sources in which they appear at their best. My space has been very limited
and I have chosen the features which appeared to me to be the most
important. I had to leave out many discussions of difficult problems
and diverse important bearings of each of the systems to many
interesting aspects of philosophy. This I hope may be excused
in a history of philosophy which does not aim at completeness.
There are indeed many defects and shortcomings, and

5

these would have been much less in the case of a writer abler than the
present one. At any rate it may be hoped that the imperfections of the
present attempt will be a stimulus to those whose better and more
competent efforts will supersede it. No attempt ought to be called
impossible on account of its imperfections.

In the second place it is said that the Indians had no proper and
accurate historical records and biographies and it is therefore impossible
to write a history of Indian philosophy. This objection is also partially
valid. But this defect does not affect us so much as one would at first
sight suppose; for, though the dates of the earlier beginnings are very
obscure, yet, in later times, we are in a position to affirm some dates
and to point out priority and posteriority in the case of other thinkers.
As most of the systems developed side by side through many centuries their
mutual relations also developed, and these could be well observed. The
special nature of this development has been touched on in the fourth
chapter. Most of the systems had very early beginnings and a continuous
course of development through the succeeding centuries, and it is not
possible to take the state of the philosophy of a particular system at
a particular time and contrast it with the state of that system at a