from his.  There was no tendency to popularize philosophy, for the idea then prevalent was that only the chosen few who had otherwise shown their fitness, deserved to become fit students (adhikari) of philosophy, under the direction of a teacher.  Only those who had the grit and high moral strength to devote their whole life to the true understanding of philosophy and the rebuilding of life in accordance with the high truths of philosophy were allowed to study it.

Another difficulty which a beginner will meet is this, that sometimes the same technical terms are used in extremely different senses in different systems.  The student must know the meaning of each technical term with reference to the system in which it occurs, and no dictionary will enlighten him much about the matter [Footnote ref 1].  He will have to pick them up as he advances and finds them used.  Allusions to the doctrines of other systems and their refutations during the discussions of similar doctrines in any particular system of thought are often very puzzling even to a well-equipped reader; for he cannot be expected to know all the doctrines of other systems without going through them, and so it often becomes difficult to follow the series of answers and refutations which are poured forth in the course of these discussions.  There are two important compendiums in Sanskrit giving a summary of some of the principal systems of Indian thought, viz. the Sarvadars’anasa@mgraha, and the _@Sa@ddars’anasamuccaya_ of Haribhadra with the commentary of Gu@naratna; but the former is very sketchy and can throw very little light on the understanding of the ontological or epistemological doctrines of any 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