Book Title: Sambodhi 1989 Vol 16
Author(s): Ramesh S Betai, Yajneshwar S Shastri
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Previous | Next

Page 130
________________ 121 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.” (IP, Preface, p. 9). SR is a renowned historian of philosophy and he brings out lucidly the role, function and duty to be played by a historian of philosophy in the following para : “The historian of philosophy must approach his task not as a mere philologist or even as a scholar, but as a philosopher who uses his scholarship as an instrument to wrest from words the thoughts that underlie them. A mere linguist regards the views of ancient Indian thinkers as many fossils lying scattered throughout upheaved and faulty strata of the history of philosophy, and from his point of view any interpretation which makes them alive and significant is dismissed as farfetched and untrue. A philosopher on the other hand realises the value of the ancient Indian theories which attempt to grapple with the perenial problems of life and treats them not as fossils, but as species which are remarkably persistent... It is the task of creative logic, as distinct from mere linguistic analysis to piece together the scattered data, interpret for us the life they harbour and thus free the soul from the body. Collection of facts and the accumulation of evidence are an important, but only a part, of the task of historian who attempts to record the manifold adventures of the human spirit. He must pay great attention to the logic of ideas, draw inferences, suggest explanations and formulate theories which would introduce some order into the shapeless mass of unrelated facts. If the history of philosophy is to be more than a bare catalogue of facts about dead authors and their writings, if it is to educate the mind and enthral the imagination, the historian should be a critic and an interpreter and not a mere mechanical "ragpicker" (IP. 6 pp. 71-672) "Indian Philosophy" (Vol. I and Vol. II) is his magnum opus wherein he successfully rises to fulfil and abide by the norms laid down by him for a historian of philosophy; he is also "convinced that we must interpret thinkers at their best and not at their worst.” It i.e. "Indian Philosophy" is not "a barc presentation of categories and arguments of systems discussed”? and these remarks apply happily mutatis mutandis to his treatment of Buddhism. At this juncture it is significant to note that he "so easily identifies himself with the stand-point of the system he is presenting that concepts become fluid and their connections become natural.” SR lays down that a writer should be evaluated in the context of times, and climes in which he flourished, when he observes that "to know what Buddha actually taught or what his earliest followers thought he did, we

Loading...

Page Navigation
1 ... 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309