In Husserls Auseinandersetzung mit dem Buddhismus in der Rezension ,,Über die Reden Gotamo Buddhas (1925) sowie in dem Manuskript ,,Sokrates-Buddha (1926) lassen sich wesentliche Eigenarten feststellen, die ihn von anderen wichtigen abendländischen Denkern der Gegenwart unterscheiden. Zwar verfügte Husserl sicher über eine eingeschränkte Kenntnis des Buddhismus und steht in dieser Hinsicht wahrscheinlich hinter Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Bergson, Russell, Jaspers, Heidegger und Scheler zurück, welche dem orientalischen Denken durchaus näher stehen. Dennoch zeugt Husserls Bemühen umso mehr von einer respektvollen Haltung gegenüber dem (...) buddhistischen Denken, als seine Untersuchung frei vom Hochmut der wissenschaftlichen Vernunft bleibt und ganz von dem echten Willen zu einem besseren Verständnis der fremden Tradition getragen ist. (shrink)

The philosophical investigation of consciousness has a long-standing history in both Indian and Western thought. The conceptual models and analyses that have emerged in one cultural framework may be profitably reviewed in the light of another. In this context, a study of the notion of consciousness in the transcendental phenomenology of Edmund Husserl is not only important as a focus on a remarkable achievement in the context of Western thought, but is also useful for an appreciation of the concern with (...) this question in the Indian philosophical tradition, and especially in the tradition of Advaita Vedānta of Ādi Śamkara. The starting point for this paper is the belief that phenomenology has a recognizably common face for both these traditions. This paper investigates the possibility of a parallel notion of consciousness in the transcendental phenomenology of Husserl and the Advaita Vedānta of Śamkara, with particular emphasis on Husserl’s ‘Transcendental I’ and Śamkara’s ‘Witness Consciousness’ (Sākshi Caitanya). In the process, it explores the phenomenological relevance of the concept of consciousness in Indian philosophy, with special reference to the concept of pure consciousness as one of the essential criteria for any sound theory of knowledge. It more importantly highlights the Advaitic understanding of pure consciousness as one of the major contributions to the field of comparative philosophy that forms a vantage point for cross-cultural comparison. While pointing to significant differences in their respective approaches to understanding the nature of consciousness, the exploration finally unveils the common thesis for both Śamkara and Husserl that ‘pure consciousness’ is essentially foundational, evidencing and absolute for any epistemic act. (shrink)

In most common expositions of Indian philosophy the two traditions: self and no-self - are taken to be mutually incompatible. The former, having its origin in the Upaniṣads, finds expression in all āstikadarśanas , though its clearest and most important exposition is found in Advaita Vedānta. The latter having its origin in the teachings of the Buddha finds varied expressions in different schools of Buddhism. The Advaita Vedānta accepts ātman and rejects anattā ; the Buddhists argue for anattā and reject (...) ātman . My exposition in this paper is based primarily on the teachings of the Gautama Buddha and Śaṃkara, the founders of Buddhism and Advaita Vedānta respectively. Accordingly, unless otherwise specified, my use of the terms “Buddhist” and “Advaitins” refers to the teachings of these founders rather than to the later philosophers of these two traditions. I will begin with an overview of Advaita Vedānta. (shrink)