Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Japan Unbound: A Volatile Nation's Quest for Pride and Purpose (review)

Japan Unbound: A Volatile Nation's Quest for Pride and Purpose (review) . . . Schopenhauer certainly does not adopt, nor does he pretend he is adopting, the entire ``conceptual scheme'' of maya that we find in the Upanishads or the centuries of Vedantic commentary on them. He does not understand maya as adhyasa, nirmanashakti or avaranashakti in the technical senses in which those terms were employed by the Vedantins. He thematizes it as the principium individuationis, the forms of sensibility of time and space whereby a homogeneous and unitary metaphysical will becomes manifest through the intellect as a world of heterogeneous individuals and things. This being admitted, his general understanding of the concept is strikingly adept. . . . Given the fact that the only help the early Schopenhauer had in his understanding of maya was that of Duperron's translations and appendices, with no recourse to any of Vedanta's commentarial literature, this is all the more extraordinary. (p. 263) In this respect Berger concludes that Schopenhauer was indeed an exponent of intercultural philosophy and as such far ahead of the Romantic Orientalism of his time. Again, this is only one of a number of conclusions Berger arrives at. Berger, whose background is in both European and Indian philosophy and http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Philosophy East and West University of Hawai'I Press

Japan Unbound: A Volatile Nation's Quest for Pride and Purpose (review)

Philosophy East and West , Volume 56 (4) – Oct 11, 2006

Loading next page...
 
/lp/university-of-hawai-i-press/japan-unbound-a-volatile-nation-s-quest-for-pride-and-purpose-review-WojvCwtrXY
Publisher
University of Hawai'I Press
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 University of Hawai'i Press.
ISSN
1529-1898
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

. . . Schopenhauer certainly does not adopt, nor does he pretend he is adopting, the entire ``conceptual scheme'' of maya that we find in the Upanishads or the centuries of Vedantic commentary on them. He does not understand maya as adhyasa, nirmanashakti or avaranashakti in the technical senses in which those terms were employed by the Vedantins. He thematizes it as the principium individuationis, the forms of sensibility of time and space whereby a homogeneous and unitary metaphysical will becomes manifest through the intellect as a world of heterogeneous individuals and things. This being admitted, his general understanding of the concept is strikingly adept. . . . Given the fact that the only help the early Schopenhauer had in his understanding of maya was that of Duperron's translations and appendices, with no recourse to any of Vedanta's commentarial literature, this is all the more extraordinary. (p. 263) In this respect Berger concludes that Schopenhauer was indeed an exponent of intercultural philosophy and as such far ahead of the Romantic Orientalism of his time. Again, this is only one of a number of conclusions Berger arrives at. Berger, whose background is in both European and Indian philosophy and

Journal

Philosophy East and WestUniversity of Hawai'I Press

Published: Oct 11, 2006

There are no references for this article.