A group blog of scholars exploring Indian philosophy
Regular blog readers may remember my earlier posts that I was co-editing, along with Prasanta Bandyopadhyay, the Fall 2017 edition of the APA Newsletter on Asian and Asian-American Philosophers and Philosophies. The theme of the issue is “B. K. Matilal: The Continue reading APA Newsletter on B. K. Matilal Now Available!
I presented about Disengaged Buddhism at the International Association of Buddhist Studies conference in August. My talk was paired with a presentation by Frédéric Richard on a topic that did not initially appear to be related: the Tibetan government in Continue reading The political path vs. the Buddhist path
(I am grateful for the following learned and thought-provoking guest post I received from Christophe Vielle, dealing with an emic way to define “Philosophy” in the Indian context. EF) Rājaśekhara’s classification of śāstras in the Kāvyamīmāṃsā, adhyāya 2 (śāstra-nirdeśa)*, is Continue reading Rājaśekhara on mīmāṃsā and ānvīkṣikī as two distinct types of philosophical śāstras—a guest post by Christophe Vielle
Last time I discussed Jan Westerhoff’s potent objection to naturalized Buddhism: if there is no rebirth then we can end our suffering simply by committing suicide. Westerhoff takes this objection as a reason to accept rebirth. I do not. Rather, Continue reading Beyond the removal of suffering
Nalanda Dialog Mission, Hazaribag, in collaboration with INTACH, Hazaribag chapter, is going to conduct a Walk (Padyatra) down the River Mohani from Itkhori Chatra (Jharkhand) to Bodhgaya (Bihar) during 13th–15th of January 2018. A discussion Seminar will be held on Continue reading Walking down the footsteps of the Buddha—An invitation by Debajyoti Gangopadhyay
A few years ago I wondered how a naturalized Buddhism could avoid advocating suicide. If our goal is the cessation of suffering, and death is not the beginning of a new birth but a simple ending, shouldn’t death itself be Continue reading In defence of Buddhism without rebirth
Why is the topic of omniscience relevant in Indian philosophy? Because of at least two concurring reasons. On the one hand, for schools like Buddhism and Jainism, it is a question of religious authority. Ascribing omniscience to the founders of Continue reading Again on omniscience: Why talking about it, God’s omniscience and some reasons to refute it
I’m continuing to examine Justin Whitaker‘s interpretation of Pali Buddhist ethics as Kantian moral law. I argued last time that the concept of dhamma does not serve in these texts as a universal, trans-human moral law. Here I want to Continue reading Karmic punishment is not a good thing
“Omniscience” (sārvajñya) assumes many different meanings in the various Indian philosophies. The understanding possibly most common in European and Anglo-American thought, which sees omniscience as including the knowledge of any possible thing in the past, present and future, is neither Continue reading First thoughts on omniscience in Indian thought
In his interesting recent Buddhism and Political Theory, Matthew Moore sums up current scholarly work on Buddhist ethics noting “There are several major debates ongoing in the field, particularly whether early Buddhist ethics are better understood as consequentialist or a Continue reading The dhamma is not a transcendent law