Should we make significant sacrifices to ever-so-slightly lower the chance of extremely bad outcomes, or to ever-so-slightly raise the chance of extremely good outcomes? *Fanaticism* says yes: for every bad outcome, there is a tiny chance of extreme disaster that is even worse, and for every good outcome, there is a tiny chance of an enormous good that is even better. I consider two related recent arguments for Fanaticism: Beckstead and Thomas's argument from *strange dependence on space and time*, and (...) Wilkinson's *Indology* argument. While both arguments are instructive, neither is persuasive. In fact, the general principles that underwrite the arguments (a *separability* principle in the first case, and a *reflection* principle in the second) are *inconsistent* with Fanaticism. In both cases, though, it is possible to rehabilitate arguments for Fanaticism based on restricted versions of those principles. The situation is unstable: plausible general principles tell *against* Fanaticism, but restrictions of those same principles (with strengthened auxiliary assumptions) *support* Fanaticism. All of the consistent views that emerge are very strange. (shrink)

Recently, there has been a burgeoning of interest in the relationship between Schopenhauer's philosophy and Indian thought.1 One major reason for this trend is the growing conviction among scholars that a careful understanding of Schopenhauer's complex—and evolving—engagement with Indian thought can help illuminate crucial aspects of Schopenhauer's own philosophy.2 The late nineteenth-century German scholars Paul Deussen and Max Hecker are widely acknowledged to be the pioneers in the field of Schopenhauer's relation to Indian thought. Deussen, thoroughly trained in both (...) class='Hi'>indology and Western philosophy, was the first to bring Schopenhauer's philosophy into dialogue with Indian thought... (shrink)

This is what Daniel Simpson has to say of it: An entertaining polemic that takes heartfelt swipes at Western scholars, accusing them of misreading Tantra. "Hinduism is Tantric in essence," the essay says, without proving that Tantra predates other influences, or that "Yoga in its various forms, arises out of Tantra". The latter seems at odds with the earliest descriptions of austerities, or the ascetic objective of bodily transcendence (which Tantric teachings later modified, as evinced by hatha yoga texts). Meanwhile, (...) Patanjali is said to be Tantric because he describes a silent mind - despite not mentioning kundalini (as the author implies). And quoting Abhinavagupta does not mean that Vedanta is based on his framework. Yoga and experiential insight might be inseparable, but a history of ideas can still be written, however tangential it might seem to the practices it alludes to. If "that which is comprehensible is reductionist and is an exercise in structural scrutiny which is disastrous to Indology," then why compose an essay reducing Hinduism to Tantra, while dismissing all else as misguided archiving? Regardless, I enjoyed its invective. (shrink)

The word theology and Hinduism as a lived religion often do not go together. Moreover anything to do with theology or with Hinduism in India today might be construed as right wing rhetoric. Through this article, the author revisits Patristics, Catholic theologians like Karl Rahner and Bernard Lonergan. This essay is supposed to be read with the preceding essay which appeared in this issue of Prabuddha Bharata. That was written by Gayatri Spivak. The Editor put Spivak ahead of this essay (...) to emphasize the cosmopolitan nature of Hindu praxes. This essay also touches upon Liberation Theology. (shrink)

This review addresses issues regarding the very shaping of Hinduism and the resistance that such shaping faces from non-Hindus. Non-Hindu polemic is challenged using Western methods.

This review establishes Rukmani, Indian philosophy and Yoga as cornerstones of Indian Studies.

During the Post Vedic period, the ascetic tradtion of the Śramaṇa which comprosed of various sects and their particular philosophies emerged as a form of a movement against orthodoxy in ancient India. Śramaṇas were wanderers who lived a retired life and focussed in seeking truth and emancipation if there was any. The paper explores the tradition and discusses the orientation of the various denominations that existed at the time within the Śramaṇa movement. The paper attempts to compare and show relationship (...) between the Śramaṇa and the Brāhamanas. Brāhmanas were people who adhered to the Vedic knowledge and paid importance in performing social, monetary and everyday life duties. The major concern of the paper is to present Ajñānavāda as a unique school within the Śramaṇa tradition in terms of their philosophical approach. The paper focusses on the Ajñāna thinker Sañjaya Belaṭṭhiputta, and shows how the appraoch taken by him went at that time beyond the philosophies of the Śramaṇas and the Brāhamanas. (shrink)