The problems raised in this issue by Mr. Rosán in his paper" A Key to Comparative Philosophy" are important ones, For the sake of better understanding, however, a few comments on behalf of the Second East-West Philosophers' Conference are in order, especially since my discussion note in this journal'appears to have given Mr. Rosán an incorrect impression of the work and conclusions of that Conference. According to Mr. Rosán, the method of comparative philosophy advocated and practiced by the Conference was that of the comparison of Eastern philosophy as such with Western philosophy as such, thus contrasting “all the philosophies of one culture with all those of another.” He finds that method basically inapplicable, apparently for two reasons:(1) The Eastern and Western philosophical traditions are pluralistic in character and do not exhibit over-all, distinctive traits or characteristics; and (2) the funda-mental, philosophical points of view occur at various times and in various cultures quite apart from the geographical distinction of East and West. As an alternative to the method of rigid East-West comparison, he suggests as a key to the study of comparative philosophy the analysis of all philosophies, wherever and whenever they occur, in accordance with a systematic classification which is philosophical rather than geographical and which cuts across all cultural-historical lines.