Comprehensive and detailed, a wonderful resource. Each topic covered (such as urban life, international trade, coinage, city organization, employment Comprehensive and detailed, a wonderful resource. Each topic covered (such as urban life, international trade, coinage, city organization, employment structure, urban lifestyle, administrative techniques, military organization, tax structure, agricultural production, prices, etc) is discussed from a three-fold perspective: first looking at North India, from the Indo-Gangetic plains to Bengal, then at Maharashtra and the Deccan together and then at the South, including Karnataka, TN and Kerala. This shifting allows us the reader to constantly compare the topics under discussion within India itself. it would have ben better if some comparison was also afforded with the rest of Asia and Europe under each division. The biggest takeaways are the role of cities in promoting trade and maintaining caste distinctions, the importance of the tax regimes in setting the tone for an empire's economic wake, and the insignificance of political changes as far as long established trade practices are concerned.
Most of the discussion centers on the Mughal period and on the early European phase, primarily due to the limitations of sources. The mature sultanate period is discussed cursorily and pre-1300 is barely touched upon. Pre-Vijayanagara in the south also gets no coverage. In fact, as far as the south is concerned, the book is not very useful. The North-East (Assam) comes in only as an after-thought, in a long appendix.
Despite all this, this Cambridge History is as comprehensive as it could have been with the limited space, though more could have been covered by limiting the amount of repetition that peppers this book. Beyond that most of the faults that can be found with it arise from the unfortunate limitations of source-material and scholarship in the Economic history of India. ...more
A Critical (& Patronizing) Survey of Western Philosophy
Russell is consistently opinionated throughout his presentation and it might confuse some of th A Critical (& Patronizing) Survey of Western Philosophy
Russell is consistently opinionated throughout his presentation and it might confuse some of the readers that he is so casual in writing off some of the major philosophers and their key ideas. This is because the book is not a mere history of philosophy, a mere account of ideas, by any stretch. Instead it is a critical survey, a long catalogue of what Russell agrees and disagrees with among all the major doctrines. The format followed is: a brief historical sketch to give context to a doctrine, an even briefer explanation, and then a long critical take that will put forward Russell’s opinions, usually about why it is misguided in the light of modern scientific approach. And more often than not, he is wary of those ideas which, from the point of view of his war-torn present, seemed 'dangerous.'
In fact, I think that three strands of vexation can be discerned:
1. Leading to orthodoxy in religion 2. Leading to rigidity in logic 3. Leading to Totalitarian fantasies
Any idea which Russell felt was tending towards these were roundly attacked and put in place. Must have felt like a humanitarian act, writing this book! After all, the long stretch of time that allowed Russell to undertake the tome was granted him by a stay in prison — his crime was distributing pacifist literature during the First World War. Hitler caused him to later renounce his pacifism, to the point that he wished he were younger so that he might don a uniform himself.
If you were to attempt a history of philosophy, you can write a history without imposing on the reader what your own opinions are. Or you can write a history just to let the reader know exactly what you (as a thinker of some standing yourself, you might add!) think of each philosopher. Or you can write a history and try to justify why you prefer some, even one, more than the others.
Russell has opted to for a mix of the last two options — and he prefers himself over all others, that’s all!
As the book progresses it becomes more and more clear that it is a summary of Russell’s views, and not of the philosophers being discussed. This means that most of them gets short shrift. And as we approach modern times it is amusing to see how Russell is almost impatient for the history to quickly reach and culminate in his own position of Logical Positivism, which he clearly thinks is the best approach to philosophy and in the light of which he judges everyone else. This allows him to narrate the entire historical progress in a patronizing and all-knowing tone that might be jarring to a reader who is not willing to take the same attitude towards Russell’s own naivete!
You have to out-patronize the patronizing author to enjoy this fully. That is the trick. And if you do, there is no end of fun to be had form this eminently readable epic....more
Invitation Complications or Who is the Best Spokesperson for a Religion?
Who can write about a religion best? An insider or an outsider? Obviously it Invitation Complications or Who is the Best Spokesperson for a Religion?
Who can write about a religion best? An insider or an outsider? Obviously it takes a lifetime’s learning to understand the religion, just to get a ‘feel’ for it. It might even need a lifetime's ‘practice’, and it could very well be that the first innocent impulses can only be absorbed at a very young age — like a language, a religion is also a mode of expression.
Then surely the insider is the one best placed to introduce others to this sacred mystery?
Rahula has tried in this little book to address himself to the general reader interested in knowing what the Buddha ‘actually’ taught. This is done by adhering to a faithful and accurate presentation of the actual words used by the Buddha as they are to be found in the original Pali texts of the Tipitaka, universally accepted by scholars as the earliest extant records of the teachings of the Buddha. Almost all the material Rahula commands so effortlessly are taken directly from these originals. That way it must be admitted that only a scholar of his stature could have brought us so close to the original teachings.
However, Rahula’s book comes off as slightly evangelizing and despite all the cool wisdom as occasionally irritating in its complete confidence and conviction that Buddhism is the best in the world
A non-evangelical introduction/invitation should only be an invitation to come visit and appreciate the ancient house, not to come and reside. In that case, the real purpose of such a book would have to be to show the relevance of one religion to another, to the modern world and to show how its philosophy can make a difference to the visitor’s life even if he exits the next day not entirely convinced of the package deal. He/She should still be able to carry something away. What that something is has to be judged by the author. That is the only question in such an introductory/welcoming sermon. The rest can be kept for later, if the guest decides to stay awhile.
Now to return to our problem. Can an insider do this? After all, the insider is as much an alien to other religions as the visitor is to his own. So how can he write for the visitor? How can he inhabit his viewpoint and judge what would suit him best? Could it be that the one best placed to understand the house is not so well suited to understand the visitor?
So a Christian reader would need a christian author to interpret Buddhism for him? A 21st century reader would need a 21st century guide? Who else can understand the reader as well?
And in any case, since we are going down this road, who can understand both - the ancient house and the modern visitor?
I think the best compromise would be to allow the welcome sermon to be delivered by a scholar outside the tradition, but steeped in it. One who has stayed in the house long enough to feel at home there.
This is why every age needs to reinterpret its holy texts and greatest works. Every age and culture needs its own representatives to walk into those monuments, spend a while there and then walk out with a welcome sermon, which in turn would be relevant enough to his own culture’s or age’s readers. Only then would they take the trouble to go visit too. And maybe stay awhile....more
Robert Bellah has said that "every religion tries to remake the world in its own image, but is always to some extent remade The Adaptive Disciples
Robert Bellah has said that "every religion tries to remake the world in its own image, but is always to some extent remade in the image of the world." This is true of most religions, but how they are remade reflects also the extent to which, and the manner in which, they themselves actually try to remake the world.
In this VSI, Gardner takes us through the beginnings of the Confucian movement where we see Confucius transmit an idealized sociopolitical vision from the early Zhou past to a select group of followers, who then keep the light alive even though the Master did not get much popular acclaim in his own day. Then we follow along as the faithful followers and their disciples, over the centuries, elaborate on this vision, some emphasizing one aspect, others another, such as Mencius and Xunzi — sometimes even managing to take a common tradition in entirely opposite directions.
Later we encounter the Neo-Confucian movement, now almost a millennium after the Master’s time, reacting to new developments by interpreting his core ideas from the stand point of new metaphysical concepts (such as qi, li, yin and yang, among others) — converting the original practical vision into a universal vision that is meant to explain the how and why of the original thoughts… and to explain everything else too since they are at it, all with the help of philosophical terms and concepts that would have meant little to Confucius himself.
Gardner maintains a firm focus on this realm of ideas, showing us how the original vision of the Master has been adapted into such a variety of interpretative shapes over the centuries. And this adaptability is the primary reason why confucianism has managed to stay relevant for such an astoundingly long time. It is a religious/philosophical tradition that has managed to continuously adapt and remain relevant over time.
And I would venture that while Confucius himself deserves our respect for creating a philosophy with such an encompassing vision so suited to his people, no small credit is due to the fact that the keepers of the tradition were the very top brass of this wide country -- and it was their capacity for innovation and creative adaption that has allowed the tradition to reinvent itself so elegantly and relevantly every time. They have shown a unique capacity to hold fast to tradition without slipping into a dogmatic slumber that would let modernity pass them by, and even if they did occasionally they have been alert enough to pick up on it and take positive action in defense of their philosophy, shaping its message to address the pressing issues of the day.
If only every religious and philosophical tradition was in such capable hands, we would have fewer dogmatic religions and more enlightened ones. And a less dangerous world....more
Except for the comically inadequate introduction by Harold Bloom, this book is a window to a whole new way of seeing the literary universe. In scope a Except for the comically inadequate introduction by Harold Bloom, this book is a window to a whole new way of seeing the literary universe. In scope and depth, it is an epic and no matter how cynically you approach it, Frye is going to awe you with sheer erudition and immaculate schematics. For anyone with a Platonic bent, Frye's work has the potential to become an immediate Bible.
It might take a while to get through and it might require you to convert a lot of Frye's work into shorter notes and diagrammatic notations, just to keep up with the density of the text, but at the end of it you will be exposed to an almost cosmic vision of Literature, comparable to that at the end of Paradiso.
It is worth the effort just for the sheer ambition of the work and for the bit of that ambition that will rub off on you, even if you reject everything else contained here.
Only Joyce might be able to teach you about the scope of literature in a more inspiring fashion than this poet-critic....more
Loading...
