Let no-one think that on these pages he will find statements tending to demonstrate that some Western philosophical system or the very precise ideas of some philosopher of the West are to be found in Sanskrit texts. We do not agree with those who thought they had found in the Upanishads the almost exact thoughts of Plato and Kant. And we have not read into the Sanskrit texts anything not put there by their authors.
But neither let anyone expect us to defend the old and hollow assertion that Indian philosophy does not exist or that, should it exist, there is nothing in it that bears any relation to Western philosophy.
Philosophy is subject to much the same treatment as are the men who author it if we take a Rigvedic personage, for example, and compare him with Sir Francis Bacon, we will find nothing in common between them, neither the language, nor the culture, nor the customs or tastes, nor the idea they had of life. Nothing. Of course, both of them had a digestive tract that performed the same functions, a circulatory system whereby their respective bloods were oxygenated upon passing through their lungs, etc., etc. But no-one would consider it necessary to prove their physiological resemblance given the fact that they were men. In the sphere of philosophical propositions, however, it would seem that the equivalent of such a demonstration would be necessary, at least for those who claim that there is nothing in India which would bear even a remote resemblance to what in the West is known as philosophy.
We believe, along with MassonOursel, that in the matter of com-paring Hindu ideas to Western ideas (or philosophemes, if one will), "no inference of this kind makes any sense if it is not based on an exact appraisal of the value of the texts for India itself." And because we believe this to be so, we shall refer exclusively to texts, or fragments thereof, which have the same value for India as for ourselves.
We could overwhelm the reader with quotations from more or less eminent philosophers and one or two Orientalists, each and every one of them to the effect that there is no philosophy in India. The existence of these opinions, and the opinions themselves, are so well-known that we do not consider it necessary to reproduce them here. There were some philosophers who took up that attitude in order to maintain the discriminative and pedantic position which for centuries has typified a certain sort of European with respect to the other continents, while others did so out of sheer ignorance and not few took it up in absolute honesty, thinking that inflated concepts or a pro-orientalist zeal were behind anyone's contention that Indian philosophy is a fact.
When the existence of Indian philosophy began to be admitted, it was out of condescension, accepting it as a merely religious philosophy, a sort of Scholasticism without its intellectual discipline. That Indian philosophy was considered to consist mainly of religious problems everything being geared to spiritual salvation, and so that could not be considered real philosophy. Various important opinions to the contrary are being heard at present. There are those who think of the "problem of salvation, that (it) is far more philosophical than religious finding a way towards deliverance; to this end, to abandon natural conditions, even to divest ourselves of our empirical nature, to escape from one-self by avoiding the deed and its consequences. A problem, a paradox, a feat unique in human thought."2 And it has already been accepted that "We shall not be able, in fact, to continue neglecting the significance of the reactions and disgust that our science provokes in such speculative circles as those of the Orient.
Send as free online greeting card
Email a Friend
Statutory Information
Visual Search
Manage Wishlist