On the final exam, which is Wednesday 13 May, 2-5, GAR 0.102, you will be asked to write two essays (30% each). There will also be seven quotations from classical yoga and tantra texts (nothing from secondary sources, i.e., nothing from scholars, though scholars' quotations from classical texts, such as Goswami's of Abhinava Gupta, are candidates), of which you will be asked to identify five by author and/or work (10%). For three of the five, you will be asked to write a paragraph explaining the context and identifying the main thesis or argument as well as how the ideas of the quote fit in with the major themes of the work from which it is drawn (30%).

Author/text pool (quotations will be taken from these sources):

Yogasutra (sutras only, though your contextualizations may benefit from study of Vyasa's commentary), Shankara (on ahimsa, in the chapter by Phillips), the Jaina Acaranga Sutra, Bhagavad Gita, select Upanishads (which you do not have to identify by name: see course packet), Large Sutra on Perfect Wisdom, Abhinava Gupta's poetry and commentary on the Natya Shastra (including quotations in Goswami's paper), Kularnava Tantra, Vivekananda, and Aurobindo.

The essay questions will be similar to these two:

1. Write an essay on the "tantric turn" exhibited in the idea of the bodhisattva as presented in the Large Sutra on Perfect Wisdom, in the themes of the Kularnava Tantra, and in Abhinava Gupta's poetry and writing on aesthetics. Be prepared to discuss precursors in the Gita's karma-yoga teaching as well as the siddhi tradition in evidence in the siddhi sutras of the Yogasutra. Some of the yardsticks by which you might compare tantric ideas with those of older, non-tantric texts such as the Yogasutra, the Upanishads especially as interpreted by a classical school such as Advaita Vedanta, the Gita, and so on concern possible differences of view about: the reality and value of the world, the body, mystic psychology, God or Brahman the Absolute, desire, emotions, pleasure and pain, activity, the yogic or spiritual goal, non-yogins, and anything discussed by Frawley or in another required text and/or a contrast or sameness you identify on your own. As best you can as you proceed, give your own opinions and evaluations of the tantric difference or continuity. You may also discuss the question of the continuity between modern yoga practice in the West and the tantric goal of "holistic health" or psychological and spiritual development. Be prepared to explain the concept of rasa ("juice" or "flavor" or "joy"). Why does the aesthetic experience require an impersonal or universalized empathy?  What is the classical view of the connoisseur (sahridaya, "like-hearted"), who would have an aesthetic sense or capacity for tasting the eight (or nine) rasas (like a capacity to distinguish varieties of fine wine)? What do you think of Abhinava's idea that such a person would be somehow also a yogi or yogini, fit, or becoming fit, for self-discovery? Can you say a word or two about individual rasas? How, for example, could cultivating the disgust rasa, serve as yogic self-development? And on the metaphysical front, how does Abhinava's non-illusionist philosophy connect with his yoga of art and beauty?  (That yoga has two sides. The first is, roughly speaking, the discipline to "capture the essence" of every experience, to find rasa in every life circumstance. The aesthetic concept entails aesthetic distance such that there can be, for example, aesthetic value even in extreme pain or suffering or in various character flaws such as anger or greed. Here the guiding idea seems to be that of a "witness" to life, a training of seeing one's own life in the way that one would watch in delight a good movie. The second side involves the idea of the yogi and yogini as creative. Tantric philosophy finds the world to serve the purpose of the God's and the Goddess's enjoyment. Consonantly, the culmination of Abhinava's new yoga seems to be creative expression by individuals by means of openness to the energies of their "higher self," such as shri, beauty, or shakti, divine energy.)

2. Write a philosophic essay on rebirth as presupposed in classical texts and defended by Ducasse and Aurobindo in particular and attacked by Edwards. Considerations and arguments that you come up with on your own are also welcome. Is rebirth possible? What would have to be true (according to Ducasse, as well as yourself)? How should we evaluate Aurobindo's "metaphysical argument for rebirth" (see course packet)? Is Edwards right to conclude that correlations between bodily conditions (especially concerning the brain) and mentality rule out the possibility of survival and thus of rebirth? Concerning Aurobindo's argument, the epistemology of yogic perception, which we discussed before Spring Break, is relevant, as well as what we might call the project of Eastern theodicy ("justification of divine goodness in the face of evil"). For the former, see the review sheet for the midterm as well as the web link on the syllabus (weeks 7 and 8). Concerning the latter, be able to sketch the problem of the compatibility of concepts of Brahman, God (as understood in Indian theism and tantra), and/or Nirvana with the reality of evil. What are some of the solutions offered classically (e.g., in the Gita and in Advaita Vedanta)? How would a rebirth thesis help the theodicy project (according to Aurobindo, as well as yourself)? With respect to Edwards' contention, be sure to consider the Eastern and Yogic practice of distinguishing mentality from self or consciousness as well as the question whether a brain state is sufficient for any and all consciousness or is only necessary, or not even necessary. Explain.