms of its framing under what is referred to as the rituogrammatic paradigm, which furnishes a theoretical framework that can explicate the focus on process (bhava) and action-centrism (kriyaparatva) in the traditions/disciplines in play. The explanans and explanandum of both ritual and linguistic theory remains action, a focus having a likely origin in the ritual praxis and philosophy emerging from Vedic, Upanishadic and Mimaṃsa attention to the actional being of language and world. I follow this intuition in the articulation of rituogrammatics as a paradigm whereby both, the action-centrism of grammar and, conversely, the grammaticality of action theory are brought into relief, isolating procedures involving ritual and grammatical elements functioning in tandem as an organic whole. Chapters 2 and 3 articulate the ritual and performative architecture of Advaita as a noetic ritual. Following Clooney's account of thinking ritually, Chapter 2 tracks the persistence of this way of thinking in the Advaita of Saṃkara. Thinking ritually may now be said to be deployed towards thinking 'spiritually', i.e., applying ritual thinking to the Upanishadic spirit or self. This happens in two ways. Firstly, Advaita borrows, wholesale, the ritual and performative model of analysis in its program of generating self-knowledge. In other words, Advaita is ritually constituted, and better understood under a model of performative coherence as opposed to simply hermeneutic coherence. This is mediated by emphasizing the Advaitic turn from the actional to the attentional, as a governance of the attentional landscape of the subject in order to recognize obtaining features of self and embodiment. Thus, while assimilating to a ritual model of purport, in its focus on the pre-existent and obtaining features of existence (bhuta, siddha, vastutantra)-as opposed to the Vyakaraṇa and Mimaṃsa preoccupation with the presently non-existent to be produced or brought into being (bhavya, sadhya, puruṣatantra)-it marks a symbolic turn away from action-centrism. Chapter 3 explores the embodied landscape of the Advaitic noetic ritual, developing a reading of Saṃkara's affirmation of his project as Sariraka Mimaṃsa, a hermeneutics of embodiment. I thus complement the well-studied arena of Advaitic textual or scriptural hermeneutics with an embodied hermeneutics, and what this adds to our understanding of Advaita as mimaṃsa. I distinguish between two closely related terms, adhyasa and adhyaropa, both meaning, generally, 'superimposition', but pedagogically employed towards contrasting ends. Part II moves to the grammatical dimension of Advaitic rituogrammatics, showing how the turn away from ritual action-centrism is mediated linguistically by Advaitins. That is, how Saṃkara and his successors develop a Sanskrit grammar of non-action (niṣkriyatva) as opposed to the normative action-centrism (kriyaparatva) of grammar theory. Just as grammarians and ritual theorists brought into focus the actional analyses of karaka theory, bhava and verb-centrism to support their action-centrism, so Saṃkara recuperates certain phenomena of language-particularly nominal co-reference (samanadhikaraṇya), nominal sentences, noetic and existential verbs-to ground an Advaitic non-dual grammar of the sentence. I particularly develop the idea that their difference may be parsed in terms of their endorsement, respectively, of a bhava-based and sat-based metaphysics; both (bhava and sat) meaning, loosely, 'being', but connoting very different philosophical positions about reality. By employing such a non-dual grammar in the explication of certain sentences, particularly the Upanishadic identity statements, the alleged oneness of self and Brahman acquires a grammatical texture and basis. 'Realizing' the so- called identity of self and Brahman turns out, therefore, to be an intrinsically grammatical cognition and operation. Chapter 4 discusses the karaka model of analysis and its critique by Saṃkara, as well as the non-dual grammar of existential and noetic verbs. Chapter 5 articulates the concept of nominal co-reference (samanadhikaraṇya), more generally, sentential analysis (vakyasastra) furnishing an Advaitic grammar of non-action.

Electronic reproduction.
Ann Arbor, Mich. :
ProQuest,
2023

Mode of access: World Wide Web

ISBN: 9798380140805Subjects--Topical Terms:

516493
Religion.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Action-centrismIndex Terms--Genre/Form:

542853
Electronic books.

Thinking Spi|Ritually : = Grammar, Action and Embodiment in and Before Advaita.
LDR:06043nmm a2200397K 4500 001 2364609
005 20231130105851.5
006 m o d
007 cr mn ---uuuuu
008 241011s2023 xx obm 000 0 eng d
020 $a 9798380140805
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI30572072
035 $a AAI30572072
040 $a MiAaPQ $b eng $c MiAaPQ $d NTU
100 1 $a Nagar, Dhruv Raj. $3 3705426
245 1 0 $a Thinking Spi|Ritually : $b Grammar, Action and Embodiment in and Before Advaita.
264 0 $c 2023
300 $a 1 online resource (292 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 85-02, Section: A.
500 $a Advisor: Arnold, Daniel.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--The University of Chicago, 2023.
504 $a Includes bibliographical references
520 $a This dissertation centers action as analytic category in the study of Indian philosophy, particularly applied to the interpretation of Advaita that is best understood, as argued, through application of actional frames of interpretation (including such key categories as kriya, karman, karakatva, kartṛtva, sadhanatva, phalavattva, aṇgatva and bhava). Its intellectual priorities are therefore articulated in terms of its framing under what is referred to as the rituogrammatic paradigm, which furnishes a theoretical framework that can explicate the focus on process (bhava) and action-centrism (kriyaparatva) in the traditions/disciplines in play. The explanans and explanandum of both ritual and linguistic theory remains action, a focus having a likely origin in the ritual praxis and philosophy emerging from Vedic, Upanishadic and Mimaṃsa attention to the actional being of language and world. I follow this intuition in the articulation of rituogrammatics as a paradigm whereby both, the action-centrism of grammar and, conversely, the grammaticality of action theory are brought into relief, isolating procedures involving ritual and grammatical elements functioning in tandem as an organic whole. Chapters 2 and 3 articulate the ritual and performative architecture of Advaita as a noetic ritual. Following Clooney's account of thinking ritually, Chapter 2 tracks the persistence of this way of thinking in the Advaita of Saṃkara. Thinking ritually may now be said to be deployed towards thinking 'spiritually', i.e., applying ritual thinking to the Upanishadic spirit or self. This happens in two ways. Firstly, Advaita borrows, wholesale, the ritual and performative model of analysis in its program of generating self-knowledge. In other words, Advaita is ritually constituted, and better understood under a model of performative coherence as opposed to simply hermeneutic coherence. This is mediated by emphasizing the Advaitic turn from the actional to the attentional, as a governance of the attentional landscape of the subject in order to recognize obtaining features of self and embodiment. Thus, while assimilating to a ritual model of purport, in its focus on the pre-existent and obtaining features of existence (bhuta, siddha, vastutantra)-as opposed to the Vyakaraṇa and Mimaṃsa preoccupation with the presently non-existent to be produced or brought into being (bhavya, sadhya, puruṣatantra)-it marks a symbolic turn away from action-centrism. Chapter 3 explores the embodied landscape of the Advaitic noetic ritual, developing a reading of Saṃkara's affirmation of his project as Sariraka Mimaṃsa, a hermeneutics of embodiment. I thus complement the well-studied arena of Advaitic textual or scriptural hermeneutics with an embodied hermeneutics, and what this adds to our understanding of Advaita as mimaṃsa. I distinguish between two closely related terms, adhyasa and adhyaropa, both meaning, generally, 'superimposition', but pedagogically employed towards contrasting ends. Part II moves to the grammatical dimension of Advaitic rituogrammatics, showing how the turn away from ritual action-centrism is mediated linguistically by Advaitins. That is, how Saṃkara and his successors develop a Sanskrit grammar of non-action (niṣkriyatva) as opposed to the normative action-centrism (kriyaparatva) of grammar theory. Just as grammarians and ritual theorists brought into focus the actional analyses of karaka theory, bhava and verb-centrism to support their action-centrism, so Saṃkara recuperates certain phenomena of language-particularly nominal co-reference (samanadhikaraṇya), nominal sentences, noetic and existential verbs-to ground an Advaitic non-dual grammar of the sentence. I particularly develop the idea that their difference may be parsed in terms of their endorsement, respectively, of a bhava-based and sat-based metaphysics; both (bhava and sat) meaning, loosely, 'being', but connoting very different philosophical positions about reality. By employing such a non-dual grammar in the explication of certain sentences, particularly the Upanishadic identity statements, the alleged oneness of self and Brahman acquires a grammatical texture and basis. 'Realizing' the so- called identity of self and Brahman turns out, therefore, to be an intrinsically grammatical cognition and operation. Chapter 4 discusses the karaka model of analysis and its critique by Saṃkara, as well as the non-dual grammar of existential and noetic verbs. Chapter 5 articulates the concept of nominal co-reference (samanadhikaraṇya), more generally, sentential analysis (vakyasastra) furnishing an Advaitic grammar of non-action.
533 $a Electronic reproduction. $b Ann Arbor, Mich. : $c ProQuest, $d 2023
538 $a Mode of access: World Wide Web
650 4 $a Religion. $3 516493
650 4 $a South Asian studies. $3 3172880
650 4 $a Philosophy of religion. $2 bicssc $3 2079698
653 $a Action-centrism
653 $a Advaita Vedanta
653 $a Body
653 $a Hermeneutics
653 $a Indian philosophy
655 7 $a Electronic books. $2 lcsh $3 542853
690 $a 0322
690 $a 0318
690 $a 0638
710 2 $a ProQuest Information and Learning Co. $3 783688
710 2 $a The University of Chicago. $b Divinity. $3 1025519
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 85-02A.
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=30572072 $z click for full text (PQDT)