Sat(asat)

If the ‘I’ cannot be individuated or described, then there is no possible distinction between the ‘I’ and ‘the Brahman’. They are different names for ‘self-awareness’ which pick out the differential access that individuals have to ‘self-awareness’. Hence, the curious distinction that some Indian traditions make. On the one hand, the ‘I’ is alleged to be identical with the ‘Brahman’; on the other, …

No, I cannot explain the real; nor has anybody else in the world. Even more radically: the Real can never be ‘explained’, nor will there be an explanatory theory, ever (that is what is meant by ‘providing an explanation’ or speak of explaining) about the real. Well, if the ‘Real’ comprises of “all these doctrines” then the Real is the world of ideas as distinct from the material and the mental …

The problem is more complicated and the implications far more massive than either of us can even dream of. In fact, I think we are not even aware of the nature, size and the dimensions of the problem(s) today. We do not even know whether we are dealing with something called the ‘translation’ problem or whole sets of other issues and problems that also redefine what it is to ‘translate’ texts …

With some justifiable distortion, one can claim that the Indian Adhyatmic traditions revolve partially around some ‘philosophical’ questions: what is real and what is existence? Is there a distinction between the two and, if yes, how to draw that line? This is a distortion because the debate never took this form; it is justifiable nonetheless to present it this way because it gives us a handle to …

When we speak about ignorance, we can do so in two ways. One is by talking about ‘how the world is’; the other is by talking about ‘how we think the world is’. Even though we could use both ways to characterize ‘ignorance’, they are not coextensive (or synonyms) because (a) they are about different things – in the first case it is about the world; in the second case it is about what we take to …

To take German language, let us look at how Heidegger talks about ‘being’: there is the ‘big Being’ (‘Sein’) and there is the ‘small being’ (‘Dasein’ meaning ’there-being’ or ‘so-being’). And then there is ‘Sein’ and ‘Seindes’. All these are translated by the word ‘being’. To jump back a couple of hundred years, and pick up another philosopher with the same alphabet and the same language, we have …