Debating the centre : the theory of principal qualificand (mukhyavisesya) in classical Indian philosophy

The theory of language has occupied a special place in the history of Indian thought. Indian philosophers give particular attention to the analysis of the cognition obtained from language, known under the generic name of śābdabodha. This term is used to denote, among other things, the cognition episode of the hearer, the content of which is described in the form of a paraphrase of a sentence represented as a hierarchical structure. Philosophers submit the meaning of the component items of a sentence and their relationship to a thorough examination, and represent the content of the resulting cognition as a paraphrase centred on a meaning element, that is taken as principal qualificand (mukhyaviśesya) which is qualified by the other meaning elements. This analysis is the object of continuous debate over a period of more than a thousand years between the philosophers of the schools of Mimāmsā, Nyāya (mainly in its Navya form) and Vyākarana. While these philosophers are in complete agreement on the idea that the cognition of sentence meaning has a hierarchical structure and share the concept of a single principal qualificand (qualified by other meaning elements), they strongly disagree on the question which meaning element has this role and by which morphological item it is expressed. This disagreement is the central point of their debate and gives rise to competing versions of this theory. The Mïmāmsakas argue that the principal qualificand is what they call bhāvanā ̒bringing into being̒, ̒efficient force̒ or ̒productive operation̒, expressed by the verbal affix, and distinct from the specific procedures signified by the verbal root; the Naiyāyikas generally take it to be the meaning of the word with the first case ending, while the Vaiyākaranas take it to be the operation expressed by the verbal root. All the participants rely on the Pāninian grammar, insofar as the Mimāmsakas and Naiyāyikas do not compose a new grammar of Sanskrit, but use different interpretive strategies in order to justify their views, that are often in overt contradiction with the interpretation of the Pāninian rules accepted by the Vaiyākaranas. In each of the three positions, weakness in one area is compensated by strength in another, and the cumulative force of the total argumentation shows that no position can be declared as correct or overall superior to the others. This book is an attempt to understand this debate, and to show that, to make full sense of the irreconcilable positions of the three schools, one must go beyond linguistic factors and consider the very beginnings of each school's concern with the issue under scrutiny. The texts, and particularly the late texts of each school present very complex versions of the theory, yet the key to understanding why these positions remain irreconcilable seems to lie elsewhere, this in spite of extensive argumentation involving a great deal of linguistic and logical technicalities. Historically, this theory arises in Mimāmsā (with Sabara and Kumārila), then in Nyāya (with Udayana), in a doctrinal and theological context, as a byproduct of the debate over Vedic authority. The Navya-Vaiyākaranas enter this debate last (with Bhattoji Dïksita and Kaunda Bhatta), with the declared aim of refuting the arguments of the Mïmāmsakas and Naiyāyikas by bringing to light the shortcomings in their understanding of Pāninian grammar. The central argument has focused on the capacity of the initial contexts, with the network of issues to which the principal qualificand theory is connected, to render intelligible the presuppositions and aims behind the complex linguistic justification of the classical and late stages of this debate. Reading the debate in this light not only reveals the rationality and internal coherence of each position beyond the linguistic arguments, but makes it possible to understand why the thinkers of the three schools have continued to hold on to three mutually exclusive positions. They are defending not only their version of the principal qualificand theory, but (though not openly acknowledged) the entire network of arguments, linguistic and/or extra-linguistic, to which this theory is connected, as well as the presuppositions and aims underlying these arguments.

Structural, metamorphic and geochronological relations between the Zanskar Shear Zone and the Miyar Shear Zone (NW Indian Himalaya): Evidence for two distinct tectonic structures and implications for the evolution of the High Himalayan Crystalline of Zanskar

The geologic structures and metamorphic zonation of the northwestern Indian Himalaya contrast significantly with those in the central and eastern parts of the range, where the high-grade metamorphic rocks of the High Himalayan Crystalline (HHC) thrust southward over the weakly metamorphosed sediments of the Lesser Himalaya along the Main Central Thrust (MCT). Indeed, the hanging wall of the MCT in the NW Himalaya mainly consists of the greenschist facies metasediments of the Chamba zone, whereas HHC high-grade rocks are exposed more internally in the range as a large-scale dome called the Gianbul dome. This Gianbul dome is bounded by two oppositely directed shear zones, the NE-dipping Zanskar Shear Zone (ZSZ) on the northern flank and the SW-dipping Miyar Shear Zone (MSZ) on the southern limb. Current models for the emplacement of the HHC in NW India as a dome structure differ mainly in terms of the roles played by both the ZSZ and the MSZ during the tectonothermal evolution of the HHC. In both the channel flow model and wedge extrusion model, the ZSZ acts as a backstop normal fault along which the high-grade metamorphic rocks of the HHC of Zanskar are exhumed. In contrast, the recently proposed tectonic wedging model argues that the ZSZ and the MSZ correspond to one single detachment system that operates as a subhorizontal backthrust off of the MCT. Thus, the kinematic evolution of the two shear zones, the ZSZ and the MSZ, and their structural, metamorphic and chronological relations appear to be diagnostic features for discriminating the different models. In this paper, structural, metamorphic and geochronological data demonstrate that the MSZ and the ZSZ experienced two distinct kinematic evolutions. As such, the data presented in this paper rule out the hypothesis that the MSZ and the ZSZ constitute one single detachment system, as postulated by the tectonic wedging model. Structural, metamorphic and geochronological data are used to present an alternative tectonic model for the large-scale doming in the NW Indian Himalaya involving early NE-directed tectonics, weakness in the upper crust, reduced erosion at the orogenic front and rapid exhumation along both the ZSZ and the MSZ.

Food traditions and landscape histories of the Indian Ocean World : theoretical and methodological reflections

Environmental histories of plant exchanges have largely centred on their eco- nomic importance in international trade and on their ecological and social impacts in the places where they were introduced. Yet few studies have at- tempted to examine how plants brought from elsewhere become incorporated over time into the regional cultures of material life and agricultural landscapes. This essay considers the theoretical and methodological problems in inves- tigating the environmental history, diversity and distribution of food plants transferred across the Indian Ocean over several millennia. It brings together concepts of creolisation, syncretism, and hybridity to outline a framework for understanding how biotic exchanges and diffusions have been translated into regional landscape histories through food traditions, ritual practices and articu- lation of cultural identity. We use the banana plant - which underwent early domestication across New Guinea, South-east Asia and peninsular India and reached East Africa roughly two thousand years ago - as an example for il- lustrating the diverse patterns of incorporation into the cultural symbolism, material life and regional landscapes of the Indian Ocean World. We show that this cultural evolutionary approach allows new historical insights to emerge and enriches ongoing debates regarding the antiquity of the plant's diffusion from South-east Asia to Africa.

Back to Gondwanaland: can ancient vicariance explain (some) Indian Ocean disjunct plant distributions?

Oceans, or other wide expanses of inhospitable environment, interrupt present day distributions of many plant groups. Using molecular dating techniques, generally incorporating fossil evidence, we can estimate when such distributions originated. Numerous dating analyses have recently precipitated a paradigm shift in the general explanations for the phenomenon, away from older geological causes, such as continental drift, in favour of more recent, long-distance dispersal (LDD). For example, the 'Gondwanan vicariance' scenario has been dismissed in various studies of Indian Ocean disjunct distributions. We used the gentian tribe Exaceae to reassess this scenario using molecular dating with minimum (fossil), maximum (geological), secondary (from wider analyses) and hypothesis-driven age constraints. Our results indicate that ancient vicariance cannot be ruled out as an explanation for the early origins of Exaceae across Africa, Madagascar and the Indian subcontinent unless a strong assumption is made about the maximum age of Gentianales. However, both the Gondwanan scenario and the available evidence suggest that there were also several, more recent, intercontinental dispersals during the diversification of the group.