Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the Universitys objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Printed and bound in Great Britain by Clays Ltd, Elcograf S.p.A.
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
This note follows M. Coulson, Sanskrit: An Introduction to the Classical Language (London: 1976), 419, where a very detailed explanation can be found.
Vowel sounds. The short a in Sanskrit (written a with no diacritical mark), sounds like the English vowel u in but or duck, which is why we have English renderings of words like pundit and Punjab. The long a (written ) is completely open, as in father. There are long and short versions of the other vowels, with i as in pin and as in fee, u as in put but as in boo, e as in made and ai as in bite, and finally o as in rope but au as in found. There is also a vowel , usually pronounced as if ri, thus g-veda is pronounced Rigveda.
Consonant sounds. Consonants are classified as voiceless or voiced, unaspirated or aspirated, and there are five types, velar, palatal, retroflex, dental, and labial (see the excellent interactive chart at https://ubcsanskrit.ca/lesson1/devangar.html). The voiceless stops are k, c, , t, and p, pronounced as in kill, chill, try, French tout, and pill. The retroflex is made with the tongue against the front of the roof of the mouth rather than against the teeth. The aspirated versions of these stops are written as kh, ch, h, th, and ph. Note that the h indicates aspiration only, and so they are not pronounced as in thin or physics, but simply as before but now with an outbreath. The unaspirated voiced stops (voiced because pronounced with a vibration of the vocal chord) are g, j, , d, and b, and they closely resemble their English equivalents. These too have aspirated versions, gh, jh, h, dh, and bh, pronounced with both vibrating vocal chord and outbreath.
Nasals. There are five nasal sounds in Sanskrit, one for each of the five consonant groups mentioned before. They are transliterated as , , , n, and m. Thus aga sounds like English hunger without the h, while paca sounds like puncher.
There are four unaspirated semi-vowels, ya, ra, la, and va. Of these, va is somewhere between English v and w.
There are three sibilants, palatal a, retroflex a, and dental sa. The dental sa is most similar to English s, palatal a sounds like sh as in ship, and the retroflex a is, as before, made with the tongue against the front of the roof of the mouth.
The last pure sound we will mention here is the voiced version of unvoiced English aspirant h. So in hata, meaning killed, the h involves both outbreath and voicing. When unvoiced, it is written with a special sign called a visarga (which in Devangar looks like a colon) and occurs only at the end of a syllable.
Finally, the common conjunct sound ja is usually pronounced gya (as in jna, knowledge).
This book wasnt supposed to exist. When the History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps was launched as a podcast series, which became the basis of this series of books, the intention was to begin with ancient Greek thought and cover its reception in later European history as well as the Islamic world. This is the project embodied by the four books published so far, on Classical Philosophy, Philosophy in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds, Philosophy in the Islamic World, and Medieval Philosophy. But as a number of listeners to the podcast rightly pointed out, this version of the project was too narrow. How can a series claim to cover philosophy without any gaps without dealing with India and China? The book you are holding in your hands (or the book you are reading on a screen) represents a step towards a more genuinely comprehensive history of philosophy. The aim is now to cover philosophy in all historical periods and in all cultures. Its an ambition that will presumably never be realized fully. But in hopes of coming as close as possible the series original author, Peter Adamson, is joining forces with several collaborators who will bring expertise on philosophical traditions from around the world.
Writing a truly global history of philosophy means dealing with a wide range of cultures that did not use the originally Greek word philosophy or produce texts that can easily be categorized as philosophical works. To include, say, African oral traditions within epistemology, philosophy of language, and the philosophy of mind, but well also be looking at texts devoted to ethics, metaphysics, and more.
Not infrequently, well be coming across ideas within these various departments of philosophy that resonate with European thought. This is rather reassuring. The fact that thinkers of India wound up independently exploring some of the same options familiar questions.
Before moving on to the rest of the book, we owe you a few warnings. Despite the without any gaps slogan, it will not offer exactly the same kind of coverage found in other installments of the series. For instance, the recently published volume devoted to medieval philosophy looks at a larger number of figures and texts, and more or less in chronological order. Here, we instead organize the discussion mostly in terms of schools, not as a thinker-by-thinker or generation-by-generation narrative. This makes sense given the nature of the material, and not only because dating figures and texts is often difficult. Authors often felt strong allegiance to one movement and opposed others, and foundational texts typically need to be read together with later commentaries to make them comprehensible. In this respect our approach is more like the one taken with Hellenistic philosophy in an earlier volume.
We also need to be modest about the extent to which our discussion in this book really does avoid gaps. We are covering a vast chronological and intellectual terrain here, and aim to provide readers with a philosophically informed guide to that terrain, rather than
As in other volumes of the series, we do adhere to the without any gaps approach by touching on a broader range of topics and treatises than youll find in other introductions to the topic. Thus we will be tackling such diverse themes as Sanskrit grammar, attitudes towards gender, yurvedic medicine, cosmological conceptions of time, Tantric ritual, and classical Indian theater. (In pursuing the last two themes, we venture into chronologically later figures than those covered in the rest of the book, which is why these two chapters have been placed in the final section.) In part we cast a wider net simply in order to take up issues of intrinsic philosophical interest, but these chapters are also intended to show how ideas found in more strictly philosophical texts penetrated throughout Indian society. More generally, we hope that readers will come away from the book with an appreciation of the place of philosophy within Indian history, as well as the place of Indian culture within the history of philosophy.