<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>elisa freschinitya and eternality &#8211; elisa freschi</title>
	<atom:link href="https://elisafreschi.com/2017/12/20/nitya-and-eternality/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://elisafreschi.com</link>
	<description>These pages are a sort of virtual desktop of Elisa Freschi. You can find here my cv and some random thoughts on Sanskrit (and) Philosophy. All criticism welcome! Contributions are also welcome!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2026 19:06:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
		<item>
		<title>nitya and eternality</title>
		<link>https://elisafreschi.com/2017/12/20/nitya-and-eternality/</link>
		<comments>https://elisafreschi.com/2017/12/20/nitya-and-eternality/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Dec 2017 13:46:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>elisa freschi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[history of philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[language and linguistics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[methodology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mīmāṃsā]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vyākaraṇa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nitya]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://elisafreschi.com/?p=2645</guid>

				<description><![CDATA[During the three days of this workshop on philosophy of language in South Asia I have been repeatedly asked why I would want to &#8220;remove&#8221; the aspect of eternality from the concept of nitya. In fact, I think the situation is rather the opposite. &#8220;Eternality&#8221; is a later overinterpretation of a term which, in my [&#8230;]]]></description>
					<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>During the three days of <a href="http://www.ikga.oeaw.ac.at/Events/saphala_workshop_2017" rel="noopener" target="_blank">this</a> workshop on philosophy of language in South Asia I have been repeatedly asked why I would want to  &#8220;remove&#8221; the aspect of eternality from the concept of <em>nitya</em>. In fact, I think the situation is rather the opposite. </p>
<p>&#8220;Eternality&#8221; is a later overinterpretation of a term which, in my opinion, originally did not mean that, and continued not to have eternality as its primary meaning throughout its history. </p>
<p><em>nitya</em> (as shown by Minoru Hara, JAOS 79.2) is etymologically adjective meaning &#8216;inherent&#8217;. This meaning is completely in harmony with its use in the same semantic field as <em>siddha</em>, <em>autpattika</em>, <em>apauruṣeya</em> and <em>svābhāvika</em> in Vyākaraṇa and Mīmāṃsā, as well as <em>dhruva</em>.*</p>
<p>So, how comes that one starts speaking about temporality in connection with <em>nitya</em>? In my hypothesis, there are three steps:</p>
<ol>
<li>In connection with the Mīmāṃsā vs Nyāya controversy, Mīmāṃsā authors insist on the <em>apauruṣeya</em> aspect of language, whereas Nyāya authors insist on language as <em>pauruṣeya</em>. Since language is pauruṣeya, it is not <em>nitya</em> in the sense of being <em>kṛtaka</em> &#8216;made up&#8217;, &#8216;artificial&#8217;. Thus, once again, <em>nitya</em> is not opposed to &#8216;temporal&#8217; but to &#8216;artificial&#8217;, once again pointing to an opposition which does not have &#8220;eternality&#8221; as its primary focus.</li>
<li>The Mīmāṃsā vs Nyāya controversy evolved also into a Mīmāṃsā vs Buddhist Epistemology controversy. For Buddhist epistemologists, whatever is <em>kṛtaka</em> is also <em>kṣaṇika</em>. Here temporality comes into the picture. Still, the point is not about &#8220;eternality&#8221; vs, &#8220;temporality&#8221;, but rather about &#8220;fixed/permanent/ummovable&#8221; vs &#8220;ephemeral&#8221;, as shown by the examples mentioned (mountains and rivers are said to be respectively <em>kūṭastha</em>&#8211; and <em>pravāhanitya</em>).</li>
<li>Euro-American interpreters are used to the topic of temporality and to the concept of eternality, which plays a big role in the Graeco-Roman and in the Judaeo-Christian worldviews. Thus, they are inclined to interpret concepts in this sense, just like it happens with concepts like &#8220;Scripture&#8221;, &#8220;God&#8221;, &#8220;letter&#8221; and the like, which have been introduced uncritically in the Indian debate.</li>
</ol>
<p><small>*Yes, you might find <em>nitya</em> also in connection to <em>anādi</em> &#8216;beginningless&#8217;, which might be interpreted temporally (I rather think it just means &#8220;for which no beginning can be proved&#8221;). But this is just one among the many terms used in juxtaposition with <em>nitya</em> (see above for several others).</p>
<p>P.S. I recently wrote an article on <em>nitya</em>. You can read the pre-print version <a href="https://www.academia.edu/35477106/What_does_nitya_mean_in_M%C4%ABm%C4%81%E1%B9%83s%C4%81" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>.</small></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			

		<wfw:commentRss>https://elisafreschi.com/2017/12/20/nitya-and-eternality/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
				<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">2645</post-id>	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>