Catherine (Cat) Prueitt

We focus on a fascinating observation shared by philosophers in a number of traditions: when we try to directly examine our experience, the experience itself seems to vanish as we focus on its objects. We examine two scaffolds for understanding this observation that have been dominant in the post-Moore analytic tradition: the window scaffold and the mirror scaffold. We note that these scaffolds have different strengths, but fail to fully capture certain salient features of the transparency datum. We introduce a new scaffold for thinking about the transparency datum. This new scaffold, which we have developed through our cross-cultural engagement with Classical South Asian epistemology, suggests that awareness is like purple, transparency is like polarization, and subject and object are like the red and blue into which purple can be polarized. Experience vanishes when we direct our attention to it like purple vanishes when polarized into red and blue.

The motivational force of pain is undeniable. But what pain commands us to do, how we might satisfy this command, and if our experience of pain is inherently linked to suffering are far murkier topics. This paper brings together empirical studies of pain reprocessing during advanced meditation, the rise of allostatic paradigms to account for biological self-regulation, and the philosophy of pain in the classical Sanskrit philosophical tradition of Pratyabhijñā Śaivism to argue that pain is an allostatic imperative to adapt a part of one’s body. We theorize two components of an allostatic response, heterostatic and homeostatic, that work in tandem to address pain as an allostatic command. Homeostatic responses are error-corrective in that they seek to protect an organism by returning to a previously stable steady state. Heterostatic responses are anticipatory in that they seek to better prepare an organism to meet future challenges by proactively shifting to a new steady state. We note that an organism’s successful adaptation to its environment depends not just on error-correction, but also on anticipatory change. We theorize that a broad range of affect properly accompanies pain. We propose potential directions for empirically developing this model. We also note the possibility that this model could be extended to account for mental pain.

Apoha, a Sanskrit term meaning exclusion, was used by the late fifth- to early sixth-century Buddhist philosopher Dignā ga as a keystone in his theory of denotation. According to Dignā ga, a word denotes its meaning through the exclusion of what is other (anyā poha). This idea provoked celebration and controversy that would last through the end of Sanskritic Indian Buddhism. In the hands of Dignā ga’s successor Dharmakīrti (seventh century), who developed what became the normative version of this theory, apoha leverages the fact that a causally efficacious real thing is different from everything else to describe how the interaction between living beings and their worlds produces judgements that are either shared or not in accord with the various factors contributing to the judgement’s formation. Dharmakīrti argues that there’s an infinite number of ways that a real thing could be conceptualised since each real thing is different from the infinite expanse of other real things. Acting toward a real thing requires delimiting the scope of what one ignores so that just some of the differences are left over. A living being can afford to ignore the differences between the differences that are left over in this exclusion because these differences don’t impact the specific goal based on which the living being judges an object to be efficacious or not.

In ethical systems that focus on apportioning praise and blame, a key consider- ation is often whether or not the individual is a free agent since individuals are only held to be responsible for what they freely choose. As various critiques indicate, if it were to be the case that freedom is in some way illusory or radically restricted, these systems would have a significant problem since reactive attitudes would involve holding individuals responsible for actions that they did not freely choose. I will argue that the problem may run even deeper: even if there is such a thing as free agency, it is a mistake to think that autonomous individ- uals uniquely instantiate this agency. I will draw on arguments from Pratyabhijñā Śaivism, which state that although there is ultimately no such thing as a praise or blameworthy indi- vidual agent, free agency is the precondition for manifestation itself. Worlds, not individuals, are the proper unit of analysis for ethical theories. This position picks up on many of the critiques of the kind of substantial self that stands apart from the world that were offered by various Buddhist traditions in the Classical Sanskritic context. At the same time, it does not fall prey to these objections precisely because the self that Pratyabhijñā theorists argue for is neither an unchanging substance nor a minimally thin kind of self-awareness that could be accommodated by no-self theorists. Pratyabhijñā theorists’ particular way of understand- ing agency, then, presents a productive exchange between some of the most ethically salient ramifications of Buddhist no-self theories and insights into why, nevertheless, freedom and agency are inextricably bound up in our worlds.

We focus on a fascinating observation shared by philosophers in a number of traditions: when we try to directly examine our experience, the experience itself seems to vanish as we focus on its objects. We examine two scaffolds for understanding this observation that have been dominant in the post-Moore analytic tradition: the window scaffold and the mirror scaffold. We note that these scaffolds have different strengths, but fail to fully capture certain salient features of the transparency datum. We introduce a new scaffold for thinking about the transparency datum. This new scaffold, which we have developed through our cross-cultural engagement with Classical South Asian epistemology, suggests that awareness is like purple, transparency is like polarization, and subject and object are like the red and blue into which purple can be polarized. Experience vanishes when we direct our attention to it like purple vanishes when polarized into red and blue.

In the matter of the body, even comparative language—the very use of English today—is soaked through and through with the Cartesian version of the intuition of dualism: the idea that we are fundamentally a mind and a body that must be either related ingeniously, or else reduced to one another. Instead, by deliberately looking at genres that pertain to other aspects of being human, I seek to go deeper into texts that simply start elsewhere than with intuitions of dualism, even while being engrossed in the category of the experiential ‘body’.

The influential apoha theory of concept formation of the seventh-century Buddhist Dharmakīrti stands as a philosophically powerful articulation of how language could work in the absence of real universals. In brief, Dharmakīrti argues that concepts are constructed through a goaloriented process that delimits the content of an experience by ignoring whatever does not conform to one's conditioned expectations. There are no real similarities that ground this process. Rather, a concept is merely what's left over once one has glossed over enough of the differences between elements of one's awareness that one can judge the remainder to have the same effects as what one...

Dharmakīrti’s apoha theory of concept formation aims to provide an account of intersubjectivity without relying on the existence of real universals. He uses the pan-Yogācāra theory of karmic imprints to claim that sentient beings form concepts by treating unique particulars as if a certain subset of them had the same effects. Since this judgment of sameness depends on an individual's habits, desires, and sensory capacities, and these in turn depend on the karmic imprints developed over countless lifetimes and continuously reshaped by ongoing actions, the extent to which individuals experience themselves as acting within a shared world depends on these imprints. However, a number of critics—traditional and contemporary—have expressed compelling doubts about whether or not apoha can be successful given Dharmakīrti's ontology which, in addition to denying universals, eventually denies the reality of even the most basic structure of conventional experience: subject/object duality. In line with the tradition he inherits, Dharmakīrti considers even the mere division of a moment of awareness into defined structures of subject and object to be a distortion shaped by beginningless karmic imprints. While this initial moment of awareness is nonconceptual, the experience of a certain world is always already shaped by the previous actions of sentient beings trapped within the web of saṃsāra, in a process driven by ignorance. Dharmakīrti’s reliance on karmic imprints on two distinct levels—one within the conventional world, and one which constitutes the conventional world—may thereby provide a compelling account of intersubjectivity without relying on universals.

Contemporary scholars have begun to document the extensive influence of the sixth to seventh century Buddhist philosopher Dharmakīrti on Pratyabhijñā Śaiva thought. Utpaladeva and Abhinavagupta’s adaptation of Dharmakīrti’s apoha theory provides a striking instance of the creative ways in which these Śaivas use Dharmakīrti’s ideas to argue for positions that Dharmakīrti would emphatically reject. Both Dharmakīrti and these Śaivas emphasize that the formation of a concept involves both objective and subjective factors. Working within a certain perceptual environment, factors such as a subject’s desires, habits, and conditioning lead him or her to form a concept based on excluding what is not relevant to the accomplishment of his or her goal. However, the two differ in their account of the relationship between concepts and subject/object duality itself. While Dharmakīrti claims that the division of a cognition into subject, object, and awareness is nonconceptual, the subtly shifted definition of a concept that these Śaivas employ allows them to claim that the error of subject/object duality is actually conceptual. This seemingly small difference in their respective evaluations of the nature of subject/object error has surprisingly large consequences. If, as these Śaivas claim, any awareness involving a duality is conceptual, then subject and object are concepts. Moreover, if the formation of a concept requires desire, then some kind of desire must be inherent to consciousness itself before the formation of a limited subject/object pair. In short, ultimate consciousness must be Śiva, who possesses the freedom to will any and all possible realities.