|
Introduction
There is a growing need for the discipline called comparative philosophy as it helps the rival philosophical traditions to set right the drawbacks in
them. Also, such an enterprise will enable us to have a better understanding of the problems of philosophy missed by the system builders. The problems of philosophy are nothing but the problems of life faced by
human beings in different parts of the globe in different forms. So the problems of philosophy and their possible solutions concern every individual who cares for human welfare. In order to be humanistic one has to
transcend the artificial barriers created among men in different ways. The supposed distinction between the East and the West is superficial, because human nature is the same everywhere. The aim of comparative
philosophy is to bring out this truth.
What is needed at this juncture is to invite new ways of thinking, new standards of morality, and new forms of administration to make our philosophical
tradition more meaningful and pragmatic. The remarkable flexibility of Indian mind has expressed itself in a variety of ways in which it attempted to treat the new dimensions of philosophical activity. This is what
is done by the philosophers of Indian renaissance. In order to fully satisfy all the possible demands of human life, a philosophy must not only provide us with a basic principle which enables us to arrive at a
particular conception of the world, but it must also provide us with sciences which are essential for social activity. It is often commented by many that Indian philosophy is pragmatic in the sense that it is not
only a way of thought, but a conscious way of life as well. Subjects like ethics do form part of such a conscious life. We cannot avoid thinking about them "since life is a whole, a unity, and its various
phases cannot be left in isolation." (1) Of course, a systematic account of ethics is not found in Indian philosophical systems. However, Indian philosophy can maintain itself and our civilization by
synthesizing the stubborn past and incessant future. Synthesis must be the sole objective of a comparative philosopher. This is how he can serve his society by providing new patterns for both thought and action,
which are complementary to each other. The Indian system of philosophy as philosophies of life contain various aspects related to religion, metaphysics, logic, psychology, and certain rules of life, which are more
of religious type than ethical. All that we should learn from the West is the spirit of organisation, though it is not the only aim of philosophy. The guiding principle of life is already there in our philosophy. It
should be related to our social and political aspects to enrich our social life. The relation between the guiding principle of our thought and various aspects of social life is possible only when we attempt to
compare our philosophy with that of the West.
The Need for Comparative Philosophy
Comparative philosophy as an important branch of philosophy has often missed the attention of many a scholar in India. Even if there has been a
comparison, it is superficial; and it never penetrated the core of Indian mind. Also, there is another important factor which makes us withdraw from doing any comparative study of philosophy as projected in
different philosophical traditions. Perhaps, it is the sense of inferiority which Indians developed by imagining the superiority of Western culture. This is most unfortunate. There are many Western Scholars of very
great repute who have acknowledged the fact that India has reached the greatest of speculative heights. Hence, we should feel no more that we are culturally inferior to the West. (2)
Also, there is an outcry against comparative philosophy on the assumption that it may lead to misinterpretation of the cardinal doctrines of the East
and the West. For instance, many tend to compare Spinozistic conception of substance with Shankara's Brahman. But there is noticeable difference between the methods of these two thinkers. It is true that Spinoza's
substance, like Shankara’s Brahman, transcends discursive thought. But Spinoza failed to recognize the inconsistency that results when he made an attempt to deduce the empirical world from what transcends our
discursive thought. Not only that, Spinoza assigns a very important role to the method of deduction in his philosophical system. On the contrary, Shankara maintains that deduction is not a legitimate method. His
method is dialectical making use of the principle of non-contradiction. (3) This method of Shankara can be compared with that of Bradley and Bosanquet. Even this comparison may not appear all that legitimate as
Shankara’s method has only negative significance, whereas the method of Bradley and Bosanquet has positive significance. Therefore, one should not do comparisons just for the sake of comparison. In fact,
"comparison should be between system and system, but not between concept and concept." (4) Prima facia, this task may appear to be difficult and undesirable for various reasons, but one can arrive at
significant conclusions which will open new vistas in philosophical scene. Such an enterprise may suit the spirit of present generation which tries to recognise the rationality present in other systems. Also, it
enables one to see what is living and what is dead in one's own tradition. Life in the present era is dominated by what is called scientific temper. It gradually infuses in the minds of the present-day generation a
kind of distrust of our dharma, our Vedas, and our philosophy in general. As a matter of fact, the Western scholars like Max Müller have reinfused faith in our dharma-shastras, our Vedas, and our philosophy by means of comparative philosophy.
Individuality is another important factor which helps us in assessing the significance of any system or philosophy. It is a living force by itself. It
must aid our decision making process to retain the vital elements of the past and to assimilate new ideas that come from outside. This is possible only when we understand the real nature of our individuality; and
for this we must necessarily make comparison with the individuality of others. (5)
When we do comparative philosophy, we arrive at new synthesis by comparing one system with the other. Comparisons often reveal valuable principles or
ignored inconsistencies. Either way, comparison is beneficial. For instance, it is our tendency to compare the atomism of Vaisheshika with that of Democritus. It is beside the point to ask whether their atomistic
doctrines are accepted by modern science. The most significant contribution of Nyaya-Vaisheshika to philosophy is its logic. But one does not find any element of logic in the philosophy of Democritus. Only in the
philosophies of Plato and Aristotle, more particularly in the latter, do we find some significant contribution to logic.
We should promote comparative philosophy with a view to arrive at a global philosophy. As aptly pointed out by Masson-Oursel, a French comparative
philosopher, the "scope of comparative philosophy is as wide as the universe." (6) Hence, comparative philosophy as a philosophical discipline must be recognized as the most important philosophical
activity of the present century in which the East and the West are trying their best to understand each other in various ways.
After explaining the need for comparative philosophy, it may appear paradoxical if it is said that there is no philosophy called comparative philosophy
in the same way as there is no religion called comparative religion. What we call comparative philosophy is a comparative study of philosophy. So "..technically we have to fix the meaning of the term as the
comparative study of eastern & western philosophies.." (7) The chief objective of comparative philosophy consists in renewing systematization of our thinking which includes all the given facts, yet it
transcends them because every instance of systematization adds something new to the given facts which is not possessed by the facts themselves.
Man as a Focal Point
The present age is not only the age of science, but also of humanism. The philosophies of present age have gradually shifted their attention from God,
matter, and science to the human being. Thus, philosophy has become the philosophy of man. Even the analytical philosophers like Russell, who vehemently attacked the culture and the philosophies of the Middle ages,
are of the view that, though there are new branches of philosophy concerning the various aspects of the world, the ultimate aim of philosophy is the preservation of values of human life. Human beings become the
centre of attraction for all sorts of philosophizing under the title "comparative philosophy". All humans belong to the same species called humanity in spite of their different outlooks and cultural
traditions. A comparative study of various philosophical traditions may provide us with some clues regarding the nature of human values which are of paramount importance to the entire human race. With this end in
view I propose to analyse the following areas of comparative philosophy:
- the subject matter of comparative philosophy
- comparative philosophy and philosophical synthesis
- the methods of comparative philosophy
Subject Matter of Comparative Philosophy
Comparative philosophy studies the nature of man as depicted in various philosophical systems belonging to the traditions of the East and the West.
There are some aspects of thought and action which attained greater recognition in the East than in the West. Similarly, there are some aspects of thought and action which gained more importance in the West than in
the East. This clearly shows that the outlook of man in the East is different from the outlook of man in the West. Not only that, it is an indication that their views are one-sided. This does not mean that the
essential nature of man understood in the East is different from that portrayed in the West. Man is the same everywhere. Every philosophical tradition tries to explain the nature of man and his place in the
universe. Man as historical being expresses himself in a variety of ways in different races and cultures. Comparative philosophy must study the various expressions of man. Thus its scope is very wide.
Now the question arises: What is it that we compare with the view to know the real nature of man? Do we compare different cultures and histories of the
various nations? Such an attempt has been made by comparing the history of Chinese with that of the Indians. The conclusions arrived at by comparing the histories of the various nations are certainly useful as we
may come to know the similarities and dissimilarities of the cultures of various nations. But the comparative study of cultures cannot be labelled as comparative philosophy. The subject matter of the comparative
philosophy is the comparative study of the various philosophical traditions. Two different traditions may give importance to the same or similar values. Since these values are common to both the traditions, they may
be interested in a particular form or aspect of life. At times, different philosophical traditions uphold different values. For instance, the Chinese philosophers attached much importance to the values of man and
society in this world. They always aimed at knowing what kind of human value or life is the best to be sought after. But Indian philosophers, by and large, are interested in the reality of inwardness as against the
outwardness of the reality. This is the case with almost every system in India, whether it is monistic or pluralistic, realistic or idealistic, activistic or quietistic. (8)
As a matter of fact, every philosophical system developed certain aspects of human life to the highest level possible. In the process, it might have
ignored certain other aspects of human life. Comparative philosophy helps us in tracing out what is missing in each tradition. Apart from that, we can get clues to the solutions to various problems of life as
advances in each tradition. It is normally the case that different traditions uphold different values of life at different times. For example, it is very difficult to say whether the Western tradition is
consistently outward or inward in its approach. Similar is the case with the Chinese tradition. The early classical schools of China had their own set of values or life, which are different from those of Buddhism.
But over a period of time Buddhism got assimilated into the Chinese tradition. The point that we want to drive home is that it is only by means of comparative study of the various traditions one can know the values
of life upheld by different traditions at different periods of time. The ultimate aim of all the traditions is to inquire into the nature of human life from different perspectives.
There is another important factor be noticed. While doing comparative philosophy, the strategies and tools of inquiry may differ from tradition to
tradition. It is the responsibility of the comparative philosopher to highlight the similarities and dissimilarities found in different traditions as regards the methods and results, and also their relevance to
human life. To quote the remarks of Radhakrishnan (9):
The fundamentals of human experience, which are the data of philosophical reflection, are the same everywhere. The transitoriness of all things, the
play of chance, the emotions of love and hate, fear and jealousy, the continual presence of death, the anxiety to overcome the corruptibility of things, the fleeting moment - - these have determined for each man his
life's meaning and value.
In spite of different values upheld by different traditions at different times, human life is the same everywhere since the essential nature of man is
the same. In this sense a proper understanding of man's life and the world must be the sole concern of comparative philosophy. If it lacks such an orientation, then the alternative would be to find out whether a
given system is idealistic, realistic, naturalistic, monistic, pluralistic, materialistic, organistic, etc. For this purpose, one needs not approach comparative philosophy. Classification of various philosophical
systems into various categories is one thing, and the evaluation of comparative philosophy is another.
When we consider man as a focal point of our study, we do not intend to study one aspect of man rather the entire human activity. Man can be approached
from the points of view of materialism, teleology, psychology, sociology, ethics, religion, and so on because he is a complex creature "leading an inward and outward life and craving stable support both
ways." (10) But each approach, listed above, in itself is inadequate to unravel the complete nature of man. The more we dwell upon man, the more we know about him. The complete nature of man is the ideal set
forth before comparative philosophy. This is what is called man's philosophy of life.
The question frequently asked is: Is the essential nature of all men the same? If so, why is the "Eastern man" is distinguished from the
"Western man" as if they belonged to two different species? The Eastern man is often characterized as intuitive, lethargic, spiritual, mystical, introvert, and contented, while the Western man is
characterized by rational, active, materialistic, ethical, extrovert, and discontented. This differentiation, it is true, is not accepted by one and all. Radhakrishnan maintains that man is basically the same though
there are differences in the various cultures in which he was brought up. Men share the same urges, instincts, aspirations, and ideals. When we compare the Eastern man with the Western, are we trying to compare
their cultural achievements or innate capabilities? A psychologist's comparison of two different individuals is always in term of their intelligent quotient, but not in terms of their cultural achievements.
Likewise, when we want to understand the essential nature of man, we should not compare men on the basis of cultural achievements, but we should look into the essential nature that is common to all men. Without such
an orientation comparative philosophy is otiose. In order to substantiate our view we can argue that when a psychologist studies man in terms of emotions, sensation, thought, etc., the general laws that he
formulates about men are universally applicable to all men. If it is not so, then the findings of the Western psychologists are of little use to the psychologists of the East and vice versa. Because of this reason,
one has to assume a priori that the basic nature of all men is the same. This is the first principle of comparative philosophy. Man is a creative being. He can create culture, frame ideals and transform them, but man's creativity does not exhaust his essential nature. He can ably adapt himself to the changing patterns of environment, socia1 or natural. What is after all to be noticed is that the man behind the culture is more important than the cultures, which may progress or decay.
No ideology or philosophy ever claims that it does not have any respect for human life and the will-to-live although the ideologies and philosophies of
the various nations differ from one another. If the fulfilment of human life and the preservation of human values are the aim of every ideology or philosophy, then it is meeting point for all of them. Man's
knowledge of life was vague and indefinite in the beginning, also his theory of knowledge. Any attempt, therefore, to derive man´s philosophy of life from his theory of knowledge would result in an
incomplete picture of his life. The best way to understand man's philosophy of life is to make his theory of knowledge subservient to his life. By doing so his life will nab be at risk even it his theory of
knowledge is imperfect. The dictum knowledge for knowledge sake can be entertained because unbiased knowledge alone can discover truth, which is a human value. But knowledge as power helps man in controlling and
dominating brute natural forces which are disastrous for the furtherance of human life. To this extent Bacon is right in saying that knowledge is power. The discoveries and invention of man in the various fields of
investigation must be conducive to human life, and not detrimental to it. A world-view becomes a true guide to human life when it promotes values conducive to the life of humans. Hence, the task and aim of
comparative philosophy should be to revive the original integral outlook in a better articulated form so that a proper world-philosophy can be developed. In other words, the aim of comparative philosophy is to
evolve a metaphysical humanism which is nothing but a world-view of human life and for human life.
Is Philosophical Synthesis Possible?
The answer to the question if philosophical synthesis is possible is positive. In fact, the process of mutual understanding and interaction between the
East and the West is going on in a rapid speed during the present century. The East and the West should not be separated on flimsy grounds. It is often said that the East is static whereas the West is dynamic. There
are evidences of rapid progress in the East too. Rapid or slow progress of a culture depends upon various factors. At time, man has to introduce changes at a rapid pace, and at times he needs not. From this we
should not conclude that men are different at different places and times. In fact, their wants and needs are different at different places and times. The artificial segregations created between the East and the West
will disappear when humankind realizes the highest universal ideals which are common to all men. True human values, which are hitherto unknown to some cultures, will be presented to them. These values will be
received by all cultures with so much of enthusiasm as they are genuine human values. Thus "the problems and solutions of one culture will be the problems and solutions for all." (11) However, certain
cultures may initially face some problems while welcoming these true human values. Those cultures must be prepared to face the problems created by these alien human values with suitable adjustments. It is here
comparative philosophy comes to the rescue. Only comparative philosophers can help the people to have a broader and deeper perspective of human life in general. Such a perspective alone can be characterized as
"world perspective" and can lead to global philosophy. Global philosophy is not a system of philosophy belonging to a particular set of individuals, but it belongs to the entire humankind. It cannot be
imposed by anyone on the rest of the humankind. The purpose of global philosophy is to maintain harmonious intercultural relations.
The Methods of Comparative Philosophy
Humanism as a philosophy has not received its due respect from the academicians, for they feared that it is opposed to metaphysics and logic. But it is
not the case. Philosophers of the past have advanced world-view keeping their race, nation or community in mind. Not only that, they have also maintained that whatever is advocated by them is applicable to entire
human race. But the fact remains that each one of them has produced world-philosophies which have limited application to the human race. On the contrary, a comparative philosopher must transcend these limitations to
evolve a world-philosophy for a better cohesion of humanity. The harmony of life and the cohesion of humanity are the only concern of comparative philosophy. Then, what is the right method to realize such an ideal?
How can we understand man's conscious inner being? This is an important question that has to be tackled by comparative philosophy.
The correct approach to comparative philosophy must be from philosophy, and its methods should also be the methods of philosophy. What, then, are the
methods of philosophy? In what way are its methods different from the methods of psychology, ethnology, anthropology, philology, sociology, etc.? The methods of philosophy are reflection and evaluation. A
comparative philosopher reflects over and evaluates critically the various values recognized by different philosophical traditions. Thus comparative philosophy is more concerned with values that with the facts
presented by the various sciences. This is how it differs from the other sciences, though it does not oppose the facts presented by them for the simple reason that man's reason transcends the field of these
sciences. None of them can supply the criteria for philosophy. By presenting the facts of life, these disciplines tell us what is the case. But they cannot provide us with any solution. The task is left to the
philosopher.
There are some philosophers like Paul Masson-Oursel, Kwee Swan Liat, and F.S.C. Northrop who approached comparative philosophy from the
phenomenological point of view. They identified philosophy with phenomenology. Each attempted to show the circumstances under which a philosopher had developed his philosophy. In other words, they tried to show the
relation of the philosopher to his social environment. However, this is not to deny their contribution made to comparative philosophy. Their works remain significant and important as descriptive and positivistic
studies. The very activity of philosophizing is to gain an insight into the nature of man and the world with a view to elucidate the meaning and purpose of human life. Phenomenology as a method cannot serve this
purpose. However, Liat realised the shortcomings of the phenomenological method and suggested a kind of meta-philosophy to evaluate the values advanced by the various philosophical traditions. Now the question
arises: What should be the criterion of evaluation? The essential human values that transcend all limitations must be our criteria. How do we arrive at such human values? It is through reflection on our experience.
The term 'experience' should not be understood in a narrower sense; rather it should be understood in terms of inward and outward expressions of man. Hence self-reflection must be the starting point of our study. In
order to keep an open mind, a philosopher must be honest and sincere in his attempts to inquire into the truth. He must be as self-critical as he is towards others. He must be a model to others.
The standards of evaluation are not ready-made like a foot-rule or logical calculus. A comparative philosopher has to evolve the criteria from his own
life experiences. May be, the experiences of men differ from one another, but these differences can be removed by comparison and evaluation. The differences are due to certain hidden inclinations that an individual
has towards certain things of the world. This is why we hold that a comparative philosopher must be open minded. Mutual tolerance is the first prerequisite to do comparative philosophy. Unanimity in opinions can be
arrived at by artificial means too. These means are highly unphilosophical and unprogressive. They are detrimental to human progress in general.
Some Objections Against Comparative Philosophy
Though comparative philosophy is a useful exercise, there are still scholars who feel that it is impossible and undesirable. They ask how the Eastern
philosophies like Indian philosophy, which is spiritual and practical, can be compared with the Western philosophies which are intellectual and this-worldly? Even if it is possible to compare them, still the
exercise is undesirable. Well, to say that comparison between the Indian and the Western philosophical systems is not possible amounts to saying that we cannot understand each other. But this conclusion goes against
the available facts. There are Western scholars who have understood Indian philosophy. Similarly, there are many Indian scholars who are appreciative of the philosophies of the West. Mutual understanding is the
first step towards comparative philosophy. The conceptual or thought schema of the Western philosophers are received by the Indian philosophers through their own conceptual schema. Such a reception of ideas leads to
comparison of one system with the other. Therefore, the Kiplingian dictum "the train can never meet" has no significance in the contemporary world.
There is yet another objection against comparative philosophy. How can we compare Indian philosophy, which is called Darshana perception of the supreme
reality with Western philosophy which is often characterized as "love of wisdom"? Well, it has become a fashion to characterize Indian philosophy as practical and Western philosophy a theoretical. This is
a false notion. The philosophies of Plato, Aristotle, and Hegel are practice-oriented as they intended to develop the doctrines of political, ethical and social action. We cannot simply brand a philosophical
tradition as theoretical or practical, activistic or quietistic without understanding the context in which these terms are used in different realms of man's being. If we fail to notice this fact, the result is
"the fallacy of misplaced comparisons." (13)
Though the word "darshana"means "seeing", it should be understood as "viewing". Different darshanasof
Indian tradition have presented different views about the nature of truth. Truth is one, but the views about its nature differ from one darshanato the other. Similarly, the statement that philosophy is
"love of wisdom" is also misinterpreted. Greek philosophers were never merely interested in transmitting "love of wisdom"; they have also bequeathed to us well defined philosophical doctrines. So
is the case with the Indian philosophers. Hence, to say that Indian and Western philosophies cannot be compared because the former is darshana and the latter is philosophy is to commit what one may call "the fallacy of etymological misapplication." (14)
To conclude: the ultimate aim of doing comparative philosophy is to synthesize the various ideals projected by the different philosophical traditions
of the East and the West. This is essential since the essential nature of man is the same. The various ideals aimed at by each tradition are complementary to each other since the man of one culture is strange to the
man of another culture. Philosophy does not belong to a no man's land; rather philosophy is the philosophy of life, for it brings together facts and values. The synthesis of the various values and truths presented
by each tradition should not be branded as eclecticism. These values and truths are applicable to all men whose essential nature is the same. Thus comparative philosophy being man-centred will lead to a new kind of
humanism.
Notes
- P.T.Raju, Thought and Reality: Hegelianism and Advaita (London, 1937), p. 20.
- Ibid., p. 24.
- P.T. Raju, "The Outcry Against Comparative Philosophy", Aryan Path, Vol. 6, 1935, p. 98.
- Ibid.
- P.T. Raju, Thought and Reality: Hegelianism and Advaita, p. 27.
- P.T. Raju, Introduction to Comparative Philosophy, (Nebraska, 1962), p. 283.
- P.T. Raju, Lectures on Comparative Philosophy, (Poona, 1970), p. 2.
- P.T. Raju, Introduction to Comparative Philosophy, p. 285.
- Ivid., p. 2.
- See P.T. Raju's 'Introduction' in S. Radhakrishnan and P.T. Raju (ed) The Concept of Man; A Study in Comparative Philosophy, (Nebraska, 1960), p.
24.
- P.T. Raju, Introduction to Comparative Philosophy, p. 288.
- Ibid.
- P.T. Raju, Lectures on Comparative Philosophy, p. 66.
- Ibid., p. 67.
top
|
