of the
systems. It has been translated by Cowell and Gough, but I

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Recently a very able Sanskrit dictionary of technical
philosophical terms called Nyayakos'a has been prepared by M.M.
Bhimacarya Jhalkikar, Bombay, Govt. Press.]

3

am afraid the translation may not be found very intelligible.
Gu@naratna's commentary is excellent so far as Jainism is concerned,
and it sometimes gives interesting information about other systems,
and also supplies us with some short bibliographical notices, but it
seldom goes on to explain the epistemological or ontological doctrines
or discussions which are so necessary for the right understanding of any
of the advanced systems of Indian thought. Thus in the absence of a book
which could give us in brief the main epistemological, ontological, and
psychological positions of the Indian thinkers, it is difficult even for
a good Sanskrit scholar to follow the advanced philosophical literature,
even though he may be acquainted with many of the technical philosophical
terms. I have spoken enough about the difficulties of studying Indian
philosophy, but if once a person can get himself used to the technical
terms and the general positions of the different Indian thinkers and their
modes of expression, he can master the whole by patient toil. The
technical terms, which are a source of difficulty at the beginning, are
of inestimable value in helping us to understand the precise and definite
meaning of the writers who used them, and the chances of misinterpreting
or misunderstanding them are reduced to a minimum. It is I think
well-known that avoidance of technical terms has often rendered
philosophical works unduly verbose, and liable to misinterpretation.
The art of clear writing is indeed a rare virtue and every philosopher
cannot expect to have it. But when technical expressions are properly
formed, even a bad writer can make himself understood. In the early days
of Buddhist philosophy in the Pali literature, this difficulty is greatly
felt. There are some technical terms here which are still very elastic and
their repetition in different places in more or less different senses
heighten the difficulty of understanding the real meaning intended to be
conveyed.

But is it necessary that a history of Indian philosophy should be
written? There are some people who think that the Indians never rose
beyond the st