Introductory

Chapter – 1

  • Ancient Indian achievements in philosophy are not well-known globally or even within India.
  • Hindu scholars with deep knowledge prefer solitude and lack interest in writing in vernacular languages to popularize philosophy.
  • Numerous philosophical works in Sanskrit and Pâli have been published, but systematic study and translation efforts are limited.
  • Indian philosophical expressions and technical terms differ greatly from European thought, making accurate translation challenging.
  • Sanskrit philosophical literature presents unique difficulties due to technical language, condensed expression, and allusions to other doctrines.
  • Clear expression in Sanskrit philosophy began to develop notably from the ninth century, leading to the invention of many technical terms.
  • Teaching philosophy traditionally required a master-student relationship for explanations of technical terms.
  • Only a select few deemed fit by moral strength were allowed to study philosophy, contributing to its exclusivity.
  • Technical terms often carry different meanings across different philosophical systems, complicating understanding.
  • Allusions to other doctrines and their refutations further complicate comprehension, as readers may lack familiarity with all systems.
  • Key compendiums like the Sarvadars’anasa@mgraha and @Sa@ddars’anasamuccaya provide summaries but lack depth on ontological and epistemological doctrines.
  • Translation of these works may not clarify intricate philosophical concepts.
  • The absence of concise books explaining the main philosophical positions adds to the challenge.
  • Despite initial difficulties, mastering Indian philosophy is achievable through patience and familiarity with technical terms.
  • Technical terms aid precise expression and reduce misinterpretation, outweighing initial challenges.
  • Clear writing, facilitated by technical terms, is essential for philosophical comprehension.
  • Early Buddhist literature in Pâli also faces challenges due to elastic technical terms used inconsistently.
  • Some believe Indians never developed true philosophy beyond simple faith, but this is an uninformed view.
  • Professor Frank Thilly suggests limiting philosophy study to Western countries due to this misconception.
  • However, such views stem from ignorance of Indian philosophy.
  • The vastness of Indian philosophical literature is cited as a reason for delaying a comprehensive history.
  • Some argue that specialists should first compile accounts of specific systems before attempting a comprehensive history.
  • While Indian philosophical literature is extensive, many works cover similar subjects, allowing for a judicious selection of key texts.
  • Despite limitations, efforts to compile a history of Indian philosophy have drawn directly from original texts.
  • Due to space constraints, histories may not be exhaustive but aim to highlight key features.
  • Shortcomings and defects are acknowledged, but these histories serve as valuable introductions to Indian philosophy.
  • Imperfections in writing can serve as motivation for improvement by future, more capable writers.
  • Lack of proper historical records and biographies in Indian philosophy doesn’t render its history impossible to write.
  • While early dates in Indian philosophy are obscure, later developments allow for some chronological affirmation.
  • Systems of Indian philosophy developed side by side, influencing each other and becoming more coherent over time.
  • In India, philosophical development led to more coherent and determinate systems, rather than entirely new types.
  • Differentiation and coherence in Indian philosophical systems occurred gradually through criticism and conflict.
  • Chronological information in Indian philosophy, while desirable, isn’t as crucial as in European philosophy due to simultaneous development of systems.
  • Interest in early origins of Indian philosophical systems is more historical than philosophical.
  • General notions about early stages of Indian philosophical systems can be formed despite limited detailed information.
  • Knowing correct dates of thinkers within the same system wouldn’t warrant separate treatment due to their common focus.
  • The Vedas, earliest Indian literature, mostly consists of hymns praising nature gods, with limited philosophical content until later parts.
  • Later Vedic works show two tendencies: ritualistic worship and speculative thinking, with the former initially dominating but the latter also present.
  • Upanishads contain various philosophical thoughts, predominantly monistic or singularistic, with some pluralistic and dualistic ones.
  • These are not reasoned statements but intuitive truths perceived or felt as unquestionably real and persuasive.
  • Many parts of Upanishadic literature are believed to date back to 500-700 B.C.
  • Buddhist philosophy originated around 500 B.C. and continued developing until the 10th or 11th century A.D.
  • Other Indian systems of thought began between the time of Buddha and around 200 B.C.
  • Jaina philosophy likely predates Buddhism but didn’t have significant contact with other Hindu systems, except during conflict with Buddhist doctrines.
  • Jaina thought is seldom mentioned by Hindu or later Buddhist writers.
  • Jaina philosophy hasn’t splintered into various schools as Buddhist thought did.
  • The first volume of the work will cover Buddhist and Jaina philosophy, along with the six orthodox Hindu systems: Sâmkhya, Yoga, Nyâya, Vaiseshika, Mimamsa (Purva Mimamsa), and Vedanta (Uttara Mimamsa).
  • Sâmkhya and Yoga are different schools of the same system.
  • Nyâya and Vaiseshika, though initially distinct, became closely associated over time, almost considered the same systems.
  • Nyâya and Vaiseshika are therefore treated together.
  • Theistic systems in Hindu thought gained prominence from the 9th century A.D., possibly originating during the time of the Upanishads.
  • The Bhagavadgita is considered a masterpiece of Hindu thought, addressing moral, religious, and metaphysical issues in verse format.
  • Theism in Hinduism often takes a dualistic or pluralistic approach, reflected in various schools of Vaishnava philosophy.
  • Vaishnava thinkers attempted to align their systems with the Upanishads, writing commentaries to prove their interpretations.
  • Another class of theistic works, including Shaiva and Tantra thought, emerged with eclectic influences.
  • The earliest origins of most Hindu thought systems can be traced back to around 600 B.C. to 100 or 200 B.C.
  • The relative priority of these systems is difficult to determine, with conjectural attempts made in the text.
  • Systems of thought began developing side by side, with an unbroken chain of teachers and pupils until the 17th century A.D.
  • Each system of Hindu thought continued to have adherents, although few write new works on them today.
  • Systems attempted to answer new problems consistently with their doctrines as they evolved over time.
  • The order in which philosophical systems are presented isn’t strictly chronological due to the timing of elaborate works.
  • Enormous quantities of old philosophical literature may have been lost, impacting our understanding of early system growth and relations.
  • The author has drawn materials from original sources, aiming for accurate interpretation rather than adopting European modes of thought.
  • Similarities between Indian and modern philosophical doctrines suggest common modes of rational thought.
  • The author refrains from directly comparing Indian and European thought but acknowledges that many philosophical doctrines are essentially the same.
  • The author’s view on the value of Indian philosophical development will be discussed in the concluding chapter of the second volume.

You cannot copy content of this page

error: Content is protected !!
Scroll to Top