Joad on Radhakrishnan

(Retired Registrar, Mysore University)

No one that has given any thought to the supremely interesting subject: Whither goes mankind? can help paying a tribute of unqualified praise to Mr. C. E. M. Joad for his excellent book ‘Counter Attack from the East’.¹ It is one of the most original attempts made, in recent times, at an evaluation of the civilisations of the youthful West and of the grey-headed East. What has called forth so thoughtful an enquiry is evidently the appearance of the series of remarkable speeches and writings of Sir S. Radhakrishnan, the greatest of modern exponents and interpreters of ancient Indian thought. That Radhakrishnan combines in himself extraordinary learning and intellectual acumen, besides striking originality, is universally acknowledged. In weighing Radhakrishnan’s exposition in the balance Mr. Joad has excelled all his predecessors in point of fairness, acuteness and independence. He is singularly free from the blinding colour-complex which has so often vitiated the judgments of most Western critics of the East. Joad’s exceptional success, in spite of Leonard Woolf’s hostile criticism, is not a little due to his estimates being based upon the most impartial of standards, the conclusions of science. Had he only chosen, like Dr. Gore, the view-point of the dogma of religion, he would have given us nothing but a windbag of passion and vilification. Mr. Joad does not seek to hide whatever appears to him to be faulty in the culture of the East or of the West. His determination to call a spade a spade reveals that his sole objective is the search for truth. He is unlike Bishop Barnes, the Gifford lecturer, who though a scientist of no mean order missed the glaring fact, which Joad has seen, that the Hindu ideal is less disgraced by the spirit of proselytisation than most religions, by the anomaly of proving their superiority by ‘roasting, racking, disembowelling’. This book, whose refined humour is not its least interesting feature, is therefore one that no serious minded thinker can afford to ignore.

In the extensive literature that Radhakrishnan has already produced, which Joad has so patiently and carefully studied, it is not merely this Indian thinker’s wonderful mastery of language, literature and thought of the West that Mr. Joad admires, but also the shrewdness with which he percieves the weaknesses of the West as well as of the East. Radhakrishnan warns the world against a continued pursuit of the doubtful and false ideals in both, without discrimination. He is therefore said to have made a ‘counter attack from the East’ on the West. Now, Joad examines this attack in the book under review.

Turning first to the characteristics of Western culture Mr. Joad himself sums them up in the words:

‘In general the spirit of the West is hostile to religion . . . . It repudiates what the Victorians called their morals as a preliminary to the adoption of a frankly avowed Hedonism . . . (there is in it) a fundamental scepticism as to the reality of those values which have been traditionally regarded as the ends of human action. . . . The result is that nowhere in the Western world today is there any accepted view as to what men ought to believe, how they ought to act or what things they ought to admire. . . . In a word the ideals of good life in the West are so "self-stultifying" as to produce a positive sense of "deep dissatisfaction" or mental "depression".’

For this ‘disease’ of the West, which is beginning to infect the East also, Radhakrishnan prescribes the remedy of Eastern religion, in more concentrated and powerful doses of it than has been administered till now. But Joad, after a most thoroughgoing investigation of the Eastern prescription, comes to the conclusion that there is nothing new in it. A rose would smell as sweet called by any other name. What the West calls scientific or worldly wisdom, the East denominates spiritual or religious. He says:

‘Thus Radhakrishnan invokes the religious insight of the East to give a spiritual ground to the recommendations of worldly wisdom of the West. Taking the intimation of the aesthetic experience, he interprets in the light of religious experience, which transcends our vision, and of his spiritual theory of the universe which outstrips our thought . . . Radhakrishnan confirms, in a word, by the light of the spirit the practical ethic which we in the West have hammered by the experimental method of science.’ (The italics are mine)

Next, turning to the East, both the authors agree that the East is ‘decadent’, that ‘there is (in it) a lack of vitality and a spiritual flagging, that it is drifting, and that it is clinging to the shell of religion. It is in danger of being swamped by vigorous tides of the West.’ ‘Each (East and West) lacks something that is essential: each has something to give. . . . The East has some virtue which has conferred on it a certain ‘longevity’ while those civilisations which devoted their energies to politics, patriotism and aggrandisement have destroyed themselves. The members of the East have their own ideals of ‘good life’ which teach them ‘how to employ leisure’, ‘how to sit and listen’ and ‘to meditate in solitude’, while the Westerns are often ill at ease and ever on the hunt for ways of spending time.

In the course of his examination of the Eastern recipe, load has gone so deep into the subject as few other critics have till now done. Joad approaches it from the agnostic or non-religious–not anti-religious–standpoint, while Radhakrishnan stands by religion as Joad himself admits. There seems to be such a wide gulf between them in their view-points that the only common ground seems to be that of Hedonism, i.e., of happiness in life before death of the body, though Radhakrishnan seeks happiness in the next world also as a man of religion. But inasmuch as the criticism covers an extensive ground, it is not possible here to do more than glance at a few salient features of their respective views.

Joad appears to be labouring under the misapprehension that, in the East, religion is philosophy, though religion is certainly recognised as a step to it. He does not appear to discriminate between the philosophy of religion (or religious philosophy) and philosophy in general i.e., philosophy of life as a whole. The aim of the former, as he himself indicates, is to seek the satisfaction of ‘losing the self or the soul in something greater’–and of the latter is to seek that unity of knowledge or ultimate truth that explains the universe as a whole, which Joad dismisses with the light-hearted observation: ‘How is this oneness to be achieved? An unregenerate child of my age and civilisation, I do not know. Nor in the last resort can Radhakrishnan tell me.’ If load were serious here, a whole book of the size of his ‘Counter Attack’ could have been written by him on it. Radhakrishnan’s aim appears throughout to be to present Eastern thought in the form in which the largest number in the West and also the Westernised East could understand and interest themselves. Religion is what appeals to the immense majority. And intuitive or ‘aesthetic’ experience and mystic ecstasy are the strongest citadels, erected on the highest peaks of religion, where fully protecting himself Radhakrishnan delivers his attacks. Radhakrishnan, the man of religion, is evidently applauded by a great majority, who value religion as the dearest possession in life. Yet he does not seem to have carried conviction to scientific minds of the type of Mr. Joad and Mr. Woolf. Philosophy proper would have been, I admit, more effective than the philosophy of religion in such cases. But Indian philosophy proper is still ‘caviare to the general’, as Joad himself would admit (Page 167). Radhakrishnan could not have recourse to it inasmuch as the Western mind is not as yet rationally prepared for it, though a few could certainly grasp it. Indian philosophy could show Joad not only how most of his criticisms have already been rationally met, but also whether India could offer anything of real value to the world, the like of which the sciences and philosophies of the West have not as yet revealed. To grasp it an intellect or a reason (Buddhi) disciplined to that pitch of concentration that is characterised as ‘one-pointedness’ (ekagrata) and of a sharpness keener than the edge of ‘a razor’ (kshurika-dhara) is needed, which the general Western, and I may also add the general Eastern, mind so deep in the distractions of the world, finds it hard yet to attain. And even the few superior intellects of the West are so obsessed with their colour or race prejudices that they would have probably scoffed at Radhakrishnan had he displayed some of these unfamiliar wares of philosophy. I do not refer to miracles but solely to scientifically verifiable or rationally proved achievements.

To give a few illustrations. Nearly 2000 years ago Indian philosophy declared that only he who has the intellect (Buddhi) to grasp the meaning of what is termed ‘causal relation’ can realise the highest philosophical truths. And in that philosophy–not theology–‘cause’ is a fiction from the standpoint of pure truth, though a fact in the merely practical world. How many in the West are prepared to admit it, in spite of their advanced knowledge of science? Just now, a few are making guesses at it. And some of them not being well grounded in it, are off their moorings in making hasty jumps to ‘free-will’ which is as much a delusion as ‘determinism’.

Again, much older is the distinction between ‘monism’ and ‘non-dualism’. And yet Europe and America have not the least idea of the difference between these two concepts, which are as far apart from each other as night from day. The want of this knowledge has led Joad into a maze of arguments about ‘unity’ and ‘multiplicity’.

Nor have Europe and America yet sounded the depths of the meaning of Truth and Reason, though so often they talk of this being real or rational and that not real or rational, as though all men would assent to the verdict of a ‘private’ judgment, unrecognised by the ‘public’, whereas India has the unique distinction of having attempted a definite elucidation of these matters.

This is not all. The West, while it has carried the analysis of the material world to a most amazing depth and accuracy, has not gone beyond the a.b.c. of the mental world in its study. What has it to say of the psychological–not the physiological–value of sleep, the commonest of psychic phenomena? The realists of the West, qualified or non-qualified, brandish ‘givenness’ as an invulnerable argument. But what about the ‘givenness’ experienced in dreams? Have they yet even so much as thought of it? What is meant by the given’?

The West has yet to realise the full implications of the negation of the causal relation, and the negation of duality of existences. How could the West, without understanding these, comprehend the full significance of Maya or the rationale of Karma and rebirth? Unless the West has a definite meaning for its ‘truth’ and ‘reason’, how can they see the truth of Radhakrishnan’s observation that Pluralism is nothing but a vestige of ancestral religion and dogma still lingering in the blood and clogging its free flow? The philosophy of such truths has therefore to be kept in reserve till Europe and America grow older. When Bertrand Russells and Whiteheads, Max Planks and Einstiens, Jeanses and Eddingtons, Woolfs and Joads feel like all true scientists that even a most insignificant speck of dust trodden under feet might reveal truths of the highest value, and when they with such superior intellect in them make up their mind to seek truth, be it hidden in the proud palaces of the West or in the ragged cottages of the East, in other words, when the scientific spirit takes a much stronger hold on them than at present and makes them heroes (Dhira), as the Hindu philosophers say, in the pursuit of Truth at any cost, then will they be able to see what of value there is still left in ‘decadent’ India. Till then men like Radhakrishnan must make use only of the highest concept of the philosophy of religion in interpreting the East to the West.

In this philosophy of religion (or religious philosophy) Radhakrishnan makes intuition the pivot of his thought. But Joad is perfectly justified in refusing to subscribe to the whole of Radhakrishnan’s view of intuition. But the latter who has entrenched himself behind it, has not been so much as shaken, much less overthrown, by his Western critic. As Radhakrishnan has pointed out, ‘intuition’ and’ intellect’ are not independent and separate faculties of the mind. Their activities are inter-dependent. But as Sankara so repeatedly and so clearly points out, intuition unchecked by intellect is of no value in pure philosophy, though intuition uncontrolled by intellect is of supreme value in religion. In India’s pure philosophy, reason or intellect reigns supreme, not scriptural or sacred or semi-sacred Authority. And in mysticism intuition is supreme. But reason or intellect always implies intuition, which is never ignored. Hence when thus coordinated the intellect is called in Indian philosophy Buddhi. And whenever the intellect ignores intuition, it leads to what is known as barren verbal wrangling.

In regard to intuition not subordinated to intellect, let me quote a very recent thinker, Mr. Jastrow. In his ‘Effective Thinking,’ he says: ‘The temptation to make of it (intuition) a marvel or a mystery is often present. If we yield to it, we do not strengthen but impair our thinking powers. With transcendent sources of knowledge we have no concern. Those who believe in inspired doctrines do so. By loyalty to a faith, they may attribute such inspiration to prophets, seers or saints. Because of the prevalence of that tradition, there has been a wide dissemination of the belief in supernatural knowledge, in prediction of the future, revelation by way of dreams, second sight, premonitions.’ But Indian philosophy never divorces ‘intuition’ from intellect, not does it subordinate the latter to the former.

Next, the term ‘spirit’ has a positive meaning in religion. Radhakrishnan is again left unshaken by Joad in spite of his repudiation of ‘spirituality’. But certainly in philosophy its ‘woolliness’, as Mr. Joad contends, is most evident. Unless Croces, Gentiles and the religious Radhakrishnans rise above their mysticism and state definitely and exactly what ‘spirit’ is, ‘spirit’ cannot have a place in philosophy. If it only means ‘mind’ or ‘psyche’, why do they want another word? Nor do I know what Hegel or Radhakrishnan, who use the concepts or terms current in the West, mean by the ‘Absolute’? Is it a concept? If it be non-conceptual, what does the intuition of the Absolute Convey? How do we know that the Absolute exists if this Absolute be different from an aesthetic feeling? Here, does the word ‘exist’ convey any meaning or is it a meaningless term? And what does ‘meaningi’mean? I presume that if Joad had confined himself to philosophy, he would probably have more effectively met Radhakrishnan. What the Idealism of the West has failed to answer is the question: Is the ‘spirit’ or the Absolute merely a hypothesis or an actual entity? If actual, the West has given no means of verifying it.

Another important point for consideration in Joad’s criticism is his final standard for judging civlisations, that of Hedonism or happiness in life. He says, in the concluding chapter:

The only thing that can give permanent satisfaction is the employment of our highest faculties at maximum intensity. . . . The doctrine of effort and activity that I have sketched is pre-eminently the doctrine of the intelligent Hedonist. It alone, on the balance-sheet of life, can give a credit of pleasure over boredom. Throw yourself body and soul into your work, lose yourself in an interest. . . . lift yourself up out of the selfish little pit of vanity and desire which is the self, by giving yourself to something greater than the self, and on looking you will find that you have been happy. . . . devotion to impersonal ends offers the only escape from a fatal self-absorption.’

This is no doubt, to a great extent, true. But how do we know that this happiness is, or will be, permanent? When owing to any cause my faculties are impaired, or when I have not the faculty to enjoy music or when I see that pain and death surround me, and when there are others whose faculties are not so far developed, are there no other means of making myself or others happy? If, according to Joad’s biologists, death should be a merging of the individual in the ‘greater’, the universe, why should this ‘losing’ or ‘merging’ cause fear and why should we seek to save others from death as we do? How am I to ‘lose’ or ‘forget’ myself in something greater and yet experience what is called ‘satisfaction’? What does satisfaction mean on the disappearance of the self? Or again, is there no higher standard than that of happiness? Is deep sleep a happy or an unhappy state? If happy, what are the things in which our highest faculties are employed then? If unhappy, what is it that makes us happy? And if neutral, why do all mankind, nay even animals, seek sleep or feel unhappy if they be deprived of sleep?

It is true, as Joad observes, that Radhakrishnan is not without detractors. But the attacks on him only raise him to more conspicuous heights. There are millions, nay hundreds of millions in India, who know not the difference between Philosophy and Theology, including Scholasticism and Mysticism, and who have not even dreamt of Science. To such ‘quacks’, to use Woolf’s language, who so often appear in leading journals, philosophy based on science is always like sour grapes. Their glory lies in their ‘Sadhanik’ (mystic?) experiences leading to ‘incandescent intuitions’. We bow to them from as great a distance as we are permitted to stand at and say, ‘May they rejoice in their anti-rational and anti-scientific achievements’.

As my object is not to expound Indian Philosophy here, I shall content myself with observing that the fact that Radhakrishnan’s exposition of Indian thought has evoked such valuable criticism from intellectual (not merely emotional or religious) men is a matter for the most sincere congratulation. If the passion it has roused for the pursuit of truth in men of the type of Joad should continue, and should they be determined to reach the goal, there is every hope that they will attain to the truth of all the truths of religions and sciences, the truth of philosophy (Satyasya satyam), and that through reason or intellect (Buddhi).

Both Mr. Joad and Sir S. Radhakrishnan have by their brilliant, informing and invaluable publications on the philosophy of Religion, really rendered priceless service to the cause of truth, and the thinking world cannot be too grateful to them. They can never give too much of such thoughts to the world. Not that they have said the last word on such supremely serious subjects, but certainly they have provoked most serious thought in a manner that is really remarkable.

1 Counter Attack from the East’ by C.E.M. Joad. (Allen and Unwin, London.)