METHODS AND SIGNIFICANCE

OF COMPARATIVE PHILOSOPHY(•)

by HAJIME NAKAMURA

1. Parallel De11e/1J///ne11L1 and Proble,11 A/1/1roach.

Philosophical problem\ in almost parallel developments within

different cultural areas have been noticed and vaguely com­
mented upon ; this work is an attempt to pin do,vn specific
problems. I shall use the term "religion"(') to mean the ap­
prehension of the absolute, which is later systematized, and the
term "philosophy" to mean a basic view of the life and universe.
Both terms will be used in a rather broad sense. A loosening of
the limitations on "religious" and "philosophical" seem co be
necessary for our discussion. In the West the two terms have been
fairly sharply distinguished from each other, while in Eastern
traditions the dividing line is often difficult to discern. If we insist
on being too strict in our delimitations, we fail to catch many
conunon problems. It is possible that an idea or attitude held by a
Western philosopher finds its counterpart not in an Eastern
philosopher but in an Eastern religious thinker and vice versa.
For example, the virtue of tolerance was stressed in the West
more by enlightened philosophers than traditional religionists,

(•) This paper reprt":Sents the introduciory pan of the author's prospective work on
"'Paralld Developments of Religious and Philosophical Thoughts in East and Wcst 00
( 1) We encounter a very outspol<en assertion. '1 seriously suggest that terms such as
Ch ristianity, Buddhism, and the like must be dropped, as clearly untenable once
challenged. The w<rd 'religion' has had many meanings ; it too would be better d ropped.
This is partly because of its distracting ambiguity, pa rtly because most of its traditional
meanings are. on S(rutiny. illegitimat('. The only effective significance that can r�asonably
be att1ibuu:d 10 doc t<Tm is that of 'religiou.=ss' (Wilfred can,well SMITH : TIIL Mtani11.i:
00
•

and F.nd uf Re/igi,m. A new a/1/m,a,h t,, thL reli/l;iow tro,l;lioru a{ manki,,d. New York, Matmilla,1,
1962, p. 178).
 METHODS OF COMPARATIVE PHILOOOPHY 185

whereas in Japan and China it was emphasized more by

traditional religionists than b y modern-style philosophers. Thus,
i f we limit our scope to only one of the two, either religion of
philosophy, we are apt to miss some interesting common features.
Although this work is chiefly focussed on "philosophical
thought", we shall occasionally deal with symbols and practices
which are inseparable from it.
By " parallel developments" I refer to the fact that in different
cultural areas similar problems, even if not similar concepts, were
discussed. Such discussions led to ,nore or less similar solutions,
and closely related problems were met in similar stages of
development, thus constituting a more or less similar process of
development in different cultural areas. I do not necessarily mean
that similar thoughts occurred a1 nearly the same time period.
But the following discussions ¼'ill show that the history of
philosophical thought of each cultural area has passed similar
stages of development.
By "cultural area: I mean the area where a culturally advanced
people has established its own cultural tradition in its own way.
For example, India, China, Japan, Judea, Greece, etc., or
Medieval Europe or, on occasion each European country can be
called a cultural area. The term "East and West" is very often
used. But the distinction betv.,een East and West is not clear.
Moreover, East is not a cultural unit; it consists of various
cultural areas. For example, although we cannot deny aspects of
f
similarity, Japanese culture is in rnany aspects highly dif erent
from Indian culture. When a clear and specific statement is in­
tended, this dichotomy will not be used. Only when I need not
specify any cultural area, shall I follow the conventional ap­
pellation. In such a case, by "West" I mean the tradition of
Graeco:Judaic-Christian thought, and by "East" I mean chieny
the traditions of India, China, Japan, etc., which are in many
cases different from each other. I regard the simple dichotomy of
East and West as inadequate, and generally I shall specify each
cultural area such as Greece, India, Japan. e1c.
When we view the development of ideas in various cultural
areas, we notice many common ideas which occurred in nearly
the same period. In these discussions I wish to direct attention to
186 HAJIME NAKAMURA

them but not necessarily to draw any inunediate conclusions. My

aim is rather to let the facts themselves speak. When these have
been duly considered, I hope it will be possible to point to son1e
stages, in the development of philosophical thought, common to
different cultural areas. I would rather leave the problem of ho,v
many stages one ought to admit to the reader, though I firmly
believe that there have indeed been ,0111e stages. I must add that
my division into different stages or periods is only tentative ; my
main point is to indicate some common ideas or problems noticed
in various cultural areas of different traditions.
My studies in this case will be carried out by using a "problem
approach". Many works on comparative religion have been
published, but in most cases topics or chapters have been set up
according to the differences or religions or traditions and have
not been arranged according to the difference of problems. Books
on the history of philosophy are not less in number, but their
descriptions are mostly based upon the differences of schools or
individual philosophers, and not on problems as such. Differing
from this usual method, I would like to discuss the whole process
according to philosophical problems.
In modern studies today there is a reaction fro1n previous
Western tendencies to emphasize grounds for comparison. This
reaction is expressed in the truism: "Apparent sin1ilarities are
really disguished dissi1nilarities". Similarity always involves dif­
ferences. It is urged that there is a need to consider the n1eaning
of each particular term in the light of its own parcicula,· historical
and systernatic context. One result of this viev.• has been that the
,vhole attempt at any comparative survey has come to be suspect.
Especially in Japan, my o,vn country, scholars have recently
engaged in minute and highly specialized studies. I also have per­
petr�ted such studies. In them I never dared to deal with larger
questions. For example, when I wrote an article on Early
Vedanta for an American journal, I focussed on problems or a
purely textual nature. I placed all my attention, for example, on
the identification of Tibetan citations with their Sanskrit
originals, knowing chat. this is what readers of that journal were
mainly interested in.
But gradually I have come co believe that the above-mentioned
reaction which refrains from any kind of con1parison has gone
 METHODS 01' COMPARATIVE PHILOSOPHY 187

too far. Each study by a specialist should be placed in a com­

prehensive framework to make clear the significance of the object
of study. Otherwise one might overlook the significance of each
object of study. I think that there is a need to reconsider some of
the statements and positions which invite a problem approach to
comparative studies. In an ideal case, comparative study requires
even or equal knowledge of different traditions. But that is not
my case. I have focussed my studies on Indian and Buddhist
philosophy and do not a t all have an even or equal knowledge of
other traditions. Yet I hope to be allowed to engage in corn­
parative studies by means of the "problem approach".
When we engage in philological or textual studies, we need not
necessarily endeavor to discuss the religious or philosophical
significance of an idea or a problem. But when we evaluate an
idea or a concept, v,e have to do it in relationship to relevant or
sirnilar ideas or concepts. We need to view it in a \vider scope.
For that purpose, \Ve should refer to similar ideas or problerns in
different traditions. By means of this method we can evaluate it
objectively. When \VC launch such investigation in spite of our i n ­
sufl,cient knowledge of other traditions, we call the ,nethod a
"problem approach". When we evaluate the concept of 'law'
(dharma) in Indian or Buddhist philosophy, for exan1ple, the
"problem approach" is highly necessary. If we pay attention to
concepts of similar purport in different traditions in different
cultural areas, t.he study becomes more effective. -rhe idea will be
locatecl, analyzed and reviewed in a wider scope, and the unique
feature of the idea or concept \viii be made clear. For that pur­
pose we may be allo\ved to be involved in discussions of" similar
ideas or proble,ns in different traditions, even if our knowledge
should be uneven. It is only for this purpose that similarities are
pointed out ; for the purpose of evaluation differences are more
important. When we make comparisons we .�hould be fully aware
of the latter point that similar assertions or similar wording rnay
play different or even contrary roles in different historical con­
text. For example, respect for Confucius played a progressive role
in the age of Enlightenrnent in the West whereas it played a con·
servative role in the Japan after the Meiji Restoration. There is
still a need to stress the grounds for the problem approach in
discussion of sin1ilar ideas and problems in different rraditions.
188 KAJIME NAKAMURA

Some facts or features common to different traditions have

already been pointed out by scholars, but in most cases this was
done incidentally or in marginal notes. There has not yet been a
systematic gathering of such facts and features into a total /1er­
.1/,ecti11e. If we collect as many items as possible, we may be able to
attain a a new image. This is what I have been aiming at. In the
following chapters I shall discuss problems in a wider view, as my
/1er.1"nal, tentative approach. I do not expect to match obscure
quotations with their equally obscure originals in full detail.
Rather, I shall give, as it were, my own personal views on this
sul:>ject. The following ideas have occurred to me at various
times, and if I have refrained from including them in my former
scholarly works, it is because I knew that my personal ideas
would be out of place in works of detailed historical analysis. But
I hope in this work to be allowed chis liberty. I must contend that
the problems indicated in the following chapters were not selec­
ted on a purely sul:>jective basis. The selection is, after all, the o u t ­
come o f my more detailed individual researches, and I hope that
most of them will be backed up by specialized studies. They are
meant to be clues or points of departure for further studies.
I wish to avoid comparing any religion as a whole with any
other religion as a whole. Scholars of comparative religion have
already made such studies with varying degrees of success, and
there is no need to repeat their findings. Since such studies are
also beyong my capacity, I will lirnit myself to pointing to some
common problems of various religious or philosophical systems. I
have collected even oddities of similar thoughts or expressions in
different traditions, and cried co locate them in chronological or­
der, although they do not necessarily belong to the same absolute
time period.
There exist certain oddities of thought often ignored by
scholars of particular traditions, which can take on a whole ne'"'
emphasis when seen in the light of other religious or
philosophical systems. Some sources mentioned in this work are
rather scrappy or sundry. But even sundry materials, when they
are systematized in due order, mil.y constitute a well-organized
whole. For this reason I did not menti0n the names of any
religion, school or individual philosopher in headings of the
chapters or sections, but placed them under the general topics
 METHODS OF COMPARATIVE PHILOSOPHY 189

which can be found in different traditions. Even today some

students read Windelband's old book, Hirtory 11/ Philo.wf,hy, (')
which was written on the basis of a problem-approach format.
Why should we not have a work like that in a wider scope, one
that ranges over the Eastern traditions as well as the Western ?
It is very difficult to make clear the distinction between similar
concepts. Such work requires full knowledge of both sides. It may
not be so difficult, however, to point out similarities among
problems or ideas which can be found in different cultural
traditions. We have only to point out, and detailed discussions of
differences can be left to further studies by specialists. I have
painfully learnt that what has interested me in the deep seas of
my study of oriental philosophy are, from the standpoint of time,
too deep down to reach within the short time allo\ved for fishing.
To my regret J have been obliged to skim the surface alone : for
deeper-sea diving, I shall have to direct you to materials men­
tioned in the footnotes. I n th.is volume I do not discuss every im­
portant problem in each tradition ; that is, when we do not find·
counterparts in other traditions or cultural areas specific
problems are left unmentioned. For example, Eastern coun­
terparts of some Christian ideas or proble1ns are cited in this
work, but other, perhaps more important, problems and ideas
are not handled. You will find, however, that a considerable
number of ideas of one tradition have their counterparts in other
traditions.
The divisions of periods or stages of development are only ten­
tative. Only after we have located common problems or common
concepts in the history of ideas within different traditions are we
able safely to pass oqjective judgments about divisions of periods
or stages. This, of course, must be based on sound and reliable
facts. Otherwise, preoccupation with any given theory seems to
be dangerous. Some concepts or ideas which I shall discuss can­
not be categorized into one period. For example, the subjects

(t) Wilhelm WrNDELBAND: Uhrouch dtr G<1thithu br Philasoplue. N<unte urul zehnte, dur­
chgesehene Auflage, besorgt von Erich Rothaclr.er, Tuebingen, Verlag von J. C. B. Mohr
(Paul Siebed). 1911. E. Tr.: 1£tslory of PililflJl>/)hy with SP,cial Riftrmtt IJ> the Formalinn and
Dturl.pment ef itJ Pmblmu and Conap/iJJns. Authorized translation by James H. Tufts. New
York, 1911.
190 HAJIME NAKAMURA

discuss<.:,! in the chapter on the ancient period are not necessarily

limited to the ancient period ; many of them linger co remain
·even in the modern period. But when those ideas seem co be
peculiarly characteristic of the ancient period, I discuss chem in
that chapter.
Some Eastern religionists and philosophers hold that Eastern
thought of the ancient period has a uniqueness and significance
which cannot be found in Western philosophy. In order co gain­
say such a contention I rited rnany parallel problems and con­
cepts h-om classical works of the West. On the ocher hand,
"medieval thought" is an amorphous c ategory within the Eastern
tradition ; scholars differ about periodizations of medieval
thought in Eastern countries, \vhereas the medieval period in the
West is relatively fixed. Hence, in the chapter on Medieval
Thought I concentrated not so much on elaborating exarnples
from the West, but on citing Eastern parallels.
Many intelleccuals say that modern thought did not exist in
Eastern countries prior to the introduction or Western
civilization. Differing fro,n the usual n1echods, I wanted to locate
n1odern thought in its incipient stages. As it is obvious that
modern thought developed in the West, I refrained from citing a
large number of instances from the West, but concentrated
chiefly on citing instances from Eastern countries. In sum, the
method or locating problems and ideas is the same throughout
the \vork, but the emphases in citing instances varies. This ,-eflects
and counterpoises nothing but the present state of research an�
the general climate or opinion held by those interested in the
field.
As a student of Indian and Buddhist philosophy, I cannot help
viewing problems from my own angle. Important problems in
ocher religious and philosophical traditions may have eluded my
attention. But I hope that this series of discussion� will help create
an arena for discussion of problems conunon to various
tradit.ions, and provide a larger framework for understanding the
significance of each tradition.
I consulted relevant passages from translations by experts in
their respective fields. For \-Vest.ern texts, I relied completely
upon translations or studies by specialists ; but in citing pas!lages
from Eastern texts (chiefly .Japanese, Chinese and Indian), I
 METHODS OF COMPARATIVE PHII.OSOPHY 191

frequently revised existing translations by collating thl'1n ,vit.h the

original tcxL�. Where I cite vcrhatim, I have mentioned sources i n
footnotes. 11,1orcover, I have translated many passages or Eastern.
especially.Japanese, works from the originals. There an: also m('n­
tioned in th(� footnotes.
As the aim of this "'ork i s to give a synopsis of parallel dcvelop­
rnents in philosophical rhoughc ('), I cannot discuss any item in
lull derail. Even one item ,viii require a book of explanations.
Where possible, I have rnentioned relevant ,-vorks to consult for
each item ; but I have co admit that the references in the foot­
notes are insufficient. I think, however, that this will not affect
the gene1·al frarnework of this work.

2. s,,1111· Rr/rri 11n s lo CfJ111/"1,r1tirw Alle,11/1/.<

1 1
111 th,, Cla.<.,ia1/ Prriod.

The fact that certain religio·philosophical ideas were co1nrnon

to East and West was noticed by some of the ancient Greeks.
Megasthenes (c. 300 B.C.), a Greek who ,vas sent by Seleucus, the
1nonarch of Syria, to India as a,nbassador pointed out simi­
larities : "On many points their opinions (i.e. the opinions of In­
dian Brahminsi coincide ,vith those of the Greeks". He continues :
"Concerning generation, and the nature of the soul, and many
other subjects, they express vie,,•s like those niaintained h1· lhr
Gre!'l,s" ('). Clement of Alexandria also asserted thac philosophy is
universal, and can be f'ound among various culturally advanced
peoples of' Ease and West. "Philosophy, then, ,vith all its blessed.
advantage to ,nan, llourished long ages .tgo a1nong the bar­
barians, diffusing its light among tJ1e Gentiles, and eventually
penetrated into Greece. Its hierophants "'ere the prophet� among
the Egyptians, the Chaldeans among the Assyrians, the f)ruids
among the Gauls. the Sa,·nianaeans ,vho were the philosophers of

(3) A work wl�d, is especially irnporram is Walter Ruow.N Ondischc und G,·ie,·hisdw
Meaaphysi k. 7.til..,rlmtt ,/er l,11l11h,�,t und lmni.ftik, Dl,usd1e Morg<·n13.ndiSC'he Cesdt�·haf1.
Band 8. 1931.S. 147-227). As I wrole this wot·k during my s1ay at S<·veral Amerkan univcr­
f
�tic:s. I could not in(orporare all important l'esults o s1ud�s or C'rt:nna.n scholars mc:n­
tion<.:'d in 1his a.nidc·.
(4) Mr.u.srH,Nf.$. h•u*"· fr. XU. pp. 100-101 . For a new study ,., M(--gastheness. ef. Allan
D.011.Qu1st : Mt',l!tirlheu,J 1md hvlimt Rtli,(i1111. II Sllv/..v in Mol.ii'f.� mu/ Trf,n. Stockholm. GUl<'horR
and Upp.ala, Almquist and Wi,,kell. 196z.
 192 HAJIME NAKAMURA

the Baktrians and the Kehs, the Magi among the Persians, who, as
you know, announced beforehand the birth of the Saviour, being
led by a star till they arrived in the land ofJudaea, and among the
Indians the Gymnosophists, and other philosophers of barbarous
nation�" ('). Some common features in Greek and Indian thought
were also admitted by Aristoboulos the Peripatetic (6). Nor did
the similarity of ideas escape the attention of medieval Arabians.
On the subject of "created things, both intelligibilia and sen­
sibilia," Alberuni, the Muhammedan scholar of Arabia (c. 1030
A.O.) , states : "The ancient Greeks held nearly the same views as
the Hindus"(').
In conu·ast, Chinese thought came co be noticed much later by
Western thinkers such as Leibniz('), Wolff, Voltaire, etc. The
history of ideas of Japan, from where I come, seems not to have
been given it� due attention by scholars of comparative studies.
Where relevant, I hope to be allowed to cite examples from
Japanese culture. In this connection I muse call attention to the
face that in the East of the classical period comparative study also
was a topic of great interest. Hindu philosophers engaged in
highly objective comparative descriptions of various philoso­
phical systems, and left wonderful masterpieces such as the Sar­
oodariana-saTTJ.gTaha by Madhava (c. 1350). In China, after the in­
troduction of Buddhism, comparison of various religious and
philosophical systems created heated debate ; such voluminous
works as the Hung-ming Chi by Seng-yu (445-518) and the Kuang

(5) MEGArrHENl!S : Ind. fr. XIJII, p. 104. According to Clement of Aln.andria,

.Megasthenes �rt� that Gr«k philosophy was not e"5elltially different from Indian and
Jewish philosophy. "I'hat the Jewish race is by far the oldest of all these, and that their
philosophy, which has been committ� to writing, preceded the philosophy of the Greeks,
Phil o the Pythagorean shows by rilany arguments, as does also Aristoboulos, the
Peripathetic, and many others whose names I need not waste time in enumerating.
Mega.sthenes, the author of a work on India, who lived with Selatlr.os Nikator, write• most
dearly on this point, and his wo«ls are these : -"All that ha! been said regarding narure
by the ancimts is asserted also by philosophers out of Greece, on the one part in India by
the Braclunanes, and on the other i n Syria by the people c.all� theJews". (Megasthenes :
Ind. fr. XUI, f. p. 105).
(6) Ml!GASTHENl!S : Ind. fr. XLII C, p . 104.
(7) SAC1fAU: A/hm,ni's India, p. 33.
(8) Leibniz's view on Chinese thought was discussed by Philip P. WIENER in Phil=pi,y &st
and W<>t, vol. XII, n• 3, On. 196•. pp. 195-101;
 METHODS OF COMPARATIVE PHILOSOPHY 193

Hung- ming Chi by Tao-hsuan (596-667) were the results. lnJapan

Master Ktikai ('), the founder of Japanese Vajrayana Buddhism
(Mikkyo), showed great interest in comparative analysis. To­
minaga Nakamoto left ingenious works ( 10 ) in comparative studies
on Buddhism, Shintoism, Confucianism and Taoism. When I was
younger I translated some of Tominaga's work into con­
temporary Japanese, wrote a book on him, and was greatly im­
pressed by his pristine scholarly spirit. The impetus for com­
pleting this volume lies not only ,n Western scholarship (11 ) but
also in the Eastern tradition.

Eastern Institute, Tokyo

(9) Hi s w01·k.� in the fidd of comparative studies are: Satt.tl!i Shiilt;, Ji4j1i-.1.hill-rrm, and Hi'!J,-
lii,:,fllut.
( 10) Slwt,111'6 l(;i,_�, and Ohilui-m, Fumi.
( 1 1) Rt'("Cntly ,·al'ious books on the world history of philosophy appeared :
F.11(vrl11/,;r1;, ti, Ill Pliiruie. Uiflnirr dt Ja Phifuv,Jihie. I. Otient-Antiquile Mayen Age. VolurTK·
publie sous la direnion de Bric• Parain. Edition., Callimard, 1969. 17•8 pp.
J
Ha,., Joachim STCRIO : Klei11, Weltl(e,rhich/e d,r Phi/,�,,,,1,;,. Smttgarc: W. Kohlhanunt•·
Verlag. Zehntt', ubc.,·a.-beitete Aunage. 1968.
Kun Schilling : H1ell!(,v'i1id1u dtr Phi/,w,J,hit. Bei·lin: Duncker und Hurnbolt. 1964.