Indian Mind Essentials Of Indian Philosophy And Culture

Here is a comprehensive summary in English of the provided Jain text, focusing on its review of "The Indian Mind: Essentials of Indian Philosophy and Culture" edited by Charles A. Moore:

The review, written by Richard H. Robinson, critically examines "The Indian Mind: Essentials of Indian Philosophy and Culture," a collection of papers by predominantly Indian scholars who participated in the East-West Philosophers' Conferences between 1939 and 1974. Robinson praises the volume for its convenience in understanding Indian philosophical contributions and highlights the lucid English and bicultural erudition of the South Asian contributors.

However, the review points out significant limitations:

• Limited Representation: The book's title is deemed misleading as it fails to represent the breadth of Indian culture. Crucially, it lacks contributions from Muslim, Christian, Jain, and Sikh thinkers, despite their significant presence in India. The review argues that the communal representation is less complete than at most contemporary Indian philosophical conferences.
• Hindu-Centric Focus: The majority of the papers are by Hindu scholars, often deeply influenced by Sanskrit tradition and Edwardian British philosophy. This leads to a disproportionate emphasis on Vedanta, particularly Advaita Vedanta. The reviewer notes a tendency among many contributors to present Advaita Vedanta as the essence or culmination of Indian philosophy, often downplaying or categorizing other schools (like Buddhism and Jainism) as less significant or peripheral.
• Critique of Vedanta's Primacy: Robinson strongly aligns with Charles Moore's assertion that while Vedas, Upanishads, and Bhagavad-Gita, along with Shankara (an Advaita Vedantin), have dominated the Western perception of Indian philosophy, they do not constitute its entirety. The review highlights instances where contributors present Advaita Vedanta as the core of Indian thought, a view that other contributors, like S.K. Saksena and Kalidas Bhattacharyya, challenge.
• Neglect of Other Traditions: The substantial contribution of Muslim thought to Indian culture is largely ignored, with only the historian Tara Chand offering a brief but positive acknowledgment. Buddhist epistemology and metaphysics are discussed, but Buddhist ethical, social, and political thought are seldom considered, despite their potential relevance to the conference topics. Jainism is explicitly omitted by Bhattacharyya due to "space limitation."
• Historical Inaccuracies and Apologetics: The review criticizes the contributors for their aversion to history and a tendency to present idealized views of ancient India. They often blame the decline of Indian philosophy and society on Muslim and British conquests, rather than acknowledging internal social rigidities like the caste system. Robinson argues that this perspective fails to recognize how these very systems may have contributed to India's vulnerability to foreign rule.
• Misunderstanding of "Practical": A significant point of critique is the inversion of the term "practical." Indian philosophers in the volume often use "practical" to refer to inner transformation and spiritual realization, contrasting it with the Western understanding of influencing the external environment. Robinson suggests this semantic shift serves an apologetic purpose, framing Indian philosophy as inherently more effective than Western philosophy.
• Elitist and Idealist Tendencies: The contributors are characterized by an idealist and elitist view of cultural change, believing that metaphysical presuppositions and the insights of spiritual elites drive civilization. This is contrasted with a more humanistic view of history and a disregard for the contributions of popular religious literature and oral traditions.
• Lack of Interdisciplinary Engagement: The review notes a general lack of engagement with social sciences and philosophy of science among the contributors. This leads to an underdeveloped understanding of social dynamics and an inability to critically assess the relationship between science and Indian religious thought.
• Focus on Metaphysics Over Ethics and Politics: While metaphysics and epistemology sections are generally well-received, the later sections on ethical, social, and political thought are found to be "thin." The reviewers suggest this is due to a difficulty in translating classical Indian concepts into modern Western terms or a reluctance to engage with these areas directly.
• Individualism and State Power: Tara Chand's article is praised for clarifying that full-fledged individualism, with concepts like property ownership and direct legal rights, arrived in India with the British. He also highlights the cultural distinction where individuals were often divested of temporal freedom to safeguard spiritual freedom in both Hindu and Muslim traditions.
• Inscrutability of Buddhist Contributions: The articles on Buddhism, particularly Junjiro Takakusu's "Buddhism as a Philosophy of 'Thusness'," are described as highly obscure and difficult for Western readers, even after editorial efforts. Robinson attributes this to a complex layering of languages, cultures, and philosophical traditions within the text, making clear communication challenging.

In conclusion, Robinson views "The Indian Mind" as a valuable, albeit flawed, collection that offers "still photographs" of a passing generation of Indian intellectuals. He acknowledges its strengths in bridging classical Indian concepts with modern philosophical language but emphasizes its limitations in representation, historical accuracy, and engagement with diverse Indian traditions. The book is seen as a useful companion to other works on Indian philosophy but requires careful contextualization due to its specific focus and inherent biases.