Signless Signification in Ancient India and Beyond: 1 (Cultural, Historical and Textual Studies of South Asian Religions, 1) - Hardcover

Hardcover

ISBN 10: 0857283154 ISBN 13: 9780857283153

Publisher: Anthem Press, 2013

Synopsis

The collected essays in this book are the result of a series of workshops held at the University of Cagliari in Italy; this work charts the evolution of key concepts on signless signification of traditional Indian grammar and deals with powerful mechanisms of meaning extension, including rituals and speculative patterns. This collection brings an interdisciplinary approach to the examination of possible relationships between different cultural and linguistic systems of signification. 

About this title

About the Author

Tiziana Pontillo is a teacher and research fellow in the Faculty of Arts and Humanities at the University of Cagliari, Italy.

Maria Piera Candotti is privat-docent of Sanskrit at the University of Lausanne, Switzerland.

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.

Signless Signification in Ancient India and Beyond

By Tiziana Pontillo, Maria Piera Candotti

Wimbledon Publishing Company

Copyright © 2013 Maria Piera Candotti and Tiziana Pontillo
All rights reserved.

ISBN: 978-0-85728-315-3

Contents

Preface by Giuliano Boccali, 9, 
Part I Technical and Speculative Reflections on Signless Signification, 
Alberto Pelissero Much Ado about Nothing: Unsystematic Notes on sunya, 17, 
Elisa Freschi, Tiziana Pontillo When One Thing Applies More than Once: tantra and prasanga in Srautasutra, Mimamsa and Grammar, 33, 
Maria Piera Candotti, Tiziana Pontillo The Earlier Paninian Tradition on the Imperceptible Sign, 99, 
Paolo Corda The Infinite Possibilities of Life: Interpretations of the sunyata in the Thinking ofDaisaku Ikeda, 155, 
Part II Reflections on Signless Signification in Literature and Arts, 
Cinzia Pieruccini Presences and Absences in Indian Visual Arts: Ideologies and Events, 177, 
Mimma Congedo, Paola M. Rossi Rethinking the Question of Images (Aniconism vs. Iconism) in the Indian History of Art, 195, 
Patrizia Mureddu Denotation in absentia in Literary Language: The Case of Aristophanic Comedy, 223, 
Ruben Fais The Birth of the Buddha in the Early Buddhist Art Schools, 239, 
Prema Bhat, Paolo Bravi, Ignazio Macchiarella Untranslatable Denotations: Notes on Music Meaning Through Cultures, 261, 
Summary of Papers, 283, 

CHAPTER 1

Alberto Pelissero

Much Ado about Nothing: Unsystematic Notes on sunya

Please don't ask us the slogan that could open worlds to You, only some syllables, dry and bent like a branch. Today only this we can tell You: what we are not, what we do not want.

Eugenio Montale, Cuttle-fish Bones

Sunya means 'void', 'bereft', and in mathematical scientific literature, 'zero'. It derives from suna, being the past passive participle of root svi,' to grow', 'to swell', according to Panini (7.2.14). So suna means swelled, swollen,increased, grown. According to Rgvedapratisakhya (14.2) it indicates a fault in Vedic recital, consisting in an utterance with a swollen mouth. The term sunya occurs within Upanisadic literature in the Maitryupanisad (2.4; 6.31; 7.4), together with other epithets referred to brahman, epithets that mean 'pure', 'clear', pacified' (suddha, puta, santa). Etymologically should therefore mean a void space, a hole determined by a borderless opening, by an unlimited disclosing. According to lexicographers (Amarakosa 3.1.56), its synonyms are 'sapless', 'meaningless', 'void', 'vane', 'hollow' (asara, phalgu, vasika, tuccha, riktaka). This kind of voidness is conceived first of all as a sort of deprivation, as we can see from a well-known literary 'good saying' (subhasita) centred around the term sunya:

'Void is the house for he who is sonless, void is the time for he who is friendless, void are the four cardinal points for he who is silly, void is the whole world for he who is poor' (Sudraka, Mrcchakatika 1.8). The reference to the cardinal points (dis) is not at all a trivial one, because it explains why the term sunya could be made synonym with 'ethereal space', 'atmospheric space', 'heaven' (akasa, kha, vyoman).

The abstract derivate sunyata is recorded in Buddhist literature, mainly of the mahayana type, first of all in Nagarjuna, as meaning 'voidness', 'the fact of being void', and even (though this kind of translation is sub iudice) as 'vacuity', 'emptiness'. The mathematical zero cannot be compared to any other number, being their very precondition, and in consideration of such a meaning it is tendentially compared with the concept of infinite (ananta). Which of the three main shades of meaning of sunya first suggested the other two? Did the mathematical, the grammatical, or the Buddhist philosophical meaning come first? There is a great deal of debate on this question. First of all it may be noted that, even if the concept of zero grade is important and well-known within Indian grammatical tradition (vyakarana), the term sunya is actually never employed in this context. Phonic zero, intended as absence of any sound whatsoever, to be found in alternation with sound, especially within vocalic gradation (apophony), is widely known, and used as the apophonic grade. But we must note that the grades known in Western use as normal or full grade and extended or lengthened grade, both correspond to a Sanskrit technical term, respectively guna (a, e, o) and vrddhi (a, ai, au), which among other things can be taught as a replacement of a, i, u respectively (A 1.1.3). By contrast the grade that we call weak or reduced or zero grade does not correspond to a univocal Sanskrit technical word, because it is treated exactly as the other zero-replacements of phonemes, and, what is most important, it never takes the name of sunya. It is not a mere chance that what we call zero grade is not described by Indian grammarians in positive words, but only as an exception, subject to specific rules of application, to guna and vrddhi grades (e.g. A 1.1.5 suffixes with K and N markers): it is impossible to describe an absence, a deprivation, a limitation in positive terms. The technical term used in such cases is lopa (e.g. 1.1.4; 1.1.62), a name given to the meaning of adarsanam 'non-perception' by means of metarule 1.1.60.

Therefore, even if we cannot rule out the possibility that the apophonic zero could be the base of the mathematical zero, it is only the latter that takes the name of sunya. The doubt whether or not the philosophical use could precede the mathematical one, still remains. Even in the field of architecture, the value of the void asserts itself: it is sufficient to think of what we define as the sanctum (Indians call it garbhagrha, 'house of the embryo') in the sanctuary of Siva Nataraja in Chidambaram, enclosing the signum 'made of space' (akasalinga), technically avoid space, that represents the icon being worshipped by the devotees.

Within the mathematical field, zero is the base of the system of numerical positional notation on the decimal scale: it is the void space that permits the passage from units to tens and so on. The Yajurveda (Vajasaneyisamhita 17.2) enumerates the names of the powers of ten starting from 100 eka up to 1012 parardha. The synonyms of zero to be found in mathematical, astronomical and astrological texts (jyotihsastra), are all specifications of a semantic field that generally covers the concept of 'space'. But it is a large sphere that combines different notions, and is variously declined as ethereal space, surrounding space, void space, atmospheric space (akasa, ambara, kha, gagana). Other kinds of synonyms are more interesting, because they range from an apparent antonym meaning 'full' (purna), to the term for 'point' (bindu), up to the little circle used in writing as a sign for zero (chidra, randhra, both words meaning 'hole'). It is possibly not a mere chance that the first quotation of zero as a mathematical symbol is to be found within a metrical text (Pihgala, Chandahsutra 8.28-31). Obviously, quotations from mathematical literature are numerous (Aryabhatiya 1.2; Pañcasiddhantika 1.17; Brhatksetrasamasa 1.69-71; Tattvarthadhigamasutra 3.11).

At least in the Vedic period, within priestly circles the value of fullness (purnata) and full (purna) prevails, e.g. in passages such as 'full that, full this, from the full this full is born, having taken the full from the full, full only remains' (Brhadaranyaka-upanisad 5.1.1). This primacy of fullness does not entail any sort of undervaluation of voidness, because without the void the full itself could not hold ('in the beginning indeed this was not being, from this the being is based [...] who could live, who could breathe, if within space [akasa] there was not bliss?' (Taittiriyopanisad 2.7). This fact entails a twofold consequence. First of all, being and not being (sat, asat), full and void, are complementary entities, each one is indispensable to the other. In some way, each one is the matrix of the other (Rgvedasamhita 10.129.1-4). Thanks to the doctrine of the different levels of truth, each one can be derived from the other. Secondly, bliss is associated to the void. Buddhism will highly value both concepts.

In the Buddhist field, and its abstract sunyata cannot be considered as signs of a nihilistic doctrine. Vedantic doxographical tradition will put a conscious distortion into practice that rejectsthe 'emic' denomination of Nagarjuna's school, 'folllowers of the middle path (madhyamika), preferring an ambiguous term (doomed to a certain degree of success), i.e. nihilists (sunyavadin): in fact sunya cannot be considered as a vada, a valid doctrine, from Nagarjuna's point of view, but only a convenient dialectical device. Void and voidness only signify the mere negation of every possible sort of positive assessment within the field of experiential reality. It is not proper to ascribe the status of doctrine (vada) to sunya and sunyata.

The concept of vacuity or emptiness, sunyata, so relevant in Nagarjuna, is already entirely theorized in the literary genre of the 'transcendent gnosis', prajñaparamita, where we can find different lists, ranging from four to twenty elements. The list including eighteen terms, the most widely accepted one, considers the following varieties: 1) vacuity relative to the interior realm (adhyatmasunyata), where the six awarenesses (vijñana, five related to the senses and the sixth a mental one) are revealed as empty; 2) vacuity relative to the exterior realm (bahirdhasunyata), where both sensory and mental objects are revealed as empty ones; 3) vacuity relative to interior and exterior (adhyatmabahirdhasunyata), where the very same distinction between interior and exterior is revealed as empty; 4) vacuity of vacuity (sunyatasunyata), where the very same notion of vacuity is revealed as empty; 5) great vacuity (mahasunyata), where space is revealed as empty; 6) vacuity of absolute reality (paramarthasunyata), where transcendent reality is revealed as empty; 7) vacuity of all composite entities (samskrtasunyata), where every compounded entity is revealed as empty, because it depends on causes and conditions; 8) vacuity of non-composite entities (asamskrtasunyata), where every non compounded entity is revealed as empty, beginning with nirvana; 9) final vacuity (etymologically 'vacuity beyond the limit', atyantasunyata), where the very same border dividing permanence and destruction is revealed as empty; 10) beginningless and endless vacuity (anavaragrasunyata), where the whole cycle of transmigration (samsara) is revealed as empty; 11) vacuity of what is not subject to scattering (anavakarasunyata), where nirvana is revealed as empty; 12) vacuity of the object-principle (prakrtisunyata); 13) vacuity of all phenomena whatsoever (sarvadharmasunyata); 14) vacuity of what is self-defining (svalaksanasunyata), where what is self-defining (svalaksana), i.e. the point-instant (ksana), is revealed as empty; 15) vacuity of what is not known (anupalambhasunyata), where all events, considered as cut off from any reference with the time in which they take place (past in the future, future in the past, present in the future and in the past), are revealed as empty; 16) vacuity of the absence of one's own mode of being, or of not existence (asvabhavasunyata, or sometimes abhavasunyata), where the very same absence of one's own mode of being (svabhava) of the dharmas is revealed as empty; 17) vacuity of one's own mode of being (svabhavasunyata); and finally 18) vacuity of non existence and of one's own mode of being (abhavasvabhavasunyata), where the very same distinction between real and unreal is revealed as empty. As we can see, the path towards theologizing and hypostatizing the concept of vacuity has already been outlined. It will be one of the main concerns of Nagarjuna, as a champion of the anti-intellectual trend of the followers of the middle path, to deconstruct the huge doctrinal building of the followers of the transcendent gnosis.

Nagarjuna's thought is particularly reluctant to be pigeonholed within discursive categories. It is characterized by a background of anti-intellectualism, and it makes use of eristical techniques which are most useful in debate. It will be sufficient to mention here the doctrine of the double truth, absolute and wordly (paramarthasatya, samvrtisatya); the use of the logical tetralemma (catuskoti) in order to defeat any metaphysical assessment whatsoever; the concept of vacuity or emptiness (sunyata) as a category in effect identical with the process of conditioned coproduction (pratityasamutpada); the dialectical use of the reductio ad absurdum (prasanga); the concept of insubstantiality (nihsvabhavata).

As we have seen, the Vedantic interpretation (first of all in such works as the Sarvadarsanasamgraha) of madhyamika (or madhyamaka) doctrine as sunyavada,' doctrine of the void', a term generally rendered with 'nihilism', is based on a great equivocation, and causes a gnoseological misunderstanding. Following Madhava's statement of sunyavada, we will be confronted with a position according to which the gnoseological triad, formed by the knowing subject, the known object and knowledge, effectively amounts to fully interdependent elements. In such a case, the reality of each and every element of the triad depends on the reality of the other two elements. So it will be sufficient to prove the falseness of one single element in order to deduce the falseness of the other two. When we erroneously perceive the snake instead of the rope, the snake is no doubt false; so, even the subject perceiving a false object, and the very same knowledge deriving from such a perception, are equally false. Thus reality withdraws more and more, until it wholly disappears, and universal falseness can be translated as void, sunya, or as an abstract principle such as vacuity, emptiness, insubstantiality, sunyata. First of all, we should note that this is a conscious doxographical distortion of madhyamika thought. In fact, the madhyamika school refers to the 'middle path' evoked by the Buddha, the path standing as intermediate between two opposite conceptions, eternalism and annihilationism (or, less properly, nihilism) (sasvatavada, ucchedavada). If nihilism is one of the two risks that must be avoided, it is not possible to attack the school with the charge of nihilism. Secondly, madhyamika thought does not deny reality at all (for this would amount to accepting a metaphysical position); rather, it criticizes from its very root the concept of substantiality of the phenomenal world, of what is apparent within the domain of the senses and of the mind. Beyond the phenomenal world there is no substance whatsoever, mental or extramental, there is only the void, sunya. And the void, in turn, cannot be made into a substance. The term 'void', sunya, covers two entirely different shades of meaning: it may indicate the phenomenal world as it is 'void of one's own nature' (svabhavasunya), or it may indicate the absolute reality as it is 'void of the manifoldness of manifestation' (prapañcasunya). So the term may be rendered both as 'void' and as 'devoid, deprived'. This last meaning restates the character of (inter) relation that is typical of sunya: it always means a deprivation of something else, it is not a self-contained term, it cannot be reified within positive self-sufficient terms.

Candrakirti will declare that vacuity, sunyata, acts for intellectual activity as a purge acts for the body, purifying it and being expelled together with the pathogenic factors carried away by its action. That being the case, vacuity cannot cling to the intellect as a conceptual construction, but it must be carried away in its turn when it has carried out its goal. Otherwise, it will be a cause of further problems, in the same way as if a purge could not be carried away, flowing out of the body. In these conditions, the description of reality can be made only in negative terms, it can only negate substantiality, and this negation does not equate at all with the same conceptual predicament as if it could positively assess unsubstantiality. The real nature of objects and of the world cannot be ascertained, it can only be described in negative terms such as through the category of void, an intrinsically empty predicament. In fact, what is real must be wholly independent from any other element, in order that it may be described in conceptual terms. But universal interdependence, deriving from pratityasamutpada, negates every sort of independence of anything whatsoever. So the very same reality of the world is negated. But this does not mean that the world can be described as unreal, because what is unreal (the aerial city of the heavenly musicians on the clouds, gandharvanagara) never comes into being. On the contrary, the world does come into being, it is manifest, and everyone can testify to this fact. Neither can we say that the world is real and unreal at the same time, nor that it is neither real nor unreal. This eristic or dialectical practice applies a fourfold negation to a thesis A in four steps (not A, not non-A, not either-A-and-non-A, not neither-A-nor-non-A). It is mainly applied to the category of being, sat, as not being, not non-being, not either-being-and-non-being, not neither-being-nor-non-being, so as to thwart any ontological claim. It will take the name of tetralemma (catuskoti), and it will become the main device of negative dialectic (eristic) of the madhyamika school, being able to deconstruct any possible conceptual construction whatsoever, with rigid and pitiless grace. An adequate description of reality being impossible, its best approximation is the term vacuity (sunyata), that has in itself its own antibodies, being able to prevent any possible reification of itself in terms of a substance. The 'things' of the world appear, are manifest to us, but when we try to analyse them, they escape any possible definition in terms of reality, non-reality, either-reality-and-non-reality, neither-reality-nor-non-reality. In the Madhyamakakarika the method of the tetralemma is successfully applied to vanify concepts such as motion, causation, and so on. This deconstruction definitely proves the inadequacy of common sense and of trivial thought, which cannot efficiently and authentically describe the complexity of phenomena. Interdependence affirms itself as the preferential entry to reality, even if it is an apophatic and limited approach. Interdependence and vacuity are the same thing, they are synonyms: pratityasamutpada, interdependent coproduction, and sunyata, vacuity or emptiness, are two different ways to describe the same situation. There is no feature (dharma) that might be considered independent, so every feature is intrinsically devoid of one's own nature. One's own way of being, the essential nature (svabhava) of a thing (dharma), its being non factitious (akrtrima), not dependent on anything whatsoever for its own being, is not ascertainable in anyway at all. So universal interdependence, say emptiness, is just as well rendered as absence of one's own nature (nihsvabhavata). Indeed, the concept of emptiness, vacuity (sunyata), in its extreme shade of meaning, refers properly to the absence of one's own way of being (svabhava). It can therefore be indicated as nihsvabhavata, absence of one's own nature or of one's way of being. This does not only concern the empirical reality, but the whole of the dharmas. Each and every dharma is conceived as devoid of one's own nature, we could even say that each and every dharma is unsubstantial (but this could be interpreted as a tendentially metaphysical assessment). Following Candrakirti ad Nagarjuna, the term 'one's own way of being' can be understood in three ways: 1) essential property, e.g. heat in the case of fire; 2) essential feature of a single dharma, absolute specificity, svalaksana; and finally 3) existence which is not dependent upon other factors. In this last meaning, svabhava indicates an absolute non-subjugation to change in the past, present or future, independence from causes and conditions, unborn and unproduced nature. Nagarjuna's criticism hits precisely this last shade of meaning, disclosing every object whatsoever as being void, unsubstantial. Nagarjuna is fully aware of the risk, i.e. of transforming the doctrine of vacuity, originally a mere dialectical device, into a new sort of substantialism: he strongly reaffirms the emptiness, the ineliminable self-contradictory nature of any thesis (pratijña) whatsoever, positive or negative.

(Continues...)

Excerpted from Signless Signification in Ancient India and Beyond by Tiziana Pontillo, Maria Piera Candotti. Copyright © 2013 Maria Piera Candotti and Tiziana Pontillo. Excerpted by permission of Wimbledon Publishing Company.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

Edition details

• Publisher: Anthem Press
• Publication date: 2013
• Language: English
• ISBN 10: 0857283154
• ISBN 13: 9780857283153
• Binding: Hardcover
• Number of pages: 288
• Editor: Pontillo Tiziana, Candotti Maria Piera