MACHINE ASR ACCESSIBILITY AID

Episode01_radio.mp3

Not an editorially verified transcript. This text was generated automatically from the preserved recording and may contain recognition, language-detection, spelling, segmentation or name errors. Consult the source recording for authoritative content.
Collection
Part 10 · VIDEHA MITHILA MAITHILI DISCUSSION CRITICISM SERIES PART 10
Status
asr-draft
Human verified
No
Editorial review
not-reviewed
ASR model
small
Detected language
en (0.80353)
Duration
5:18
Source
Open preserved recording

Timestamped machine output

  1. 0:08–0:171. Introduction, A Text's Homecoming. In Mithila of the 10th and 11th centuries, seated on the
  2. 0:17–0:24soil of the village of Karya, the eminent logician Ujjankarya composed a work that remained enclosed
  3. 0:24–0:29for a thousand years within the forbidding walls of Sanskrit.
  4. 0:29–0:37Teema-kattavavi-veka, known in the tradition by both names, Boydhidikra and Bauddhdhikra,
  5. 0:37–0:51The years witnessed to that decisive moment in the history of Indian philosophy when the millennium-long scholastic debate between Nya, Vaika and Buddhist philosophy reached its greatest logical density.
  6. 0:51–0:57The Mathili translation of this work is therefore not merely a rendering into another language,
  7. 0:57–1:04but a cultural homecoming, a text born on the soil of Mithila has, after a thousand years,
  8. 1:04–1:10returned in Mithila's own language. If Sanskrit was its paternal tongue,
  9. 1:10–1:17Mathili is the language of its native land, Gajendra Thakur's translation stands as a bridge
  10. 1:17–1:25between the two. From a critical standpoint, this work may be examined on three levels.
  11. 1:25–1:30First, the philosophical and literary form of the original and the success with which
  12. 1:30–1:38it has been communicated in its Mathili transformation. Second, its evaluation by the criteria of
  13. 1:38–1:46Indian politics Rasa, Dhwani, Vakrokti, Ausitya, Gua and RTI and the Indian tradition of translation
  14. 1:46–1:53and third, the determination of its place in the light of western translation theories
  15. 1:53–2:02Schler-Macher, Nida, Newmark, Venuti, Scopos, Steina, Benjamin, Lefebvre, Even Johar, and
  16. 2:02–2:09Devi as well as comparative philosophy. The extensive introductory material, research
  17. 2:09–2:18essay and critical apparatus added by the translator in the enlarged edition of 2026 raised the
  18. 2:18–2:25book above a translation alone and give it the form of a complete study edition.
  19. 2:25–2:31The present review will therefore consider the book as a whole text, meta-text and paratext
  20. 2:31–2:32together.
  21. 2:32–2:39To the generic form of the original work, a treatise that is literature.
  22. 2:39–2:45In terms of genre, Timatataviveka is a work of debate, classical prose founded on the
  23. 2:45–2:51continuous conflict between the prima facie position and the reply.
  24. 2:51–2:57In four parts Ujjana successively examines four pillars of Buddhist philosophy, the doctrine
  25. 2:57–3:03of momentariness in the first part, according to which everything real is momentary,
  26. 3:03–3:10Vijay Navda in the second, according to which nothing exists outside consciousness, the identity
  27. 3:10–3:18of quality and qualified substance in the third, which denies any substrate called substance,
  28. 3:18–3:24and in the fourth, the non-apprehension of the self and the doctrine of no self.
  29. 3:24–3:30Proceeding finally to the establishment of the self, the establishment of God, the
  30. 3:30–3:36authority of scripture and an account of the nature of liberation, the work ends with
  31. 3:36–3:42the celebrated ladder of meditation in which every philosophical system, from CRVK to
  32. 3:42–3:48Advaita, is presented as a stage in meditation on the self.
  33. 3:48–3:54In the history of Indian philosophy, this is an extraordinary vision of harmony among
  34. 3:54–3:56all systems.
  35. 3:56–4:03It would, however, be a mistake to regard this work merely as a dry collection of arguments.
  36. 4:03–4:07Udyana's prose has dramatic force.
  37. 4:07–4:13The recurrent rhythm of thesis, objection, counter-question, division into alternatives,
  38. 4:13–4:19refutation, example, and conclusion gives the text the form of a drama of knowledge
  39. 4:19–4:23in which reasoning itself is a character.
  40. 4:23–4:30The example of the fool who sees an elephant at the palace gate and mistakes it for darkness,
  41. 4:30–4:37cloud, and shadow, the comparison with the natural hostility between snake and mongoose,
  42. 4:37–4:43the metaphor of food mixed with honey and poison, the agrarian image of separating grain from
  43. 4:43–4:49husk, and at the close, the sharp satire of a painting praised by a crowd of blind
  44. 4:49–4:56And men, all these demonstrate that Udyana was not only a logician but also a writer
  45. 4:56–4:58of the first rank.
  46. 4:58–5:04The translator faced a double challenge to preserve both the subtlety of the argument
  47. 5:04–5:07and the life of the literature.
  48. 5:07–5:12The central question of this review is how fully that double responsibility has
  49. 5:12–5:13been discharged.

Plain text

1. Introduction, A Text's Homecoming. In Mithila of the 10th and 11th centuries, seated on the soil of the village of Karya, the eminent logician Ujjankarya composed a work that remained enclosed for a thousand years within the forbidding walls of Sanskrit. Teema-kattavavi-veka, known in the tradition by both names, Boydhidikra and Bauddhdhikra, The years witnessed to that decisive moment in the history of Indian philosophy when the millennium-long scholastic debate between Nya, Vaika and Buddhist philosophy reached its greatest logical density. The Mathili translation of this work is therefore not merely a rendering into another language, but a cultural homecoming, a text born on the soil of Mithila has, after a thousand years, returned in Mithila's own language. If Sanskrit was its paternal tongue, Mathili is the language of its native land, Gajendra Thakur's translation stands as a bridge between the two. From a critical standpoint, this work may be examined on three levels. First, the philosophical and literary form of the original and the success with which it has been communicated in its Mathili transformation. Second, its evaluation by the criteria of Indian politics Rasa, Dhwani, Vakrokti, Ausitya, Gua and RTI and the Indian tradition of translation and third, the determination of its place in the light of western translation theories Schler-Macher, Nida, Newmark, Venuti, Scopos, Steina, Benjamin, Lefebvre, Even Johar, and Devi as well as comparative philosophy. The extensive introductory material, research essay and critical apparatus added by the translator in the enlarged edition of 2026 raised the book above a translation alone and give it the form of a complete study edition. The present review will therefore consider the book as a whole text, meta-text and paratext together. To the generic form of the original work, a treatise that is literature. In terms of genre, Timatataviveka is a work of debate, classical prose founded on the continuous conflict between the prima facie position and the reply. In four parts Ujjana successively examines four pillars of Buddhist philosophy, the doctrine of momentariness in the first part, according to which everything real is momentary, Vijay Navda in the second, according to which nothing exists outside consciousness, the identity of quality and qualified substance in the third, which denies any substrate called substance, and in the fourth, the non-apprehension of the self and the doctrine of no self. Proceeding finally to the establishment of the self, the establishment of God, the authority of scripture and an account of the nature of liberation, the work ends with the celebrated ladder of meditation in which every philosophical system, from CRVK to Advaita, is presented as a stage in meditation on the self. In the history of Indian philosophy, this is an extraordinary vision of harmony among all systems. It would, however, be a mistake to regard this work merely as a dry collection of arguments. Udyana's prose has dramatic force. The recurrent rhythm of thesis, objection, counter-question, division into alternatives, refutation, example, and conclusion gives the text the form of a drama of knowledge in which reasoning itself is a character. The example of the fool who sees an elephant at the palace gate and mistakes it for darkness, cloud, and shadow, the comparison with the natural hostility between snake and mongoose, the metaphor of food mixed with honey and poison, the agrarian image of separating grain from husk, and at the close, the sharp satire of a painting praised by a crowd of blind And men, all these demonstrate that Udyana was not only a logician but also a writer of the first rank. The translator faced a double challenge to preserve both the subtlety of the argument and the life of the literature. The central question of this review is how fully that double responsibility has been discharged.

← Transcript index