1

Logocentrism and Deconstruction: A Kar:mik Literary Theoretical Perspective

Chilukuri Bhuvaneswar, The Proverbial Linguistics Group, Hyderabad, India
Abstract
From the perspective of deconstruction, “putting in question” logocentrism, instead of giving an
alternative to logocentrism, is itself considered a new theoretical achievement. The consideration of the
logocentric error as “the illusion that the meaning of a word has its origin in the structure of reality
itself and hence makes the truth about that structure seem directly present to the mind” (Ellis 1989:
36-37) is not a new discovery made by Derrida himself. Logocentrism has already been disembered by
analytical philosophers such as Wittgenstein, by linguists such as Firth, and anthropological linguists
such as Edmund Sapir and Benjamin Lee Worf. Mere problematizing in standard literary criticism
is untenable: troubleshooting identifies the problem but cannot be the solution; diagnosis identifies the
disease but cannot be the remedy by itself. They are linear and consequential but not identical.
In this paper, logocentrism is revisited and examined in the light of Ka:rmik Literary Theory and an
alternative to it is offered in ka:rmik centrism to overcome the objections raised against it. Ka:rmik
centrism is based on the Universal Science of Creation and looks at language as an experiential
system. Both logocentrism and deconstruction are looked at as dispositional contextual reactions to
the literary (textual) reality in terms of the presence of absolutes (as in metaphysics of presence in
traditional literary criticism) and their absence (as in deconstruction).These are relatively observed in
a binary opposition of presence vs absence in KlitT where these constructions of reality are considered
myths. Nonetheless, reality is a fact proved by the presence of a universal science of creation and
existence in this actual world at the empirical plane, even though it is not there at the quantum
physical level.

I. Introduction
In the history of western literary criticism, numerous literary theories have cropped up right
from Plato (360 BC) to the present day. One researcher Resty S. Odon (2010) has identified
31 types in his list of literary theories. The Purdue OWL document on Literary Theory and
Schools of Criticism identifies 11 schools of criticism starting from 360 B.C. (from Plato) to
the present day. Among these 11 schools, the emphasis is mainly on Moral Criticism,
Dramatic Construction, Formalism, Psychoanalytic Criticism, Marxist Criticism, Reader-
Response Criticism (1960s-present), Structuralism and Semiotics, Postmodern Criticism that
includes deconstruction and post-structuralism (in “The Center Cannot Hold”), New
Historicism, Cultural Studies, Post-Colonial Criticism, Feminist Criticism, Gender Studies
and Queer Theory as these important literary theories point out (Purdue OWL 2010).
According to Habib (2007), “Derrida‟s influence in America and Europe was unparalleled
in the latter twentieth century. His American disciples included the Yale critics Paul de Man,
J. Hillis Miller, and Geoffrey Hartman as well as Barbara Johnson and arguably Harold
Bloom. These critics applied and richly extended Derridean techniques such as searching for
impasses or aporiai in various texts, displaying the hidden presuppositions and contradictions
of literary and philosophical works, and demonstrating how their central claims and
oppositions undermined themselves.”
Derrida proposed the deconstruction of all texts where binary oppositions are used in the
construction of meaning and values as a consequence of his understanding of logocentrism as
untenable in the light of the event that took place around 19c. Logos is decentred in the event,
especially, through Nietzsche (who critiqued truth and being as fiction), Freud (who critiqued
consciousness and self identity), and Heidegger (who re-examined the conventional
metaphysics of being and time). The first task of deconstruction, starting with philosophy and
 2

afterwards in literary and juridical texts, would be to overturn all the binary oppositions of
metaphysics (signifier/signified; sensible/intelligible; writing/speech; passivity/activity; etc)
which are violently hierarchical in their oppositions instead of peaceful co-existence of a vis-
a-vis by traversing a phase of overturning these oppositions. The final task of deconstruction
is to analyze and criticize them in all their logical and axiological oppositions and mark their
difference, undecidability, and eternal interplay. These remarks are mainly applicable to such
texts as found in the western literary tradition and cannot be universally applied in principle
to texts where there is no violent hierarchy or opposition in concepts. As such: 1. it is atomic
in its perception as all the other theories (mentioned above) in western tradition are; 2. the
decentering of the Logos is problematic and it becomes difficult to control the responses of
the reader in a systematically grounded manner; and 3. and most glaringly it runs counter to
the ways in which language is formed, used, and systematized.
In this paper, an attempt is made to revisit the concept of logocentrism via deconstruction
and provide ka:rmik centrism as an alternative to it, from the perspective of Ka:rmik Literary
Theory and Ka:rmik Critical Literary Analysis. Ka:rmik Centrism replaces the Logos and
substitutes it with the Universal Science of Creation (US C) which consists of the Universal
Science of Action (US A), Universal Science of Living (US L), and Universal Science of
Lingual Action (US LingA). It systematize the formation of language, its meaning and use by
considering language as ka:rmik (dispositional) action and accommodates both the strands of
logocentrism and its opposition as dispositional contextual actional reactions to the relation
between language and reality. In such a view, there is an underlying reality with (US C)
which is constant and true in the empirical world of existence in the given spatio-temporal-
material medium of form-oriented creation. That it is true is based on the incontrovertible
evidence of our very existence, physical laws governing creation and the experience of our
lives by performing triple action (mental-vocal-physical) to coordinate the coordination of
phenomenal action which is NOT within language but outside of it, out there in the external
world. This Underlying Reality projects this phenomenal creation under the Universal
[Action-Living-Lingual Action] Science with observable laws and principles, with objects,
states of being, and action but its perception is variable and dispositionally truth-conditional –
that is, it may be true from one perspective and may not be from another, but all the same it
IS there since we ARE here.

II. Literature Review

Deconstruction as a theory of criticism gained prominence in contemporary writing “so much
so that there is a growing tendency to assume that an interest in the theory of criticism
automatically means an interest in the work of Derrida” (Ellis 1989: 17). In Bharath, Derrida
is widely discussed and critiqued by academics even now.
In this Literature Review, a very brief review is made about what logocentrism is and how
it is perceived in deconstruction and what objections are raised to such a perception.

2. 1. The Relation of Language to Reality: A Deconstructionist Perspective

In his most widely read Of Grammatology, Derrida puts forward his argument on
logocentrism in two phases: 1. Relationship between Speech and Writing; and 2. Relationship
between Language and Reality.
After arguing against the notion in Western Tradition that speech is superior to writing and
writing is a mere representation of speech with his proposal that such a view is ethnocentric
and that “there is no linguistic sign before writing” (Derrida 1976: 14) and “the concept of
writing exceeds and comprehends that of language” (ibid., p.8), he turns his attention to the
second phase of his argument about Language and Reality by an attack on logocentrism. In
the tradition of standard literary criticism, according to Ellis (1989: 29), one would expect
 3

Derrida to diagnose logocentrism, its nature and its characteristic error and propose a
viewpoint that overcomes the limitations of logocentrism but it is not done so as explained
below.

There are four important views of deconstruction about logocentrism which deal with: 1.
metaphysics of presence (Culler 1977); 2. assignment of truth to logos (Leitch 1983); 3.
rejection of logocentrism controlling the concept of writing and the history of meataphysics
(Derrida 1976); and 4. phonocentrism (Culler 1982). Ellis in his critical analysis against
deconstruction argues convincingly that all these descriptions of logocentrism are
unconvincing for different reasons, mainly, due to a misunderstanding or a misrepresentation
of the critical literature on logocentrism and the tendency to place “greatest emphasis on
„putting in question‟ a given view, instead of moving on to search a more viable idea
representing a new and higher level of thought” (1989: 42). According to a summary, made
by Ellis, of the views expressed by deconstructionists such as these four critics and Norris
(1970) about logocentrism, it “is the illusion that the meaning of a word has its origin in the
structure of reality itself and hence makes the truth about that structure seem directly present
to the mind” (1989: 36-37). Derrida proposes that this logocentric error should be denounced
and that denunciation itself should be retained as a positive element in the newer position to
be taken. Ellis (ibid., p.30) further points out that such a denunciation is the source of three
major weaknesses: 1. mere denunciation of logocentrism without developing an alternative;
2. ignoring the existing alternatives developed by the previous thinkers who already rejected
logocentrism; and 3. not giving a full exposition of his unargued position and its
presuppositions and thereby making the critique of logocentrism flawed. Finally, Ellis
discredits the claim of deconstruction to be a revolutionary theory and concludes that
“Derrida‟s contribution to the debate on language and meaning is not substantial; it fails to
establish any coherent new view of meaning or of the way language functions.” (ibid., p. 66).

2. 2. The Popularity of Deconstruction

Whatever be the credentials of the deconstruction enterprise, one thing is a fact. It is
welcomed by many as a liberating influence in literary criticism, especially, in the U.S.A.,
and Derrida‟s “habit of looking for and denouncing unexamined assumptions, his vocabulary
of „putting in question‟ and „problematizing‟, and his temperamental addiction to provocative
statements are most influential” (Ellis 1989: 67).
In the next section, let us take up the notion of logocentrism in detail and discuss the merits
and demerits of deconstructionist criticism of it and finally propose an alternative in Ka:rmik
Centrism to overcome the problems of logocentrism and provide a holistic framework for
understanding what language is all about and why there should be an absolute reality for
language to exist.

III. Logocentrism and Deconstruction: A Ka:rmik Literary Theoretical Perspective

In order to understand why logocentrism is opposed in the deconstruction project and
deconstruction proposed, let us first know about logocentrism and its failure in the western
tradition as a principle and then see how Derrida picked on this idea under the influence of
Saussure and Levi Strauss and developed his project.

3. 1. Logocentrism: Its Meaning and Function in Literature

3. 1. 1. Meaning
Logocentrism is derived from the word Logos which has different meanings in different
disciplines. Logos means word or speech but in ordinary Greek, but according to the
Wikipedia‟s article on Logos, logos can be language, talk, statement, speech, conversation,
 4

tale, story, prose, proposition, and principle; or thought, reason, account, consideration,
esteem, due relation, proportion, and analogy. The Stoic philosophers identified the term
with the divine animating principle pervading the Universe. The Gospel of John identifies the
Logos, through which all things are made, as divine (theos), and further identifies Jesus as the
incarnation of the Logos. In this Christian sense, logos is the Word of God through which the
eternal truths are revealed to man. Hence, according to Habib (2010: 650), “the Logos is not
simply an uttered word; it is truth itself, it has a rational content of thought corresponding to
the ultimate reality of the universe. And this reality is revealed as spoken and heard (Dodd
1953: 266-67). As such the logos is the thought of God which is the transcendent design of
the universe and its immanent meaning”. He further states that „the Logos referred both to
the word of God which created the universe and to the rational order of creation itself” (ibid.).
Interpreting this for the purpose of our theoretical discussion, we can say that since reality
is expressed through the Logos, according to Logocentrism, which is language, it is “invested
with absolute authority, absolute origin, and absolute purpose or teleology ... (and) preserves
the stability and closure of the system” (ibid.).

3. 1. 2. Function
According to Derrida, Logos performs two important functions. They are: 1. It functions as a
centre to provide a focus which allows knowledge to be organized around a certain truth or
revelation which presents itself as absolute; 2. It acts as a limit which limits or delimits the
meanings available and “contain or circumscribe the ways in which a text or field of
knowledge can be understood, so that any proliferation or free play of meaning is prevented.
Habib (ibid., 651) draws a diagram to illustrate these points graphically as follows.
Language LOGOS Reality
Signifier 1 -a – Signified 1 ------ b -------- Object 1
Signifier 2 -a – Signified 2 ------ b -------- Object 2
Signifier 3 -a – Signified 3 ------ b -------- Object 3
Signifier 4 -a – Signified 4 ------ b -------- Object 4
Ad Infinitum
Diagram 1: Logos and the Relationship between Language and Reality
It is because the Logos holds together the orders of language and reality that the relation
between the signifier (phonemic shape) and signified (concept) which is indicated by a, is
stable and fixed; so too is the relation b, the connection between the sign (the word as a
combination of signifier and signified) and the object to which it refers to in the world. For
example, the word hog (called the sign) can be considered as consisting of two parts: 1. its
phonemic shape (the phonemes /h....../ joined together as /h/), called the signifier; and
2. its concept or meaning denoting an animal hog, called the signified. The relationship
between the signifier and the signified in the sign word hog indicated by a is sanctioned by
the authority of the English society stretching back up to the Logos, the Word of God
Himself at the level of language and so also the relationship between the sign the word hog
and the object hog out there in the Nature is sanctioned in a similar way at the level of
language and reality, making for a stable and closed system in terms of which the world and
the human self could be interpreted with reference to their origin, meaning, and purpose in
life. In other words, the Logos, which according to Derrida, as mentioned above, functions as
a centre to provide a focus which allows knowledge to be organized around a certain truth or
revelation which presents itself as absolute and a limit which limits or delimits the meanings
available and “contain or circumscribe the ways in which a text or field of knowledge can be
understood, so that any proliferation or free play of meaning is prevented. Meaning is
 5

contained within the system of knowledge so that a discourse makes or validates its own truth
and does not draw attention to the ways in which this is achieved” (Webster 1990: 104).
3. 1. 3. Its Operation in Literature
Suppose the Logos is removed from this framework; then the relationship between the sign
the word hog and the object hog will be affected and so also the relation between the signifier
and the signified in the sign. Since there is nothing that supposedly exists prior to language,
beyond a text, outside language as a reference, as central or fundamental to meaning and
knowledge in western culture, “there is nothing to hold together the orders of language and
reality, which now threaten to fly apart from each other” (Habib 2007: 651): the word hog
can mean anything - if it is not constrained by the English social perspective - as it is
perceived by the writer or the reader.
As a fall out of this another problem crops up. If different groups give different meanings
to the word hog, a general consensus will be lost and signifier 1 may be defined by a meaning
attributed to signified 1, and since there is no authoritative closure to this process, the process
can go on indefinitely and a time will come when the signified itself needs to be defined and
“so this signified will itself become the signifier of something else in an endless chain of
signifiers” (ibid.). In such a situation, we can no longer use literal language and will be
caught up in the endless chain of substitution (i.e., metaphors, according to Derrida) resulting
in a loss of distinction between philosophy and science, and literature and arts.
Logocentrism can occur in a variety of ways by a replacement of Logos by other notions
such as eidos or Form (for Plato), substance (for Aristotle), absolute idea (for Hegel), and
categories of understanding (for Kant). They are called „transcendental signifieds‟ , concepts
which cannot be questioned, concepts with absolute authority. The most important project of
deconstruction is to reveal logocentrism as sanctioned and structured in all its forms in a
multitude of ways and relate all those concepts or transcendental signifieds within the
province of language and textuality, their relatability to other concepts by their connections:
the connections between thought and reality, self and world, subject and object.

3. 1. 4. Denial of Logocentrism by Philososphers: Occurrence of the “Event”

According to Derrida, as discussed in Habib (2010: 65), in the nineteenth century, an “event”
through a complex network of historical processes started to disrupt the system of
logocentrism. This event signifies the “moment when language invaded the universal
problematic, the moment when, in the absence of a centre or origin, everything became
discourse” (Derrida 1978:278). Central problems in a variety of fields such as the connections
between thought and reality, self and the world were reposited or newly posed as problems of
language where “language” was understood as a system of differences. For example, the term
“God” referred to an actual entity independent of language in a logocentric perception but it
was seen as one signifier among many others which took its meaning and function from its
relation to a vast system of signifiers, without any exalted status and without any absolute
privilege and authority. Hence, “the term „God‟ which once acted as a “centre” (or origin or
purpose) of many systems of thought, was brought back within the province of relatability to
other elements of language, being dethroned from its status as a transcendental signified to
one more signifier on the same level as other signifiers. “In this sense, the concept of God
moves from being a reality beyond language to a concept within language; it becomes
discourse” (Habib 2007: 656). As already mentioned in the Introduction of this article,
philosophers such as Nietzsche, Freud, and Heidegger were associated with this event.
As a consequence of decentering logocentrism, concepts such as truth, reality and human
self lose their validity – truth becomes a relation of linguistic terms, reality a construct and
human self a linguistic construct without any pregiven essence. Since “il n‟y pas de hors texte
„There is nothing outside text‟”, history and identity are also affected as not existing outside
 6

language or text. “Hence, a deconstructive analysis tends to prioritize language and linguistic
operations in analyzing texts and contexts” (Habib 2007: 652).
3. 3. Deconstruction: Influence of Saussure and Levi Strauss
Derrida‟s deconstruction is inspired by the approaches of Saussure to language and Levi
Strauss to anthropology. He borrows the idea of bricolage (the procedure of using whatever
instruments – not designed for the specific purpose- that are available which are adapted or
abandoned on the basis of trial and error from Levi Strauss) and sees its procedure as a
critique of language and every discourse as bricoleur whose opposite is the engineer who
envisages and designs his entire project before hand, constructing “the totality of his
language, syntax, and lexicon” (Derrida 1978: 285).
According to Webster (1996: 105), “Derrida‟s term for conceptualizing how meaning
works and which underpins the project of deconstruction is differance; ... „Differance‟
translates first of all as „difference‟ in a sense derived from Saussure‟s view of language as a
system of differences, that is we are able to distinguish between words and their associated
meanings through a system of sound differences and by understanding one thing as not
another thing. So that „dog‟ is not „bog‟ or „hog‟ or even „umbrella‟ or „parasol‟. For
Saussure, the relationship between signifier and signified was a stable one, the system of
phonetic and semantic differences worked in a regulated and unproblematic way”. However,
Derrida considers this relationship as highly problematic: “meaning is always in a state of
contention and flux. When we think of „dog‟ we are also thinking of what it is not; not a cat,
hog, or whatever” (ibid.).In this sense, Derrida thinks that “texts are really about what they
appear not to be about, and he searches for weak points, or fractures where the otherness,
aporiai, that texts conceal become apparent” (ibid., 106). The other meaning of differance is
„deferment‟, which arises from the French differer meaning to defer as well as differ. “The
idea that meaning is never complete, never fully realized but always just beyond us,
postponed or deferred, is indicated here. Words are defined by other words, which are in turn
defined by other words, so that we can never come to a point of fully realized non-regressive
meaning... Again, the literary text may exploit this self-consciously so that ambiguity or more
complex levels of meaning feature explicitly in the text...that complete meaning always
escapes” (ibid. 106-8).

3. 3. 3. Formulation of the Deconstruction Project

Based on the important concepts of logocentrism, differance, dissemination of meaning,
focus on a close reading of the language of the text, use of presuppositions and transcendental
signifieds, binary oppositions, self-contradictions, aporiai, closure, and resistance to free play,
etc., Derrida proposes his project of deconstruction of all these that are constructed in a text
as not as a method, not as an analysis, and not as a critique but as a project.
Deconstruction raises important questions about its credibilty as a scientific and rigorous
project for the analysis of language and reality and its application in literature. A discussion
of these questions is taken up in the next section and ka:rmik centrism (focussing on ka:rmik
reality as proposed in the Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory) is proposed to overcome the problems
created by antilogocentrism and deconstruction in the interpretation of literature.

4. Deconstruction and Anti-logocentrism: A Ka:rmik Linguistic Perspective

In deconstruction, the Logos is decentered and reinstated in language as a signifier without
any absolute authority as already explained above (see p. 5) with an example in the case of
the word „God‟. By taking another common example, the word house, we can say, according
to deconstructive thinking, that its meaning is defined not by referring to a fixed object
„house‟ in the world out there in the external world but its relation to words such as a shed,
cottage, cabin, shelter, lodge, etc. in the text. Such a position needs to be re-examined in view
 7

of the evidence available in the Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory about the nature of reality,
language, and literature and their structure which asserts the existence of the Universal
Science of Creation as an alternative to logogcentrism. Based on this assertion, we should
derive the meaning of house in the text through the semantic notions such as synonymy,
polysemy, extension, narrowing, widening, etc. transformed into their pragmatic meaning as
revealed in the text and finally dispositionally experienced as their ka:rmatic meaning (which
is dispositionally experienced pragmatic meaning). Let us briefly re-examine these concepts
in the KLT framework and show the enormous failure in imagination in deconstruction about
logocentrism.

4. 1. The Nature of Reality

4. 1. 1. Va:k and Its Echo in the Logos
The idea of the Logos is an echo of the very ancient Vedic conception of creation. For
example, in the Purusha Su:ktam in Rg Ve:da, there is a slokam (No. 16) in which it has been
mentioned that I:svara created the form-oriented universe and then gave them names.
Ve:dahame:tam purusham maha:ntam a:ditya varNam tamasastu pa:re:
Sarva:Ni ru:pa:Ni vichitya dhi:rah na:ma:ni krutva:bhivadan yada:ste:
„I know (realize) That Great Purusha (The Infinite Consciousness reflected as the Immanent
Intelligence in Nature) who is of the colour of Sun and beyond Darkness
(and) That Dhi:rah (the Omnipotent and the Omniscient) Who, having created all the forms,
and giving them names, (and) using them, is (exists).

In Bruhada:raNyako:panishad, there is an elaborate discussion about speech in its various

aspects. For example,
Sa taya: va:cha: te:natmane:dam sarvamasrujata yadidam kincha – Ruchau Yaju:nshi
Sa:ma:ni Chanda:msi Yajna:n Praja:h Pasu:n
„Through that speech and the mind he projected all this, whatever there is – the Ve:da:s, Rc,
Yajus, and Sa:man, the metres, the sacrifices, men and animals‟
(Bruhada:raNyako:panishad I. 2. 5).

Finally, in Sri: Lalita Sahasrana:ma Sto:tram, the Holy Goddess Lalita:mbika is described in
a number of names to show how Na:matmaka Srushti (Name-oriented Creation) evolved. In
Slo:kam 81, Sri: Lalita:mba is considered to be Va:k in all its four forms as given in the
slo:kam as follows:
Para: Pratyak Chiti:ru:pa: Pasyanti Parade:vata:
Madhyama: Vaikhariru:pa: Bhaktamanasahamsika.
„(The Holy Goddess Sri: Lalitambika is) Para, Pratyakchiti:ru:pa:, Pasyanti, Parade:vata:,
Madhyama, Vaikhari, and Bhaktamanasahamsika.‟ Para (Beyond the three states as the
Origin of Va:k)-Pasyanti (Unmanifestly Conceptual)-Madhyama (Subtle-Gross in which the
Pattern and Structure of the Va:k is evolved) -Vaikhari (the externally manifested Va:k as the
Utterance) are the four stages in which the Va:k evoloves from its absolute origin. Here, the
Logos has its origin in Para Brahman (GOD).
These ideas are reflected in the famous Gospel of John: “In the beginning was the Word. The
Word was with God and God was the Word” (also cf. Va:gvai Brahma „Va:k is Brahman
(literally, Who has no limits, Absolute God)‟: BruhadaraNyako:panishad).

4. 1. 2. The Nature of Reality

Reality is the state of affairs. Depending on the focus of the state of affairs, we get different
types of reality. When the universe is created by the Universal Science of Action, based on
physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology, etc., reality comes into play simultaneously with
 8

the creation. Every basic aspect of creation by its very existence projects a reality of its own.
However, human beings can know only that reality which is cognizable by them and not any
other reality that may lie beyond their perception. Therefore, by focussing on the human
experience of the existence of the phenomenal creation, we get only these three types of
reality: 1. Vyavaha:rika Satta (Empirical or Transactional Reality as observed in the
differentiated states of I and You, This and That as so and so object/state of being/action in
such and such manner) corresponding to the consciousness of the wakeful state experience of
the world; 2. Pra:tibha:sika Satta (Temporary or Illusory Reality as observed in the dream
state of I and You, This and That as so and so object/state of being/action in such and such
manner) corresponding to the dream state experience of the world, and 3. Pa:rama:rthika
Satta (Absolute or Transcendental Reality as observed in the absence of knowledge of the
phenomenal world and experience of bliss that one slept well, realized after one wakes up)
corresponding to the deep sleep state experience of a positive state of bliss by the absence of
the world. It is in the vyavaha:rika satta only, we get three more states corresponding again to
its experience: 1. Real World (which is experienced by our five sensory perceptions of vision,
hearing, smelling, tasting, and touching); 2. Possible World (the possibility of the real world
in future or past); 3. Imaginary World (visualizing a world which is not real or possible but
fictional).
These worlds can be captured in the following network.
Pa:rama:rthika Satta
Reality Pra:tibha:sika Satta Real World
Vyavaha:rika Satta Possible World Ka:rmik Reality
Imaginary World
Network 1: Realities Network

4. 2. The Structure of Reality

This phenomenal creation as shown in Network 1is an infinite mind-boggling network of
action which for our understanding can be broadly divided into: 1. Potential State of
Creation; 2. Dynamic State of Creation; 3. Synoptic State of Creation.
4. 2. 1. Potential State of Creation
In it, the Principle of Consciousness eternally exists as Infinite Knowledge in Absolute Bliss
(Experience) with inherent Energy as Root Nature (Mu:la Prakruthi) which is Pure and
Infinite. This Energy is constitutionally Sattva „Luminosity (Cognitivity)‟, Rajas „Activity‟,
And Tamas „Inertia (Materiality)‟ - all in a potential state of equilibrium (in the pre-Big-
Bang sate of creation). This Nature N becomes charged with Consciousness and becomes
active at the Big-Bang state of creation and is further reflected in human beings as their
disposition. Nature (N) is shown as Disposition (D) in human action equations and retained
as N in other equations. The Principles of Consciousness, Knowledge, and Bliss (Experience)
as well as Energy, Mass, Luminosity (Cognitivity), Activity, and Inertia are proposed as
empirically observed scientific concepts in Physics and Psychology and not as religious
concepts as observed in Sana:tana Dharma.
(1) a. Consciousness = Eternal Existence + Infinite Knowledge + Absolute Bliss
b. Consciousness = Consciousness + Infinite and Pure Energy (Nature)
[Cognitivity + Activity + Inertia] Nature/Disposition-Qualified-Consciousness
(N/DQC)
c. When Consciousness reflects (~) in its Nature, It becomes Consciousness-Qualified-
Nature.
(2) Consciousness ~ Nature (Energy) Consciousness-Qualified-Nature/Disposition
(CQN/D)
 9

4. 2. 2. In The Dynamic State of Creation CQN becomes dynamic and creates all the
phenomena by its powers of projection. The Consciousness in C-Q-N functions as the
Immanent Intelligence and the Efficient Cause while Nature (Energy = MC2) as the Substance
and Material Cause of Creation. CQN projects a Universal Science of Creation for this
universe – as discovered in physical and natural sciences - which projects a systemic network
of choices of Universal Science of [Action/Living/Lingual Action] which in turn generate
their own networks-within-networks network in an atomic-(w)holistic ( = holistic which is
about the effect „whole‟ + its cause and means) framework to execute-sustain-dissolve
creation. This is the Big-Bang State of Creation.
4. 3. Universal Science of Creation (US C)
4. 3. 1. Universal Science of Action (US Action): Creation of the World and Reality
In it, first the Space-Time-Matter (STM) Substratum and the Supracosmic-Macrocosmic-
Microcosmic (SMM) Levels are created. The Supra-cosmic Level is that of Consciousness
and Nature; the Macrocosmic Level is that of the universe at large (collective level of the
entire universe as a whole like the wood consisting of trees); and the Microcosmic Level is
that of the individual in the universe (individual level like the tree in the wood). The
microcosmic level is further divided into living (animal and vegetable) and non-living (solid-
liquid-gaseous) objects/systems in their variety, range, and depth of class, quality, substance
and activity. They all obey the laws of physical sciences (physics, chemistry, and
mathematics) and exist as objects in states of being and are participants in material activity
which is bound by the US Action at their sub-atomic, atomic, object levels of the Material
Plane of Creation. We are primarily concerned with activity at object level where objects
function as participants in a specific relation with ( ) other objects to perform action at the
Actional Plane of Creation. In addition, both objects and actions have a Concept-Pattern and
Structure-Form in their evolution like the concept house, with its pattern and structure in a
blue print and the form in the actual building.
(3) a. Objects: Quality + Object/Substance Qualified Object/Substance;
b. Relationship: Object(s) Objects
c. Material Action: Participants + Relation + Action;
d. Quality + Action Qualified Action
e. Evolution of Object/Action: Concept Pattern and Structure Form
4. 3. 2. US Living: The Nature of Living and Its Relation to Reality and Language
In it, furthermore, among the living systems, the powers of cognitivity (awareness, cognition,
knowing) that enable the human beings (ka:rmik actors with an Ego „ahamka:ram‟) to be
aware of the actual world out there; the world in here (inside their being), the possible world
by imagination of the worlds out there and in here, and finally the imaginary (psychic)
worlds which are not actual and possible; complex disposition (consisting of the fundamental
constituents of sattva, rajas, and tamas projecting traits, knowledge, and va:sana:s leading to
complicated (desires, action, experience)) which qualifies their awareness and cognition of
action by analyticity (intelligence, reason, analysis, interpretation, memory, and creativity)
which provides the content of their dispositional awareness and cognition as this and that to
be so and so in such and such a manner; activity (triple action: mental, vocal, and physical),
and experience (pleasure, pain, delusion, and witnessing) are inherently constituted. They
are impelled by their complex disposition to seek pleasure (sukhe:chcha) and from that
desire for pleasure desire different types of (complex) desires, make effort owing to
dispositional functional pressure (DFP) to fulfill their desires for their experience,
perform triple biological action (mental-vocal-physical) and experience the results of their
action – all according to their Svabha:vam (disposition) – in a cause-means-effect oriented
Context at the Experiential Plane of Creation.
 10

This biological action is governed and derived from the US Action (Material Action) with
the addition of agency (and so sukhe:chcha, desire, free will, active and passive action)
coupled with experience (of pleasure, pain, delusion, witnessing). Furthermore, as it is
governed by the Principle of Cause – Means – Effect, the action (karma) performed
attendant with its results (karmaphalam) and experience of pleasure, pain, delusion, or
witnessing (karmaphalabho:gam) impacts on the knowledge of the actor which in turn
impacts on his likes and dislikes as traits that finally establish his internalized habits
(va:sana:s) to constitute his svabha:vam (disposition). This disposition impels desires and
their choice to make effort and perform action and experience the results of his action in the
context of their occurrence in an unending cyclic manner ( ) from birth-to-death to constitute
his samsa:ram (living).
(4) Disposition (= Traits +Knowledge + Va:sana:s) [(Sukhe:chcha DFP) Desire]
Effort [Action (Karma) Result (Karmaphalam) Experience
(Karmaphalabho:gam)]
Sukhe:chcha [and duhkha nivrutti (redressal of pain)] is the driving force that makes the
individual perform unending cyclic dispositional activity from birth-to-death; ahamkaram
(Ego) and mamakaram (My-ness) are the supports on which it stands. In this context, he
constructs action through five realities: dispositional-cognitive-socioculturalspiritual-
contextual actional-(triple) actional by algorithmic (searching all the variables one by one),
heuristic (trial and error by elimination of some and inclusion of other possible variables),
and automatic (selecting the correct variable) methods through experience, knowledge, and
analyticity by gradual evolution of one into the other. Since human disposition and
consequently the desires impelled from it are complex, complex activity (comprising action,
solutions to problems, and innovations which cannot be fulfilled by ordinary individual,
physical and mental action) is needed to fulfill them; on the other hand, desires are
individualistic but also collectively designed demanding individual-collective interaction
(e.g., mating, family, domination, etc.). In this context, as a result, individual human beings
evolve into groups and create societies in a context. A biological animal becomes a
biological social contextual actor; a biological social contextual animal becomes a biological
sociocultural contextual actor as patterns of behaviour are chosen at the collective level for a
pragmatically happy living owing to sukhe:chcha and duhkha nivruttthi. At a later stage, he
becomes a biological, socioculturalspiritual (SCS) contextual actor as he delves deep into the
essence of living. At this stage, he constructs his actional reality as dispositional SCS
contextual reality.
[This actional reality is form-oriented since he performs physical activity involving
material objects which are both his body and the external material objects which are out
there governed by the Universal Science of Action in their variety, range, and depth; it is also
thought-oriented since he performs mental activity by using his mind to think about
phenomenal activity which is also out there but thought in here in the minds and which can
be intellectual-emotional-experiential; and finally he performs name-oriented action vocal
(lingual) activity by using his vocal organs and producing speech to observe, interpret,
identify, represent, initiate, communicate, coordinate, and experience both that phenomenal
activity which is out there in the external world and in here in the internal (mental,
physical, and vocal) world and noumenal action which is beyond phenomenal activity in
all its variety, range, and depth. In this process, he uses language not only to represent the
external world but also the internal world which is real, possible, and imaginary; in addition,
he also represents the so called lingual world reflexively using the same language as a means
(i.e., metafunctionally), apart from the external world which is not about language.]
All this evolution is carried out because he is basically an experiential (ka:rmik) animal.
Therefore, a biological actor becomes a biological, socioculturalspiritual contextual actor
 11

who finally becomes a biological, socioculturalspiritual, experiential contextual actor or

simply a Ka:rmik Actor. This is the ultimate stage where he constructs Actional Reality
through Cognitive Reality as Ka:rmik Reality of which Dispositional Reality, SCS Reality,
Contextual Reality, and Actional Reality are stages of expansion and evolution by
superimposition (adhya:sa). In this sense, ka:rmik action presupposes dispositional action
and it is the source for all action in general and lingual action in particular by gradual
evolution.
In fact, all action is generated, specified, directed, and materialized by disposition through
disposition for the construction of dispositional and ultimately the emergent ka:rmik reality
for the karmaphalabho:gam of the karmaphalam of the karma of the beings. Its realization in
a holorchy [the cause becoming the effect a:nushangikally (i.e., like the cause clay becoming
the effect pot) in a hierarchy] of these five realities: 1. Dispositional Reality (D. R.); 2.
Cognitive Reality (C. R); 3. Socioculturalspiritual Reality (SCS. R); 4. Contextual Actional
Reality (CA. R); 5. Actional Reality (A. R.) which is Triple Actional (Mental-Vocal-
Physical) Reality is captured in the following network 2 shown below.
Dispositional Reality (+ K. R)
Cognitive Reality [+ D. R. (+ K. R)]
Ka:rmik Reality Socioculturalspiritual Reality [ + C. R. (+ D. R. (+ K. R.))]
Contextual Actional R. [+SCS. R (+ C. R. + (D. R. (+ K. R.)))]
Mental Action
Actional Reality Vocal Action +
Physical Action
[CA.R (+SCS. R (+ C. R. + (D. R. (+ K. R.)))]
Network 2: Holorchy of Ka:rmik Reality
4. 3. 3. US Lingual Action: The Relation of Language to Living
In the US Creation and Action, at the pre-language development state of human civilization,
the dispositional functional pressure (DFP) generated in human beings to fulfil their
complex desires for experiencing pleasure demands and so triggers creative semiotic activity
– which is made possible by the genetic inheritance of physical and mental abilities for
language creation, production, and application in the US Action/Living– to communicate
their intentions to others, to observe, interpret and perform phenomenal action (or index
noumenal action) with others as a means to fulfil their desires, and to coordinate the
coordination of group activity so that their desires are fulfilled and they may experience the
results of their actions as pleasure. Again, the same disposition, which is a complex of traits,
knowledge, and va:sana:s (internalized habits), triggers likes and dislikes that result in
dispositional bias which controls response bias and brings about choice and thus variation in
performing triple (mental-vocal-physical) action.
(5) Disposition Dispositional Bias Response Bias Choice
Variation in Action.
In this dispositional functional struggle to fulfil phenomenal desires, semiosis erupts and
speech is produced as a product of dispositional creativity, first as a tool with symbols only,
next, as a system with interconnected-interrelated-interdependent (I-I-I) symbols, and finally
as a resource with the developed system and as a means with the semiotic power to be used
for the construction of dispositional reality for the ultimate experience of the results of their
dispositional action as ka:rmik reality.
 12

So, language is not only used dispositionally by human beings for living in a context but it
is also produced by them by living in the context. In other words, as mentioned above,
language is used as a resource for the construction of dispositional reality [the state of affairs
produced by the dispositional choice of the desires-efforts-actions in which all action is
generated-specified-directed-materialized (GSDM) by disposition] which is for the ultimate
construction of ka:rmik reality [the state of affairs which provides the base for the bho:gam
(experience of karmaphalam as karmaphalabho:gam) of the karmaphalam (results of action)
of their karma (action) in the context of their existence]. Furthermore, dispositional action is
produced for experiential action and becomes experiential action. The state of affairs
produced in experiential action is experiential reality. What is more, different human beings
have different dispositions which are also reflected broadly at group levels as group
dispositions, and group dispositional reality giving rise to experiential reality, and group
experiential reality. That is why we have different languages and dialects formed according
to these differences in the disposition of the different language communities when they are
formed! However, this experiential reality does not come out suddenly but is the result (fruit)
of past actions which are themselves a result of actions prior to the past actions in a cyclic
order. Hence, this experiential reality is a product of fruit-bearing past actional impressional
actions, in other words, ka:rmik reality.
(6) Action Actional Reality Dispositional Actional Reality
Experiential Reality Ka:rmik Reality
This ka:rmik reality provides the basis for experiencing ji:vanam (existence) as pleasure-
pain-delusion-witnessing, which is samsaram (living).
Since lingual action is primarily action, it means that it becomes dispositional action
because of it being produced by disposition; by extension, since actional reality also becomes
dispositional actional reality or simply dispositional reality because actional reality is a
realization of the dispositional reality, lingual actional reality also becomes Dispositional
(Actional) Reality:
(6a) Action: Lingual Action Dispositional action.
(6b) Reality: Lingual Actional Reality Dispositional (Actional) Reality.
In a similar way, dispositional reality is ka:rmik reality at a higher level since it is produced
by ka:rmik reality from above, and therefore language is considered not only a resource for
the construction of ka:rmik reality but also its product. This observation can be captured
by a reversible equation ( indicates also reverse order of reading the equation from right
to left in addition to left to right) as given below.
(6c) Reality: Lingual Actional Reality Dispositional (Actional) Reality
Ka:rmik Reality
That language is not only used as a resource for the construction of ka:rmik reality but that it
is also a product of ka:rmik reality is the fundamental central theoretical postulate of
Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory and the entire empirical and scientific study is only an attempt to
prove this hypothesis and show how it is done.

4. 3. 4 The Relation of Language with the Outside World

4. 3. 4. 1. Correspondence between US [Lingual Action - Living - Action] in Language
There is a systematic correspondence between Universal Science of Action giving Universal
Action, and Universal Science of Living giving Universal Living in the sense that whatever is
done by human beings is Universal Action only but qualified as Dispositional Universal
(Human) Action; in a similar way, whatever lingual action human beings perform is only
Dispositional Universal Vocal Human Action only but qualified as Dispositional Universal
Lingual Action.
(7) Universal Science of Action ( Universal Action)::Universal Science of Living (
 13

Universal Living)::Universal Science of Lingual Action ( Universal Lingual Action)

4. 3. 4. 2. Correspondence between Universal Human Action and Universal Action

All human action is derived from US Living as action which is in turn derived from US
Action in which an object can act by itself or on others (*): Wind (Inanimate Participant)
moving (Action) – P * A. / Heavy winds (Agent) uprooting (Action) trees (Patients) - Ps * A *
Patients. Similarly, there are only two types of human action: 1. Self-Action in which the
human beings perform action by themselves within a Pattern Network of systemic choices
with self-as-actor and body-as-actor at the primary level; internal action and external action
at the secondary level; and so on; and 2. Action-with-Others in which human beings act
on/with others within a Pattern Network of systemic choices with self/others-as-object
(active/passive action at the secondary level); others-as-participants (agent-patient,
instrumental, location, ablational, etc as relations at the secondary level); and main/auxiliary
action at the primary level. Both these types of action are qualified and adjuncted in the
context at their primary dispositional, cognitional, social, contextual, and actional levels of
occurrence along with their secondary, tertiary, and so on levels (see Network 3 below).

4. 3. 4. 3. Correspondence between Universal [Human Action and Lingual Action]

Just as there is a correspondence between Universal Action (U A) and Universal Human
Action (U H A), Universal Lingual Action (U L A) also has an a:nushangik (cause inherited
into the effect like clay into pot) correspondence with U H A and U A. The entire variety,
range, and depth of phenomenal action in the actual, possible, and imaginary worlds can only
be represented if there is double correspondence between U S Action and U S Lingual Action
on the one hand and between Universal Science of Living and Universal Science of Lingual
Action to coordinate the coordination of human action as universal action. There is a twist
here: US Action is created by the Immanent Intelligence in Nature whereas a language is
created and developed by human beings, that is, lingual action is one of the three human
actions (mental, vocal, and physical). But all human action is dispositional and hence lingual
action also should be so. That is why we see variety in lingual action and typological
variation in their range and depth also; nonetheless, all human beings use language as a
resource for the construction of their ka:rmik (dispositional) reality by the Principle of
Reversal of Order ( ).
(8) (U S Action U A) (U S Living U H A) (U S Lingual Action U L A)
(U S Action U A) (U S Lingual Action U L A) (U S Living U L A).
Let us briefly discuss the correspondence between U H A and its representation in L A.

4. 4. Universal Human Action and Its Representation in Lingual Action

4. 4. 1. The Nature of Symbols, Symbolic System, and Natural Languages
A symbol is a sign that stands for an object/action/state of being (O/A/S). An O/A/S has a
form which embodies a concept in a pattern and structure according to the guNa:s of Nature
whereas a symbol has no power to be the O/A/S since it can only embody the concept of the
object as (propositional) meaning in its own form – with its own conceptual meaning – (but
not that of the object) according to the disposition of the symbol-creator. To explain further,
form-oriented action has its own material-form with a meaning with double conception of the
meaning as well as its material form; for example, the object lotus as a material form as well
as the meaning that the object is lotus have their own conception (in the Immanent
Intelligence of Nature); in a similar way, name-oriented creation has also its own phonetic-
form with a meaning by double conception of meaning and form – for example, the word
lotus as a phonetic word as well as the meaning of the word. In language, the material form is
replaced by the phonetic form for dispositional semiosis through a categorial transformation.
 14

Physical Semiotic
Internal Thinking
Self-as-Actor Action Mental Non-semiotic
Emotional
Self-Action External Action Vocal Action
Body-as-Actor

Self-as-Object
Active
Others-as-Object Agent-Patient
Action-with-Others Passive Instrumental
Recipients
Others-as- Relation Ablational
Participants Locational
Possessive
Main Action ……… n

Human Auxiliary Action

Action Sa:ttvik Traits
(Simple) Dispositional Ra:jasik Knowledge
Ta:masik Va:sana:s
Perception
Qualification Cognitional Attention
Alertness
Memory
Social
Qualification Social Cultural
and Adjunction Spiritual
Immediate
Adjunction Contextual Wider
Global
Single
Participant Double
Actional Relation Multiple
Action
Spatial
Formal Temporal
Material Material Intellectual
Social
Functional Fulfillment of Desires Mental Emotional
Spiritual
Action Actional Phenomenal Experiential
Contentual
Knowledge Noumenal
Pleasure
Experiential
Pain
Network 3: Network of the Universal Science of Simple Action (Human)
Mental Simple General Prototypical Individual
Human Action Vocal
Physical Complex Particular Categorial Collective
Network 3: Network of the Universal Science of General Action (Human)

Coordinated Action
Human Participantial
Action Subordinated Action Participant
(Complex) Qualificational
Action
Coordinated Action in Subordinated Action
Mixed Action
Subordinated action in Coordinated Action
Network 4: Simple Network of the Universal Science of Complex Action (Human)
 15

Material
Social
Intellectual
Ji:va Desire Spiritual Effort: Dispositional Cognition Lingual Action
Mixed
Pasyanthi
Vaikhari Representative
Directive
Declarative Commissive Function
U Indicative Expressive
Interrogative Declaration
Imperative Mood
T Exclamatory Meaning Speech Act
Simple Atomic
Denegation Proposition
T Condition Complex Compound
Compound Syntax
Lexis Form
E Phonology

Standard :Formal
R Colloquial :Informal Formality&
Intimate Variety
Slang :Intimate
A Taboo
Plain
N Figurative Decoration
Ornate Style
Bombastic
C Non-Literary
Genre
Literary
E Spoken
Register
Written
Madhyama
Network 5: Lingual Action Process Network

In that sense, both the forms are superimpositions (a:dhya:sam) on knowledge. Therefore, it
can represent the O/A/S only partially as knowledge, as a concept of the O/A/S, to construct
dispositional actional reality through speech acts for other types of actions. However, it is
effective, productive, flexible, and economical in the re-creation of the form-oriented
universe in terms of the name-oriented universe. It is used as a tool for representing phenom-
enal objects in the elementary stages of language development. When the phenomenal world
is systematically represented in terms of chosen sounds (phonemes), words, and syntax (as a
system) to systematically represent the phenomenal world as knowledge, as meaning by
semantics (as another system), the tool expands into a single symbolic system integrating both
form and meaning and finally when it is exploited for the construction of dispositional reality
via the socioculturalspiritual, contextual actional, and actional realities, it becomes a resource
and as a whole as a means. It is shown by the following two triangles.
F (O) F (L)

Form (F) Concept (C) D (L) M(eaning)

Fig. 1: Symbolic Triangles
D (Disposition) decides C and F and resolves the relation between F (O) and C. C is
dispositionally re-cognized as M in terms of the form of language, F(L). Again, Lingual
Disposition D (L) decides F (L) and M and resolves the relation between F (O) and C. In this
connection, it needs a semantic system, and a formal system along with a functional system
 16

to construct (dispositional) actional reality for the fulfillment of desires for the experience of
the results of action as pleasure (or pain or neutral). In this connection, it needs a semantic
system, and a formal system along with a functional system to construct (dispositional)
actional reality for the fulfillment of desires for the experience of the results of action as
pleasure (or pain or neutral).
In the initial stages of language development, only sounds represent meaning, but by
gradual evolution sounds expand into words and phrases and sentences and discourse to
represent meaning more and more distinctly, elaborately and intelligibly. This process
evolves from the non-semiotic cognition of form-oriented universe as this and that to be so
and so in such and such form and its understanding non-semiotically; later on, this non-
semiotic comprehension is turned into semiotic representation, expression, and
communication for experience as living. In this process of semiotic representation, semiotic
meaning replaces non-semiotic meaning. Nonetheless, there is a correspondence between US
Action meaning and US lingual action meaning.

4. 4. 2. Representation of Form-Oriented (Non-Semiotic) Action as Name-Oriented

(Semiotic) Meaning
A detailed description of the US Action can be constructed by an analysis of the things (or
categories) and their classes and characteristics present in the universe such as substance,
quality, action, generality, particularity, inherence and negation which are further classified
according to their own nature and properties. For example, the first category Substance is
further classified into nine classes: earth, water, light, air, ether, time, space, soul, and mind;
the second category Quality is classified into 24 classes: colour, taste, odour, touch, number,
magnitude, separateness, conjunction, disjunction, remoteness, proximity, weight, fluidity,
viscidity, sound, intellect, pleasure, pain, desire, aversion, volition, merit, demerit, and
tendency. In addition, each substance under its class is further given its characteristics
(qualities). For example, earth has odour as its inherent quality; again, odour is divided into
two varieties: eternal and non-eternal; again it has a threefold distinction: body, organ, and
object. (See Annambhatta‟s Tarka Samgraha for one approach towards such an analysis). It
is this form-oriented objectification, states of being, and action that are semiotically
represented as meaning in language through words, and sentences by denotation. Of course,
their semiotic representation is always dispositionally generated-specified-directed-
materialized and hence there will be variation in the representation of phenomenal reality. For
example, in the formation of words, affixation is widely attested in English in prefixation and
suffixation but not in infixation; so also in Telugu, but in Arabic, it is. In Tangkhul
language, there are numerous words to denote walking (more than 100?) and crying (around
50?). In addition, there are semantic changes in meaning, semantic relations, and figures of
speech which evolved as extended products of language creation. Propositional meaning is
itself the main thrust of semantics with atomic and complete propositions, synonymy,
antonymy and ambiguity as choices in the network of propositional meaning. It is this
meaning that is represented in form by parts of speech, words and sentences as follows.

4. 4. 2. 1. Parts of Speech
As symbolic action, lingual action should represent the participants, action, and the
relationship between them. In addition, it should also represent the qualification and
adjunction of the participants and action. In English, the objects, states of being, and activities
are represented by NOUNS; action is represented by VERBS; their qualification and
adjunction are represented by ADJECTIVES and ADVERBS respectively; combination of
objects, actions, and states of being are represented by CONJUNCTIONS; and the
 17

relationship between objects to constitute an action is represented by PREPOSITIONS; and

INTERJECTIONS are used to represent outbursts of emotions and feelings.

4. 4. 2. 2. Qualification and Adjunction

In US Action, objectification and action are accompanied by qualification and adjunction. In
English, such qualification is expressed by adjectives by preposing before nouns: Object
(lotus) + Quality (white) Qualified Object (a lotus having whiteness: white lotus). Its
adjunction is represented by adverbials: a white lotus in the pond; etc.; in a similar way,
qualification of action is also represented by adverbs: running slowly. In the process of
qualification and adjunction, words are added to form groups and phrases are formed. As Sri:
A:di Samkara Bhagavatpu:jyapa:dah says, yanmanasa dhya:yathi, thadva:cha: bhavathi „as
it is contemplated in the mind; so it becomes in speech‟; but what is conceived is qualified by
disposition bringing about variation. Thus, the choice of the position of adjectives is varied:
in Arabic, it is postpositional – manzil kabi:r „house big‟; in Sanskrit, adjectives are
inflectional: sundaro: (adj. qualifying the subject) naro:svam gachchati „The handsome man
goes to the horse‟; sundaram (adj. qualifying the object) naro:svam gachchati „The man
goes to the beautiful horse‟.

4. 4. 2. 3. Representation of Action
In the US Action, there are certain definite principles and patterns in the formation of action.
For example, in action-on-others, a participant (agent), another participant (patient) and an
action form the event: A man (P) ate (Action) a mango (P). If this has to be represented, there
must be the participants „man‟and „mango‟ and the action „eating (past time)‟ in the
representation. This is the inviolable correspondence laid out by US Action – US Lingual
Action for faithful representation. However, how it is represented is in the dispositional
creativity, dispositional bias, response bias and choice of the creators of a language of the
spatial order in its simplest case – man. eating. mango, or mango. man. eating, or eating.
man. mango, or eating. mango. man. The English speakers by ECV have made two choices:
A man eats a mango in unmarked cases and A mango eats he in hyperbaton in poetry; in
Hixkaryana OVS constructions are possible: Toto yonoye kamara „The person (O) ate (V)
the jaguar (S)‟ meaning The jaguar ate the person. Owing to constraints of space, only a
brief description and exemplification of simple human action and its correspondence in
English is given here.
In English, there are seven ways of representation of simple human action in simple
declarative sentence patterns: Agent. Action (Man running): SV (A man is running.); Agent.
Action. Patient. (Patient) (Qualification) (Adjunction) (Man eating mango; man giving
mango to X. (Qualification). ()): (SVO: A man ate a mango; SVOO: A man gave X a mango;
SVO (C)/(A): A man gave X a Adjunction mango (quickly)/(in the garden)); Agent. Action.
Quality/Adjunction (Man having kindness): SVC (The man is kind)/(Man being in garden):
SVA (A man is in the garden.).

4. 4. 2. 4. Categories, Substances, Qualities, and Characteristics: Their Representation

According to Annambhatta (1980: 28-33), the phenomenal universe can be broadly divided
into 7 categories (substance, quality, action, generality, particularity, inherence, and negation)
with each category having its own characteristics; 24 qualities (a. colour, taste, odour, touch,
sound; b. number, magnitude; c. separateness, conjunction, disjunction; d. remoteness,
proximity; e. weight; f. fluidity, viscidity; g. intellect; h. pleasure, pain; i. desire, aversion,
volition, tendency; j. merit, demerit.
 18

All these categories with their characteristics and qualities are networked cognitively,
systemically, evolutionarily, and synoptically at the US Action and brought into US Living in
another I-I-I network of dispositional human action for its experience (see Bhuvaneswar 2011
for their discussion with networks). All these qualities are represented in English by
adjectives and adverbs.

4. 4. 3. Representation of Name-Oriented Action by Name-Oriented Action

Not only form-oriented action but also name-oriented action can be represented by name-
oriented action as an extension of its application. This is possible because of a replacement of
form by name as the target for semiosis. For example, instead of representing objects as this
and that to be so and so in such and such form, words representing objects are meta-
linguistically named as this and this word to be so and so word (noun, pronoun, adjective,
adverb, verb, preposition, conjunction, and interjection) in such and such manner (its function
in a sentence such as the subject, object, complement, transitive verb, intransitive verb,
adjunct, etc.)

5. Conclusion: Rethinking Logocentrism as Ka:rmik Centrism

From the above linguistic analysis, it has been conclusively proved that the basic function of
language is to represent the external reality in a systematic correspondence with it in a
dispositionally generated-specified-directed-materialized system (by gradual evolution) for
the purpose of constructing dispositional reality for the ultimate experience of ka:rmik reality.
It is done in the framework of the Universal Science of Creation which consists of Universal
Sciences of [Action-Living-Lingual Action]. However, this system is not developed
overnight but it is developed algorithmically, heuristically, and automatically by constructing
ka:rmik reality through its five realities (dispositional-cognitive-socioculturalspiritual-
contextual actional- (lingual) actional). The process involves Cogneme-Cognition of
linguistic features (as explained below) and their standardization by Individual-Collective-
Contextual-Conjunction of Action (ICCCS) into Ka:rmemes (as explained below) as shown
in the following networks. Therefore, the linguistic system is constitutively ka:rmikcentric –
in a rethinking of logocentrism without the Christian or Sanatana Dharma basis of religion –
which means that the external world out there is an integral part of language like the rope
on which the linguistic system is superimposed as a snake NOT by ignorance (as in Advaita
philosophy) but by dispositional knowledge to make language a means to construct (literary)
ka:rmik reality for the karmaphalabho:gam of the karmaphalam of the karma of the (literary)
ka:rmik actor living in a [spatio-temporal-material] - [socio-cultural-spiritual] -
[inclinational-informational-habitual] context.
4. 4. 1. Ka:rmeme
A ka:rmeme is a cogneme in essence but it is borne out of experience. In KLT, when lingual
action is performed, it is performed by the Consciousness-qualified-Disposition by cognizing
the unit of lingual action through the socioculturalspiritual knowledge in the context of its
performance as shown in the TGCA graph 1 given below. For example, a poet (Simon
Armitage) is inspired by the sensory perception of an event out there in the external world
(the Town Hall in his home town where there was a city plan) and is dispositionally impelled
by a poetic desire to write a poem (A Vision) on that event as a theme in the first Stage of
Poetic Motivation. This is shown by the C-q-D as the diagonal in the first Disposition
Quadrant. He will then be driven by that dispositionally chosen desire through the trait
component of his svabha:vam (disposition) to compose a poem on social issues with a social
purpose by reflecting on his dispositional knowledge about that event and related knowledge
about it and about poetic composition in general in the second Stage of Composition as
shown by the SCS diagonal in the World View Quadrant II . Consequently, he makes poetic
 19

effort to compose the poem in a particular form with a particular content to serve a particular
purpose and function in a particular style in the given context of his writing the poem in the
third Stage of Production of the Poem as shown by the contextual action diagonal in the
Context Quadrant IV. In that process of producing the poem, his dispositional creativity
flashes forth phenomenal propositional knowledge which is cognized as differential
awareness of this and that as so and so in such and such manner in the form of language.
Graph 1: Combined Triaxial Graphs of Cognitive Actionality Quadrants (KLT)
Legend
The Individual Consciousness (the Being in the Human Being or the soul or the ji:va)
The Triad (sattva giving knowledge of activity; rajas giving choice of activity by traits; and tamas
giving inertia or materiality of activity by va:sana:s) of Disposition
Horizontal Line; Vertical Line; Diagonal Line: Horizontal, Vertical, and Diagonal Axes;
I, II, III, and IV : the quadrants 1, 2, 3, and 4; gives rise to
s 1.inner (pasyanthi „cognitive‟); 2. medial ( madhyama „pattern‟); 3. outer (vaikhari „form or phonic‟)
levels of realization of language

Spirituality Ideology Cogneme Concept

Participants Society

World View Quadrant II Concept Quadrant III Outer Circle

Culture Relation (Vaikahari)

Guna:s Context Media Circle

Disposition Quadrant I Context Quadrant IV (Madhyama)

Vasanas Activity Inner Circle

(Dispositional) (Phenomenal) Contextual Actionality (Pasyanthi)
Knowledge Knowledge Actionality (lingual)

KLT Graphs: 1. Combined Triaxial Quadrants of Cognitive Actionality ; 2. Tricircled D-Q-C Creating Action
This differential awareness which is cognized as a desire, or as a component of poetic
lingual action (form-content-function in a particular style), or as the whole poem is called a
cogneme- its variety, range, and depth can be just a word, or a poem, or it can extend up to an
epic and even more. This is the means of all dispositional, sociocognitive linguistic action
which is Ka:rmik Linguistic Action. That cogneme is formed with reference to the
objects/states of being/actions out there in the external world or in here in the mind with
reference to poetic creation about the real and possible worlds, i.e., town planning chart, town
planning, etc. So, the entire poem is driven by an inspiration from outside and not from
vacuum. Moreover, the meaning is centred on this outside-of-the-poem context (see Sharma
2012 for a detailed discussion of poetic ka:rmik critical analysis of A Vision by Simon
Armitage). The seed of the authorial intentionality to comment on the social issue of town
planning projects has sprouted into a pattern and structure of four stanzas with twenty lines
and became the tree of the poem A Vision with its form-content-function-style-context as it is
dispositionally cognized as a cogneme of the poem. The speech acts in the poem are
embodied by the following important types of selected propositional content in the style of a
narrative sequence – all drawn from outside, the external world and not from within as
meaningless signifiers:
1. outdated visions of the future popularized by TV shows like The Jetsons or Earth
1999; and 2001: A Space Odyssey .
2. the architect's technical drawings or 'blueprints'
 20

3. The American style grid layouts or street plans shown on the drawings becoming
board-game suburbs (think Monopoly), with the little squares reflecting blocks and
cul-de-sacs as squares on a board game.
4. Futuristic cars similar to those in Star Wars or The Jetsons and their comparison with
'executive toys' such as tabletop golf, model sports cars and magnetic puzzles.
5. the bottle bank where 'people like us', that is the people who live in their future city,
are going about their perfectly sociable and lovely habits, walking dogs, caring for the
environment, wandering across picture perfect 'over tended' grass and motoring about
in their perfect little model cars.
6. left-hand signed or 'underwritten' drawings in a 'true legible script';
7. finding of plans from landfill site;
8. stamped drawings with today's date
In a similar way, in common language, for example, when I said, “Oh! Ganga is
bewitching in winter”, I am communicating the knowledge about Ganga and winter which are
out there. In a similar way, in “Give me a cup of milk”, I refer to the object „a cup of milk‟
which is real. So also, in “I am sad”, I refer to a real state in my mind. The result of
production of the cogneme produces an experience of pleasure or pain or mere witnessing
(poetic appreciation/depreciation/no reaction). Such an experienced cogneme becomes a
ka:rmeme and in its collectivised form becomes the basis for creating the linguistic system.
4. 4. 2 ICCCS and Ka:rmik Centrism
a. Networks for Transmission of Language by ICCCS
Material Layer 3 Context

Temporal Layer

Spatial Layer I IPC

I IPC
2 I C 4 C I

CI IPC

a. 1 b.

Legend: transmission from ….. to ….. ; I-I-I Relation; Cognitive Reality

I Individual; C Collective; I / C Individual / Collective; IPC Interpersonal
Communication; 1. Dispositional; 2. Socioculturalspiritual; 3 Contextual Actional;
4 Lingual Actional Realities
Network 9. a. Ka:rmik Network for Transmission of Language as a Dispositional Process by ICCC
b. SFL Network for Transmission of Language as a Social Process
In the case of poetic language, it is produced only once as a poem (or a line in it) is
composed but recurs as it is read (by the poet). So also the reader who reads it experiences it
ka:rmemikally according to his poetic disposition when the poem is presented in the fourth
Stage of Presentation. As it is spread in the fifth Stage of Propagation, it will be appreciated
or depreciated as shown in the network 9.
The individual poet/speaker (I) communicates a poem or a word or a syntactic pattern to
another individual by Individual Interpersonal Communication (I IPC) and he further
communicates it in a chain reaction by accepting it or rejecting it (or even polishing it in the
case of non-literary output) and finally the reaction is standardized at the collective (group)
level C. From there, again, it is transmitted by CI IPC in a cyclic manner in the
 21

spatiotemporalmaterial context through the construction of the five dispositional,

socioculturalspiritual, contextual actional, and lingual actional realities through the cognitive
reality. Its existence is established and perpetuated thus by its usage and stored in cultural
memory as a symbolic system grounded in external reality. ICCCS attests to this fact
ka:rmemikally.
Not all poems need to be inspired by real events in the outside world. When a poem is
inspired by an imaginary event in an imaginary world, as in science fiction novels, etc., still
the imaginary event is constructed by language which is dispositionally constituted by
reference to the external world out there. The language in such imaginary creations is still
grounded in a language that uses the same tense system, the same syntactic structures, the
same semantic concepts, and even most of the lexicon, etc. So meaning can never be created
by merely relating one signifier with another signifier in an endless chain. What happens in
such imaginary language is meanings are created out of the established meanings by such
semantic processes as figurative language, semantic extension, widening, narrowing,
synonymy, antonymy, neologisms, etc. Even then, these semantic processes are grounded in
the external reality. For example, affirmation, denegation, compounding, and conjunction of
illocutionary speech acts are derived from the US of Lingual Action and not from the textual
relations. Only, these principles are explored and exploited to create novelty and generate
new meanings. Finally, ka:rmik centrism is not only necessary to rescue language from
religion but also focus and limit the meaning which is a design feature of language – even in
the creation of multiple meanings, they are intended to be there in purposeful literature and
should be treated as such and not otherwise. Therefore, deconstruction can be used a la
bricolage to destroy the very basis of deconstruction saying that it is a myth perpetrated and
perpetuated by deconstructionists.

References
Annambhatta (1980, 1994). Tarka Samgraha. Translated by Swamy Virupakashananda.
Madras.
Bhuvaneswar, Chilukuri (2011). “Proverbial Linguistics: theory and Practice in the Ka:rmk
Linguistic Paradigm”. Plenary Speech, in Proceedings of The International Symposium on
Proverbs, University of Diderot. Paris.
Culler, Jonathan (1977). Ferdinand de Saussure. Harmondsworth.
_____ (1982). On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism. Ithaca.
Derrida, Jacques (1976). Of Grammatology. Trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore and
London.
______ (1978). “Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourses of the Human Sciences”, in
Writing and Difference. London.
_____ (1981) "Interview with Julia Kristeva" in Positions. Chicago.
Dodd, C. M. (1953). The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge.
Ellis, John M. (1989). Against Deconstruction. Princeton, New Jersey.
Habib, M. A. R. (2007). A History of Literary Criticism. Chichester.
Leitch, Vincent ( 1983). Deconstructive Criticism. New York.
Norris, Christopher (1970). Deconstruction: Theory and Practice. London.
Odon, Resty S. (2010). “List of Literary Theories”. Resty S. Odon. Popular Posts.
Purdue Owl (2010). “Postmodernism”, in Literary Theories and Schools of Criticism.
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/
Sharma, Pradeep Kumar (2012). “Individual Freedom: Perspectives on Selected
Contemporary British and American Poets”. The Indo-Libyan Linguist. Hyderabad (to be
Published).
Webster, Roger (1996) Studying Literary Theory An Introduction Second Edition. London