taxonomy question

[elisa freschi]

Dear James,

I would add the distinction between "born from an uterus" (yoni-ja or  
jarāyuja), "born from an egg" (aṇḍaja), "born from sweat/ 
warmth" (svedaja) and born from water (udbhijja). The latter group  
includes all sorts of plants. The four groups seem to include all  
living beings in common understanding, but some philosophical schools  
(I am thinking now of Prābhākāra Mīmāṃsā texts specifically)  
oppose the view that also the latter ones are living beings and claim  
that they are just like stones (crystal may also grow, but are  
nonetheless non-living).

yours elisa freschi


Dr. Elisa Freschi
research fellow of Sanskrit
Facoltà di Studi Orientali
Università di Roma 'La Sapienza'
via Principe Amedeo 182b, 00185 Rome (Italy)
fax +39 06 49385915
http://elisafreschi.blogspot.com
http://uniroma.academia.edu/elisafreschi



On 05/ago/11, at 19:26, Herman Tull wrote:

> CU 5.10.8 sets up a taxonomy of sorts in its reference to the  
> “small things” (kshudrANi) that continually live and die in the  
> round of rebirth, in distinction to men who attain one of the two  
> paths after death (path of the gods, path of the fathers).
>
> Herman Tull
>
> From: James Hartzell
> Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 12:05 PM
> To: INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] taxonomy question
>
> 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/20110806/7a27aa4f/attachment.htm>