RESPONSE TO GROUP PRESENTATION PAPER
Submitted by: Group – 3
Submitted to: Rev. Dr. Kailash Kumar Chatry
Submitted on: 22nd September, 2022
___________________________________________________________________________
1. Appreciation:
We would like to appreciate the paper which had been presented by Group – 4. It is well
organized with easy language. To give short notes on Indian philosophy is not an easy task.
But, they did it well and gave a good presentation. This is one of the best papers presented
and we appreciate the hard works and dedication of the group members. The team work
rendered by the group, reflected by their paper is appreciable.
2. Positive comments:
Firstly, we can see that the topic consists of nine schools of philosophy and another two
sub headings. However, these headings are briefly explained in brief sentences which allows
us to know many things about each headings. Also, simple languages were used which
enables everyone to understand them easily. Each schools of thoughts are clearly explained in
a simple way, which is very much appreciated. The indentations and the proper uses Sanskrit
words are excellent, which we had not seen in other papers.
3. Errors and mistakes:
i) As per the guideline given regarding the paper presentation, the paper should be
circulated to the responding group within two days before the day of presentation,
before 10:00 AM on that day, i.e., on 20th September, 2022, 10:00 AM. But the
PDF file was uploaded in the group on 20th September, 2022 at 09:48 PM, and the
hard copy was circulated to the responding group on 21st September, 2022 at
01:00 PM. This means that the circulation was delayed by 28 hours. This implies
that the date of submission written on the cover page was wrong information.
ii) As per the mentioned guideline, the word and page limitation of the paper should
be 3500 words (7 pages). But the said paper consists of 4277 words ( 10 pages).
This is another violation of the guideline provided.
iii) Group number is not mentioned in the cover page, which is confusing.
iv) For all the direct quotations, no inverted commas were used.
v) The point 2 is given in page 5 in the table of content. But it started from page 4.
vi) All the sub-headings are capitalized.
vii) Some Sanskrit words are not italicized.
viii) Some footnotes and bibliographies are not given proper punctuations, i.e., full
stops, commas and tabs.
ix) In the school of Carvaka, only the introduction of the philosophy is depicted.
There is no information about soul, God, its ethical values, etc.
x) In Jaina philosophy, informations are given only on the 24 thirthankaras. No
information about soul, God, liberation, ethics, knowledge metaphysics are given.
xi) In Buddhism, the founder’s name is missing. The four noble truths, the eight fold
paths and the ethical teachings are missing.
xii) The Bible verse Luke 24:44-46 is not relevant to the context of Karma.
xiii) Under the topic ‘Theory of Soul and Karma in Indian Philosophical Schools’, the
sub-headings could have been made similar.
xiv) The Vedanta school is not mentioned in the sub-heading. But on page. 9, there are
Vedanta views of soul and karma. On page. 8, more points could have been given
regarding soul. 2nd paragraph on page – 9 is not clear enough as it does not talked
about soul and karma of Vedanta.
xv) In page 5, point no. 2.1, the passage and the footnote mentioned does not relate to
each others.
4. Comments and suggestions:
As mentioned above, the overall presentation of the paper is quiet acceptable. It is
informative, also easy to understand. However, taking all the mentioned errors into
consideration, it is suggested that the paper would be prepared with more care and caution.
Apart from that, it is a good academic presentation which could be of great use.
5. Questions:
i) In point no. 1.6 of this paper, it is written that Shankara’s teaching has great
influence in India. How can you elaborate it while Ramanuja and Madhava has
influence over India and its culture as well?
ii) In general, karma is deed or action done by an individual. The result of karma
may be the evolutionary part of the soul. It seems that this statement makes wrong
interpretation about karma. How will you justify your view?
Thank you…