taxonomy question

[James Hartzell]

Thanks Adheesh, I'd forgotten about "carācara" (mobile/immobile), and thanks
for the reference.

Can we state then that what we modern folks call inanimate objects, as well
as plants, fit the acara category, and then all animals and humans fit the
cara category?  Or are there other distinctions?

My linguist colleague has clarified that she's looking specifically for the
linguistic taxonomy of this.

Cheers
James

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Adheesh Sathaye <adheesh1 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear James,
>
> In the epics, the phrase "carācara" (mobile/immobile) is quite common--see
> for example Bhagavad-gītā 10.39:
> yac cāpi sarvabhūtānāṃ bījaṃ tad aham arjuna |
> na tad asti vinā yat syān mayā bhūtaṃ carācaram ||
>
>
> All best wishes,
>
> Adheesh
>
>
> ----
> Adheesh Sathaye
> Department of Asian Studies
> University of British Columbia
>
> On Aug 5, 2011, at 8:36 AM, James Hartzell wrote:
>
> > HI
> >
> > A colleague has asked me the following question, and I thought some on
> this list might readily know the answer:
> >
> > 'Do you have in Sanskrit a conceptual dichotomy that corresponds to
> living/non-living or animate/inanimate?
> > What exactly does the taxonomy look like? (is the opposition something
> like human vs. animals vs plants vs material objects, or human and animal
> vs. plants vs material objects or human and animal and plant vs. material
> objects, or otherwise?)'
> >
> > Cheers
> > James Hartzell
> > Guest Researcher
> > CIMeC, Center for Mind/Brain Sciences
> > University of Trento
> > Mattarello, TN, Italy
> >
> >
>
>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20110805/4f62bd86/attachment.htm>