PREFAcE
6
is insoluble, and it has furnished a field for the wildest
hypotheses, wonderful reconstruction and bold romance.
The fragmentary condition of the material from out of
which history has to be reconstructed is another obstacle.
In these circumstances I must hesitate to call this work
a History of Indian Philosophy.
In interpreting the doctrines of particular systems, I
have tried to keep in close touch with the documents, give
wherever possible a preliminary survey of the conditions
that brought them into being, and estimate their indebtedness
to the past as well as their contribution to the progress
of thought. I have emphasised the essentials so as to pre..
vent the meaning of the whole from being obscured by
details, and attempted to avoid starting from any theory.
Yet I fear I shall be n1isunderstood. The task of the historian
is hard, especially in philosophy. However much he may
try to assume the attitude of a mere chronicler and let the
history in some fa
hion unfold its own inner meaning and
continuity, furnish its own criticism of errors and partial
insights, still the judgments and sympathies of the writer
cannot long be hidden. Besides, Indian philosophy offers
another difficulty. We have the commentaries which, being
older, come nearer in time to the work commented upon.
The presumption is that they will be more enlightening
about the n1eaning of the texts. But when the com-
mentators differ about their interpretations, one cannot
stand silently by without offering some judgment on the
conflict of views. Such personal expressions of opinion,
however dangerous, ean hardJy be avoided. Effective
exposition means criticism and evaluation, and I do not
think it is necessary to abstain from criticism in order that
I may give a fair and imp..'rtial statement. I can only
hope that the subject is treated in a calm and dispassionate
way, and that whatever the defects of the book, n