Akshay Gupta

In this paper, I draw attention to various doctrines common to different Vedāntic traditions. In particular, I pay close attention to the doctrine of beginningless _karman_. I also note that this doctrine seems to stand in tension with Leibnizian Cosmological Arguments (LCAs) and Kalām Cosmological Arguments (KCAs). This tension arises because defenders of these arguments argue that an infinite causal regress or an actual infinite cannot be physically instantiated and because the doctrine of beginningless _karman_ seems to imply that such a regress or actual infinite can be physically instantiated. I address this tension by showing that not all interpretations of beginningless _karman_ involve an infinite causal regress or an actual infinite. I close this paper by highlighting a few features that Vedāntic traditions have that make them more resistant to some objections to LCAs and KCAs.

Traditionally, the problem of evil, in its various formulations, has been one of the strongest objections against perfect being theism. In the voluminous literature on this problem, the motif of evil has usually been discussed with respect to human flourishing. In recent decades more focused attention has been paid to animal suffering and the philosophical problems that such suffering poses for perfect being theists. However, this growing body of literature, in Anglo-American philosophical milieus, is largely aimed at sketching a specifically Christian or Christianity-inflected theodicy that would reconcile animal suffering with the existence of an omni-God. In contrast, there are few, if any, systematic attempts to put forth a Hindu theodicy that aims to offer morally justifiable reasons that God has for allowing animal suffering. In this article, we address this scholarly lacuna by illustrating how a Hindu perfect being theist might respond to the problem of animal suffering.

Debates about God’s personhood, or lack thereof, are central to philosophy of religion. This paper aims to advance these debates by presenting the “greatness of personhood argument” for God’s personhood and a dilemma for those who deny God’s personhood. I also consider various objections to this argument and this dilemma and argue that they fail. Notably, my reasoning in defence of personal theism is cross-cultural insofar as personal theists across various religious traditions can use it. Thus, this paper defends personal theism in a manner that can bring Western and non-Western theists into closer dialogue regarding the topic of God’s personhood.

In this paper, we defend universalism, which we understand to be the thesis that all individuals will eventually attain communion with God, in a Vedāntic context. We first outline the specific ontological commitments that our view requires, such as the doctrines of karman and reincarnation, and we note one Vedāntic tradition that holds to all these commitments. We then outline the conceptual merits of our view. We also argue that certain objections to universalism do not undermine our view, as reincarnation and karman provide a means for all individuals to eventually freely choose to devote themselves to God, making it extremely likely that all individuals will attain salvation.

The caste system has caused widespread oppression within Hinduism. In this paper, I analyze the Bhagavad Gītā (c. 500 BCE–200 CE) and the Bhāgavata Purāṇa (c. 9th century CE), two highly influential Hindu sacred texts, to understand how they conceptualize the relationship between caste and devotion (bhakti). I argue that there is a societal framework that does not maintain the caste system but which is consistent with these texts' soteriological vision and can be implemented in lieu of such a system. This framework demonstrates that for certain forms of Hindu religiosity, caste is not essential to uphold from a scriptural perspective. Given this framework, the caste system can be challenged and interrogated to a significant extent and alternative societal frameworks can be proposed. I also consider and respond to objections to the framework I put forth.

Within Hindu religious contexts, a guru plays a crucial soteriological role, and is sometimes viewed as being as good as God. Questions of a guru’s sphere of epistemic authority thus have far-reaching socioreligious implications. In this paper, I highlight one such implication within the Caitanya Vaiṣṇava tradition. I then analyze various Caitanya Vaiṣṇava texts in order to precisely define the parameters of a guru’s epistemic authority within this tradition. I suggest that the statements made by gurus within this tradition are of a bipartite nature and describe how an understanding of this bipartite nature can lead to social progress within the tradition. In particular, I highlight how the teachings of the Caitanya Vaiṣṇava tradition can be made consistent with contemporary socially progressive values. I also consider some objections and respond to these.

Abstract:The problem of evil is of significant concern to theologians and to philosophers of religion. Despite the extensive discussion this problem has received in various Anglo-American philosophical circles, relatively liĴ le aĴ ention has been paid to the theodical insights specifically of the Bhāgavatapurāṇa (ca. ninth–tenth centuries ѐ.ђ.). Here, it is sought to address this lacuna by highlighting certain theological insights within the Bhāgavatapurāṇa that offer explanations for the existence of suffering. These insights are also drawn upon in order to formulate a response to the evidential problem of evil. Although this is not an aĴ empt to construct a comprehensive theodicy with these textual materials, it is highlighted how the Bhāgavatapurāṇa can address certain dimensions of the evidential problem for evil, and some pathways are noted for further inquiry into the theodical insights of the Bhāgavatapurāṇa.

Popular imaginations and receptions of Hinduism often neglect to consider its theological dimensions that conceive of the divine reality along conceptual pathways analogous to those of the major Judeo-Christian religious traditions. Thus, within Western scholarship, there have been no systematic attempts to delineate central doxastic elements within the Caitanya Vaiṣṇava tradition by suggesting correlations with distinctive Christian concepts, and this scholarly lacuna within Caitanya Vaiṣṇavism restricts comparative theological dialogue between Caitanya Vaiṣṇavism and Christianity. In order to address this lacuna, I demonstrate that aspects of Caitanya Vaiṣṇavism’s theological framework can be conceptualized in conversation with their Christian counterparts. By illustrating certain parities between the theological frameworks of Caitanya Vaiṣṇavism and Christianity, I also aim to pave the way for further comparative theological dialogue between these two religious traditions. In particular, I propose that Caitanya Vaiṣṇavism’s theological framework enables the tradition to become a suitable dialogical partner to Christianity in comparative theodicy. I also suggest and put into practice a criterion that can be helpful for refining the comparative theodical exchanges between Caitanya Vaiṣṇavism and Christianity.

In the midst of the earth’s pressing climate catastrophe, the nexus between ecology and religion merits further investigation. In this article, I attempt to illuminate certain important aspects of this nexus by analyzing various Hindu eco-theological motifs, with a particular focus on those of the Hindu religious tradition known as Caitanya Vaiṣṇavism. I will compare and contrast the eco-theological motifs of Caitanya Vaiṣṇavism with those of other notable Hindu religious traditions and texts. Ultimately, I attempt to demonstrate that certain Caitanya Vaiṣṇava eco-theological motifs can, when properly interpreted and applied, serve as valuable environmentally oriented conceptual resources. I also argue that these eco-theological motifs can offset some of the conceptual pitfalls that limit the effectiveness of various pan-Hindu eco-theological motifs as conceptual resources for environmental amelioration. Although the Caitanya Vaiṣṇava eco-theological framework is not without conceptual hurdles, I nevertheless maintain that Caitanya Vaiṣṇava eco-theological motifs are worthy of further reflection.

Recently, Erik Baldwin and Tyler McNabb have brought Madhva's epistemological framework into active dialogue with Alvin Plantinga's religious epistemology and have argued that individuals within Madhva's tradition cannot make full use of Plantinga's epistemology, according to which, Christian belief resists de jure objections and can also have warrant. While I do not contest this specific claim, I demonstrate that an analysis of Madhva's epistemological framework reveals that this framework has its own resources through which it can resist de jure objections. I address various objections to the rationality of Mādhvic belief and conclude that there are no de jure objections to Mādhvic belief that are independent of de facto objections.