Project Topics
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
CHAPTER 3 OVERVIEW OF HINDU PHILOSOPHY
INTRODUCTION
The last chapter introduced CMT, and contextualised the theory within the broader context of CL. This chapter aims to provide a broad overview of Hindu philosophy with the purpose of contextualising the current study and explaining where the philosophy and teachings of Swami Vivekananda fit into the broader context of Hindu philosophy, and why the CW of Vivekananda were chosen as an empirical domain for this thesis.
Vivekananda’s influence and reputation within modern-day Hinduism is thus foregrounded in this chapter, as a justification for choosing his CW as the basis for this study. From a linguistic perspective, it is also important to note that the bulk of the original texts are in English.
After introducing the broadest possible definition of Hinduism, along the lines of orthodoxy versus heterodoxy, details of the former are outlined with reference to the six systems of Hindu philosophy, culminating in the Vedanta and Vivekananda’s role in reviving it. Given that this is the case, the goal here is not to present a detailed, nuanced, scholarly overview. The outline presented below is not meant to be an ‘objective’ attempt to capture the Hindu philosophies mentioned, but rather to contextualise it generally from the perspective of Vivekananda’s teachings (cf. sections 4.2.5 and 4.3 on the issue of bias in this regard). Hence, a detailed academic critique is not the point here, since to do justice to a task of that magnitude will require a more comprehensive study, which is beyond the scope of the current thesis. In this regard, most of the sources drawn upon belong to the neo-Hindu school which Vivekananda laid the foundation for, with excerpts taken from Vivekananda’s CW to supplement these views. Section 3.9 explores the influence Vivekananda had on other modern-day saints, most of whom have explicitly acknowledged Vivekananda as having a direct influence on them; it is in this way that Vivekananda’s work is deemed ‘foundational’.
ORTHODOX VERSUS HETERODOX HINDUISM
Hinduism is said to be “the oldest of the world’s living religions”, and has “no founder” (Sarma 1996: 3). Other idiosyncrasies, like not being a ‘book-based’ religion, make it rather “difficult to distinguish between its essentials and nonessentials” (Sarma 1996: 3). Even so, broadly speaking, Hindu philosophy can be divided into two main branches, each comprising six sub-schools, which are further divided into various schools. The two main branches are the “heterodox” and the “orthodox” systems (Sivananda 1977: 110). According to Harshananda (2011: 38), the primary distinguishing feature of these two systems is that the former does not accept the authority of the Vedas, and are therefore classified as nastika (‘heterodox’), whereas the latter does, and are classified as astika (‘orthodox’). The Vedas are said to be “the primary scriptures of Hinduism” revealed by God to ancient saints and seers who transcribed these revelations (Raghavan 1996: 265). The emphasis here is on orthodox Hinduism, since Vivekananda used this branch of Hinduism as the basis for his teachings.
The six heterodox systems are as follows:
The system of materialism;
The systems of the Jains and Buddhists;
The school of presentationists;
The school of representationists;
The school of idealism;
The school of nihilism.
The six orthodox systems are as follows:
The Nyaya;
The Vaiseshika;
The Sankhya;
The Yoga;
The Mimamsa;
The Vedanta.
As mentioned, “the criterion for orthodoxy here is acceptance of the Vedas and vedic literature as the ultimate authority” (Naicker 2013: 349). In fact, most Hindus would not recognize the tenets premised on heterodoxy as being part of Hinduism, and certainly the Jains and Buddhists would not consider themselves to be Hindus. Scholars like Mason (2012: 28) have addressed this question, asking whether Buddhism emerged “within Indian philosophy out of the rejection of the tradition”. This is a question which is worth noting, but given the fact that Buddhism flourished more outside of India than within leads one to question whether India rejected Buddhism, or the other way round; as this is a contentious matter, it will not be delved into here, and indeed Vivekananda’s opinion on this particluar matter is especially controversial. The converse, however, is not in question (meaning the question as to whether Hinduism arose out of, or as a reaction to Buddhism), given the temporal precedence, and the rarely disputed fact that the Buddha himself was Indian, and Hindu. As mentioned, in Appendix D, under metaphor 6.4.5.7, whether the Buddha was indeed the ninth avatar of Hinduism (Krishnananda 1994: 61) is a contentious matter and beyond the scope of this thesis. Perhaps this disparity stems from the fact that the word ‘Hindu’ simply was a term used by influential British Indologists like William Jones and John Woodroffe to refer to the people who lived along the Indus Valley (Sivananda 1977), and the term was later adopted by Max Müller and Paul Deussen, both influential German Indologists who translated many of the original Hindu scriptures from Sanskrit to English – and both of whom were good friends of Vivekananda (tributes to them are to be found in CW-4). Laine (1983: 165) points out that “the concepts ‘Hinduism’ and ‘religion’ were part of the intellectual baggage packed off to India with the eighteenth century British, and with their introduction into Indian thought, Indians themselves used these terms in their efforts at self-definition and understanding vis-à-vis the alien Englishmen. Even if the categories did not quite fit, the process of cultural translation thus sparked” a need for such. According to Sivananda (1977: 26), the term ‘Hinduism’ is not to be found in any original so-called Hindu text, which used the term Sanatana Dharma (‘Eternal Religion’) instead. The term Hindu is now used to denote precisely what the term Sanatana Dharma was intended to denote (based on the Vedas); strictly speaking, the term applies to all of the above-mentioned systems of thought.
Regardless, there are mutually exclusive doctrines within the orthodox schools as well. Even within the Vedic tradition, there is a distinction between srutis, meaning “that which is heard”, connoting a primary revelation, and smritis, meaning “that which is remembered”, connoting a secondary revelation (Raghavan 1996: 265-266). The former “constitute that body of literature which always takes precedence over the latter, since the smritis are written for a particular society at a particular time, and therefore not necessarily applicable to all people for all time” (Naicker 2013: 349).
AN OUTLINE OF THE VEDAS
“Since these six orthodox schools of thought are all premised on Vedic literature, it is necessary to understand exactly what this refers to. The word ‘Veda’ simply means ‘knowledge’, and some would not even want to commit to using this term in any sense which would classify a certain body of work” (Naicker 2013: 349). However, for the purpose of contextualising the current study, it would be necessary to understand what exactly the Vedas and Vedic literature refers to. A study of the Vedas forms “generally the beginning of an advanced learning in the philosophical and religious literature of India” (Krishnananda 1973: 3). Given this definition, any advanced learning, whether written or orally transmitted, would count as ‘Vedic’, although the traditional, more limited, definition of what counts as Vedic will be outlined below shortly.
The Vedic hymns can be a means of connecting with the beings of the celestial world, such as gods, deities, ancestors or disembodied spirits. These entities are propitiated in various ways, sometimes premised on the idea that if they are not, some kind of misfortune will ensue. These entities are also called upon to assist with various problems (some mundane and some not). Ancestor worship is very much part of the Hindu tradition as well, though this is not strictly part of the Vedic tradition. There are also mantras addressed to “the Universal Being or the Absolute” (Krishnananda 1973: 4). There are specific rituals prescribed, which would determine which deity is invoked.
According to Nowbath et al. (1960: 29), there are four main Vedas: the Rig-Veda (comprising 10 chapters and 10 589 mantras), the Yajur-Veda (comprising 40 chapters and 1 976 mantras), the Sama-Veda (comprising 29 chapters and 1 875 mantras), and the Atharva-Veda (comprising 20 chapters and 5 977 mantras). The Rig-Veda is concerned with panegyrics to the deities. The Yajur-Veda is divided into the ‘black’ and ‘white’ portions (as is the Atharva-Veda). It contains sacrificial formulae, in both prose and verse, to be chanted at the performance of a sacrifice. The Sama-Veda comprises sections from the Rig-Veda in song form, meant to be sung during various sacrificial rites. The Atharva-Veda, said to be the ‘youngest’ of the four, comprises mainly spells and incantations. As mentioned earlier, if one reads the Atharva-Veda, one would certainly understand why orthodox scholars would want to discount this as being part of Hindu sacred literature – it is filled with spells and sacrificial rituals, many of which are for worldly gain, like wooing a lover, material success, along with charms and spells to drive away diseases and “to injure the enemy” (Nowbath et al. 1960: 27); furthermore, there are certain portions of the Atharva-Veda and the Yajur-Veda which “are concerned with black magic” (ibid. 26). There are also certain mantras to bind your lover to you, which seem to be adaptations from the mantras of the Rig-Veda, used during marriage ceremonies (another reason some think this scripture must have come into the literature at a much later stage). However, despite the ritual aspect, it must be noted that the 15th chapter (there are 20 in this Veda) is highly philosophical and speaks of the glories of the Supreme Being.
Each Veda has another four divisions, known as the Samhita, Brahmana, Aranyaka or Upanishad respectively (Raghavan 1996: 265). The Samhita portion comprises various hymns for the deities. The Brahmanas detail how sacrificial rites ought to be carried out. These are loosely designated as Karmakanda, the ritualistic portion. The Samhitas and the Brahmanas are meant to complement each other, since the hymns from the former are generally meant to be chanted during the latter’s rites. The Aranyakas and the Upanishads are the portions dealing with mystical contemplation. The rites mentioned in the Vedas can be performed for material gain on earth, or for spiritual edification, for which the practitioner will be rewarded in the ‘hereafter’. Emphasis upon the latter lead to the philosophic mysticism referred to as Jnanakanda (‘knowledge-section’), the portion dealing with supreme knowledge, whereas the converse is referred to as the Karmakanda (‘ritual-section’).
The literal meaning of the word Veda denotes knowledge, but as it pertains to spirituality, actually connotes a superior, transcendent kind of knowledge. Traditionally, one associates the word Veda with the above-mentioned distinctions, that being the various Vedas above. These scriptures belong to the ancient Indo-Aryans who crossed the Indus River around 5000 BCE, though scholars disagree on the exact dates, given that many contend that Vedic literature ante-dates the arrival of the said people (Nowbath et al. 1960). These books are transcribed in classical Sanskrit, and are said to be a direct revelation from God. They are believed to embody supreme and sublime truths beyond the ken of the human mind.
It is worth noting that some authorities do not accept the Atharva-Veda as an authentic division. Some point to the grammar used, claiming that it is a much later form, others infer this from the fact that the word ‘trayi’ is often used to refer to Vedic literature in the ancient scholarship, which denotes a tripartite distinction. This interpretation is not categorically accepted either, since Vedalankar (1965: 128) claims that this could refer to the fact that these texts deal with “the three aspects of human nature: Jnana [‘knowledge’], Karma [‘action’] and Upasana [‘meditation’]”. In other words, those who prefer hands-on activities would prefer the path of karma, or work; those who are of an intellectual bent, would prefer the path of Jnana, or knowledge – philosophical contemplation on the Divine; and those who are of a mystic temperament would prefer the path of worship and meditation. These are all described as different paths to the same goal.
THE SUB-CATEGORIES OF THE SMRITIS
The scriptures classified as smriti are “generally listed under five headings: Vedangas, or limbs of the Vedas, Dharma Sastras, which include codes of laws, commentaries and digests and manuals; Nibandhas, [which are] rituals and domestic rites; Puranas; and the epics” (Raghavan 1996: 269). These are discussed in turn below. The Vedangas refer to the explanatory limbs which need to be studied in preparation for an in-depth study of the Vedas. These are said to deal with “phonetics, grammar, etymology, prosody, astronomy, and ritual codes” (Raghavan 1996: 269). A classic example of the Vedangas is the Asthadhyayi (‘eight books’), written by Panini.
The Dharma Sastras are “concerned with conduct, the way of righteousness, dealing even with personal hygiene, manners and polite behaviour”, issues of diet, and so on (Raghavan 1996: 269). The Manu Smriti is one such scripture which falls under this category, and as scriptures which are not primary revelations, these scriptures are always interpreted in light of the srutis, which take precedence whenever there is a contradiction between the sruti and the smriti (CW-3: 67). This is because these scriptures were written for a particular purpose, within a particular socio-cultural climate – not strictly meant to apply to all persons at all times. For example, most Hindus would agree that a scripture like the Manu Smriti, is largely anachronistic, since most modern-day Hindus are very much against the practice of beef-eating; despite this Chapter 5, verse 30 of the Manu Smriti, says that: “It is not sinful to eat meat of edible animals, for Brahma has created both the eaters and the eatables”.
It ought to be noted though that later on it does qualify such statements by restricting the sanctioning of meat-consumption to ritualistic contexts.
The Nibandhas are extensions of the Dharma Sastras, and are “digests and manuals” which codify the Vedic laws “and encyclopaedic discussions of all aspects of conduct, even including such topics as gifts, pilgrimages, vows, worship, auspicious features of the human body, and descriptions of articles of utility”; however, owing to the unnecessarily long-winded language and length of the Nibandhas, what happened was that over time people reverted to the Dharma Sastras, as well as the “epics and Puranas”, which devoted extensive attention to these very topics (Raghavan 1996: 270).
The Puranas are texts written by various saints for specific times, which attempted to fill various lacunae or ambiguities inherent in the original Vedas, and as such are seen “as a reinforcement and amplification of the Vedic teachings”. One of the Puranas, namely the Vishnu Purana, speaks of the significance of Lord Vishnu, the preserver of all aspects of the universe, it is said that the original Vedas comprised 100 000 verses and had four divisions. Over time, these divisions got confused and fell into obscurity. Lord Krishna, who is believed to be an incarnation of Lord Vishnu, then “resuscitated the study of the Vedas”, which were subsequently classified into four books by the sage Veda Vyasa (Nowbath et al. 1960: 25). Lord Krishna is the protagonist in the well-known epic, The Bhagavad Gita (‘the song celestial’), which is said to comprise the essence of the teachings in the Vedas.
The epics, which also fall under the smritis, also known as the itihasas (‘thus happened’) They are many in number, but the “two great epics of Hinduism are the Ramayana and the Mahabharata” (Raghavan 1996: 271). The Ramayana is a well-known epic which details the life of Lord Rama, said to be the seventh divine incarnation (avatar) of Lord Vishnu. The Mahabharata tells the story of Lord Krishna, and a sub-section of it, Book 6, is treated as a separate scripture, detailing Lord Krishna’s discourse on the battlefield of Kurukshetra, where he advises his friend Arjuna on matters pertaining to warfare; this scripture is known as the Bhagavad Gita (Raghavan 1996: 374). Scriptures like the Bhagavad Gita and the Ramayana are meant to be interpreted allegorically, and one would find that they converge with the precepts espoused in the Vedantic schools of thought. Hence, these texts are to be seen as story-like illustrations of abstruse philosophical tenets for the layman.
AN OVERVIEW OF THE SIX ORTHODOX SYSTEMS OF HINDU PHILOSOPHY
The Indian philosophical systems are referred to as Darsanas, so-called because “unlike the Western philosophical systems, they do not depend solely on logic and reasoning, but on ‘darshana’ or ‘seeing’ ” (Harshananda 2011: 38).
The six aforementioned systems of philosophy are to be understood as being inter-related, even though they may seem to be ostensibly premised on mutually exclusive doctrines. According to Raghavan (1996: 273), these systems are paired together as follows:
The Nyaya and the Vaiseshika;
The Sankhya and the Yoga;
The Mimamsa and the Vedanta.
Sivananda (1977: 111) explains that this is done because the “Vaiseshika is a supplement of the Nyaya. The Yoga is a supplement of the Sankhya. The Vedanta is an amplification and fulfilment of the Sankhya”. Furthermore, a study of all these systems is actually “necessary to understand the Vedanta” (Sivananda 1977: 218). The Nyaya, for example, sharpens the intellect and enables the seeker to grasp the fine philosophical precepts found in the Vedanta.
Regardless, the Vaiseshika system has fallen out of favour in contemporary Hinduism, and because “later writers started dealing with” the Nyaya and Vaiseshika systems as “if they were one system”, the lack of enthusiasm for the one, entailed the concomitant falling away, in practice, of the other as well (Harshananda 2011: 21). Chatterjee (1996: 215) seems to concur, as he discusses these systems under the same heading as “The Nyaya-Vaiseshika Theory”, and refers to them as “allied systems” to be “considered together”. The Nyaya (‘theory of inference’) and the Vaiseshika (‘study of ultimate particulars’) “gives an analysis of the physical world. The world is arranged into various categories, and God is said to have made the universe out of atoms and molecules” (Naicker 2013: 353). After an analysis of the physical world is done, the exponents of the Nyaya and Vaiseshika systems prescribe various methods for knowing God. Perhaps this theory fell out of favour because it “does not admit the possibility of man’s attaining liberation in this life and in this world” (Chatterjee 1996: 220). Be that as it may, given its non-relevance to contemporary Hinduism, and therefore in Vivekananda’s CW, these system(s) will not be dealt with in any detail here.
The Sankhya, Yoga and Mimamsa systems will now be outlined in turn, with reference to the key exponents of these systems, as well as key scriptures, followed by a superficial outline of the key postulates within each system.
AN OUTLINE OF THE SANKHYA, YOGA AND MIMAMSA SYSTEMS
The Sankhya System
The etymology of the term ‘Sankhya’ is not clear, but some have said that the word could either connote ‘knowledge’, since it is a system which advocates knowledge as a means to liberation, or ‘number’, since the system postulates 24 ‘cosmic principles’ which serve as the basis for the creative evolution of the universe (discussed below). In his Glossary of Sanskrit Terms, Sivananda (2015: 113) simply defines the word as “A system of philosophy propounded by Kapila”.
The Sankhya was said to be “attributed to the sage Kapila”, who founded the system, and is in fact “a system of dualistic realism which is the basis of a religion without belief in God”; like the other systems of orthodox thought, the aim “of the Sankhya religion is the liberation of man’s self from bondage to the body and the material world” (Chatterjee 1996: 208). The most important scripture within this system is known as the Sankhyasutras, and contains six chapters comprising 526 sutras (‘aphorisms’) altogether. A commentary on this work was written by Vijnanabhiksu, a scholar of the 16th century, and is known as the Sankhya-pravacana-bhasya. The oldest text attributed to the Sankhya tradition is the Sankhyakarikas, written by Isvarakrishna, a scholar of the 6th century.
The Sankhya postulates three methods of knowledge: pratyaksha (‘direct perception’), anumana (‘inference’), and sabda (‘testimony’). Pratyaksha refers to the direct sensory perception of an object, and is further sub-divided into nirvikalpaka (‘indeterminate’) and savikalpaka (‘determinate’) perception, the former being something like seeing a table, and then upon closer inspection recognising it to be a wooden table, perhaps used for dining, and whatever other details transpire after a closer examination of the percept. Anumana is used to refer to knowledge gained via abductive inference, for example, upon seeing smoke, one can infer that there must be a fire causing it. Finally, the testimony of a reliable person (sabda) is taken to be the third source of knowledge – known as aptavakya. In this regard, the Sankhya recognises the insights given in the Vedas as the ultimate knowledge, since we are relying on the testimony of the great sages who transcribed their spiritual insights, which are “supersensuous realities” otherwise beyond our ken (Harshananda 2011: 31).
According to the Sankhya, the purusha (‘individual soul’) and prakriti (nature) are the only “fundamental realities”, without a need for a Supreme Being transcending these two (Harshananda 2011: 39). The basic argument behind this conclusion is based on something called Satkaryavada (‘the effect pre-existing in the cause’). This relates to the idea that when moulding a pot out of clay, for example, the pot, in a sense, already ‘existed’ in the clay, just in a different shape. Based on this idea, given that the qualities of pleasure, pain and indifference seem to occur quite pervasively in the world, “the Sankhya comes to the conclusion that there must be three basic subtle substances from which these three characteristics are derived” (Harshananda 2011: 32-33). These qualities are called gunas, and it is believed that they “can never be separated” because they always exist together, in other words, every person is an admixture of these qualities in different proportions (Harshananda 2011: 33). These three qualities are said to be tamas (‘inertia’), rajas (‘active nature’), and sattva (‘calm nature’).
Prakriti, being the basic, primal material from which the universe was said to have manifested, is said to be in a state of jada (‘having no consciousness’), but exists in a state of equilibrium between these three states. When there is contact between the purushas, of which there is said to be an infinite number, then this state of balance is disturbed, and this sets in motion the creative process, leading to the evolution and manifestation of the universe.
As a result of the gunas mixing with one another, the first thing to manifest as a result is the Mahat Buddhi (‘Cosmic Intellect’), from which evolves the ahankara (‘principle of individuation’), from which also evolves Manas (‘Cosmic Mind’), the jnanendriyas (‘organs or knowledge/perception’), the karmendriyas (‘organs of action’, like the hands and feet). Altogether, there are 24 such principles manifesting themselves through a process of evolution due to the interaction of the prakriti and purusha, and due to the “permutation”and “combination” of such, everything one sees in the universe evolves; finally, “each purusha gets involved with a psycho-physical complex (body) as per his karma” (Harshananda 2011: 35). Hence, the individual soul must now strive for liberation by freeing itself from the karmic bonds which cause rebirth in this manner.
“The Sankhya outlines the Hindu concept of the mind, and since Yoga deals with thought control and meditation techniques, the link between the two systems is evident. Sankhya is also seen as an anachronistic system, since Yoga is said to be based on the Sankhya principles, and has, in a sense, taken its place. Yoga is practiced by many in its practical form, though there is an over-emphasis on Hatha Yoga, which is the physical aspect of it based on certain asanas (‘postures’), and has regrettably been equated with Yoga in its entirety in Western popular culture” (Naicker 2013: 353). This is why, according to Harshananda (2011: 39), the Yoga system has been referred to as Sesvara-Sankhya (‘Sankhya with God’).
Vyasa, said to be the key exponent of the Vedanta, which will be discussed below, was very critical of the Vaiseshika and Sankhya systems especially.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
CONVENTIONS
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
1.2 VIVEKANANDA AS A HINDU SCHOLAR
1.3 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESES
1.5 METHODOLOGY
1.6 CONTRIBUTION
1.7 OVERVIEW OF THE REMAINING CHAPTERS
1.8 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 2: OVERVIEW OF COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS AND CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR THEORY
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS – A GENERAL OVERVIEW
2.3 AN OVERVIEW OF THEORIES OF METAPHOR AS A CONCEPTUAL PHENOMENON
2.4 A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO BT
2.5 A CRITICAL COMPARISON BETWEEN BT AND CMT
2.6 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW OF HINDU PHILOSOPHY
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 ORTHODOX VERSUS HETERODOX HINDUISM
3.3 AN OUTLINE OF THE VEDAS
3.4 THE SUB-CATEGORIES OF THE SMRITIS
3.5 AN OVERVIEW OF THE SIX ORTHODOX SYSTEMS OF HINDU PHILOSOPHY
3.6 AN OUTLINE OF THE SANKHYA, YOGA AND MIMAMSA SYSTEMS
3.7 THE VEDANTA PHILOSOPHY AS THE BASTION OF VIVEKANANDA’S ‘NEW HINDUISM’
3.8 VIVEKANANDA’S RECONCILIATION OF THE THREE SCHOOLS OF VEDANTA
3.9 SWAMI VIVEKANANDA’S REPUTATION
3.10 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY: PART 1 – PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORKS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 PARADIGMATIC POSITIONS
4.3 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHODS
4.4 THE PARADIGMATIC STANCE ASSUMED AS THE BASIS FOR THE CURRENT RESEARCH
4.5 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 5: METHODOLOGY: PART 2 – METHODOLOGY IN METAPHOR ANALYSIS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 PREVIOUS STUDIES USING CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR THEORY AS A FRAMEWORK
5.3 CORPUS LINGUISTICS AS A TOOL IN THE CURRENT STUDY
5.4 MIPVU AS A METHOD IN THE CURRENT STUDY
5.5 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 6: METAPHORS WITHIN THE WATER FRAME IN HINDU PHILOSOPHY
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 OUTLINE OF METAPHORS AND METAPHORICAL FRAMES WHICH EMERGED FROM THE ANALYSIS
6.3 THEMES BASED ON THE WATER-RELATED METAPHORS – AN OVERVIEW
6.4 WATER-RELATED METAPHORS – AN ANALYSIS
6.5 Synthesis of water-based conceptual metaphors in the CW
6.6 Recurring metaphors in other Hindu scholars’ texts
6.7 Conclusion
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
7.1 HYPOTHESES REVISITED
7.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS REVISITED
7.3 MAIN HYPOTHESES REVISITED
7.4 CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE CURRENT STUDY
7.5 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
7.6 CONCLUSION
REFERENCE LIST
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
