________________
PREFACE
In the second decade of the twentieth century how difficult it was to study the old masters of Nyāya and Vaiseșika—the only two systems of the Brahmanic philosophy which could be classified as non-scholastic in their outlook. I have personal experience of Benares, Ajodhya, Lahore, and even of the Madras presidency—I was driven out of Nadia by its fierce mosquitos. So I cannot say anything about that place. In those days it was impossible to find a teacher who could satisfactorily help me in the study of Vātsyāyana, Uddyotakara, Vācaspati, Praśastapāda or Udayana ; there might be some improvement now but I do not think the present position is in any sense advanced. Why is it so ? The Indian philosophy in its creative period 'was not the static outcome of one mind and one epoch. If we look back from the time of the king Pravāhana, the first Indian Philosopher, with his disciple Uddālaka and granddisciple Yājñavalkya, to the time of Srīharşa, and Gamgeśa, we will find that the contemplative faculty of our race has developed as a result of the action and inter-action of several master-minds. By negating faulty old notions, and expounding the new propositions, they sought to perfect the ever-growing stream of Indian thought. As long as the students had a direct touch with that living stream, with its manifold waves
