Abstract
Plato’s legacy continues to persist in discussions concerning the relation between art/literature and philosophy. This chapter examines whether such a legacy or the modern rearticulation of it in German thought is of any relevance in the context of centuries long Sanskrit “literary inquiries.” While exploring the mnemotexts of Sanskrit traditions, this chapter focuses on the work of Rajasekhara and other Lakshanikas. Derrida’s historical-theoretical conceptions of the literary are probed further in this context.
Thirst for knowledge and greed for explanation never lead to a thinking inquiry. Curiosity is always the concealed arrogance of a self-consciousness that banks on a self-invented ratio and its rationality. The will to know does not will to abide in hope before what is worthy of thought.
Heidegger (1982, p. 13, emphasis in original).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The concerted effort to retrieve and project a “philosophy of rationality” in Indian reflective traditions dominated the work of Matilal and Mohanty and it continues to figure in the recent work of Jonardon Ganeri. Just to cite a few from a whole range of works: Matilal (1968, 1971, 1986); Mohanty (1992); Ganeri (1999, 2001).
- 2.
Here I am referring to the web group developed by Michael Witzel, George Thompson and Steven Farmer (moderated by Farmer). One of the crucial themes discussed by the members (especially Witzel and Farmer) in the group concerns the status of Indus Valley seals: Was Indus Valley a “literate” civilization? Their “provocative” declaration is that the seals (which are in fact uncontestable instances of graphematic marks, inscriptions on a substrate), in accordance with the “prevailing” theories of writing, cannot be considered signs of literacy (Farmer et al. 2004). With this thesis this trio has challenged anyone to disprove their argument and offered a reward for the winner: “How confident are we that Indus symbols were not part of a ‘writing system’, as assumed for over 130 years? See the $10,000 prize offer my collaborators and I have made to 'Indus script' adherents.” Based on computational and neurobiological models, members of this group (Steven Farmer and others) have offered to decipher textual compositional structures of ancient civilizations. See Farmer et al. (2000, 2002). All these debates can be found on the website: Indo-Eurasian_Research List. See the Research List Overview at http://www.safarmer.com/Indo-Eurasian.html.See also http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Indo-Eurasian_research/.
What is amazing about this “debate” about the status of Indus seals is that it is regulated firmly by the phonocentric (which assumes a linear relation between phonetic sound (phoné) and graphical mark) dogma. Needless to say that this debate, its premises and its orientation are fundamentally rooted in the lithic-prosthetic paradigm that we have been discussing in this work.
- 3.
By literary inquiries, I refer to the traditions of inquiry into the literary (kavya, sarasvata) that emerged and proliferated over a millennium from 8th century; drawing on the already extended forms of inquiry into language, utterance, ritual, astral science, and logic, these inquiries were initiated by a group of poet-thinkers called Lakshanikas or Alamkarikas (from Bhamaha to Jagannatha Pandita and beyond).
- 4.
This is a composition of primal significance in the context of the visual “arts” of India—a text celebrated as the encyclopedia of Indian painting—the Chitrasutra (Aphorisms of the Visual) is—more specifically, the third khanda (part) of the massive Sri Vishnudharmottara Mahapurana. The text of Sri Vishnudharmottara that I have used in this work is a Telugu redaction with commentary. Summaries of the sutras in English provided in the text are based on the Telugu tatparyas (gist) and commentary (Sri Vishnudharmottara Mahapuranamu 1988). Unless mentioned otherwise, all references are to this edition of the text. In addition to the Telugu text I have closely followed two other (incomplete) translations of the Sri Vishnudharmottara by Stella Kramrisch (1928/1993) and The Chitrasutra by Parul Dave Mukherjee (2001).
- 5.
This is a composition of strategic significance in the literary reflective inquiries of the Sanskrit tradition –The text of the Kavyamimamsa that I have depended on in this work is from a Telugu redaction of the Sanskrit text with commentary. Cf. Rajasekhara (2003).
- 6.
What is extant today as Kavyamimansa appears to be only the first of the 18 adhikaranas (“parts”) of a composition imparted to various savants by the son of the goddess Saraswati—Kavyapurusha. Each of these learned sages in turn is said to have composed an adhikarana on various aspects of kavya. Rajasekhara discloses that he is most economically assembling only some significant aspects of such variedly composed compendium.
- 7.
“Gaddar” is the cultural-political activist, composer and performer affiliated to the Maoist underground movement. His work of culture has spread across the entire country in the last four decades.
- 8.
This and the following quotation from the Natyashastra are taken from Samskrita Vyakhyana – Vimarsha Sampradayamu (Sreeramachandrudu [nd.], pp. 22–23).
- 9.
The Chitrasutra devotes several chapters in enumerating the interrelated themes and practices of dharma and varnashramas, rules, relevant norms, duties, effects as per the singularity of differences of the varnas (biocultural formations) and ashramas. In other words, only through precise and detailed descriptive enumeration of a differential system could one grapple with the radically heterogeneous (senses). This is precisely what the Chitrasutra accomplishes. Thus, for example, to cite just one from other innumerable instances, from the series of performative, gestural practices: There are said to be 36 types of limb movement; 108 types of orchestrating the ratio of limb combinations; 6 types of sleeping postures, 6 types of standing modes, 9 types of body positions (asanas), 13 types of head and 7 types of neck movements, 5 types each of waist, thigh, calf and feet postures and movements. In a close-up as it were, if we were to focus only on the face we get the series such as: 36 types of eye positions, 9 types of eye-ball movement, 6 types of neck movements, 9 types of nose-movements, 5 types of teeth positions and 7 types of lip movements. What is given above is just a fragment of an enumerative episteme. All these possible movements fractalize the body into an ever-changing mercurial gestural ensemble and reiterate the embodied articulations of mnemocultures.
The series can run from the micro level of a very tiny fractal segment (say that of the eye-lid or the tip of the nose) to a very macro level of the types of men and women (5 types) or extended types of temple structures, which take after the minutely differentiated morphology of the human body. As in the case of the kavya, as will be shown later, in the plastic domain as well the figure of temple is conceived on the basis of the body. Every fractal segment and the larger whole are distinctly named in the text of the Chitrasutra. Like the fractal element, it can only be a simulacral existent. Every existent and its being in the universe must be endlessly recounted. The mode specifies, demarcates and enumerates the unending series. The enumerative mode is a bit like the map of the world in the Borges story: it spreads across the entire geography it represents; its scale is the scale of which it maps. (Yet, unlike in Borges’ story, neither the universe nor the fractilic accounts of it is exhaustible here.) Every form, human and the non-human, organic and inorganic, flora and fauna, can in principle are covered in this mode. The mode cannot totalize, unify the universe in its representation. Like the fractal element, it can only be a simulacral existent.
Krutsam tato vaktumashakyamisha.
Every existent and its being in the universe must be endlessly recounted. The mode specifies, demarcates and enumerates the unending series. Only in a condensed form one can recount these gestural expressions. For, as the gestures of dance come forth as parallel to the actions of the universe, such modes cannot be recounted without remainders (Sri Vishnudharmottara Mahapuranamu 1988, pp. 87–88)
- 10.
The most comprehensive but largely determined by Indological origin and location-seeking work in this area is P.V. Kane’s History of Sanskrit Poetics Kane (1971/2002).
- 11.
‘‘‘Shiksha, kalpo, vyakaranam, niruktam, chandovichitih, jyotisham cha shadangani’ ityacharyah. ‘upakarakatva dalamkarah saptamamgam.’ Iti Yayavariyah.’’ (Sciences of utterance, ritual, vyakarana, etymology, metrics, and astrology are reckoned as the six limbs of the Veda by the Acharyas. As it enables one to grasp the meaning of the Veda, Yayavariya regards Alamkarashastra as the seventh limb (of the Veda). He goes on to claim that without the knowledge of this figural science one can’t even access the meaning of the Vedas.
- 12.
The well-known story of Sri Harsha comes to mind here. This renowned poet and thinker gave his celebrated kavya Naishadha to his maternal uncle—the redoubtable Mammata. The latter apparently commented that if only he had received it before his own composition of Kavyaprakasha, it would have spared him from the burden of searching for examples of maladies of poetic composition from other sources. Commentators conclude that the reputation that Naishadha had achieved among Kashmir poets could have been the result of revising the kavya after Mammata’s comments. It must be mentioned in passing that Sri Harsha also composed the most rigorous reflective-polemical work of Vedanta titled Khandanakhandakhadya.
- 13.
The invocation of German Romanticism here is mainly due to the enduring power of this conception even in contemporary accounts of literature. It is this early Romantic thought (at the turn of 18th century) that gets institutionalized in all the conceptions of the literary. Therefore, a thread of comparative-contrastive account with this thought will continue to move in this work (cf. Lacoue-Labarthe and Nancy 1988, pp. 101–120).
- 14.
Nurtured in European cultural heritage, which works with canonical orders and texts, and with categorically differentiated domains of literary and philosophical works, Pollock wishes to emphasize the Alamkarikas’ difference by pointing out that these “theorists” work without a core canonical text unlike the shastrakaras for whom the Veda is a canonical authority. Leaving aside the dubious claim about the “canonical” status of the Veda (which one in the 1,131 versions of the Vedas?), a claim essentially generated by Indological community, it is impossible to sustain the idea that the literary inquiries (of the Alamkarikas or Lakshanikas) functioned outside the cognitive-performative frames generated by the Vedic heritage. All the major inquirers make it mandatory for every poet to be cultivated in not just the shruti, smruti but even the angas (that is, shastras oriented to explicate or offer exegesis on the Vedas). Above all, these inquirers indeed configured their work as a shastra—something that belonged to the order of reflective-creative tradition: hence the domain name of Alamkarashastra (cf. Pollock 2002, p. 433).
- 15.
Jambapurana is one of the several puranas narrated and performed by the Dakkalis of Telangana. The Dakkalis are among the lower rungs of the heavily graded “scheduled caste” community (the Madigas). The Dakkalis claim inheritance of a manuscript tradition and display the use of palm leaves. Their performances often use scroll paintings of mythological scenes. Cf. Rao (1998, p. 55). More about this purana can be seen in the last chapter of this work.
- 16.
Here, one may quickly retort that after all the desire to create outside the gendered female body has been a classically recurrent male fantasy (the sectarian god Vishnu with his ascending umbilical cord holding his procreation Brahma in a lotus and Vishnu as the source of procreation in general are well known). Two points are in order here: (i) Rajasekhara explicitly denies gendered access to poetic creation. For him the character of cultivated learning is related to the self and not to any essence of man or woman.
Samskarohyatmani samavaiti
Na strainam paurusham va vibhagamapekshate (2003, p. 146)
He goes on to point out the prevalence of women poets among princesses, daughters of ministers, courtesans and wives of enthusiasts. (ii) At a more fundamental level Rajasekhara’s conception of the literary in fact is helpful for forging a critique of metaphysical categories of self-sufficient unities, self-generating agencies and subjectivities—whether they are of theological nature or humanist ones.
- 17.
It can be noticed that the kosha (collection) counts only 8 rasas. Commentators include the ninth rasa in the conjunction—cha -.
- 18.
For Anandavardhana (1998, pp. 734–735), the real test case for any poet is the treatment of shrungara. Shrungara rasa is the most delicate of all and can be spoilt by any minor mistake. Such mistakes betray the poet and the latter will suffer humiliation before even his cordial recipients. More importantly, since shrungara is within the reach of experience of everyone, it is the most attractive of all rasas. Here it must be pointed out that for over a millennium, the most preferred prayoga citations of these inquirers came from the domain of the erotic (often suggesting illicit or transgressive love). The rapture of poetic experience is often compared with erotic love.
- 19.
Despite the appropriate analogies between kavya and the body complex, this critical contrast (between the Vedic scholars and rasikas) raises questions about the epistemic status of kavya and kala in Sanskrit traditions. These traditions as more or less autonomous domains circulate around the Common Era; that is, kavya and kala as such come into being more than a millennium after the spread of the roots of Vedic tradition far and wide. Yet, arguably, these domains take root within the larger Vaidika soil; as a result, they cannot be categorically opposed to the Vedic epistemic imports.
- 20.
The work of Walter Benjamin comes to mind here (1973/1992, pp. 83–107).
- 21.
For Aristotle, if the poet has imaginative relation to an event or action, the historian has factual relation: “the one [historian] relates what has been, the other [poet] what might be. On this account poetry is a more philosophical and a more excellent thing than history; for poetry is chiefly conversant about general truth, history about particular.” Poetry has already been conceptualized by the philosopher here (Aristotle 1952, p. 234).
- 22.
As pointed out earlier Rajasekhara contends that one cannot know the significance of the Vedic imports unless one is aware of its figural language (2003, p. 6).
- 23.
Bhartruhari suggests that the Vedic vangmaya has generated from its Vedic source one, two and multiple reflective positions and traditions of thought. (the quotation can literally be rendered as: monistic, dualistic, argumentative positions can be multiple) (Bhartruhari 2006, p. I.8, 6).
- 24.
Rajasekhara gives a measure of the magnitude of the “available” Vangmaya when he observes:
Vidyasthananam gantumantam na Shakto/jivédvarshanam yopi sagram sahasram.
(The fourteen forms of learning are spread across the three worlds. Hence, it is said: “even the one who can live for a thousand divine years cannot see the entirety of the forms of learning. One cannot know their totality.”) (Rajasekhara 2003, p. 9)
- 25.
In order to compose kavyas the poet should not only listen forever delectable, elegant and heartening compositions with delighting sense but also gain competence in the discourses of sound, naming, etymological works, and metrics. In addition to these learned traditions, the poet-thinker’s recommendations are far ranging: The aspiring poet must listen by dedicating his ears to songs and sagas in Prakrit language, kavyas in vernacular traditions; he should also take part in debates about new and witty uses of words and language (Kshemendra 1983b, pp. 147–148, 159–161, 183).
- 26.
Pradhamehi vidvanso vayyakaranah.
Vyakaranam mulatvat sarva vidyanam.
It must, however be noted here that Anandavardhana differentiates his conception of dhvani (sonic connotation) from that of the Vayyakarani (Anandavardhana 1998, pp. 208–209).
- 27.
This géya Veda emerges from the Sama Veda.
- 28.
The ends of Vyakarana are specified at the very beginning of Patanjali’s Mahabhashya. He identifies the five ends: to protect and sustain the Veda (raksha), to impart contextually-sensitive practice of Vedic compositions, (uha), to learn the allied disciplines of the Veda (agama), to gain competence in economizing strategies (laghva) and to gain unequivocal learning (asamdeha) (cf. Patanjali 1983, pp. 3–5).
- 29.
For Aristotle the difference between him and the authors of tales of gods and myths is not temporal but intellectual: It is “not worthwhile to consider seriously the subtleties of mythologists. Let us turn rather to those who reason by means of demonstration” (Aristotle quoted in Vernant 1990, pp. 210–211).
- 30.
For a critique of Anderson, cf. Bernard Sharratt (1982, pp. 141–168).
- 31.
Heidegger (Heidegger 1982, pp. 10–11, 29) quotes Schleiermacher on the concepts of hermeneutics and criticism: “Hermeneutics and criticism, both philological disciplines, both methodologies, belong together, because the practice of each presupposes the other. The first is in general the art of understanding rightly another man’s language, particularly his written language; the second, the art of judging rightly the genuineness of written works and passages, and to establish it on the strength of adequate evidence and data.” Although Heidegger later offers an etymological account tracing it to the Greek god Hermes, as connoting “interpretation of gods” by the poets, his account is not completely free from the German Romantic legacy evident in the quotation from Schleiermacher.
- 32.
In a related context, Popper says: “For me knowledge consists essentially exosomatic artefacts, or products, or institutions. It is their exosomatic character that makes them rationally criticizable. There is knowledge …which is stored in our libraries” (quoted in Houben and Rath 2012, p. 39, footnote 64).
- 33.
Tracking the roots of contemporary forms of criticism in ancient Greece, Andrew Ford argues that in archaic Greece song was inextricable from its performative context and they were assessed on the basis of their contextual efficacy. The scribal literacy forged “the tools of criticism” (poetics as a topic for students of philosophy), judging and measuring speech, demarcated genres while suppressing the performative contexts of song cultures (2002, Chap. 1, pp. 280–281).
- 34.
Although Vernant is critical of such progressivism, his work does not completely extricate itself from such a schema in its historicist differentiation of mythic thought from rational or philosophical thought on the one hand and Europe from Asia on the other. The language of break, discontinuity, division and rupture is quite prominent in Vernant’s work (Vernant 2006, pp. 371–408). To be sure, Vernant finds “another kind of logic” than a binary one in the world of muthos (mnemocultures), his work largely tracks the latter as a receding world of orality. This other kind of logic is that of metaphor, allegory and symbolic form and it differs from the language of logos which expresses truth directly. It is difficult to free Vernant’s work from this binarism of metaphor versus reason—which is in fact yet another avatar of art/poetry versus philosophy or imagination versus reason. The “reasoning” of myth (or mnemocultures) must always be unveiled by the language of logos; logos gives meaning to the “rapturous” experience of the “art”, Nietzsche announced. Cf. Heidegger (1979, pp. 77–87). Also cf. Vernant (1990, p. 260).
- 35.
Coleridge, Biographia Literaria, accessed via http://www.pdfbooks.co.za/library/Samuel_Taylor_Coleridge/Samuel_Taylor_Coleridge-Biographia_Literaria.pdf (accessed on 15 November 2011), p. 101.
- 36.
F. Schlegel quoted in Lacoue-Labarthe and Nancy (1988, p. 13).
- 37.
Such a model of interpretation governs Sheldon Pollock’s entire project of “Sanskrit Knowledge Systems” in general and his account of “literary cultures in history” in particular.
- 38.
- 39.
As the body is composed of limbs, so does the kavya gain its charm through the composition of its elements. Cf. Anandavardhana (1998, p. 535).
References
Anandavardhana. 1998. Dhvanyalokamu – Lochan Sahitamu, translated into Telugu by P. Sreeramachandrudu (Hyderabad: Sri Jayalakshmi Publications).
Anderson, P. 1992. Components of the National Culture. In his English Questions (London: Verso).
Aristotle. 1952. Poetics, translated by T. Twining. In Aristotle’s Politics and Poetics (Cleveland: Fine Editions Press).
Attridge, D. 1992. ‘This Strange Institution Called Literature’: An Interview with Jacques Derrida. In J. Derrida, Acts of Literature, edited by D. Attridge (London: Routledge).
Benjamin, W. 1973/1992. The Story Teller. In his Illuminations, translated by H. Zohn (London: Fontana Press).
Bhamaha. 1979/2004. Kāvyālamkāraha, translated into Telugu by P. Sreeramachandrudu (Hyderabad: Sanskruta Bhasa Prachara Samiti).
Bhartruhari. 2006. Vakyapadiya, translated into Telugu by P. Suryanarayanasastri et al. (Hyderabad: Telugu Akademi).
Dakkali Jambapuranamu. 1998. Collected by R.B. Rao (Hyderabad: Janapada).
De Man, P. 1971/1983. Blindness and Insight: Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Second Edition (London: Methuen).
De Man, P. 1986. Task of the Translator. In his The Resistance to Theory (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press).
Derrida, J. 1992. Acts of Literature, edited by Derek Attridge (London: Routledge).
Derrida, J. 1995/2008. The Gift of Death and Literature in Secret, translated by D. Wills, Second Edition (Chicago: Chicago University Press).
Derrida, J. 2007. No Apocalypse, Not Now: Full Speed Ahead, Seven Missiles, Seven Missives. In P. Kamuf & E. Rottenberg (Eds.), Psyche: Inventions of the Other, Vol. 1, translated by C. Porter & P. Lewis (Stanford: Stanford University Press).
Farmer, S., Henderson, J. B. & Witzel, M. 2000/2002. Neurobiology, Layered Texts, and Correlative Cosmologies: A Cross-Cultural Framework for Premodern History, Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, 72.
Farmer, S., Sproat, R. & Witzel, M. 2004. The Collapse of the Indus-Script Thesis: The Myth of a Literate Harappan Civilization, Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies, 11(2): 19–57, http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs1102/ejvs1102article.pdf.
Ford, A. 2002. The Origins of Criticism: Literary Culture and Poetic Theory in Classical Greece (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
Ganeri, J. 1999. Semantic Papers: Meaning and the Means of Knowing in Classical Indian Philosophy (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Ganeri, J. 2001. Philosophy in Classical India: The Proper Work of Reason (London: Routledge).
Grafton, A. 2001. Bring Out Your Dead: The Past as a Revelation (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press).
Heidegger, M. 1979. Nietzsche, translated by D. F. Krell, Vol. 1 & 2 (New York: HarperSanFrancisco).
Heidegger, M. 1982. On the Way to Language, translated by P. D. Hertz (New York: HarperSanFrancisco).
Heidegger, M. 2003. The Birth of Tragedy, translated by S. Whiteside (London: Penguin Books).
Houben, J. & Rath, S. 2012. Introduction: Manuscript Culture and Its Impact in ‘India’: Contours and Parameters. In S. Rath (Ed.), Aspects of Manuscript Culture in South India (Leiden: Brill).
Kane, P.V. 1971/2002. History of Sanskrit Poetics (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass).
Kofman, S. 1998. Socrates: Fictions of a Philosopher, translated by C. Porter (London: Athlone Press).
Kramrisch, S. (trans.) 1928/1993. Vishnudharmottara (Patna: Eastern Book House).
Kshemendra, 1983b. Kavikanthabharanam, translated by P. Sreeramachandrudu (Hyderabad: Surabharati Samiti).
Kshemendra. 1983a. Auchityavicharacharcha, translated by P. Sreeramachandrudu (Hyderabad: Surabharati Samiti).
Lacoue-Labarthe, P. & Nancy, J-L. 1988. The Literary Absolute: The Theory of Literature in German Romanticism, trans. P. Barnard & C. Lester (New York: State University of New York).
Lacoue-Labarthe, P. 1993a. The Subject of Philosophy, edited and with a foreword by T. Trezise, translated by H. J. Silverman, G. M. Cole, T. D. Bent, et al., Theory and History of Literature, Vol. 83 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press).
Lacoue-Labarthe, P. 1993b. Unrepresentable. In The Subject of Philosophy, edited and with a foreword by T. Trezise, translated by H. J. Silverman, G. M. Cole, T. D. Bent, et al., Theory and History of Literature, Vol. 83 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press).
Mammata. 1995. Kavyaprakasa, translated into Telugu with an introduction by P. Sreeramachandrudu (Hyderabad: Samskruta Bhāśa Pracharasamiti, 1995).
Matilal, B.K. 1968. The Navya-Nyāya Doctrine of Negation (Harvard: Harvard University Press).
Matilal, B.K. 1971. Epistemology, Logic and Grammar in Indian Philosophical Analysis (The Hague: Mouton).
Matilal, B.K. 1986. Perception: An Essay on Classical Indian Theories of Knowledge (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Mohanty, J.N. 1966. Gangesa’s Theory of Truth (Santiniketan).
Mohanty, J.N. 1992. Reason and Tradition: An Essay on the Nature of Indian Philosophical Thinking (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Mukherjee, P.D. (trans.) 2001. The Chitrasutra (Delhi: IGNCA and Motilal Banarsidass).
Nietzsche, F. 2003. The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music, translated by S. Whiteside (London: Penguin Books).
Patanjali. 1983. Mahabhashya, translated by S. K. Ramanujacharyulu (Hyderabad: Telugu Akademi).
Patanjali. n.d. Yogadarshanamu, translated with commentary by N. S. V. Somayajulu (Vijayawada: Sivakameswari Granthamala).
Plato. 1952. Republic, Book X, translated by B. Jowett (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica Inc.).
Pollock, S. 2002. Introduction: Working Papers on Sanskrit Knowledge-Systems on the Eve of Colonialism, Journal of Indian Philosophy, 30(5): 431–439.
Rajasekhara. 2003. Kavyamimamsa, translated into Telugu by P. Sreeramachandrudu (Hyderabad: Sri Jayalakshmi Publications).
Ree, J. 1987. Philosophical Tales: An Essay on Philosophy and Literature (London: Methuen).
Representations. 1992. no. 37, winter, special number on India.
Satyanarayana, V. 1972/2007. Kavyanandamu (Vijayawada: Sri Viswanatha Publications).
Seshacharyulu, C.V. (trans.). 1989. Natyavarga. In Amarakosha (Hyderabad: Sri Jayalakshmi Publicatios).
Sharratt, B. 1982. Reading Relations: Structures of Literary Production, A Dialectical Text/Book (Brighton: Harvester).
Sreeramachandrudu, P. 2002. Alamkara Shastra Charitra (Hyderabad).
Sreeramachandrudu, P. n.d. Samskrita Vyakhyana – Vimarsha Sampradayamu (Critical and Commentatorial Tradition in Sanskrit) (Hyderabad: Sanskruta Bhasha Prachara Samiti).
Sri Vishnudharmottara Mahapuranamu. 1988. (Andhranuvada Sahitamu), 3 Khandas, translated into Telugu by K. V. S. Deekshitulu & D. S. Rao, edited by P. Seetaramanjaneyulu (Hyderabad: Sri Venkateshwara Arshabharati Trust).
Vamana. 1981/2003. Kavyalamkarasutrani, translated by P. Sreeramachandrudu (Hyderabad: Sri Jayalakshmi Publications).
Veereswarasarma, R. (trans.). 2002. Chandogya Upanishad with Shankara Bhashya (Hyderabad: Sri Sitarama Adi Shankara Trust).
Vernant, J-P. 1990. The Reason of Myth. In his Myth and Society in Ancient Greece, translated by J. Lloyd (New York: Zone Books).
Vernant, J-P. 2006. From Myth to Reason. In his Myth and Thought among the Greeks, translated by J. Lloyd with J. Fort (New York: Zone Books).
Weber, S. 2008. Benjamin’s –abilities (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer India
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rao, D.V. (2014). Learning in the Double Bind: Mnemotextual Inquiries and Action Knowledges. In: Cultures of Memory in South Asia. Sophia Studies in Cross-cultural Philosophy of Traditions and Cultures, vol 6. Springer, New Delhi. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-1698-8_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-1698-8_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New Delhi
Print ISBN: 978-81-322-1697-1
Online ISBN: 978-81-322-1698-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)