Vastutas tu: Methodology and the New School of Sanskrit Poetics [Book Review]

Journal of Indian Philosophy 36 (5-6):619-632 (2008)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Recognizing newness is a difficult task in any intellectual history, and different cultures have gauged and evaluated novelty in different ways. In this paper we ponder the status of innovation in the context of the somewhat unusual history of one Sanskrit knowledge system, that of poetics, and try to define what in the methodology, views, style, and self-awareness of Sanskrit literary theorists in the early modern period was new. The paper focuses primarily on one thinker, Jagannātha Paṇḍitarāja, the most famous and influential author on poetics in the seventeenth century, and his relationship with his important sixteenth-century predecessor, Appayya Dīkṣita. We discuss Jagannātha’s complex system of labeling of ideas as “new” and “old,” the new essay style that he used to chart the evolution of ideas in his tradition, his notion of himself as an independent thinker capable of improving the system created by his predecessors in order to protect its essential assets, and the reasons his critique of Appayya was so harsh. For both scholars what emerges as new is not so much their opinions on particular topics as the new ways in which they position themselves in relation to their system

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,497

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
41 (#391,763)

6 months
5 (#649,144)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

The Theory of Practice and the Practice of Theory in Indian Intellectual History.Sheldon Pollock - 1985 - Journal of the American Oriental Society 105 (3):499-519.
History of Sanskrit Poetics.M. B. Emeneau & Sushil Kumar De - 1961 - Journal of the American Oriental Society 81 (4):434.

Add more references