A group blog of scholars exploring Indian philosophy
The concept of mental health – and even more so its converse of mental illness – has become ubiquitous in the modern West, and it deserves serious examination by philosophers. Many, probably most, cultures would not recognize the claim that Continue reading Of mental health and medical models
The book on Veṅkaṭanātha I am working on is an attempt of doing history of philosophy in the Sanskrit context, given that no agreed canon, chronology, list of main figures or main questions has been established for the history of Continue reading Reconstructing Viśiṣṭādvaitavedānta: Veṅkaṭanātha’s contribution
Scholars of Sanskrit (as well as ancient Greek, classical Tamil, Chinese…) are familiar with translations oscillating between the following two extremes: A translation which closely follows the original and is chiefly meant as an aid to understand the Sanskrit text Continue reading Reflections on the translation of SM 1
Veṅkaṭanātha follows the standard śāstric style when it comes to the general way of asking questions, discussing answers, and of providing rationales for each claim. To that, he adds his command, evident in his non-śāstric works, of figurative language, so Continue reading Veṅkaṭanātha’s śāstric style in the Seśvaramīmāṃsā
I return today to my correspondence with Justin Whitaker on the Sigālovāda Sutta, taking off from his response to my previous post. The question at issue between us, I think, is what constitutes a good Buddhist life for a layperson Continue reading The goods of lay life
Medhātithi discusses corporeal punishments whenever Manu does, but in two different ways: At times (e.g., in his commentary on MDhŚā 9.248) he just repeats what Manu says, without adding further elaborations and without attempting a general argument about the overall Continue reading Medhātithi on corporeal punishment
Justin Whitaker has made a second defence of the Sigālovāda Sutta, and it’s time for another response on my end. As a recap, we are debating the value of the Sigālovāda as a guide to lay Buddhist ethics: I do Continue reading Are we taking up the suttas’ view of household life?
In general, Medhātithi’s commentary systematizes the MDh. In the case of action and intention, he does his best to iron away seeming incongruities by explaining that intentional actions are liable to more blame than unintentional ones, which he accomplishes by Continue reading Medhātithi on intention and action
Veṅkaṭanātha recognises two soteriological paths, namely bhakti (restricted to only few eligible people) and prapatti (being the only one accessible to normal people). In both cases, how can one get there? Prapatti, to begin with, cannot be sought for independently, Continue reading Veṅkaṭanātha on the pedagogy of emotions
Paul Fuller’s thoughtful and well researched new introduction to Engaged Buddhism cites my Disengaged Buddhism article together with an article I hadn’t heard of before, Victor Temprano’s 2013 “Defining engaged Buddhism” (Buddhist Studies Review 30.2). (Fuller has very kind words Continue reading There are bad Buddhists and false Buddhist claims