Indian Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions)

Rating:
Summary: Disappointing........
Review: 1. It was surprising to note that the book on Indian philosophy has no mention of great philosophers of Vedic India such as Yajnavalkya, VedaVyaasa, Kapil, Vasishtha etc. It took a very very simplistic approach towards pre-Buddha Vedic India's contribution to the Indian Philosphy. Yajnavalkya is considered to be the father of Indian philosophy and without his name, any book will remain incomplete however "brief introduction" it may be. Another frustrating point was TOTAL absence of Bhagwat Gita which can be called as the best summary of all the Indian philosophies like Sankhya, Karma Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, Gyaan Yoga etc.

2. Some Vedic terms mentioned in the book like Brahman and Yajna are also not portrayed properly. Brahmans were not merely the uppermost caste in the Varna system of Vedic period but they were those people who used to sacrifice their entire lives for the spiritual/social/cultural upliftment of the entire society, those who were the carriers of the Brahman (God). Like in every religion or culture, the original society got corrupted later on and Brahmin started misusing their knowledge. But it is important to mention about the foundations of the Vedic system. Similarly, Yajna is not merely a fire-ritual, but the root of Yajna is Yaj in Sanskrit which means Deva-Pooja(Deity-worship), Sangatikaran(Collecting people) and Daana(Donation). Therefore, by definition, Yajna involves honoring the Devas (people with divine qualities), gathering the masses, inspiring social and community feelings in them, and to donate wealth and knowledge. It is not just some rituals with the fire. It was a powerful social tool to unite the society and spread good moral values in it.

3. Another very objectionable paragraph is on page 23 of the same book. It is mentioned that Sanskrit and Vedas were exclusive authority of Brahmins. However the facts are: A basic text memorized by aspiring students to this day is the Amarakosha, whose author was a Buddhist. The works of leading Buddhist thinkers like Nagarjuna are also in Sanskrit. The one Jaina text held in equal regard by both the Digambara and the Shvetambara sects, the Tattvartha Sutra of Umasvati, is in Sanskrit. Nor were women debarred from studying Sanskrit: they are the authors of several poems and even epics, and one poetess, Vijjika (eighth century), in a verse, compares herself favorably even to the goddess Sarasvati. A medical treatise written by a woman was translated into Arabic in the eighth century by the order of Caliph Harun. Her Arabized name is given as Rusa. The core of substance in these misconceptions is the following. When Hindu civilization came under siege, as in the past thousand years, the preservation of the language fell to the lot of Brahmins, who made ritual use of it. This may have led to a misleading identification. Similarly, for about two thousand years (c. 400 B.C.E.-1800) women were debarred, at least in theory, from studying the Vedas, which are in pre-classical Sanskrit. This may have contributed to the misleading view that women could not study Sanskrit.

4. Another view-point which is not clearly present in the book is that the concept of mono-theism was present in Vedas much earlier than Buddhism. This is evident from this verse of RgVeda (I.164.46): The wise speak of the same One as Indra, Mitra, Varuna and Agni, and He has beautiful wings and great speed. There is one truth but the wise call it by different names such as Yama and Matarishvan and so forth. (Ekam Sat, Vipraha Bahudha Vadanti)

5. Many scholars mention that Upanishads and Gita are before Buddha. Also, according to Vishnu Purana Krishna Avtaar is before that of Buddha. Therfore, Krishna, Gita and Mahabharat are all before Buddha. And Gita has dozens of reference of Sanyasa(Renunciation), Moksha(Liberation) etc. This leads to the observation that it is Buddhism which borrowed many concepts from Vedic philosophy and not the other way round which the book is trying to make us believe.

Rating:
Summary: untrustworthy...............!
Review: Can u imagine a book on indian philosophies without a single mention about bhagavat-gita!!!!

This itself makes this book heavily pro-Buddhist!! No wonder, author's bio does indicate that she is a Buddhism scholar. I hope at least scholars could take an OBJECTIVE UN-BIASED stand.

sorry!

Rating:
Summary: Mentions Bhagavad Gita on Numerous Occasions
Review: Contrary to what another reviewer wrote, the book mentions the Bhagavad Gita as one of the canonical texts of certain Indian transitions. Prof. Hamilton warns against taking the positions of a particular strand of Indian thought and saying "this is true Hinduism."

Indeed, she questions whether Hinduism is a useful concept for discussing the historic traditions of India. Various forms of what we call Hinduism are very much at odds with each other and have different sources for their beliefs. For some the Vedantas are the core of Indian spirituality, for others it is the Gita.

Rating:
Summary: A Very Useful Overview of REAL Indian Philosophy
Review: Many of the negative reviews of this EXTREMELY USEFUL overview are highly sectarian. They typically confuse the general stream of Indian religous thought with parts of classical Indian thought that might be especially of interest to Western-trained PHILOSOPHERS. Philosophers and academic philosophy students comprise Hamilton's intended audience, and, for that audience, Hamilton could not have done a better job in the space this series afforded her. For what it is, I could not recommend anything on the market more highly than Hamilton's book.