The Dispute over “karma”: the Cultural Reception of the Indian Concept in Russian Philosophy in the Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

IF 0.2 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
Vladislav S. Razdyakonov
{"title":"The Dispute over “karma”: the Cultural Reception of the Indian Concept in Russian Philosophy in the Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries","authors":"Vladislav S. Razdyakonov","doi":"10.21146/0042-8744-2023-9-191-201","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The last third of the 19th century saw a widespread dissemination of Indian philosophical concepts in the European cultural area. The concept of “karma” of­fered a significant ethical and ontological alternative to both materialistic philos­ophy and classical theism and attracted special attention of the general public. The article aims to characterize the interpretation of karma in Russian indology and theosophy in the late 19th – early 20th centuries, and to reveal the key simi­larities and differences of its’ comparative methodology. The materials of the Rus­sian buddhologist F.I. Shcherbatskoy and one of the leaders of the theosophical current in Russia E.F. Pisareva represent main cases of the research. F.I. Shcher­batskoy and E.F. Pisareva looked forward to the neovitalistic concepts for justifi­cation of belief in the existence of spiritual evolution depending on internal rather than external factors. Indology and theosophy used European scientific concepts for a cultural translation of Indian philosophical concepts, but applied different bases of evidence (textual analysis and personal experience) and com­parative methodology. Indology sought, as it is seen in the case of F.I. Shcher­batskoy, to unfold the basics of “eternal philosophy” – just like the tradition of intercultural philosophy did – while theosophy believed it had already been revealed in the works of E.P. Blavatsky and applied it as tool of European cul­tural criticism.","PeriodicalId":46795,"journal":{"name":"VOPROSY FILOSOFII","volume":"160 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"VOPROSY FILOSOFII","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21146/0042-8744-2023-9-191-201","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The last third of the 19th century saw a widespread dissemination of Indian philosophical concepts in the European cultural area. The concept of “karma” of­fered a significant ethical and ontological alternative to both materialistic philos­ophy and classical theism and attracted special attention of the general public. The article aims to characterize the interpretation of karma in Russian indology and theosophy in the late 19th – early 20th centuries, and to reveal the key simi­larities and differences of its’ comparative methodology. The materials of the Rus­sian buddhologist F.I. Shcherbatskoy and one of the leaders of the theosophical current in Russia E.F. Pisareva represent main cases of the research. F.I. Shcher­batskoy and E.F. Pisareva looked forward to the neovitalistic concepts for justifi­cation of belief in the existence of spiritual evolution depending on internal rather than external factors. Indology and theosophy used European scientific concepts for a cultural translation of Indian philosophical concepts, but applied different bases of evidence (textual analysis and personal experience) and com­parative methodology. Indology sought, as it is seen in the case of F.I. Shcher­batskoy, to unfold the basics of “eternal philosophy” – just like the tradition of intercultural philosophy did – while theosophy believed it had already been revealed in the works of E.P. Blavatsky and applied it as tool of European cul­tural criticism.
“因果报应”之争:19世纪末20世纪初俄罗斯哲学对印度概念的文化接受
19世纪最后三分之一的时间里,印度哲学概念在欧洲文化区广泛传播。“业”的概念为唯物主义哲学和古典有神论提供了一个重要的伦理和本体论选择,并引起了公众的特别关注。本文旨在描述19世纪末至20世纪初俄罗斯印度教和神智学对因果报应的解释,并揭示其比较方法论的主要异同。俄罗斯佛教学者F.I. Shcherbatskoy和俄罗斯神智学思潮的领军人物之一E.F. Pisareva的资料代表了这一研究的主要案例。F.I. shcher - batsky和E.F. Pisareva期待用新资本主义的概念来证明精神进化的存在依赖于内部而不是外部因素。印度学和神智学使用欧洲科学概念对印度哲学概念进行文化翻译,但应用了不同的证据基础(文本分析和个人经验)和比较方法。正如在F.I. Shcher-batskoy的案例中所看到的那样,印度学寻求揭示“永恒哲学”的基础——就像跨文化哲学的传统所做的那样——而神智学认为它已经在E.P. Blavatsky的作品中得到了揭示,并将其作为欧洲文化批评的工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
VOPROSY FILOSOFII
VOPROSY FILOSOFII PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
50.00%
发文量
100
期刊介绍: "Вопросы философии" - академическое научное издание, центральный философский журнал в России. В настоящее время является органом Президиума Российской Академии Наук. Журнал "Вопросы философии" исторически тесно связан с Институтом философии РАН. Выходит ежемесячно. Журнал был основан в июле 1947 г. Интернет-версия журнала запущена в мае 2009 года.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信