104 SOCIAL SCIENTIST Acutely aware of the "incomplete separation of religion from philosophy" in India, Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya undertook rigorous study to discuss "what is living and what is dead in Indian philosophy." He underlined the need for taking the ideas of the best and noblest minds to people "to inspire them to create a new intellectual climate replacing the muck now dominating". He sought, through his critical studies and popular expositions, to familiarise the readers with the rich tradition of Indian philosophy and the pluralism of Indian thought. He argued against the so-called "interpretation of synthesis" according to which different philosophical systems of India were like successive steps that led to the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta. Such is the variety and simultaneous development of a number of alternative philosophical systems that the study of Indian philosophy has always been marked by the study of various systems that are distinct and have held contradictory views on various central issues. If any single issue is considered from the point of view of different systems one can clearly see the fierce contention of ideas with which the Indian thought has developed. For instance, the atomic hypothesis evokes an array of views that cover all possibilities. While Jainas do not doubt the atomic hypothesis, the vedanta definitely opposes it. While Nyaya-Vaisesikas are champions of the hypothesis, one can find among Buddhists both the opposing groups, the atomists and anti-atomists. The significance of Debiprasad's work on Indian philosophy is heightened in the general atmosphere of strident postures to divert this rich thought of its diversity and multiplicity of views. Philosophical cognition of reality is inextricably linked with its natural scientific cognition. It is, therefore, not surprising that his studies in the history of philosophy of ancient India should have led Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya to undertake studies in the history of science of the same period. In 1977 he published Science and Society in Ancient India where in he discussed the source books of Indian medicine, particularly Caraka-Samhita. Debiprasad maintained in general terms that the physician in ancient India was concerned with medicine and medicine alone and that the medical views of this period were remarkably free from super-naturalism. For the strange amalgam found in the texts of natural science and regimented religion he offered the explanation: "My point is that in spite of all that is strange in the medical compilations in their extant versions, it is possible to identify the hard core of natural science in these on which were imposed— evidently later and presumably for the purpose of evading the censorship of the law-makers who insist on abject surrender to the fundamentals of regimented religion—an assorted heap of religious and quasi-religious ideas and attitudes with no scientific significance whatsoever." His interpretation consisted in asserting that "anything found in the medical compilation in its present form, therefore, cannot