Хороша книга для розуміння ситуації із дослідженнями східних традицій.

A helpful contribution to the project sometimes called 'anthropologising the West' - not assuming that the work done by European or other white scholars is normative or authoritative but investigating the social and political context in which it was produced. His history of the development of 'mysticism' as a category and nuanced analysis of the multiple applications and flaws of 'post-modernism' in this field were especially useful for me.

This is fine, but he's hardly doing the work that he advocates (only cites the Western canon). Plus I think it's kind of a bad reading of Foucault (I have not even read much Foucault and I know this). But I'm definitely with him on the ridiculousness of the Western view of the mystical. ;) I'd rather just read Said.

One of those books I wish I had read a long time ago. It would have saved me a lot of work. King does a great job tracing the historical complexities of comparative religion and orientalist along with postcolonial thought. His notion of methodological agnosticism is useful as well.

The insights themselves are very interesting, but the book is very dense and, for me, boring. I am glad I read it, but I must say I did not enjoy reading it.

Dense and redundant, there is plenty of information here for multiple disciplines, but King is forcing his narrative a bit when it comes to the construction of Vedanta/Neo-Hinduism as an inclusivist tradition based solely on cultural mimesis and orientalism. Have we forgotten the Gita’s 9th Chapter with Krishna expounding on how all those worshipping other gods have been worshipping him?

Also, using Paul Hacker as a reference for claiming Shankar’s lack of primacy and the crypto-Buddhism of the Mandukya Upanishad/Gaudapa’s Karika is absurd! The apologetic hermeneutic and mantra 99’s assertion of, “this is not what the Buddha said” means nothing to a Christian apologist like Hacker and his interpretation of “samabuddha” as the Shakyamuni. It’s surprising that King, a notable Indologist and Vedantic researcher, would allow such ambiguity in his non-paradigmatic paradigm.

King’s major contribution comes only in the chapter where—in a move Nagarjuna would be proud of—he asserts the concept of religion should exist without its reification as an independently existing concept.

An interesting book which is critical against the colonial definition of the eastern religious beliefs.

a lucid critique at how we look at "religion" and "mysticism", unearthing the western bias inherent in the academic of religion.

A mix of truths and strawmanning.

It's true that Hinduism didn't exist 3,000 years ago (and I'll accept that one can make the same argument for Buddhism not existing 2,500 years ago).

That said, neither did Judaism. Israelitism was what David (if he existed) followed 3,000 years ago. Call it Yahwism with Ezra 2,400 years ago. Only 1,800 years ago at earliest, and arguably only 1,400 years ago, after the Babylonian Talmud, did Judaism exist.

Most western scholars of Indian belief today likewise don't claim that the "Vedic religion" of 3,000-plus years ago was "Hinduism." Nor do they claim that "Brahmanism" or "Indian epic religion" of the Gita and Mahabharata was "Hinduism."

But, I think many would claim that by the end of the Gupta Empire, or certainly by sometime within the Delhi Sultanate, something existed that could be called "Hinduism." And, you can't blame colonialism and the British Raj.

Ditto, if "Buddhism" didn't exist 500 BCE, we can say something like it did by 500 CE or so, by the time of Bodhidharma.

And, we can't blame "textualism" for all of this, either, or claim that "textualism" was a western-introduced vice. The Hindu epics were written when they were, by natives of the subcontinent, and studied after that. The Tripitaka was put into writing in this same general era. Even if the Vedic materials weren't all written down until yet later that we know, that may be as much due to problems of manuscript preservation rather than date of existence.

Also tosh for the idea that because the typical Buddhist or Hindu follower, or proto- of each, was illiterate and only monks and priests read these writings, that we can't call the people as a whole Buddhist or Hindu. King tries to analogize with medieval Christianity and the bible and mass in Latin only.

Christian scholars acknowledge the variety of believe, including heresies like Catharism and ongoing pagan folk belief yet confidently talk about Christian Europe.

As for the idea that the subcontinent didn't have "religion," tosh. Once one throws out the false Christian etymology of the word (one of the good points of the book), and goes back to the actual Roman understanding, it was religious indeed.

ingenting finnes ifølge denne karen

no