On the Audience from Natyashastra perspective (an excerpt from the book Theory and Practice of Communication - Bharata Muni by Dr. Nirmala Mani Adhikary)

Prekshaka, Samajika and Sahridaya

[taken from pp. 277-281 of: 

Adhikary, N. M. (2014). Theory and practice of communication - Bharata Muni. Bhopal: Makhanlal Chaturvedi National University of Journalism and Communication.]

In Bharatavarsha, as Ghosh (2007, p. xxxiii) observes, a play was considered "to be specially 'a spectacle' (preksa) or things to be visualized; hence persons attending the performance of a play were always referred to (NS. XXVII. 48-57) as 'spectators' or 'observers' (preksaka) and never as audience (srotr), although in it there was always the speech-element."

Chaturvedi (2005) takes the Sanskrit word Samajika and the English word audience as equivalents. She discusses that 'audience' represents both viewer and listener, whereas in Natyashastra tradition the word Samajika represents the same (p. 15).

The varying tastes of individuals have been taken into consideration by Bharata in Natyashastra (XXV. 59-61):

Young people are pleased to see (the presentation of) love, the learned a reference to some (religious or philosophical) doctrine, the seekers after money to the topics of wealth, and the passionless the topics of liberation. Heroic persons are always pleased in the Odious and the Terrible Sentiments, personal combats and battles, and the old people in Puranic legends, and tales of virtue. And common women, children and uncultured persons are always delighted with the Comic Sentiment and remarkable costumes and make-up. (Trans. Ghosh, 2007, p. xxxv)

The same view is expressed in Trilochanaditya's Natyalochanam in this regard: "This is the pastime of the rich, sustenance of the content persons, it is educative for the blundering persons, (it brings) realization that 'such are the ways of life in this world' in the minds of various ascetics, (it leads to) appreciation of delineation of sentiments in the literary works, it brings out the new talents and achievements of poets, (infact) this embodiment of wisdom & knowledge called Nataka is the goddess whose munificence can benefit the whole world" (NL– I.22).

Bharata has given importance to individual spectators by considering that they are the decisive ones in the success of any dramatic performance. It is to note that, for Bharata, success is of two kinds: divine (daiviki) and human (manusi). He describes them elaborately in the 27^th Adhyaya of NS.

Of these two, the divine Success seems to be related to the deeper aspects of a play and came from spectators of a superior order i.e. persons possessed of culture and education (NS. XXVII. 16-17), and the human Success related to its superficial aspects and came from the average spectators who were ordinary human beings. It is from these latter, who are liable to give expression to their enjoyment or disapproval in the clearest and most energetic manner, that tumultuous applause and similar other acts proceeded (NS. XXVII. 3, 8-18, 13-14), while spectators of superior order order expressed rather calmly their appreciation of the deeper and more subtle aspects of a play. (Ghosh, 2007, p. xxxv)

Ghosh also notes that, in the Natyashastra tradition,

The specialists in dramatic production never forgot that this was basically a social amusement and as such depended a great deal for its success on the average spectators. In the NS. it has been said clearly more than once that the ultimate court of appeal concerning the dramatic practice was the public (XX. 125-126). (p. xxxix)

Thus, in Natyashastra tradition, "Judgement of the worth of dramatic pieces should be the prerogatives of the laymen attending the presentation" (A Board of Scholars, 2003, p. xviii).

Bharata instructs that one should compose the Nataka with pleasant and easily intelligible words (NS– XXI.127). It is also written that the plays (lit. poems) containing harsh words is repulsive (NS– XXI.128).

The importance given to common people can be seen in the following instruction in Natyashastra (XXII. 119-122):

The playwright should make efforts to use in his composition sweet and agreeable words which can be recited by women. A play abounding in agreeable sound and sense, and containing no obscure or difficult words unintelligible to the country people, having a good construction, fit to be interpreted with dances, developing Sentiments ……… becomes fit for representation to spectators. (Trans. Ghosh, 2007, p. xlviii)

In the 26^th Adhyaya of NS, Bharata consideres the people, the Vedas and the spiritual faculty (Adhyatma) as the three authorities on the matters of Natya. "The drama which has its origin in the Vedas, and the spiritual faculty (adhyatma) and includes [proper] words and metre, succeeds when it is approved of by the people. Hence the people are considered to be the [ultimate] authority on drama" (NS- XXVI.120-121). Again, Bharata writes (NS- XXVI.125-127): Rules regarding the feelings and activities of the world, movable as well as immovable, cannot be formulated (lit. ascertained) exhaustively by the Shastra. The people have different dispositions, and on their dispositions drama rests. Hence, playwrights and producers should take the people as their ultimate authority as regards the rule of the art. Thus attention should be paid to the feelings, gestures and the Sattvas in representing the Bhavas (Psychological States) through various characters [that may appear in the drama]. Bharata's viewpoint on success also implies the ultimate authority of people (commoners).

The author of Natyashastra seems aware of what the concept of media literacy envisions. For instance, in the 27^th chapter, "there is enough matter educating the Preksaka also in the manner and substance of the appreciation of the remarkable points on the part of the actors and the actresses" (A Board of Scholars, 2003, p. xviii).

In the 27^th Adhyaya of Natyashastra, Bharata outlines the characteristics of an ideal spectator (Prekshaka) of a performance. According to him,

"Those who are possessed of [good] character, high birth, quiet behaviour and learning, are desirous of fame, virtue, are impartial, advanced in age, proficient in drama in all its six limbs, alert, honest, unaffected by passion, expert in playing the four kinds of musical instrument, very virtuous, acquainted with the costumes and Make-up, the rules of dialects, the four kinds of Histrionic Representation, grammar, prosody, and various [other] Sastras, are experts in different arts and crafts, and have fine sense of the Sentiments and the Psychological States, should be made spectators in witnessing a drama" (NS- XXVII.50-53).

"Anyone who has (lit. is characterized by unruffled senses, is honest, expert in the discussion of pros and cons, detector of faults and appreciator [of merits], is considered fit to be a spectator in a drama" (NS- XXVII.54). "He who attains gladness on seeing a person glad, and sorrow on seeing him sorry, and feels miserable on seeing him miserable, is considered fit to be a spectator in a drama" (NS- XXVII.55).

However, "All these various qualities are not known to exist in one single spectator. Hence, because objects of knowledge are so numerous, and the span of life is so brief, the inferior common persons in an assembly which consists of the superior, the middling and the inferior members, cannot be expected to appreciate the performace of the superior ones" (NS- XXVII.56-57). "And hence an individual to whom a particular dress, profession, speech and an act belong as his own, should be considered fit for appreciating the same" (NS- XXVII.58).

Then, Bharata makes distinction between various classes of spectators and their dispositions.And, the provision of assessors in performance resembles to the practices of media critics these days.

It was the importance given to the spectators that led Bharata and other theorists to the theory of Rasa. It is to note here that Rasa is not present in the actor; rather, he/she "simply is the means to convey the sentiments in the drama to the spectators. Hence the actor is called the 'patra' (i.e. pot). The pot does not relish the taste of the wine but is the means to serve it to the drinker" (Tarlekar, 1999, p. 56). Thus, it becomes essential to understand the experience of Prekshaka/Samajika in order to understand the process of Rasa experience.

As Ghosh (2007, p. xxxvi) describes, "It was not enough for them that the spectators enjoyed witnessing a successful dramatic performance. They were also curious to find out the process through which it provided enjoyment to them, and discovered what may be called the psychological basis of this enjoyment." The theory of Rasa is crucial to understand the theory of communication as envisioned in Natyashastra.

It is to note that a Prekshaka/Samajika has been ideally named as Sahridaya in Sanskrit poetics. A Sahridaya is one who has attained Sahridayata. Further discussion on Sahridayata will be done later on in this book. 

Natyashastra, the Sadharanikaran Model of Communication (SMC) and Methodology of Theory Building

This entry is taken from the dissertation "Theory and Practice of Communication: Explorations from Natyashastra of Bharata" (A study conducted under the Bharata Muni Chair Research Fellowship of Makhanlal Chaturvedi National University of Journalism and Communication, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India) by Dr. Nirmala Mani Adhikary.

Natyashastra, the Sadharanikaran Model of Communication (SMC) and Methodology of Theory Building
By: Dr. Nirmala Mani Adhikary
Kathmandu University, Nepal

The exploration of Natyashastra from communication perspective has been done due to its enduring cultural importance in Bharatavarshiya society as well as its intrinsic qualification to contribute to contemporary and future communication scholarship. Bharata's Natyashastra has been approached by various scholars from different viewpoints thereby giving rise to different theories and concepts, which are pertinent to different disciplines of knowledge. The modern discipline of communication also has got many insights from the great treatise.

Bharata delineates the fundamentals of communication practices, both verbal and non-verbal. His description of non-verbal communication is perhaps the most insightful account in the subject matter even for today. His perception seems "broad as well as minute and analytical" (Jain & Daljeet, 2005). Bharata theorizes communication uniquely. His Rasa-sutra is the foundation for the theory of Rasa. His theory of Rasa is the foundation of Bhattanayaka's theory of Sadharanikaran. The much discoursed concept of Sahridayata also owes to Natyashastra itself.

For the Sadharanikaran model of communication (SMC), Bharata's Natyashastra and Bhartrihari's Vakyapadiya are the principal sources. By presenting the SMC to larger audience, I have sought for mainstreaming indigenous Bharatavarshiya/Hindu scholarship in the communication discipline.

The field of communication theory has been witnessing a paradigm shift thereby promoting multicultural and multidisciplinary theorization of communication. Seeking indigenous theories of communication does not mean mere rejection of something Western, but it must be an independent and creative addition in the discipline. By virtue of Sahridayata envisioned, the sadharanikaran theory and the Sadharanikaran Model of Communication (SMC) have scope to be generalized as a "grand theory" (see: Chen & Miike, 2006, p. 5). From a panhuman vantage point, the utility of such a model of communication is enormous.

The SMC's root being in Hindu culture does not limit its scope for universalization of the model. "Communication theorizing in the local community and the global society ought to move beyond the dualistic thinking of provincial specificity versus universal applicability. Any theory has local resonance and may have global significance" (Miike, 2007b, p. 277). "Cultural particularity leads to human universality. We do not need to walk away from cultural particularity to reach human universality" (Chen & Miike, 2006, p. 4). What is to be avoided is the ethnocentricity and supremacist fundamentalism.  Ranganathananda (1971) rightly says, "Without proper understanding of our own culture, we shall never be able to enter the soul of another culture, nor profit from it" (p. 56).

There is scope for generalizing the concept and the construct of sahridayata in the broader study of Hindu philosophy. Furthermore, by virtue of sahridayata envisioned, the sadharanikaran theory and the SMC have scope to be generalized in global context. The SMC's root being in Hindu culture does not limit its scope for universalization of the model. In fact, the scope of a Hindu model of communication, such as the SMC, in promoting peace and conflict resolution should be appropriately understood and employed (Adhikary, 2012b).

It to note that the communication discipline is also witnessing “the Race for Theory,” what was observed as a trend in the field of literary theory and criticism (Christian, 2001). Even there have been claims of emergence and growth of an Asiacentric School of Communication Theories. Since theory is "the currency of scholarly research" (Corely & Gioia, 2011, p. 12) more "theories" such race is natural with the growth of academia.

However, unless and until well developed indigenous research procedures and methodologies are explored/rediscovered/developed, any race for theorizing communication would not be free from exogenous paradigms. Theory building is dependent on methodological considerations. Since theory is "a multiple-level component of research process" (Glazier & Grover, 2002, p. 319) and "theory and research share a symbiotic relationship; each is part of the process as also the result of the other" (Reddi, 1996, p. 248) there is need for the indigenous study of both theory and methodology of theory building.

Theory building "consists of two broad components, namely, theorizing to practice and practice to theorizing" (Lynham, 2002, p. 229). By virtue of the practice of theorizing practices and seeking unity of theory and practice in day-to-day life, theory building seems something natural to the Bharatavarshiya/Hindu scholarship. The recent exposition also shows that there is well developed indigenous tradition of theory and theorization in Bharatavarshiya tradition (Adhikary, 2013b). This indicates toward the vast scope of classical Sanskrit texts for developing methodology of theory building.

Now, various fundamental research and studies on various aspects of research methodology itself should be conducted. Emphasis should be not only on application of Western research paradigm but also to enrich the discourse on indigenous research methodologies. Communication/media scholars from Bharatavarsha should move further, and explore and employ indigenous research methodology in order to theorize the practice and to practice the theories.

Discoursing Communication from the Perspective of Mainstream Hindu Philosophy

Discoursing Communication from the Perspective of Mainstream Hindu Philosophy

By: Dr. Nirmala Mani Adhikary & Aditya Kumar Shukla

(Originally published as: Adhikari, N.M., & Shukla, A.K. (2013). Discoursing communication from the perspective of mainstream hindu philosophy. Dev Sanskriti: Interdisciplinary International Journal, 2, 51-56.)

Abstract

This article presents an appraisal of the discourses on communication from the perspective of maninstream Hindu philosophy. Communication theory has been witnessing a paradigm shift thereby promoting theorization of communication from multicultural and multidisciplinary perspectives. Such endeavors have forwarded the discourse of communication from Asian and Hindu perspective too. However, most of the mainstream Hindu philosophies are still unexplored by the communication scholars. Recently, a doctoral research has been accomplished on the Bhatta-Mimamsa philosophical study of communication.

Keywords: Asian Perspective, Communication, Communication Theory, Hindu Philosophy,  

Background

The word communication is translated into languages of Sanskrit origin (including Nepali and Hindi) as sanchar. The word sanchar has a number of meanings in Sanskrit, and one of them is equivalent to what is understood as communication in the modern sense. It is not that sanchar is the only word in Sanskrit which could be used as an equivalent word while translating the English word ‘communication’. However, interestingly, in all languages of Sanskrit origin, the word has been chosen to denote ‘communication’. Perhaps, it signifies the mutual understanding, for which communication (sanchar) itself is aimed, prevailing among the people sharing common religious and philosophical tradition and consciousness of cultural identity. Meanwhile, the study of communication/sanchar in the universities of Nepal and India had not been the study of sanchar in the indigenous sense despite the fact that communication tradition (s), rich and refined both in theory and practice, has been an inseparable part of Bharatavarshiya (including Nepali and Indian) culture(s).

Studying communication as a modern discipline has been problematic in the context of non-Western countries like Nepal and India. Whereas communication is familiar to them as a process which is inherent to every human being, it is a new thing for them as a modern discipline of knowledge. They find reasons to own it, but the discipline’s Western standpoint prevents them to consider it as an indigenous discipline of knowledge (Adhikary, 2011a, 2011b, 2011c, 2012a).

The Western models and theories of communication have been criticized as “reflective of the biases of Western thought and culture” (Kumar, 2005, p. 25). The problem with Western communication theory, according to Dissanayake (1988b), 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 sender-message-receiver process as different. Reddi (1988) also criticizes Western models for neglecting “the structural and sociological factors present in countries such as India” (p. 73).

A comparative study of two communication models, one each from the East and the West, shows that communication theories and models developed in the context of the West cannot represent and describe the communication theory and practice of countries like Nepal and India (Adhikary, 2008). Thus, there is need of developing theories and models from different cultural locations and philosophical traditions followed by comparative understanding of them. A comparative study of different concepts of communication is a must for the improved understanding of the process and the advancement of the discipline.

The discipline is certainly enriched if different philosophical traditions open themselves to each other’s differences and if each examines itself in the light of that recognition. “If we are to widen our field 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, 1988b, p. 1). Dissanayake emphasizes that

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. (p. 2)

The project of exploring indigenous communication theories seems rational when one of the basic characteristics of communication (that is, inseparability of communication with culture) is kept in view. Though communication as modern discipline knowledge has its root in the West, different societies have understood and defined communication in their own ways. Studying the communication is not an exception rather is always within the cultural milieu. Thus, instead of adhering to any single concept of communication, multiple concepts of communication are imperative because the concept of communication differs from one culture to another. In fact, philosophical, religious as well as cultural background of the society should be considered while studying communication.

Communication from Hindu Perspective: Early Contributions

Attempts have been made to study communication from Hindu perspective even though such works seem very few in numbers. In the context of evolution of studying communication from Hindu (or ‘Indian’) perspective, the timeline goes at least to five decades back (Majumdar, 1958). The three earlier studies (Majumdar, 1958; Gumperz, 1964; Yadava, 1979) had commonality in terms of research approach as well as the research problem. They were field research in Indian villages, and they sought to study the impact of religion/caste on communication practices.

Oliver (1971) analyzed distinctive features of ‘Indian’ and ‘Chinese’ rhetoric, and identified unity and harmony as the bases of rhetoric and communication in Asia. He argued that the manner in which Asians communicate is different from that of the Westerners. Hence, there is need to understand communication in the context of culture, Oliver emphasized. He further argued that by understanding the Eastern rhetoric the Westerners can better understand their own ideas of rhetoric and communication.

In 1980, the East-West Communication Institute in Hawaii hosted the first International Symposium on ‘Communication Theory: Eastern and Western Perspectives’. The symposium bears significance for it marked first institutional initiatives regarding theorization of communication in different perspectives. Yadava presented a paper in the seminar (later published as Yadava, 1987) and argued that Sadharanikaran is that concept which, in Hindu perspective, refers to what is meant by communication today. In the same year, Tewari (1980) claimed Sadharanikaran as the “Indian theory of communication.” Both Yadava and Tewari consider Natyashastra as the source-book for theorizing communication in Hindu (or “Indian”) perspective.

Bhartrihari’s Vakyapadiya is also a preference in this regard. Bhartrihari is much accredited for philosophical dealing on communication, especially the word (Vak). Dissanayake (1988b) 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.). And, the essential communication message of Bhartrihari “has almost a contemporary ring to it and a refreshing relevance to modern communication studies” (ibid.). He further 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.).

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.

A body of works (Jain and Matukumalli, 1996; Kirkwood, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1997) has dealt with the Hindu perspective on silence in communication. Such works draw on classical Sanskrit texts in order to understand the unique nature of silence as envisioned in Hinduism. Unlike to Western consideration, speech and silence are not contradictory in Hindu milieu. Rather, the mastery over speech (Vak) and silence (maunata) is the highest attainment of the learned one, who is revered as Muni.

The concept of Dharma has also been drawn on for exploring Hindu concept of communication (Saral, 1983). Here, it is analyzed that communication in Hindu philosophical perspective is governed by natural law of Dharma. The basic argument behind this is made by the extension of the Hindu concept of the universe to the systems approach wherein Dharma is the basic principle of the whole universe and is existing eternally. It is argued that since this natural law of Dharma regulates human existence and governs relations of individual beings, communication too is governed by the same law.

The above mentioned works have certainly incorporated insights from Hinduism. But, they do not primarily draw on any of the mainstream Vedic Hindu philosophical schools (i.e., Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Mimamsa and Vedanta). Some of them do refer to some Hindu philosophical school in the text. Whereas Davis (1988) mentions the relevance of Nyaya-Vaisheshika philosophy for studying communication, Jayaweera (1988) emphasizes on the need to apply principles derived from Vedanta philosophy to communication theory. And, Sitaram (2004) has claimed that all the six schools of Hindu philosophy outline unique communication theories. However, substantiating the discussion/claim with evidences from and analysis of classical philosophical texts (such as Sutras, Bhasyas, ect.) has not been done there.

Mainstream Hindu Philosophy and Theorizing Communication

Insights from mainstream Hindu philosophical schools, particualarly that of Vedanta, has been the base of the construction of and further discourses on the Sadharanikaran model of communication (Adhikary, 2003, 2004, 2007a, 2007b, 2008, 2009, 2010a, 2010b, 2010c, 2011a, 2011b, 2011c, 2012a, 2012c). For instance, it has been studied how the process of communication, as envisioned in Hindu perspective, inherits notion of attaining ‘Mokhsa-in-life’ by means of verbal communication (Adhikary, 2007b, 2009, 2010a, 2010b, 2011b). Furthermore, the theory of Sancharyoga has been propunded (Adhikary, 2007b, 2010a, 2010b, 2011b). Also, it has been discoursed how the discipline of communication can be approached as a vidya (true knowledge) in Hindu orthodoxy (Adhikary, 2007b, 2010b, 2011b).

Recently, a doctoral research has been accomplished on the Bhatta-Mimamsa philosophical study of communication (Adhikary, 2012b). This interdisciplinary research theorizes communication according to the Bhatta School of Mimamsa Philosophy, and presents a unique communication model – named the Bhatta-Mimamsa Model of Communication. In this course, it first explores the Bhatta School of Mimamsa Philosophy from the perspective of communication and examines its relevance for the communication discipline. Then, it draws on the Pramana and Prameya, Abhihitanvayavad and Bhavana Theory as well as the Theory of Knowledge of the Bhatta-Mimamsa Philosophy in order to theorize communication thereby constructing 11 elements of communication as envisioned in the philosophy. Finally, it presents the Bhatta-Mimamsa Model of Communication, in which the 11 elements of communication can be classified under four key-themes (namely, Karta, Sadhan, Itikartavyata, and Sadhya). The model shows how the Bhavakas (communicating parties) accomplish communication and the persuasion for Karma is attained.

Concluding Remarks

Though still not large in number the literature relevant for studying communication from Hindu perspective is increasing. Most of these works identify themselves as a part of searching the ‘Asian’ communication perspective (for further discussion on the ‘Asian’ perspective on communication, see: Adhikary, 2011a; Chen & Miike, 2006; Dissanayake, 1988a, 1988b; Gordon, 2007; Kincaid, 1987; Miike, 2007). There is scope for vast discursive universe the discourse on communication from Hindu perspective, yet the discourse has been confined to a limited domain. For instance, such works have drawn on very few Sanskrit texts such as Bharata’s Natyashastra, Bhartrihari’s Vakyapadiya and Panini’s Astadhyayi. Few genres like rhetoric and poetics have been explored in this regard. Some have drawn on religion (‘Dharma’) for understanding communication in Hindu concept. Among the orthodox Hindu philosophical schools, Vedanta seems the preferred one. Whereas, only a doctoral research has been conducted on any of the mainstream Vedic/Hindu School of philosophies, which is on on the Bhatta-Mimamsa philosophical study of communication.

By virtue of its rich discursive tradition, Hinduism has far broader scope of study corpus than explored by now. Thus studying Hindu perspectives on communication at the onset needs a broader outlook because diverse and enormous sources are available in this regard. However, most of them are to be explored yet. Particularly, most of the mainstream Hindu philosophies are also still unexplored by the communication scholars.

If the project of theorizing communication is to be undertaken in the domain of Vedic Hindu tradition of thought, there are so many texts which have relevance to communication discipline. Vedic Hindu tradition of thought inherits many schools of philosophy, and hence it incorporates vast resources that can be studied in relation to communication discipline. The need is to explore, reinterpret and recontextualize the texts in the new light.

References:

Adhikary, N. M. (2003). Hindu awadharanama sanchar prakriya [Communication in Hindu concept]. A dissertation presented to Purvanchal University, Nepal in the partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Mass Communication and Journalism.

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). Sancharyoga: Verbal communication as a means for attaining moksha. A dissertation presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Pokhara University, Nepal in the partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Philosophy.

Adhikary, N. M. (2008). The Sadharanikaran Model and Aristotle’s Model of Communication: A Comparative Study. Bodhi: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 268-289.

Adhikary, N. M. (2009). An introduction to sadharanikaran model of communication. Bodhi: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 3(1), 69-91.

Adhikary, N. M. (2010a). Communication and moksha-in-life. Ritambhara: Journal of Nepal Sanskrit University Research Center, 14, 183-195.

Adhikary, N. M. (2010b). Sancharyoga: Approaching communication as a vidya in Hindu orthodoxy. China Media Research, 6(3), 76-84.

Adhikary, N. M. (2010c). Sahridayata in communication. Bodhi: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 4(1), 150-160.

Adhikary, N.M. (2011a). Theorizing communication: A model from Hinduism. In Y.B. Dura (Ed.), MBM anthology of communication studies (pp. 1-22). Kathmandu: Madan Bhandari Memorial College.

Adhikary, N. M. (2011b). Sanchar mimamsa. Kathmandu: Media Educators’ Association of Nepal.

Adhikary, N. M. (2011c). Athato sanchar-jijnasa: The sadharanikaran model of communication. A paper presented at the International Conference on “Diversity and Plurality in Media: Reflections of Society” on 27-28 December, 2011 at Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India.

Adhikary, N. M. (2012a). Indigenous theorization of communication. Rural Aurora, 1, 172-181.

Adhikary, N. M. (2012b). Sanchar prakriyako Bhatta-Mimamsa-darshanik adhyayan [The Bhatta-Mimamsa philosophical study of communication]. Ph. D. Dissertation. Kathmandu: Nepal Sanskrit University Research Center.

Adhikary, N. M. (2012c). Hindu teaching on conflict and peacemaking. In L. Marsden (Ed.), Ashgate research companion on religion and conflict resolution (pp. 85-104). Farnham, Surrey (UK): Ashgate Publishing.

Chen, G.-M., & Miike, Y. (2006). The Ferment and Future of Communication Studies in Asia: Chinese and Japanese Perspectives. China Media Research, 2(1), 1-12.

Davis, L. (1988). Deep Structure and Communication. In W. Dissanayake (Ed.), Communication Theory: The Asian Perspective (pp. 20-38). Singapore: AMIC.

Dissanayake, W. (Ed.). (1988a). Communication Theory: The Asian Perspective. Singapore: Asian Mass Communication Research and Information Center.

Dissanayake, W. (1988b). The Need for Asian Approaches to Communication. In W. Dissanayake (Ed.), Communication Theory: The Asian Perspective (pp. 1-19). Singapore: Asian Mass Communication Research and Information Center.

Dissanayake, W. (2009). The desire to excavate Asian theories of communication: One strand of the history. Journal of Multicultural Discourse, 4(1), 7-27.

Gordon, R. D. (2007). The Asian Communication Scholar for the 21st Century. China Media Research, 3(4), 50-59.

Gumperz, J. J. (1964). Religion and Social Communication in Village North India. Journal of Asian Studies, 23, 89-97.

Jain, N. C., & Matukumalli, A. (1996). The Role of Silence in India: Implications for Intercultural Communication Research. Education in Asia, 16(2-4), 152-158.

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.

Kincaid, D. L. (Ed.). (1987). Communication Theory: Eastern and Western Perspectives. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Kirkwood, W. G. (1987). The Turtle Spoke, The Donkey Brayed: Fables about Speech and Silence in the Panchatantra. Journal of Communication and Religion, 10(2), 1-11.

Kirkwood, W. G. (1989). Truthfulness as a Standard for Speech in Ancient India. Southern Communication Journal, 54(3), 213-234.

Kirkwood, W. G. (1990). Shiva’s Dance at Sundown: Implications of Indian Aesthetics for Poetics and Rhetoric. Text and Performance Quarterly, 10(2), 93-110.

Kirkwood, W. G. (1997). Indian Thought and The Intrapersonal Consequences of Speaking: Implications for Ethics in Communication. In J. E. Aitken & L. J. Shedletsky (Eds.), Intrapersonal communication processes (pp. 220-226). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.

Kumar, K. J. (2005). Mass Communication in India. Bombay: Jaico.

Majumdar, D. N. (1958). Caste and communication in an Indian village. Bombay: Asia Publishing House.

Miike, Y. (2007). Asian Contributions to Communication Theory: An Introduction. China Media Research, 3(4), 1-6.

Oliver, R. T. (1971). Communication and culture in ancient India and China. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Reddi, U. V. (1988). Communication theory: An Indian perspective. In W. Dissanayake, Communication theory: The Asian perspective (pp. 69-78). Singapore: AMIC.

Saral, T. B. (1983). Hindu Philosophy of Communication. Communication 8(3), 47-58.

Sitaram, K. S. (2004). South Asian Theories of Speech Communication: Origins and Applications in Ancient, Modern, and Postmodern Times. Human Communication: A Journal of the Pacific and Asian Communication Association, 7(1), 83-101.

Tewari, I. P. (1980, June 1). Sadharanikaran: Indian Theory of Communication. Indian and Foreign Review, pp. 13-14.

Yadava, J. S. (1979). Communication in an Indian Village. In W. C. McCormack & S. A. Wurm (Eds.), Language and Society: Anthropological issues (pp. 627-636). The Hague: Mouton.

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.

Evolution of the Sadharanikaran Model of Communication (SMC)

(1) Bharata Muni authored Natyashasra.

(2) Bhattanayaka developed the theory of Sadharanikaran. He did so while explaining the Rasa Sutra of Bharata's Natyashastra.

(3) J.S. Yadava and I.P. Tewari should be given credit for drawing attention of communication scholars that there was a theory named Sadharanikaran, which was a theory of communication. Note here that Yadava and Tewari are not the original theorists, they just wrote about what was already there. It was Bhattanayaka, who developed the theory of Sadharanikaran. He did so while explaining the Rasa Sutra of Bharata's Natyashastra. Many other scholars in Sanskrit contributed in the discourse of Sadharanikarana.

(4) The Sadharanikaran Model of Communication (SMC) was first developed in 2003 through my Dissertation for Master of Arts in Mass Communication and Journalism (MAMCJ). I have incorporated insights from Bharata's Natyashastra as well as Bhartrihari's Vakyapadiya in the SMC. The model was revised in 2010. It has been published from various countries and in various languages.

Hence, please note:

Theory of Sadharanikaran (by Bhattanayaka) and The Sadharanikaran Model of Communication (by Dr. Nirmala Mani Adhikary) are not to be taken as the same. Certainly, the SMC is based on Bhattanayaka's theory of Sadharanikaran, but it is a construction (in theoretical context) for theorizing communication process. In this course, the Sadharanikaran Model of Communication (SMC) incorporates insights from both Bharata's Natyashastra as well as Bhartrihari's Vakyapadiya.

Video recording of a short lecture on the Sadharanikaran Model of Communication

Sadharanikaran Model of Communication
by Nirmala Mani Adhikary, Ph.D.
vedicbrahman@gmail.com

Doctoral Dissertation: "The Bhatta-Mimamsa Philosophical Study of Communication"

"The Bhatta-Mimamsa Philosophical Study of Communication"

What I have done in my doctoral dissertation (Ph.D. Thesis)?
Following are the things I have accomplished through my doctoral dissertation (Ph.D. Thesis):
(1) Envisaged and initiated interdisciplinary research of Mimamsa philosophy and communication discipline;
(2) Explored and interpreted the insights contained in Mimamsa philosophy which are relevant to modern discipline of knowledge;
(3) Theorized communication from the perspective of the Bhatta School of Mimamsa philosophy; and
(4) Constructed the Bhatta-Mimamsa Model of Communication.

My doctoral dissertation "The Bhatta-Mimamsa Philosophical Study of Communication" theorizes communication according to the Bhatta School of Mimamsa Philosophy, and presents a unique communication model – named the Bhatta-Mimamsa Model of Communication. In this course, it first explores the Bhatta School of Mimamsa Philosophy from the perspective of communication and examines its relevance for the communication discipline. Then, it draws on the Pramana and Prameya, Abhihitanvayavada and Bhavana Theory as well as the Theory of Knowledge of the Bhatta-Mimamsa Philosophy in order to theorize communication thereby constructing 11 elements of communication as envisioned in the philosophy. Finally, it presents the Bhatta-Mimamsa Model of Communication, in which the 11 elements of communication can be classified under four key-themes (namely, Karta, Sadhan, Itikartavyata, and Sadhya). The model shows how the Bhavakas (communicating parties) accomplish communication and the persuasion for Karma is attained.

Indigenous Theorization of Communication

Published in the Journal of Gramin Adarsha College:

Adhikary, Nirmala Mani. (2012). Indigenous theorization of communication. Rural Aurora, 1, 172-181.

Indigenous Theorization of Communication
Nirmala Mani Adhikary
nma@ku.edu.np
Dept. of Languages and Mass Communication
Kathmandu University, Nepal

Abstract:
The paper presents an account of the sadharanikaran model of communication as an example of indigenous theorization. It also observes the advancement of communication towards multicultural, multidisciplinary, multi-paradigmatic discipline. In addition, it presents brief discussions on the discourse of Asiacentricity and the responsibilities of communication scholars before delineating the fundamentals of the sadharanikaran model.

Key words: Asiacentricity, communication model, communication theory, Hindu perspective, indigenous theorization, sadharanikaran model of communication, sahridayata, Western paradigm.

Sahridayata: The sadharanikaran model of communication

Sahridayata in communication
- Nirmala Mani Adhikary
Kathmandu University, Nepal

In the print version, this article is published as:
Adhikary, N. M. (2010c). Sahridayata in communication. Bodhi: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 4(1), 150-160.

This article describes sahridayata, which has been introduced in the communication discipline and is the core concept in the sadharanikaran model of communication (SMC).
Here, the discussion will be focused primarily on two issues – sahridayata as a ‘concept’ firstly, and as a ‘construct’ secondly.

It is to note that the article is written as a part of the series of works on the SMC. In broader context, it not only continues the Hinducentric study of communication, but also makes contribution to what is sometimes referred as the Asiacentric School of communication theories

Follow the link to read the complete article:
http://adhikary.wordpress.com/2012/01/19/sahridayata-the-sadharanikaran-model-of-communication/

Three responsibilities of communication scholars and the sadharanikaran model of communication

Three responsibilities of communication scholars and the SMC
Nirmala Mani Adhikary
Dept. of Languages and Mass Communication
Kathmandu University, Nepal

In the print version, published as:
Adhikary, N.M. (2012, January 15). Three responsibilities of communication scholars and the SMC. Sanchar Khabar, p. 2.

In my opinion, communication scholars should/need to take the following three responsibilities at this juncture:
First, indigenous communication theories and models are to be explored, constructed and developed. The objectives of such endeavors should be neither 'indigenization', nor mere rejection of the Western theories and models; rather, such studies need to develop a broad and deep appraisal of indigenous intellectual history, philosophy, arts, literature, and religion, including other branches of knowledge, to the study of communication.
My own works regarding the sadharanikaran model of communication – SMC (including: Adhikary, 2003, 2004, 2007a, 2007b, 2009, 2010a, 2010b, 2010c, 2011a, 2011b, 2011c) are examples of indigenous theorization of communication. There are many traditional Hindu/Bharatavarshiya concepts, theories and methods, which can be unearthed to garner their contemporary relevance and significance. The terminologies, approaches, strategies, assumptions, and findings may be different; but there exist vast number of texts, which are relevant to communication studies, even from Western paradigms. These must be consciously explored, appraised and interpreted. And, they are to be rearticulated in such a way that they bear own cultural-intellectual identity.
Second, the study of comparative communication theory should be encouraged and promoted. Comparative study of different concepts of communication is a must for the improved understanding of the process and the advancement of the discipline. Studying the East-West dichotomy, both for their manifest differences and latent commonalities, may be a good point for starting [It is to mention here that the sadharanikaran model of communication has been compared with Aristotle's model (Adhikary, 2008) and Carey's ritual model of communication (Acharya, 2011)]. but the comparative studies should not be focused only on the West versus the rest. It is pertinent to compare one Asian concept/theory of communication with another Asian concept/theory. To be more focused, a comparative study of communication from the perspectives of Kumarila Bhatta and Bhartrihari would be certainly illuminating as well as interesting. Furthermore, multicultural approaches are to be employed for comparative study.
Third, the indigenous theories and models are to be given broad base of application. Here comes the issue of globalizing the indigenous theories. It is only with the proliferation of different theories rooted in different cultures, disciplines and paradigms communication can truly become a multicultural, multidisciplinary and multi-paradigmatic discipline.

Please follow the link below to read the complete article:
http://kukhabar.blogspot.com/2012/01/three-responsibilities-of-communication.html

Theorizing Communication: A Model from Hinduism

In the print version, this article is published as:
Adhikary, N.M. (2011). Theorizing communication: A model from Hinduism. In Y.B. Dura (Ed.), MBM anthology of communication studies (pp. 1-22). Kathmandu: Madan Bhandari Memorial College.

This article is primarily based on a paper that I presented at the first Media Research Conference 2010 in Kathmandu (Adhikary, 2010b).

This article presents an account of contemporary endeavors in the field of communication/media studies in Nepal. It first examines the inherently problematic position of communication discipline in Nepal, and uncovers that Westernization-as-Globalization had been the dominant paradigm for the discipline. Then, it outlines the emerging practices of exploring native perspectives on communication. It argues of substantive progress in the case of communication studies in Nepal, where a unique communication model has been developed and presented from Hindu perspective. It also assesses media ethics as another area for such academic exploration.
Communication, as a discipline of knowledge or as an academic field of study, has remained inherently problematic in many non-Western countries – Asians and Africans alike; Nepal being no exception. On the one hand, these countries indigenously inherit the concept of communication, and have been practicing it since time-immemorial. On the other, communication-as-modern-discipline-of-knowledge is borrowed from the West.
"No civilization is possible," as Dissanayake (2003) observes, "without a vigorous system of communication" (p. 18). It implies that there must existed communication practice and theory in every living society. Thus a communication tradition, rich and refined both in theory and practice, should have been an inseparable part of Nepali culture as she is inheritor of culturally rich civilization (Adhikary, 2003, January 13). In this light, communication is to be considered indigenous – both as practice and concept.
But, as a discipline of knowledge or as an academic field of study, communication first gained recognition and evolved in the West, particularly in the United States of America in the twentieth century AD (Beck, Bennett, and Wall, 2004, p. 35; Dissanayake, 1988b, p. 3; IGNOU 2005, p. 23). Particularly, the study of 'communication theory' has been traditionally Eurocentric (Miike, 2007a, p. 1) – "generated by Westerners for the West" (Chen and Miike, 2006, p. 1). As Gordon (2007) puts it, "Human Communication Theory: Made in the U.S.A." (p. 51).
The non-Western countries had three options while they were developing curricula of communication and/or allied disciplines. First, they could have drawn on native perspectives thereby primarily incorporating indigenous concepts, if not theories and models, of communication. Second, it was much easier for them to adopt solely the Western discursive paradigm. Third, they could have adopted comparative approach thus incorporating both indigenous and Western contents, and facilitating 'indigenization'. [According to Gudykunst (2005, p. 85), whereas indigenous theories are native, rooted in specific cultures, and emphasize the human experience in specific cultures; indigenization refers to processes of transforming U.S. theories so that they are appropriate in other cultures.]
Of these, the adoption of the Western paradigm has been the general practice (Adhikary, 2009d, p. 296), "without any rational analysis" (Adhikary, 2008a, p. 61), as it suits the project of globalization, which legitimizes unidirectional gateway for flow of information (Adhikary, 2007e).
As Dissanayake (1988b) observes, "attention has been confined to communication meta-theory associated with industrially advanced Western countries" (p. 1). According to Miike (2008), "Many researchers, Asian and non-Asian alike, in the field have assumed the universal applicability of the meta-theory and methodology of Eurocentric communication scholarship" (p. 57). Miike (2007a) observes,
By and large, Asian communication professionals are more versed in Western intellectual trajectories than Asian traditions of thought. Consequently, it is hardly surprising that there have been not many theoretical investigations that drew out communicative ideas and insights from Asian classical literature. (p. 2)
In this background, it is no wonder that communication, as an academic field of study, lacked indigenous insights, and hence, it was treated as an exogenous entity 'imported' from the West into non-Western countries.
But, the communication discipline has been changing as the Western discursive paradigm is being challenged, if not completely replaced, by alternative paradigms. "Such attempts are rooted in cultural identity consciousness" (Adhikary, 2008b, p. 272). In other words, "Eurocentric scholarship" and "its one-sidedly presumed universality and totalizing tendency" (Miike, 2007a, p. 1) does not seem prolonging. Consequently, the idea of universal meta-theory/meta-model of communication has been firmly rejected, and the sphere of communication theory has been broadened in order to incorporate non-Western contributions as well. Due to such paradigm shift, "the multicultural turn in communication theory" (Miike, 2007b, p. 272) has already taken place.
Accordingly, as Dissanayake (2009) observes "a great upsurge of interests in the study and research in Asian theories of communication" (p. 7) has been witnessed in last few decades. Two books (Dissanayake, 1988; Kincaid, 1987) are considered as seminal works in this regard. The published works in the field are increasing (the list of such works can be seen in: Adhikary, 2009b; Miike, 2009a; Miike and Chen, 2003, 2006; Xiaoge, 2000). Theorizing communication from Asian perspectives is advancing in such an extent that even the Asiacentric School of communication theories is said to be emerging and developing, and becoming increasingly significant (Edmondson, 2009, p. 104).
In case of Nepal, the study of communication in general, and communication theory in particular, had not been the study of communication from the native perspectives. Even a cursory look on the curricula of Tribhuvan University (TU) and Purvanchal University (PU) is enough to observe that any indigenous concept/theory/model of communication is not incorporated there. The pattern is visible not only in case of communication theory, but in other areas of study too. For instance, a research on the state of media ethics studies in Nepal revealed that the courses offered in media ethics by TU and PU completely lacked indigenous insights (Adhikary, 2008c), even though Nepal is inheritor of rich Hindu and Buddhist ethical traditions.
The issue should be viewed in a larger context. A general predisposition of considering 'Americanization'/'Westernization' as globalization (Dahal, 2005, p. 57) is not new thing for Nepal. And, "'West is the best' psyche" (Bhattachan, 2005, p. 89) is something that can be easily perceived. In this light, the acceptance of Western discursive paradigm and the rejection or apathy to native perspectives in the curricula implies that Westernization-as-Globalization had been the dominant paradigm for the discipline of communication in Nepal. However, it is to mention that Kathmandu University (KU) has already started incorporating indigenous concept/theory/model of communication in the curriculum of Bachelor in Media Studies (BMS) (also see: Adhikary, 2010c).

Theorizing communication from Hindu perspective and the SMC

Hindu society represents old civilization with a known history of thousands of years and having a distinct cultural identity of its own. It is the inheritor of culturally rich civilization rooted to Vedic period. Communication (sanchar) is not new concept for Hindu society. Likewise, communication theorization is also not alien endeavour here. Rather, both communication and theorizing communication are indigenous for ancient Bharatavarsha. There are many traditional Hindu concepts, theories and methods, which can be unearthed to garner their contemporary relevance and significance.
Many authors seem to be occupied with the misconception of considering theory as "a product of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment of Europe, the foundations of which can be traced to European classical philosophies" (see: Wong, Manvi, and Wong, 1995, qtd. in Miike, 2006, p. 21), and for this reason, a Western notion. But, theorization, and theory itself, are very common in Hindu philosophical systems. Hindu philosophies "subscribe to the view of the unity of theory and practice" (Balasubramanian, 1990, p. 16). In other words, Hindu thinkers have been "constantly engaged in theorizing about practice" (Mohanty, 2001, p. 25), and hence theory can be approached in an entirely indigenous fashion.
The modern history of studying communication practices in Hindu society goes back to at least five decades ago (Majumdar, 1958). However, it was only in the early 1980s and thereafter that scholars emphasized on theorizing communication from Hindu perspective (Dissanayake, 1981, 1982a, 1982b, 1983, 1986, 1987, 1988b, 1988c; Saral, 1983; Tewari, 1980; Yadava, 1982, 1987). Tewari (1980, 1992) and Yadava (1987, 1998) argued that sadharanikaran is the concept which, in Hindu context, refers to what is meant by the Latin word 'communis' and its modern English version 'communication' (also see: Adhikary, 2009b, p. 70). In the course of time, sadharanikaran has gained prominence as a theory of communication. It has become customary to mention sadharanikaran as Hindu/Indian theory of communication, and, numerous academic institutions in India have already incorporated it in their curricula.
In Nepal, my own works (Adhikary, 2003a; Ayod-Dhaumya, 2003a, 2003b) happen to be the earliest initiatives in the study of communication from Hindu perspective. Subsequently, as the outcome of M.A. Thesis, a unique communication model (i.e., sadharanikaran model of communication – SMC) was developed and presented (Adhikary, 2003c, p. 84).
The cumulative studies (Adhikary, 2004, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c, 2007d, 2008b, 2009a, 2009b) and various programs not only continued the discourse, but also provided me opportunities to get feedbacks from various scholars. Based on these, the SMC has been revised and improved. This paper presents both figures of the model. As mentioned above, the first figure came into existence in 2003 (Adhikary, 2003c), and the second one was presented in early 2010 (Adhikary, 2010a, 2010b; also see: Adhikary, 2010d, 2010e, 2010f) in progression to the former.
Thus, there have been 'formulations' of the SMC. Moreover, there is scope for further revisions, improvements and adjustments in the model. As my own understanding of Hinduism advances and/or if other scholars come up with genuine remarks, I am open to accept that. After all, theories and hence models of communication should be heuristic.
The SMC has been considered landmark in theorizing communication (for instance: Acharya, 2011; Annapurna Shiksha, 2010; Jha, 2010a, 2010b; Khanal, 2008, pp. 21-22; Pant, 2009a, pp. 84-86, 2009b, p. 4, 2010, pp. 85-89). The model, Khanal (2008) says, gives new dimension to study on communication from Hindu perspective (p. 21). Pant (2009, November 24) says, "The exploration of such a model based on the Eastern perspective will undoubtedly contribute to the development of new communication theories" (p.4).
Presenting a model is considered significant in any discipline of knowledge, and it is to note that models are considered "especially appropriate in the study of communication" (McQuail and Windahl, 1993, p. 4). Even it has been argued that "a new idea in the discipline is not worthy discussing or exploring unless the idea can be represented in a model" (Stone, Singletary, and Richmond, 2003, p. 33). Of different possible forms of communication model, there is tendency to emphasize on diagrammatic or graphic one (McQuail and Windahl, 1993, p. 4; Stone, Singletary, and Richmond, 2003, p. 26). The SMC is first ever model of communication in diagrammatic form that illustrates communication from Hindu perspectives. Though, as discussed above, Asiacentric School of communication theories is said to be developing diagrammatic models of communication are yet to be developed. Appraised in this light, the SMC certainly marks substantive progress of communication studies in Nepal.
The SMC is a representation of communication process from Hindu perspective. It is systematic description in diagrammatic form of a process of attaining mutual understanding, commonness or oneness among people. It illustrates how the communicating parties interact in a system (i.e., the process of sadharanikaran) for the attainment saharidayata. Sahridayata is the core concept upon which the meaning of sadharanikaran resides. It is the state of common orientation, commonality, mutual understanding or oneness. Communicating parties become sahridayas with the completion of the process of Sadharanikaran (For further discussion on sahridayata, see: Adhikary, 2010g; Misra, 2008; also see: Adhikary, 2003c, 2004, 2007a, 2007c, 2008b, 2009a, 2009b, 2010a, 2010b, 2010e, 2010f). In this light, the SMC envisions communication for communion (see: Adhikary, FORTHCOMING).

Here, due to limitations of this paper, it is not possible to describe the SMC in detail. Following discussion just outlines its fundamentals.

1. The structure of the model is non-linear. It incorporates the notion of two-way communication process resulting in mutual understanding of the communicating parties. Thus it is free from the limitations of linear models of communication.
2. The model illustrates how successful communication is possible in Hindu society where complex hierarchies of castes, languages, cultures and religious practices are prevalent. Sahridayata helps those communicating to pervade the unequal relationship prevailed in the society and the very process of communication is facilitated.
3. The interrelationship between the communicating parties is of crucial importance in sadharanikaran. Here, not the cause of the relationship but the relationship itself is significant. For instance, the guru-shishya relationship is always considered sacred in itself. And, unlike in case of most communication theories and models from the West, this does not emphasize on dominance by the sender. Rather, the model gives equal importance to both the communicating parties.
4. The model shows that abhivyanjana (encoding) and rasaswadana (decoding) are the fundamental activities in communication. In other words, they are decisive junctures in sadharanikaran (communication).
5. It shows that Hindu perspective on communication emphasizes more on internal or intrapersonal activity. For instance, both the processes of encoding and decoding consits of four-layer mechanism in its ideal form. Communication involves more experience within than objective rationality of the sensory organs.
6. With the provision of sandarbha (context), the model clarifies how meaning could be provided to the message even if the sender is not identified to the receiver. The intended meaning of any message can be ascertained due to the context, without determining the actual intention in the mind of the speaker just by taking contextual factors into account. Thus due to the context a text can retain its 'objective' meaning.
7. The scope of communication from Hindu perspective is broad. As envisioned in the model, communication is broader enough to deal with all of the three dimensions of life: adhibhautika (physical or mundane), adhidaivika (mental) and adhyatmika (spiritual). In social or worldly context, communication is such process by which, in ideal conditions, humans achieve sahridayata. In mental context, communication is the process of gaining true knowledge as well as similar mutual experience. But that is not the whole story; it has spiritual dimension too.
8. The goal of communication as envisioned in the model is certainly achieving commonness or mutual understanding. But, the goal would not be limited to just this extent. Just as Hinduism always emphasizes to achieve all of the purushartha chatustayas (i.e., four goals of life: artha, kama, dharma and moksha), the model also conceives communication capable of attaining all these goals. Thus, the model is in perfect consonance with Hindu World View.

Bharata's Natyashastra and Bhartrihari's Vakyapadiya are two principle sources for the model. Most of the concepts drawn on (for e.g., sadharanikaran, sahridayata, rasaswadana, sakshatkara, etc.) are formal concepts that are firmly established on Sanskrit poetics, aesthetics and linguistics as well as other disciplines of Hindu religious-philosophical knowledge systems. These concepts are the foundations on which the SMC is established.
Sadharanikaran as a concept/theory should not be confused with the sadharanikaran model of communication (SMC). The former, which is one of the significant theories in Sanskrit poetics and other disciplines, has its root in Bharata Muni's Natyashastra and is identified with Bhattanayaka. Whereas, the SMC refers to a model of communication, which draws on the classical concept/theory of sadharanikaran along with other resources in order to visualize Hindu perspectives on communication, was first developed and proposed in 2003 (Adhikary, 2003c).
Hindu way of communicating certainly emphasizes on internal or intrapersonal activity. It is comprehensible that abhivyanjana and rasaswadana are the fundamental activities in communication, and in Hindu life communication involves more experience within than objective rationality of the sensory organs. This tendency facilitates sahridayata and other concepts to be materialized practically. Thus, communication results in communion in Hindu society.
By virtue of sahridayata envisioned, the sadharanikaran theory and the SMC have scope to be generalized as a "grand theory" (see: Chen and Miike, 2006, p. 5). The SMC's root being in Hindu culture does not limit its scope for universalization of the model. "Communication theorizing in the local community and the global society ought to move beyond the dualistic thinking of provincial specificity versus universal applicability. Any theory has local resonance and may have global significance" (Miike, 2007b, p. 277). "Cultural particularity leads to human universality. We do not need to walk away from cultural particularity to reach human universality" (Chen and Miike, 2006, p. 4). What is to be avoided is the ethnocentricity and supremacist fundamentalism. Ranganathananda (1971) rightly says, "Without proper understanding of our own culture, we shall never be able to enter the soul of another culture, nor profit from it" (p. 56). From a panhuman vantage point, the utility of such a model of communication is enormous.
I have sought to test the SMC in real life situations, such as the teacher-student communication in the classroom (see: Adhikary, 2010g). My interest on the teacher-student communication in the classroom is geared by the belief that it is the site and situation where prevails asymmetrical relationship between the communicating parties (the teacher and the student) but with the experience of sahridayata. It is so, at least, in the cultural contexts of Nepal and India. Thus, such site and situation could be studied as a simulation for understanding how sahridayata can be achieved between/among communicating parties even in asymmetrical relations.
In the case of conceptual research, I assert that the identification of communication (sanchar) as a means for moksha-in-life and thus proving it yoga (i.e., 'sancharyoga') is significant achievement (Adhikary, 2007d, 2010e, 2010f). It will have considerable implications for interdisciplinary studies of communication and philosophy. In a paper (Adhikary, 2010e), I have discussed how the discipline of communication can be approached as a vidya (true knowledge) in Hindu orthodoxy.
The SMC is not the only possible model of communication from Hindu perspective; rather, there is scope for developing other communication models. With vast diversities of philosophies within Hinduism, 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.
The scope of a Hindu model of communication, such as the SMC, in promoting peace and conflict resolution should be appropriately understood and employed (Adhikary, 2010a). Furthermore, there is scope for generalizing the concept and the construct of sahridayata in the broader study of Hindu philosophy (Adhikary, 2010h, 2011).

Positing Media Ethics Paradigm from Hindu Perspective

The Eurocentric scholarship's dominance is prevalent in the field of media ethics studies too. However, cultural identity consciousness is something that cannot be ignored in this regard. In other words, the ethical considerations must be judged on the touchstone of concerning society and its social cultural inheritance. "A society that ignores its own ethical ideal does it as its own peril" (Babbili, 2001, p. 163; also see: Babbili, 2008). On the other hand, "Understanding one's own ethical texts and one's own ethical underpinnings will establish a foundation through which communication problems can be explored and solutions can be delivered" (ibid., p. 173).
There is need of and scope for indigenous studies on media ethics. "Since mass media professionals and their community are inextricably bound together the ethical questions of particular professional communicator must be judged against the social cultural background of the society for which the medium is aiming to work" (Adhikary, 2007g, p. 24). This calls for attention of media academia, educators, students and professionals to explore native perspectives on media ethics, at least theoretically in the beginning.
The studies done so far (Adhikary, 2003b, 2006, 2007f, 2007g, 2008c, 2009c) are preliminary works for positing media ethics paradigm from Hindu perspective. Hinduism bears a vast resource for studies on ethics by virtue of rich heritage of philosophy and culture (Adhikary, 2006, 2007f). Of enormous possible resources, only Mimamsa philosophy (Adhikary, 2007g) and Manusmriti (2009c) have been particularly drawn on. Meanwhile, Hindu texts are not the only resources in this regard; rather other philosophical, religious and/or cultural systems including Buddhism also inherit same sort of scope.
Thus, as compared to theorization of communication, the project of positing media ethics paradigm from Hindu perspective is just in exploratory phase. It is yet to develop any ethical model particularly for mass media (i.e., code of conduct) that is indigenous – of Nepali/Hindu origin. Nevertheless, interdisciplinary research on media ethics and Hinduism could enrich the media studies discipline significantly.

Concluding Remarks

Communication scholars have apparently shown their vitality in multicultural turn of communication discipline and in this regard the role of non-Western in general, and Asian communication scholars, in particular, is crucial (Dissanayake, 1981, 1986, 1988b, 2003, 2009; Gordon, 2007; Miike, 2002, 2003a, 2003b, 2004, 2008, 2010). More particularly, insights from Hindu knowledge system(s) can give what Maxmuller (1951) terms "new light and new life" (p. 38) to the communication discipline.
Though Westernization-as-Globalization perspective is still dominant for the discipline of communication in Nepal, the emerging practices signify an ongoing paradigm shift. Of Nepali universities, KU has already taken a step forward by incorporating communication theories of Bharata Muni and Bhartrihari, and also sadharanikaran model of communication (SMC) in the BMS curriculum. It is to see whether and when TU and PU will be free of West-centric paradigm and welcome and promote indigenous communication scholarship.
With the development of a unique communication model from Hindu perspective (i.e., sadharanikaran model of communication) Nepal has witnessed a substantive achievement for communication studies in general and indigenous theorization of communication in particular. Media ethics is another area of study bearing a vast scope for academic explorations from Hindu perspective.

References

Acharya, A. (2011). The sadharanikaran model of communication: An appraisal. An Independent Study submitted to the Department of Languages and Mass Communication, Kathmandu University.
Adhikary, N. M. (2003a, January 13). Communication in Nepali perspective. Space Time Today, p. 4.
Adhikary, N. M. (2003b, March 18). Mass media ethics. Space Time Today, p. 4.
Adhikary, N. M. (2003c). Hindu awadharanama sanchar prakriya (M.A. Thesis). Purvanchal University, Nepal.
Adhikary, N. M. (2004). Hindu-sanchar siddhanta: Ek adhyayan. Baha Journal, 1, 25-43.
Adhikary, N. M. (2006). Ethics from Vedic Hindu point of view. In N. M. Adhikary, Studying mass media ethics (pp. 7-10). Kathmandu: Prashanti Pustak Bhandar.
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). Hindu awadharanama gairashabdik sanchar. In N. M. Adhikary, Sanchar shodha ra media paryavekshan (pp. 139-180). Kathmandu: Prashanti Pustak Bhandar.
Adhikary, N. M. (2007c). Aristotle's and the sadharanikaran models of communication: A comparative study (M.Phil. Independent Study). Pokhara University.
Adhikary, N. M. (2007d). Sancharyoga: Verbal communication as a means for attaining moksha (M.Phil. Thesis). Pokhara University, Nepal.
Adhikary, N. M. (2007e). Globalization, mass media and cultural intrusion: Nepali perspective. In N. M. Adhikary (Ed.), MBM Anthology of media studies (pp. 1-16). Kathmandu: Madan Bhandari Memorial College.
Adhikary, N. M. (2007f). Exploring new paradigm in mass media ethics. In N. M. Adhikary (Ed.), MBM anthology of media studies (pp. 57-72). Kathmandu: Madan Bhandari Memorial College.
Adhikary, N. M. (2007g). Mimamsa-philosophy and mass media ethics. Bodhi, 1(1), 24-33.
Adhikary, N. M. (2008a). Communication, media and journalism: An integrated study. Kathmandu: Prashanti Prakashan.
Adhikary, N. M. (2008b). The sadharanikaran model and Aristotle's model of communication: A comparative study. Bodhi: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2 (1), 268-289.
Adhikary, N. M. (2008c). Nepalma media nitishastra adhyayan. Media Adhyayan, 3, 293-305.
Adhikary, N. M. (2009a). The sadharanikaran model of communication. Paper presented at the Asia Pacific Symposium on Communication Theories, February 10-12, New Delhi, India.
Adhikary, N. M. (2009b). An introduction to sadharanikaran model of communication. Bodhi: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 3(1), 69-91.
Adhikary, N. M. (2009c). Manusmriti as a resource for media ethics. In B. KC (Ed.), MBM anthology of media ethics (pp. 47-50). Kathmandu: Madan Bhandari Memorial College.
Adhikary, N. M. (2009d). Amsanchar ra patrakarita: Sanchar, media ra patrakaritako samasti adhyayan. Kathmandu: Prashanti Prakashan.
Adhikary, N. M. (2010a). Sadharanikaran model of communication and conflict resolution. A paper presented at the Third International Conference on Conflict Resolution and Peace, February 3-4, New Delhi, India.
Adhikary, N. M. (2010b). Explorations within: Theorizing communication and positing media ethics paradigm from Hindu perspective. Paper presented at the Media Research Conference, March 25-26, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Adhikary, N. M. (2010c). From 'globalization' to 'glocalization': An account of ongoing paradigm shift for communication studies in Nepal. Paper presented at the 2010 International Association for Intercultural Communication Studies (IAICS) Convention, June 18-20, Guangzhou, China.
Adhikary, N. M. (2010d). Fundamentals of sadharanikaran model of communication. Media Newsletter, 3(1), 2.
Adhikary, N. M. (2010e). Communication and moksha-in-life. Ritambhara: Journal of Nepal Sanskrit University Research Center, 14, 183-195.
Adhikary, N. M. (2010f). Sancharyoga: Approaching communication as a vidya in Hindu orthodoxy. China Media Research, 6(3), 76-84.
Adhikary, N. M. (2010g). Sahridayata in communication: From concept to the construct and beyond. Paper presented at the Friday Lecture Series, September 17, Department of Languages and Mass Communication, Kathmandu University, Dhulikhel, Nepal.
Adhikary, N. M. (2010h). Vedic Hindu darshan ra sahridayata. http://www.dautari.org/2010/12/blog-post_16.html.
Adhikary, N. M. (2011). Sahridayata darshanko prakkathan. Student's Concept, 15, 23-26.
Adhikary, N. M. (FORTHCOMING). Communication for communion: Hindu worldview and Adhikary's sadharanikarn model of communication.
Annapurna Shiksha. (2010, February 9). Nirmalamanikrit sadharanikaran. Annapurna Shiksha (supplement of Annapurna Post on Tuesdays), p. 6.
Ayod-Dhaumya 'Nirmal'. (2003a, October 25). Khoi hamro sanchar awadharana? Space Time Dainik, p. 6.
Ayod-Dhaumya 'Nirmal'. (2003b, November 22). Bhattanayaka ra 'sadharanikaran' ko punaruddhar. Space Time Dainik, p. 6.
Babbili, A. (2001). Culture, ethics, and burdens of history: Understanding the communication ethos in India. In S. R. Melkote and S. Rao (Eds.), Critical Issues in Communication (pp. 144-176). New Delhi: Sage.
Babbili, A. S. (2008). Ethics and the discourse of ethics in post-colonial India. In M. K. Asante, Y. Miike, and J. Yin (Eds.), The global intercultural communication reader (pp. 297-316). New York: Routledge.
Balasubramanian, R. (1990). Advaita vedanta: Its unity with other systems and its contemporaty relevance. In The Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture, Indian philosophical systems (pp. 15-34). Calcutta.
Beck, A., Bennett, P., & Wall, P. (2004). Communication studies: The essential resource. London: Routledge.
Bhattachan, K. B. (2005). Globalization and its impact on Nepalese society and culture. In M. K. Dahal (Ed.), Impact of globalization in Nepal (pp. 80-102). Kathmandu: NEFAS and FES.
Chen, G.-M., & Miike, Y. (2006). The ferment and future of communication studies in Asia: Chinese and Japanese perspectives. China Media Research, 2(1), 1-12.
Dahal, R. K. (2005). Impact of globalization on Nepalese polity. In M. K. Dahal (Ed.), Impact of globalization in Nepal (pp. 48-79). Kathmandu: NEFAS and FES.
Dissanayake, W. (1981). Towards Asian theories of communication. Communicator: A Journal of the Indian Institute for Mass Communication, 16(4), 13-18.
Dissanayake, W. (1982a). Personality, transpersonality and impersonality: Some reflections on the relationship of man to nature in three different cultures and its implications for communication theory. Asian Culture Quarterly, 10(1), 26-35.
Dissanayake, W. (1982b). The phenomenology of verbal communication: A classical Indian view. In R. L. Lanigan (Ed.), Semiotics and phenomenology [special issue]. Semiotica, 41(1/4), 207-220.
Dissanayake, W. (1983). Communication in the cultural tradition of India. In M. Traber (Ed.), Philosophical perspectives on communication [special issue]. Media Development, 30(1), 27-30.
Dissanayake, W. (1986). The need for the study of Asian approaches to communication. Media Asia, 13(1), 6-13.
Dissanayake, W. (1987). The guiding image in Indian culture and its implications for communication. In D. L. Kincaid (Ed.), Communication theory: Eastern and Western perspectives (pp. 151-160). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Dissanayake, W. (Ed.). (1988a). Communication theory: The Asian perspective. Singapore: Asian Mass Communication Research and Information Center.
Dissanayake, W. (1988b). The need for Asian approaches to communication. In W. Dissanayake (Ed.), Communication theory: The Asian perspective (pp. 1-19). Singapore: Asian Mass Communication Research and Information Center.
Dissanayake, W. (1988c). Foundations of Indian verbal communication and phenomenology. In W. Dissanayake (Ed.), Communication theory: The Asian perspective (pp. 39-55). Singapore: Asian Mass Communication Research and Information Center.
Dissanayake, W. (2003). Asian approaches to human communication: Retrospect and prospect. In G.-M. Chen and Y. Miike (Eds.), Asian approaches to human communication [Special issue]. Intercultural Communication Studies, 12, 17-37.
Dissanayake, W. (2009). The desire to excavate Asian theories of communication: One strand of the history. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 4(1), 7-27.
Edmondson, J. Z. (2009). Testing the waters at the crossing of post-modern, post-American and Fu-Bian flows: On the Asiacentric school in international communication theories. China Media Research, 5(1), 104-112.
Gordon, R. D. (2007). The Asian communication scholar for the 21st century. China Media Research, 3(4), 50-59.
Gudykunst, W. B. (2005). Theories of intercultural communication II. China Media Research, 1(1), 76-89.
IGNOU (2005). Relation between mass media and society. New Delhi.
Jha, J. (2010a, January 14). Sadharanikaran: Ekmatra purveli Hindu sanchar siddhanta. Saptahik Bishwadeep, p. 2.
Jha, J. (2010b, November 18). Sahridayatako lagi sanchar. Saptahik Bishwadeep, p. 2.
Khanal, S. (2008). Aamsanchar ra patrakarita. Kathmandu: Vidyarthi Pustak Bhandar.
Kincaid, D. L. (Ed.). (1987). Communication theory: Eastern and Western perspectives. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Majumdar, D. N. (1958). Caste and communication in an Indian village. Bombay: Asia Publishing House.
Maxmuller, F. (1951). Heritage of India. Calcutta: Sushil Gupta (India) Ltd.
McQuail, D., and Windahl, S. (1993). Communication models for the study of mass communication. London: Longman.
Miike, Y. (2002). Theorizing culture and communication in the Asian context: An assumptive foundation. Intercultural Communication Studies, 11(1), 1-21.
Miike, Y. (2003a). Beyond Eurocentrism in the intercultural field: Searching for an Asiacentric paradigm. In W. J. Starosta and G.-M. Chen (Eds.), Ferment in the intercultural field: Axiology/value/praxis (pp. 243-276). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Miike, Y. (2003b). Toward an alternative metatheory of human communication: An Asiacentric vision. Intercultural Communication Studies, 12(4), 39-63.
Miike, Y. (2004). Rethinking humanity, culture, and communication: Asiacentric critiques and contributions. Human Communication, 7(1), 67-82.
Miike, Y. (2006). Non-Western theory in Western research? An Asiacentric agenda for Asian communication studies. The Review of Communication, 6(1/2), 4-31.
Miike, Y. (2007a). Asian contributions to communication theory: An introduction. China Media Research, 3(4), 1-6.
Miike, Y. (2007b). An Asiacentric reflection on Eurocentric bias in communication theory. Communication Monographs, 74(2), 272-278.
Miike, Y. (2008). Toward an alternative metatheory of human communication: An Asiacentric vision. In M. K. Asante, Y. Miike, and J. Yin (Eds.), The global intercultural communication reader (pp. 57-72). New York: Routledge.
Miike, Y. (2009). "Cherishing the old to know the new": A bibliography of Asian communication studies. China Media Research, 5(1), 95-103.
Miike, Y. (2010). An anatomy of Eurocentrism in communication scholarship: The role of Asiacentricity in de-Westernizing theory and research. China Media Research, 6(1), 1-11.
Miike, Y., & Chen, G.-M. (2003). Asian approaches to human communication: A selected bibliography. Intercultural Communication Studies, 12(4), 209-218.
Miike, Y., & Chen, G.-M. (2006). Perspectives on Asian cultures and communication: An updated bibliography. China Media Research, 2(1), 98-106.
Misra, V. N. (2008). Foundations of Indian aesthetics. Gurgaon, Haryana: Shubhi Publications.
Mohanty, J. N. (2001). Explorations in philosophy (Vol. I). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Pant, L. D. (2009a). Introduction to journalism and mass communication. Kathmandu: Vidyarthi Prakashan.
Pant, L. D. (2009b, November 24). The Hindu model of communication. The Rising Nepal, p. 4.
Pant, L. D. (2010). Appraisals versus introspections: An ethical perspective on ferementing Nepali media. Kathmandu: Readmore.
Ranganathananda, S. (1971). The message of the Upanishads. Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan.
Saral, T. B. (1983). Hindu philosophy of communication. Communication, 8(3), 47-58.
Stone, G., Singletary, M., & Richmond, V. P. (2003). Clarifying communication theories: A hands-on approach. Delhi: Surjeet Publications.
Tewari, I. P. (1980, June 1). Sadharanikaran: Indian theory of communication. Indian and Foreign Review, pp. 13-14.
Tewari, I. P. (1992). Indian theory of communication. Communicator: Journal of the Indian Institute of Mass Communication, 27(1), 35-38.
Xiaoge, X. (2000). Asian perspectives in communication: Assessing the search. Retrieved March 14, 2009 from http://www.acjournal.org/holdings/vol3/Iss3/spec1/Xiaoge.html.
Yadava, J. S. (1982, March). Socio-cultural ethos of communication in India. Communication and Culture, pp. 3-4.
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: Indian Institute of Mass Communication.