排序方式: 共有5条查询结果,搜索用时 142 毫秒
1
1.
Sthaneshwar Timalsina 《Journal of Indian Philosophy》2013,41(6):591-602
The philosophy of Gau?apāda, although found in a small treatise, has remained obscure, as both the classical and contemporary approaches to reading this philosopher have overlooked his highly original contributions. This essay explores the scope of imagination in Gau?apāda?s philosophy, with a focus on terms such as kalpanā and ābhāsa. This reading of Gau?apāda?s philosophy tallies with some of the findings in contemporary consciousness studies. 相似文献
2.
Sthaneshwar Timalsina 《Journal of Indian Philosophy》2017,45(2):313-329
In this paper I explore the extent to which the dialectical approach of ?rīhar?a can be identified as skeptical, and whether or how his approach resembles that of the first century Mādhyamika philosopher Nāgārjuna. In so doing, I will be primarily reading the first argument found in ?rīhar?a’s masterpiece, the Kha??anakha??a-khādya (KhKh). This argument grounds the position that the system of justification (pramā?a) that validates our cognition to be true is not outside of inquiry. Closely adopting ?rīhar?a’s polemical style, I am neither proposing a thesis in this paper that ?rīhar?a is a skeptic, nor am I denying such a possibility. I believe we can pursue our arguments on a neutral ground and let the facts speak for themselves. I will outline salient features that define skepticism in the mainstream philosophical discourse so that analyzing ?rīhar?a’s first argument becomes easier. In so doing, I will introduce some of the arguments of Nāgārjuna in light of ?rīhar?a’s position. This comparison, however, is restricted only to the salient features relevant to further the central argument of this paper and is therefore not aimed to encompass the overall positions of these two giants. 相似文献
3.
Sthaneshwar Timalsina 《Journal of Indian Philosophy》2009,37(3):189-206
The literature of Bhartṛhari and Maṇḍana attention in contemporary times. The writings of the prominent linguistic philosopher
and grammarian Bhartṛhari and of Manḍana, an encyclopedic scholar of later seventh century and most likely a senior contemporary
of Śaṅkara, shape Indian philosophical thinking to a great extent. On this premise, this study of the influence of Bhartṛhari
on Maṇḍana’s literature, the scope of this essay, allows us to explore the significance of Bhartṛhari’s writings, not only
to comprehend the philosophy of language, but also to understand the contribution of linguistic philosophy in shaping Advaita
philosophy in subsequent times. This comparison is not to question originality on the part of Maṇḍana, but rather to explore
the interrelationship between linguistic philosophy and the monistic philosophy of the Upaniṣadic tradition. Besides excavating
the role of Bhartṛhari writings on the texts of Maṇḍana, analysis this will reveal the interrelatedness of the Advaita school
of Śaṅkara often addressed as ‘pure non-dualism’ (Kevalādvaita) and the Advaita of Bhartṛhari, identified as ‘non-dualism of the word-principle’ (Śabdādvaita). 相似文献
4.
Sthaneshwar Timalsina 《Journal of Indian Philosophy》2017,45(5):939-959
The Advaita literature prior to the time of Gau?apāda and ?a?kara is scarce. Relying on the citations of proponents and their opponents, the picture we glean of this early monism differs in many aspects from that of ?a?kara. While Bhavya’s criticism of this monistic thought has received scholarly attention, the chapter Puru?avāda in Dvāda?āranayacakra (DNC) has rarely been studied. Broadly, this conversation will help ground classical Advaita in light of the contemporary discourse on naturalism. In particular, this examination will help contextualize the early Advaita that lacks clear imprint of Mahayana Buddhism. The doctrine of Puru?a, central to this paper, sidelines the role of avidyā or ignorance, and provides a realistic picture of the world. I have relied on the commentary V?tti upon the Vākyapadīya as has been substantially cited in DNC in order to advance the arguments. As a consequence, the examination on Puru?a also paves the path for advancing arguments on linguistic monism. 相似文献
5.
Sthaneshwar Timalsina 《Journal of Indian Philosophy》2009,37(4):367-382
The concept of avidyā is one of the central categories in the Advaita of Śaṇkara and Maṇḍana. Shifting the focus from māyā, interpreted either as illusion or as the divine power, this concept brings ignorance to the forefront in describing duality
and bondage. Although all Advaitins accept avidyā as a category, its scope and nature is interpreted in multiple ways. Key elements in Maṇḍana’s philosophy include the plurality
of avidyā, individual selves as its substrate and the Brahman as its field (viṣaya), and the distinction in avidyā between non-apprehension and misapprehension. A closer investigation shows that Maṇḍana is directly influenced by Bhartṛhari’s
linguistic non-dualism in developing the concept of avidyā. This study also compares other key constituents such as
vivartta and pariṇāma that are relevant to the analysis of avidyā. As the concept of counter-image (pratibimba) emerges as a distinct stream of Advaita subsequent to Maṇḍana, this study also compares the application of pratibimba in the writings of Bhartṛhari and Maṇḍana. 相似文献
1