Laxman Datt Pant's article: "The Hindu Model of Communication." Published in The Rising Nepal

The Hindu Model Of Communication
by: Laxman Datt Pant

(Originally published in The Rising Nepal. Nov. 24, 2009. p. 4)
(Also available at: http://gorkhapatra.org.np/rising.detail.php?article_id=27164&cat_id=7)

Indebted to Natyashastra and Vakyapadiya, and acknowledging their relevance to the modern discipline of communication, Nirmala Mani Adhikary, a promising communications scholar from the east has proposed the ‘Sadharanikaran Model of Communication (SMC)’. For a completely open discussion, this columnist has attempted to analyse the core arguments by the researcher and seeks scholarly feedback from media academics and professionals in the field. Adhikary, who is currently an assistant professor in media studies at Kathmandu University, has attempted to understand communication particularly from the Hindu perspective.

Hindu perspective

Adhikary sees ‘sadharanikaran’ as the attainment of sahridayata, or commonness or oneness, between the communicating parties. According to this model, when both senders and receivers accomplish the process of sadharanikaran, they attain saharidayata and become sahridayas. In other words, the communicating parties, namely the actor and audience, become sahridayas, leading to the attainment of saharidayata.

In this light, the Latin word ‘communis’ and its modern English version ‘communication’ come close to sadharanikaran, and, therefore, sadharanikaran as a theory of communication is apparent. However, the philosophy behind sadharanikaran is somewhat different from the communication concept developed in the Western societies. The sadharanikaran model "offers an explanation as to how successful communication is possible in Hindu society where complex hierarchies of castes, languages, cultures and religious practices are prevalent."

The elements of communication in the SMC are the sahridayas (sender and receiver), bhava (moods or emotions), abhivyanjana (expression or encoding), sandesha (message or information), sarani (channel), rasaswadana (firstly receiving, decoding and interpreting the message and finally achieving the rasa), doshas (noises), sandarbha (context) and pratikriya (process of feedback).

Sadharanikaran, as a communication process, consists of sahridayas as the communicating parties. As a technical term, the word refers to people with a capacity to send and receive messages. They are the parties engaged in communication, and capable of identifying each other as the sender and receiver in the process. A sahridaya is a person in such a state of emotional intensity which is coequal or parallel to that of other(s) engaged in communication. Ideally, the term refers to such persons who are not only engaged in communication but have also attained a special state: sahridayata.

The sahridaya-sender, or simply the sender, who has bhavas (moods or emotions or thoughts or ideas) in the mind, is the initiator of the process. The sahridaya-sender has to pass the process of abhivyanjana for expressing those bhavas in perceivable form. It is the sahridaya-receiver (or simply the receiver) with whom the bhavas are to be shared. He or she has to pass the process of rasaswadana.

The position of the sahridaya-sender and the sahridaya-receiver is not static. Both parties are engaged in the processes of abhivyanjana and rasaswadana. When sadharanikaran is successful, universalisation or commonness of experience takes place.

In SMC, the sender inherits the bhava. A human being in his/her essential characteristics is a bundle of bhavas that constitutes his/her being and form part of his/her total consciousness. It is due to the bhavas that a human being aims at engaging in communication or the sadharanikaran process. If there was to be no bhava and the human being had no desire to share his/her bhavas with others, there would have been no need of communication.

Abhivyanjana refers to the activities that a source goes to translate the bhavas into a form that may be perceived by the senses. It can be understood as an expression or encoding in English. The guiding principle in encoding during the sadharanikaran process is simplification. In the communication process, the complex concepts and ideas are simplified by the speaker (source) with illustrations and idioms appropriate for the understanding of the listeners, the receiver of the messages. This approach makes communication a dynamic, flexible, practical and effective instrument of social relationship and control.

Likewise, code (sanketa) is an integral part of abhivyanjana. A kind of code is a must to let the bhavas be manifest. Codes are symbols that are organised in accordance with specific rules. For example, a language is a code. For communication to be successful, both the sender and receiver must understand the code being used. Abhivyanjana may be in verbal or non-verbal code, and both codes may be used simultaneously. In the case of verbal abhivyanjana, words/languages are used as the code.

With the completion of the process of abhivyanjana, bhavas become sandesha. In other words, sandesha is the outcome of the abhivyanjana process. A message is the manifestation of the bhava into a form (code) that is perceivable by the senses. It is the information that the sender wants to pass on to the receiver. For transmission of sandesha, there is a need for sarani (channel or medium), which is the means through which sandesha travels across space.

The notion of context in the process of communication makes the Hindu concept of communication even more comprehensive. The importance of context is such that due to this factor, meaning can be provided to the message even if the sender is not known to the receiver. Thus, due to the context factor, a text retains its ‘objective’ meaning.

The structure of the model proposed by Adhikary incorporates the notion of a two-way communication process, resulting in mutual understanding of the communicating parties. The SMC seems free from the limitations of linear models of communication. The crucial element in Adhikary’s Sadharanikarn Model is that it sees communication as ‘a spiritual process’.

Persuasion

Contrary to this, the Western communication philosophies emphasise on persuasion by any means. The SMC emphasises that the goal of communication should not be limited to achieving commonness or mutual understanding. Rather, it should be focussed on what Hinduism has always emphasised on achieving - the purushartha chatustayas (i.e., four goals of life: artha, kama, dharma and moksha). The SMC model is capable of attaining all these goals.

It is too early to say how this eastern model of communication fits into the western model of communication. However, the exploration of Adhikary’s understanding and its critique will definitely contribute to a debate on the forceful imposition of Western communication philosophies and their values. The exploration of such a model based on the eastern perspective will undoubtedly contribute to the development of new communication theories.

(Pant can be reached at laxmankasyap@gmail.com)

Communication in the Bhatta School of Mimamsa Philosophy

Communication in the Bhatta School of Mimamsa Philosophy: A Ph.D. Proposal

1. Name of the researcher:

Nirmala Mani Adhikary

2. Title of the research:

"Communication in the Bhatta School of Mimamsa Philosophy"

3. Introduction to the research topic:

The proposed research explores and examines the relevance of the Bhatta school of Mimamsa philosophy to the modern discipline of communication, theorizes communication from the Bhatta Mimamsa perspective, and presents a model of communication. It is an interdisciplinary study incorporating insights from communication and philosophy.
Understanding the process of communication is crucial to every society as it is the base of the society and the locus that holds the society together. It has been one of the major concerns of human society. The need for its study has been much emphasized. And, the study of communication has been from different perspectives in recent years.
However, no research has been conducted yet in order to explore and examine the relevance of the Bhatta School to modern communication discipline. Despite the school's vast scope for the study of communication process, it has been ignored by communication scholars and researchers. The proposed research is a breakthrough as it is first of this kind in the field of communication studies.

4. Purpose of the research:

The proposed research is to be carried out in the fulfillment of academic requirements for the degree of Ph.D.

5. Research problem:

• Does the Bhatta School of Mimamsa philosophy have relevance to modern discipline of communication?
• How can communication be theorized from Bhatta Mimamsa perspective?
• How can a model of communication be presented from the perspective of Kumarila Bhatta?

6. Objectives of the research:

• To explore and examine the relevance of Kumarila Bhatta's epistemological thoughts to modern discipline of knowledge.
• To theorize communication from Bhatta Mimamsa perspective.
• To present a model of communication from the Bhatta Mimamsa perspective.


7. Literature review:
................. ................. (to be continued.)

The Sadharanikaran Model of Communication

The Sadharanikaran Model of Communication
(To be presented at the Asia Pacific Symposium on Communication Theories)

- Nirmala Mani Adhikary

Asst. Professor in Media Studies

Kathmandu University

In 2003, I proposed the Sadharanikaran model of communication for the first time (Adhikary, Nirmala Mani. "Hindu Awadharanama Sanchar Prakriya." Diss. Purvanchal U, 2003). "Hindu Awadharanama Sanchar Prakriya" presented a unique communication model based on the Sadharanikaran theory. It was first ever attempt from Bharatavarsha to propose a model of communication in diagrammatic form. And, so far, the Sadharanikaran model is the only model of communication in diagrammatic form proposed from the Hindu perspective. The Sadharanikaran model was presented in order to understand the process of communication as envisioned in Vedic Hindu perspective.

"Hindu Awadharanama Sanchar Prakriya" sought to study both of the verbal and non-verbal forms of communication from Hindu point of view. The research draws on Bharata Muni's Natyashastra and Bhartrihari's Vakyapadiya, and argues that communication process as envisioned in Vedic Hinduism is ideally for achieving mutual understanding and becoming Sahridaya. Moreover, it does not limit its goal up to that achievement, and the goal of communication process covers worldly as well as spiritual matters and it serves as a means for attaining all of the four highest goals of human life (purushartha chatustaya) as envisioned in Hinduism: Artha, Kama, Dharma and Moksha.

"Hindu Awadharanama Sanchar Prakriya" was the source of three research articles: "Hindu-Sanchar Siddhanta: Ek Adhyayan," "Sancharko Hindu Awadharanatmak Adhyayan," and "Hindu Awadharanma Gaira-Shabdik Sanchar," which were published in journal and anthology. While "Hindu-Sanchar Siddhanta: Ek Adhyayan" and "Sancharko Hindu Awadharanatmak Adhyayan" mainly described the Sadharanikaran model, "Hindu Awadharanma Gaira-Shabdik Sanchar" presented an overview of non-verbal communication in Hindu perspective.

Then, "Aristotle's and the Sadharanikaran Models of Communication: A Comparative Study" and "The Sadharanikaran Model and Aristotle's Model of Communication: A Comparative Study" sought to assess and analyze the fundamental differences between Aristotle's and the Sadharanikaran models of communication. The concept of communication process from Aristotelian and Sadharanikaran perspectives has been studied in terms of structure and scope of two models, human relationships in the process and the goal of communication.

In "Sancharyoga: Verbal Communication as a means for Attaining Moksha," the verbal communication process has been dealt from Hindu perspective with the help of the Sadharanikaran model. Also, it has illustrated that the verbal communication, as envisioned in Hindu perspective, is capable of leading humans to Moksha, particularly the Moksha-in-life. In other words, the verbal communication, as envisioned in Hinduism, qualifies not only as a process of perfect human communication in worldly setting but also as a means for attaining Moksha-in-life. Finally, it has claimed that the process of communication (Sanchar) can be accepted as a kind yoga if the process results in the attainment of Moksha. As Hinduism has set Moksha as the highest of purushartha chatustaya (four goals of human life) and has introduced different paths, that is, different kinds of yoga, for the attainment of Moksha, the Sancharyoga is an added path in this tradition. Thus Sancharyoga is a kind of yoga wherein the suffix represents the same as in Karmayoga, Jnanayoga and Bhaktiyoga.

The Sadharanikaran model was presented and discussed in various programs (for e.g., organized by Center for Communication Study in 2004, December 23; by Communication Study Center in 2006, May 14; and by Martin Chautari in 2007, October 11) in Kathmandu.

The Sadharanikaran model has been presented through number of other works by myself. What I have proposed so far is the outcome of my sincere attempt to understand the communication process. I am continuing my research in order to explore perspectives on communication from the standpoint of the vast philosophical traditions of Vedic-Hindu origin. Here, I am presenting the Sadharanikaran model with a hope to get scholarly feedback. Pursuit of knowledge is our common ground, and any endeavor of enriching the communication discipline certainly serves this.

The Sadharanikaran model has been proposed consisting of following elements:

Sahridayas (Sender and Receiver)

Bhava (Moods or Emotions) and Rasa

Abhivyanjana (Expression or Encoding)

Sandesha (Message or Information)

Sarani (Channel)

Rasaswadana (Firstly receiving, decoding and interpreting the message and finally achieving the Rasa)

Doshas (Noises)

Sandarbha (Context)

Pratikriya (Process of Feedback)

Fig. The Sadharanikaran model

....................................................................................................
for full text, mail to:
nirmalam.adhikary@gmail.com

The Sadharanikaran Model and Aristotle's Model of Communication: A Comparative Study

The Sadharanikaran Model and Aristotle's Model

of Communication: A Comparative Study

-- Nirmala Mani Adhikary

In the print version, the article is published as: Adhikary, Nirmala Mani (2008). The Sadharanikaran Model and Aristotle's Model of Communication: A Comparative Study. Bodhi 2 (1): 268-289.

Introduction

This article seeks to study the fundamental differences between

the Sadharanikaran model and Aristotle's model of

communication.1 The effort here is aimed for having a

comparative study of the concepts of communication process

envisioned in two different models from the East and the West.

The general objective here is to comprehend the fundamental

differences between the concepts of communication process in

Aristotelian and Sadharanikaran view. The specific objectives

include having comparative understanding of the concept of

communication process from Aristotelian and Sadharanikaran

perspectives in terms of structure and scope of two models, the

human relationships in the process and the goal of

communication.

The selection of these two models for a comparative study is

purposive. On the one hand, a model of communication

developed from Aristotle's concept of rhetoric is considered

representative of Western concept of communication, even in

the era of mass communication. On the other hand,

Sadharanikaran has been widely accepted as the Hindu theory

of communication. A unique communication model has already

been presented based on the Sadharanikaran theory and, so far,

the Sadharanikaran model is the only model of communication

in diagrammatic form proposed from the Hindu perspective. In

this background, studying these two models simultaneously is

an attempt of understanding communication from both Eastern and Western perspectives. The goal is not rejection of something Western, but a creative addition in the discipline.

The term communication is translated into Nepali (into Hindi

and other languages of Sanskrit origin too) as sanchar, which

originally is a Sanskrit word. Sanchar has number of meanings

in Sanskrit and one of them is equivalent to what is understood

as the communication in modern sense. It is to note that the

study of sanchar in the universities of Nepal and India so far is

not the study of sanchar in the Sanskrit sense but, in fact, the

study of communication as evolved in the West. As

Dissanayake (1988) acknowledges, "attention has been

confined to communication meta-theory associated with

industrially advanced Western countries" (p. 1).

However, the scene seems changing. Advocacy expressed in the

context of India as following have become common:

Since the present communication concept and

discipline has developed in the west, we do get carried

away by its Western perception and hence become

ineffective in the Indian situation. It is necessary,

therefore that we ground ourselves firmly in our

culture, beliefs and ethos. We need not copy the

western models blindly. (IGNOU, 2005, p. 24)

The problem with Western communication theories, according

to Dissanayake (1988), is that it is functionalist, mechanistic,

positivist and it regards communication as an external event,

individuals as discreet and separate, and each part of the sendermessage-

receiver process as different. The Western models and

theories of communication have been criticized as "reflective of

the biases of Western thought and culture" (Kumar, 2005, p.

25).

Attempts have been made for the exploration of the Nepali or

Indian and/or the Hindu concept of communication. Number of

works, including Yadava's (1987, 1998), Tewari's (1980, 1992),

and Adhikary's (2003a, 2003b, 2004, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c), are

such examples.

Understanding the process of communication is crucial to every

society. "No field of study has more important implications for

our lives in contemporary society than that which looks

systematically at the process of human communication"

(DeFleur, Kearney, & Plax, 1993, p. 6-7). A comparative study

of different concepts of communication is a must for the

improved understanding of the process and the advancement of

the discipline. "If we are to widen our filed of inquiry

productively and to secure greater insights, we need to pay

more attention to concepts of communication formulated by

non-Western societies as well" (Dissanayake, 1988, p. 1).

Though it is argued that "unique factors characterize

communication in each context, but the process by which

people construct meanings and transmit them to others, who

then interpret and respond, is essentially similar in all contexts"

(DeFleur, Kearney, & Plax, 1993, p. 6) the discipline is

certainly enriched if the process is studied in the light of

different philosophical traditions. As it has been emphasized,

at this stage in the development of the scholarly study

of communication, it is indeed important for everybody

concerned to seek to broaden the domain of inquiry by

exploring the concepts of communication that have

been formulated in non-Western societies as a means of

promoting a greater degree of understanding of the

nature of human interaction. (Dissanayake, 1988, p. 2)

The study of comparative communication theory should be

encouraged and promoted. There are two main reasons for this:

First, it helps to widen the field of discourse and

facilitate the emergence of new insights from various

cultures that enable us to comprehend and

conceptualize better, the act of communication. Second,

communication theory has a vital link with

communication research. It is manifest that social

research is largely guided by the social context in

which it operates and is influenced by the cultural ethos

which sustains it. Therefore, in order to promote more

productive and relevant communication research in

non-Western societies rather than to encourage a

blindly servile adherence to Western research credos, it

is vital that more and more explorations in indigenous

communication theory be encouraged. (op. cit., p. 4)

The Message- or Artifact-oriented research approach has been

employed here. Specifically, it is Archival/Documentary

research using secondary sources.

Exploring Hindu Concept of Communication and

Developing a Model

There are contrasting views regarding the history of

communication theories and hence models. "Despite

communication being at least as old as the human race formal

theorizations about communication as such are a relatively

recent (twentieth-century) phenomenon" (Beck, Bennett, &

Wall, 2004, p. 35). From this point of view, "Communication,

as it is known today, has originated and evolved in the West,

particularly in the United States of America" (IGNOU 2005, p.

23). At least, "communication, as a field of academic study,

first gained recognition in the US" (Dissanayake, 1988, p. 3).

Contrastingly, it is believed that "the nature of communication

has been debated since history began" (DeFleur, Kearney, &

Plax, 1993, p. 9-10). According to Stone, Singletary, &

Richmond (2003), "One of the things people wanted to know

even 5,000 years ago was how communication works and how

they could make their own communication more effective" (p.

1). As they observe,

Although people were developing very primitive

communication theories as long as 5,000 years ago, it

was not until about 2,500 years ago that theoretical

development gained momentum. The work began in

ancient Greece and Rome. In the fifth century B.C.,

works by Corax and Tisias on rhetorical (persuasive)

communication appeared. ... About a century later, the

greatest communication scholar of antiquity, Aristotle,

composed the work now known as The Rhetoric of

Aristotle. (p. 2)

Authors like Narula (2003) regard Aristotle's model as "the

earliest communication model" (p. 47). Aristotle's work on

rhetoric has been evaluated as "the most influential during the

next 2,300 years" (Stone, Singletary, & Richmond, 2003, p. 2).

The pervasiveness of Aristotelian concept of communication in

the West is such that it is "fully embedded" even "in the

currently influential models of Lasswell (1948) and Shannon

and Weaver (1949)" (Narula, 2003, p. 14). Observing that

"some today still consider this the greatest work on rhetoric

ever written" Stone, Singletary, & Richmond (2003) consider

the rhetorical approach to communication as "the primary

source of communication theories for people living in

democratic societies" (p. 2).

It is not unconvincing to regard that "Western theories and

models of communication have their origin in Aristotle's

Rhetoric" (Kumar, 2005, p. 16). Moreover, as Yadava (1998)

puts it, "the Western concept of communication can be traced to

and consists of further elaborations of Aristotle's concept of

Rhetoric, the art of persuasive speech" (p. 189). Its influence is

so broad that

Asian scholars, too, by and large, seem to adhere to this

model despite the fact that it is Western-oriented and is

in no significant sense of consonant with the cultural

configurations and epistemological underpinnings that

characterize Asian societies. (Dissanayake, 1988, p. 6)

However, there have been attempts at bringing out fundamental

theories and models from Eastern location. Such attempts are

rooted in cultural identity consciousness. Particularly, the

exploration of different models of communication relative to

different cultures and philosophies is due to communication

scholars' orientation toward what is called intercultural

communication research. It began during the 1950s and 1960s.

Several important concepts came out of earlier efforts in this

regard. One of those germinal ideas was of Hall (1959). Hall's

contribution in the discipline is significant since he "was the

first one to place intercultural studies directly into the

communication realm" (Kidd, 2002, p. 3). His work persuaded

scholars to study communication from different perspectives

rather than merely the Western one.

Different societies have understood and defined communication

in their own ways. Considering a universal meta-theory of

communication is not reasonable. "Each nation has its own

characteristic mentality, its particular intellectual bent"

(Radhakrishnan 2004a, p. 23), without knowing which any

reading remains superficial. Studying the communication is not

an exception rather is always within the cultural milieu.

Thus the concept of communication differs from one culture to

another. "Cultural values are a basic part of the communication

agenda" (Singh, 2002, p. 157). To understand and describe even

a simple communicative act between two persons, we have to

"take into account hundreds of social and cultural factors that

might make a difference" (DeFleur & Dennis, 1991, p. 22). It is

in this background, Robert T. Oliver concludes, "Mankind is

less separated by language barriers ... than it is by cultural

differences" (qtd. in Kidd, 2002, p. 4). So philosophical,

religious as well as cultural background of the society should be

considered while studying communication. "Even now, with the

idea of 'global village' becoming a reality, we differ as far as

methods and process of communication are concerned"

(IGNOU, 2005, p. 23). Instead of adhering to any single

concept of communication, multiple concepts of

communication are apparent. Thus seeking theorization of

communication from Hindu perspective is also obvious.

Studying Hindu perspectives on communication at the onset

needs a broader outlook:

'Communication' is a word coined in the recent past to

explain a particular idea of study. Therefore, in our

ancient literature this view was not dealt with

separately. But, a lot has been said on the process and

methods of communication in our literature. (ibid.)

With such outlook, diverse and enormous sources are available

in this regard.

The Upanishads, the Gita, the Sangeet Ratnakara, the

Natyashastra, Manu Smriti, Sanskrit literature, works

onVaishnavism, Bhakti, the medieval saints and Sufism

did communicate and are still communicating valuable

thoughts to us on the subject. We need to study these

materials to find out the methods and process of

communication prevailing at that time. (ibid.)

In other words, the concept of communication seems

inextricably linked with philosophy and religion in Hindu

society. Taking religion texts as the source of communication

theories and models is convincing, as it has been observed,

"Traditionally, models of communication were found in

religious thought" (Carey, 2004, p. 43).

Probably, the first ever specific attempt to explore the Hindu

concept on communication in modern time was of Oliver

(1971). Analyzing distinctive features of the Western and

Indian and Chinese cultures, he argued for philosophical

understanding of communication. Meanwhile, in 1980, the

East-West Communication Institute in Hawaii hosted the first

International Symposium on 'Communication Theory: Eastern

and Western Perspectives'. J.S. Yadava presented a paper in the

seminar and argued that Sadharanikaran is that concept which,

in Hindu perspective, refers to what is meant by

Communication today. Yadava's paper has been included in a

book (Kincaid, 1987) along with other papers presented in the

seminar. Tewari (1980) also agreed with Yadava in considering

Sadharanikaran as the "Indian Communication Theory."

The term Sadharanikaran is derived from the Sanskrit word

Sadharan and has been translated into English as "generalized

presentation" (Vedantatirtha, 1936, p. 35) and "simplification"

(Yadava, 1998, p. 187). However, the conceptual meaning is

quite broader:

Conceptually it means achieving oneness or

commonness through sharing and comes close to the

Latin word communis or its modern English version

communication. But the characteristics and the

philosophy behind Sadharanikaran are somewhat

different from communication concept as developed in

the Western societies. (ibid.)

The term has its root in Natyashastra of Bharat Muni.2

It "has been used for communication philosophy expounded in

this treatise on ... Natya (drama) and Nritya (dance)" (ibid.). In

other words, "Bharat Muni, who is credited with the writing of

Natyashastra codified the principles of human expression. ...

Besides giving practical description of various aspects of dance

and drama to the minutest details, the document is reach about

the basics of human communiation" (op. cit., p. 188).

After Bharat Muni and especially Bhattanayak, the term

Sadharanikaran has been extensively used in Sanskrit and

allied literary circles for explaining poetics, aesthetics and

drama.

Bhattanayak is credited for use of term Sadharanikaran

in his commentary on Natyashastra to explain Sutras

related to Rasa ... According to Bhattanayak also, the

essence of communication is to achieve commonness or

oneness among the people. Some scholars after

Bhattanayak, like Vaman Zalkikar and Govinda Thakur

(fifteenth century A.D.) have also considered

Sadharanikaran as a concept for establishing

commonness. Later this word was extensively used for

explaining the aesthetic aspects of poetry in literary

circles. Today also, Sadharanikaran is often employed

to convey the idea of commonness and simplification.

(ibid.)

Sadharanikaran has gained wide acceptance as the Hindu

theory of communication, at least in India, where educational

institutions including universities have already incorporated this

concept in their curricula. In case of Nepal, a unique

communication model has already been presented based on the

Sadharanikaran theory. So far, the Sadharanikaran model is

the only model of communication in diagrammatic form

proposed from the Hindu perspective.3

Sadharanikaran neither is the only possible theory/model of

communication from Hindu perspective nor is Natyashastra the

only source for theorization. Bhartrihari's Vakyapadiya4 is

another example in this regard. The time period of Vakyapadiya

is also not free from ambiguities. For instance, Abhyankar and

Limaye (1965) put him in 450-500 A.D. where as Mimamsak

(1950) argues that the time of Bhartrihari is at least twomillenium

ago. "As with many ancient Sanskrit authors, we are

not sure when Bhartrihari lived and composed his works"

(Wood, n.d., p. 33). However, his contribution does not lose

significance due to this.

Bhartrihari is much accredited for philosophical dealing on

communication, especially the word (Vak). Dissanayake (1988)

sees "a refreshing relevance" of Vakyapadiya "to modern

communication studies" (p. 8). He claims, "Indeed, the basic

thinking reflected in the Vakyapadiya is in perfect consonance

with some of the modern conceptualizations in the field of

communication" (ibid.). From Bhartrihari's perspective,

communication seems as the process of an inward search for

meaning. This process is supposed leading to self-awareness,

then to freedom, and finally to truth. This final achievement of

truth brings a person to Brahman. Bhartrihari "identifies

Brahman with speech" (Radhakrishanan, 2004b, p. 465).

Davis (1988) draws on Panini's Astadhyayi for studying the

nature of intentional communication from Nyaya-Vaisheshika

perspectives. "On the basis of Panini's description of the

categories of words in Sanskrit and the way they combined to

make up sentences, various theories of the nature of meaning

arose" (p. 22). He discusses that the members of Nyaya-

Vaisheshika school of Hindu philosophy worked on the theory

"which puts meaning closest to the syntactic form of words"

(ibid.). Further, he also discusses the nature of intentional

communication from the point of view of Bhartrihari.

Apart from above discussed sources, the cocept of Dharma has

also been drawn on for exploring Hindu concept of

communication. According to T.B. Saral, communication in

Hindu philosophical perspective is governed by natural law of

Dharma:

The Hindu's concept of the universe is based on the

'Virat Purush' (cosmic man) view. A natural extension

of this concept is that it espouses the systems approach,

the authority of Universal law, the law of Dharma.

Dharma is the basic principle of the whole universe and

is existing eternally. This natural law of Dharma

regulates human existence and governs relations of

individual beings; communication too is governed by

the same law. (qtd. in Kumar, 2005, p. 25)

Saral's undertaking of Dharma and communication seems

convincing for Dharma has a crucial place in Hindu life.

Dharma should not be understood as the 'religion' is understood

in the Western context. Rather, it should be understood at its

proper sense. In Hindu perspective, "Dharma also refers to a

whole way of life rather than to mere doctrines or moral

teachings alone" (Hindery, 2004, p. 50). Dharma here "is not

dogmatic" (Radhakrishnan, 2004a, p. 25). It "is the scheme of

right living" (Radhakrishnan, 2004b, p. 417-418).

It is in this light a typical dharmik Hindu thinks,

Religion has been pervading human life from times

immemorial. Every tiny act that a man does is looked

upon from a religious point of view. All human

institutions are more or less based on religious

sentiments. It is one of the most undeniable facts of

psychology that an average man can as little exist

without a religious element of some kind as a fish

without water. (Saraswati, 2001, p. 32)

Jayaweera (1988) draws on Adwaita Vedanta (or Advaita) in

order to trace implications for the understanding of

communication from Hindu perspective. He emphasizes on the

need to apply principles derived from Vedanta philosophy to

communication theory. He further seeks theorizing

communication "from a conjunction of John's Gospel and Paul's

letters with Vedanta" (p. 57).

As evident from above discussions, there are multiple sources

for theorization and modeling of communication within the

Vedic Hindu tradition. Hence, there is scope of developing

different communication theories and models from Hindu

perspective. However, Sadharanikaran has already gained

prominence as Hindu theory of communication.5

Comparative Study

In this section, the two models have been studied comparatively

in terms of structure and scope of two models, human

relationships in the process and the goal of communication.

I. Structure of the Model

Aristotle's model is linear, while Sadharanikarn model is nonlinear.

The mechanistic, linear views of communication stem

from rational, mathematical formulas and Aristotelian models

of persuasion and rhetorical analysis. The linear model seeks to

represent communication in oversimplified way. In Aristotle's

model the communicator is actively transmitting messages to a

passive audience, who are not communicators, at least at

present. A linear model like Aristotle's does not seem real

because "in reality an act of communication does not simply

start, like turning on a tape-recorded message, and go through

stages to a point where it stops and the switch is turned off"

(DeFleur, Kearney, & Plax, 1993, p. 13).

Narula (2003) quotes Kincaid's critique, where he criticized

"linear models as treating information like a physical substance

and individual minds like separate entities" (p. 14). And, seven

biases created by these assumptions have been identified:

(i) Communication is usually a vertical, one way act

rather than cyclical, two way process over time; (ii) a

source bias is based on the dependency rather than on

the relationship of those who communicate and their

interdependency; (iii) the objects of communication are

treated as existing in a vacuum, isolated from their

context; (iv) the focus is on the message per se at the

expense of silence, punctuation and timings of the

message; (v) the primary purpose of communication is

considered as persuasion rather than mutual

understanding, agreement and collective action; (vi)

there is concentration on the psychological effects of

communication on separate individuals rather than the

social effects and the relationships among individuals;

(vii) belief in one way mechanistic causation rather

than mutual causation. (p. 14-15)

The Sadharanikaran model, being a non-linear model, is free

from the limitations of Aristotle's model. It incorporates the

notion of two-way communication process resulting in mutual

understanding of the Sahridayas. Thus the interrelationship

between those communicating becomes unique. Its non-linear

structure and inclusion of elements such as context has

profound consequences.

II. Scope of the Model

Aristotle's and the Sadharanikaran models differ vastly in

terms of their scope. About the scope of rhetoric, Aristotle

himself says,

Every other art can instruct or persuade about its own

particular subject-matter; ... But rhetoric we look upon

as the power of observing the means of persuasion on

almost any subject presented to us; and that is why we

say that, in its technical character, it is not concerned

with any special or definite class of subjects. (1952, p.

595)

However, its scope has been viewed quite narrower. Aristotle's

"model is actually more applicable to public speaking than

interpersonal communication" (Narula, 2003, p. 47).

The scope of Sadharanikarn model is too broad.

Sadharanikaran "is total communication and communication at

its best. It is a more integrated approach to communication"

(IGNOU, 2005, p. 30). It can extend from intra-personal to

interpersonal to mass communication. Its scope is not confined

to human communication only, rather its scope has been

considered even in case of spiritual concerns including the

attainment of Moksha.6

III. Human Relationships Envisioned in the Process

Aristotle's and the Sadharanikarn models consist differing

views on the human relationships in the communication

process. On the one hand, communication in Western thought

amounts to "dialogue" between "equals" (Yadava, 1998, p.

189). However, there is dominance of sender because he/she is

who persuades the receiver as per his/her goal. On the other

hand, the communicating members are Sahridayas in case of

Sadharanikaran model.

Though the Sadharanikaran model is inherent of Sahridayata it

is an asymmetrical process.

Although the purpose of Sadharanikaran is to achieve

commonness or oneness the process itself is an

asymmetrical one. There is unequal sharing between

communicator and receiver; there is a greater flow of

communication from the former to the later. ... they are

not equal. The source is viewed as 'higher' and the

receiver as 'lower'. The relationship is hierarchical and

that of 'dominance' and 'subordination'. However, the

source is held in high esteem by the receiver of

communication, a relationship, idealized and

romanticized in guru-chela relationship. Although the

source and the receiver are unequal but they are

Sahridayas, which makes even unequal

relationship/communication satisfying and pleasurable

to both the parties involved. (ibid.)

Thus the asymmetrical relationship does not hinder the two-way

communication and hence mutual understanding. Rather, it

coincides with the asymmetrical structure of the society, for

instance, due to the caste system, and thereby represents the real

communication environment. As such it helps those

communicating to pervade the unequal relationship prevailed in

the society and the very process of communication is facilitated.

In case of rhetorical communication, not the relationship itself

but the cause of the relationship is emphasized. Thus the

relationship would always be evaluated from functionalist

perspective. But the Sadharanikaran model emphasizes the

relationship itself too. For instance, the guru-shishya

relationship is always considered sacred in itself.

IV. Goal of Communication

These two models differ vastly for the goal of communication.

"The primary goal of communication, according to Western

communication theory, is influence through persuasion"

(Kumar, 2005, p. 17). Western communication models have

been observed as

largely unilinear, wrongly postulating a mechanical

notion of communication as the transmission of

information from active source to passive receivers.

Further, these individual-based models wrongly assume

that communication is an act, a static phenomenon

privileging the source, not a dynamic process involving

all elements in a social relationship. (op. cit., p. 20)

However, Kumar does not forget to take into consideration that

"the focus in Western communication theory has shifted from

mechanistic 'effects' models of communication acts to those

concerned with communication relationships and the

communication 'experience'" (ibid.).

In fact, Aristotle's model is inherited with the transmission view

of communication, which has been considered as the

commonest in American and "perhaps in all industrial cultures

and dominates contemporary dictionary entries under the term"

(Carey, 2004, p. 38). The transmission view of communication

"is defined by terms such as imparting, sending, transmitting, or

giving information to others" (ibid.). Here, the "basic

orientation to communication remains grounded ... in the idea

of transmission: communication is a process whereby messages

are transmitted and distributed in space for the control of

distance and people" (op. cit., p. 38). And, "the archetypal case

of communication under a transmission view is the extension of

message across geography for the purpose of control" (op. cit.,

p. 39).

Communication here is "a process of transmission of a fixed

quantity of information - the message as determined by the

sender or source" (McQuail, 2001, p. 52). In other words, it

"generally is held to involve some kind of transfer of

information from one person to another or to a group of other

people" (Berger, 1995, p. 10). In this approach,

The basic act of communication begins when one

person decides that he or she wants to use a given

language symbol (a word or some object for which

there is a standard interpretation) to arouse a specific

set of meanings in another person. ... The act of

communication is completed when the internal

responses of the receiver (the person to whom the

message has been sent) are more or less parallel to

those intended by the communicator. (DeFleur &

Dennis, 1991, p. 14)

The transmission model is "largely taken over from older

institutional contexts - education, religion, government"

(McQuail, 2001, p. 57), where the purpose of communication is

"persuasion, attitude change, behavior modification,

socialization through the transmission of information, influence

or conditioning" (Singh, 2002, p. 105). Thus, it

assumes that a message source dominates the

communication process and that its primary outcome is

some sort of effect on receivers - usually one intended

by the source. Influence moves or flows in a straight

line from source to receivers. The possibility that the

message receivers might also influence the source is

ignored. Attention is focused on whether a source

brings about intended effects or whether unintended

negative effects occur. Mutual or reciprocal influence is

not considered. (Baran & Davis, 2006, p. 213)

In Aristotelian model, "the objective of communication is to

influence or persuade the receiver in a manner that is

considered appropriate by the communicator" (Dissanayake,

1988, p. 5). But in the concept of Sadharanikaran, communication is

sharing among between "unequals" but Sahridayas with

a view to not just persuade one or the other as such but

to enjoy the very process of sharing. (Yadava, 1998, p.

189)

In Hindu concept, communication is not mere external event.

Rather, much emphasis has been given to intrapersonal aspects.

In Hindu concept "meaning should necessarily lead to selfawareness.

… then to freedom and finally to truth. Here, by

freedom we mean the liberation of persons from ignorance,

from illusion of the world, and the web of the artificial

categories constructed all around us" (IGNOU, 2005, p. 26).

In the context of human communication, the goal of

communication in Sadharanikaran model is achieving sharing

of Bhavas and achieving mutual understanding. Here, sender

and receiver are Sahridayas in true sense. But the goal of

communication in the Hindu concept would not be limited to

just this extent. Hinduism always emphasizes to achieve all of

the purushartha chatustayas, that is, four goals of life: Artha,

Kama, Dharma and Moksha.

Any endeavor in human life should lead or, at least, be in

consonance with the attainment of the purusharthas. As such

communication is not outside the domain. In other words, any

model of communication, if it is innate with Hinduism, should

be able to describe communication as such process which is

capable of guiding even toward Moksha. As discussed earlier,

the Sadharanikaran model is able to show how the Atman can

attain Moksha through Sakshatkaraa of the Brahman.

In the highest level of communication, Atman communicates

with Brahman. The sakshatkara of Brahman is the ultimate

goal of communication here. Since Brahman is Rasa and is

aswadya, the Sahridaya human, who is Atman, finds the

Brahman also as the Sahridaya. Thus Sadharanikaran in such

situation is the attainment of the state of Aham Brhmasmi (I am

the Brahman myself).

The two models, thus, differ in all of the four aspects discussed

above. Firstly, Aristotle's model has unrealistic linear approach

due to which number of biases were created and advancement

of the communication discipline was stained. But the

Sadharanikaran model is non-linear and hence free from the

limitations of Aristotle's model. Secondly, The scope of the

Sadharanikaran model is broader as compared to Aristotle's

model. The latter is applicable to public speaking merely. But

the former seems applicable for the study of all levels of

communication from intrapersonal to interpersonal to mass. Its

scope ranges even from the human communication to the

attainment of Moksha. Thus it is in consonance with the Hindu

worldview. Thirdly, In Aristotle's model, the receiver is

vulnerable to dominance and manipulation by the sender as

he/she is passive. In the Sadharanikaran model, though the

relationship is hierarchical the sender and the receiver are

Sahridayas and thus are capable of experiencing satisfaction

and joy. This model offers explanation of how successful

communication is possible in Hindu society where complex

hierarchies of castes, languages, cultures and religious practices

are prevalent. Finally, these two models differ vastly while

setting the goal of communication. Aristotle's model has a

highly specific and narrower goal of influencing or persuading

the receiver as intended by the sender. The Sadharanikaran

model, on the other hand, aims mutual understanding and

becoming Sahridaya. Its goal covers worldly as well as spiritual

achievements by encompassing all of Artha, Kama, Dharma

and Moksha.

By this comparative understanding, we come to the conclusion

that Aristotle's model cannot represent and describe the

communication theory and practice of countries like Nepal and

India. Rather communication model should be developed based

on native theories and practices. The Sadharanikaran model is

such a model. However, the Sadharanikaran model should not

be over valued. With vast diversities of cultures and

philosophies within the Hindu society, it is just one of many

models that could be developed. Many theories and models of

communication would come out if communication discipline

has enthusiasm of encountering different Hindu philosophical

traditions.

Notes:

1. This article is part of my earlier work:

Adhikary, N. M. (2007). Aristotle's and the Sadharanikaran Models

of Communication: A Comparative Study (Unpublished

M.Phil. Independent Study). Pokhara University.

2. Sri Satguru Publications (2003).

3 For detailed discussion on the Sadharanikaran model, see: Adhikary

(2003b, 2004, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c).

4 Abhyankar & Limage (1965).

5 There are authors (for instace: Tewari, 1980, 1992; Yadava, 1987,

1998), who prefer to term the theory as 'Indian' communication

theory. But, in my view, terming Sadharanikaran as the 'Indian'

theory is politically incorrect. Replacing it by 'Hindu' would be

broader approach.

6 The attainment of Moksha by means of verbal communication

described employing the Sadharanikaran model is the principal

subject of my earlier wor (Adhikary, 2007c).

References

Abhyankar, K.V., & Limaye, V.P., Eds. (1965). Vakyapadiya of

bhartrahari. Poona: University of Poona.

Adhikary, N.M. (2003a, January 13). Communication in Nepali

Perspective. Space Time Today, p. 4.

Adhikary, N.M. (2003b). Hindu awadharanama sanchar

prakriya (Unpublished M.A. Thesis). Purvanchal

University.

Adhikary, N.M. (2004). Hindu-sanchar siddhanta: Ek

adhyayan. Baha Journal, 1, 25-43.

Adhikary, N.M. (2007a). Sancharko Hindu awadharanatmak

adhyayan. In N.M. Adhikary, Sanchar shodha ra media

paryavekshan (pp. 93-138). Kathmandu: Prashanti

Pustak Bhandar.

Adhikary, N.M. (2007b). Aristotle's and the Sadharanikaran

models of communication: A comparative study.

(Unpublished M.Phil. Independent Study). Pokhara

University.)

Adhikary, N.M. (2007c). Sancharyoga: Verbal communication

as a means for attaining moksha (Unpublished M.Phil.

Thesis). Pokhara University.

Aristotle (1952). Rhetoric. In R. M. Hutchins (Ed.), The works

of Aristotle Vol. II (pp. 593-675). Chicago:

Encyclopedia Britannica Inc.

Baran, S.J., and Davis, D.K. (2006). Mass communication

theory foundations, ferment and future (4th ed),

Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.

Beck, A., Bennett, P., & Wall, P. (2004). Communication

studies: The essential resource. London: Routledge.

Berger, A.A. (1995). Essentials of mass communication theory.

New York: Sage.

Bhattarai, G. P. (1982). Bharat muniko natyashastra.

Kathmandu: Nepal Rajakiya Prajna Pratisthan.

Carey, J.W. (2004) A Cultural Approach to Communication. In

Denis McQuail (Ed.), McQuail's reader in mass

communication theory (pp. 36-45). London: SAGE. .

Davis, L. (1988). Deep Structure and Communication. In

Wimal Dissanayake (Ed.), Communication theory: The

Asian perspective (pp. 20-38). Singapore: AMIC.

DeFleur, M.L., & Dennis, E. E. (1991). Understanding mass

communication ( 3rd ed.). Delhi: GOYL SaaB.

DeFleur, M.L., Kearney, P., & Plax, T. (1993). Fundamentals

of human communication. Mountain View, CA:

Mayfield.

Dissanayake, W. (1988). The Need for Asian Approaches to

Communication. In W. Dissanayake (Ed.),

communication theory: The Asian perspective (pp. 1-

19). Singapore: AMIC.

Hall, E.T. (1959). The silent language. Garden City, NY:

Douleday & Co., Inc.

Hindery, R. (2004). Comparative ethics in Hindu and Buddhist

Traditions. Delhi: Motilal Banarasidass.

IGNOU (2005). Relation between mass media and society. New

Delhi.

Jayaweera, N. (1988). Some tentative thoughts on

communication theory and Adwaita Vedanta. In W.

Dissanayake (Ed.), Communication theory: The Asian

perspective (pp. 56-68). Singapore: AMIC.

Kidd, M.A. (2002). Dialogues on dichotomy: The east/west

dilemma in communication theory. A paper presented at

the Pacific and Asian Communication Association

Conference in Seoul, Korea.

Kincaid, D.L. (Ed.) (1987). Communication theory: Eastern

and western perspectives. San Diego, CA: Academic

Press.

Kumar, K.J. (2005). Mass communication in India (3rd ed.)

Bombay: Jaico.

McQuail, D. (2001). McQuail's mass communication theory. 4th

ed. London: SAGE.

Mimamsak, Y. (1950). Sanskrit-Vyakaran Shastraka Parichaya.

In H. P. Poddar & C. L. Goswami (Eds.), Kalyan Hindu

Sankriti Anka (pp. 653-662). Gorakhpur: Geeta Press.

Narula, U. (2003). Mass Communication theory and practice.

New Delhi: Har-Ananda Publications.

Oliver, R.T. (1971). Communication and culture in ancient

India and China. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University

Press.

Prasad, S.M.N. (1998). The taittiriya Upanisad. New Delhi:

D.K. Printworld.

Radhakrishnan, S. (2004a). Indian philosophy (Vol. 1). New

Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Radhakrishnan, S. (2004b). Indian philosophy (Vol. 2). New

Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Saraswati, S.V. (2001). Vedic concept of God. Delhi:

Vijayakumar Govindaram Hasananda.

Singh, J.K. (2002). Media, culture and communication. Jaipur:

Mangal Deep.

Sri Satguru Publications (2003). The natyasastra of

bharatamuni. Delhi.

Stone, G., Singletary, M., & Richmond, V. P. (2003).

Clarifying communication theories: A hands-on

approach. Delhi: Surjeet Publications.

Tewari, I.P. (1992, March). Indian theory of communication.

Communicator.

Tewari, I.P. (1980, June). Sadharanikaran: Indian

communication theory. Indian and Foreign Review.

Vedantatirtha, N.C. (Gen. Ed.) (1936). Mammata Bhatta's

Kavyaprakasa. The Calcutta Sanskrit Series No. VI.

Wood, A. (n.d.). Bhartrihari's Vakyapadiya - some excerpts.

Retrieved August 7, 2007 from

http://www.advaitin.net/Ananda/VakyapadiyaExcerpts.

pdf

Yadava, J.S. (1987). Communication in India: The tenets of

Sadharanikaran. In D.L. Kincaid (Ed.), Communication

Theory: Eastern and Western Perspectives (pp. 161-

171). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Yadava, J.S. (1998). Communication research in India: Some

reflections. In J.S. Yadava and P. Mathur (Eds.), Issues

in mass communication: The basic concepts (pp. 177-

195). New Delhi: IIMC.

Abstract of Nirmala Mani Adhikary's M. Phil. Dissertation

SANCHARYOGA:

VERBAL COMMUNICATION AS A MEANS FOR ATTAINING MOKSHA

The present research examines whether the process of communication (Sanchar) can be accepted as yoga provided that the process of communication in general and the process of verbal communication in particular, as envisioned in Hindu perspective, qualifies as a means for the attainment of Moksha.

The general objective here is to study the verbal communication process as a means for attaining Moksha and examining it as Sancharyoga in the same sense as in Karmayoga, Jnanayoga and Bhaktiyoga. The specific objectives include describing the verbal communication process from Hindu point of view, and understanding how verbal communication leads human being to Moksha, and also examining whether Sanchar could be considered as a kind of yoga.

Hinduism has not only set Moksha as the highest of purushartha chatustaya (four goals of human life), it is believed to assure all humans of equal rights for the attainment. Since humans are of different natures Hinduism has incorporated different paths for Mumukshus (Moksha-seekers). Based on those different paths, a number of yogas have been introduced. For instance, Karmayoga, Jnanayoga and Bhaktiyoga are renowned modes for the pursuit of Moksha.

Sanchar, originally a Sanskrit word with number of meanings including the one equivalent to what is understood as the communication in modern sense, has been envisioned uniquely in Hindu perspective. The verbal communication process from Hindu perspective, as understood with the help of the Sadharanikaran model, qualifies not only as a process of perfect human communication in worldly setting but also as a means for attaining Moksha-in-life. Moksha is highest attainment of human; Moksha is not just a theoretical concept; and Moksha can be attained even during the life. The process of verbal communication qualifies as a means for attaining Moksha no matter how it is the Shabda Brahman or the Shabda pramana. In either case the Vak or Shabda verily is the Supreme Brahman. Thus Sancharshastra ultimately becomes a Mokshashastra and the discipline of communication a kind of vidya (true knowledge).The process of communication (Sanchar) can be accepted as a kind yoga provided the process results in the attainment of Moksha. As Hinduism has set Moksha as the highest of purushartha chatustaya (four goals of human life) and has introduced different paths, that is, different kinds of yoga, for the attainment of Moksha, the Sancharyoga is an added path in this tradition. Thus Sancharyoga is a kind of yoga wherein the suffix represents the same as in Karmayoga, Jnanayoga and Bhaktiyoga.

Also visit:
http://madanmaniadhikary.blogspot.com/2008/05/sancharyoga-verbal-communication-as.html

"हिन्दू अवधारणामा सञ्चार प्रक्रिया" (शोधपत्र)

निर्मलमणि अधिकारीद्वारा पूर्वाञ्चल विश्वविद्यालय अर्न्तर्गत आमसञ्चार र पत्रकारिता विषयको स्नातकोत्तर तह, दोस्रो वर्ष (चौथो सेमेस्टर) को शैक्षणिक प्रयोजनका लागि "हिन्दू अवधारणामा सञ्चार प्रक्रिया" शिर्षकमा शोधपत्र तयार पारिएको थियो ।

(क) सारांश -
प्रस्तुत शोधपत्रको पहिलो प्रकरण परिचयात्मक प्रकृतिको रहेको छ । यस प्रकरणका पाँच खण्डहरू रहेका छन्, जसमध्ये पहिलो खण्डमा केही पृष्ठभूमिगत चर्चाका साथै समस्या कथन प्रस्तुत गरिएको छ । नेपाली संस्कृतिको मूलआधार हिन्दूधर्म भएकाले सञ्चार प्रक्रियालाई नेपाली सन्दर्भमा बुझ्नकालागि पनि यस सम्बन्धी हिन्दू अवधारणा अध्ययन हुनु जरुरी छ । 'पश्चिमा संस्कृति' र 'हिन्दू संस्कृति' पृथक् पृथक् सांस्कृतिक-व्यक्तित्व भएकाले जीवन र जगत्का बारेमा हिन्दू अवधारणा र पश्चिमा अवधारणामा आधारभूत अन्तर छ । के त्यस्तो पृथक्ताको असर सञ्चार प्रक्रियाको सन्दर्भमा पनि परेको छ - के सञ्चार प्रक्रियाका दुई अवयवका रूपमा रहेका शाब्दिक सञ्चार र गैर-शाब्दिक सञ्चारलाई हिन्दू अवधारणाको छुट्टै स्वरूपमा अध्ययन गर्न सकिन्छ - ती कुन मानकमा पश्चिमा अवधारणा भन्दा पृथक् होलान् - के हिन्दू संस्कृतिको मुख्य विशेषताका रूपमा मानिने आध्यात्मिकतासँग सञ्चार प्रक्रियाको हिन्दू अवधारणा निरपेक्ष रहन सक्ला - के कुनै हिन्दू-सञ्चार-सिद्धान्तको निरूपण गर्न सकिन्छ - पश्चिमा विद्वानहरूका विभिन्न सिद्धान्तसँगै विभिन्न प्रकारका सञ्चार-ढाँचाहरू प्रस्तुत भएजस्तै हिन्दू-सञ्चार-सिद्धान्तलाई कुनै ढाँचामा प्रस्तुत गर्न सकिएला - पश्चिमा अवधारणासँग तुलना गर्दा हिन्दू अवधारणाका मौलिक विशेषता के हुन् त - यस्ता आधारभूत अवधारणात्मक सवालहरू नै यस शोधकार्यका प्रस्थान बिन्दु रहेका छन् ।

पहिलो प्रकरणको दोस्रो खण्डमा यस शोधको औचित्य, आवश्यकता तथा महत्व बारेमा स्पष्ट पार्ने प्रयास गरिएको छ । सञ्चार प्रक्रियालाई राम्ररी बुझ्न यसलाई र्सार्वजनीन स्तरमा मात्र होइन कि अन्तरसांस्कृतिक स्तरमा पनि हेर्नैपर्ने मान्यता स्थापित भइसकेको सन्दर्भमा हिन्दूसंस्कृति विश्वका अन्य संस्कृतिहरूको माझमा पृथक् पहिचान भएको संस्कृतिविशेष भएकाले सञ्चार प्रक्रियाको विशेष 'हिन्दू अवधारणा' खोज्नु औचित्यपूर्ण छ । सञ्चारको पश्चिमा अवधारणा भारतवर्षा जस्ताको तस्तै स्वीकार गर्न मिल्दैन । नेपाल लगायतका भारतवर्षीय मुलुकको सञ्चार परम्परालाई हिन्दुत्वको छत्रछायाँमा नै भेट्न सकिन्छ । आज संसारमा सञ्चारलाई आफ्ना-आफ्ना सन्दर्भमा व्याख्या, पुनर्व्याख्या वा परिभाषित गर्ने कार्य व्यापक रूपमा चलिसकेको परिवेशमा नेपालजस्तो सभ्यता र संस्कृतिमा सम्पन्न मुलुकमा यस खालका शोध नगरिनु बुद्धिमानी होइन । त्यसैले सञ्चारको हिन्दू अवधारणात्मक अध्ययन औचित्यपूर्ण साथै आवश्यक पनि छ । यसबाट हिन्दू-इतिहासको व्यापक कालखण्डलाई बुझ्ने दिशामा उल्लेख्य प्राप्ति हुने, सञ्चार सिद्धान्त साथै परम्परागत मिडियालाई समष्टिमा जान्न र सदुपयोग गर्न मद्दत मिल्ने, नयाँ पुस्ताका हिन्दूलाई हिन्दू-समाजमा सामाजिकीकरण गर्न प्रभावकारी उपायको अवलम्बनमा पनि यसबाट मद्दत पुग्ने जस्ता कारण दिँदै यसको महत्व दर्शाइएको छ । शोधपत्रको मूल विषय-वस्तुको औचित्य, आवश्यकता र महत्व बारेमा चर्चा गरेपछि यस विषयमा नेपालभित्रबाट यो नै पहिलो शोधपत्र भएको उल्लेख समेत यस खण्डमा गरिएको छ ।

पहिलो प्रकरणको तेस्रो खण्डमा यस शोधकार्यका साधारण र विशिष्ट उद्देश्य उल्लेख गरिएको छ । साधारण उद्देश्य गैर-शाब्दिक सञ्चार तथा शाब्दिक सञ्चारको हिन्दू अवधारणात्मक अध्ययन गर्ने, हिन्दू-सञ्चार-सिद्धान्त निरूपण गर्ने र सञ्चार प्रक्रियाको हिन्दू अवधारणालाई पश्चिमा अवधारणासँग सामान्य तुलनात्मक अध्ययन गर्ने रहेका छन् । विशिष्ट उद्देश्य दार्शनिक आधारका रूपमा 'मीमांसादर्शन' लिई भरतमुनिकृत 'नाट्यशास्त्र'लाई आधार मानी गैर-शाब्दिक सञ्चारको तथा भर्तृहरिकृत 'वाक्यपदीय'लाई आधार मानी शाब्दिक सञ्चारको हिन्दू अवधारणात्मक अध्ययन गर्ने र हिन्दू-सञ्चार-सिद्धान्तको रूपमा 'साधारणीकरण'को अध्ययन गरी हिन्दू अवधारणालाई पश्चिमा अवधारणासँग सामान्य तुलना गर्ने रहेका छन् ।

पहिलो प्रकरणको चौथो खण्डमा शोधकार्यका प्रमेय र सीमाङ्कन उल्लेख गरिएका छन् । प्रमेय अर्न्तर्गत 'सञ्चारको पश्चिमा अवधारणा' भन्नाले सुप्रसिद्ध ग्रीसेली दार्शनिक अरस्तुको वाक्कला -रेटोरिक) सम्बन्धी अवधारणाको परम्परामा रही बनेका सम्पूर्ण सञ्चार-ढाँचा एवं सञ्चार-सिद्धान्तलाई जनाइएको उल्लेख गर्दै हाल मूलधारमा रहेको पश्चिमा-सञ्चार-अवधारणा मूलतः अरस्तेली अवधारणाकै निरन्तरता हो भन्ने पनि मानिएको छ । हिन्दूत्वलाई धर्म, अर्थ, काम, मोक्ष सबै पुरूषार्थलाई समुचित महत्व दिने एवं आधिभौतिक, आधिदैविक, आध्यात्मिक तीनै तहको सुसंयोजन भएको मान्दै आध्यात्मिकता हिन्दू समाजको मूल-प्रवृत्ति र भौतिकता पश्चिमा समाजको मूल-प्रवृत्ति रहेको भन्ने प्रमेयलाई प्रस्तुत शोधपत्रले आधार मानेको छ । सीमाङ्कनमा समयगत, अध्ययनक्षेत्रगत तथा साधन-स्रोतजन्य सीमितताका चर्चा गरिनुका साथै उपयुक्त पुस्तकालय तथा यथेष्ट पूर्व-कार्यको अनुपलब्धताको गुनासो पनि पोखिएको छ ।

पहिलो प्रकरणको पाँचौं खण्डमा महत्वपूर्ण शब्दावलीका अर्थ तथा परिभाषा दिइएको छ । जसअर्न्तर्गत पहिले 'हिन्दू अवधारणा' र पछि 'सञ्चार प्रक्रिया' बारेमा चर्चा गरिएको छ । हिन्दू शब्द र यससँग सम्बद्ध विविध शब्दावलीका अनेक पक्षहरूको चर्चा गरिसकेपछि यस शोध प्रयोजनको निमित्त निम्नानुसारका तत्वहरूलाई हिन्दूत्वको आधार मानिएको छ-

- मूलमन्त्र
- वेद वा/तथा वैदिक परम्पराका मत वा शास्त्रमा आस्था
- निराकार वा/तथा साकार परम्सत्तामा अखण्ड विश्वास
- मूर्त वा अमूर्तको पूजा वा ध्यान
- कर्म अनुसारको फल मिल्दछ भन्नेमा विश्वास
- 'आत्मा' तथा 'पुनर्जन्म'मा विश्वास
- मानवजीवनको परम्लक्ष्यका रूपमा 'मोक्ष'
अन्त्यमा 'हिन्दूअवधारणा' को परिभाषा पनि यसै खण्डमा दिइएको छ ।

त्यसपछि सञ्चार बारेमा चर्चा गर्दै यस शोधप्रयोजनकालागि सञ्चार प्रक्रियाको औपचारिक परिभाषा निम्नानुसार दिइएको छ- "सञ्चार प्रक्रिया भन्नाले मानवका ती सबै वैयक्तिक वा सामाजिक-सांस्कृतिक क्रियाकलापलाई सम्झनु पर्दछ, जसमा कुनै सन्देश वा अर्थपूर्ण संकेतको सम्प्रेषणबाट प्रक्रियामा संलग्न सदस्यबीच साझेदारी वा समझदारीको सामान्य सम्बन्ध कायम हुन जान्छ ।" साथै सञ्चार प्रक्रियाका दुई अवयवका रूपमा शाब्दिक सञ्चार र गैर-शाब्दिक सञ्चारको उल्लेख पनि भएको छ । आधुनिक सञ्चार प्रक्रियाको ढाँचा पनि यसै खण्डमा प्रस्तुत गरिएको छ ।

प्रस्तुत शोधपत्रको दोस्रो प्रकरणमा पूर्व-कार्यहरूको सामान्य समीक्षा गर्ने क्रममा पहिले नेपालबाहिरबाट प्रकाशित सामग्रीको र त्यसपछि नेपालबाट प्रकाशित सामग्रीको चर्चा गरिएको छ । यस शोधकर्ताको अध्ययनबाट देखिएअनुसार सञ्चारको हिन्दू अवधारणा खोज्ने पहल सन् १९७१ मा सम्भवतः पहिलोपल्ट गरिएको उल्लेख गर्दै सन् १९८० यस क्रममा कोसेढुङ्गा मानिएको छ । हिन्दू-सञ्चार-सिद्धान्त विभिन्न लेख तथा कार्यपत्रको विषयवस्तु बनेको देखिएतापनि यस विषयमा शोधकार्य भएको भने नपाइएको र यस सन्दर्भमा लेखिएको सिङ्गो पुस्तक एउटै पनि नभेटिएको चर्चा पनि यस प्रकरणमा गरिएको छ । तत्पश्चात् सञ्चार प्रक्रियाको हिन्दू अवधारणात्मक अध्ययनमा पूर्ववर्ती अध्ययनहरूको तुलनामा प्रस्तुत शोधपत्रको थप योगदान बारेमा प्रष्ट्याउने प्रयास गरिएको छ ।

यस शोधकार्यको शोध-ढाँचाका बारेमा तेस्रो प्रकरणमा चर्चा गरिएको छ । सञ्चार शोध अर्न्तर्गत यो सन्देशअभिमुख शोध भएको चर्चा गर्दै सन्देशअभिमुख शोध अर्न्तर्गतपनि प्रलेखात्मक शोध र प्रलेखात्मक पक्षमा पनि यो शोधकार्य मूलतः पुस्तकालयीय/प्रलेखात्मक शोध भएको बताइएको छ । यस शोधकार्यमा 'जनसंख्या'का रूपमा सम्पूर्ण हिन्दूशास्त्रहरूलाई मान्दै तिनीहरूमध्येबाट प्रयोजनपरक नमूना छनोटमा नाट्यशास्त्र, वाक्यपदीय र मीमांसार्-दर्शनलाई चयन गरिएको छ । तथ्य-सङ्कलनको निमित्त यसमा द्वितियक स्रोतहरूको प्रयोग गरिएको चर्चा गर्दै पूर्व-प्रकाशित एवं पुस्तकालयमा उपलब्ध प्रलेख नै तथ्यका स्रोतका रूपमा रहेका पनि बताइएको छ । स्रोत-ग्रन्थको अध्ययन गरी तिनमा रहेका सम्बद्ध अंशहरूको टिपोट नै यस शोधकार्यको मुख्य तथ्य-सङ्कलन विधि रहेको छ भने तथ्यहरूको व्याख्यात्मक तथा तुलनात्मक चर्चाबाट तर्कसम्मत आधार स्थापना गर्नु नै यस शोधकार्यको विश्लेषण विधि रहेको छ । अन्त्यमा तथ्यहरूको विश्लेषणअनुरूप आगमनात्मक निष्कर्षा पुग्ने विधिलाई यस शोधपत्रले अंगीकार गरेको छ ।
चौथो प्रकरण प्रस्तुत शोधपत्रको मुख्य भागका रूपमा रहेको छ, जहाँ तथ्यहरूको प्रस्तुतिकरण र विश्लेषण गरिएको छ । यस प्रकरणको पहिलो खण्डमा सर्वप्रथम नमूना छनोटमा परेका शास्त्र -नाट्यशास्त्र, वाक्यपदीय र मीमांसार्-दर्शन) को सामान्य परिचयका साथमा तिनीहरूलाई छनोट गरिनुको कारण बारेमा चर्चा, दोस्रो खण्डमा गैर-शाब्दिक सञ्चारको तथा तेस्रो खण्डमा शाब्दिक सञ्चारको हिन्दू अवधारणात्मक अध्ययन गरिएको छ । हिन्दू-सञ्चार-सिद्धान्तको रूपमा 'साधारणीकरण'को निरूपण यसै प्रकरणको चौथो खण्डमा गरी त्यसको ढाँचा -साधारणीकरण ढाँचा) समेत दिइएको छ । अन्त्यमा चौथो प्रकरणकै पाँचौं खण्डमा सञ्चार प्रक्रियाको हिन्दू सिद्धान्तलाई पश्चिमा सिद्धान्तसँग तुलनात्मक अध्ययन गरिएको छ ।

(ख) निष्कर्ष -
गैर-शाब्दिक सञ्चारः

(क) शाब्दिक र गैर-शाब्दिक दुवै क्रियाहरूमा सूचना निहित रहेको हुन्छ भन्ने तथ्यमा प्राचीन कालदेखि नै हिन्दूहरू विज्ञ रहेको देखिन्छ ।

(ख) नाट्यशास्त्रमा अङ्गोपाङ्गका कर्महरू बारेमा गरिएको वर्ण्र्ााहिन्दू समाजमा लौकिक व्यवहारमा प्रयुक्त 'नन्र्-भर्बल कम्युनिकेसन' अर्थात् 'गैर-शाब्दिक सञ्चार'को शास्त्रीयरूप हो । नाट्यशास्त्रमा वणिर्त 'आङ्गकि' तथा 'आहार्य' अभिनयहरूले गैरशाब्दिक सञ्चारको स्वरूप प्रस्तुत गर्दछन् । शारीर चेष्टा, मुहारभाव तथा शरीर स्वयम्मा सञ्चारको माध्यम, यिनको एकदमै स्पष्टतः र विषद् वर्णन नाट्यशास्त्रमा पाइन्छ । कुनैपनि मानवका हरेक क्रियाहरू सञ्चारको व्यापक परिधि भित्र समेटिएका हुन्छन् र केही कुरा पनि सञ्चारविहीन हुँदैन भन्ने तथ्य हिन्दूहरूलाई प्राचीन कालदेखि नै ज्ञात रहेको देखिन्छ ।
(ग) हिन्दू अवधारणा अनुसार चक्षु, रसना, घ्राण, र्स्पर्शन -त्वक्), श्रोत्र -कर्ण्र्ाायी पाँचका अतिरिक्त मन समेत छओटा इन्द्रिय छन् ।

चक्षुलाई तैजसरूप मानिएको छभने यसले चाक्षुष -भिजुअल) सन्देश ग्रहण गर्दछ । रसनालाई जलीयरूप मानिएको छभने यसले रसात्मक -टेस्ट्) सन्देश ग्रहण गर्दछ । घ्राणलाई पार्थिवरूप मानिएको छभने यसले नस्य -ओल्फ्याक्टोरी) सन्देश ग्रहण गर्दछ । त्वक्लाई वायवीयरूप मानिएको छ भने यसले स्पृश्य -ट्याक्टाइल) सन्देश ग्रहण गर्दछ । कर्ण्र्ााई आकाशरूप मानिएको छभने यसले श्रव्य -अडिटरी) सन्देश ग्रहण गर्दछ । इन्द्रियहरूको कार्यमा मनलाई कार्य वहन गर्ने 'विभु'को रूपमा मानिएको छ । इन्द्रियहरूको साथमा बाह्य सर्म्पर्क गर्नमा मन माध्यमको रूपमा रहेको हुन्छ र त्यही माध्यम प्रयोग गरी आत्माले बाह्य जगत्को ज्ञान प्राप्त गर्दछ । आत्मा अनुभवकर्ता अथवा फलोपभोक्ता हो; शरीर अनुभवको स्थान हो; र इन्द्रियहरूचाहिं अनुभवका साधन हुन् ।

(घ) शारिरीक हावभाव जस्तो चेतन मनको नियन्त्रणभन्दा परै समेत घटित हुनसक्ने क्रियाकलापलाई पनि स्वेच्छाले सञ्चालन गरी अपेक्षित सन्देश दिन सकिने हिन्दू अवधारणा रहेको देखिन्छ । यो कुरा अचेतन वा अर्धचेतन मनद्वारा निर्देशित क्रियाकलापमाथि समेत नियन्त्रण गर्न सक्षम 'आत्मा'को शासनमा इन्द्रियलाई राख्नुपर्ने हिन्दू मत अनुकुल रहेको छ ।

(घ) हिन्दू संस्कृतिमा रहेको आध्यात्मिक चेतनाको प्रभाव गैर-शाब्दिक सञ्चारको हिन्दू अवधारणामा पनि परेको छ । तर यो भौतिक जगत्बाट निरपेक्ष भने रहेको छैन । वास्तवमा भौतिक एवम् आध्यात्मिक दुवै सत्यको सुसंयोजन गर्ने हिन्दूत्वको विशेषताको प्रत्यक्ष प्रभाव गैर-शाब्दिक हिन्दू-सञ्चार-अवधारणाका सन्दर्भमा पनि परेको छ ।

शाब्दिक सञ्चारः

(क) हिन्दूसंस्कृतिमा शब्दको महिमा खुब गाइएको छ । प्राचीन हिन्दूहरू शब्दको दुवै स्वरूप -लेखात्मक र भाषात्मक) बारेमा विज्ञ थिए । भाषिक प्रतीक आफ्नो मूल प्रकृतिमा ध्वनिपरक हुन्छ भन्ने आधुनिक भाषाविज्ञानको मान्यता अनुकूल प्राचीन कालदेखिनै हिन्दू अवधारणामा शब्दलाई 'श्रोत्रेन्द्रियग्राह्य' मानिएको पाइन्छ ।

(ख) विभिन्न साक्ष्यहरूबाट 'वैदिक' कालमा लेखन-कलाको प्रशस्त प्रचार रहेको देखिन्छ ।

(ग) हिन्दू परम्परामा भाषाका चार रूप मानिएका छन्( परा, पश्यन्ती, मध्यमा र वैखरी । पहिलेका तीन अवस्थाका शब्द गुप्त अव्यक्त छन्, चौथो अवस्थाको व्यक्तशब्दलाई नै मनुष्यहरूको बोलीले प्रकाश गर्दछ भनी वेदवाक्यले निरूपण गरेको छ । वाक्यपदीयमा त्यही वैदिक मत प्रतिबिम्बित भएको छ । वैखरी शब्दको बाह्य र खुट्ट्याउन सकिने रूप अवस्था हो, जहाँ वाक्लाई वक्ताले उच्चारण गर्दछ र श्रोताले श्रवण गर्दछ । प्राण अथवा श्वासले वागेन्द्रिय तथा श्रवणेन्द्रियलाई ध्वनिको क्रमबद्ध उत्पादन तथा ग्रहण गर्न सक्षम तुल्याउँछ । प्राण अथवा श्वास नै वैखरी वाक्को कारण हो । यसभन्दा आन्तरिक तहमा जाँदा मध्यमा वाक् चाहिं मुख्यतया बुद्धिसँग सम्बद्ध छ । कुनै कुरा बोलिनुअघि वक्ताले दिमागमा सोचेको कुरा वा कुनै कुरा सुनिसकेपछि श्रोताले आफ्नो मनमा मनन गरेको कुरालाई मध्यमा वाक्को उदाहरणका रूपमा लिन सकिन्छ । यस अवस्थामा शब्द र अर्थको सम्बन्ध व्यक्तिलाई ज्ञात भइसकेको हुन्छ तापनि तिनको पृथक् पृथक् अस्तित्व पनि रहेकै हुन्छ । अझ आभ्यन्तरिक तहको पश्यन्ती अवस्थामा चाहिं शब्द र अर्थको पृथक् पृथक् अस्तित्व हुँदैन; यी दुई एकाकार भइसकेका हुन्छन् । यो तह अन्तर्ज्ञर्ााो हो र यहाँ अनुभूतिले नै ज्ञान हुन्छ । योभन्दा परको 'परा' अवस्थामा नपुगी 'शब्दब्रह्म' साक्षात्कार हुँदैन भन्ने वैदिक मत रहेको छ ।

(घ) जीवन र जगत्को अन्तिम लक्ष्य ब्रह्म नै हो भन्ने सिद्धान्तको प्रतिपादन वैयाकरणको दृष्टिबाट वाक्यपदीयमा भएको छ र यो आस्तिक हिन्दू दर्शनहरूसँग मतैक्यता राख्ने दृष्टिकोण हो ।
(ङ) आधुनिक विद्वान भाषाको दुई रूप लांग र परोल अर्थात् मध्यमा र वैखरीमै रोकिए, भारतवषर्ीय मनीषी दुई तह अझ अघि बढेका छन्, परा र पश्यन्तीसम्म । पश्चिमा दर्शन मूलतः भौतिकवादी भएकाले बढी भन्दा बढी यसमा मानसिक तह (अर्धचेतन तथा अवचेतन मन) सम्ममात्र यसको दृष्टि पुगेको छ । हिन्दू धारणामा भौतिक स्वरूपलाईमात्र सम्पूर्णा नमानी त्यसभित्रको परमतत्वलाई पनि चिन्ने प्रयास गरिने प्रवृत्ति अनुरूप भौतिक र मानसिक तहलाई समेट्दै अझ उच्चतम् तह अर्थात् आध्यात्मिकतासम्म पुगेको देखिन्छ । हिन्दू संस्कृतिमा रहेको आध्यात्मिक चेतनाको प्रभाव शाब्दिक सञ्चारको हिन्दू अवधारणामा प्रत्यक्षतः एवम् निर्ण्ाायक तवरले परेको छ । तर यो भौतिक जगत्बाट निरपेक्ष भने रहेको छैन । जहाँ पश्चिमा अवधारणा भौतिक सत्यप्रतिको अत्यधिक आग्रहले एकाङ्गी बनेको छ; शाब्दिक हिन्दू-सञ्चार-अवधारणाको निर्माण भौतिक एवम् आध्यात्मिक दुवै सत्यको सुसंयोजन भएर नै भएको छ ।

हिन्दू-सञ्चार-सिद्धान्तः

(क) भारतवर्षीय- वा हिन्दू-सञ्चार-सिद्धान्तको विकास प्राचीनकालमा कहिले भयो भन्ने तथ्य अस्पष्ट छ । हिन्दू-सञ्चार-सिद्धान्तका रूपमा निरूपित 'साधारणीकरण'को निमित्त दशौं शताब्दीका काव्याशास्त्राचार्य भट्टनायकलाई जस दिने मूल प्रवृत्तिका साथै सिद्धान्तलाई वैदिककालसम्म नै तन्काउने प्रयत्न पनि भएका छन् ।

(ख) भट्टनायकले मानव-मानव बीचमा सन्देशको आदान-प्रदानको मुख्य उद्देश्य आपसमा भावको साझेदारी वा साझा अनुभूति नै हो भन्ने मानेर त्यस प्रक्रियालाई 'साधारणीकरण'को रूपमा व्याख्या गरेका हुन् । पश्चिमा सन्दर्भमा 'कम्युनिकेसन' शब्दको व्युत्पत्ति हर्ेदा कम्युनिकेसन -सञ्चार) भनेको कुनै कुराको साझेदारी गर्ने प्रक्रिया हो भन्ने बुझिन्छ । तर्सथ पश्चिममा कम्युनिकेसन भनेर र पूर्वमा साधारणीकरण भनेर एकै प्रक्रियालाई बुझाउन खोजिएको देखिन्छ ।

(ग) साधारणीकरणका निम्नानुसारका तत्वहरू रहेका छन्- सहृदय (प्रेषक र प्रापक), भाव, अभिव्यञ्जन, सन्देश, सरणि, रसास्वादन, सम्भाव्य दोष, सन्दर्भ, प्रतिक्रिया ।

(घ) भारतवर्षीय काव्यशास्त्रको आधारमा निरूपित सिद्धान्त पनि हिन्दू अवधारणाका आधारभूत विशेषताबाट निरपेक्ष छैन । जसरी हिन्दूत्वले आधिभौतिक, आधिदैविक एवं आध्यात्मिक सबै तहलाई समेट्दछ, उसरी नै साधारणीकरणको क्षेत्र पनि विस्तृत रहेको छ ।

(ङ) जटिल प्रक्रियाको सरल परिणति हुनु नै साधारणीकरणको विशेषता हो ।
तुलनात्मक अध्ययनः

(क) इश्वरलाई अतिशय प्रेम गर्ने हुनाले एक आदर्श हिन्दू सारा जगत्लाईर् इश्वरकै अभिव्यक्तिको रूपमा प्रेम गर्दछ । तर्सथ हिन्दू जीवनपद्धतिमा मानवका अलावा मानवेतर सम्पूर्णा प्रकृतिप्रति समेत प्रेमपूर्ण दृष्टिकोण छ र त्यसको प्रभाव सञ्चार व्यवहारमा समेत परेको छ ।
(ख) हिन्दू अवधारणात्मक सञ्चार प्रक्रिया चक्रवत् रहेको छ, जहाँ पश्चिमा अवधारणामा त्यसलाई रेखीय मानिएको छ ।

(ग) अरस्तेली ढाँचामा सञ्चार प्रक्रियाको उद्देश्य नै प्रापकलाई प्रेषकले अभ्रि्रेरित गर्नु रहेकाले पश्चिमा अवधारणामा प्रेषकलाई महत्व दिइएको स्वतः स्पष्ट छ । यता हिन्दू पर्रि्रेक्षमा प्रेषक-प्राधान्यता वा प्रापक-केन्द्रियता परिस्थितिजन्य अवस्थामात्र हुन् । यस्तो पृष्ठभूमिमा एउटालाई मात्र प्रमुखता दिनु वस्तुनिष्ठ हुनेछैन । तर्सथ लौकिक वा भौतिक जगत्को सन्दर्भमा भन्ने हो भने पूर्वमा सम्बद्धता र अन्तरनिर्भरतालाई महत्व दिइन्छ भने साधारणीकरणलाई आध्यात्मिक सन्दर्भमा समेत हर्ेदा ब्रह्म र जीवात्माबीचको साधारणीकरणलाई 'अन्तरनिर्भर' भन्नु उपयुक्त हुनेछैन । लौकिक वा भौतिकदेखि आध्यात्मिकसम्म सबै सन्दर्भलाई प्रतिनिधित्व गर्ने गरी भन्ने हो भने सहभागीहरूको आपसी सम्बन्धलाई बुझाउने प्राविधिक संज्ञा 'सहृदय' नै भन्नुपर्ने हुन्छ ।

हिन्दू अवधारणात्मक सञ्चारमा सम्बन्ध स्वयम्लाई महत्व दिने वा सम्बन्धको हेतुलाई ख्याल राख्ने भन्ने कुरा परिस्थिति-सापेक्ष हुनजान्छ । हिन्दूहरूले आवश्यकता अनुरूप सम्बन्ध वा सम्बन्धको हेतुमध्ये कुनै एक वा दुवैको सुसंयोजनलाई महत्व दिने गर्दछन् । तर्सथ हिन्दू अवधारणा पूर्णाङ्गी छभने उता पश्चिमा अवधारणामा चाहिं सम्बन्धको हेतुलाई मात्र ख्याल राखिने भएकाले त्यो एकाङ्गी छ ।

(घ) लौकिक वा भौतिक सन्दर्भमा हिन्दू अवधारणात्मक सञ्चार प्रक्रियाको उद्देश्य यसको आदर्शस्थितिमा भावहरूको साझेदारी, पारस्परिक समझदारी, सहमति एवं सामुहिक क्रियान्विति हो । साधारणीकरणको आदर्श उद्देश्य सहृदयहरूबीचमा साझेदारी, समभाव वा ऐक्यता हासिल गर्नु हो । उच्चतर रूपमा यसको उद्देश्य आत्मज्ञान पाई मोक्षको परम लक्ष्य हासिल गर्नु नै हो । उता पश्चिमा अवधारणामा सञ्चारको उद्देश्य उद्देश्य अभ्रि्रेरणा वा प्रापकलाई प्रेषकले अभ्रि्रेरित गर्नु रहेको छ ।

पश्चिमा संस्कृतिमा झैं इहलौकिक प्राप्तिमा मात्र कुनैपनि आदर्श हिन्दूले सन्तोष मान्दैन; तर हिन्दू दर्शनलाई भौतिक वा लौकिक जीवनप्रति अनिच्छुक र पारलौकिक वा आध्यात्मिक जीवनप्रति मात्र आकषिर्त रहेको ठान्नु चाहिं अर्को अपाङ्ग सोच हो । धर्म, अर्थ र कामलाई सदुपयोग गरी मोक्षसम्म पुग्नु हिन्दूत्वको अभीष्ट हो । यो कुरा अवश्यै होकि यदि अर्थ र काम धर्म-प्रतिकूल भएमा त्यसलाई त्याग्न तत्पर रहनुपर्दछ । संक्षेपमा भन्नुपर्दा धर्म, अर्थ, काम, मोक्ष अर्थात् पुरुषार्थ-चतुष्टयको प्राप्ति नै एक आदर्श हिन्दूको जीवन-उद्देश्य हो । त्यसैले सञ्चार क्रियाकलापलाई यी सबै सन्दर्भमा नहेरी हिन्दू अवधारणाको पूर्ण स्वरूप प्राप्त हुँदैन ।

(ङ) हिन्दू अवधारणात्मक सञ्चारलाई 'सन्दर्भ-सापेक्ष' मान्नुपर्ने हुन्छ, जबकि अरस्तेली सञ्चार-अवधारणामा 'सन्दर्भ-निरपेक्ष' रहेको छ ।

(च) सामाजिक व्यवहारमा हिन्दू संस्कृति समष्टि-प्रधान रहेको छभने आध्यात्मिक प्रयोजनमा यो सदैव व्यष्टि-केन्द्रित रहेर चिन्तन गर्दछ । यसरी वैयक्तिकता र सामुहिकताको समन्वित रूप नै हिन्दूत्वमा रहेको हुन्छ । तर्सथ व्यष्टि र समष्टि दुवैको सुसंयोजन हिन्दू अवधारणाको विशेषता हो । उता पश्चिमा सिद्धान्त व्यष्टि-प्रधान वा व्यक्तिवादी रहेको छ ।

(छ) हिन्दू अवधारणामा सञ्चारको आभ्यन्तरिक पक्ष -अन्तर्ज्ञान लाई जोड दिइएको छ भने पश्चिमा अवधारणामा बाह्य पक्ष -इन्द्रियजन्य ज्ञान) लाई जोड दिइएको छ । जसको फलस्वरूप भारतवर्षा अन्तरनिहित वा आन्तरिक सञ्चार तथा पश्चिममा आमसञ्चारलाई जोड दिइएको पाइन्छ । प्रायः सबै आमसञ्चारका प्रविधि पश्चिममै आविष्कार गरिनु र अर्कोतर्फअन्तर्ज्ञनको साधन अर्थात् 'योग'को विकास चाहिं भारतवर्षा जति भयो, त्यो तहसम्म पश्चिम कहिल्यै नपुग्नुको कारण पनि यही हो ।

Visit all these sites:
http://adhikary.wordpress.com/

http://nirmalamani.blogspot.com/

http://maharshidhaumya.blogspot.com/

http://sadharanikarantheory.com/

http://nirmalam.blogsome.com/

These are Nirmala Mani Adhikary's sites.