Linde Classique Et Le Dialogue Des Religions

Here is a comprehensive summary of the provided text from "L'Inde Classique Et Le Dialogue Des Religions" by Johannes Bronkhorst:

This text, by Johannes Bronkhorst of the University of Lausanne, explores the intellectual dialogue and mutual influence between different religions in classical India, primarily focusing on Buddhism, Brahmanism, and Jainism. The author highlights that this interaction was not one of simple exclusion or mutual misunderstanding, but rather a profound and sustained engagement where different religious traditions critically examined and influenced each other.

Bronkhorst emphasizes that this dynamic dialogue is a rare phenomenon in world history and that the religions in classical India, despite their distinct doctrines, shared a common cultural sphere and underlying assumptions. He notes that modern scholars, often non-Indians, are more readily struck by these shared perspectives than the ancient Indians themselves, who may have taken them for granted.

To illustrate this point, Bronkhorst delves into the work of Uddyotakara, a Brahmanical philosopher from the 6th or 7th century CE, who critiqued Buddhist philosophy. Uddyotakara's arguments often centered on the interpretation of Buddhist scriptures, particularly regarding the Buddhist denial of an "ātman" (soul).

Key Arguments and Examples from Uddyotakara:

• Critique of Buddhist "Anātman" Doctrine: Uddyotakara scrutinizes Buddhist texts that state "I am not matter," "I am not sensation," etc., which are interpreted by Buddhists as a denial of the soul. He argues that these phrases, particularly the "I," are actually negating specific constituents of the person (the skandhas), not the general concept of "I" or the soul itself. He contends that if Buddhists truly denied the soul, they would need to deny the general concept, not just specific instances.
• The "I" and its Object: Uddyotakara insists that words must refer to existing objects. He questions the Buddhist assertion of "no soul" (nāsti ātmā), arguing that the words themselves, particularly "soul" (ātman), imply the existence of an object. He believes that if the soul were denied, the word "soul" would be meaningless, a concept he rejects.
• The "Correspondence Principle": Bronkhorst identifies Uddyotakara's reliance on what he terms the "correspondence principle." This principle asserts that words in a sentence must correspond to elements in the situation described by that sentence. For Uddyotakara, and for many Indian thinkers, Sanskrit was considered the language of the gods or sages, inherently possessing this correspondence. Therefore, the existence of a word like "soul" in Sanskrit was proof of the soul's existence.
• The Problem of Production and the Nyaya Solution: Uddyotakara also uses arguments based on the production of objects, such as "a mat is being made." This led to the question of what the word "mat" refers to when the mat itself does not yet exist. While some Buddhist thinkers would reject the principle of correspondence in such cases, the Nyaya school (Uddyotakara's school) proposed that words refer to the universal or genus of things, which exists eternally, thus resolving the problem without abandoning the correspondence principle. This allowed them to maintain a common-sense view of the world.
• Uddyotakara's Scholarly Approach: Bronkhorst notes that Uddyotakara was not dismissive of his opponents. He actively searched Buddhist scriptures for passages that could be used to critique their doctrines, demonstrating a deep engagement with their texts rather than superficial criticism based on prejudice. His arguments, while critical, were often rooted in shared assumptions prevalent among Indian thinkers of his time.

Bronkhorst concludes by reiterating that the interactions between these ancient Indian religions were characterized by dialogue and ongoing listening, even amidst profound disagreement. He sees the examples of interreligious dialogue from India as some of the most valuable in demonstrating how different traditions can engage in critical discussion and intellectual evolution. The text underscores that the core of this interaction was a shared intellectual landscape and a willingness to engage with opposing viewpoints, leading to significant intellectual developments within each tradition.