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).
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@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
>
>