Review

Author(s): Karl H. Potter

Review by: Karl H. Potter
Source: Philosophy East and West, Vol. 7, No. 3/4 (Oct., 1957 - Jan., 1958), pp. 146-149
Published by: University of Hawai'i Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1397349
Accessed: 10-02-2016 05:22 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Hawai'i Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Philosophy East and West.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.239.20.174 on Wed, 10 Feb 2016 05:22:02 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
146 BOOK REVIEWS

to thinkof thewakingstateand of deepsleepas one of therhythms whichpervade

all Nature,and of dreamsas a featureof thetransition fromtheone phaseto the
other-letthepsychoanalysts makeof dreamswhattheycan. It wouldappear,too,
thatthe long involveddiscussions of theselfand therelations of j'va and Atman,
suchas thatin K. Bhattacharya's essay,canbe simplified andclarified bya distinction
betweentheselfas knowerand theselfas known,indicated byDatta on page 549.
This,thoughmostIndiansdo not expressit clearly, seemsto be whattheyimply.
And here,as is justlycharged, theWestis usuallyat fault,bothin attempting to un-
derstand Indianviewsand in formulating whatshouldbe its ownviews.No theory
of the selfas known,or of anything else as known,can otherwise thanspeciously
wrenchitselffreefromtheknower. This is a truism whichin one cultureis easyto
forgetand in anothereasyto distort. The West typically forgetstheselfas knower
and,too oftenengrossed in externalsand in conceptsmoldedby them,allowsit to
be eclipsedby theselfas known.India emphasizes the selfas knower, but,taking
thefactthatit is as a warrant forsayingwhatit is,too often-though notalwaysin
thisvolume-givesit the formof theselfas knownwhileattempting to give it a
content of itsown.All shouldagreethattheselfas knower isuniqueandis apprehend-
ed byintuition. Buttheuniqueness of theselfas knower, insteadofplacingitbeyond
all difference,confirmsit in thedifference whichobtainsas betweenintuition and
reason,withoutthusnecessarily rendering it identicalwithrealityor withanything
else,or makingit describable as Absolute, or infinite,
or conscious, or bliss,or good.
As Husserlusedtosay,"Das Ich bleibtanonym."
Even withsuchstrictures countedagainstit,the Indianheritageas it comesto
us givesthe impression of a vast,richculturewhichrefusedto be baffledby the
multiplicityandtragedy ofthings, butwithsuchexperiential reasourcesas wereavail-
able steadfastlymaintained thesupremacy of spirit.-GEORGE P. CONGER, University
of Minnesota.

HISTORIESOF INDIAN PHILOSOPHY

A HISTORY OF INDIAN PHILOSOPHY (Volume II). By JadunathSinha. Cal-

cutta:Central
BookAgency,
1952.Pp.xv + 762.
HINDU PHILOSOPHY. By Theos Bernard.New York: PhilosophicalLibrary,1947.
Pp. xi + 207.
INTRODUCTION TO INDIAN PHILOSOPHY. By Jadunath Sinha.Agra: Lak-
shmiNarainAgarwal,
1949.Pp. iv + 314 + v.
PHILOSOPHIES OF INDIA. ByHeinrichZimmer.EditedbyJosephCampbell.
New
York: Bollingen Series XXVI, Pantheon Books Inc., 1951. Pp. xvii + 687. (Also
MeridianBooks,MG 6 Paper $1.95.)
INDIAN PHILOSOPHY. By ChandradharSharma.Banaras: Nand Kishore and Bros.,
1952. Pp. x + 574.
There is no completelysatisfactorygeneral work on Indian philosophy,but then,
there is no single volume on European thoughtwhich scholarswould agree gives an

This content downloaded from 130.239.20.174 on Wed, 10 Feb 2016 05:22:02 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
BOOK REVIEWS 147

adequateaccountof thewholespanof thattradition. We nowhavequitea fewgen-

eralworkson Indianthought, manyof which,it seemsto me,attempt to achievethe
impossible goal of adequately reflectingall important aspectsof the Indiantradi-
tion.To criticize anysuchworkon thegroundthatit leavessomething out would
be as ridiculous as theabove-mentioned attempts themselves are. What a reviewer
can do, however, is to indicatewhichbooksholdpromiseof helpingwhichtypesof
readers. I shalltryto do thisin briefforthebooksunderdiscussion andsomeothers.
Readerscometo bookson Indianthought withoneormoreofseveraldesiderata in
mind.Scholarsalreadytrainedin Indianlanguagesand philosophies are lookingfor
new factsabouttextshitherto untranslated or notyetassimilated intoan overview
of one or anotherof the varioussystems. Beginningstudents are lookingforthe
mainlinesof thinking of each of thevariousstrandsof Indianthought. More ad--
vancedstudents wanta bookdealingmorethoroughly withsomebutnotall of the
systems. Non-philosophers and non-linguists are lookingforsomething moreintan-
gible,a feelforIndianwaysof viewingtheworldand man'srelationto it and to
himself.Finally,an occasionalstraystudentof contemporary Westernphilosophy,
curiousas to whattheIndianshave to sayabouttheproblems he is interested in,
maydip intoa generalworkon Indianthought. Letme dealwitheachof thesetypes.
of interest in order.
The scholaris usuallyill-advised to cometo thegeneralworksnowavailableseek-
ing newfactsor newconnections. Thereare a fewexceptions to this.The outstand-
ing one,to mymind,is Dasgupta'sfive-volume history,and it is an exception be--
cause of the author'sremarkable scholarship and his willingness to effacehis pre-
dilections, if any,in orderthatthetextsmayspeakforthemselves. Jadunath Sinha,
whosepreviously publishedworksare less well knownthantheymerit,is another
Indianscholarwhoseworkon thegeneralhistory of philosophy in Indiamaybenefit
scholars. The secondvolumeof his History(the firsthas yetto be published)deals
compendiously withSarhkhya, Yoga, Jainism, Buddhism, and Advaita,and at less
lengthwith Visistadvaita, Dvaita, Dvaitadvaita, guddhadvaita, Acintyabhedabheda,
Saivism,and 8aktism. Thereis a greatdealof information packedin thesepages,and
it is thoroughly packed,forthevolumeis intended primarilyto prepareadvanced stu-
dentsin Indianuniversities. The sentences are shortand to thepoint,suitablefor
memorizing in theIndianeducational manner.Despitethedrawbacks of thisstyle,
thevolumehasusefortheseriousscholar as a referencework.
For theabsolutebeginner in Indianphilosophy, one whohas littletraining in In-
dia or philosophy butwhowishesto getthemainlinesof themajorsystems, several
smallvolumeshave been publishedoverthe years.Perhapsthe bestof these,al--
thoughthisis onlyone man'sopinion,areMysoreHiriyanna's twovolumes, Outlines
ofIndianPhilosophy andEssentials ofIndianPhilosophy; one mayalsomention S.C.
Chatterjee andD.M. Datta'sAn Introduction toIndianPhilosophy. All thesebooksare
improvements on Bernard's work,hereunderreviewalthoughfirstpublishedover
tenyearsago.The Bernardworkhas seriouslimitations; thoughapparently intended
as an introduction, it is strangelymixedin whatit presupposes. We findthumbnail
sketchesof philosophical personalitiesinterspersed withexplanations of textwhich
can serveonlyto confusethebeginnerfurther. One pointin its favor,however, is
theorganization of eachchapter dealingwitha newsystem undertheheadings"Pur-
pose; Scope;Philosophy." Sometextbooks on Indianthought, without failingto men-

This content downloaded from 130.239.20.174 on Wed, 10 Feb 2016 05:22:02 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
148 BOOK REVIEWS

tionthepractical aimof all Hinduthinking, tendto letthereaderforget thepractical

connections in a welterof theory. Unfortunately, Bernard's accountof thepurposes of
thevarioussystems canhardly be termed profound.
Forthestudent whohasdonesomestudying of Indianthought butwhois neither
highlytrainedin philosophy nora student of Sanskrit,Radhakrishnan's two-volume
IndianPhilosophy is a thorough and readablereviewof themainstreams of Hindu
and Buddhistthinking. As has beenfrequently pointedout,Radhakrishnan tendsto
interpretthe Indiantradition through Advaiticeyes.A good antidoteto this,for
thosewho seekan antidote, is a not-too-difficult book on thenon-Vedintic systems.
Sinha'sIntroduction to IndianPhilosophy dealsonlywiththeCarvaka,Nyaya,Vai-
sesika,and Mimahmsa systems, and he dealswiththemin a sympathetic way.There
are betterworkson each of thesesystems, but perhapsno one book whichdeals
withall fouras well.As mentioned above,Sinhaworksfromthetextsdirectly, and
thismakesthe book hardgoing.Nevertheless, it mayprovidethe fairlyadvanced
student witha spurtoward further study oftheselesser-known systems.
Thosewhocameto Indianthought hopingto gaina feelforIndianattitudes will
do well to referto a book,notby an Indian,butby thelateGermanscholarHein-
richZimmer. Philosophies ofIndiais a bookquiteunliketheothersmentioned above.
It cannot,I believe,be used as a textbook, forstudents will fail to read it in the
properspirit.Zimmerapproaches Indianthought notprimarily in termsof a review
of theclassicalsystems, but,rather, in termsof thevariousbasiccategories of Indian
common-sense thinking. Insteadof divingintothetechnical matters of metaphysics
and epistemology, he beginsbyoutlining thefourarthasor "aimsof life,"and spins
out in a lengthy chaptertherelativepositionsnotonlyof thesefourcategories but
ofthecategories ofvarna,airama,guna,andmarga, withtheirvarioussubdivisions and
interrelationships. He thenproceedsto deal withJainism, Sairkhyaand Yoga, Brah-
manism, Buddhism, and Tantra,but withoutanytechnicalities, introducing a mini-
mumof concepts, and concentrating primarily on attitudes.His styleis discursive in
theextreme; he oftentellsstories andappealsto varioussortsof imagery tocommuni-
catewhathe has to say.A greatdealofwhathe saysis inexact, butreadinghisbook
is an excitingexperience, anda worth-while one.
Thereis littleif anyto recommend to thetrained philosopher whoknowsnothing
aboutIndia or Indianthought, and who readslookingforproblemsof philosophy
of thesorthe meetsin his own discipline. What is neededis a bookwhich,in the
firstplace,getsawayfromtheusual six-system classification-abook whichtreats
philosophical problems topically.Secondly, sucha bookshouldnotabstract theprob-
lemswithwhichit dealsfromthepractical context in whichall Indianphilosophizing
is immersed, evenwhento do so wouldleadto an attractive comparison withWestern
problems. Bookswhichsatisfy theserequirements have been limitedlargelyto the
exposition ofonepointofview,frequently theAdvaitic one.
Lackingsuchworks, ifoneweregoingtorecommend to thetrained Western philos-
ophera book whichwouldintroduce him to Indianissuesin whathe considers a
philosophically sophisticated fashion,he mightwell recommend Sharma'sIndian
Philosophy. Thisbookis,to be sure,largely justone morereviewof themajortenets
of each of the traditionally recognized systems, but its added interest stemsfrom
Sharma'swillingness to presenthis own criticisms of thesetenets, criticismswhich
he offerswithout anyclaimthattheirauthority restselsewhere thanin hisgoodphil-

This content downloaded from 130.239.20.174 on Wed, 10 Feb 2016 05:22:02 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
BOOK REVIEWS 149

The criticisms
osophicaljudgment. he offers
areusuallyrather
generalin theirscope,
butan analytically
trained
readermayfndin themhintstowardwaysofmoreprecise
constructive
reformulations
of someof theproblemswithwhichhe and theIndians
are concerned.
-KARL H. POTTER, Universityof Minnesota.

TOWARDS THE UNIFICATION OF THE FAITHS (COMPARATIVE RELI-

GION). By GeorgePerrigoConger.Stephanos Nirmalendu GhoshLectures1954-55.
Calcutta:University ofCalcutta, 1957.Pp. 131.
In a periodof positivism, skepticism, and existentialism, system-
atic speculation maybe frowned upon.And whenthisspeculation startsby taking
religionseriously and endsbycallingitselfnaturalistic, it mayfinditselfattacked not
onlyby the traditional idealistsand spiritualistsbut also by positivists, logicalem-
piricists,and critico-naturalists.
Thus it is that,at thepresenttime,a full-blooded
speculative naturalism mayfinditself, like the socialliberal,criticized by boththe
rightand theleftfornotbeingeitherconsistently rightor consistently left.
This timeit is G.P. Congerwhogivesus a systematic, speculative naturalism.As
suchit is easyto criticize,particularlyfroma narrowly empirical pointof view.But
beforerushingin witha criticalaxe,it is well to remindourselves thatphilosophy
in itsmostcharacteristic form,fromThalesto Whitehead, has beenspeculative; and
thusphilosophers who,at thepresenttime,shunspeculation as if it werepoison(or
at leastin execrable taste)maybe exhibiting notso muchinsight as failureof nerve.
It is clearthatthe traditional questionsof philosophy are questionsto whichboth
meaningless and misleading answerscan be (and havebeen) given;but it does not
followfromthisthatthe questionsare eithermeaningless or impertinent. A burnt
childmayshunthe fire,but onlya foolwill put all firesout on the groundthat
theyare potentially dangerous and thatit is betterto shiverthanto burn.And so
we maybeginthisreviewby thanking Congerforhelpingto keepsomeratherim-
portantfiresgoing;and yetwe mustalso warnhimthata workof thiskindinvites
manykindsof criticism.
Conger'sproblems aretheproblems oftraditionalphilosophy, bothEastandWest:
thegenericnatureof theuniverse, thenatureof man,theplaceof man in theuni-
verse,andthenatureof thegoodlifeforman.Willingto acceptthecontributions of
thesciencesandunwilling to rejectin torothespiritual insightsof thegreatreligions
(Hinduism,Taoism,Confucianism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam),his
over-allgoal is, one mightsay,similarto Spinoza's:thatof reunderstanding thena-
tureand goal of religionagainstthebackground of theundeniable achievements of
an age of science,a reunderstanding which,oncemore,attempts to separatethespirit
of religionfromthemagic,superstition, and folklorewhichthecommonman (and
eventheparishpriest)tendsto identify, or
rightly wrongly, withreligionitself.His
conclusions, however, are by no meansidenticalwithSpinoza'sconclusions, partly
becauseCongerhas responded profoundly to post-Spinozisticevolutionary thinking,
bothscientificandphilosophical.
All in all,Congeris lookingfora worldviewwhichis in accordwiththemajor
scientificfindings of thelastone hundred yearsand whichwill providea placefor
religionwithoutreducingreligionto a watered-down and washed-out ethicalhu-
manism.His methodis thatof arguingfromfactand presumption to a pictureof

This content downloaded from 130.239.20.174 on Wed, 10 Feb 2016 05:22:02 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions