A History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. 1 | Page 9

therefore been treated
8
together. In addition to these systems some theistic systems began to
grow prominent from the ninth century A.D. They also probably had
their early beginnings at the time of the Upani@sads. But at that time

their interest was probably concentrated on problems of morality and
religion. It is not improbable that these were associated with certain
metaphysical theories also, but no works treating them in a systematic
way are now available. One of their most important early works is the
_Bhagavadgâtâ_. This book is rightly regarded as one of the greatest
masterpieces of Hindu thought. It is written in verse, and deals with
moral, religious, and metaphysical problems, in a loose form. It is its
lack of system and method which gives it its peculiar charm more akin
to the poetry of the Upani@sads than to the dialectical and systematic
Hindu thought. From the ninth century onwards attempts were made to
supplement these loose theistic ideas which were floating about and
forming integral parts of religious creeds, by metaphysical theories.
Theism is often dualistic and pluralistic, and so are all these systems,
which are known as different schools of Vai@s@nava philosophy.
Most of the Vai@s@nava thinkers wished to show that their systems
were taught in the Upani@sads, and thus wrote commentaries thereon
to prove their interpretations, and also wrote commentaries on the
_Brahmasûtra_, the classical exposition of the philosophy of the
Upani@sads. In addition to the works of these Vai@s@nava thinkers
there sprang up another class of theistic works which were of a more
eclectic nature. These also had their beginnings in periods as old as the
Upani@sads. They are known as the S'aiva and Tantra thought, and are
dealt with in the second volume of this work.
We thus see that the earliest beginnings of most systems of Hindu
thought can be traced to some time between 600 B.C. to 100 or 200
B.C. It is extremely difficult to say anything about the relative priority
of the systems with any degree of certainty. Some conjectural attempts
have been made in this work with regard to some of the systems, but
how far they are correct, it will be for our readers to judge. Moreover
during the earliest manifestation of a system some crude outlines only
are traceable. As time went on the systems of thought began to develop
side by side. Most of them were taught from the time in which they
were first conceived to about the seventeenth century A.D. in an
unbroken chain of teachers and pupils. Even now each system of Hindu
thought has its own adherents, though few people now

9
care to write any new works upon them. In the history of the growth of
any system of Hindu thought we find that as time went on, and as new
problems were suggested, each system tried to answer them
consistently with its own doctrines. The order in which we have taken
the philosophical systems could not be strictly a chronological one.
Thus though it is possible that the earliest speculations of some form of
Sâ@mkhya, Yoga, and Mîmâ@msâ were prior to Buddhism yet they
have been treated after Buddhism and Jainism, because the elaborate
works of these systems which we now possess are later than Buddhism.
In my opinion the Vais'e@sika system is also probably pre-Buddhistic,
but it has been treated later, partly on account of its association with
Nyâya, and partly on account of the fact that all its commentaries are of
a much later date. It seems to me almost certain that enormous
quantities of old philosophical literature have been lost, which if found
could have been of use to us in showing the stages of the early growth
of the systems and their mutual relations. But as they are not available
we have to be satisfied with what remains. The original sources from
which I have drawn my materials have all been indicated in the brief
accounts of the literature of each system which I have put in before
beginning the study of any particular system of thought.
In my interpretations I have always tried to follow the original sources
as accurately as I could. This has sometimes led to old and unfamiliar
modes of expression, but this course seemed to me to be preferable to
the adoption of European modes of thought for the expression of Indian
ideas. But even in spite of this striking similarities to many of the
modern philosophical doctrines and ideas will doubtless be noticed.
This only proves that the human mind follows more or less the same
modes of rational thought. I have never tried to compare any phase of
Indian thought with European, for this is beyond the scope of my
present attempt, but if I may be allowed to express my