Pre-conference draft (v1, 2021 Sep) 1

‘Karma in and after Greater Magadha’ and ‘Karma in Brahmanism’:

An Indic analysis and response

मेघ क ाणसु रम्, Megh Kalyanasundaram

Abstract

Is Karma a Vedic concept or not? Is it the case that pre-Buddhist Vedic literature contains no
trace of rebirth and karmic retribution? This paper explores answers to the above questions in the
context of and in response to positions taken by Johannes Bronkhorst in his essays 'Karma in and
after Greater Magadha' and 'Karma in Brahmanism'.

Keywords: Karma, Chronology, Buddhism, Upaniṣad-s, Greater Magadha, Indic

(Paper written in response to this call for papers: https://indica.org.in/conference-on-western-buddhism-call-for-papers/)

Pre-conference draft (v1, 2021 Sep) 2

I Preliminaries

This paper comprises three sections: Preliminaries, Analysis, and Conclusion. To increase
the fidelity of the title of this paper, two points merit mentions upfront: first, ‘Karma in and after
Greater Magadha’ (essay 1, henceforth) and ‘Karma in Brahmanism’ (essay 2, henceforth) are
both titles of essays in a book titled Karma1 by author Johannes Bronkhorst2; and second, by the
usage of the word Indic, I roughly imply “of or relating to the Indian subcontinent”3 but do not
imply only “of, relating to, or constituting the Indo-Aryan branch of the Indo-European
languages”4.

II Analysis

First, some disclaimers: this paper does not claim to have dealt with all original
postulations (or even the most important ones) put forth by Dr. Bronkhorst in essays 1 and 2. In
the interest of maximizing fair representation and minimizing misrepresentations, statements of
Dr. Bronkhorst will be included verbatim as far as possible (with consciously minimal
paraphrasing, if any) and responses will strive to be pointed and to stay clear of any ad-hominem

1
Bronkhorst (2011a)

It would not be out of place to bring to fore here, what Dr. Bronkhorst has declared, in a 2011 paper
(Indology, what is it good for?), what he sees as one of his roles, namely, to “defend the enlightenment
values”:

“We have a far more important role to play, viz., to defend the Enlightenment values that we consider vital
for the society we live in” (Bronkhorst 2011b:119) [Emphasis added]

https://applicationspub.unil.ch/interpub/noauth/php/Un/UnPers.php?PerNum=3139&LanCode=8&menu=c
oord Accessed on Sep 12, 2021

3
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Indic Accessed on Sep 12, 2021. To be more specific, the
geography implied by the word Indic, for me, is the outline of the shape of the space that emerges from
the description of Bhāratavarṣa in 63 contiguous verses {see verses 06010005a to 06010068c in
Kalyanasundaram (2020e:6-8)} of the critical edition of the Mahābhārata.

4
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Indic Accessed on Sep 12, 2021. My interpretation of Indic
includes Tamizh, as much as it does Sanskrit, and other languages.
Pre-conference draft (v1, 2021 Sep) 3

whatsoever. Needless to say, critical engagement with specific arguments from his scholarship5
should be seen for just what they are, and, by themselves, should not be construed either as a
critical assessment of his entire body of work or an acceptance of all portions of his work not
contested in this paper.

In essay 1, Dr. Bronkhorst has written the following about what he considers one of the
most distinctive features of the culture of the so-called Greater Magadha6:

Excerpt 1: “One of the most distinctive features of the culture of Greater Magadha was the belief
in rebirth and karmic retribution.” (Bronkhorst 2011a:8)

5
For some previous engagement with Dr. Bronkhorst’s scholarship, particularly with regard to his
arguments for revising the chronological epoch of Yāska’s Nirukta, see Kalyanasundaram (2020a, 2020d)
One excerpt each from the above papers are included below:

“Now if rgvedaḥ sūktaṃ and kauṣītaki upaniṣad can contain ळ ( ḻ) and yet antedate Pāṇinī without being
impacted by the absence of ळ ( ḻ) in aṣṭādhyāyīsūtrapāṭhaḥ, dhātupāṭhaḥ, śabdapāṭhaḥ,
pāṇinīyaliṅgānuśāsanam, why should absence of ळ ( ḻ) in aṣṭādhyāyīsūtrapāṭhaḥ, dhātupāṭhaḥ,
śabdapāṭhaḥ, pāṇinīyaliṅgānuśāsanam necessitate that Yāska be posterior to Pāṇinī, as Bronkhorst seems
to be arguing? In view of I-V above, I don’t see why the epoch of Yāska must be made hostage to what
Bronkhorst sees as the absence of ळ ( ḻ) in Pāṇinī’s grammar. Without clarification from Bronkhorst (or
anyone who understands his argument and can point out what I might be missing), I surely cannot see how
the aforementioned absence, and its presence in Yāska’s Nirukta, can serve as some sort of a clinching
evidence to establish Pāṇinī’s priority over Yāska and therefore place Yāska around c. 3rd century BCE. In
fact, the presence of ळ ( ḻ) in other texts before 400 BCE could perhaps lend credibility to arguments that
place nirukta before 400 BCE.” (Kalyanasundaram 2020a:19)

“The Nirukta, one of the six Vedāṅga-s, is considered the “Ear of the Vedapuruṣa” (Sarasvati, 2008, p. 345),
a characterisation that clearly establishes its absolute essentiality to and importance in the Vedic tradition, a
tradition that has remained unbroken over several millennia to this date. The broadest characterisation of
Yāska’s Nirukta that I have come across, by any scholar from outside of the Vedic tradition, is by Zilberman
who called it “polythematic” (Zilberman, 1988, 90). Despite such a characterisation, despite being described
as "... the world's first text of interpretation..." (Kapoor, 2013, 94), 90% of respondents to a Twitter poll
[n=943 (if that is anything to go by), 24 hours duration]# had not even heard of the Nirukta until that poll!
Such being the situation and given the academic attempts to revise downwards the epoch of the Nirukta
itself, through this paper, along with (Kalyanasundaram 2020a), an attempt has been made 1) to
demonstrate the weakness of arguments that have attempted to push the epoch of the Nirukta to after the
fifth century BCE 2) to shine a spotlight on this text, of no small global significance, by foregrounding its
relevance to i) global histories of Science (Astronomy, Metallurgy, Optics), Technology & Philosophy ii) Indic
history of Writing & Knowledge Systems and iii) the chronology of Dharmasūtra-s and Dharmaśāstra-s.”
(Kalyanasundaram 2020d:10)

6
The following is part of Dr. Bronhorst’s description of the geography of the so-called Greater Magadha:

“The region east of the Vedic homeland, that is, east of the confluence of the Ganges and the Jumna (sic.),
in the eastern Ganges plane (sic.), may conveniently be called Greater Magadha. … The culture of Greater
Magadha was in many respects different from Vedic culture, whose heartland was situated to its west.”
(Bronkhorst 2011a:7)
Pre-conference draft (v1, 2021 Sep) 4

He then goes on to add the following about the so-called Brahmanism vis-a-vis rebirth and
karmic retribution :

Excerpt 2: “Brahmanism absorbed in due time the belief in rebirth and karmic retribution (see
below)...” (ibid.)

On what the so-called Brahmanism had been, its geography and its relationship with the Veda,
Dr. Bronkhorst has included the following in essay 2:

Excerpt 3: “During the period in which Jainism, Buddhism, and Ajivikism arose, Brahmanism
belonged primarily to a geographically limited area, with its heartland in the middle and western
part of the Ganges plain. It was in this region that Brahmanism had been a culture of a largely
hereditary class of priests, the Brahmins, …. These same Brahmins memorized and preserved the
Veda, a large corpus of literature concerned primarily with their sacrificial activities (see the
boxed text below).… Brahmanism had been a priestly religion with heavy emphasis on elaborate
sacrifices. ” (Bronkhorst 2011a:33) [Emphasis added]

Excerpt 4: “The Veda constitutes the sacred literary heritage of the Brahmins ...” (Bronkhorst
2011a:35)

In the boxed text (referred to above, in bold), which occurs in a subsection titled Absence in
Vedic Literature7 (Bronkhorst 2011a:35), he includes the following:

Excerpt 5: “Sometimes, especially in those relatively recent portions known by the name
Upanishads (presumably more recent than the founders of Jainism and Buddhism),...”
(Bronkhorst 2011a:36) [Emphasis added]

Excerpt 6: “It has long been taken for granted (or rather argued on the basis of invalid arguments)
that the whole Vedic corpus preceded the time of the Buddha (who appears to have died soon
after 400 B.C.E). This position may now have to be abandoned. It is becoming clear, for
example, that a Middle Vedic text such as Aitareya Brahmana is composed in the language
closer to the language described by the grammarian Panini (350 B.C.E or later) than any

7
Essay 2, that is Karma in Brahmanism, is organised by Dr. Bronkhorst into 4 subsections: 1) an untitled
introductory passage 2) Absence in Vedic Literature 3) Brahmanical Resistance and 4) Absorption in
Brahmanism
Pre-conference draft (v1, 2021 Sep) 5

other text. The two major Upanishads—the Brihadaranyaka and the Chandogya—must be
more recent, and this can indeed be supported with strong independent arguments for the
former of these two, which may not have reached anything like its present form until after
Patañjali, another grammarian, who lived in the middle of the second century B.C.E.”
(Bronkhorst 2011a:37) [Emphasis added]

Outside of the “boxed text” and after it, Dr. Bronkhorst has included the following statements,
vis-a-vis the chronological epochs of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad and the Chāndogya
Upaniṣad, in a subsection titled Absorption into Brahmanism (Bronkhorst 2011a:39):

Excerpt 7: “About this knowledge, the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (6.2), presumably dating
from the last two centuries B.C.E, states the following:...” (ibid.) [Emphasis added]

Excerpt 8: “A parallel passage occurs in another later-Vedic text, roughly from the
same time, the Chandogya Upanishad (5.10):...” (Bronkhorst 2011a:41) [Emphasis
added]

Table 1 (below) summarizes the chronological information seen thus far:

Dr. Bronkhorst’s words Summary Epoch

“Soon after 400 B.C.E.” 400 B.C.E. - 350 B.C.E. Death of Buddha

“350 B.C.E or later” ~ 350 B.C.E. or later Pāṇini

“Middle of the second century B.C.E.” ~ 150 B.C.E. Patañjali

“Brihadaranyaka...may not have reached anything like After 150 B.C.E. Bṛhadāraṇyaka,
its present form until after Patañjali” Chāndogya

“Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (6.2), presumably dating

from the last two centuries B.C.E.”

“A parallel passage occurs in another later-Vedic text,

roughly from the same time, the Chandogya
Upanishad”
Pre-conference draft (v1, 2021 Sep) 6

I will come back to Table 1 after the following points about where Dr. Bronkhorst himself sees
evidence for rebirth and karmic retribution in (the so-called) Brahmanical literature and where, in
his view, the evidence either does not exist or is incomplete and unclear. One way to go about
this is to follow the structure of the essay Karma in Brahmanism, which contains (as may have
been seen in footnote 7 above) the following subsections: 1) an untitled introductory passage 2)
Absence in Vedic Literature 3) Brahmanical Resistance and 4) Absorption in Brahmanism. The
following excerpt of Dr. Bronkhorst can be seen as a clear dividing-line, with nothing in the
essay before this excerpt constituting what Dr. Bronkhorst would accept as clear evidence for
rebirth and karmic retribution in the so-called Brahmanical literature and some lines in the essay
after this excerpt constituting what he might be willing to admit as acceptable evidence for
karma theory in what he calls Brahmanism. That dividing-line excerpt remarked about just
above, which occurs in the final subsection of the essay Absorption into Brahmanism, is the
following:

Excerpt 9: “Our discussion so far shows that the first Brahmanical attempts to absorb the
new ideas were clumsy. In the passages considered, only bits and pieces had been taken over
and given a Brahmanical shape. .... This changed subsequently.” (Bronkhorst 2011a:43)
[Emphasis added]
Pre-conference draft (v1, 2021 Sep) 7

To make the points I am about to make more verifiable for a reader without access to Dr.
Bronkhorst’s book, including the above image, becomes necessary. From the image above, it
should be evident that after the sentence “This changed subsequently” (highlighted in yellow)
and before the sentence commencing with “In other words,..” (also highlighted in yellow), Dr.
Bronkhorst has invoked “...more recent passages from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad…”
(Bronkhorst 2011a:43). At least the following points merit to be noted here:

1. Dr. Bronkhorst does not cite directly from the primary-source (that is, in this case the
Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad) in the language of the primary-source, but has included a
translation
2. For the translation he has included, he includes no referencing:
a. There is no number included which can help a reader easily locate the excerpt in
the primary-source text
b. It is not clear whether this is his own translation or another person’s translation
(see footnote 9 of this paper for a guesstimate about the possible source)
c. There are no footnotes or endnotes for the excerpt in the image above that can
enhance verifiability

Thanks to the digital search facility and the following pdf on the SOAS University of London
web domain (https://www.soas.ac.uk/south-asia-institute/keywords/file24806.pdf)8, which
showed up when I searched for the text “a man turns into something good by good action ...”
(Bronkhorst 2011a:43)9, it was possible to deduce that the reference number is perhaps 3.2.13.
The primary-source text of 3.2.13 (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad) reads thus:

8
See p.3: “‘A man turns into something good by good action and into something bad by bad action.’
(3.2.13)”. Web archive version of this link:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210809115027/https://www.soas.ac.uk/south-asia-institute/keywords/file24
806.pdf

9
In fact, the translation “a man turns into something good by good action and into something bad by bad
action” appears as-is in Patrick Olivelle’s translation (see Olivelle 1998:81) of 3.2.13 of the
Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad.
Pre-conference draft (v1, 2021 Sep) 8

“या व ेित होवाच य ा पु ष मृत ाि ं वाग ेित वातं ाण ुरािद ं मन ं िदशः ो ं पृिथवी
शरीरमाकाशमा ौषधील मािन वन ती े शा अ ु लोिहतं च रे त िनधीयते ायं तदा पु षो भवती ाहर
सौ ह मातभागाऽऽवमेवैत वेिद ावो न नावेत जन इित तौ हो म यां च ते तौ ह यदू चतुः कम
है व तदू चतुरथ ह य शसतुः कम है व त शसतुः पु ो वै पु ेन कमणा भवित पापः पापेनेित ततो ह
जार ारव आतभाग उपरराम।

yājñavalkyeti hovāca yatrāsya puruṣasya mṛtasyāgniṁ vāgapyeti vātaṁ prāṇaścakṣurādityaṁ

manaścandraṁ diśaḥ śrotraṁ pṛthivī śarīramākāśamātmauṣadhīrlomāni vanaspatīnkeśā apsu
lohitaṁ ca retaśca nidhīyate kvāyaṁ tadā puruṣo bhavatītyāhara saumya
hastamārtabhāgā''vamevaitasya vediṣyāvo na nāvetatsajana iti tau hotkramya mantrayāṁcakrate
tau ha yadūcatuḥ karma haiva tadūcaturatha ha yatpraśasatuḥ karma haiva tatpraśasatuḥ puṇyo
vai puṇyena karmaṇā bhavati pāpaḥ pāpeneti tato ha jāratkārava ārtabhāga upararāma

"Yajnavalkya," said he, "when the vocal organ of this dead person merges in fire, the nose in air,
the eye in the sun, the mind in the moon, the ear in the quarters, the body in the earth, the akasa
(space) in the heart in the external akasa, the hair on the body in the herbs, the hair on the head in
the trees and the blood and semen are deposited in water, where is that person then?" Yajnavalkya
said: "Give me your hand, dear Artabhaga. We shall decide this between ourselves; we cannot do
it in a crowd." Then they went out and deliberated and what they talked about was karma
(work) and what they praised was karma: one becomes good through good karma and evil
through evil karma. Thereupon Artabhaga, of the line of Jaratkaru, held his peace.”10 [Emphasis
added]

It would be worthwhile, at this point, to consider more elaborately, what the SOAS web domain
pdf includes about where the theory of karma first occurs:

10
https://upanishads.org.in/upanishads/12/3/2/13 Accessed on Sep 12, 2021
Pre-conference draft (v1, 2021 Sep) 9
Pre-conference draft (v1, 2021 Sep) 10

It is quite clear that when Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 3.2,1311, 4.4.712 and all of 6.2 {please
note that all these references are seen in the excerpts immediately above} (from 6.2.213
onwards) are read together, there is clear evidence for karmic retribution (3.2.13) and
ethicized rebirth (4.4.7, 6.2.2 onwards). While the pdf on the SOAS web domain is
author-less and date-less, it should be noted Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan has cited
3.2.13 of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad in footnote 2 to the following excerpt from the
chapter Karma and Rebirth in his book The Principal Upaniṣads, first published in the
early 1950s:

Excerpt 10: “Belief in rebirth has persisted, at any rate, from the time of the Upaniṣads.
It is a natural development from the views of the Vedas and the Brāhmaṇas and
receives articulate expression in the Upaniṣads.[1] … In truth, a man becomes good by
good works and evil by evil works.[2]”

11
https://upanishads.org.in/upanishads/12/3/2/13 “या व ेित होवाच य ा पु ष मृत ाि ं वाग ेित वातं
ाण ुरािद ं मन ं िदशः ो ं पृिथवी शरीरमाकाशमा ौषधील मािन वन ती े शा अ ु लोिहतं च रे त िनधीयते ायं तदा पु षो
भवती ाहर सौ ह मातभागाऽऽवमेवैत वेिद ावो न नावेत जन इित तौ हो म यां च ते तौ ह यदू चतुः कम है व तदू चतुरथ ह
य शसतुः कम है व त शसतुः पु ो वै पु ेन कमणा भवित पापः पापेनेित ततो ह जार ारव आतभाग उपरराम ॥ "Yajnavalkya,"
said he, "when the vocal organ of this dead person merges in fire, the nose in air, the eye in the sun, the mind in the
moon, the ear in the quarters, the body in the earth, the akasa (space) in the heart in the external akasa, the hair on
the body in the herbs, the hair on the head in the trees and the blood and semen are deposited in water, where is that
person then?" Yajnavalkya said: "Give me your hand, dear Artabhaga. We shall decide this between ourselves; we
cannot do it in a crowd." Then they went out and deliberated and what they talked about was karma (work) and what
they praised was karma: one becomes good through good karma and evil through evil karma. Thereupon Artabhaga,
of the line of Jaratkaru, held his peace.” Accessed on Sep 12, 2021

12
https://upanishads.org.in/upanishads/12/4/4/7 “तदे ष ोको भवित। यदा सव मु े कामा येऽ िद ि ताः ॥ अथ
म ऽमृतो भव सम ुत इित॥ त थाऽिहिन नी व ीके मृता ा शयीतैवमेवेद शरीर शेतेऽथायमशरीरोऽमृतः ाणो ैव तेज
एव सोऽहं भगवते सह ािन ददामीित होवाच जनको वैदेहः ॥ "Regarding this there are the following verses: "When all the
desires that dwell in his heart are got rid of, then does the mortal man become immortal and attain Brahman in this
very body.' "Just as the slough of a snake lies, dead and cast away, on an ant-hill, even so lies this body. Then the
self becomes disembodied and immortal Spirit, the Supreme Self (Prana), Brahman, the Light." Janaka, Emperor of
Videha, said: "I give you, venerable Sir, a thousand cows."” Accessed on Sep 12, 2021

13
https://upanishads.org.in/upanishads/12/6/2/2 “वे यथेमाः जाः य ो िव ितप ा ३ इित नेित होवाच वे ो यथेमं लोकं
पुनराप ा ३ इित नेित है वोवाच वे ो यथासौ लोक एवं ब िभः पुनः पुनः य न संपूयता ३ इित नेित है वोवाच वे ो यित ामा ा
तायामापः पु षवाचो भू ा समु ाय वद ी३ इित नेित है वोवाच वे ो दे वयान वा पथः ितपदं िपतृयाण वा य ृ ा दे वयानं वा प ानं
ितप े िपतृयाणं वािप िह न ऋषेवचः ुतम्। े सृती अ णवं िपतृणामहं दे वानामुत म ानाम्। ता ािमदं िव मेज मेित यद रा िपतरं
मातरं चेित नाहमत एकंचन वेदेित होवाच॥ The king said: "Do you know how people, after departing from this life, proceed
on different paths?" "No," he replied. "Do you know how they return to this world?" "No," he replied. "Do you know
why the other world is never filled up even though so many people go there again and again?" "No," he replied. "Do
you know after how many offerings of oblations the water (the liquid oblation) becomes endowed with a human voice,
rises up and speaks?" "No," he replied. "Do you know the means of access to the path leading to the gods or to that
leading to the Manes, that is to say, through what deeds men attain the path leading to the gods or that leading to the
Manes? We have heard the following words of the Mantra: 'I have heard of the two paths for men, one leading to the
Manes and the other to the gods. Going along them they (departed souls) are united with their destination. They (the
paths) lie between the father (heaven) and the mother (earth).' Svetaketu said: "I do not know even one of these."”
Accessed on Sep 12, 2021
Pre-conference draft (v1, 2021 Sep) 11

Dr. Radhakrishnan’s point in bold above—“It is a natural development from the views of the
Vedas and the Brāhmaṇas and receives articulate expression in the Upaniṣads”—is one way to
think about an answer to the first question in the abstract—Is Karma a Vedic concept or not?—at
the very least insofar as rebirth goes. It, therefore, merits foregrounding his footnotes [1] and [2]:

(Radhakrishnan 1994:115)

Dr. Radhakrishnan is certainly not alone in seeing connections with early Vedic literature, as seen
in footnote [1] above. Consider, for instance, all the evidence that precedes the following excerpt
from a section titled Conclusion: The Karma Doctrine in the Context of Brāhmaṇic thought in
Herman Tull’s book The Vedic Origins of Karma:

Excerpt 11: “In investigating karma's earliest manifestations in the Upaniṣads I have
sought primarily to isolate the Vedic antecedents of karma and, thereby, to show that karma
does have a prehistory in Vedic thought, an understanding of which is critical to an
understanding of the karma doctrine in its earliest appearances in the Upaniṣads. For, the
Upaniṣadic karma doctrine continues to develop the structures underlying Brāhmaṇic ritual
thought.” (Tull 1989:42) [Emphasis added]

Let it be recalled here, from the considerations seen in pp. 6-7 of this paper (refer above), that
3.2.13 of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad was deduced to be part of the evidence Dr. Bronkhorst
himself has cited to illustrate a change from, and in contrast to, the initial supposedly “clumsy”
(Bronkhorst 2011a:43) so-called “Brahmanical attempts” (ibid.) at absorbing ideas from “...the
people of the region and milieu to which Jainism, Buddhism, … belonged” (Bronkhorst
2011a:42). Let us also recall, from the considerations seen in p. 10 of this paper (refer above),
how 3.2,13, 4.4.7 and all of 6.2 (from 6.2.2 onwards) of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, when
read together, provide clear evidence for karmic retribution (3.2.13) and ethicized rebirth (4.4.7,
Pre-conference draft (v1, 2021 Sep) 12

6.2.2 onwards). In light of all that has been recalled above, including the fact that Dr. Bronkhorst
has himself cited evidence from the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad to suggest positive evidence for
karma theory in Brahmanical texts (notwithstanding that he alleges “absorption”), let us now see
the following claims of Dr. Bronkhorst, found right at the top of the subsection Absence in Vedic
Literature:

Excerpt 12: “Turning first to Vedic literature, it is clear that this literature was already old when
Buddhism and the other currents we have came into existence. This literature contains no trace
of the notion of rebirth and karmic retribution. The few hints at a belief in rebirth that some
scholars have brought to light are not accompanied by a belief in karmic retribution. … The
conclusion is justified that the antecedents of rebirth and karmic retribution (combined) are
not to be sought in Vedic literature.” (Bronkhorst 2011a:35) [Emphasis added]

An obvious question now begs itself: how is it possible to claim that Vedic literature contains no
trace of the notion of rebirth of karmic retribution when it is clear it is present, as just seen
earlier, in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad? The only way to do so is to declare that the
Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad is not Vedic. As though attempting to almost do so, Dr. Bronkhorst
does not include the evidence from the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad in the subsection Absence in
Vedic Literature (an inclusion which would have then made the title of the subsection untenable)
but includes it in the subsection Absorption into Brahmanism, even as he has himself used the
terminology “later-Vedic” to characterize another Upaniṣad, the Chāndogya. Over here, it would
be rather pertinent to foreground another excerpt from Tull’s section {(seen earlier) titled
Conclusion: The Karma Doctrine in the Context of Brāhmaṇic thought in Herman Tull’s book
The Vedic Origins of Karma} to note, in particular, his views a particular bias that stands at the
foundation of Western Indology and a result of that bias leading to the removal of the Upaniṣadic
tradition from its historical and conceptual context:

Excerpt 13: “In this chapter, I have emphasized the continuity of the Upaniṣadic and the
Brāhmaṇic traditions and, in particular, the continuity of the Upaniṣadic karma doctrine with the
Brāhmaṇic ritual world view. In part, I have emphasized the continuity of these traditions to
counter the pervasive bias against the Brāhmaṇas that stands at the foundation of Western
Indology. The result of this bias has been a tendency to remove the Upaniṣadic tradition
from its historical and conceptual context. In the case of the karma doctrine this failure to
investigate, or even to acknowledge, the Brāhmaṇic structures that continue to assert
Pre-conference draft (v1, 2021 Sep) 13

themselves in the thought of the Upaniṣads has been particularly damaging for scholars tended to
view the karma doctrine from its successors, which measure the moral efficacy of actions in all
contexts, rather than from its antecedents, which are concerned with the moral effects of ritual
action. By not understanding or by simply misrepresenting this Vedic substratum, scholars of an
earlier generation believed the appearance of the karma doctrine in the Upanisads meant that the
Brāhmaṇic notion of the rewards of the sacrifice was no longer considered to be effective; …”
(Tull 1989:41) [Emphasis added]

Now to the second question in the abstract: is it the case that pre-Buddhist Vedic
literature contains no trace of rebirth and karmic retribution? Even if one were to limit oneself to
the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad {and not go so far as the connections Dr. Radhakrishnan has
alluded to his footnote [1] (see image in p. 11 above) or Dr. Tull has alluded to in his book}, how
can it be the case the there is no trace of rebirth and karmic retribution in pre-Buddhist Vedic
literature, unless it can be conclusively established that relevant occurrences of karma {including
but not limited to 3.2.13} and portions attesting rebirth {including but not limited to 6.2} in the
the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad were composed after the life of the Buddha? Now is the time to
recall Dr. Bronkhorst’s chronology collated in Table 1 (see p. 5 above) and excerpts 5-7, that
precede the table. Notice that while Dr. Bronkhorst a) places the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (6.2)
to a period dating presumably (his word) “from the last two centuries B.C.E” (see excerpt 7 in
p.5 above) and b) mentions the existence of some, supposedly (my word), “strong independent
arguments” (see excerpt 6 in p.4-5 above) that establish why the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad
“...may not have reached anything like its present form until after Patañjali, ..., who lived in the
middle of the second century B.C.E...” (see excerpt 6 in p. 4-5 above), he neither explicitly
mentions those supposedly “strong independent arguments” nor does he include a reference to a
source where those supposedly “strong independent arguments” can be accessed. This is unlike
his attempt to revise downwards the chronology of Yāska’s Nirukta, in which case he had at
least made it possible to access his reasons, which have, though, subsequently been critiqued and
found wanting {see Kalyanasundaram (2020a, 2020d)}. Even Patrick Olivelle—whose attempts to
revise downwards the early chronology of the genres Dharmaśāstra-s and the Purāṇa-s have
recently come under scrutiny14—has written that the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad is “in all

14
See Kalyanasundaram (2020c, 2020d) for engagement vis-a-vis the Dharmaśāstra-s and
Kalyanasundaram (2020b) for an engagement vis-a-vis the Purāṇa-s.
Pre-conference draft (v1, 2021 Sep) 14

likelihood, pre-Buddhist” (Olivelle 1998:12). To mention Olivelle here is to not endorse his
chronological positions in-toto. At the same time, it cannot be anyone’s case, at least not an
empirically sound one, that Olivelle has any incentive to deliberately accord a higher antiquity to
the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, especially when his attempts to revise downwards the early
chronology of the Dharmaśāstra-s (amongst others) is quite evident. In sum, until and unless Dr.
Bronkhorst, or anyone else, can establish conclusively that the Bṛhadāraṇyaka
Upaniṣad—particularly all relevant occurrences of karma {including but not limited to 3.2.1315}
and portions attesting rebirth {including but not limited to 6.2}—is definitely post-Buddhist, Dr.
Bronkhorst’s presumption alone, that such is the case, cannot be, I reason, a rigorous case to
reach sweeping firm revisionist conclusions about rebirth and karmic retribution in Vedic sources
before the Buddha. Let it be noted here that establishing the above for the Bṛhadāraṇyaka
Upaniṣad alone would still not be sufficient because even the Chāndogya Upaniṣad is
considered to be pre-Buddhist, by many authors including Patrick Olivelle. There can be no
doubt that 5.10.716 of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad attests to a belief in both rebirth and karmic
retribution. In fact, Dr. Bronkhorst himself says there can be “no doubt” (see excerpt 14 below)
but for reasons best known to him, at least not evident from the essay, 5.10.7 of the Chāndogya

15
Another example of a relevant attestation from the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad: 4.4.5

https://upanishads.org.in/upanishads/12/4/4/5 स वा अयमा ा िव ानमयो मनोमयः ाणमय ुमयः ो मय पृिथवीमय

आपोमयो वायुमय आकाशमय ेजोमयोऽतेजोमयः काममयोऽकाममयः ोधमयोऽ ोधमयो धममयोऽधममयः सवमय दे तिददमयोऽदोमय
इित यथाकारी यथाचारी तथा भवित साधुकारी साधुभवित पापकारी पापो भवित पु ः पु ेन कमणा भवित पापः पापेन॥ अथो ख ा ः
काममय एवायं पु ष इित स यथाकामो भवित त तुभवित य तुभवित त म कु ते य म कु ते तदिभसंप ते॥ "That self is indeed
Brahman; it is also identified with the intellect, the mind and the vital breath, with the eyes and ears, with earth, water,
air and akasa, with fire and with what is other than fire, with desire and with absence of desire, with anger and with
absence of anger, with righteousness and unrighteousness, with all-it is identified, as is well known, with this (i.e.
what is perceived) and with that (i.e. what is inferred). According as it acts and according as it behaves, so it
becomes: by doing good it becomes good and by doing evil it becomes evil. It becomes virtuous through
virtuous action and evil through evil action. "Others, however, say that the self is identified with desire alone. As is its
desire, so is its resolution; and as is its resolution, so is its deed; and whatever deed it does, that it reaps.” [Emphasis
added] Accessed on Sep 12, 2021

It is perhaps 4.4.5 (included above) that Dr. Nayak meant to refer to in footnote [1] {which reads as
“Brhadaranyaka,Up. IV.45” (Nayak 2012:201)} of his paper The Doctrine of Karma in Hinduism: The
Nature of Retribution as Fundamental Principle.

16
https://upanishads.org.in/upanishads/11/5/10/7 “त इह रमणीयचरणा अ ाशो ह य े रमणीयां योिनमाप ेर ा णयोिनं
वा ि ययोिनं वा वै योिनं वाथ य इह कपूयचरणा अ ाशो ह य े कपूयां योिनमाप ेरन् योिनं वा सूकरयोिनं वा च ालयोिनं वा॥त इह
रमणीयचरणा अ ाशो ह य े रमणीयां योिनमाप ेर ा णयोिनं वा ि ययोिनं वा वै योिनं वाथ य इह कपूयचरणा अ ाशो ह य े कपूयां
योिनमाप ेरन् योिनं वा सूकरयोिनं वा च ालयोिनं वा॥ "Those whose conduct here on earth has been good will quickly
attain some good birth.... But those whose conduct here has been evil will quickly attain some evil birth....”
[Emphasis added] Accessed on Sep 12, 2021
Pre-conference draft (v1, 2021 Sep) 15

Upaniṣad does not find itself on that side of the subsection Absorption in Brahmanism, across
the dividing-line (dividing-line here being Excerpt 9 in this paper, see p. 6 above):

Excerpt 14: “Our passage is more outspoken with regard to rebirth and karmic retribution:
“people here whose behavior is pleasant can expect to enter a pleasant womb,...people of foul
behavior can expect to enter a foul womb.” There can therefore be no doubt that we are here
confronted with the belief in rebirth and karmic retribution, ....” (Bronkhorst 2011a:42)
[Emphasis added]

III Conclusion

The abstract of this paper commences with these two questions: 1) Is Karma a Vedic
concept or not? 2) Is it the case that pre-Buddhist Vedic literature contains no trace of rebirth and
karmic retribution? Premised on all the evidence and reasoning in the Analysis section of this
paper, I conclude, in relation to the first question, that one of Dr. Bronkhorst’s
conclusions—“The conclusion is justified that the antecedents of rebirth and karmic retribution
(combined) are not to be sought in Vedic literature” (Bronkhorst 2011a:35) {see excerpt 12 in p.
12 above}—is far from being “justified”, on counts more than one, including but not limited to
the evidence found in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad {3.2.13, 4.4.5, 4.4.7, 6.2 (6.2.2 onwards)}
and in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad {5.10.7}. As foregrounded in the Analysis section, Dr.
Radhakrishnan {in his essay Karma and Rebirth, see pp. 10-11 above} and Dr. Tull {in his book
The Karma Doctrine in the Context of Brāhmaṇic thought, see. pp. 11-13 above} are amongst
scholars who have presented evidence to show more ways (that is, beyond its presence in
Upaniṣad-s) in which the Karma doctrine can be seen as Vedic, including but limited to reasons
based on connections between the Upaniṣad-s and the Brāhmaṇa-s. At least in the essays named
in the title of this paper, I neither found any direct engagement, by Bronkhorst, with
Radhakrishnan and Tull’s evidence nor did I find any reference to any previous engagement with
their evidence, either in his own published and publicly accessible work or someone else’s (if
any of these exist, that is). Vis-a-vis the second question in the abstract, it was shown in the
Pre-conference draft (v1, 2021 Sep) 16

analysis section (see excerpts 5-8 in pp. 4-5 above, Table 1 in p. 5, and reasoning in pp. 13-15)
that Bronkhorst has presented no direct evidence, or even references to any direct evidence in
any previous work (if it exists, that is), as to how he has declared the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad
and the Chāndogya Upaniṣad to be post-Buddhist, in contradistinction to the positions of other
scholars, including but not limited to Patrick Olivelle. It is perhaps worth repeating here, for
emphasis, that Bronkhorst’s attempt to revise downwards, the chronological epoch of the
Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad and the Chāndogya Upaniṣad does not appear even as rigorous as his
attempt to revise downwards the chronology of Yāska’s Nirukta, in which case he had at least
made it possible to access his reasons, which have, though, subsequently been critiqued and
found wanting {see Kalyanasundaram (2020a, 2020d)}. Pending a transparent and a verifiable
engagement with all critical analyses presented in this paper, this attempt at reattribution of
Karma by Bronkhorst, as found in his essay Karma in Brahmanism, appears to be yet another
example of using near-unilateral changes to the chronology of Indic Sanskrit texts17, with
insufficient or no evidence, to not just lay the ground for (and/or propose) reattribution of
important concepts found in Sanātana Dharma’s (loosely, Hindu) textual corpus, but to also
malign the Vedic Dharma traditions by positing hypothetical, insufficiently substantiated
(sometimes wholly imagined) counter appropriation charges (to use Bronkhorst’s words,
“absorption”, and a “clumsy” appropriation at that for the most, apparently) on Vedic Dharma
traditions.

17
For another example, see Olivelle (2016), in which attempts to attribute the genesis of the entire
Dharmaśāstra genre itself, and some facets of the idea of dharma, to Buddhism. See Kalyanasundaram
(2020c) for an engagement with Olivelle’s attempt at the above reattribution and reasons for why his
attempt appears infirm.
Pre-conference draft (v1, 2021 Sep) 17

Bibliography

Bronkhorst, Johannes. 2011a. Karma. Honolulu: University Of Hawai’i Press.

———. 2011b. “Indology, What Is It Good For?” Zeitschrift Der Deutschen Morgenländischen
Gesellschaft 161 (1): 115–22.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263962587_Indology_what_is_it_good_for.
Kalyanasundaram, Megh. 2020a. “Reading Yāska’s Nirukta in 2020: Jottings of Consequence to
the Global History of Astronomy, Yāska’s Chronological Epoch and the Indic History of
Writing and Knowledge Systems.” Academia. July 2020.
https://www.academia.edu/43694407/Reading_Y%C4%81skas_Nirukta_in_2020_jotting
s_of_consequence_to_the_Global_history_of_astronomy_Y%C4%81skas_chronological
_epoch_and_the_Indic_history_of_writing_and_knowledge_systems.
———. 2020b. “An Analysis of Some Aspects of ‘Chronology’ in ‘the Early Upaniṣads’ and
Some Observations of Consequence to the Global History of Philosophy before C. 500
BCE.” Academia. August 2020.
https://www.academia.edu/43761472/An_analysis_of_some_aspects_of_Chronology_in_
The_Early_Upani%E1%B9%A3ads_and_some_observations_of_consequence_to_the_G
lobal_History_of_Philosophy_before_c_500_BCE.
———. 2020c. “The Earliest Textual Attestation of ‘Dharmaśāstra’ and More: An Analysis of
Chronology in ‘a Dharma Reader.’” Academia. November 2020.
https://www.academia.edu/44589423/The_earliest_textual_attestation_of_dharma%C5%
9B%C4%81stra_and_more_An_analysis_of_chronology_in_A_Dharma_Reader_.
———. 2020d. “A Case for a Place for Yāska’s Nirukta in Inclusive Global Histories of
Technology, Science, Gender Equality in Inheritance and an Argument of Consequence to
the Chronology of Some Smṛti Texts.” Prachi Prajna 6 (11).
———. 2020e. “‘India That Is Bharat…: One Country, Two Names’ and ‘the Concept of
Bhāratavarṣa and Its Historiographical Implications’: A Response.” Academia,
December.
https://www.academia.edu/45303222/_India_that_is_Bharat_One_Country_Two_Names
Pre-conference draft (v1, 2021 Sep) 18

_and_The_Concept_of_Bh%C4%81ratavar%E1%B9%A3a_and_Its_Historiographical_i
mplications_A_response.
Nayak, G.C. 2012. “The Doctrine of Karma in Hinduism: The Nature of Retribution as
Fundamental Principle Die Lehre Vom Karma Im Hinduismus: Die Natur Der Vergeltung
Als Fundamentalprinzip.” Endangst Und Erlösung 2 (January): 201–16.
https://doi.org/10.30965/9783846749739_011.
Olivelle, Patrick. 1998. THE EARLY UPANIṢADS: Annotated Text and Translation. New York,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. 2016. A Dharma Reader Classical Indian Law. New York Columbia University Press.
Radhakrishnan, Sarvepalli. 1994. The Principal Upaniṣads. First edition (1953). Delhi: Harper
Collins.
Tull, Herman W. 1989. The Vedic Origins of Karma: Cosmos as Man in Ancient Indian Myth and
Ritual. Albany: State University of New York Press.