142 chapter
on a binary and mutually exclusive opposition between mind and body, but
makes multiple fi ne distinctions between states consisting of greater and lesser
degrees of physicality and tangibility.
Just as in Banaras, people in Kerala appreciate the material realm while
idealizing the spirit. In Kerala, the intangible—analogous to Parry’s term
“spirit”—is highly valued and highly spoken of, yet in people’s quotidian heal-
ing experiences they prefer a more pleasant aesthetic experience over one that
is more abrasive. I would suggest, however, that this contradiction is found
on the level of logic rather than on the level of experience. An esteem for the
intangible self does not mean one is always able to live in this realm. It is some-
thing like a goal of experience, and it is one that is found in refl exive, literary,
philosophical investigations.
Indian Philosophy and Phenomenology
Indian philosophical texts and popular mythology are saturated with discourses
on the distinction between the self and the many “layers” of the person—
including the self, consciousness, the mind, the subtle and gross bodies—and
the nature of experience. By engaging philosophers such as Śankara, I am pre-
senting an account of an Indian phenomenological orientation that is com-
parable to writings on the body and embodiment that invoke philosophers
such as Descartes to characterize the Western mind-body dichotomy.^4 While
Indian philosophy is to some degree an elite discourse, interviews with people
in Kerala reveal that features of literate Indian philosophy and phenomenology
also exist in popular discourse.
Th ere are many positions and debates in Indian philosophy, and this section
presents only a few key fi gures and ideas which are selected to reveal the gene-
alogies and explicit exegeses of phenomenological terms used in contemporary
illness discourses. Although Kerala is the focus here, most philosophical and
phenomenological perspectives that are presented are part of a broader, Indian
philosophical scene. Just how widely these perspectives are popularly consumed
in other parts of India is beyond my ability to determine although evidence of
a diff erent popular phenomenological approach in an area of northern India
will be presented later.
Defi ning and describing ātman is the concern of much Indian philosoph-
ical writing. Usually translated as “self ” or “soul,” ātman refers to a higher,
ideal self that is described as totally immaterial and eternal and often wrongly,
according to philosophers, identifi ed with the mind or other personal attri-
butes such as one’s character, intelligence, name or personal history. Ātman