Ksenija Premur
Edition Lara, Zagreb, 2003

Buddhism is still a part of Indian palimpsest reality. All historical phenomena can be traced to the present set of values in India, with Buddhism being particularly important in Sri Lanka, Indonesia, China and Japan. Buddhism was at already high level of intensity in the fifth century BC, and throughout the next few centuries logic and particular cognitive theory developed on the basis of Buddhism in its later derivations and interpretations, thus significantly influencing the system of thinking in China and Japan. Furthermore, Buddhism drew most attention in numerous climactic convergences of the West and Eastern philosophical directions, both at the academic and social levels, through fashionable and existential attempts to escape or to compensate for the missing parts of life. We can say that Buddhism has been the most appealing thought for the western explorers since the time of Alexander’s satrap Menander all the way to present days. We are faced with a compulsory piece of work by Cedomil Veljacic on Buddhism, both in terms of its interpretative and philological, and historical and philosophical values. His work was a foundation and a springboard for the whole generation of indologists and philosophers, whose formidable treatises enabled acquiring knowledge about the Orient, as well as other types of knowledge, and enticed comparative researches at the highest levels owing to expert and personal standards of Cedomil Veljacic.  In those terms the book “Epistemological Ethos in the Philosophy of Cedomil Veljacic”, by Ksenija Premur, MSc, represents an invaluable contribution to the research into comparative-philosophical outline and comparative philosophy by Veljacic.
The subject matter and the topic being overviewed “in the perspective”, titled “Epistemological Ethos in the Philosophy of Cedomil Veljacic” by Ksenija Premur, represents an attempt to take an insight into fundamental postulates of comparative philosophy, as Veljacic developed throughout a series of his works on the comparative issues. The determiner of this attempt of “thinking within a perspective” traces its meaning back to the wholesome “historical” experience of Oriental explorations (and studies) under the auspices of comparative analyses, particularly those based on universal suppositions this attempt of reflecting is striving to keep an uninterrupted communication with, which is also a fundamental intention of all considerations and reflections – melting with it at the very peak of mental process bound towards conquering eastern and western “poles” of philosophy by “philosophising at the borderline”, on one side, and then, completely directly, at the crossroads, caught on the wrong foot and in the gap between basic and crucial issues of philosophy, on the other hand, keep questioning it and straightforwardly doubting it through a realistic intervention into the historicity of thinking, along with inner requirements of the development of philosophical thoughts and, eventually, as a decisive moment, through structuring a philosophical thought itself, even if we accept the assumption of being able to be looked at ahistorically. And it is this ahistoric quality which embeds the point of genuine philosophising in terms of philosophiae perennis. Here we must point out a crucial requirement philosophy, a mental effort of questioning basic determiners of philosophy at the crossroads, along with the act of philosophical processing at the crossroads itself, puts before every comparison. It is the request to reconsider fundamental issues of the philosophy itself, in accordance with own inner urge and capability of questioning, and to keep contemplating and reflecting again and again, particularly when it comes to comparing the East and the West, as this is where the core issues become particularly visible, where mental efforts of reconsideration of what had been named “sense and purpose of existence” become so transparent and so obviously inevitable, thus preventing any separate research being approached to without setting exactly those questions. In each and every comparison, profoundly structured determiners of thoughts at the crossroads arise, regardless whether we talk about a comparison setting out towards universal structures of thoughts, or about a comparison endeavouring at pointing out “unsurpassable difference” thus creating those cultural and philosophical features of thoughts that cannot be reduced to “common denominators”; whatever course the research may take, exactly those inevitable deep structural determiners of the thought itself never fail to emerge. Therefore the horizon of the reconsideration and reflection cannot but be expanded from the given assumptions of universalisation to generally acknowledged issues of dialogic of cultures and their atmosphere on both sides. In compliance with the all aforementioned, the reconsideration has been fancied as exactly a set of thoughts on universalism, within its boundaries, abilities, conceivable range and inevitable inner limitations, which are exactly those items explicitly “reducing it to the unsurpassable difference of universalism as opposed to every distinguishable quality”, thus expressly striving to expose a possibility that the static of perennial philosophy may be substituted with dynamic structures of “philosophy at the crossroads”, in the spirit of Axelos’s game of thoughts whose main course appears to be exactly the suggested "tertium comparationis", reflection over the nature of beings and existence in the world. An attempt of comparison within the given “task” of reflections through the dynamic structure of the consciousness is supposed to outline right that “perspective” of structuring thoughts “awry” as an inspection into “crystallized” decree of philosophically outlined Self within orientation as opposed to the philosophical Other, ever open to research. 
Having outlined the approach to comparative philosophy of Cedomil Veljacic by Ksenija Premur, we may as well conclude that the author, with her work, is an illustrious follower of the generation having thrived on the work of Cedomil Veljacic. Therefore her book immediately established proficiency and high standards in terms of expertise vocabulary, consciously and subconsciously following the path some of the previous authors had set. This book also implies inducing new incentives to resume what was already started, and in this case even preventing those common decade-long standstills of reflective take-offs. Inasmuch this book should establish itself as a firm link towards attaining essential continuity.
The book was written in a professional, expertise language, in an almost hermeneutic manner displaying Veljacic comparative philosophy, having completely and immaculately mastered the subject matter. Philosophical and philological insights of the author are at an exquisite level and comprehensively lead us into systematically elaborated issues as opened up by Veljacic philosophy.
This book immensely contributes to the continuity of understanding Veljacic comparative philosophy in Croatia, re-establishes it as a subject matter and opens up new studies in that direction.

Milivoj Vodopija, MSc.