Indian tradition has expressed enormous interest in the concept of language and its usage from the Vedic age and period succeeding it. Yaska’s Nirukta and Panini’s Ashtadhyayi are a few available testimonies showing the interest and perseverence of ancient scholars in pursuing language studies with rigour and determined effort for maximal effect and proper understanding. With the formation of philosophical schools in India, there have been sustained endeavour and introspection regarding the nature, scope and behaviour of language which resulted in the thematization of various theories in keeping with their metaphysical speculations. In integrating language theories into Vedic exegesis and practices, Mimamsa is a pioneering school and the later schools followed suit paving the way for the evolution of Indian hermeneutics. The philosophy of language as a discipline of study and research has attracted the attention of philosophers in the West from the mid-twentieth century which gained momentum in the advent of the school of analytical philosophy.

In recent years, K.K. Raja’s Indian Theories of Meaning (1977) is a brilliant exposition of Indian ways of looking at language and its usage in grammar and philosophy. The Philosophy of Word and Meaning by Gaurinath Sastri (1959) explores the Indian philosophy of language in a sastric way. B.K. Matilal’s Word and the World (1990) deserves a special mention as it embodies a brief but critical analysis of language, reality and their interrelation. The present book Buddhist Theory of Meaning and Literary Analysis of Rajnish Kumar Mishra is an attempt in this direction designed to deal with the philosophy of language with more concentration on Buddhist traditions.

Besides introduction, the book is divided into five chapters. The introduction gives a synoptic account about the objective of the book and the contribution it intends to make by relating the nuances of philosophy of language to linguistic and literary aspects which, according to the author, is hardly done in earlier attempts. Chapter One entitled "Philosophy of Language and Competing Indian Theories of Meaning" discusses the difference between linguistic philosophy and philosophy of language and shows how language has been the primary concern of Indian thinkers who have dealt with this ontologically and epistemologically. The author surveys the transition that took place in the works of Bhattojidiksita and Nagesa to the philosophy of grammar following Bhartrhari. The theories of meaning propounded by Mimamsa, Nyaya and Jaina schools have been treated very briefly leading up to the Buddhist theory of meaning. Chapter Two deals with "Reality, Cognition and Expression in Buddhist Thought" which more or less is a short summary of the philosophical tenets of all the schools of Buddhism.

The third chapter entitled "Buddhist Theory of Meaning (Apohavada)", gives a detailed analysis of the philosophy of language according to Buddhist dialecticians like Dinnaga, Santaraksita, Dharmakirti, Kamalasila, Ratnakirti and others. The author successfully presents objections raised by those who are opposed to Buddhist doctrine of apoha like Vacaspati Misra, Kumarila Bhatta, Uddyotakara and others. The counter arguments put forth as answers to the objections raised have been explained with the caption "Exponent’s view" and this no doubt is an admirable exercise carefully worked out by the author. That the concept of apoha has parallels in non-Buddhist traditions has been amply exemplified with reference to Vyadi, one of the pre-Paninian grammarians (p. 136) who upheld the view that it is the mutual exclusion of the word meaning that constitutes the sentence meaning though as far as the word meaning is concerned, he advocated the view of the grammarian. Here, the author wrongly refers to Professor Kunjunni Raja who never views Vyadi as pre-Paninian. (Adyar Library Bulletin, Vol. XVIII, pp. 185-87). The reference to structuralism of Saussure seizes the attention of any reader as the author reports that Saussure was a scholar in Sanskrit and was influenced by Buddhist theories of language to build up his theories of structuralism. This is indeed an interesting issue as to how there is affinity between Buddhist thinkers with Saussure and Derrida, but the synoptic analysis of this topic could not synthesize the author’s claims into this chapter of his book perhaps because of the constraint of space.

The author takes up a famous poetry text, Tintem Abbey, of William Wordsworth in the fourth chapter, to find out the application of Buddhist model of language theorization in understanding the poem. The task of the author is indeed difficult in this chapter as he wants to analyze levels of meaning in Tintem Abbey with the parameters of meaning and language found in Buddhism. Usually, in Indian tradition, there are definite ways to deal with poetry, analyzing its contents by the norms stipulated in the texts of literary criticism, kavyasastras authored by great critics like Anan davardhana, Dandin, Bhamaha and others. Nowhere does one come across such an exercise as found in this book, even though as far as Indian literary critics are concerned their philosophical gleanings are reflected in their literary analysis. In spite of all the care that the author has taken to inject Buddhist theories of meanings into the literary analysis of the contents of Tintem Abbey, either for the better understanding or for a new-fashioned analysis, the outcome has not been very profound as intended. This conclusion summarizes the chapters and the author confesses the problem of constraints of time and space in the preparation of this book.

It is really a rewarding experience to go through this book which incorporates a lot of sastric elements quoted from the original Sanskrit sources along with translations given by the author himself. Professor Kapil Kapoor deserves our special thanks for motivating his students to take up such topics and inculcating an interest in them to look at Indian sastric tradition, which is never an easy job. In the introduction, Professor Kapoor has concisely noted down prospects and objectives of the sastra group, which is very fitting for this work. His translation of astika and nastika as "theistic" and "non-theistic" is not precise. Usually, these two terms are used as orthodox and heterodox schools since there are schools like Mimamsa, Vaisesika and Samkhya which are astika schools but are not theistic. In a sense even Advaita is not strictly theistic as the "God it accepts is associated with illusion." In that sense it is transtheistic. One may refer to Paninisutra, astinastidistam matih (Ashtadhyayi, 4.4.60) which does not specify the exact meaning accepted of the word asti and nasti in the aphorism, whether it is authority of the Vedas, existence of God or the world hereafter.

The author Rajnish Kumar Mishra has indeed made his maiden attempt a great success and one working with the Indian texts alone can realize the trouble one has to undertake in accomplishing such a sastric task. As it is said vidvaneva vijanati vidvajjana pansramam. (A seeker after knowledge alone realizes the trouble that one has to take in obtaining the sastric knowledge). I recommend this book to the serious students of Indian philosophy, of language in general and Buddhist philosophy of language in particular and wish that many such works should come out in the years to come.

The book under review contains a Preface by the author, an introduction by Professor Kapil Kapoor, organizer of the Shastra Group at Jawaharlal Nehru University and four chapters on ‘Philosophy of Language and Competing Indian Theories of Meaning’, ‘Reality, Cognition and Expression in Buddhist Thought’, ‘Buddhist Theory of Meaning (Apohavada)’, ‘Meaning and Literary Analysis: An Example Study of Wordsworth’s "Tintern Abbey"’, followed by a concluding chapter.

The work professes to offer a first in-depth exposition of Buddhist theory of meaning (apoha) against the vast backdrop of Indian linguistic thought and shows how this time-honoured theory is positioned vis-à-vis the current issues and assumptions in language. It surveys the evolution of apoha theory especially in the context of four main philosophical schools, viz. Abhidharmika, Sautrantika, Yogacara and Madhyamika. On the above basis, the author significantly sets out a cognitive, epistemological model for literary analysis and illustrates the applicational aspects of this model with analysis of Wordsworth’s poetic masterpiece ‘Tintern Abbey’. He has selected this poem as it is highly valued for its righ contents and its loftiness of feelings and ideas, etc. I have not been much impressed by the selection of Wordsworth’s masterpiece for explaining apoha, but the authors always have their choice. He is emphatic that Buddhist theory of meaning (apoha) has a distinct place in the literary world and it transcends the barriers of time and space with its own strength. He refers to the chapter on apoha as the ‘soul’ of his work (Conclusion, p. 208).

MIshra’s claim that his small work is almost the first of its kind (Preface, p. viii) may be questioned by some scholars as a number of articles and monographs are written on and related to this important theory. It may be pointed out that Vasubandhu’s Abhidharma Kosa bhasya (VI. 4, p. 334, Pradhan’s edition) also mentions it. But the theory was in seminal form. However, the great followers of Vasubandhu and Nagarjuna, viz. Acharya Dignaga and Dharmakirti expanded and further developed it. But it cannot be denied that the seeds of the theory were found in Buddha’s early discussions also, although the Master may not have directly talked about it. And the theory was in tune with the Buddhist doctrine of non-substantiality of reality including that of language. There is a lot of material on sabda, artha and dharma (the last divided into dravya and adravya) in the texts and long controversies about them in which different sects present their own views but there is no challenge to the basics of Buddhist thought which subscribes to impermanent and non-substantial nature of phenomena.

Now a few suggestions: It would have been better if along with ‘abbreviations’, bibliographical information of works quoted was also given on the same page for easy accessibility for reference material. Also, the glossary of Sanskrit terms has been arranged in Sanskrit alphabetical order instead of Roman one.

On the whole, R.K. Mishra’s work is based on important literary source materials and is valuable for reinterpretation of the Buddhist theory of meaning. It has a good bibliography of ancient as well as modern works related to the main topics discussed in the present work.