Genius of the Ancient World

It was a successful production, they describe the people and beliefs in a very comprehensive manner and accompanied by experts. It is better to focus on the interior.

The first episode interviews a woman, Lakshmi Singh about the cultural mileau of the Buddha. The interviewee gives the typical marxist claptrap about the caste system while not even knowing the names of the classes. That is the extent of the knowledge of the experts in this documentary. So cringe worthy that I could not help turning it off and watching a funny cat video instead.

Western audience need to ask for better informative documentaries or drama if you will. If the producers continue to harp on the cliched narrative of cast hierarchy and fancy the roamance of Indian proverty sadly it would be the audience which will be the loser.

Bettany falls for the same cliched beaten down path nothing much to offer in terms of content but a clever effort to hide that incompetence behind the colorful india.

This is a 3-part BBC show. Host Bettany Hughes examines three ancient world changers; Buddha, Socrates, and Confucius. It's a lot of surface work. It's the basics. I found Buddha to be the most enlightening, no pun intended. I would think that Bettany would dig more closely into Socrates' personal life. As for Confucius, the counter to his philosophy is left almost entirely to the last part and it's mostly down to the Cultural Revolution. An hour each for such big figures is not enough but it's fine for an introductory course.

Watched the episode on Buddha and found it thoroughly unenlightening. The Western mind is steeped in the notion of breakthrough conceptual thinking, so Buddha's story is presented in that framework, completely disregarding the various soteriological philosophies and paths of India that pre-date Buddhism and intimately informed and influenced its development. Brahminism is the usual villain, reduced to priests performing rituals, as if that's all to Hinduism, as if before Buddha there were no methods and teaching for liberation, as if the Upanishads, Brahma Sutras etc did not exist. It is clear the presenter neither understands Hinduism nor Buddhism, else she would have known that the paths of Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism are similar to the extent of being almost same, differing only in the ultimate nature of Brahman/Nothingness. The multi-layered story of Buddhism is dumbed down to an extent that may have been forgiven for a movie maker, but not for a historian. Those who really want to learn about the history and development of Buddhism and comparative with Hinduism should go to serious scholars like Edward Conze, Anand Coomaraswamy, Ram Swarup etc rather than waste time with a bogus history and historian here.