A History of Indian Philosophy, Volume 1

...these imperfections would have been much less significant if the writer were more capable than I am. In any case, I hope the flaws in this attempt will encourage others, whose more competent efforts will eventually replace original: "supersede" it. No project should be considered impossible just because it has flaws.

Secondly, some argue that because Indians lacked proper, accurate historical records and biographies, it is impossible to write a history of Indian philosophy. This objection is also partly true. However, this deficiency does not affect our work as much as one might initially think. Although the dates of the earliest origins are very unclear original: "obscure", we can confirm some dates from later periods and identify who came first and who came later original: "priority and posteriority" among various thinkers. Since most of these systems developed alongside one another over many centuries, their relationships with each other also evolved, and these can be clearly observed. I have discussed the specific nature of this development in the fourth chapter.

Most systems began very early and developed continuously through the following centuries. It is not possible to take the philosophy of a specific system at one point in time and contrast it with that system at a later time. This is because the later version did not replace the previous one, but instead presented a more coherent and defined original: "determinate" form that generally remained true to the original system.

In Western countries, historical evolution has often produced entirely new and more coherent types of philosophical thought. In India, however, while the basic types of thought remained the same, their historical development made them increasingly coherent and precise. Most elements likely existed in the early stages but were in an undefined original: "undifferentiated" state. Through the criticism and conflict between different schools existing side by side, the components of each system of thought became more distinct, specific, and consistent. In some cases, this development has been nearly invisible. In many others, the earlier forms have been lost or expressed so poorly that nothing certain can be determined from them. Whenever it was possible to identify such developments for the sake of philosophical clarity, I have tried to do so. However, I have never believed that philosophical significance should be sacrificed for the sake of chronological order. It is no...