Advaita and Neoplatonism

A Critical Study in Comparative Philosophy

2. The background of comparative philosophy

Comparative philosophy has been preceded in Europe by two other fields of comparative studies, comparative linguistics and the comparative study of religions. The relation between these three clarifies much of their respective structures, methods, achievements and aims.

Both disciplines arose mainly out of studies in Indian languages end civilisation, It was mainly the study of Sanskrit as an

[p. 2]

Indo-European language which led to comparative linguistics. In this field objective standards enable us to pass judgments which may be universally accepted by scholars as ‘objectively true.’

Likewise, the study of a variety of religious developments, partly Indian, led in Europe to the comparative study of religions. Here the material is completely different from that of the preceding case: the contents of a religion represent absolute truth for the adherents, whereas the student of different religions has at the same time either his own religion, or conceptions which he believes to take the place of a religion. In this context the problem of truth arises and two attitudes become possible: (1) the ‘phenomenological attitude’, which leaves out the question of truth; this is embodied in the ‘phenomenology of religion’; (2) what may be called the ‘missionary attitude’ (though its propounders need not be missionaries, nor have any desire to make propaganda for their own religion), which takes as its starting point the acceptance of the truth of one's own religion. Advantages and disadvantages of both attitudes are obvious: the first method is more reliable and makes a more scientific impression, but it is poor in that it is restricted to the studies of forms and manifestations (‘phenomena’ in the pre-phenomenological sense) and cannot have access to what is most essential to the religious human being: religious belief, faith, experience or conviction, each with its presumed transforming power. Apart from this, the first method may unconsciously depend upon what is accepted as truth according to one's own religion. The second method is at any rate at the same level as the religion studied, but it is subjective.

In the comparative study of philosophy the complications are greater. Whereas the comparative study of religions has no pretention of being itself a religion, comparative philosophy is, according to the term, philosophy. This makes the subject dependent upon the concept of philosophy, itself one of the major problems of philosophy. If it is denied that the subject is an aspect or part of philosophy, the situation becomes easier, the question of truth can be left out and it seems that a purely descriptive phenomenological method would be sufficient. But, apart from the inevitable danger caused by the influences of unconscious prejudices, a new question arises: what is the significance of comparative philosophy?

[p. 3]

Being aware of the fact that an important part of the existing literature of comparative philosophy would accept the above mentioned view, although these questions are generally neither asked, nor answered, we reject it, as it seems that the subject would lose its significance by removal of the truth value. Comparative philosophy would become of no philosophical and of little scholarly interest.

If comparative philosophy is philosophy, the problem of truth arises in all its mysteriousness. The more so as there is an important difference between religious and philosophical concepts of truth. In the former case there was a conviction on the part of the student regarding his own religion, whereas in the case of philosophy there cannot be such a conviction; there can only be open-mindedness and freedom. It will be necessary to study the implications of comparative philosophy regarded as philosophy.

In the special case of Indian thought, there are additional difficulties for here the European definitions and concepts of ‘religion’ and ‘philosophy’ are not adequate. According to Indian tradition philosophy and religion are not separate, as they are in European tradition. Therefore two fields of comparative studies have come into being in Europe: comparative philosophy and the comparative study of religions. These two have therefore to colloborate when Indian phenomena are studied. This justifies the above comparison.