Conceptual Five-membered Lists in the Tradition of Yoga Philosophy

Andrei Paribok
{"title":"Conceptual Five-membered Lists in the Tradition of Yoga Philosophy","authors":"Andrei Paribok","doi":"10.21146/0042-8744-2024-7-161-171","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article treats the identification of a fundamental methodological feature peculiar to the classical Indian philosophy and Indian theoretical thinking in general. The example of the tradition of yoga philosophy (yoga-darshana) is used. These are lists of terms, always more than two-membered, that together cover a certain thematical area. The material of the article consists of five five-membered lists. First, three methodological guidelines of the researcher of the yoga tradition are considered, which are thought to be prerequisites of any remarcable success. It is stated that they are mostly ignored. Further, a statement is made based on Nyāya classical author (Paksilalasvāmin) that these lists represent a key feature in the organization of the Indian systematic text. The factor preventing the elaboration and application of such lists in the European tradition of thinking is briefly considered. It comes out to be the distinction between concepts and judgments and an obvious limitation of judgments by the dichotomy of affirmative and negative. Indian thought, on the contrary, elaborated a theory of “mind contents” (jñāna) without any distinction of concepts and judgements. The common field of the two methodological techniques, viz. the concept definition and conceptual enumeration is exemplified. On its basis, five conceptual lists of the yoga tradition are interpreted with the identification of their uniform formal structure: modes of intentionality (citta); events of intentionality (cittavrtti); “afflictions” (kleśa) i.e. unavoidable impediments to the goals of yoga; factors of meditation (dhyāna) and indispensable behavioral self-limitations of a yogin (yama). It is argued that such lists are just an example of the application of a common Indian methodological technique.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21146/0042-8744-2024-7-161-171","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article treats the identification of a fundamental methodological feature peculiar to the classical Indian philosophy and Indian theoretical thinking in general. The example of the tradition of yoga philosophy (yoga-darshana) is used. These are lists of terms, always more than two-membered, that together cover a certain thematical area. The material of the article consists of five five-membered lists. First, three methodological guidelines of the researcher of the yoga tradition are considered, which are thought to be prerequisites of any remarcable success. It is stated that they are mostly ignored. Further, a statement is made based on Nyāya classical author (Paksilalasvāmin) that these lists represent a key feature in the organization of the Indian systematic text. The factor preventing the elaboration and application of such lists in the European tradition of thinking is briefly considered. It comes out to be the distinction between concepts and judgments and an obvious limitation of judgments by the dichotomy of affirmative and negative. Indian thought, on the contrary, elaborated a theory of “mind contents” (jñāna) without any distinction of concepts and judgements. The common field of the two methodological techniques, viz. the concept definition and conceptual enumeration is exemplified. On its basis, five conceptual lists of the yoga tradition are interpreted with the identification of their uniform formal structure: modes of intentionality (citta); events of intentionality (cittavrtti); “afflictions” (kleśa) i.e. unavoidable impediments to the goals of yoga; factors of meditation (dhyāna) and indispensable behavioral self-limitations of a yogin (yama). It is argued that such lists are just an example of the application of a common Indian methodological technique.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
瑜伽哲学传统中的概念五元表
文章探讨了印度古典哲学和印度理论思维所特有的基本方法论特征。文章以瑜伽哲学传统(瑜伽-达沙纳)为例。这些术语总是由两个以上的词组组成,共同涵盖某一主题领域。文章的材料由五个五元列表组成。首先,考虑了瑜伽传统研究者的三项方法论准则,这些准则被认为是任何补救成功的先决条件。文章指出,这些准则大多被忽视。此外,根据 Nyāya 古典作者(Paksilalasvāmin)的说法,这些列表代表了印度系统文本组织中的一个关键特征。本文简要探讨了阻碍欧洲思维传统制定和应用此类清单的因素。这就是概念与判断之间的区别,以及肯定与否定二分法对判断的明显限制。相反,印度思想阐述了一种 "心内容"(jñāna)理论,没有对概念和判断加以区分。概念定义和概念列举这两种方法论技术的共同领域就是例证。在此基础上,对瑜伽传统的五个概念清单进行了解释,并确定了它们统一的形式结构:意向性模式(citta);意向性事件(cittavrtti);"苦恼"(kleśa),即瑜伽目标不可避免的障碍;冥想因素(dhyāna)和瑜伽者不可或缺的行为自我限制(yama)。有观点认为,这些清单只是印度常用方法论技巧的一个应用实例。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1