In contemporary Western analytic philosophy, the classic analogical argument explaining our knowledge of other minds has been rejected. But at least three alternative positive theories of our knowledge of the second person have been formulated: the theory-theory, the simulation theory and the theory of direct empathy. After sketching out the problems faced by these accounts of the ego’s access to the contents of the mind of a “second ego”, this paper tries to recreate one argument given by Abhinavagupta (Shaiva philosopher (...) of recognition) to the effect that even in another’s body, one must feel and recognize one’s own self, if one is able to address that embodied person as a “you”. The otherness of You does not take away from its subjectivity. In that sense, just as every second person to whom one could speak is, first, a person, she is also a first person. Even as I regret that I do not know exactly how some other person is feeling right now, I must have some general access to the subjective experience of that other person, for otherwise what is it that I feel so painfully ignorant about? My subjective world is mine only to the extent that I recognize its continuity with a sharable subjective world where other I-s can make a You out of me. (shrink)

The author of this paper discusses some major points vital for two classical Indian schools of philosophy: (1) a significant feature of linguistic analysis in the Yoga tradition; (2) the role of the religious practice (iśvara-pranidhana) in the search for true self-identity in Samkhya and Yoga darśanas with special reference to their gnoseological purposes; and (3) some possible readings of ‘ahamkara’ and ‘asmita’ displayed in the context of Samkhya-Yoga phenomenology and metaphysics. The collision of language and metaphysics refers to the (...) risk of paralogism caused by the common linguistic procedures making the subject define its identity within the semantic order (i.e. verbal conventions and grammatical rules) which does not reflect the actual metaphysical situation of the self, though it determines one’s self-understanding in the empirical sense. Whereas, Samkhya-Yoga aims at recognizing, reorganizing and, finally, going beyond these procedures regarded as the obstacles on the path towards self-knowledge and liberation form metaphysical ignorance. (shrink)

아트만(ātman)과 힌두 전통에서 윤회의 주체를 구성하는 핵심적인 요소로 간주된다. 반면 푸루샤(puruṣa)는 상키야-요가 학파에서 아트만을 대체하는 용어로 사용되며 영아(靈我)ㆍ순수정신 등으로 번역된다. 아트만과 푸루샤는 상키야 학파 내외에서 동일한 개념으로 통용되었다. 본 논문의 목적은 상키야 학파가 힌두전통에서 일반적으로 사용되는 아트만이라는 용어 대신에 푸루샤라는 용어를 사용하게 된 경위를 소묘하는 데 있다. 특히 명상을 통해 지각되는 대상으로서의 아트만과 푸루샤의 묘사하는 서술들에 맞추었다. 아트만과 푸루샤가 명상의 대상으로 취급되면서 중요한 분기점을 맞는 것으로 생각되기 때문이다. 초기 우파니샤드에서는 심장의 빛을 아트만이라고 간주하는 계열이 있으며, 그 개념이 고전 요가 체계에도 (...) 통용되고 있다. 푸루샤와 아트만은 우파니샤드에서 서로 다른 개념으로도, 동일한 개념으로도 사용되는데, 그것은 생리학적 측면과 표현법의 측면이 각각 두 가지씩 분기점을 지닌다. 또한 수행론적인 측면에서도 상반되는 두 가지 실수론이 우파니샤드에서 공존한다. 마하바라타에서 나타난 푸루샤와 아트만에 관한 기술이 큰 개념적 차이 없이 사용된다. 다만 마하바라타에서 푸루샤와 아트만을 구분하는 맥락은 기본적으로 우파니샤드의 존재-인식 분류법과 동일하다. 그리고 마하바라타의 일부 구절에서는 고전 상키야와 거의 흡사하게 아트만과 푸루샤가 지각될 수 없는 존재라는 것을 명확하게 서술하는 부분이 있으며, 반면 요가를 통해서 지각할 수 있는 존재라고 설명하는 부분도 발견된다. 그리고 그것은 상키야와 요가와 구분되는 사정과 관련이 있으나, 고전 상키야에서 아트만이라는 용어를 폐기하고 푸루샤라는 사용한 경위와는 무관하다는 점을 확인할 수 있다. (shrink)

The historical pole of this research distinguishes differing historical and cultural contexts in which the scholar al-Bïrûnî evolved. Between the years 973 and 1017, he lived in Khwarezm (Kät and JürjänTya), Ray, and Jürjän. He also dwelt in Kabul and Ghazna, both situated on a passage between Persia and India, and travelled to some parts of early medieval India between the years 1017 and 1030. Evidence pointing to him having made actual direct observations beyond the abode of Islam remains scanty. (...) According to his writings, only five locales emerge as having been visited by him, all situated in today's Afghanistan and Pakistan. When al-BTrunl visited these places, he encountered the society of the Indian Shähis, who followed a form of Brahmanism. Al-Bïrûnï's knowledge of Sanskrit was the result of a long process that lasted at least 30 years (1000-1030). In order to reach the level of Sanskrit that enabled him to translate several works from Sanskrit into Arabic, he needed to work with literate people well-versed in Sanskrit, who may also have had some comprehension of Arabic, and/or Persian. The textual pole of this dissertation examines the question of the relationship between al- Bïrûnï's Arabic Kitab Sank and Kitäb Pätangal - two works related to Sämkhya-Yoga - and their possible Sanskrit sources. A philological survey based on these Arabic translations and on Sämkhya-Yoga Sanskrit literature highlights that al-Bïrûnï's translations, both, are related to the classical phase in the development of these two Indian philosophical systems. Despite the early spread of Yoga and Sämkhya ideas through Sanskrit literature, it seems that between the early 11th and 16th centuries they lost vitality amongst Indian scholars. Therefore, al-Bïrûnï's translation of works related to these specific Indian philosophies in the early 11th century CE deserves attention. The second pole of this study also demonstrates that al-BTrünl's hermeneutics played an important part in his transmission of these two Indian schools of thought, as he highly transformed his source in both form and substance. This dissertation considers the question of the relationship between al-Bïrûnï's Arabic translations and their possible Sanskrit sources from the viewpoint of Translation Studies; which makes it possible to point out potential candidates for being al-Bïrûnï's original Sanskrit sources with some confidence. Overall, the Kitäb Sank and the Kitäb Pätangal represent original works of Sämkhya and Yoga, as viewed and transmitted by a Perso-Muslim scholar, rather than pure translations of Sanskrit work. (shrink)