A History of Indian Philosophy – Introductory

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.