Radhakrishnan and His Philosophy

J. S. R. L. NARAYANA MOORTY
Department of Philosophy, University of California

Radhakrishnan may be considered as one of the great philosophers of the world who tried to formulate a genuine synthesis of Eastern and Western thought, especially philosophical and religious, and arrive at a world-view; incorporating elements from the thought of both the worlds. Succeeding generations will be highly indebted to him for his pioneering work in this field. He is superbly equipped for this task as he is thoroughly conversant with the traditions of both the East and the West and so could interpret the thought of the East to the West in a Western idiom, and the thought of the West to the East in an Eastern idiom. Rather, he hit upon a common idiom into which both Eastern and Western thought could be translated.

Radhakrishnan is a Hindu first and foremost. He is a follower of the Sankara tradition of the Advaita Vedanta. While he was studying in the Madras Christian College he was astounded by the criticisms of his missionary teachers, namely, that Vedanta considered the world to be an illusion, and that it had no Ethics, etc. Shaken in his faith in Hinduism, he embarked upon a thorough study of the Vedanta system and wrote a thesis for his M. A. Degree, The Ethics of the Advaita Vedanta. From then on it became his quest and mission to correct the misunderstandings of the Westerners of Eastern thought, and to reconcile the differences between the East and the West. For this purpose he also equipped himself with a comprehensive knowledge of all the religious and philosophical traditions of the world, including Western philosophy and Christianity to which he owes his belief in the value human personality and individuality. He derived from Western philosophy not only much of his absolute idealism but also his faith in democracy as the only justifiable form of the State. He has a great belief in a universal religion.

The method adopted by Radhakrishnan in all his writings is the comparative method. An attempt is made, while exposing and representing the systems of the past, to garb them in the terminology of Western philosophy. Radhakrishnan justifies this method, as, in his view, the differences in emphasis between East and West are only complementary and not contradictory.

Radhakrishnan was more on the defensive in some of his earlier works like The Ethics of the Vedanta and The Hindu View of Life, and more on the offensive in some other earlier works like The Reign of Religion in contemporary Philosophy which is almost totally negative and destructive but for the last chapter. Both these attitudes characterize the first and earlier phase of Radhakrishnan’s thought. In the later phase of his thought, which is to be discerned especially in his An Idealist View of Life, he was more balanced, and has devoted his energies more to build up his own thought. This work is the most important of his contributions, since this is claimed, but for his Fragments of a Confession, as the sole book which contains his own philosophy. Even this consists, at least in part, of criticisms of the tendencies of naturalism, scientism, behaviourism, materialism and atheism. Radhakrishnan’s own philosophy is based on the (Absolute) idealistic thought of the West and the Vedanta of the East, mixed with a religious philosophy of his own.

For Radhakrishnan Philosophy is Philosophy of Religion. Thisseems to be true at least in An Idealist View of Life. In his Fragments of a Confession Philosophy seems to have been given a autonomous role, but it is still rooted in religion. Religion is “experience of, or living contact with ultimate reality.”¹ Philosophy must be systematic exposition of the content and implications of religious experience. There is such an overwhelming evidence for genuineness of mystic experience that it cannot be ignored or set aside easily. The experience is accompanied in the individual by a sense of certainty. Such experiences cannot be commanded at will, but occur spontaneously. The mystic feels that the experience is effable. But yet he cannot remain silent. As soon as he comes out of it he tries to express it in symbols, “though the tools of sense and understanding cannot describe it adequately.” ² The myths and metaphors, such as the crossing of the ocean of Samsara, ascending, heaven, and meeting God face to face, coming down to us as tradition, are examples of these expressions. These symbols are derived from the tradition and culture in which the mystic has bred up. But we should always discriminate between what is factual in mystic experience and what is only an interpretation of the mystic.

Intuition is the faculty by which the mystics come into contact with Reality or God or the ground of the universe. Intuition gives us integral knowledge, which is different and superior to the discursive knowledge given by the intellect and sensuous knowledge. The intellect is not creative and productive. It is logical in nature, and is necessary for communication, proof or demonstration. It creates the duality of the subject and the object. Intuition is creative. It gives us certain knowledge, which is free from the subject-object distinction. In it knowing and being are one. This faculty, though present in almost every one, is highly developed only in a few individuals. It is through intuition that, we are aware of certain basic self-evident truths regarding the world and ourselves which are not derived through experience nor through reason and so can neither be verified nor be disproved by them. They are about the whole of experience. Such truths form the basis of all scientific inquiry and philosophic speculation.

It is the conviction of Radhakrishnan that mystics everywhere and at all times are in contact with the same living reality and that their experience of it is the same. Though the experience is the same the expressions of it in language are more or less adequate. It is also the strong conviction of Radhakrishnan that all Philosophy must be a systematization of the expressions of mystic experience. For Radhakrishnan philosophic speculation, at the basis of which also there are intuitions, is independent of mystic statements, though it must ratify them. But it may go beyond them, satisfying the intellectual needs in man.

Radhakrishnan says that intuitions are infallible. Then how is it that certain scientific hypotheses, which, according to him, are products of intuition, fail? Would he say that only right hypotheses are products of intuition and the others not? This would violate his dictum that intuitions are self-evident. Furthermore how would one know whether a hypothesis is true or false before he verifies it in experience?

Since Radhakrishnan admits that intuition is present in every one in some degree or other, that there might be different degrees of intensity even in religious experience, that after all, it may not be permanent in any individual, and that religious experience has to be identified with moksha, it follows that everybody is liberated sometime or other in his life, at least to some extent, and that moksha admits of degrees.
Radhakrishnan thinks that religious experience all over the world at all times makes certain affirmations. He gives two such affirmations: the existence of a spiritual reality and the unity of the universe. As regards the personality or impersonality of this spiritual reality he says that the difference in interpretations is due to differences in point of view. In fact, the Real is neither personal nor impersonal. He even says that personality is just a symbol. Religious experience makes no difference between the two.

As regards the immanence and transcendence of the Supreme, Radhakrishnan says that it is both. Speaking of the negative descriptions of Reality he says that they are meant to signify the absolute transcendence of the Supreme. The Christians, the Muslims and many others would strongly object to such a statement and say that the contrary is true, that there can be only one final and full revelation of God to man; and that the difference between God and man is never overcome. But Radhakrishnan would never give way to those who claim uniqueness and finality for their own type of revelation. Radhakrishnan thinks that the conclusions of an absolutist idealistic metaphysics can be upheld by the expressions of religious experience. But he does not heed the warnings of the mystics expressed in their negative statements, viz., not to indulge in positive metaphysical speculations regarding the nature of Reality given in mystic experience. He is too eager to satisfy the intellect of the religiously displaced persons.”

Moksha or salvation, for Radhakrishnan, is a continuance for ever in this state of spiritual experience. Meditation and ethical formation of oneself through the cultivation of the inner life are the ways to attain such a mystic experience.

All the religions in the world are the manifold expressions of the identical experience of the mystics who are the founders of those religions. Radhakrishnan pleads for a universal religion based on mystic experience. But he is not for the eradication of the existing religions. Rather, he pleads for a world federation of religions based on mutual respect and toleration.

Philosophic speculation, according to Radhakrishnan, points to the same view of Reality as presented above. Of course, he adds more to it. That is why his philosophy is of more interest to us. He starts his philosophy with the statement that necessity of thought as well as of scientific knowledge points to a supernatural Reality as the ground and explanation of the universe. In this matter Radhakrishnan’s position is almost the opposite of the spirit of mysticism. For our ordinary purpose and for those of science and philosophy, understanding and explanation of the given (fact) is always in terms of something other than the given to which we try to relate the given, whereas in mystic experience the given is understood and explained by means of itself, or rather the problems of understanding and explanation cease to exist. Otherwise, how are we to understand the statement that in mystic experience knowing and being are one?

Radhakrishnan believes in the principle of cosmic evolution and supposes that God is at work in it realizing Himself through it. Believing in the principle of emergent evolution, Radhakrishna asserts that mind emerges out of life, but that with mind the process of evolution does not come to a stop, and that it will proceed further, the last emergent being Spirit or Ananda which comprises of all the rest. Human beings, being free, can create evil in the world, though evil still forms part of the Divine purpose. History is not a cyclic process. Time has a beginning and an end. Yet, Radhakrishna says, when the show is wound up the process may begin again, for all we know. Answering the question why evolution has taken his turn and not another, he says that it is so because the Absolute is absolute freedom, and that it has freely willed to actualize the possibility. The world is a mystery, a maya. The Supreme as Transcendental Being we call Brahman or the Absolute; as free activity we call Isvara. The created world is contingent because it depends on the free will of God. In fact, Radhakrishnan makes a fourfold distinction of the Supreme Being: 1. Brahman, the Absolute Being, 2. Isvara, the unconditioned free activity, 3. Hiranyagarbha, Prajapati or Brahma, the World-Spirit in its subtle form and 4. Virat, the World-Spirit in its gross form. God is wisdom love and goodness. Whenever new adjustments are intended to be brought about in the world, God assumes or manifests himself in striking forms which we call avataras. Human endeavour is important for God because on human co-operation depends the realization of the world.

Radhakrishnan gives a new interpretation to the term karma: The laws of Nature, physical, biological and pychological, are comprehensively designated as karma... The laws of nature are not for punishment or award. There are no rewards or punishments, but only consequences. The laws of Nature are the expressions of the divine mind. “The immanent purposiveness of the world is not inconsistent with the presence of evil, ugliness or error... The overwhelming goodness of the universe requires its orderedness.” ³

Speaking on the relation between the Absolute and God, Radhakrishnan says that God is the absolute from the human end. “We call the supreme the absolute, when we view it apart from the cosmos, God in relation to the cosmos.” Such a conception of God is the best example of Radhakrishnan’s power of synthesis. In it we can perceive elements drawn from Christianity, Hinduism, especially the Upanishads, Plato, Aristotle, Hegel, Bergson, Whitehead, Alexander, and Lloyd Morgan. This example is enough to show that Radhakrishnan is a pioneer in constructing a world philosophy.

What prompts the individual to religious and moral quest? Radhakrishnan’s answer is drawn from Buddhism, modern Existentialism and Hinduism. It is the fact of suffering in man, his anxiety, his feeling that he is nothing; his feeling of a void in him (which Radhakrishnan equates with the Buddhistic sunya–not perhaps correctly), his fear of death, the inner conflicts and contradictions in him, and the impermanence of things, it is these that prompt the individual to undertake a journey on the path of salvation. When everyone reaches the goal of salvation the cosmic process comes to an end. Till that goal is reached, every liberated individual continues to be a centre of activity though without selfishness.

Radhakrishnan accepts without questioning the twin doctrines of karma and rebirth in virtually the same form as they are presented traditionally. Let us here describe, in outline, Radhakrishnan’s conception of the human self, as it is important to understand the theory of rebirth. “The self is an organism.” It is not a collection of mental states. But this organization of the self is a matter of degree. In all the transformations of man certain persistent and distinguishable characters persist. The self consists of these. But such a self is different from self as subject. The latter is the “persistent substratum which makes all knowledge, recognition and retention possible.” ⁴

An argument which Radhakrishnan gives for rebirth is that differences in human nature (moral) seem to require the existence of a past birth for purposes of moral responsibility. Death “is part of continually recurring rhythm of nature, marking a crisis in the history of the individual. It is the moment when the self assumes a new set of conditions.” ⁵

Radhakrishnaa finds support for the traditional conception of sukshma sarira, which is a fine ethereal body acting as a link between the self and the gross body, in modern psychical research. The body which the self takes up in the next birth depends upon the karmic effects it has accumulated till the end of its present life. Radhakrishnan does not deny, the possibility of reversion to animal births; but he thinks that “rebirth in animal form is a figure of speech for rebirth with animal qualities.” ⁶ With the Hindu tradition, he thinks that the life of the soul is beginningless.

As regards the mechanism of rebirth Radhakrishnan’s theory is not different from the traditional Hindu theory. The self chooses a body proper for its character. Parents provide the material for the new body. Answering the objection that rebirth is inconsistent with the principle of heredity Radtakrishnan says that this difficulty is natural for every theory except materialism, and that the alternative viz., that a supernatural essence is thrust into the body all of a sudden is much less acceptable. But we might point out that according to modern psychology it might be true that the self grows with the body and may even die with it.

Regarding the law of karma Radhakrishnan states that the present state of the invididual is the result of his past actions. Our connection with the past is karma. The law of karma denotes the orderedness of the universe. Karma is not inconsistent with human freedom. Our future may be conditioned by the samskaras but we are free to rid ourselves of them and change our future because it is not determined. Self-determination is freedom, which may be of different degrees. Radhakrishnan does not clearly discuss the nature of the effects of karma and the modus operandi of their binding the individual. If they are just psychological effects, as Radhakrishnan seems to believe, what happens to the retributory aspect of the traditional karma theory? He does not also discuss how the individual isformed at all, i. e., how the universal spirit comes to be associated with Prakriti: he simply says that the body is the result of past deeds.

The same is the case with the traditional doctrine of varnasrama. Though Radhakrishnan deplores the present form of the caste system, he justifies it in its original form in his Hindu View of Life. He thinks that though caste has resulted in much evil it has some sound principles behind it, and commends it to humanity at large as a principle of social organization and as a solution for racial conflicts. The evil in the caste system is, as every one knows, that the differences in function have led to difference in status. However Radhakrishnan has never justified the caste system in its persent form. In recent speeches he has even urged its dissolution.

Prof. Humayun Kabir calls the political philosophy of Radhakrishnan “Enlightened Humanism.” ⁷ Politics for Radhakrishnan is applied religion. He advocates the freedom of the individual and so denounces all forms of totalitarianism. Institutions and forms of government are not ends in themselves. They are only means for regulating the relations between individuals. Radhakrishnan accepts democracy as the best form of government and advocates non-violence as the means of democracy. He is evidently a follower of the liberal tradition in politics and of Mahatma Gandhi. He distinguishes force from violence. Force is inevitable in a State. Capitalism according to him, is incompatible with democracy. Social and economic justice are necessary for overcoming communism. Radhakrishnan believes in the co-operation of individuals and States, and in the brotherhood of all nations and the unity of mankind. The world is slowly progressing towards a world-community of States. In such a world, toleration should be the principle of intercourse. Tolerance is adherence to one’s own convictions with due respect to those of others. The basis of society must be renunciation and self-limitation on the part of the individual. Rational persuasion should be the means of settling disputes. Thus, freedom of the individual, tolerance, and persuasion, are the cornerstones of Radhakrishnan’s political philosophy.

For the fullest development of the individual, freedom isnecessary. It is only possible in a democratic society. But freedom lies discipline. Freedom of individuals is possible only if there is mutual consideration for one another. This results in the rule law which is again possible only in a democracy. In order to ensure democracy, men must not only have political rights but also have social and economic rights. Individual initiative must be, however, controlled by common considerations. So also the right to private property must be subordinated to social justice. The world must be organized at the basis of an international State in which “the differences need not be fused but they need not conflict.”

Radhakrishnan deplores an education which merely stimulates the mind without satisfying it. He is also against all unintegrated and specialized types of knowledge. The end or aim of education is to impart self-knowledge to the pupil. Education should integrate the different elements in the individual to live well. It should harmonize the various conflicting elements in man. Universities must put forward a conception of life based on eternal values and responsive to historical events. They must nourish spiritual values. For this purpose they must possess at least a few creative personalities.

References:

¹ The Reign of Religion in Contemporary Philosophy, p. 275
² An Idealist View of Life, p. 97
³ Ibid., p. 333
⁴ Ibid., p. 269
⁵ Ibid., p. 290
⁶ Ibid., p. 292
⁷ “Radhakrishnan’s Political Philosophy”, in Philosophy of Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, Edited by P. A. Schilpp, p. 707