Thank you, Cristophe, for drawing our attention to Jayaratha’s review in his blog entry, which is definitely worth reading. The entry does, however, not entirely do justice to Bronkhorst’s position, when it says that “… one has to accept this new chronology, which places the Upaniṣads after Buddhism rather than before it, …” (J’s emphasis). Bronkhorst’s position is in fact a weaker one. He concludes that “the notion of karmic retribution in the earliest relevant Upaniṣadic (i.e. Vedic) passages has been added to material that is devoid of it“ (GM p. 122). If I understand this correctly, Bronkhorst takes the older Upaniṣads in their present form as the result of an redactorial process, in which the (sporadic) references to karma-and-rebirth theories were added to textual passages exclusively dealing with rebirth (but not with karmic retribution as its cause).
I wonder whether critical editions of the older and middle Upaniṣads could not provide a more solid basis for research in the early religious history of South Asia than the presently available editions do.
Best wishes,
Philipp
To be complete, there is also this on-line review (by whom?) of Bronkhorst 2007, which refers also to Samuel's work:Le 12 avr. 2016 à 10:33, Philipp Maas <philipp.a.maas@gmail.com> a écrit :Dear Artur,
Geoffrey Samuel (The Origins of Yoga and Tantra. Indic Religions to the Thirteenth Century. Cambridge etc: Cambridge University Press, 2008) independently from Bronkhorst arrived at a historical narrative that is similar to the one told in “Greater Magadha”. Moreover, the chapter on the early history of Karma and rebirth in South Asia by Wilhelm Halbfass (Karma und Wiedergeburt im indischen Denken. Kreuzlingen, München: Hugendubel, 2000, pp. 37-63), which draws upon a considerable amount of earlier primary sources and secondary literature, can be read as supporting important aspects of Bronkhorst’s “Greater Magadha Hypothesis”.
Best, Philipp
_______________________________________________2016-04-11 20:42 GMT+02:00 Artur Karp <karp@uw.edu.pl>:Dear Tim,Could you, please, upload your review to Academia.edu? A poorly-educated guy like me (no irony here!) needs further reading and learning. And appreciates any occasion for it.Thanks in advance,ArturPS. I try to organize my thoughts re the relics of the Buddha and amrita. Some simple parallels - and a sticky ground, contradictory concepts and interpretations. In need of new - lodestar-like - ideas.A.2016-04-11 18:33 GMT+02:00 Lubin, Tim <LubinT@wlu.edu>:And now also:
Timothy Lubin, “Greater Magadha and the New Brahmanism: Recent Publications by Johannes Bronkhorst,” Religious Studies Review 41.3 (2015): 93–100.
Best,
TL
From: INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info> on behalf of "Michaels, Axel" <michaels@asia-europe.uni-heidelberg.de>
Date: Monday, April 11, 2016 at 12:26 PM
To: indology <indology@list.indology.info>
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Misunderstood origins
More reviews on Johannes Bronkhorst’s thesis: Konrad Klaus in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 161 (2011): 216-221, Jason Neelis in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 18.3 (2008): 381-3; John Cort, Religious Studies Review 33.2 (2007): 171-172; K.T.S. Sarao in Orientalische Literatur-Zeitung 103.2 (2008): 250-254; Rüdiger Schmitt in Acta Orientalia 69 2008: 319-32, and Alexander Wynne in the H-Buddhism List (July 2011).
Best, xel Michaels
Von: INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info> im Auftrag von Artur Karp <karp@uw.edu.pl>
Datum: Monday 11 April 2016 at 12:30
An: Roland Steiner <steiner@staff.uni-marburg.de>
Cc: "indology@list.indology.info" <indology@list.indology.info>
Betreff: Re: [INDOLOGY] Misunderstood origins
> a bit to start a discussion? ;)
Frankly?
Quite frankly - I'd rather prefer following the discussion on the contents of Prof. Bronkhorst's paper.
Or - is there somewhere a trace of the Buddhologists' (Historians of India, Historians of Indian Literature) reaction to its theses?
Best,
Artur Karp
2016-04-11 9:42 GMT+02:00 Roland Steiner <steiner@staff.uni-marburg.de>:
In support of Prof. Silk's remarks I would like to point to the following short paper by Claudius Naumann:
"Versiegende Quellen. Einige Anmerkungen über den Sinn und Unsinn von Internet-Verweisen in wissenschaftlichen Arbeiten". In: Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft 162.2 (2012), pp. 460-464.
Best,
Roland Steiner
_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)
_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)
_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)
--Institut für Südasien-, Tibet- und BuddhismuskundeDr. Philipp A. MaasUniversitätsassistent
Universität Wien
Spitalgasse 2-4, Hof 2, Eingang 2.1
A-1090 Wien
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)–––––––––––––––––––Louvain-la-Neuve
_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)