Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bhartrhari's Paradox

futilitycloset.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 84 posts

Re: Bhartrhari's Paradox

#71

Post by rramadass »

hargup wrote: post #53

https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2014/03/boundaries-and... This is a beautiful article on the subject. To prove that there are unnamable concepts, he uses cantor's diagonal argument. There are countably infinite names. Any subset of these names is a concept, which is same as the powerset of the set of names, and through cantor's diagonal argument, there are uncountably infinite concepts, most which are not namab…

Countable and Uncountable Infinities - https://philosophicaltreasures.com/countable-and-uncountable...

Re: Bhartrhari's Paradox

#72

Post by itemize123 »

hargup wrote: post #53

https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2014/03/boundaries-and... This is a beautiful article on the subject. To prove that there are unnamable concepts, he uses cantor's diagonal argument. There are countably infinite names. Any subset of these names is a concept, which is same as the powerset of the set of names, and through cantor's diagonal argument, there are uncountably infinite concepts, most which are not namab…

i think there must be a scheme of naming that is uncountably infinite too.

Re: Bhartrhari's Paradox

#73

Post by itemize123 »

Smaug123 wrote: post #67
kazinator wrote: post #64

The claim is false. There is not a thing that cannot be given a name. If it is a thing, it can be given a name. You take that thing into the discourse and say, "let this thing be X", and now it has a name. What cannot be given a name cannot be discussed in any way; it is completely vague, undefined or ephemeral. The inability to name it is not what is at the core of not being able to pin it down; it is a byproduct or…

You didn't name the object when you said "let this thing be X"; you actually had already identified that "thing", and that process of identification was the process of naming it. You then defined some syntax ("X") and said that it was a name. But there are things for which you can't even say "let 'this thing' be…". For example, ZF proves that there are uncountably many reals. There are only countably many names, so t…

naming schemes can produce uncountably inf names

Re: Bhartrhari's Paradox

#74

Post by [deleted] »

itemize123 wrote: post #72
hargup wrote: post #53

https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2014/03/boundaries-and... This is a beautiful article on the subject. To prove that there are unnamable concepts, he uses cantor's diagonal argument. There are countably infinite names. Any subset of these names is a concept, which is same as the powerset of the set of names, and through cantor's diagonal argument, there are uncountably infinite concepts, most which are not namab…

i think there must be a scheme of naming that is uncountably infinite too.

[deleted]

Re: Bhartrhari's Paradox

#75

Post by svat »

rramadass wrote: post #63
svat wrote: post #38

Incidentally, it is a matter of some debate whether Bhartṛhari the philosopher and Bhartṛhari the poet are the same person or two (or more, in the case of the anthology of verses). Oral tradition holds them to be the same person, scholars have debated back and forth. I have a collection of the poems here: https://shreevatsa.net/bhartrhari/web/ (will clean it up someday)

Nice. I have the A.N.D.Haksar, Purohit Gopinath translations of all the Satakas and Swami Madhavananda's translation of the "Vairagya Shatakam". Need to get the others ;-) Also see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49486845

I couldn't add the Haksar translation as it's still under copyright, but the site has the other two. Plan to add others like M. R. Kale's (https://github.com/shreevatsa/bhartrhari/issues/11) — just need a chunk of time one of these weekends.

Re: Bhartrhari's Paradox

#76

Post by rramadass »

svat wrote: post #75
rramadass wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice. I have the A.N.D.Haksar, Purohit Gopinath translations of all the Satakas and Swami Madhavananda's translation of the "Vairagya Shatakam". Need to get the others ;-) Also see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49486845

I couldn't add the Haksar translation as it's still under copyright, but the site has the other two. Plan to add others like M. R. Kale's ( https://github.com/shreevatsa/bhartrhari/issues/11 ) — just need a chunk of time one of these weekends.

One thing you might want to add after each author's name is which categories (viz. Niti, Shringara and Vairagya) they have translated. Due to excessive prudishness many have omitted the Shringara satakam which is quite silly (this is what makes him "Human"). I got the Haksar and Gopinath editions specifically because they include all three categories. A.N.D.Haksar in particular has translated many of the works in Sanskrit literature into easy English (including the Kama Sutra) and does not censor anything.

Also i suggest that you add author names of all known translations of the work whether you have access to their actual text or not (due to copyright etc. reasons). That way your site can be a one-stop portal to Bhartrhari's Sataka-Trayam.

PS: In case you don't already know of it; there is a much larger work in the Tamil language named Tirukkural which is also divided into three similar categories (viz. Aram, Porul and Kamam) the whole having a total of 1330 couplets (133 chapters of 10 couplets each). There are many English translations available of which the original Penguin edition titled "Kural" translated by P.S.Sundaram is pretty good and done in the original couplet style. For a more detailed study see the 2-vol translation with commentary by S.M.Diaz.

Tirukkural - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kural

Tirukkural translations - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tirukkural_translations

Re: Bhartrhari's Paradox

#77

Post by __rito__ »

Bhartrihari was a king, philosopher, and poet. Scholars argue whether they were the same person or not, but I don't care, as scholars also argue about if Socrates really existed or not.

He wrote 300 verses in Sanskrit. And they are on three different topics: sensuality and pleasure, policy and ethics, and finally renunciation.

In Shringar Shatakam (100 verses on sensual pleasures), he writes:

“Casting aside envy, considering the matter carefully, let the noble ones tell us, with due propriety: Which ought one to frequent — the slopes of the mountains, or the buttocks of women whose smiles are stirred by Love?”

and

“Why all this elaborate, pointless talk? There are only two things worth attending to in this world: the fresh, wine-intoxicated youth of beautiful women, heavy with their breasts - or the forest.”

But in the final book, he realizes the folly of the senses, and writes:

“Sensual objects will inevitably leave us, even after remaining with us for a long time. What difference is there between losing them and voluntarily abandoning them? When they depart against our will, they cause unbearable anguish; but when we ourselves abandon them, they produce the infinite happiness of inner tranquility.”

Amazing character.

Re: Bhartrhari's Paradox

#78

Post by rramadass »

Drophouse wrote: post #66

This is basically why art exists — painting, music, and poetry can point at things without having to name them. Language traps itself; other forms don't.

What you say is valid only when you restrict yourself to Western definitions/conceptions of language/linguistics i.e. study of Phonetics/Morphemes/Syntax/Semantics/etc.

In Bhartrhari's Philosophy (and other Hindu philosophies) "Language" has a much broader definition which can encompass Art/Dance/Music/Painting/etc. Any medium of communication which can bring forth a "burst of meaning" (called Sphota) in one's consciousness is a language.

Natural Spoken language based on Sound (aka Sabda in Sanskrit) is considered the most fundamental since you can have languages without a written script/symbols/diagrams.

In Hindu philosophy, a "Language" is said to have four stages, only the last of which is the gross manifestation in the physical world;

1) Para - This is the latent undifferentiated potential which exists in everybody.

2) Pashyanti - This stage is where intuitive holistic meaning (of what you want to convey) exists.

3) Madhyama - This stage is where you have differentiated the thought/intention into an object and the means of representation for its communication.

4) Vaikhari - In spoken language, this is the manifest stage where you utter sentences according to established syntax/semantics to convey meaning.

Note that the first three stages are internal and only the last is the medium of expression in the physical world. It should now be obvious that the last can be any medium (eg. Dance/Painting/Music/Written-Language/Sign-Language/etc.) as long as the receiver "gets" the intended meaning.

PS: See also this comment of mine for further resources - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49486845

Re: Bhartrhari's Paradox

#79

Post by rramadass »

ogogmad wrote: post #41

This reminds me of how (I think) Zen koans are designed to make no sense at all. They are designed to teach you the limits of words and language and pure thinking.

> This reminds me of how (I think) Zen koans are designed to make no sense at all.

True in a way.

To understand how, note first the four stages of language given in my comment here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49491764

Zen koans don't have a meaning at the manifest (Vaikhari) and differentiated (Madhyama) stages. So you are forced to go back to the Intuitive/Holistic Meaning (Pashyanti) stage and thus realize "a burst of meaning" aka "a flash of insight" aka "Satori".

Re: Bhartrhari's Paradox

#80

Post by svat »

__rito__ wrote: post #77

Bhartrihari was a king, philosopher, and poet. Scholars argue whether they were the same person or not, but I don't care, as scholars also argue about if Socrates really existed or not. He wrote 300 verses in Sanskrit. And they are on three different topics: sensuality and pleasure, policy and ethics, and finally renunciation. In Shringar Shatakam (100 verses on sensual pleasures), he writes: “Casting aside envy, con…

The third verse you quoted (https://shreevatsa.net/bhartrhari/web/K157.html) has a nice translation into English verse by Ryder:

    A REASON FOR RENUNCIATION

    Possessions leave us at the end,
      However long they stay;
    Then why not cast aside, my friend,
      What leaves us anyway?

    And if they leave against our will,
      The heart takes time in mending;
    If given willingly, they fill
      That heart with joy unending.
The other two you quoted (https://shreevatsa.net/bhartrhari/web/K084.html https://shreevatsa.net/bhartrhari/web/K085.html) have also been translated, though IMO not as successfully.
Post reply on HN