Buchbesprechungen Comptes Rendus

This text is a book review by Johannes Bronkhorst, published in "BUCHBESPRECHUNGEN / COMPTES RENDUS," of two books concerning the interpretation of philosophical Sanskrit texts:

1. "Zur Methode der Analyse Philosophischer Sūtratexte" by Claus Oetke
2. "Comparative Philosophy and the Philosophy of Scholarship, On the Western interpretation of Nāgārjuna" by Andrew P. Tuck

Bronkhorst frames his review around the crucial issue of hermeneutics, or the theory and method of interpreting texts, particularly in the context of Indology and philosophical Sanskrit works. He notes that while hermeneutics is a popular topic, few books address the specific challenges faced by scholars of Indian philosophy.

Critique of Andrew P. Tuck's "Comparative Philosophy and the Philosophy of Scholarship":

Bronkhorst finds Tuck's book interesting for its focus on the prejudices and presuppositions (which Tuck calls "isogesis") that influence scholarly interpretations. Tuck argues that scholars often unconsciously "read into" texts, revealing more about themselves than the text. Bronkhorst agrees that this is a valid observation and that scholars should strive to be aware of their biases.

However, Bronkhorst criticizes Tuck for failing to provide adequate arguments to support his radical conclusions. Tuck suggests that scholars' efforts to overcome their biases and achieve objective interpretations are ultimately futile, creating an "illusion of a progressive increase in knowledge." Bronkhorst argues that Tuck underestimates the possibility of refining understanding through rigorous engagement with the exact wording of the text and through mutual criticism within the scholarly community. He believes that through this process, scholars can indeed discard false interpretations and move closer to the correct meaning, even if perfect recovery is impossible.

Bronkhorst also points out that Tuck's chosen example, the interpretation of Nāgārjuna, might not be the best illustration of the difficulties of crossing cultural boundaries. He suggests that the Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika school's texts are generally clearer and offer fewer interpretive challenges. Bronkhorst offers the example of the Nirukta, where a more accurate, non-historical interpretation of its etymologies was achieved by a close reading of the text, contradicting the initial Western, historical linguistic interpretation. This example demonstrates that improved interpretations can be reached and are not necessarily beholden to contemporary Western thought.

Ultimately, Bronkhorst finds Tuck's position to be hesitant and lacking in concrete advice, suggesting that Tuck is "carried away by some fashionable ideas" but doesn't fully commit to their implications. He finds Tuck's warning against "relativism" and his acknowledgment of the importance of questioning presuppositions to be in tension with his overall critique of traditional scholarship.

Critique of Claus Oetke's "Zur Methode der Analyse philosophischer Sūtratexte":

Bronkhorst contrasts Oetke's book with Tuck's, stating that Oetke is not interested in hermeneutical debates but rather in the practical challenges of interpreting obscure philosophical sūtra texts. Oetke's goal is to find the "real meaning" of these texts.

Bronkhorst finds Oetke's proposed method to be a complete novelty and highly problematic. Oetke suggests a systematic approach of first tracing all possible meanings of individual sūtras and then searching for plausible combinations, which Bronkhorst calls an "atomistic" approach. Bronkhorst argues that this method overlooks the creative element in interpretation and reduces it to a mechanical enumeration of possibilities.

He criticizes Oetke's overemphasis on logical possibilities and his underestimation of historical context. Bronkhorst highlights Oetke's principle of not interpreting texts in light of others, which he finds limiting. He provides numerous examples of how the "light of a lamp" analogy is used across various Indian philosophical texts to interpret the Nyāya Sūtra, demonstrating the value of comparative interpretation. Bronkhorst argues that Oetke's refusal to consider parallel texts "blurs differences" and contributes to a "tendency towards making things uniform."

Bronkhorst also takes issue with Oetke's rejection of the principle of unitary authorship for sūtra texts, finding his pronouncements on this matter to be "amazing." He questions what kind of evidence Oetke would consider valid to support textual unity.

Finally, Bronkhorst observes that Oetke tends to abstract statements from their context, prioritizing logically possible interpretations over those that best fit the cultural and historical context. He concludes that while Oetke's approach might occasionally rectify interpretations overly influenced by context, he provides no examples to support this.

Overall Comparison and Conclusion:

Bronkhorst concludes by framing Tuck and Oetke as representing two opposite extremes:

• Tuck believes it's impossible to break away from one's own cultural universe and truly enter that of ancient Indian authors.
• Oetke seems to deny the existence of such a cultural barrier and seeks a mechanical method for interpretation.

Bronkhorst asserts that neither extreme is justified. He believes that we can, in many cases, get close to the intended meaning of a text, but success is not guaranteed by a fixed method. He reiterates that creativity is essential to reading any text, and this creativity, when grounded in a strict confrontation with the text's wording, can lead us closer to its meaning. He sees this as a balance between Tuck's pessimism and Oetke's methodological optimism.