Welcome to the Indian Philosophy Blog!

The Indian Philosophy Blog is a venue for the discussion of Indian (South Asian) philosophy, however defined. All periods of Indian thought from the ancient to the modern, and all Indian philosophical schools, can be discussed here. We expect the blog to consist above all of substantive reflection on topics related to Indian philosophy, though we will also post announcements such as calls for papers.

Our post contributors are scholars with academic training in the field. Comments are welcome from anyone as long as they follow our simple rules.

About Amod Lele

Amod Lele is Lecturer in Philosophy, Educational Technologist in Information Services & Technology, and Visiting Researcher in the Study of Asia at Boston University. He administers the technical side of the Indian Philosophy Blog, as well as running his own cross-cultural philosophy blog, Love of All Wisdom. He holds a PhD with a South Asia focus from the Committee on the Study of Religion at Harvard University. You can find out more about him than you ever wanted to know at his ePortfolio.

17 thoughts on “Welcome to the Indian Philosophy Blog!

    • Hi Jack – that is a good idea. I don’t believe we have that function available right at the moment; I think it will require some extra work on my part to install the appropriate plugin. But I hope to make that happen soon. Stay tuned.

  1. Amod, Jack, just under each comment form I can see a box one can check asking “Notify me of follow-up comments by email” and one asking “Notify me of new posts by email”.

    • That is true – I am not sure whether the “new posts” actually means new posts, though, or whether it just means new comment threads on this post.

        • So there is! Thanks for the tip, Manyul, and welcome. I haven’t been able to keep up with all the new stuff in recent WordPress versions. Just added it.

  2. Hi all,
    Congratulations on the new blog. From the first couple of posts, looks like it could be a great place for discussion on Indian philosophy. I will definitely be keeping an eye on progress.
    ~~Huifeng

  3. This is fantastic! As someone who is deeply interested in the philosophy of the indian sub-continent but is tired of finding mostly the products of a nationalistic revisioning of the past, I am delighted to find you guys.

    The health of the subject of ‘indian philosophy’ in my country, as evidenced by what is taught to the undergrads in the central universities, is deeply troubling. A few weeks back, I (my degrees are in math) had the unhappy experience of explaining the basics of Dharmakirti’s theory of Apoha to a masters student of philosophy — he had never heard of Dignaga or Dharmakirti.

    I am just glad there is another place on the internet to point interested people towards, other than SEP (which is fantastic, but why don’t they have an entry of Gangesh yet?).

    • Thanks, DS, and welcome. Are you in India? This is saddening, especially when compared to the bright state of Chinese philosophy at the moment. It seems every week I see another article about how Confucius is in vogue in China, and American students are lining up to take classes in the subject. No comparable love for Indian philosophy anywhere – yet.

      For encyclopedias, are you familiar with the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy? Our own Shyam Ranganathan is an editor there, and several of our members (including myself) have contributed entries. Overall I’d say the individual articles are more uneven than at the Stanford Encylopedia, but the coverage of Indian philosophy is overall much wider and better. No specific entry on Gaṅgeśa yet, but there is one on Nyāya by our own Matthew Dasti, which mentions Gaṅgeśa a couple of times.

      • Thanks for tip about the Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy — had never thought of checking it for articles on ‘indian philo’ (the scare quotes are because i feel a bit silly typing it as it is, but can’t think anything better). I have also wondered why it gets no love (and why those who study it in the west find themselves in Religious Study/Language departments)

        Yes, I am in India. It is not that ‘indian philosophy’ as an idea is not popular here, but I think its safe to say that the idea of it is not too dissimilar to the idea of ‘indian philosophy’ that persists in the west (I am reminded of a brilliant essay by Ganeri on this, forgotten what its called). Even among ivory-tower dwellers, I have very rarely met anybody who can name even seven philosophers. Take a look at this — it is the syllabus for the exam that has to be passed by those wanting to teach philo at the undergrad level anywhere in India (sort of like the indian agrégation).

  4. DS, The IEP began covering topics in Indian philosophy before the SEP (I hectored the SEP’s principal editor, Ed Zalta for several years, going back to 2001/02, to cover (among other things) Indian philosophy and it took a while to find willing (and proper) subject editors. Overall, the SEP is better in quality (in part, because they’ve often been able to recruit some of the best people from the respective subject areas) than the IEP but I still find the latter useful and go back to it routinely (some of the entries are indeed very well written).

  5. Yes, generally, the way I think of it is that the SEP is primarily aimed at researchers and graduate students primarily, while the IEP is primarily aimed at undergraduate and graduate students.This shouldn’t be misunderstood or overstated; I often go to the IEP myself, but I think this loose distinction is somewhat accurate. Also, please note that our own Andrew Nicholson also has an entry on Bhedabheda Vedanta: http://www.iep.utm.edu/bhed-ved/

  6. Pingback: Some common prejudices about Indian Philosophy: It is time to give them upThe Indian Philosophy Blog | The Indian Philosophy Blog

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>