欧宝娱乐

I was just checking out this book only to see you give it 2/5? What was so bad about it?

I generally find Hesse to be overly vague. Everything about his spirituality is implied, and none of it is backed up by insight or realization. His vision of Buddhism is likewise confused and imprecise, combining and oversimplifying many different contradictory traditions into a bland, feel-good philosophy. It's about as deep as a self-help book. I go more into my views on his work in my reviews of The Journey To The East and The Glass Bead Game .

Your review reminds me that I've been meaning to go back and read this one, but my copy (which I was assigned to read in college) seems to have gone missing. In the last few years, I've been reading more deeply about Buddhism and so have become more aware of the issues in Hesse's understanding than I was at 18. I liked it at the time (hence 4 stars), but I've been wondering if I would like it as much now. Judging by your review, probably not.

Worth noting that the things the Crusaders brought back with them had actually been preserved by the Christians living in what had been the Persian Empire, who had served as mediators between the ancient Mediterranean cultures (from whence the documents sprang) and the new Muslim conquerors. They translated the texts into Arabic (and later, Persian) at the behest of their new overlords. The Muslims valued them & elaborated on them, but it's not like they had discovered and preserved them on their own.

That said, I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis of the Westernization of Eastern ideas, religions & philosophies. It's supremely frustrating for those of us who study antiquity and religions. It's also the reason people are driving around Eugene and Berkeley with Buddhist, Rastafarian & Kabbalist stickers all on the same dang car.

Well, after Lohengramm's comment, I figured I should put up a review. Of course, once I clicked 'post' I saw that half my friends on here had rated it five stars--sorry guys!

Glad you enjoyed it, Review Man. Let me know if you do get back to it, A, I'd be curious.

I was 21-22 when I read "Sid" for a class at engineering school. I recall that it was a nice easy snack - enjoyable - a fun recounting of Gautama's life.

I suspect if I'd stayed in the University - grad studies or another Bachelors (of Arts this time) - I'd have done more philosophy (my favorite and therefore my highest performing of the liberal arts I dabbled in) - and would have more to say about pop-philosophy (like do you, Keely).

Ian said: "Worth noting that the things the Crusaders brought back with them had actually been preserved by the Christians living in what had been the Persian Empire . . ."

Yeah, as the Roman empire declines the whole thing shifts East, and so do those texts--it's not like the Muslims had to go into Europe and seek them out.

". . . people are driving around Eugene and Berkeley with Buddhist, Rastafarian & Kabbalist stickers all on the same dang car."

Heh, yep, that's about the impression I get from reading Theosophists.

Bird Brian said: "I always feel like I learn something from your reviews."

That's always an awesome thing to hear. I always found that my favorite teachers were the ones constantly learning new things about what they taught, and so I try to be the same way.

Jim said: "I'd have done more philosophy . . . and would have more to say about pop-philosophy"

Well, it's never too late. Hopefully the reason you've moved away from those studies is that you've found something more interesting to spend your time on. Pop philosophy is not often the most rewarding field.

Hopefully the reason you've moved away from those studies is that you've found something more interesting to spend your time on.

A parenting philosopy, to which I subscribe, is that kids should not primarily be left to find their own way - that they don't know what they like until a parent (or mentor, or knowledgeable friend) shows them things of quality to like.

I've found this extends well past childhood. Those of us fortunate to attend a university that respects the cannon (and their students enough to demand that they sample the cannon with supervision) get potentially great benefit. We don't know what we like until it's shown to us.

My thirty years of post-college meandering has been at least a little fruitful but not nearly as rich as the university experience would be.

I consider philosophy to be the master liberal arts discipline, but I find that I like histories and biographies much more than philosophies.

While I think that it's vital to learn intellectual self-reliance, the ability to think critically about statements, even if they come from an established authority or canon, I agree that the guidance of an expert can be invaluable and time-saving,especially if we already know what we are seeking.

Other than that, I see no reason why histories and biographies cannot inspire philosophical thoughts, since they have done so for all great philosophers, why not also for us?

Not trying to argue here (you knew that, anyway, Keely) but If'd like to offer a couple reactions.

The rumor is, outside the ivory tower, that much at universities is about professors protecting their precious worldviews - sadly not about critical thinking.

I witnessed this second hand - in two ways - both having to do with my wife's disseratation and its defense. She made the mistake of going for a multi-disciplinary degree (American Studies at Purdue - 1986-1992). This gave license for multiple professors from areas far afield to defocus her dissertation - demanding edits that incorporated their slants. Her topic was Irving Babbitt who was a counterpart to Rosseau during the early 20th Century - who I suppose is regarded as "conservative" in the modern parlance.

When she defended it, there was considerable sentiment to withhold the Ph.D. Her adviser finally shamed the committee by reminding them that she had done the work - implying that a doctoral candidate need not validate the various committee members' worldviews - but that academic standards were upheld in the writing of the dissertation.

(I could see myself openly scorning such "doctors" - if this is what goes on, then the PhD credential is hollow, indeed)

Less serious - Philosophy is difficult - much more so than history and its subset - biography. Reading for pleasure then tends to exclude philosophy.

I totally agree with you that this book is hardly a veritable guide to Buddhism. I also agree that it is in fact a rather german book, debating notions that Hesse would have seemed relevant for the german reader of his time, presented in the cloth of an oriental myth. I would go as far as calling practically all of Hesses output rather german, especially his most famous "Steppenwolf".

However I can't exactly see what's the problem with that. Siddharta wasn't my first book by Hesse, so I didn't exactly expect to get some kind of profound philosophical introduction to Buddhism. In that case I would have opted for the real deal. But from an artistically viewpoint I don't see the wrongness to present the known or familiar in an unknown/exotic outfit, to be honest. It's something a lot of authors used during different times to make things a little bit more interesting. Why not?

I guess Hesse's style and feel-good-philosophy are really a matter of taste, and I'm sometimes ambivalent towards them as well, but I don't really get the Buddhism-argument to be honest.

Sorry I missed your comment before--not sure how that happened.

Basically, I'd say Siddhartha is a problem because of misrepresentation. From what I know of Hesse's work, he thought he was writing about Buddhism and that he understood it--he didn't realize that he was interpreting it so thoroughly through Protestantism that no Buddhist notions remained--so in that sense, this book fails to do what it set out to do.

In addition, it's set up as a Buddhist story, and misuses Buddhist terms. I don't see any benefit to structuring the story this way if his intent was to write about German identity--he's adding on an extra layer of complexity that does nothing to clarify his ideas.

Beyond that, I have encountered many people who did think of this book as an 'introduction to Buddhism', and my professor of Eastern Religions often complained that the first few weeks of class had to be spent disabusing students of misconceptions introduced by Hesse.

So for me, at best it's a needless complication that misleads readers, while at worst its a complete failure on Hesse's part to recognize his own prejudice and naivety.

Buddha would role over in his grave if he read your review ... there is no practice - no text - no temple - no right way my friend ... maybe in your next time around you see the light ...

Your review reveals you to be as squareminded as the art critics that mocked the impressionists and cubists a century ago for not portraying reality "as it is". It's a work of art not a "self-help" book nor a course in Buddhism. Beautifully written with a lot of insight and understanding of the human condition which you might realize if you peeked out of your little box for a couple of hours.

Tom said: "there is no practice - no text - no temple - no right way my friend ... maybe in your next time around you see the light ..."

Wait, so there is no one right way, yet you suggest that I am wrong for having 'failed to see the light'. If there is no one practice or path, then why are you preaching one?

Danhylander said: "Beautifully written with a lot of insight and understanding of the human condition which you might realize if you peeked out of your little box for a couple of hours."

And what box is that meant to be?

I've lived on the road with actors, gypsies, master craftsmen, and ancient music specialists, I've sailed the seas in a century old boat, I've been on stage before a thousand screaming people and played my music, I've been a champion fencer, a blindfolded axe thrower, a wrestler and judoka, an actor, director, and dramaturge, I've been a scholar, reading histories, epic poems, philosophy, metaphysics, Greek Drama, Latin rhetoric, I've been an artist, a painter, and an illustrator, I have lived a life full of friends and loves, and I have lived a life alone and self-reliant, I've found wonder in the sight of a single blossom at the edge of a glacier-fed stream atop a mountain, I have found it in a stark line of poetry, and in the burbling joy of a child; I have seen it shining down in a million points of scintillating light from the midnight depths of the eternal vault.

I have seen enough to know I am not wise or enlightened, but I have also lived enough to find Siddhartha to be much smaller than life: a set of easily-digestible truths which aims to serve us in a world without truths. Siddhartha is the box, and not one I would want to be trapped in, whatever comfort it might lend to some to be so clapped in iron.

Keely wrote: "Tom said: "there is no practice - no text - no temple - no right way my friend ... maybe in your next time around you see the light ..."

Wait, so there is no one right way, yet you suggest that I ..."

Thank you for responding so perfectly. Siddhartha is emblematic of a very particular 19th/20th century Western reinterpretation of Buddhism & Hinduism.

I'm really interested to learn more about eastern philosophy, but I don't know where to start. I keep thinking of the dalai lama saying things like westerners are miserable, their individualism creates isolation, or something along those lines. It's all hearsay, the bits and pieces I know. I'm not particularly interested to learn about buddhism but different eastern philosophies in general, particularly on this topic of "the self".

I know that's general and misguided. Anyway I'd love to know a good starting point.

Ian said: "Thank you for responding so perfectly."

I'm glad it worked for you.

Lushr said: "It's all hearsay, the bits and pieces I know. I'm not particularly interested to learn about buddhism but different eastern philosophies in general, particularly on this topic of "the self"."

Well, that's a very big topic, so it's difficult to suggest any particular place to start. I wouldn't go with either the Dalai Lama or Hesse, their views of Buddhism are rather watered-down and merged with 'New Age' ideas, so you aren't getting real Eastern views of the idea of the self.

I guess I'd say go right to the source: Confucius, the Bhagavad Gita, the Book of Five Rings, the Tao-Te-Ching, the I Ching, and books like that, which are now available in new, well-reasearched translations. I also thought Zen in the Art of Archery was a more interesting European view on Eastern Thought.

I took a General Philosophy class in my first year of college (and most of what I learned was very vague) and the section on Buddhism really interested me. However, I happened to be reading this book at the time I was taking the class and wondered why it seemed to leave some things out and why it seemed a little inaccurate compared to what I learned.

At the same time though, I do feel the book leaves a lasting impression and also got me more interested in learning about Buddhism despite being a tad misleading. So while I enjoyed the book, I did think it was very vague.

Anyways, I just wanted to say thank you for leaving this review because it cleared up a lot of things.

Oh, I'm glad you found it helpful. Thanks for the comment.

Keely, can you give examples of the Buddhist terms he misused? This comment thread is a fascinating one. I recently read Armstrong's Buddha, was disappointed, re-read Siddhartha, and found it less boring than Buddha, but a good story, not a better intro to Buddhism. I also noticed that they had far more white males than Asians as talking heads on the recent PBS special.

I'm afraid I don't have any examples off the top of my head, sorry. Glad you enjoyed the comment thread, though.

Siddhartha is not about Buddhism. In fact the titular character's journey was far removed from Buddhist teachings. The cover of the book is misleading too for depicting a typical Buddhist statue.

Yeah, I'm listening to a librivox recording and it sounds a lot like self-help. A bit disappointed. Great review, and now I know why this isn't like anything like my mum told me about buddhism.

What's your thoughts on self-help books anyway? I read somewhere that it is a huge thing in the USA and that a lot of people seem to be rather dependent on them.

Agree with Adam, above. It looks like you didn't read the book at all.

Can you expand on what we learn about German Protestantism from Siddhartha, and maybe with examples where possible?

Adam wrote: "Siddhartha is not about Buddhism! It is not about getting religious principles, and as you claim, getting it right.

Siddhartha found his salvation his own way, through his own ideas. He actually..."

Except it IS a reflection of Buddhism & Hinduism, or rather the Orientalist 19th century interpretations thereof. It's a white, Western male, safely ensconced within European cultural hegemony, proclaiming the very distillation of the ideals which Europeans then believed they understood to be characteristic of "Oriental" religions and philosophies.

Hesse intention wasn't to teach about Buddhism but his own philosophy and the philosophy of the Germany of his time.

But this is not a book on Buddhism, Siddhartha reject buddhist teaching and this is a book on Hinduism/Brahmanism..

Keely, (from the comment above) it sounds like you've lived a pretty amazing and abnormally full life. Cheer me up and tell me your 80 years old or at least older than 40 so I don't start despairing over my wasted life.

Eh, despite all that, I despair over my wasted life all the time--I think that's just a symptom of a certain level of self-searching.

Jim wrote: "I was 21-22 when I read "Sid" for a class at engineering school. I recall that it was a nice easy snack - enjoyable - a fun recounting of Gautama's life.

I suspect if I'd stayed in the University..."

I hope you realize that the Siddartha who stars in this book is not Siddartha Gautama, though he does show up a few times. This book is actually a book saying that Buddhism is wrong, and then Hesse proceeds to offer the "right" solution as plenty of white men have done throughout history (I don't hate the players, just hate the game

Emily wrote: "This book is actually a book saying that Buddhism is wrong, and then Hesse proceeds to offer the "right" solution as plenty of white men have done throughout history (I don't hate the players, just hate the game"

^^^

I don't get the modern obsession with crediting Islam for the achievements of Western philosophy. The notion that the West rediscovered Plato via Islamic imperialism is dubious at best.

Keely wrote: "Basically, I'd say Siddhartha is a problem because of misrepresentation."

I think this perspective is unfair to the novel. Would you expect The Last Temptation of Christ to be some kind of exposition of Christianity per se? Which orthodoxy or heresy? The fact that a philosophy professor may want to disabuse students of assumptions they have made based on a popular novel seems like par for the course for virtually everything the typical green undergraduate brings into his freshman classes. That is why it is called education. You could say the same thing about the overrated and much misunderstood collection of books in the Bible. People won't learn a lot about Catholicism from the Bible, that is for sure. It doesn't reduce its value as literature.

First, Hesse is not a philosopher, but a mystic. It seems plain to me you aren't interested in mysticism, or at least Hesse's brand. That is fine. But to suppose that a novelist and poet is seriously attempting to give an exegesis on the orthodox philosophy or history of organized Buddhism strikes me as unfair, especially if you have read Narcissus and Goldmund or Beneath the Wheel, which are firmly rooted in the milieu you seem to think is culturally appropriate for a German author of the period without setting off your appropriation alarms, but which exemplify the same basic theme (which is pretty consistent through all his novels). That theme is self-searching spiritual independence. Hesse is pretty much agnostic regarding where useful ideas or practices regarding that search come from. Or for that matter, I think, whether his interpretation of them bears any resemblance to the received wisdom on the matter; it has no effect on the nature of self-realization. It is not an academic treatise. Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre are philosophers that happen to be novelists. You can read their vague and mystic seeming novels, and then you can go read their explicit strains of academic philosophy, and try to square the circle if that is your wont. This is not an appropriate approach to Hesse. Approach the author on his own terms. Why apply a bar which is not merely too high, but actually a complete category mistake?

Are there many other Nobel Prize-winning authors you hold in such low regard? If not, you may consider the possibility that there is some unconscious bias you are bringing to your reading.

I am willing to bet, based on my familiarity with your reviews, that you have read many a pulpy sci-fi novel whose author really does consider himself to be a kind of armchair philosopher (and so might his fans), and yet you have probably treated these more generously.

Hesse is hardly flawless. I might even go so far as to say that Hesse is a juvenile author. It is clear that Western academic understanding of Buddhist traditions was laughably nascent at the time Hesse was studying it. In a lot of ways, though, it was more rigorous than the work of intervening years which birthed the "New Age" movement you deride. This came FROM academics every bit as much as from the average dirty hippy. Present day academia is no more immune from fads and institutional blind spots.

Furthermore, I would argue that, like any religion or ideology, many if not most who hold what you might consider a legitimate cultural claim to the tradition are every bit as confused and mistaken about the teachings of the Buddha as you accuse Hesse of being, including the literature and philosophy outside of their own narrow cultural tradition. In fact, in many traditions of Buddhism, Buddhist literature and historical fact are held in relative contempt compared to personal discovery and individual transmission. Precisely the position Hesse takes. The reflex to consider institutional western academic philosophy, sociology, and literary criticism, or else the so-called culturally appropriate claims of ethnic or national groups, to be the only valid arbiters of their respective -isms is a great obstacle to honest critical thinking and compassionate understanding, in my opinion.

Well, this is not a book about buddhism. It is a novel about a dood called Siddhartha. Moreso, Siddhartha's background is not even buddhist but hindi, that is obvious to anyone with a bare minimum knowledge of the subject from the first pages of the book, so I am going to call bullshit on your review.

You're as vague as Hesse! How can you argue against handwavey buddhism and then give no specifics as to what he gets wrong? Imagine after reading your comment I wanted to get a better understanding of how this is a 'protestant' representation- I would have no idea where to start.

It sounded a lot like Unitarianism to me with Buddhist words. You can't have the world be real and true and not real at the same time. Maya is non negotiable.

This stood out: "an old philosophy professor of mine once said: "You can learn a great deal about German Protestantism from reading Siddhartha, but almost nothing about Buddhism".

I recently read a book that took Hesse as a kind of psychological test case. Both his parents and grandparents were Protestant missionaries and very rigid people. Hesse was a gifted and imaginative child, but his elders kept wanting to force him into their mould. They even threatened to put him into an "institution" if he didn't shape up. Hesse absorbed the guilt and never sorted out the impact on him. Anyway, it's rather fitting that his supposed book about Buddha is actually a Protestant tome.

Finally. I thought I'd never find a review that looked beyond the fancy jargon to what Heese was actually saying, which is essentially nothing new. Great review, Keely.

Thank you!

Thank you for this comment. I just finished reading the book and I wonder why I wasted my precious hours on it.

I could have agreed with you completely except it neither claims anywhere to be a book on buddhism nor it intends to be one.
Further, your idea of self-help book might be twisted. By that standard, The matrix, being a philosophically overloaded movie subtly teaching you to escape from the conditioned reality, is a self-help movie too.
On the contrary, this book, through his brilliant story-telling, narrates you a story about a guy who ultimately found his own way towards reaching his truth/enlightenment.
Try reading it again by leaving every Buddhism or Protestant aspects aside, and chances are, you might find yourself in a wonderland.

Amazing review

I don't think the accuracy of Buddhism is the most important part of this book. And I'm not an expert on Buddhism but the purpose of the book is not to teach what Buddhism is. I take it as a novel that explains interesting things and I am satisfied with it. Siddhartha's journey is the subject and even if he is far from the "real" Bhuddism, it doesn't matter as long as he has found his peace. A peace that is his own and I think that is the essence of the book, we understand it when Govinda does not really understand his friend Siddhartha admitting all the same that the latter has reached his goal. You seem to judge the book only through the accuracy of the Bhuddism explained in the book and I think this is not good. But maybe my opinion would change if I were steeped in and knowledgeable about Bhuddism.

The literal description for this book, right here on 欧宝娱乐(just scroll up and read it):

"Hesse synthesizes disparate philosophies--Eastern religions, Jungian archetypes, Western individualism--into a unique vision of life as expressed through one man's search for true meaning."

This review, while cogent without that critical context, comes from an obvious lack of understanding of what Hesse was trying to do

who out here thinking this is buddhist canon?

What a ton of nothing related to the story. Your criticism is about colonialism. This book is about the life of Siddartha Gautama. You say nothing about it. You sound a cheap marxist demagogue. Cut the crap and start again...

If you鈥檙e gonna write a paper on this book, you could鈥檝e used direct examples of what you had problems with. This just reads like a pretentious history lesson.

Lots o nazis dug the Hindi and Eastern religions. Many stars do too.
Are you buying in? I hope not.