|
The Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies | 
 enlarge | Author: Thomas Mcevilley
Publisher: Allworth Press
Category: Book
List Price: $50.00
Buy New: $29.07
You Save: $20.93 (42%)
New (27) Used (7) from $29.07
Rating:  16 reviews
Sales Rank: 291920
Media: Hardcover
Edition: 1st
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 816
Shipping Weight (lbs): 2.6
Dimensions (in): 9.4 x 6.4 x 1.8
ISBN: 1581152035
Dewey Decimal Number: 180
EAN: 9781581152036
ASIN: 1581152035
Publication Date: November 1, 2001
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Condition: check customer comments carefully, several marginal sellers out there.rep. hb. excellent ed. 42 years in business
| |
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
This unparalleled study of early Eastern and Western philosophy challenges every existing belief about the foundations of Western civilization. Spanning thirty years of intensive research, this book proves what many scholars could not explain: that todays Western world must be considered the product of both Greek and Indian thoughtWestern and Eastern philosophies. Thomas McEvilley explores how trade, imperialism, and migration currents allowed cultural philosophies to intermingle freely throughout India, Egypt, Greece, and the ancient Near East. This groundbreaking reference will stir relentless debate among philosophers, art historians, and students.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 11 more reviews...
 The Limitations of Philology November 2, 2008
2 out of 2 found this review helpful
A great deal of work went into this book; a lot of opinions had to be sifted, compared, and evaluated. Prof. MacEvilley is clearly quite intelligent and good at sorting things out, even when crucial information is missing. He chooses to deal with difficult subjects like reincarnation (a misnomer) and atomism, as well as a wide variety of metaphysical subtleties. He does not always succeed.
One reason is that he uses western philosophical terminology to discuss metaphysics. Terms like reincarnation and polytheism do not help explain these ideas. Further, one is left with the impression that the various viewpoints represented are akin to western "schools" of philosophy; that is to say, someone's personal idea of what the universe is like. Most of the ideas expressed by the thinkers he is discussing are commentary on a unanimous tradition; a matter of approach, often for teaching purposes. Many of the same ideas can be found in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.
There is no mention of the major contributor in this field, Dr. A. K. Coomaraswamy, who wrote extensively on these topics, as long ago as the 1920s; nor of Rene Guenon, whose work could have supplied better definitions for the technical terminology.
No major religion believes in reincarnation. It would be heretical since it implies that some part of a man's personality and experience survives his death. Reincarnation is a 19th century word, as MacEvilley notes. Hindus and Buddhists believe in "transmigration," but the Lord is the only transmigrant. It is He who dons and discards the forms of the visible and invisible world. People in many traditional societies did believe in reincarnation, but what they meant by this is difficult to ascertain. It was connected to their ideas about kinship as Maurice Hocart and others have documented. It was the rise of the major religions that ended these beliefs. They survived only in areas beyond the influence of these dominant cultures.
Meditation on past lives is simply an exercise for novices, akin to counting rosary beads (which once represented ancestors). The language of Hinduism, Buddhism and Pythagoreanism that suggests reincarnation is only a manner of speech. There is a difference between exoteric understanding of these ideas and their esoteric meaning. Hindus were more forgiving about the misunderstandings of the "untaught manyfolk". The Buddha preached against doctrines involving reincarnation.
While MacEvilley is right in claiming priority for the Greeks regarding certain modes of analytical thought, he makes no mention of all the work of Eric Havelock and others who have traced these changes to the alphabet, which provided a highly abstract and visible translation of speech, not possible with earlier forms of writing. Greek philosophy and its modern offshoots are a result of a revolution in language, brought about by this technology.
While he may be right in some of the particulars regarding Indian influence on Greece and vice versa, it was tradition, not invention or diffusion that played the main role. Many of these ideas can be found around the globe, which suggests they spread with the dispersal of Paleolithic peoples out of Africa. These older conceptions form a substructure that makes one culture recognize itself in another. Philology is necessary for an understanding of the past but it deals primarily with texts and this is its weakness. It must be supplemented with other disciplines like anthropology and art history. Human culture existed long before writing and what we see in these early writings is often the remnants of older ideas that were once more widespread than we realize.
 Truly Excellent! March 9, 2008
1 out of 2 found this review helpful
I don't have much to add other then to say that this is one of my all time favorite books on the subject. It's truly amazing the level of interaction between the East & West in ancient times and the common spiritual values and teachings shared throughout the pre-modern world. This book is simply in a class by itself and is a must read.
The intertwining of ancient Indian and Greek philosophy February 24, 2008
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
For many, certainly for me philosophy started with Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. What a mistake! What we think of as Greek Philosophy is a mix between Indian and Greek philosophy based on extensive exchange of knowledge starting no later than 550 BC at the time of Buddha in India and Pythagoras in Greece. Up to 350 AD you can find the same concepts in India and Greece. Therefore Western thinking being unique, at least up to that point in time, is an illusion. It was joint East West thinking.
So you may ask, so what? The surprising merit of this book is that by comparing the different schools of thought in India with those of Greece I developed for the first time some real understanding of the differences. A second merit is that the book proves that what appear to be important differences between East and Western ways of thinking are due do misinterpretation of texts. There are differences and overlaps between the schools but that does not depend on whether they are Greek or Indian. Finally I feel more comfortable by knowing that our philosophical base is based on the joint efforts from two great philosophical traditions.
There is no book on which I have spent more hours in reading time. But it was worth it. For an easy start begin with the last chapter, number 25. Even reading only that chapter makes the book worthwhile to buy.
 McEvilly trying to reshape ancient thought January 23, 2008
15 out of 19 found this review helpful
I stumbled onto this book, when, reading Heidegger, I became interested in the advance of scientific thought in early Greek philosophy, and read some good reviews on Amazon that stirred my interest.
I was disappointed. I don't feel Thomas McEvilley's The Shape of Ancient Thought gives an honest account of the development of ancient human thinking. Instead he has a personal agenda to downsize the importance of Greek philosophy and to promote the idea of influence of Indian thinking on the progression of Western civilization.
Now let me get this straight. I personally don't care about this sort of a pissing contest. As far as I'm concerned it doesn't matter if major contributions were made by European thinkers or Indians, or Pygmees or Inuit for that matter. But you should get your facts and arguments right.
McEvilly opens the book with the assertion that Indian thinking has had a profound influence upon Greek philosophy by way of diffussion channels;
"...The records of caravan routes are like the philosophical stemmata of history, the trails of oral discourses moving through communities, of texts copied from texts, with accretions, scribal errors, and incorporated glosses and scholia. What they reveal is not a structure of parallel straight lines - one labeled "Greece" another "Persia" another "India" - but a web in which an element in one culture leads to elements in others." P.1
And ends it with the conclusion that there was a:
"...massive transfer of ideas and methods of thinking, first from India into Greece in the pre-Socratic period and again from Greece back into India in the Hellenistic." P.642(my italics).
In the 640 or so pages between this assertion and the conclusion he totally fails to give one convincing piece of evidence for the first massive transfer of ideas and methods, from India to Greece!
1.There is no real evidence that an Indian philosopher ever wandered into Greece or had direct contact with Greek pre-Socratic philosophers, or that an Indian text entered into the Greek pre-Socratic discourse.
2.His chronology of Indian thinking is totally vague, making the extensive comparison between Upanishad texts and Greek pre-Socratic texts interesting on the level of ideas, but rendering any claim about it's influence on Greek thinking highly uncertain and questionable.
3.The one "proof" he comes up with is based on a subjective interpretative reading of Heraclitus that he thinks shows Heraclitus based some of his system on an earlier Upanishad system. (Now I came in close contact with Heraclitus during a course in metaphysics during my philosophy studies with the renowned Dutch philosopher Cornelis Verhoeven, and I must say that almost any reading of this highly dark and poetic thinker, from whom only fragments of his work remain - not nicknamed "The Riddler" for nothing - is possible. The one that McEvilly comes up with was new to me and stretched my imagination though!)
4.McEvilly constantly focuses on the metaphysical ideas, downplaying the protoscientific, political, anti-establishment ideas that were so new and radical in pre-Socratic thinking. Greek thinkers were in opposition to accepted religion and other dogmas (and eachother!), were as Indian thinking developed within the framework of religion. A very important difference in philosophical attitude that McEvilly fails to give enough attention.
5.He totally skips Aristotle, leaping from Plato to Plotinus. Why is this? Is he afraid this would show the marked difference were Greek philosophy developed from radical ideas to proto-science in just over 200 years , where Indian philosophy did nothing of the kind? If you claim that Indian philosophy stood at the root of Western culture, this is especially painful, because it was Aristotle's work that inspired the renaissance.
Summing up:
This book is biased towards the importance of Indian philosophy, ignoring the unique characteristics of ancient Greek philosophy. Argumentively it is heavily flawed, this makes it an irritating read.
If you are interested in the pre-Socratic philosophers don't read this book. Even the Wikipedia gives more detailed and complete information on this subject.
The book does hold a value as a comparative study between Indian and Greek Philosophy on the level of ideas (specifically metaphysics).
Furthermore, contrary to his conclusion, it shows that there was probably NO serious influence from Indian thinking on Greek thinking. India was just too far away and too isolated for this to have happened.
The Greek imagination was most probably sparked by a combination of influences. Their contact with different cultures with totally different mindsets then their own - most notably Persia and Egypt - which would have made their own ideas debatable, being the most important. A heroic/arrogant aspiration to be some kind of warrior/philosopher, which shows a unique personality treat of Greek philosophers being another.
To some this review might seem harsh, given the amount of work that no doubt went into this book. If McEvilley would have made a more modest claim, more in line with the evidence. Presenting the book as a comparison between Greek and Indian thinking and making some careful assumption about a possible influence I would have been possitive. But if you conclude that there was a massive transfer of ideas and methods, from India to Greek without any evidence to back it up; you're asking for it. That one made me laugh though, I give him that!
Paradigm shifting January 17, 2008
4 out of 5 found this review helpful
News Flash: Plato was a Yogi & Greeks may have made a major contribution to Buddhism.
This is a magnificent and most provocative piece of scholarship. In the course of 732 pages of beautifully written and carefully documented prose, McEvilley establishes the evidence for a number of surprising conclusions of great relevance for Yoga Science.
First -- Pre-literate Sumerians were the first scientists.
Based on observations made over generations, Bronze Age Mesopotamians, in the millennia before writing (probably by 3000BC), had figured out the precession of the equinoxes and how a number system based on 60 - the "sexagesimal system" that we still use today - has great advantages for measuring time.
They had also figured out that this number system works better than the decimal system for the tuning of string and pipe musical instruments -- of which there were many in ancient Mesopotamia.
This work long preceded and set the stage for Pythagoras and the rest of the pre-Socratics to whom we generally attribute the origins of science.
Second -- Plato was a Yogi.
In 559BC Darius I of Persia established the Achaemenid empire that reached from the Aegean, Black, and Eastern Mediterranean Seas (including a slew of Greek cities), across Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, Persia, Central Asia, and all the way to the Indus river. Darius collected all manner of precious things from across his empire including medical systems and philosophies. His Royal Road reached from Susa (in present day Iran) across Iraq and Asia Minor all the way to Sardes (near the Aegean end of present day Turkey). He maintained a large retinue of translators in his capitals to facilitate communication. As a result, goods, people, and ideas from India, in its early Upanishadic period at the time, moved readily into the stream of pre-Socratic philosophy.
McEvilley tells this story in such a way that you feel you get to know the pre-Socratics - folks like Pythagoras, Parmenides, and Empedocles - as real people. He does side-by-side comparisons of their writings and those of contemporary Indian philosophers - the documents make the case.
He reviews why no-one had ever done this comparison before.
The tale leaves little doubt that the influence here on Greek thought was deep and lasting. The net result, by the time we get to Plato, some 150 years later, it is clear that forms of life practice that we would now recognize as Yoga, had also become an integral part of the practice of Greek philosophy.
Plato's Academy was a Yoga ashram, in effect.
Third -- Nagarjuna was a Greco-Buddhist.
Greek thought developed rapidly - by the time of Alexander, another century had passed, and Greek philosophy was now considerably more sophisticated than contemporaneous Indian in its manner of argument and had developed mature forms of syllogism and dialectic.
Alexander did not move just to conquer the Persians militarily - he went to remake Persia into a Greek - or "Hellenic" civilization. He equipped himself to establish Greek colonies, with a set pattern for urban infrastructure and the people needed to build and inhabit these centers. He took with his army their families, teachers for their kids, craftsmen of all kinds, physicians, philosophers, and tens of thousands of prospective colonists.
He lefts dozens of "Alexandrias" across Persia, into Central Asia, and North Western India. The legacy of all this in Central Asia and Northwestern India was a dynamic Greco-Indian civilization. Many of Greek descent embraced Buddhism and appear to have played a significant role in the emergence of the Mahayana and its spread into China from Central Asia. King Ashoka was himself most likely half or quarter Greek. Greek logic -- the syllogism and the dialectic - were adopted by the Greco-Buddhists and most eloquently elaborated by Nagarjuna in the 1st or 2nd Century AD.
Bottom line - Science was Yoga Science in these ancient formative times. This is my conclusion from McEvilley's evidence.
What happened next? In the East, development of the Greco-Buddhist civilization was cut off by what appear to have been a number of factors - my impression is that these include climate change with desertification of Central Asia, invasions from various Steppe nomad groups, and Islamization of the region during the centuries of the late first and early second Millennium AD. In the West, Greco-Indian thought was summarized by Plotinus and the Neo-Platonist movements he spawned in the early 1st Millennium. Then, the collapse of the Roman Empire and the rise of Christianity and Islam led to a complex subsequent history.
What happened to this Greco-Indian synthesis? In the East, elements of it were preserved in the Asian Buddhist traditions, perhaps most completely in Tibet. In the West, Neo-platonism fed into the stream of esotercism that is being documented by scholars such as Antoine Faivre, Wouter Hanegraaff, and their colleagues.
Yoga Science as an effort to re-integrate the seemingly divergent streams of this vastly complex history into a coherent whole as key to our global inheritance - scientifically updated and philosophically streamlined for the future.
Thank you, Dr. McEvilley!
|
|
|
This amazon.com affiliate Store Owned and Operated by Silkroad Retail Group
Accepted Payment Methods:
American Express, Diners Club, Discover, JCB, MasterCard, Eurocard, Visa, Visa Check Cards, Amazon.com gift certificates, payment directly from your bank account, and checks, money orders, or cashier's checks denominated in U.S. dollars and drawn on a U.S. bank, Borders Gift Cards and Waldenbooks Gift Cards as payment for qualifying orders. More information about Shipping & Handling, Delivery Date, Return Policy, Special Offers/Savings etc is available at the time of Secure CheckOut.
© 2006 ChindiaLounge.com All Rights Reserved | Powered by Silkroad Web
| |
