Theory of knowledge
guy.werlings at WANADOO.FR
Thu Sep 24 09:53:34 CDT 1998
nanda chandran wrote on Wed 9 Sep :
> Yes, there's just a disagreement in the words being used. But again
> aren't words the verbal expression of ideas?
> I'm not denying the continum which still persists while we're in deep
> sleep. Obviously there is. What I'm unable to understand is how this
> continum can be termed consciousness, for <<all consciousness imply a
> subject and an object>>.
Excuse me to interfere so late with this quite interesting debate, but
please also remember I am disabled and typing is quite a problem for
me and requires quite a long time, and, second, there are so many
messages and interesting discussions in this list that just reading all
the messages is quite exhausting for my very limited capacity of
I was quite surprised to read the statemenbetween <<...>> above under
the pen or more exactly the keyboard of Nanda Chandran, as this is a
very typical Western position (In our times a basic position, I think,
of the French existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre).
I thought it was the privilege of the Indian philosophy, and
particularly of SAmkhya, Yoga, but also VedAnta, to have clearly
established a distinction between
- svarUpa caitanya, consciousness as it is in itelf
- vRtti caitanya, empirical consciousness, subject-object.
I think all Western philosophers would deny any kind of svarUpa
caitanya, but I am not learned enough in Western academical philosophy
to prove the fact. I think they would even use this statement of svarUpa
caitanya as a proof that there is no real philosophy as such in India,
but only at best theology.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list