 "A Required Text" | 2009-10-08 |
| - Reviewed By monmoth from AZ USA |
I earned a Master's in Religious Studies. This was a required text. As you can imagine, the debates over the points King raises were long and LOUD. Some of us couldn't believe the ideas that held currency back when Britain ruled the seas. Still less that they hold currency, laced with a heavy dose of fear, in the Industrial West today.
I would want to make this required reading in Business schools. Even if you think you'll never be faced with the responsibility of managing Indian, Pakistani, Chinese, Japanese &c personnel, the critiques King makes would help to raise a better class of leaders. |
| |
 "Eurocentric Neo-Orientalism posing as deep understanding" | 2007-06-07 |
| - Reviewed By Mr Sutapas Bhattacharya from London, UK |
Although this book is a mine of information on historical aspects of Neo-Hinduism and Neo-Buddhism it is a deeply misleading misrepresentation of Hindu-Buddhist understanding. King assumes his naive Western anti-essentialist Gadamerian social science ideology is superior to the phenomenological understanding of actual Hindus and Buddhists of the true nature of their traditions. The NeoHindu emphasis on Sankara is misleading as King notes but the NeoHindu understanding of Advaita (Nondualism) as the unifying philosophy behind the diverse traditions is correct as dualistic,theistic traditions are understood as based on incomplete mystic realisation failing to attain ego dissolution or the popular projection of anthropomorphic deities onto the Light of Godhead by the masses. The Upanishads themselves assert That Thou Art or I am Brahman (which imply Nondualistic Identity). King fails to appreciate that Sankara's Illusion Doctrine actually contradicts the Upanishadic teachings that Brahman is modified and the physical world is real(See Bowes' chapter in The Yogi and the Mystic)and Sankara's Rationalism appealed to Orientalists and Neo Hindus. Yogacara Buddhism influenced Sankara. In fact Nondualistic Kashmir Saivism's Doctrine of Vibration is far superior in regard to Creation but it is still Nondualism (Advaita).
King is totally wrong in dismissing NeoHindu claims that Buddhism and Brahmanism are deep down essentially the same citing the Middle Way which absolutely rejects a Ground of Being. Ninth Century Chinese Buddhist patriarch Tsung-Mi mocked those who think Nagarjuna's negative discourse is profound as they fail to actually realise the substantial reality of the Buddha Nature. Buddhist Alan Wallace questions if the Middle Way is incompatible with a Ground as the Dalai Lama's Dogzhen accepts a Universal Ground of Primordial Awareness and views Madhyamaka as compatible. King notes that D.T. Suzuki partially Vedanticized Zen and viewed Buddhism and Vedanta as compatible. American mathematician and mystic Franklin Merrell-Wolff argued that Sankara and Buddha's teachings should be compatible if deeper Insight were attained. Mathematical physicist and Sanskri/Pali literate mystic Micheal Whiteman asserted that the Buddha's teachings are essentially the same as the earlier Upanishads. The Yoga Sutras are written in Buddhist-hybrid-Sanskrit. Daniel Brown's study of Yoga Sutra, Vipassana and Mahamudra meditation phenomenology in Transformations of Consciousness show that all 3 follow essentially the same path to Basis Enlightenment (mystical union/ego dissolution). Finally, I have identified the physical correlate of the Divine Light of Pure Consciousness (Godhead, Atman, Buddha Nature, Al haqq etc.) with the brainwaves of the brainstem Reticular Activating System- this fits perfectly numerous pieces of authoritative Hindu and Buddhist knowledge of the Light from various traditions. Thus King's arguments are Neo-Orientalist views of naive Western postmodern sociologists thinking that they know better than actual Hindus and Buddhists! Anglo-Ceylonese A.K.Coomaraswamy (Hinduism and Buddhism)stated correctly that the deeper our understanding of Buddhism, the harder it is to tell aprt from the Brahmanism from which it originated. King is like Richard Rorty reducing mysticism to Freudian myths of sublimation of the sex drive to appear more masculine than warriors. Never heard of Hildegard, Mechthild etc. I suppose.
Sutapas Bhattacharya |
| |
 "Only a Summary of Existing Literature" | 2006-12-15 |
| - Reviewed By A'dam from New York, NY |
I was disappointed in this book. I suggest it is only valuable if one needs a summary of the existing literature. It claims that "Hinduism" is not really a religion, but was constructed by Orientalists. Imperialists adapted Indian beliefs to fit a Western notion, and lumped together holy books, clergy, and religious doctrine and linked a common thread (which did not exist before) called Hinduism. The term Hinduism was never used by Indians until after British imperialism.
As a devout follower of Edward Said, I always enjoy others bouncing off his work (as Said intended). Unfortunately, King not only fails as critic of Orientalism, he fails as a critic of Edward Said. King describes what Orientalists did, but he never says what the true nature of polytheist Indian beliefs is. In other words, he'll point out what Hinduism isn't, but won't say then what Hinduism is. (Interestingly, he criticizes Said for doing the same thing.)
He also has a very good conclusion that native Indians (Gandhi, Roy, etc.) adopted this "Hindu religion" to develop a resistance movement which successfully pushed out the British. In other words, he takes Said to the next level. Not just how the West stereotypes the East, but how the East reacts to these stereotypes (and sometimes accepts them as true).
(P.S. The person with sloppy English who claims that this book needs to realize that Hinduism is a Western invention, and we need to go read so and so, has obviously neither read the book, not the summary. Ignore that review, the whole point of this book is that Hinduism is made in the West.) |
| |
 "One of the best available books on "Hinduism"" | 2004-01-22 |
| - Reviewed By deafguy from OH USA |
| Richard King has written a very provocative and very useful book. In Orientalism and Religion, King argues that the term "Hinduism" does not represent any single ancient "religion." Rather, Hinduism is a construct of western scholars who, upon encountering Indian culture, created a religion along the lines of their own Christian conceptions of what a religion ought to be. These scholars of the nineteenth century sought out Indian equivalents of their own Christian culture (i.e. sacred texts and authority figures), and from these (largely the Vedas and the Brahmin caste, respectively) created the "religion" of the Hindus, or "Hinduism." This construction of a "world religion" abetted the colonial exploitation of Indians. King effectively argues the point through examinations of the works of early "Orientalist" scholars and works of more recent scholars who exhibit the same "essentializing" tendencies. King's account draws quite explicitly on the work of Michel Foucault and Edward Said, but King deals creatively with both Foucault and Said in generating his own unique approach to the study of the "West's" colonial encounter with India. King is not content with an account that denies the agency of native Indians. He thus focuses on how "native informants," often in reaction against colonial forces, ironically helped perpetuate, and indeed bring into being, the "Hinduism" created by Orientalist scholars. This book should interest all students of religion, as it is part of a growing recognition that the use of the term "religion" when discussing non-western or ancient cultures is highly problematic. Indeed, a possible difficulty for King is his insistence that there were indigenous "religions" in India before the colonial encounter (as on p. 103). Orientalism and Religion should greatly impact specialists in Hinduism, but it is also accessible for the general reader willing to put forth a little extra effort. |
| |
| "An excellent, myth-smashing academic book" | 2003-06-27 |
| - Reviewed By Jeff Wilson from Chapel Hill, NC United States |
| This is an excellent book that does much to dispel both the Eurocentric and mystifying Orientalist myths that have grown up around the relation of East and West. A truly impressive piece of post-colonial scholarship that refuses to cater to the prejudices of Hindu fundamentalists, convert Neo-Buddhists, or Euro-American boosters. |
| |
| "An excellent, pioneering work" | 2002-12-10 |
| - Reviewed By Anonymous |
| This is a wonderful work of scholarship, which takes Said's 'Orientalism' to a new level, critiquing the weak points of Said's work and applying his insights to the Indian context. This book demonstrates very well how our modern notions of 'Hinduism' and 'Buddhism' have been contructed through a dialectical process of interaction between Western and Indian thinkers, and King uproots assumptions about certain scriptural sources and philosophies being the 'centre' or 'foundation' of these traditions. The author's style is also clear and engaging. I cannot recommend this book highly enough -- every student (and educated practioner) of Indian religions should read it. |
| |
International Available
