An introduction to sadharanikaran model of communication

An introduction to sadharanikaran model of communication

By - Nirmala Mani Adhikary
Asst. Prof. of Media Studies
Dept. of Languages and Mass Communication
School of Arts
Kathmandu University
Nepal

Note: In the print version, the article is published as: Adhikary, Nirmala Mani (2009). An introduction to sadharanikaran model of communication. Bodhi: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 3 (1), 69-91.
The footnotes of the article are missing here. And, the figure of the model is also missing here. So you are recommended to see the printed version, if you want to cite this article.
It is available online at:
http://ku.edu.np/bodhi/vol3_no1/08.%20Nirmala%20Mani%20Adhikary.%20Sadharanikaran%20Model.pdf

This article describes sadharanikaran model of communication (SMC) and outlines its fundamentals. The article initially discusses the concept of ‘sadharanikaran’ as conceived in Hindu poetics aknowledging its relevance for the modern discipline of communication. And, it also presents an account of the background upon which the model was developed and proposed. The descriptive part of the article is primarily indebted to Natyashastra and Vakyapadiya .

Sadharanikaran and communication

Sadharanikaran, drawing from classical Hindu poetics, has been introduced into the modern communication discipline, essentially due to its qualification in this regard. The term has been an extensively used concept in Sanskrit and allied literary circles for explaining poetics, aesthetics and drama. It is rooted in Natyashastra of Bharata. There have been attempts to extend its history up to the Vedic period (Adhikary, 2007a, p. 108), but scholars widely believe that Bhattanayaka introduced the concept of sadharanikaran (Vatsyayan, 1996, p. 146). He is credited for use of the term in his commentary on Natyashastra to explain the concept of rasa.

The term sadharanikaran is derived from the Sanskrit word sadharan; and has been translated into English as "generalized presentation" (Vedantatirtha, 1936, p. 35), "simplification" (Yadava, 1998, p. 187), and "universalization" (Dissanayake, 2006, p. 4). This concept is bound with another concept, sahridayata, that is, a state of common orientation, commonality or oneness. Sadharanikaran is the attainment of sahridayata by communicating parties.

When senders and receivers accomplish the process of sadharanikaran, they attain saharidayata and become sahridayas. In other words, communicating parties, for e.g., actor and audience, become sahridayas when they are engaged in a communicative relation leading to the attainment saharidayata; and it is in this stage sadharanikaran is accomplished. Thus the essence of sadharanikaran is to achieve commonness or oneness among the people.

In this light, the Latin word 'communis' and its modern English version 'communication' come close to sadharanikaran (Adhikary, 2003, pp. 82-83, 2004, pp. 30-33, 2007a, pp. 107-109; Tewari, 1980, 1992; Yadava, 1987, 1998). However, as Yadava puts it, "the characteristics and the philosophy behind Sadharanikaran are somewhat different from communication concept as developed in the Western societies" (1998, p. 187).

From the theory to the model

The history of studying communication from Hindu (or 'Indian') perspective goes back to at least five decades ago (Majumdar, 1958). Various efforts have been made in order to understand, discuss and/or theorize communication from Asian perspectives, sometimes particularly from Hindu perspective (Adhikary, 2003, 2004, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c, 2007d, 2008b; Babbili, 2001; Davis, 1988; Dhole, 2006; Dissanayake, 1981, 1982a, 1982b, 1983, 1986, 1987, 1988a, 1988b, 2006; Gangal & Hosterman, 1982; Gumperz, 1964; Gunaratne, 1991; Jain & Matukumalli, 1996; Jayaweera, 1988; Kirkwood, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1997; Kumar, 2005a, 2005b; Mohan, 1992; Oliver, 1971; Rahim, 1987; Saral, 1983; Sitaram, 2004; Tewari, 1980, 1992; Thirumalai, 2003, 2004, 2006; Yadava, 1979, 1982, 1987, 1998). It is not possible here to present a survey of these works. But it is to mention that most of these works identify themselves as a part of searching the 'Asian' communication perspective.

It has become customary to mention Sadharanikaran as Hindu/Indian theory of communication. And, numerous academic institutions have already incorporated sadharanikaran as the Hindu/Indian theory of communication in their curricula.

In the case of Nepal, the researcher has been acknowledged as the initiator of the discourse regarding Hindu/Nepali perspective on communication (Khanal, 2008, pp. 21-22; Pant, 2009, pp. 84-86. Also see: Adhikary, 2009, p. 296). Firstly, an article was published highlighting the need to explore native Nepali perspective while studying communication, and tracing some sources in this regard (Adhikary, 2003, January 13). Then, research was conducted for an M. A. thesis (Adhikary, 2003).

The research (Adhikary, 2003), drawing on Bharata Muni's Natyashastra and Bhartrihari's Vakyapadiya, illustrates that communication process as envisioned in Vedic Hinduism can be represented by the concept of sadharanikaran. And, a unique communication model – sadharanikaran model of communication (SMC) – has been developed and presented through that research which was the first ever model of communication in diagrammatic form proposed from the East. “The model,” Khanal (2008) says, “gives new dimension to study on communication from Hindu perspective” (p. 21). Pant (2009, November 24, p.4) says, "The exploration of such a model based on the Eastern perspective will undoubtedly contribute to the development of new communication theories."

A point to note at this juncture is the SMC is not the only possible model of communication from Hindu perspective. Rather, there is scope for other communication models from Hindu perspective:
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. (Adhikary, 2008b, p. 286)
Till the date, the Sadharanikaran model remains only one of such models that could visualize Hindu perspective on communication.

The Sadharanikaran model

Proposed by Adhikary (2003) the Sadharanikaran model illustrates how the communicating parties interact in a system (i.e., the process of sadharanikaran) for the attainment saharidayata (commonness or oneness). The model "offers an explanation of how successful communication is possible in Hindu society where complex hierarchies of castes, languages, cultures and religious practices are prevalent" (Adhikary, 2008a, p. 67). Observing the model as a representation of communication process as envisioned in Hindu perspective, Pant (2009) remarks, “It is systematic description in diagrammatic form of a process of attaining commonness or oneness among people" (pp. 84-85).

The model comprises the following elements:
1. Sahridayas (Preshaka, i.e., sender, and
Prapaka, i.e., receiver)
2. Bhava (Moods or emotions)
3. Abhivyanjana (Expression or encoding)
4. Sandesha (Message or information)
5. Sarani (Channel)
6. Rasaswadana (Firstly receiving, decoding and
interpreting the message and finally achieving
the rasa)
7. Doshas (Noises)
8. Sandarbha (Context)
9. Pratikriya (Process of feedback)

Sadharanikaran as a concept/theory should not be confused with the sadharanikaran model. The former, which is one of the significant theories in Sanskrit poetics, has its root in Natyashastra and is identified with Bhattanayaka. Whereas, latter 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.

Sahridayata is the core concept upon which the meaning of sadharanikaran resides. It is the state of common orientation, commonality or oneness. Senders and receivers become sahridayas with the completion of the process of Sadharanikaran. In a society that has asymmetrical relationships between communication parties, it is only due to sahridayata the two-way communication and mutual understanding is possible. Thus, communicating parties can attain sahridayata irrespective of complex hierarchies of castes, languages, cultures and religious practices, and the communication process qualifies to be considered as sadharanikaran.

Sadharanikaran, as the 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 sender and receiver of the process. A sahridaya is a person in such state of emotional intensity which is coequal or parallel to that of other(s) engaged in communication. Ideally, the term refers such persons who are not only engaged in communication but also have attained a special state: sahridayata. As such, a sahridaya is one who has attained sahridayata. Thus, sadharanikaran is the process of attaining sahridayata, and, the sadharanikaran model illustrates the process.

If communication is taken as a step-by-step process, which is just for the shake of easy understanding, the sahridaya-preshaka (simply, the sender), who has bhavas (moods or emotions or thoughts or ideas) in 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-prapaka (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, universalization or commonness of experience takes place. In Natyashastra itself, Bharata Muni has emphasized on a total communication effort including the use of the words as well as limbs, gestures, and body language along with the physical context in order to ensure communication at its best.

As evident from the figure, the sender inherits bhava. 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 human being aims engaging in communication or sadharanikaran process. If there were no bhavas and human beings had no desire to share their bhavas with others, there would be no need of communication. The bhavas have been categorized into different types, such as sthayee bhavas (permanently dominant) , vyabhichari or sanchari bhavas (moving or transitory) and satvika or sattvaja bhavas (originating from the mind, temperamental) . Corresponding to bhavas, human inherits rasas, which are to be discussed later.

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

Sanketa (code) is an integral part of abhivyanjana. A kind of code is a must to let the bhavas manifested. Codes are symbols that are organized in accordance with specific rules. For example, the language is a code. The sender encodes the bhava in 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 case of verbal abhivyanjana, words/languages are used as the code. The process of abhivyanjana has been shown consisting of four stages in the figure. It owes to concept of language as a code as conceived in Sanskrit linguistics and Hindu philosophy of language. Here, there are four levels or stages of language from which the word (shabda or vak) passes: para, pashyanti, madhyama and finally the uttered word vaikhari. In other words, any bhava can be perceived externally only when it comes to the vaikhari level.

Vaikhari vak is the manifested form of the word. It is in the most external and differentiated level. Here, the word is commonly uttered by the speaker and heard by the hearer. Before being uttered, the word or vak resides in mind or intellect, and is named as madhyama. It is the idea, or series of words, as conceived by the mind after hearing or before being spoken out. It may be thought of as inward speech. The next and the innermost stage, according to Bhartrihari, is the pashyanti vak. Pashyanti is the vak at the level of direct intuition, and can be understood through experience. Here, humans get the direct experience of the vakya-sphota, as Bhartrihari says. In Vakyapadiya and its Vritti commentary, this term 'para' is not used to denote a fourth level of speech. Bhartrihari says that speech is threefold; and he treats the third level of pasyanti as ultimate. It is later on in the tradition that the name 'para' appears, referring to a fourth level. Para vak is the Shabda Brahman.

In case of the non-verbal abhivyanjana, the communicator has wide alternatives of code to use. Bharata Muni has described wide alternatives of abhivyanjana including gestures of limbs, representation through make up and temperamental expressions as well as various sounds. Some of them entirely deal the non-verbal aspect while others consists some forms of it. Under angika abhinaya, he has directed as many as 122 types of karmas (performing arts or abhinayas) by using six angas (limb) and six upangas (ancillary limb) of human body (Adhikary, 2007d).

According to Bharata Muni, each bhava is associated with both sensory experience and aesthetic emotion. He considers the bhavas as representation of mental state. They do not come from outside, rather they always remain within the mind. However, they are not always in the awaken state. They have to be or are stirred by external factors called vibhava that is a stimulus or determinant such as song, a bird, a picture, etc. Vibhava may be alamvana or uddipana. When a snake is seen and certain kind of emotion is stirred it is called alamvana vibhava. The sense of fear would increase due to the movement of snake's tongue and such stimulus contributing for the increase in vibhava is called uddipana vibhava.

After the bhavas are stimulated due to vibhava, the anubhava is certain, that is, some sort of manifestation such as glance, lifting of eye, smile, etc. Anubhavas may be internal or external. Bharata Muni has identified three external and eight internal anubhavas. The bhavas need some sort of code for their manifestation. For this, they have to pass through the process of abhivyanjana.

With the completion of the process of abhivyanjana, bhavas are manifested as sandesha. In other words, sandesha is 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. It is the actual physical product that the source encodes, and which the receiver's sensory organs can detect. In other words, it is the coded idea that conveys meaning. Just doing 'namaste' to explaining the 'Adwaita vedanta' philosophy all are messages.

Messages may be in verbal or non-verbal depending upon the encoding done by the sender. In case of Natyashastra, messages have been distinguished as angika (gestures of limbs), vachika (verbal display), aharya (representation through make up) and sattvika (temperamental), each consisting different types. For instance, angika is seen consisting of three types , where as vachika has twelve forms .

For transmission of sandesha, there needs sarani (channel or medium), which is the means through which sandesha travels across space. The message sent by the source or sender cannot reach the receiver without the channel or medium. The channels may be natural corresponding to biological nature of human being such as: auditory (hearing), tactile (touching), visual (seeing), olfactory (smelling) and taste (tasting through the taste buds on the tongue) channels. The channels may be artifactual such as paintings, sculptures, letters, etc. These two types of channels are extensively described in Natyashastra. The channels may be mechanical such as telephones, radio, TV, computers and so on. It is yet to study whether the text inherits concepts of some kind of mechanincal channels.

Hindu perspective on communication would not be completed unless both manas (mind) and sharira (human body) are understood as sarani. At least, it is so for spiritual dimension of the process. The manas is considered as the sixth indriya (sensory organ) in Hindu belief. It is the vibhu (master) of five senses. However, it is not the final authority in this regard. Its vibhu is the atman. The mental life is not the aspiration, rather the assertion of a higher than the mental life is the whole foundation of Hindu philosophy. In fact, the human life is a means, not the end. In Hindu belief, the bodily self is not the ultimate truth though it is essential for the worldly existence. The body is only a temporary abode of atman, and it is an instrument or means used by the atman. In other words, sharira is a sarani by using which atman has to attain moksha.

With the proper use of various saranis as discussed above, the sender successfully sends the message toward the receiver. As abhivyanjana was crucial for the sender, so is rasaswadana for the receiver. The term as used here should be understood as a 'technical term' carrying a wide range of meaning. Its range is from receiving the message to decoding and interpreting the message and finally to the attainment the rasa. Orthodox Hindu uses of the term refer to the state of rasa experience by the sahridaya-receiver. In case of casual human communication, rasaswadana is said to be successful if the receiver shares the message as intended by the sender. However, the spiritual dimension goes beyond.

Not all communication result in the attainment of rasa in its ideal form. Rasa is the essence or aesthetic enjoyment. Bharata Muni terms this as rasa because it is worthy of being tested (relished). There is unique corresponding rasa to each bhava. According to Bharata Muni, the combination of vibhavas and anubhavas together with vyabhichari bhavas produce rasa. It is the sthayee bhava that leads to rasa. What happens is the sthayee bhava is stimulated by the vibhava in the mind and is heightened by anubhava and sanchari bhava, and the mind would be highly receptive to the rasa experience in this state.

The issue how the meaning of a message is achieved has been much debated by scholars and philosophers. For instance, there are debates regarding the unit of meaning. For instance, some regard the words as the unit of meaning in verbal communication, where as Bhartrihari considers the total sentence as the unit of meaning. Even if a word is taken as the unit of meaning there are diverse views regarding what sort of entity is signified by the word.

As shown in the figure, the four levels of word discussed in case of abhivyanjana have corresponding levels while attempting rasaswadana. Where as shravana corresponds to vaikhari, so do manana, nididhyasana and sakshatkara with madhyama, pashyanti and para respectively. Not all people engaged in communication would be going through all these stages of abhivyanjana and rasaswadana. Sadharanikaran (communication) as social and mental activity would require just vaikhari and madhyama in the part of sender and shravana and manana in the part of receiver. But, spiritual dimension of the process would require further levels too. In other words, not all communicating parties would be attaining rasaswadana in its ideal form. Rather, it can be experienced only by the sahridayas in the ideal sense of the term.

Bharat Muni describes sadharanikaran as that point in the climax of a drama when the audience becomes one with the actor who lives an experience through his/her acting on stage and starts simultaneously reliving the same experience. The process has been described as rasaswadana. When sadharanikaran happens, sharing or commonness of experience takes place in full form. According to Bhattanayak, the essence of sadharanikaran is to achieve commonness or oneness among the people.

Two things are to be noted here. First, the vak (word or speech) in the continuum of para-sakshatkara is identified with the Brahman. Hence, sakshatkara is the state of experiencing the Self as the Brahman ("Aham Brahmasmi"). Second, the Brahman is aslo considered as supreme rasa ("rasovaisah") and hence rasaswadana in its ultimate destination would be the rasaswadana of the Brahman. In this stage also there is unity of the Self and the Brahman. In either ways, sadharanikaran qualifies to be a means for moksha.

There is no such thing as perfect communication. There are continuous forces at work, doshas or noises, which tend to distort the message and lead to miscommunication. If we draw on Hindu poetics, the concept of rasa-bhanga (disruption in rasaswadana) is there. There may be many causes for this. For instance, a mismatch of meaning between sender (encoder) and receiver (decoder) of any message may occur. The model should be interpreted to include all of the noises, viz. semantic, mechanical, and environmental.

Bhartrihari has considered this possibility in Vakyapadiya that it is always possible to say conflicting things about what's in the texts and what they mean. To reduce uncertainty, some sacred text is made authentic, and a settled standpoint is established. This consideration leads us to the concept of sandarbha (context). The effectiveness of any message depends on the communication environment. Same message may have different meanings in different contexts.

The notion of context in the process of communication makes Hindu concept of communication even comprehensive. The importance of context is such that due to this factor meaning could be provided to the message even if the sender is not identified to the receiver. In other words, it is due to context, the intended meaning of any message can be ascertained 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.

Though both the sender and receiver of the message must be sahridayas Bhartrihari theorizes communication from the receiver's viewpoint. He has discussed how intended meaning is ensured though there is possibility of conflicting or diverging meanings of the same message. In brief, sandarbha (context), as discussed above, and intuition (pratibha), which is innate to the receiver, ensure proper understanding of any message.

Pratikriya refers to the responses of the receiver after receiving the message. It is the process of feedback, which allows the receiver to have active role in the communication process. Feedback can be understood as the same step-by-step process returning messages following exactly the same steps outlined above. Sadharanikaran process demands sahridayas undergoing the same kind of automated dynamism in taking the role of sender and receiver back and forth. Here, both the parties (the sahridaya-sender and the sahridaya-receiver) act as senders and receivers simultaneously. And, the process of encoding and decoding also occur simultaneously.

It is not that the feedback is always affirming. However, feedback makes the communication process ongoing. One of the unique features of the sadharanikaran model is that the provision of the feedback is not universal. The process of feedback will be there only when it is needed. It is needed certainly in physical or worldly forms of communication. In such form of communication, adequate feedback is sought. But after achieving the nididhyasana state, there is no need of feedback externally. In this state, the sahridayas become able to understand each other and experience the same obviously. In the sakshatkara state, the sahridaya is already in the state of moksha, which is the ultimate goal of sadharanikaran process.

Conclusion

Communication, as conceived in Sadharanikaran model, is the process of attaining sahridayata, i.e., mutual understanding, commonality or oneness. It is only when the communicating parties attain sahridayata, and the communicating parties identify each other as sahridaya, communication process qualifies to be considered as sadharanikaran. Here, communication is sharing between communicating parties (sahridayas) with a view to not just persuade one or the other as such but to enjoy the very process of sharing. Furthermore, from the discussions in previous section, following conclusions are drawn on:

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 interelationship 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. As such, 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.


References

Abhyankar, K. V., & Limaye, V. P. (Eds.). (1965). Vakyapadiya of Bhartrahari. Poona: University of Poona.
Adhikary, N. M. (2003, January 13). Communication in Nepali perspective. Space Time Today, p. 4.
Adhikary, N. M. (2003). Hindu awadharanama sanchar prakriya (Unpublished M.A. Thesis). Purvanchal University, Nepal.
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, Nepal.
Adhikary, N. M. (2007d). Hindu awadharanama gairashabdik sanchar. In N. M. Adhikary, Sanchar shodha ra media paryavekshan (pp. 139-180). Kathmandu: Prashanti Pustak Bhandar.
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. (2009). Amsanchar ra patrakarita: Sanchar, media ra patrakaritako samasti adhyayan. Kathmandu: Prashanti Prakashan.
Babbili, A. S. (2001). Culture, ethics, and burdens of history: Understanding the communication ethos of India. In S. R. Melkote & S. Rao (Eds.), Critical issues in communication: Looking inward for answers (pp. 144-176). New Delhi: Sage.
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.
Dhole, V. (2006). Celebrating the incommunicable: The Hindu of social communication. Journal of the Asian Research Center for Religion and Social Communication, 4(1), 27-39.
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. (1988a). 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. (1988b). 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. (2006). Postcolonial theory and Asian communication theory: Toward a creative dialogue. China Media Research, 2(4), 1-8.
Gangal, A., & Hosterman, C. (1982). Toward an examination of the rhetoric of ancient India. Southern Communication Journal, 47(3), 277-291.
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.
Gunaratne, S. A. (1991). Asian approaches to communication theory. Media Development, 38(1), 53-55.
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.
Khanal, S. (2008). Aamsanchar ra patrakarita. Kathmandu: Vidyarthi Pustak Bhandar.
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. (2005a). Hindu perspectives on communication. Journal of the Asian Research Center for Religion and Social Communication, 3(1), 14-20.
Kumar, K. J. (2005b). Indian/Hindu theories of communication. Journal of the Asian Research Center for Religion and Social Communication, 3(2), 90-104.
Majumdar, D. N. (1958). Caste and communication in an Indian village. Bombay: Asia Publishing House.
Masson, J. L., & Patwardhan, M. V. (1970). Aesthetic rapture: The rasadhyaya of the Natyashastra. Deccan College, Postgraduate and Research Institute.
Miike, Y. (2007). Asian contributions to communication theory: An introduction. China Media Research, 3(4), 1-6.
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., & Chen, G.-M. (2006). Perspectives on Asian cultures and communication: An updated bibliography. China Media Research, 2(1), 98-106.
Mishra, S. R. (1964). Theory of rasa in Indian drama. Chhatarpur: Vindhyachal Prakashan.
Mohan, P. (1992). In between paradigms: A perspective on communication theory for India. Economic and Political Weekly, 27(15/16), 773-778.
Nagar, R. S., & Joshi, K. L. (2005). Natyasastra of Bharatamuni. 4 vols. Delhi: Parimal Publications.
Oliver, R. T. (1971). Communication and culture in ancient India and China. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Pande, A. (1991). A historical and cultural study of the Natyashastra of Bharata. Kusumanjali.
Pant, L. D. (2009). Introduction to journalism and mass communication. Kathmandu: Vidyarthi Prakashan.
Pant, L. D. (2009, November 24). The Hindu model of communication. The Rising Nepal, p. 4.
Patnaik, T. (1994). Sabda: A study of Bhartrhari's philosophy of language. New Delhi: D. K. Printworld.
Rahim, A. (1987). The practice of antyodaya in agricultural extension communication in India. In D. L. Kincaid (Ed.), Communication theory: Eastern and Western perspectives (pp. 173-182). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Saral, T. B. (1983). Hindu philosophy of communication. Communication 8(3). 47-58.
Sastri, G. (1991). Philosophy of Bhartrhari. Delhi: Bharatiya Vidya Prakashan.
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.
Tarlekar, G. H. (1999). Studies in the Natyasastra. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.
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.
Thirumalai, M. S. (2003, September 9). Understanding nonverbal behavior. Language in India, Vol. 3. Retrieved April 6, 2009 from http://languageinindia.com/sep2003/nonverbalbehavior.html.
Thirumalai, M. S. (2004, July 7). Communication via eye and face in Indian contexts. Language in India, Vol. 4. Retrieved April 7, 2009 from http://languageinindia.com/july2004/eyeandface1.html.
Thirumalai, M. S. (2006, August 8). Communication across castes. Language in India, Vol. 6. Retrieved April 8, 2009 from http://languageinindia.com.
Vatsyayan, K. (1996). Bharata: The Natyashastra. New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi.
Vedantatirtha, N. C. (Gen. Ed.). (1936). Mammata Bhatta's Kavyaprakasa. The Calcutta Sanskrit Series No. VI.
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. (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. (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: IIMC.

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)

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.