Category Archives: conference reports

Posted on

IABS 2014 — Summary of my posts

For my first impressions concerning the first day at the IABS, with Kei Kataoka’s paper on apoha, see here.

For the first part of the second day, with the panel I organised on textual reuse within Buddhist literature, see here.

For the second part of the second day, with some thoughts on Buddhist epistemology, see here.

For the third part of the second day, with M. Sakai’s paper on dṛṣṭānta, see here.

For the third and forth days, with the panel on Indo-Sinic Buddhism, see here (Introduction, Katsura, Lusthaus) and here (Franco on the date of Dharmakīrti).

For the fifth day, with the panel on Buddhism and Philosophy of Mind, see here.

For the posts my readers and colleagues appreciated more, check here (and add your own likes and dislikes).

Posted on

Fifth day at the IABS: “Buddhism and Philosophy of Mind” panel, Siderits and Coseru

Today, I went to the panel on Buddhism and Philosophy of Mind, which was announced as involving Christian Coseru, Mark Siderits and Jonardon Ganeri. In fact, Ganeri could not make it (“obviously he did not feel fit for the match” commented Coseru at the beginning, among general laughter), but this had the beneficial consequence that there was a whole slot free for discussion.

Posted on

Third and forth day at the IABS: “Pramana Across Asia”: Introduction to the panel, Katsura, Lusthaus

The “Pramana across Asia” panel has been opened by Eli Franco, its convener, with the following hope: “In some years, through stimuli such as this panel, we will speak of Indo-Sinic Buddhism, just like we speak of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism”.

Posted on

Second day at the IABS 2014 in Vienna: The panel on textual reuse UPDATED

Yesterday was the day of our panel (meaning the panel on intertextuality within Buddhist literature organised by Cathy Cantwell, Jowita Kramer and me), which means that I spent most of the day there. The final discussion has been especially challenging and interesting, since

Posted on

On the Indian lack of distinction between linguistic and external reality

In his contribution to a recent symposium (Does Asia think differently? –Symposium zu Ehre Ernst Steinkellners), as well as in many other publications of him (e.g., Langage et Réalité: sur un épisode de la pensée indienne, 1999), Johannes Bronkhorst answered that yes, there is a substantial difference between “our” thought and the Indian one, in so far as the latter does not distinguish between purely linguistic problems and genuine ones.

Posted on

Is interdisciplinarity easier for scholars of South Asian studies? On the 5th Coffee Break Conference

Last week in Rome the 5th Coffee Break Conference took place. During his introductory speech Andrew Ollett asked why was such a project, with an explicit emphasis on a interdisciplinary approach, born exactly among scholars and students of South Asian studies.

Self in Indian and Greek Philosophy

Lots of interesting people (and friends) will discuss the issue in July in Exeter.

Note that there will be an interesting methodological section: On which basis can one compare Greek and Indian philosophy? Because of their common origin? Because of a convergence in human thought?