Buchbesprechungen Comptes Rendues

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, focusing on the book reviews presented:

This document, titled "BUCHBESPRECHUNGEN/COMPTES RENDUS" (Book Reviews/Reports), contains two reviews by Rudolf Pfister and Johannes Bronkhorst, respectively.

1. Review of Philosophisch-theologische Grundanschauungen der Jayakhya-Samhita by Marion Rastelli (Reviewed by Rudolf Pfister)

Rudolf Pfister reviews Marion Rastelli's 1999 book on the philosophical and theological foundations of the Jayakhya-Samhita, including a presentation of its daily ritual. Pfister notes that the book offers more than its title suggests, with the chapters on daily ritual and Yoga (174 pages) outweighing the chapters on philosophical-theological ideas (169 pages). The author justifies this emphasis by arguing that much of the Jayakhya-Samhita is ritualistic, and ritual and Yoga are inseparable from philosophical-theological concepts. However, Pfister finds this argument contradictory to Rastelli's claim elsewhere that the philosophical-theological chapters were later additions to an initially "theoretical" text.

Despite this internal tension, Pfister praises the book for its clear and thorough presentation of both the theoretical teachings and the ritualistic aspects, remaining closely tied to the original text. He highlights the careful translation and analysis of numerous passages, deeming it a welcome contribution, especially given the limited scholarly attention paid to the Pañcaratra tradition, to which the Jayakhya-Samhita belongs, beyond the works of F.O. Schrader and Sanjukta Gupta.

Pfister offers minor criticisms:

• Translation of "guna": He is uncomfortable with Rastelli's translation of guna as "property" or "quality" when referring to sattva, rajas, and tamas. He argues these are clearly constituents of prakrti and the term guna is related to "triple," suggesting no need to posit a "primitive" failure to distinguish between constituents and qualities.
• Interpretation of "bhūtayoni": Pfister questions Rastelli's interpretation of bhūtayoni (meaning "origins of the elements") as "the pure elements (tanmatra) sound, touch, colour, taste, and smell" on pages 55 and 58. He points out that the cited passage in the Jayakhya-Samhita (3.2-8) does not use the term tanmatra. He suggests this imposition of tanmatra might distort the understanding, as these sensory elements could equally be interpreted as guna (qualities) within the Samkhya system. He notes that while tanmatra appears elsewhere in the Jayakhya-Samhita, its absence in the theoretical chapters could be significant for understanding the role of tanmatra in classical Samkhya, which is already considered obscure and ambiguous.

2. Review of Ein Sein - ein Erkennen. Meister Eckharts Christologie und Samkaras Lehre vom Âtman. Zur (Un)Vergleichbarkeit zweier Einheitslehren by Annette Wilke (Reviewed by Johannes Bronkhorst)

Johannes Bronkhorst reviews Annette Wilke's 1995 book comparing Meister Eckhart's Christology and Sankara's doctrine of the Atman. Bronkhorst begins by critiquing the general trend in religious studies, where research is often driven by personal religious quests rather than academic concerns. He sees the numerous comparisons between Eckhart and Sankara as an illustration of this, noting that while undeniable similarities exist, scholars often conclude that "all religions say the same thing" or that one religion is superior to another. He argues these conclusions are of interest to believers but less so to academic scholarship.

Bronkhorst acknowledges that Wilke's book distinguishes itself with solid scholarship and a determination to be non-apologetic, devoting over half its content to Eckhart and demonstrating familiarity with Sankara studies. However, he contends that her approach remains similar to her predecessors. He bases this on the concluding paragraph of Wilke's book, where she answers the question of comparability with both "yes" and "no," leaving the question open. Wilke suggests that even if the commonalities are illusory, a comparison is meaningful for clarifying the "own" and the "foreign," and that the goal is clarification, not self-affirmation.

Bronkhorst expresses deep concern about this "us" versus "them" framing in an academic publication. He argues that academic research should not be for specific religious adherents and that viewing historical figures like Eckhart as belonging to "us" (presumably meaning Western/Christian) is problematic. He questions what this implies about preference or access to thought, drawing a parallel to Indian scholars assuming a privileged understanding of their own past thinkers. He advocates for approaching both figures as historical entities within their temporal and cultural contexts, belonging neither to "us" nor "them."

Bronkhorst critiques the "religious" approach to comparison, questioning the value of asking if Eckhart and Sankara fundamentally taught and experienced the same thing. He believes such questions are theoretical and potentially undecidable for an academic reader not tied to a religious tradition. Even if a shared "experience" could be established, he argues that contextual differences mean they never taught precisely the same thing. While Wilke acknowledges the banality of stating differences between figures from different cultures and times, Bronkhorst argues her approach doesn't reflect this awareness. He believes her emphasis on differences, while perhaps aiming for fruitful dialogue, leads to a predetermined outcome where significant similarities are buried.

Bronkhorst concludes by suggesting that comparative studies can be valuable in the academic study of religion, but only if the "us" versus "them" division is abandoned and aims extend beyond personal objectives. He draws an analogy to linguistics, where a shared innate propensity underlies all languages, even as individual languages differ. He speculates that a similar shared propensity might exist in the works of Eckhart and Sankara, but argues that a method focused on differences will inevitably overlook it, burying significant similarities in contextual details. He asserts that Wilke's book, by emphasizing differences and framing the discussion in terms of "own" and "foreign," is more suited for "religious dialogue" than academic scholarship, and is unlikely to advance the understanding of religion as a human phenomenon.