A History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. 1 | Page 6

prevalent was that only the chosen few who had otherwise shown their
fitness, deserved to become fit students (_adhikârî_) of philosophy,
under the direction of a teacher. Only those who had the grit and high
moral strength to devote their whole life to the true understanding of
philosophy and the rebuilding of life in accordance with the high truths
of philosophy were allowed to study it.
Another difficulty which a beginner will meet is this, that sometimes
the same technical terms are used in extremely different senses in
different systems. The student must know the meaning of each
technical term with reference to the system in which it occurs, and no
dictionary will enlighten him much about the matter [Footnote ref 1].
He will have to pick them up as he advances and finds them used.
Allusions to the doctrines of other systems and their refutations during
the discussions of similar doctrines in any particular system of thought
are often very puzzling even to a well-equipped reader; for he cannot
be expected to know all the doctrines of other systems without going
through them, and so it often becomes difficult to follow the series of
answers and refutations which are poured forth in the course of these
discussions. There are two important compendiums in Sanskrit giving a
summary of some of the principal systems of Indian thought, viz. the
_Sarvadars'anasa@mgraha_, and the _@Sa@ddars'anasamuccaya_ of
Haribhadra with the commentary of Gu@naratna; but the former is
very sketchy and can throw very little light on the understanding of the

ontological or epistemological doctrines of any of the systems. It has
been translated by Cowell and Gough, but I
_________________________________________________________
___________
[Footnote 1: Recently a very able Sanskrit dictionary of technical
philosophical terms called Nyâyakos'a has been prepared by M.M.
Bhîmâcârya Jhalkikar, Bombay, Govt. Press.]
3
am afraid the translation may not be found very intelligible.
Gu@naratna's commentary is excellent so far as Jainism is concerned,
and it sometimes gives interesting information about other systems, and
also supplies us with some short bibliographical notices, but it seldom
goes on to explain the epistemological or ontological doctrines or
discussions which are so necessary for the right understanding of any of
the advanced systems of Indian thought. Thus in the absence of a book
which could give us in brief the main epistemological, ontological, and
psychological positions of the Indian thinkers, it is difficult even for a
good Sanskrit scholar to follow the advanced philosophical literature,
even though he may be acquainted with many of the technical
philosophical terms. I have spoken enough about the difficulties of
studying Indian philosophy, but if once a person can get himself used
to the technical terms and the general positions of the different Indian
thinkers and their modes of expression, he can master the whole by
patient toil. The technical terms, which are a source of difficulty at the
beginning, are of inestimable value in helping us to understand the
precise and definite meaning of the writers who used them, and the
chances of misinterpreting or misunderstanding them are reduced to a
minimum. It is I think well-known that avoidance of technical terms
has often rendered philosophical works unduly verbose, and liable to
misinterpretation. The art of clear writing is indeed a rare virtue and
every philosopher cannot expect to have it. But when technical
expressions are properly formed, even a bad writer can make himself
understood. In the early days of Buddhist philosophy in the Pâli
literature, this difficulty is greatly felt. There are some technical terms

here which are still very elastic and their repetition in different places
in more or less different senses heighten the difficulty of understanding
the real meaning intended to be conveyed.
But is it necessary that a history of Indian philosophy should be written?
There are some people who think that the Indians never rose beyond
the stage of simple faith and that therefore they cannot have any
philosophy at all in the proper sense of the term. Thus Professor Frank
Thilly of the Cornell University says in his History of Philosophy
[Footnote ref 1], "A universal history of philosophy would include the
philosophies of all peoples. Not all peoples, however
_________________________________________________________
_________
[Footnote 1: New York, 1914, p. 3.]
4
have produced real systems of thought, and the speculations of only a
few can be said to have had a history. Many do not rise beyond the
mythological stage. Even the theories of Oriental peoples, the Hindus,
Egyptians, Chinese, consist, in the main, of mythological and ethical
doctrines, and are not thoroughgoing systems of thought: they are shot
through with poetry and faith. We shall, therefore, limit ourselves to the
study of the Western countries, and begin with the philosophy of the
ancient Greeks, on whose culture our own civilization in part, rests."
There