Mindsets and Commentarial Conventions among Indian Buddhists
This article is in five sections. After a brief introduction, I examine Johannes Bronkhorst's hypothesis that postulation of a commentarial “mindset” may help to account for the persistence of errors that occur in medieval Indian root texts and in commentaries on those texts. Although aspects o...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Oxford University Press
[2015]
|
| In: |
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
Year: 2015, Volume: 83, Issue: 1, Pages: 210-235 |
| Online Access: |
Presumably Free Access Volltext (Verlag) Volltext (doi) |
| Summary: | This article is in five sections. After a brief introduction, I examine Johannes Bronkhorst's hypothesis that postulation of a commentarial “mindset” may help to account for the persistence of errors that occur in medieval Indian root texts and in commentaries on those texts. Although aspects of Bronkhorst's account are tenable, I argue that its overall conclusion is unhelpful and should be reassessed in light of the data provided in Buddhist commentaries and commentarial guides. In the article's third and fourth sections, I explore two instances of commentary that call into question the explanatory power of the commentarial mindset as sketched by Bronkhorst. The fifth section of the article suggests some previously overlooked resources for recovery of the conventions that governed the composition of commentaries among Indian Buddhists. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1477-4585 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: American Academy of Religion, Journal of the American Academy of Religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1093/jaarel/lfu109 |