With the advent of social media and increase in networked publics, context collapse has emerged as a critical topic in the discussion of imagined audiences and blurring of the private and the public. The meshing of social contexts portends problematic issues as messages inadvertently reach unimagined audiences causing shame and leading to loss of ‘face’. In this article, we specifically study the impact of context collapse on some celebrities ‘who had it all’ yet, lost ‘it some’ to the world of (...) networked public. The article examines celebrities sharing identity information across multiple contexts and explores situations of lost fame when ‘face’ is threatened, usage falters and breaks some of the well-established norms of interactivity. It concludes that lack of prudence in separating social contexts, loss of ‘face’ and social approval can dampen online celebrity presence. It proposes the use of ‘polysemy’ to simultaneously appeal to audiences from different contexts. (shrink)

In the present paper we model the Navya-Nyāya analysis of Vedic and secular injunctions and prohibitions by means of Giordani’s and Canavotto’s system ADL of dynamic deontic logic. Navya-Naiyāyikas analyze the meaning of injunctions and prohibitions by reducing them to plain indicative statements about certain properties whose presence or absence in the enjoined or prohibited action serves as a criterion for the truth or falsity of the “inducing” or “restraining knowledge”, a kind of qualificative cognition instilled in the recipient of (...) an injunction or prohibition. Thus, Navya-Naiyāyikas have found their own way to solve Jørgensen’s Puzzle concerning the very idea of a deontic logic as a tool to analyze arguments based on sentences which do not seem to be truth-apt. The teleological aspect of the Navya-Nyāya characterization of an enjoined or prohibited action can also give a clue to solutions of other puzzles and paradoxes which have beset the development of deontic logic in the West. A specific contrary-to-duty puzzle from the Indian tradition is related to the śyena, a malefic sacrifice meant for harming one’s enemy. The Vedic injunction to perform such a sacrifice runs counter to a religious practitioner’s duty not to harm a living being. In the present paper we examine the cogency of the very different solutions to this dilemma suggested by the Mīmāṃsaka Prabhākara on the one hand and the Navya-Naiyāyika Gaṅgeśa on the other hand. (shrink)

Gnan Vidhi is the ultimate gift from the Gnani Purush Dadashri, who has revealed to the world an extraordinary, new science of the Self, called 'Akram Vignan' (Stepless path to Self-realization and harmony in daily living). It is a scientific process of separating 'I' (Soul, Self) and 'my' (mind, body and speech), with the special spiritual energies and grace of the Gnani Purush. The participant attains and experiences that which has eluded him life after life, the Self realized state. (...) He experiences eternal bliss and becomes free from worries. His worldly relations become harmonious. - Dadashri. (shrink)

Treatise on the rules (vidhis) of Mimāṃsā school in Hindu philosophy with two classical commentaries.

The term Pañcārtha in the title of Kauṇḍinya’s commentary on the Pāśupatasūtra, the Pañcārthabhāṣya, is usually taken to refer to the five categories (padārtha) distinguished by Kauṇḍinya: Kārya, Kāraṇa, Yoga, Vidhi, and Duḥkhānta. The term in fact also occurs in a string of verses quoted by Kauṇḍinya in his commentary on Pāśupatasūtra 5.30, indicating that it was already in use in Pāśupata circles before him. In these verses the term Pañcārtha is used in a different sense. These and other (...) passages in the Pañcārthabhāṣya are examined to identify an earlier phase of Pāśupata thought, and to consider the role of the author of the Bhāṣya in developing the Pāśupata doctrine. (shrink)

The Siddhāntaleśasaṅgraha written by Appayyadīkshitar in the seventeenth century is one of the rare texts where the author brings together the different views of Advaita present at his time. The book itself starts with the controversy surrounding whether the sentence “śrotavyaḥ…” is a vidhi-vākya or not. This paper attempts to summarize the various approaches to this question in the SLS and gives us a glimpse as to how the debate was conducted. Even though the SLS was translated by Suryanarayana (...) Sastri in 1933 the vocabulary and the style is so out-dated that it was not of much use. I then decided to do a fresh translation of the SLS and have succeeded only in translating the first uddeśa. I have condensed the arguments presented in the SLS under some broad headings and thus tried to recreate the arguments presented in the text. (shrink)