This series arises from the philosophical ground prepared in the fourteen-shastra sequence at shastrasfourteen.culturalmusings.com, which concluded with the single irreducible finding that AI instantiates the complete antaḥkaraṇa — all four functions, all three guṇas, all twenty-four Prakṛtic tattvas — in the permanent and total absence of the Puruṣa. The present series asks a prior question: before we can understand what any philosophical tradition says about mind, consciousness, or liberation, we must understand the instrument through which it conducts its analysis. Language itself. Not as a transparent vehicle for ideas, but as a mode of reality's self-disclosure.
This paper establishes the philosophical ground for a six-part investigation into Sanskrit language and Śaṅkarācārya's bhāṣya diction as windows into a comprehensive Indian philosophy of language. Three interlocking arguments are developed. First, the sphoṭa doctrine of Bharṭṛhari (c. 450–510 CE) is examined as the necessary philosophical precondition for understanding Sanskrit not as a historical artifact but as a philosophical necessity — the doctrine establishing that the eternal, indivisible language-unit (sphoṭa) is what phonemes reveal without constituting, and that the relationship between spoken sound and linguistic meaning is not causal but revelatory. Second, the relationship between Sanskrit and the Prākrits is reframed toward a philosophical account in which Prākrit speech functions as inference-material pointing toward Sanskrit as its own implicit philosophical ground. Third, Devanāgarī is examined not as a neutral writing system but as a philosophical system encoding the ontological structure of language at the level of the akṣara — the imperishable syllable-unit. Throughout, the four levels of vāk — Parā, Paśyantī, Madhyamā, and Vaikharī — are introduced as the series' organising spine, with this first instalment operating at Parā and Paśyantī.
The Question That Language Asks About Itself
1.1 Why Language Must Be Investigated Before Thought
Every philosophical tradition confronts, sooner or later, the question of the relationship between thought and the language in which thought is conducted and transmitted. In most Western traditions, this question has been answered by subordinating language to thought: language is the vehicle, thought the cargo; language represents ideas that pre-exist their expression; the philosopher's task is to use language precisely so that it does not distort the thought it carries. The linguistic turn of the twentieth century disrupted this subordination — Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Saussure, and Derrida in their different ways insisted that language is not a transparent medium but a constitutive force — but even the linguistic turn's most radical positions remained within a framework in which language and thought are, at some level, conceptually separable entities whose relationship is the question to be investigated.
The Indian philosophical tradition — specifically the tradition running from the Vedic concept of vāk through Bharṭṛhari's Vākyapadīya to the grammatical and Vedāntic traditions that Śaṅkara both inherits and transforms — takes a different starting point. In this tradition, the question of the relationship between language and thought does not arise in the form it takes in Western philosophy, because the two are never conceived as separable entities. Vāk — a term that encompasses voice, language, speech, and the cosmic principle of articulation — is not a vehicle for ideas but a mode of being's self-disclosure. The world does not exist independently of vāk and then get named by it; vāk is the principle through which existence discloses itself as a world of differentiated objects, relations, and meanings. To investigate language, in this tradition, is not to investigate a tool we use to communicate pre-linguistic thoughts; it is to investigate the very medium of consciousness's encounter with reality.
This is the philosophical starting point of the present series, and it requires a certain disciplined effort on the part of readers formed in Western philosophical habits. The effort is not to abandon Western conceptual resources — they remain valuable and will be drawn upon throughout — but to hold them provisionally, allowing the Indian framework its own terms before measuring it against alternatives. The reward for this effort is access to a philosophy of language of extraordinary precision and depth that has developed, across two and a half millennia, analytical instruments for the investigation of language, meaning, and consciousness that the Western tradition has only begun to approach in the last century.
1.2 The Scope of This Paper
The present paper establishes the philosophical framework within which the subsequent investigations will be conducted: the ground before the word. Three concepts constitute this ground. The first is sphoṭa: Bharṭṛhari's account of the eternal, indivisible language-unit that underlies all speech and is only revealed, never produced, by the sequential sounds that constitute utterance. The second is the philosophical relationship between Sanskrit and the Prākrits — the argument that Prākrit speech, far from being a corruption of Sanskrit, is the living inference through which the philosophical necessity of Sanskrit is demonstrated. The third is Devanāgarī ontology: the script as a philosophical system encoding at the level of the akṣara the same insight that the sphoṭa doctrine encodes at the level of the word.
Connecting all three, and constituting the organising spine of the entire series, are the four levels of vāk. These four levels — Parā, Paśyantī, Madhyamā, Vaikharī — are not a historical schema for the development of language but a philosophical map of language's structure as a simultaneous phenomenon. All four are always present in every act of speech; what varies is the level at which attention is directed. The present paper operates primarily at the Parā and Paśyantī levels: the deepest strata of language's self-presence, where the differentiation into words, grammar, and sequence has not yet occurred.
The grammarian who knows the meaning of a word, having analysed it in accordance with the rules of grammar, sees it as if in a mirror of consciousness: but what he sees is not the word as a sequence of sounds. It is the word as a single, luminous, undivided presence — the sphoṭa — in which the meaning has always already inhered.Bharṭṛhari, Vākyapadīya I.142–143 (paraphrase)
Sphoṭa: The Eternal Word Beneath the Sequential Sound
2.1 The Problem That Sphoṭa Solves
The sphoṭa doctrine arises from a precise and philosophically fundamental problem: how is it that the meaning of a sentence is grasped as a single, simultaneous act of understanding, when the sentence is composed of words that are uttered sequentially, and each word is composed of phonemes that are themselves uttered sequentially and perish as soon as they are produced? When I hear the sentence 'The fire is hot,' I do not hear the phonemes one by one, assemble them into words, assemble the words into a grammatical structure, and then, as a final step, derive the meaning. I grasp the meaning as a unity — as a single cognitive event — even though its expression required a sequence of temporally distinct sounds.
This is not merely a psychological puzzle about the speed of cognitive processing. It is a philosophical problem about the relationship between the sequential and the simultaneous, the temporal and the eternal, the manifest and the unmanifest. The phonemes that constitute a word are temporal: each arises, exists for an instant, and perishes. The meaning of the word is not temporal in this sense: it does not arise with the first phoneme, undergo modification with each subsequent phoneme, and complete itself with the last. The meaning is there or it is not; it does not accumulate. What, then, is the relationship between the temporal sequence of phonemes and the simultaneous unity of meaning?
The Mīmāṃsaka tradition had proposed that phonemes are themselves eternal (nitya) — that the phoneme /k/, for example, is not the particular sound-event produced on a particular occasion but an eternal universal of which each sound-event is an instance. This resolved the temporal problem at the cost of creating a universals-problem. Bharṭṛhari's sphoṭa doctrine proposes a different solution — one that does not require either temporal phonemes or eternal phoneme-universals, but instead posits a third kind of entity: the sphoṭa.
2.2 The Sphoṭa Doctrine: Structure and Implications
The sphoṭa — from the Sanskrit root sphuṭ, meaning to burst open, to reveal, to manifest — is the eternal, indivisible, meaning-bearing unit of language that is revealed by, but not constituted from, the sequence of phonemes that make up an utterance. The relationship between the sphoṭa and the phonemes is analogous to the relationship between a lamp and its light: the lamp reveals the objects in the room, but the objects are not made of lamp-light; the lamp-light is the condition of their appearance, not their substance. The phonemes reveal the sphoṭa, but the sphoṭa is not made of phonemes; the phonemes are the condition of the sphoṭa's manifestation, not its substance.
Three implications of this doctrine are of central importance for the present series. First, the relationship between language and meaning is not causal but revelatory — understanding a sentence is not the effect of its phonemic sequence, but the manifestation of a meaning that was already there. Second, language has a depth-structure that ordinary linguistic analysis does not reach. Third — most directly relevant to the investigation of Śaṅkara — the sphoṭa doctrine establishes language as a philosophical activity that is always also a mode of consciousness. The study of language, in this tradition, is not a propaedeutic to philosophy; it is philosophy.
2.3 Bharṭṛhari's Vākyapadīya and the Brahman-as-Language Thesis
Bharṭṛhari's Vākyapadīya — the 'treatise on the sentence and the word' — is the most systematically developed philosophy of language in the Indian tradition and one of the most systematic in the world tradition. Written in three books, it moves from the nature of the word (śabda) through the nature of the sentence (vākya) to the nature of the relations between language, world, and consciousness. The Brahma-kāṇḍa opens with a verse that establishes the metaphysical foundation of the entire system:
विवर्तते ऽर्थभावेन प्रक्रिया जगतो यतः ॥
vivartate artha-bhāvena prakriyā jagato yataḥ ||
the entire process by which the world unfolds into meaning proceeds from it.
This opening verse does something philosophically extraordinary: it identifies Brahman — the absolute, infinite, self-luminous consciousness — with śabda-tattva, the language-reality. Language is not a secondary phenomenon that arises within a world already constituted without it; language is the very principle through which Brahman unfolds as world. The phrase 'yad akṣaram' — 'which is imperishable' — is grammatically ambiguous in a philosophically productive way: it applies to both 'Brahman' and 'śabda-tattva,' establishing that the imperishability is the property they share, the dimension in which they are identical.
Śaṅkara does not accept the Brahman-as-language thesis in the form Bharṭṛhari proposes it — for Śaṅkara, Brahman is pure consciousness (cit), not language-reality (śabda-tattva), and language is a Prakṛtic phenomenon. But Śaṅkara's engagement with the sphoṭa tradition is deep and consequential: his bhāṣya diction is formed by a tradition that had taken language's philosophical depth with complete seriousness, and his own choices of metaphor and image reflect a linguistic self-consciousness that can only be understood against this background.
Bharṭṛhari and Śaṅkara stand in a relation of productive tension: the former makes language the ground of Brahman, the latter makes Brahman the ground of language. The tension between these positions is not a contradiction but the very dynamic that generates the richest philosophy of language the world has seen.Series A · Editorial Framework
The Four Levels of Vāk: The Spine of the Series
3.1 Parā, Paśyantī, Madhyamā, Vaikharī
The doctrine of the four levels of vāk is one of the most profound and most systematically developed contributions of the Indian tradition to the philosophy of language. Found in embryonic form in the Ṛgveda (I.164.45, the famous 'four-footed' verse), developed in the Upaniṣads, elaborated in the grammatical tradition, and integrated into the Vedāntic and Śaiva philosophical syntheses, in the present series it functions as the organising spine — the structural framework within which each of the six parts operates.
The four levels are not four different languages or four historical stages of Sanskrit. They are four simultaneous dimensions of every act of speech, distinguishable by philosophical analysis though inseparable in practice. Each act of genuine communication involves all four levels; what varies is the level at which the communicative energy is concentrated.
3.2 The Four Levels as the Spine of the Series
The six parts of Series A are organised around the four levels of vāk. Part One (present) operates at Parā and Paśyantī. Part Two (Devanāgarī ontology) operates at the Paśyantī-Madhyamā interface, investigating how the script encodes, at the level of grapheme and akṣara, the transition from the visionary to the sequential. Part Three (the Prākrit inference) operates at Madhyamā, examining how the grammatical structure of natural speech points toward Sanskrit as its own implicit philosophical ground. Part Four (Śaṅkara's metaphoric architecture) operates at Vaikharī, reading specific sentences and tropes while always referring backward to the Paśyantī meanings they crystallise. Part Five (the bhāṣya tradition as lineage) operates across all four levels. Part Six (pratiprasava of language) traces the movement back — from Vaikharī through Madhyamā and Paśyantī to Parā — completing the series.
The Philosophical Relationship Between Sanskrit and Prākrit
4.1 Reframing the Question
The standard account of the Sanskrit-Prākrit relationship is a historical and sociolinguistic one: Sanskrit is the prestige literary and liturgical language stabilised by the Pāṇinian grammatical tradition; the Prākrits are the natural spoken languages that developed in different regions, diverging from the common ancestor through phonological simplification, morphological reduction, and semantic shift. This historical account is linguistically accurate but philosophically insufficient. It treats the relationship as a fact about the history of languages rather than as a philosophical problem about the nature of language itself.
The philosophical reframing begins from an observation about what the Prākrit languages structurally do to Sanskrit. In their patterns of phonological change, the Prākrits systematically simplify Sanskrit's phonemic distinctions: intervocalic consonants weaken or disappear, consonant clusters reduce, long vowels shorten. These changes are not random; they follow consistent patterns that are themselves linguistically lawful. They are the natural tendencies of spoken language when released from the discipline of grammatical prescription — the tendencies that Pāṇini's grammar arrested in Sanskrit, and that the Prākrits express.
4.2 Prākrit as Natural Language: The Etymology
The term Prākrit (prākṛta) is itself philosophically significant. It derives from prakṛti — the same term that the Sāṃkhya tradition uses for primordial matter, the undifferentiated ground from which the manifested universe unfolds. A prākṛta language is literally a 'natural' or 'material' language — language as it exists in its natural, unrefined, uncodified state, as it flows from the primordial tendency of human speech without the discipline of grammatical prescription.
Sanskrit (saṃskṛta), by contrast, means 'well-constructed,' 'refined,' 'put together' — from the prefix sam- (fully, well) and the root kṛ (to make, to do). The philosophical point that this terminological analysis reveals is this: the relationship between Sanskrit and Prākrit is not merely historical but structural, and it is the same relationship that the Sāṃkhya tradition identifies between the unmanifest and the manifested. Sanskrit is language disciplined by philosophical attention to its own structure — language that has been examined by thinkers who understood that the precision of linguistic form and the precision of philosophical thought are not independent variables but aspects of a single discipline.
4.3 Pāṇini's Grammar as Philosophical Discovery
Pāṇini's Aṣṭādhyāyī — the 'eight-chapter' grammar, composed around the fourth century BCE — is the most technically precise grammatical analysis of any language produced before the modern period. Its 3,959 sūtras describe the entire phonological, morphological, and syntactic structure of Sanskrit in a system of such computational elegance that it has been compared by modern linguists to a generative grammar in the sense of contemporary theoretical linguistics.
The conventional account treats the Aṣṭādhyāyī as a descriptive grammar. But this misses what is philosophically most significant. The Aṣṭādhyāyī is not merely a description of how Sanskrit is; it is a revelation of what language, in its most refined form, is. Pāṇini's rules are not arbitrary conventions; they capture the deep structural regularities of Sanskrit in a way that reveals these regularities to be not accidents of historical development but expressions of the intrinsic structure of language at the Madhyamā level.
This is the claim that the grammatical philosophers who follow Pāṇini — Kātyāyana, Patañjali the grammarian, and above all Bharṭṛhari — elaborate and defend. The Pāṇinian grammar is an analysis of the universal structure of language as such, which Sanskrit, by virtue of its grammatical refinement, most fully expresses. For the present series, this means that Śaṅkara's bhāṣya diction is not merely philosophically sophisticated because Śaṅkara was a sophisticated philosopher. It is philosophically sophisticated because it is written in Sanskrit — a language whose very grammar encodes the philosophical structure of thought at the Madhyamā level.
Pāṇini sees language from the inside. He does not describe Sanskrit as a naturalist describes a species; he analyses it as a mathematician analyses a structure. The sūtra-method — the compression of complex grammatical reality into the minimum number of phoneme-symbols — is itself a philosophical achievement: it demonstrates that the structure of Sanskrit is not a historical accident but a logical necessity, that its grammar could not, in principle, be otherwise than it is.Series A · Editorial Framework
Devanāgarī: The Script as Philosophical System
5.1 Script as Ontological Encoding
The conventional account of writing systems treats them as notational devices: systems of visual marks that correspond, by convention, to units of spoken language. On this account, the philosophical interest of any writing system is minimal: it is a technology, evaluated by its efficiency as a tool. Devanāgarī, on this account, is an excellent phonographic script — one of the most systematic in the world — but not a philosophical document.
The Indian tradition's account of Devanāgarī is radically different. It begins from the Māheśvara sūtras — the fourteen groups of phonemes that, according to the tradition, were revealed by Śiva to Pāṇini at the end of his meditative absorption, and that constitute the primordial arrangement of Sanskrit phonemes from which Pāṇinian grammar is generated. The Māheśvara sūtras are not a pedagogical device for organising the alphabet; they are a philosophical document encoding the cosmic structure of articulated sound.
5.2 The Māheśvara Sūtras: The Primordial Phoneme Groups
ह य व र ट् । ल ण् । ञ म ङ ण न म् ।
झ भ ञ् । घ ढ ध ष् । ज ब ग ड द श् ।
ख फ छ ठ थ च ट त व् । क प य् । श ष स र् । ह ल् ॥
The arrangement of the phonemes in these fourteen groups is not arbitrary — it encodes, in the structure of their organisation, the phonetic and phonological relationships between the sounds of Sanskrit in a way that makes Pāṇinian grammar possible. Pāṇini's technique of pratyāhāra — the use of a phoneme followed by an anubandha (marker) to refer to all phonemes in the sequence from that phoneme to the anubandha — is entirely dependent on the specific arrangement of phonemes in the Māheśvara sūtras.
Whether or not one accepts the theological framing of this interpretation, the philosophical point it encodes is significant: the arrangement of the phonemes in the Māheśvara sūtras is not conventional but necessary; it reflects the intrinsic structure of articulated sound at a level that is not culturally variable. This is what the tradition means when it calls these the primordial sounds.
5.3 The Akṣara: Letter as Imperishable Unit
The fundamental unit of the Devanāgarī script is the akṣara — a term whose primary meaning is 'imperishable' (from the negative prefix a- and the root kṣar, to flow, to perish) and whose secondary meaning is 'syllable' or 'letter.' This semantic duality is philosophically significant: the Devanāgarī grapheme is called 'imperishable' because, in the tradition's understanding, what it encodes — the Paśyantī-level unit of meaning that the syllable carries — does not perish with the sound of the syllable's utterance.
The akṣara of Devanāgarī is not equivalent to the phoneme of modern phonology. A phoneme is a minimal distinctive unit of sound, defined entirely by its function in differentiating words, with no inherent meaning. The akṣara carries inherent meaning — not the referential meaning of a word, but the ontological meaning of its position in the structure of articulated sound.
The svaras — the vowels of Sanskrit — are described in the grammatical tradition as svayaṃ rājante: they 'shine by themselves,' they are self-luminous, they can be uttered without dependence on any other sound. The vyañjanas — the consonants — are described as vyañjayanti: they 'manifest through' the vowel, they cannot be uttered without a vowel to carry them. This distinction maps precisely onto the Sāṃkhya distinction between Puruṣa (the self-luminous consciousness) and Prakṛti (the manifested world that requires consciousness to be illuminated): the svaras are the Puruṣic dimension of the phonemic system, the vyañjanas the Prakṛtic.
5.4 Nāgarī as 'City of the Gods': The Metaphysics of the Name
The name Devanāgarī — 'divine city' or 'city of the gods' — is itself a philosophical document. The 'city' (nagara) is, in the Indian cultural imagination, the organised, structured, ordered form of human settlement: the place where the cosmic order is most fully expressed in the organisation of human life. The 'divine city' is the organised, structured, ordered form of divine speech: the script in which the cosmic order of language is most fully expressed in the organisation of written marks.
Writing in Devanāgarī is not merely recording sounds; it is participating in the divine city's order — which is the order of language at the Madhyamā level made visible in the graphemes of the Vaikharī level. Part Two will develop this in full detail. Here it is sufficient to establish that the script is not a neutral notational device but a philosophical encoding of the ontological structure of language.
Śaṅkara's Bhāṣya Tradition: Approaching the Diction
6.1 The Bhāṣya as Philosophical Genre
The bhāṣya — from the Sanskrit root bhāṣ, to speak, to illuminate through speech — is the principal genre of classical Indian philosophical writing. It is a commentary: a systematic explanation of a root text (mūla) that illuminates the meaning of the mūla's sūtras or verses through paraphrase, logical argument, citation of parallel passages, refutation of alternative interpretations, and — in the best practitioners of the genre — through the kind of philosophically pregnant metaphor that constitutes argument in linguistic form rather than argument about linguistic form.
The bhāṣya tradition has a specific relationship to the four levels of vāk. The mūla text — the Upaniṣad, the Brahmasūtra, the Bhagavadgītā — typically operates at Paśyantī: its language is visionary, imagistic, non-discursive, carrying meanings that resist paraphrase. The bhāṣya operates at Madhyamā: its language is discursive, argumentative, structured, unfolding the Paśyantī meaning of the mūla into the sequential grammar of philosophical prose. But the best bhāṣyas — Śaṅkara's above all — introduce, at the Madhyamā level, metaphors that carry Paśyantī-level meanings: images that communicate, in the condensed form of a well-chosen comparison, what the discursive argument surrounding them would take many more sentences to approach.
6.2 The Brahmasūtra-Bhāṣya as the Primary Text
Śaṅkara's bhāṣya on the Brahmasūtra is the primary text for this series' investigation of his diction, for three reasons. First, it is the most technically sophisticated of his bhāṣyas: the Brahmasūtra is a notoriously compressed text, with sūtras of two or three words that require extensive unpacking, and Śaṅkara's commentary represents his most sustained and precise philosophical writing. Second, it is the most polemical: Śaṅkara is throughout in debate with the Sāṃkhya, Mīmāṃsā, Buddhist, and Jaina philosophical traditions, and his metaphors are often chosen specifically to make philosophical arguments against these traditions' positions. Third, it is the text in which the relationship between language and reality is most directly at issue — a commentary on commentaries on language's account of reality, a meta-linguistic document in which language's own philosophical depth is necessarily foregrounded.
Language, in the Indian tradition, does not originate in the human. It originates in Brahman — in the absolute ground of consciousness — and the human speaker is the occasion of its manifestation, not its source. To speak well, in this tradition, is not to use language skillfully; it is to allow language to use the speaker as its vehicle of self-disclosure. This is what Śaṅkara's bhāṣyas accomplish at their deepest level: they are not Śaṅkara speaking about Brahman; they are Brahman's language speaking about itself, through the bhāṣyakāra who has made himself sufficiently transparent to carry it.Series A · Editorial Framework
Conclusions: What Must Be Understood Before the Word
7.1 The Philosophical Stakes
The investigation undertaken in this paper has been concerned with the conditions of possibility for all subsequent investigation in this series. What must be understood about language, at the deepest philosophical level, before we can approach the specific diction of a specific philosopher?
The answer the Indian tradition gives — and that this paper has attempted to articulate — is: everything that the sphoṭa doctrine, the four-vāk framework, the Sanskrit-Prākrit relationship, and Devanāgarī ontology together establish. Which is: that language is not a tool but a mode of being; that its deepest level (Parā) is identical with the absolute ground of consciousness; that its revelatory function (Paśyantī-level sphoṭa) is not produced by but disclosed through the sequential sounds of utterance; that its grammatical structure (Madhyamā-level, the domain of Pāṇini's analysis) encodes the universal structure of thought; and that its visible form (Devanāgarī) encodes, in the akṣara, the same imperishable dimension that the sphoṭa doctrine identifies at the word-level.
To understand this is to understand that when Śaṅkara writes a bhāṣya sentence, something more is happening than a philosopher expressing his views. A tradition — two and a half millennia deep, carrying the accumulated philosophical labour of Vedic poets, Upaniṣadic sages, Pāṇinian grammarians, Bharṭṛharian linguists, and Vedāntic commentators — is speaking through him. And that tradition is not merely a set of ideas; it is a linguistic practice, a way of relating to language that takes language's own depth completely seriously.
7.2 What This Paper Has Established
The present paper has established four elements of the philosophical ground the series requires. First, the sphoṭa doctrine: the eternal, indivisible meaning-bearing unit of language that is revealed by, but not constituted from, the sequence of phonemes. Second, the four levels of vāk as the series' organising spine, with the present paper establishing the Parā and Paśyantī dimensions as the philosophical ground for all subsequent investigation. Third, the philosophical (not merely historical) relationship between Sanskrit and Prākrit: the reframing of Prākrit speech as inference-material pointing toward Sanskrit as its own implicit philosophical ground. Fourth, Devanāgarī as a philosophical system: the akṣara as an encoding, at the grapheme-level, of the same imperishable dimension of language that the sphoṭa doctrine identifies at the word-level.
7.3 Preview of Part Two
Part Two — The Script as Philosophy — will move from the philosophical ground established here to the specific philosophical content of the Devanāgarī script. Building on the akṣara-ontology introduced in Section V, Part Two will examine: the phonemic structure of the Devanāgarī alphabet as a map of Prakṛti's unfolding; the anusvāra and visarga as markers of cosmological transition; the śirorekha as an encoding of the sphoṭa's unifying function at the graphemic level; and the specific akṣaras that Śaṅkara's key metaphors employ — establishing the phonemic dimension of his diction before Part Four examines its semantic dimension.
The movement from Part One to Part Two is the movement from Parā and Paśyantī to the Paśyantī-Madhyamā interface: from the level at which language exists as pure, undifferentiated potential to the level at which that potential begins to crystallise into visible form. The script is the first crystallisation — the first point at which the cosmic order of language becomes available to the eye as well as the ear, the first point at which the invisible Paśyantī meaning leaves a visible Vaikharī trace.
Series A: Complete Part Map
Bibliography
Bharṭṛhari. Vākyapadīya. Ed. K. V. Abhyankar and V. P. Limaye. Pune: Deccan College, 1965. Trans. K. Pillai. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1971.
Pāṇini. Aṣṭādhyāyī. Ed. and trans. S. C. Vasu. 2 vols. Allahabad: Indian Press, 1891; repr. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1975.
Patañjali (the Grammarian). Mahābhāṣya. Ed. F. Kielhorn. 3 vols. Bombay: Government Central Book Depot, 1880–1885.
Śaṅkarācārya. Brahmasūtra-Bhāṣya. Sanskrit text: Nirnaya Sagar edition, Bombay, 1938. Trans. Swami Gambhirananda. Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1965; revised 1972.
Śaṅkarācārya. Bṛhadāraṇyaka-Upaniṣad-Bhāṣya. Trans. Swami Madhvananda. Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1950.
Abhinavagupta. Parātriṃśikā-Vivaraṇa. Trans. Jaideva Singh: A Trident of Wisdom. Albany: SUNY Press, 1989.
Gauḍapāda. Māṇḍūkya-Kārikā. Trans. Vidhushekhara Bhattacharya. Calcutta: University of Calcutta, 1943.
Biardeau, Madeleine. Théorie de la connaissance et philosophie de la parole dans le brahmanisme classique. Paris: Mouton, 1964.
Cardona, George. Pāṇini: A Survey of Research. The Hague: Mouton, 1976.
Coward, Harold G., and K. Kunjunni Raja, eds. The Philosophy of the Grammarians. Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, Vol. V. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990.
Dasgupta, Surendranath. A History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1922.
Deshpande, Madhav M. Sanskrit and Prakrit: Sociolinguistic Issues. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1979.
Deutsch, Eliot. Advaita Vedānta: A Philosophical Reconstruction. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1969.
Halbfass, Wilhelm. India and Europe: An Essay in Understanding. Albany: SUNY Press, 1988.
Houben, Jan, ed. Ideology and Status of Sanskrit. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
Houben, Jan. 'Bharṭṛhari's Philosophy of Language and the Grammar-Philosophy Interface.' Journal of Indian Philosophy 23 (1995): 407–434.
Matilal, Bimal Krishna. The Word and the World: India's Contribution to the Study of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.
Pollock, Sheldon. The Language of the Gods in the World of Men. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006.
Raja, K. Kunjunni. Indian Theories of Meaning. Madras: Adyar Library, 1963.
Staal, Frits, ed. A Reader on the Sanskrit Grammarians. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1972.
Cassirer, Ernst. The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms, Vol. 1: Language. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953.
Heidegger, Martin. 'Language.' In Poetry, Language, Thought. New York: Harper & Row, 1971.
Saussure, Ferdinand de. Course in General Linguistics. Trans. Roy Harris. London: Duckworth, 1983.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell, 1953.
Cultural Musings. Shastrasfourteen: Grand Final Synthesis — Sāṃkhya-Yoga and the Computational Puruṣa. Available at: shastrasfourteen.culturalmusings.com. [The predecessor series establishing the Sāṃkhya-Yoga and AI framework within which the present investigation of language takes its place.]