|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
the difference of the superimposed and that on which it is imposed is forgotten, as the person forgets the difference of self and Brahman; c. the faulty superimposition is postulated to be the way things really are, and hence is carried forward as a way of life. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15. Tracy 1987, pp. 20,93. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16. Wheelwright 1962, p. 46. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17. Wheelwright 1962, pp. 71-2. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18. Wheelwright 1962, p. 72. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19. Ulmer 1985. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20. Ulmer 1985, pp. 59-60. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21. Hartmann 1981, chapter 3. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22. Claims such as those examined in Chapter 3: the ultimate nonduality of the knower and the known; the distinction between Brahman with qualities and without qualities; the view that Brahman is the material and efficient cause of the world; the break with the orthodox Brahmanical tradition on (some of) the prerequisites to knowledge. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23. Corbin (1974) sets forth clearly the Biblical model underlying Aquinas' outline of the Summa Theologiae, its foundation in the dynamics of what may today be termed "salvation history." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24. See Reyero 1971. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25. In developing a more nuanced understanding of how theologians cite scriptural texts, Boyarin's distinction between paradigmatic and syntygmatic midrash (1990, pp. 26-38) is helpful. His comment on a midrashist's collocation of texts (about the splitting of the Red Sea) can, mutatis mutandis, be helpfully applied to Aquinas: "The midrashist has gathered all of these verses together, so that they may make the maximum impression on the hearer/ reader. When each verse is encountered in its own place, as it were, its impact is relatively weak, but when all are encountered together . . . the dramatic and pictorial effect is enhanced greatly . . . it is the melding of these different texts into a single quasi-narrative that makes this passage work as midrash and ultimately gives each of the quoted verses its maximum power." 1990, p. 31. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26. A helpful place to begin in this reconstruction of the Thomistic tradition is Roensch 1964. |
|
|
|
|
|