In the Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Christopher Key Chapple wrote that the author "has created a tour-de-force that puts India’s premodern thinkers in conversation with its postmodern intellectuals".
Medieval Hindu thinkers set forth a philosophical position that seeks to articulate a coherent worldview without sacrificing the complexity of India’s divergent views and deities.
"[3]: 882–3 In Religious Studies Review, Jeffrey D. Long wrote that the book "sets the record straight"[4]: 33 regarding the historical emergence Hinduism, and "promises to change the scholarly conversation on Hindu identity".
[4]: 33 In Sophia, Reid Locklin wrote the book was "somewhat fragmented", with chapters showing marks of prior publication or presentation elsewhere, but that "The cumulative effect is nevertheless very impressive",[5]: 332 and that "Given the enormous scope of its enquiry, the work is relatively concise, very accessible and therefore suitable for the advanced undergraduate or graduate classroom".
[5]: 332 In Journal of the American Oriental Society, John Nemec wrote that the book's strengths "lie with the larger, theoretical argument Nicholson makes regarding the role of doxography in shaping knowledge",[6]: 32 and that the book is unquestionably a theoretically subtle and thought-provoking treatment of a neglected chapter in the history of Indian philosophy [that] raises important questions about intellectual history and convincingly makes the case for the significance of Vijñānabhikṣu’s writings.
[6]: 32–3 But Nemec was still left "with certain doubts and questions",[6]: 32 such as how our understanding of Vijnanabhiksu's views might change if more of his works were available in translation, and whether premodern Indian philosophers might have been "more aware of their mutual differences than this volume allows".
She regarded the book as having "political ramifications that suggest that the origins of Hinduism are not only the Vedas, as Hindu nationalists claim... nor a product of British colonial rule... as understood by some scholars.
"[7]: 571 She also viewed the book as significant for its "broader political and critical claim that Bhedabheda Vedanta is valuable and on par with the better known schools of Indian philosophy".
"[9]: 138 Mahmood is also concerned that the book fails to discuss or acknowledge a core question related to Vijnanbhiksu's motivation, that is Did Vijñānabhikṣu create an inclusive classification of Indian philosophy primarily [as propaganda] to preserve an identity, rather than to state the truth as he saw it?
[10]: 477 Leach added that it is not wholly convincing that Vijñānabhikṣu's inclusivist project is categorically distinct from strategies applied by earlier authors whom Nicholson omits from the historical process of unifying Hinduism.
Among pre-12th century authors who systematically assembled South Asian intellectual traditions in a conceivably 'proto-Hindu' fashion, and who did so in a context which does not appear to have been shaped by rivalries with Islam, we can count, for example, Bhasarvajna and Bhatta Jayanta.
[17] In response to Nicholson, Malhotra stated "I used your work with explicit references 30 times in Indra's Net, hence there was no ill-intention," and provided with a list of these citations.