A group blog of scholars exploring Indian philosophy
Monism is the idea that everything is, or is ultimately reducible to, one. This is not quite the same as nondualism, a term increasingly common in mystical circles. Nondualism is the idea that everything is not two or more – Continue reading Nondualism without monism
Defenders of cross-cultural mystical experience are right to note that in many widely varying cultures, respected sages have referred to the experience of an ultimate nonduality: a perception that everything, including oneself, is ultimately one. But one might also then Continue reading Experiencing different ultimate unities
Do the inhabitants of Vaikuṇṭha have desires (or only God’s ones)? Veṅkaṭanātha’s Nyāyasiddhāñjana 174–6 seems to suggest that they can will: In the same way, Ananta and Garuḍa and the other (permanently liberated souls) and the liberated souls assume this Continue reading Individuality in Vaikuṇṭha
How do Sanskrit philosophers deal with solipsism? Some Buddhist epistemologists just accepted it, as a necessary consequence of their idealism. The example of Ratnakīrti’s “Rejection of the existence of other continuous sequences [of causes and effects leading to the illusion Continue reading Solipsism in Sanskrit philosophy: Preliminary thoughts
The case of combination variants like dadhi and dadhy is used by Nyāya authors as an evidence of the fact that words are produced and modified. Mīmāṃsā authors, who think that language is without beginning, need to respond to that Continue reading “dadhi and dadhy are two different words”
The book on Veṅkaṭanātha I am working on is an attempt of doing history of philosophy in the Sanskrit context, given that no agreed canon, chronology, list of main figures or main questions has been established for the history of Continue reading Reconstructing Viśiṣṭādvaitavedānta: Veṅkaṭanātha’s contribution
Scholars of Sanskrit (as well as ancient Greek, classical Tamil, Chinese…) are familiar with translations oscillating between the following two extremes: A translation which closely follows the original and is chiefly meant as an aid to understand the Sanskrit text Continue reading Reflections on the translation of SM 1
Veṅkaṭanātha follows the standard śāstric style when it comes to the general way of asking questions, discussing answers, and of providing rationales for each claim. To that, he adds his command, evident in his non-śāstric works, of figurative language, so Continue reading Veṅkaṭanātha’s śāstric style in the Seśvaramīmāṃsā
Veṅkaṭanātha recognises two soteriological paths, namely bhakti (restricted to only few eligible people) and prapatti (being the only one accessible to normal people). In both cases, how can one get there? Prapatti, to begin with, cannot be sought for independently, Continue reading Veṅkaṭanātha on the pedagogy of emotions
Within the paradigm of rational theology (in my jargon, God-as-Lord or Īśvara), can God have a form and a body?… Do They need one? Possible arguments in favour of Their having a body: —Yes! They need it to exercise Their Continue reading Preliminary thoughts on divine omnipresence