Hinduism, Belief and the Colonial Invention of Religion: A before and after Comparison
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a thoroughly researched and well-developed argument that demonstrates a deep knowledge and, I believe, adds an important perspective to the discourse on Hinduism and the nature of philosophy and religion in general. This is a valuable contribution to the literature.
Because this is a valuable argument, my main input has to do with clarity and ease of reading, so that your readers are able to clearly understand your ideas.
Here are a few of my suggestions for clarity and ease of reading:
Referring to Hinduism as “the disagreements of philosophy” is an opaque phrasing that might be confusing to the reader; referring to Hinduism as a “discourse on tenets of moral philosophy” is a stronger phrasing (especially as you are setting out your argument in line 7 of the abstract and line 41-42 of your introduction; later occurrences at 76 and 847 would also read more clearly as “philosophical discourse”.)
In the explanation of interpretation and explication, include concrete, easy-to-follow examples of the processes at work, particularly where you use bullet points and variables to represent a subject, their beliefs, propositions, etc.
For example, in lines 139-140, where you have written
“…to interpret some package P is for the interpreting subject S to I:
• Use S’s beliefs b in the explanation of P”
I would add something to the effect of, “for example, if subject S holds the belief (b) that natural disasters reflect divine disfavor, then subject S’s explanation of the occurrence of a hurricane (P) must take his belief (b) into account.” You of course will think of a better example than I did, but you get the idea. (Also, please note that your explanation as it exists does not explicitly define variable I.)
Providing such examples would be especially helpful in explaining the process of explication in lines 145-156.
Concrete examples of the right and the good would also add significantly to the clarity of the moral theories you discuss at 298-303. You could add to the end of your bullet point on virtue ethics, something like “For example, an attitude of benevolence toward your fellow man (the Good), conditions or produces the Right (helping a neighbor in need).” You could then follow those concrete examples through the following bullet points—i.e. add to the end of the bullet point on consequentialism, “The Good (every person has their basic needs met) justifies the Right (helping your neighbor in need)” and etc. Once again, you’ll choose a better examples than I did off the top of my head.
These concrete examples would then help to make your arguments easy to follow when you add the fourth point on Bhakti/Yoga at 315-316. (I also think that using such concrete examples would help to make the distinction between the Theistic approach to Bhakti Yoga you mention at 323.)
(A very brief example or clarification of the “goods” and “bads” of life at 797-798 would also help move that argument along.)
At 237, I would just use the words “indigenous European traditions” for Norse, Sami, and Celtic mythologies and remove “BIPOC” from the sentence--or alternately, say “indigenous European traditions like [Norse, Sami, Celtic] that are treated in the same way as BIPOC traditions.” You’re making a strong and important point, but your reader might be thrown by using the term BIPOC to refer to the blond-haired Vikings that probably come to mind when reading the word “Norse.”
I’d recommend including pictures of the images you are describing at 809-820 and 828-833 (i.e. Vishnu and Lakshmi, Shiva and Shakti) so that your reader has a visual to attach to your description (especially since you may have some readers who aren’t familiar with the popular imagery).
Generally speaking I believe that clarity of reading will be helped by dividing many of your long paragraphs into shorter paragraphs. These allow the reader to follow from point to point more readily without having to focus on not losing their place in a long block of text.
Again, this is a valuable perspective for anyone interested in Hinduism, Indian culture, or the general distinction between philosophy and religion. I hope that these suggestions are helpful in enhancing the readers’ experience with your work.
I have included a list of suggested grammatical and spelling changes in the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1
Thank you for your wonderful and constructive feedback. Please find attached a document explaining how I implemented your suggestions.
Yours in gratitude!
Author
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an impressive and authoritative contribution to discussions of 'Hinduism' in relation to colonialism. The author introduces the valuable distinction between explication and interpretation and illuminates not only western interpretation of 'South Asian traditions with no common founder' but also, more briefly, Balinese 'religion' and the religion/philosophy of Socrates.
It is true that the West prioritised 'belief' but what about the western observers' preoccupation with 'practices'? Could the author make it clearer (eg in line 457 or 512) that 'Hinduism' as expounded by western commentators was/is at least as much preoccupied with 'worship' and ritual as with 'belief'?
In a few places the phrasing is ungrammatical and needs attention e.g. (line 11) 'residua is', (line 421) 'The origins is', (438) 'this interests'.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2
Thank you for your wonderful and constructive feedback. Please find attached a document explaining how I implemented your suggestions.
Yours in gratitude!
Author
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This is an incoherent collection of ramblings that is not compelling or even very academic.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my submission. Please find attached my response.
Yours in gratitude!
Author
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
