Skip Navigation


Journal of the American Academy of Religion Advance Access originally published online on June 12, 2009
Journal of the American Academy of Religion 2009 77(2):238-274; doi:10.1093/jaarel/lfp019
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
77/2/238    most recent
lfp019v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kaplan, S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press, on behalf of the American Academy of Religion. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Grasping at Ontological Straws: Overcoming Reductionism in the Advaita Vedanta—Neuroscience Dialogue

Stephen Kaplan

Stephen Kaplan, Department of Religious Studies, Manhattan College, Bronx, NY 10471, USA

E-mail: stephen.kaplan{at}manhattan.edu


  Abstract

Contemporary neuropsychology reveals that the parietal lobe contains neurons that are specifically attuned to the act of grasping and this act may be fundamental to the establishment of the phenomenal boundaries between subject and object. Furthermore, alterations to this process, such as the hypoactivation of this region during meditation or the hyperactivation associated with schizophrenia, may eliminate or confuse, respectively, the phenomenal boundaries between subject and object. Traversing disciplines, the Advaita Vedanta school of Hinduism traces some of its key terms for subject and object to the verbal root grah, to grasp. The subject is literally the grasper. Furthermore, the practice of asparsa yoga, the yoga of no-touch, is aimed at stopping, hypoactivating, the grasping process in order to transcend all subject–object boundaries. This paper will argue that while we have not uncovered an identity of thought, we have uncovered a confluence of ideas between these two disciplines. We will see that this confluence of ideas has not pitted the believer against the critic—not forced us into the great reductionism debate that has dominated so much of the interchange between religious studies and the sciences. This case study will illuminate some of the methodological ways around this reductionism battle and also the boundaries of both disciplines for the intellectual benefit of each.

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Michael Spezio, Scripps College, for his assistance regarding the neuroscientific aspects of this paper. His willingness to engage me in conversation about these matters has been invaluable. As always, my colleague, John Keber, has exceeded all reasonable expectations for a colleague's willingness to listen and comment. I would also like to express my appreciation to the JAAR readers whose comments have been extremely helpful in reshaping some of the broad issues as well as particular points. Needless to say, all the errors are my responsibility.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.