A History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. 1 | Page 8

growth and development of the different systems by mutual
association and conflict. If the condition of the development of
philosophy in India had been the same as in Europe, definite
chronological knowledge would be considered much more
indispensable. For, when one system supersedes another, it is
indispensably necessary that we should know which preceded and
which succeeded. But when the systems are developing side by side,
and when we are getting them in their richer and better forms, the
interest with regard to the conditions, nature and environment of their

early origin has rather a historical than a philosophical interest. I have
tried as best I could to form certain general notions as regards the
earlier stages of some of the systems, but though the various features of
these systems at these stages in detail may not be ascertainable, yet this,
I think, could never be considered as invalidating the whole programme.
Moreover, even if we knew definitely the correct dates of the thinkers
of the same system we could not treat them separately, as is done in
European philosophy, without unnecessarily repeating the same thing
twenty times over; for they all dealt with the same system, and tried to
bring out the same type of thought in more and more determinate
forms.
The earliest literature of India is the Vedas. These consist mostly of
hymns in praise of nature gods, such as fire, wind, etc. Excepting in
some of the hymns of the later parts of the work (probably about 1000
B.C.), there is not much philosophy in them in our sense of the term. It
is here that we first find intensely interesting philosophical questions of
a more or less cosmological character expressed in terms of poetry and
imagination. In the later Vedic works called the Brâhmaf@nas and the
Âra@nyakas written mostly in prose, which followed the Vedic hymns,
there are two tendencies, viz. one that sought to establish the magical
forms of ritualistic worship, and the other which indulged in
speculative thinking through crude generalizations. This latter tendency
was indeed much feebler than the former, and it might appear that the
ritualistic tendency had actually swallowed up what little of philosophy
the later parts of the Vedic hymns were trying to express, but there are
unmistakable marks that this tendency
7
existed and worked. Next to this come certain treatises written in prose
and verse called the Upani@sads, which contain various sorts of
philosophical thoughts mostly monistic or singularistic but also some
pluralistic and dualistic ones. These are not reasoned statements, but
utterances of truths intuitively perceived or felt as unquestionably real
and indubitable, and carrying great force, vigour, and persuasiveness
with them. It is very probable that many of the earliest parts of this

literature are as old as 500 B.C. to 700 B.C. Buddhist philosophy began
with the Buddha from some time about 500 B.C. There is reason to
believe that Buddhist philosophy continued to develop in India in one
or other of its vigorous forms till some time about the tenth or eleventh
century A.D. The earliest beginnings of the other Indian systems of
thought are also to be sought chiefly between the age of the Buddha to
about 200 B.C. Jaina philosophy was probably prior to the Buddha. But
except in its earlier days, when it came in conflict with the doctrines of
the Buddha, it does not seem to me that the Jaina thought came much in
contact with other systems of Hindu thought. Excepting in some forms
of Vai@s@nava thought in later times, Jaina thought is seldom alluded
to by the Hindu writers or later Buddhists, though some Jains like
Haribhadra and Gu@naratna tried to refute the Hindu and Buddhist
systems. The non-aggressive nature of their religion and ideal may to a
certain extent explain it, but there may be other reasons too which it is
difficult for us to guess. It is interesting to note that, though there have
been some dissensions amongst the Jains about dogmas and creeds,
Jaina philosophy has not split into many schools of thought more or
less differing from one another as Buddhist thought did.
The first volume of this work will contain Buddhist and Jaina
philosophy and the six systems of Hindu thought. These six systems of
orthodox Hindu thought are the Sâ@mkhya, the Yoga, the Nyâya, the
Vais'e@sika, the Mimâ@msâ (generally known as Pûrva Mimâ@msâ),
and the Vedânta (known also as Uttara Mimâ@msâ). Of these what is
differently known as Sâ@mkhya and Yoga are but different schools of
one system. The Vais'e@sika and the Nyâya in later times became so
mixed up that, though in early times the similarity of the former with
Mimâ@msâ was greater than that with Nyâya, they came to be
regarded as fundamentally almost the same systems. Nyâya and
Vais'e@sika have