A History of Indian Philosophy, Volume 1

"...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 above the mythological stage. Even the theories of Eastern original: "Oriental" peoples—the Hindus, Egyptians, and Chinese—consist mainly of mythological and moral original: "ethical" doctrines and are not thoroughgoing systems of thought; they are permeated with poetry and faith. We shall, therefore, limit ourselves to the study of Western countries and begin with the philosophy of the ancient Greeks, upon whose culture our own civilization partially rests." The author is quoting a typical Western perspective of the time which dismissed non-Western thought as unsystematic. There are undoubtedly many other people who hold such uninformed and false beliefs, which only reveal their ignorance of Indian matters. It is not necessary to say anything further to refute these views, for I hope that what follows will demonstrate the falsity of their beliefs. If they are not satisfied and want to know the contents of the different systems more definitely and elaborately, I am afraid they will have to consult the original texts referred to in the bibliographical notes of each chapter.

There is another opinion: that the time has not yet come for an attempt to write a history of Indian philosophy. Two different reasons are given from two different perspectives. It is said that the field of Indian philosophy is so vast, and such a massive amount of literature exists for each system, that it is impossible for any one person to gather materials directly from the original sources until specialists working on each particular system have prepared separate accounts.

There is some truth in this objection. However, although the literature for some of the important systems is exceedingly vast, many of these works are more or less repetitions of the same subjects. A careful original: "judicious" selection of twenty or thirty important works for each system could certainly be made, which would provide a reasonably accurate explanation original: "exposition". In my own undertaking in this direction, I have always drawn directly from the original texts and have always tried to collect my materials from the sources in which the ideas appear at their best.

My space has been very limited, and I have chosen the features that appeared to me to be the most important. I had to omit many discussions of difficult problems and the various ways each system relates to many interesting aspects of philosophy. I hope this may be excused in a history of philosophy that does not aim to be exhaustive. There are indeed many defects and shortcomings, and...