Some remarks on the Gu\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{agu\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{ibhedabha\dot nga chapter in Udayana's ātmatattvaviveka

But under the requirement of philosophic consistency, and the impact of the perfectly valid reflection that experience is always my experience, and never part of some object independent of me, the world shrinks to the extension of my experience only, and I am left with bundles of my sensations. What are the natural consequences of such an epistemological sophistication? One plausible and natural reaction is what one might call the ‘Indian’ one. It runs roughly as follows: my experience of the world is, alas, only my experience. It is not ‘the real’. Moreover, the world disclosed in my experience is one of misery, precariousness, insecurity, which ends in old age and death and within which no secure, reliable, undeceptive goods can be found. The flux and precariousness which make it so unhappy a place, also make it most ill-suited to be an object of knowledge. — E. Gellner (1974: 114)