ABSTRACT
HISTORIANS of Indian thought have noticed striking similarities between the absolutist systems of India and some western dialectical systems such as those of Kant, Hegel and Bradley. 1 A comparative study would not materially add to our knowledge of the systems under comparison; it is, however, valuable as establishing affinities, and as precisely differentiating them. There is gain in definition and distinction. A comparative study, to be fruitful, must be made between systems of thought which have prima facie generic affinity of standpoint. We should not, in our eagerness to discover affinities of thought, ignore the differences; in fact, our endeavour should be to throw into relief points of specific differences. A comparative study further presupposes an adequate knowledge of the systems compared.
