MACHINE ASR ACCESSIBILITY AID

Episode01_cartoon.mp4

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 (0.760101)
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 Ujjan Karya composed a work that remained
  3. 0:24–0:29enclosed for a thousand years within the forbidding walls of Sanskrit.
  4. 0:29–0:36Timatavaviveka, known in the tradition by both names, Boydhidikra and Bauddhdhikra,
  5. 0:36–0:42Beers witnessed to that decisive moment in the history of Indian philosophy when the
  6. 0:42–0:49millennium-long scholastic debate between Nya, Vaika and Buddhist philosophy reached its greatest
  7. 0:49–0:51logical density.
  8. 0:51–0:57The Mathili translation of this work is therefore not merely a rendering into another language,
  9. 0:57–1:03but a cultural homecoming, a text born on the soil of Mithila has, after a thousand
  10. 1:03–1:11years, returned in Mithila's own language. If Sanskrit was its paternal tongue, Mathili
  11. 1:11–1:17is the language of its native land, Gajendra Thakur's translation stands as a bridge between
  12. 1:17–1:25the two. From a critical standpoint, this work may be examined on three levels, first,
  13. 1:25–1:30the philosophical and literary form of the original and the success with which it has
  14. 1:30–1:34has been communicated in its Mathili transformation.
  15. 1:34–1:42Second, its evaluation by the criteria of Indian politics Rasa, Dhoni, Vakrokti, Ossitya,
  16. 1:42–1:47Gua and RTI and the Indian tradition of translation.
  17. 1:47–1:53And third, the determination of its place in the light of Western translation theories
  18. 1:53–1:58Shlare-Machar, Nidha, Newmark, Venuti, Scopos.
  19. 1:58–2:06Shaina, Benjamin, Lefebvre, Even Johar, and Devi as well as comparative philosophy.
  20. 2:06–2:13The extensive introductory material, research essay, and critical apparatus added by the
  21. 2:13–2:20translator in the enlarged edition of 2026 raised the book above a translation alone
  22. 2:20–2:25and give it the form of a complete study edition.
  23. 2:25–2:31The present review will therefore consider the book as a whole text, meta-text, and paratext
  24. 2:31–2:32together.
  25. 2:32–2:382. The generic form of the original work, a treatise that is literature.
  26. 2:38–2:45In terms of genre, Timakarthaviveka is a work of debate, classical prose founded
  27. 2:45–2:51on the continuous conflict between the prima facie position and the reply.
  28. 2:51–2:57In four parts Ujjana successively examines four pillars of Buddhist philosophy, the doctrine
  29. 2:57–3:04of momentariness in the first part, according to which everything real is momentary, vijjanavada
  30. 3:04–3:11in the second, according to which nothing exists outside consciousness, the identity of
  31. 3:11–3:18quality and qualified substance in the third, which denies any substrate called substance,
  32. 3:18–3:24and in the fourth, the non-apprehension of the Self and the doctrine of no Self.
  33. 3:24–3:30Proceeding finally to the establishment of the Self, the establishment of God, the authority
  34. 3:30–3:36of scripture and an account of the nature of liberation, the work ends with the celebrated
  35. 3:36–3:44ladder of meditation in which every philosophical system, from CRVK to Advat, is presented
  36. 3:44–3:51as a stage in meditation on the self. In the history of Indian philosophy, this is an
  37. 3:51–3:58extraordinary vision of harmony among all systems. It would, however, be a mistake to
  38. 3:58–4:03regard this work merely as a dry collection of arguments.
  39. 4:03–4:10Udhyana's prose has dramatic force. The recurrent rhythm of thesis, objection,
  40. 4:10–4:17Question, Division into Alternatives, Refutation, Example, and Conclusion gives the text the
  41. 4:17–4:23form of a drama of knowledge in which reasoning itself is a character.
  42. 4:23–4:30The example of the fool who sees an elephant at the palace gate and mistakes it for darkness,
  43. 4:30–4:37cloud, and shadow, the comparison with the natural hostility between snake and mongoose,
  44. 4:37–4:43metaphor of food mixed with honey and poison, the agrarian image of separating grain from
  45. 4:43–4:50husk, and at the close, the sharp satire of a painting praised by a crowd of blind men,
  46. 4:50–4:57all these demonstrate that Udyana was not only a logician but also a writer of the first
  47. 4:57–5:04rank. The translator faced a double challenge to preserve both the subtlety of the argument
  48. 5:04–5:07and the life of the literature.
  49. 5:07–5:12The central question of this review is how fully that double responsibility has been
  50. 5:12–5:13discharged.

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 Ujjan Karya composed a work that remained enclosed for a thousand years within the forbidding walls of Sanskrit. Timatavaviveka, known in the tradition by both names, Boydhidikra and Bauddhdhikra, Beers 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 has been communicated in its Mathili transformation. Second, its evaluation by the criteria of Indian politics Rasa, Dhoni, Vakrokti, Ossitya, Gua and RTI and the Indian tradition of translation. And third, the determination of its place in the light of Western translation theories Shlare-Machar, Nidha, Newmark, Venuti, Scopos. Shaina, 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. 2. The generic form of the original work, a treatise that is literature. In terms of genre, Timakarthaviveka 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, vijjanavada 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 Advat, 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. Udhyana's prose has dramatic force. The recurrent rhythm of thesis, objection, 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, 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 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