“Rajarshi” Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan

The celebrated Greek philosopher Plato had dreamed of a philosopher-king to rule his ideal state. In Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, the late President of India and the philosopher par excellence of India and the Orient, this exalted and unique platonic dream turned well-nigh into a living reality. It was the crowning glory and unparalleled distinction of this distinguished statesman and illustrious son of India that he alone among his counterparts was a profound and original thinker and left to mankind an inestimably precious philosophic legacy that will live on.

It is singular to note that in his rich and many-splendoured life did merge the three vital and living streams of the perennial Hindu philosophy – Jnaana (Wisdom), Karma (Action) and Bhakti (Devotion) forming an integral, comprehensive and enlightened philosophy of life. Therefore he may be aptly regarded as the twentieth century counterpart of the Indian saint-king of antiquity – Rajarshi Janaka. For like the latter he had un­mistakably exemplified in his life the pregnant Aurobindonean dictum: “All life is Yoga.”

The immortal and eternal spiritual philosophy of India has originated in the time immemorial from the Vedas as the ultimate fountain-head. So it is aptly called “Sanaatana Dharma” or “Perennial Philosophy.” The majestic edifice of Indian philosophic heritage rests upon three basic pillars – the Bhagavad­gita, the Upanishads and the Brahma Sutra, conjointly called the Prasthaanatraya. It was part of Radhakrishnan’s philosophic mission to become the most outstanding exponent of this ever­lasting philosophy of the spirit. Since the fulfilment by Swami Vivekananda of the epoch-making spiritual mission at the historic Parliament of Religions in Chicago, no thinker of modern India had devoted himself with such supreme self-consecration to the mission of proclaiming the sublime and soul-stirring message of Indian spirituality to the sceptical Western mind in an age of moral anarchy and spiritual eclipse. Dr. Radhakrishnan was eminently qualified to carry out this tremendous and painstaking task. For he had very rich resources at his command–­a subtle and incisive analytical mind, wealth of brilliant wit, profound and penetrating insight, superb and spell-binding oratory and to crown all a singular capacity for luminous and rational exposition. It deserves to be noted that it was the last-mentioned quality in him which most irresistibly appealed to the essentially empirical and pragmatic Western mind. Dr. Radha­krishnan accomplished his philosophic mission magnificently well during the long tenure of his brilliant academic career as lecturer in the Faculty of Philosophy in various Indian universities, as holding for several consecutive years the prestigious chair of Spalding Professor of Eastern Religions and Ethics at the Oxford University and also delivering memorial lectures at various distin­guished universities of Western Europe and America. Here one is inclined to recall the warmly appreciative observation of the world-famous British philosopher, Bertrand Russell: “I have never heard philosophy so lucidly expounded as by Dr. Radha­krishnan” and that “he is one of those who serve to make the culture of India one of the glories of human achievement.”

Dr. Radhakrishnan’s monumental masterpiece entitled “Indian Philosophy” and his scholarly treatises on the Bhagavad­gita, the principal Upanishads and the Brahma Sutra containing illuminating philosophic exegesis of the quintessential doctrines as well as authoritative rendering of the texts of the three basic scriptures of Hinduism represent effort in the same direction. Part of Radhakrishnan’s most significant contribution to philosophy lay in arousing in Western mind a mature awareness of the true spirit of Indian philosophy and culture as well as its supreme value, significance and relevance in the context of the contem­porary society. Like Swami Vivekananda, his illustrious predeces­sor in this field, Dr. Radhakrishnan left no stone unturned to bring Indian philosophic thought into sharper focus and put it into proper perspective by dispelling many facile presumptions, prejudices and misconceptions about it in the Western mind. One of his most distinctive contributions in this regard was his profoundly significant reinterpretation and revaluation of the doctrine of “Maya” in Sankara’s philosophy of Advaita. Accord­ing to Radhakrishnan, “Maya” has not meant to Indian philoso­phers, even to Sankara, that the world is nothing but an illusion. In Sankara’s view, this phenomenal world of everyday events and things has, no doubt, no absolute or ultimate reality (Paaramaar­thika Satyatva) but nevertheless it is not unreal. It has an apparent and relative reality (Vyavahaarika Satyatva), that is, reality as far as it is necessary for all practical purposes. The world is relatively real and is said to be false or illusory (Jagan­mithya to quote the words of Sankara) only when the knowledge and realization of Brahman is attained. Thus Sankara maintains that so long as Brahman is not realized, so long as the empi­rical world continues to be perceived, both the external world of matter and the internal world of mind are to be accepted as facts. Thus Radhakrishnan removes the greatest obstacle to the proper understanding and appreciation by the Western mind of the most highly-developed philosophy in India – Sankara’s Advaita Vedanta and thus paves the way for clearer comprehension of India’s greatest heights of thought.

Dr. Radhakrishnan also sought strenuously to bring home to the Western mind, the fact that the basic Indian philosophy of life was not, notwithstanding its emphasis on the ideal of renunciation and dispassion, pessimistic, negativistic as well as world-and-life denying in its spirit and orientation as some Western scholars and thinkers including Dr. Albert Schweitzer would have us believe.

As the supreme exponent of the perennial Hindu philosophy, Dr. Radhakrishnan spared no effort in projecting the quintessential vision of Hinduism which is embodied in pregnant form in such immortal scriptural statements “ekam sad vipraah bahudhaa vadanti”– “Him who is the One real sages name variously.” “bahuni mama naamaani kirtitaani maharshibhih”– “My names­ are many as declared by the great seers.” Since the Indian philosophic thought is rooted in the basic principle of “Unity in diversity”, it regards all faiths and philosophies as various paths to the one ultimate goal – the Supreme Reality of Divine Being, showing equal respect and tolerance for one arid all. Thus Radhakrishnan very cogently observes: “Hinduism does not distinguish ideas of God as true and false, adopting one particular idea as the standard for the whole human race. It accepts the obvious fact mankind seeks its goal of God at various levels and in various directions, and feels sympathy with every stage of the search” (Hindu View of Life) And again he observes in the same strain: “Hinduism does not believe in bringing about a mechanical uniformity of belief and worship by a forcible elimi­nation of all that is not in agreement with a particular creed. It does not believe in any statutory methods of salvation. Its scheme of salvation is not limited to those who hold a particular view of God’s nature and worship. Such an exclusive absolutism is inconsistent with an all-loving universal God.” (Ibid) It is because of the realization of the profound truth that all religions share the one supreme goal namely Self-realization or God-realization and are in essence and substance identical, however much their forms and methods might vary, that Hinduism, in the words of Dr. Radhakrishnan “developed an attitude of comprehensive charity instead of a fanatic faith in an inflexible creed. It accepted the multiplicity of aboriginal gods and others which originated, most of them outside the Aryan tradition, and justified them all. It brought together into one whole all believers in God. Many sects professing many different beliefs live within the Hindu fold. Heresy-hunting, the favourite game of many religions, is singularly absent from Hinduism.” (Ibid) Again he very perceptively observes in this regard: “Wars of religion which are the outcome of fanaticism that prompts and justifies the extermination of aliens of different creeds were practically unknown in Hindu India. Of course, here and there, there were outbursts of fanaticism, but Hinduism as a rule never encouraged persecution for unbelief. Its record has been a clean one, rela­tively speaking.” (Ibid)

Another distinctive aspect of Radhakrishnan’s unique philo­sophic legacy is his highly-integrated and inclusive philosophic approach and attitude manifesting itself in his unequalled capacity for harmonious synthesis and reconciliation of seeming opposites and apparent irreconcilables – the absolute and the non-absolute, God and the world, appearance and reality, reason and intui­tion, philosophy and religion, science and religion, as well as religion and life. Strongly denying that there is any basic or ultimate conflict, antagonism or contradiction between these seem­ing opposites, he goes on to demonstrate and establish their vital and intimate inter-relationship. Denying the traditional conflict and dichotomy between science and religion, Radha­krishnan very perceptively observes in the article entitled “Science and Religion”: “The two are not antagonistic to each other both in India and the West, science and religion had a common origin. The seer and the scientist were the same in the Vedic Ashrama and in the Pythagorean brotherhood. Science itself was called natural philosophy and history is an essential part of the spiritual history of mankind. Science and technology on the one side, ethics and religion on the other, were sundered in later stages thus creating the problem of faith Vs. reason, ethics Vs. tech­nics. The conflict between the two is a symptom of the split consciousness which is so characteristic of the mental disorder of the day.” Dr. Radhakrishnan also categorically and unequi­vocally rejects the so-called dichotomy and conflict between the sacred and secular, religion and life. Pointing out that religion and spirituality cannot be kept divorced and estranged from the normal social life of man in the world, Dr. Radhakrishnan very cogently observes: “If religion is not dynamic and perva­sive, if it does not penetrate every form of human life and influence every type of human activity, it is only a veneer and not a reality.” (Recovery of Faith) Pursuing this train of thought, he further observes: “By setting up a gulf between the sacred and the secular, by developing an insensitiveness to the tragic fate of the world, by withdrawing from the scene of mankind’s social agony, by proclaiming that justice can be found only beyond the grave, religion is robbed of the possibility of social regeneration.” (Ibid) And he adds: “We cannot draw a sharp line of distinction between religion and social life.....Religion is a social cement, a way in which men express their aspirations and find solace for their frustrations.” (Ibid) Rejecting the idea of the apparent opposition between God and the world, Radhakrishnan very cogently observes: “This world is presided over by the cosmic Lord (Hiranyagarbha), who is the manifestation of Brahman – Isvara. The world is a manifestation of the cosmic Lord and a creation of God.” (Ibid) Rejecting the view that there is a fundamental conflict between intellect or reason and intuition, Radhakrishnan very perceptively observes: “Direct perception or simple and steady looking upon an object is intuition. It is not a mystic process, but the most direct and penetrating examination possible to the human mind. Intuition stands to intellect in somewhat the same relation as intellect stands to sense. Though intuition lies beyond intellect, it is not contrary to it. It is called Samyagjnaana, or perfect knowledge.” (An Idealist View of Life) Affirming the close and intimate interdependence of the two, he further observes with great subtlety of perception: “There is no break of continuity between intuition and intellect. In moving from intellect to intuition, we are not moving in the direction of unreason, but are getting into the deepest ration­ality of which human nature is capable. In it, we think more profoundly, feel more deeply and see more truly. We see, feel and become in obedience to our whole nature, and not simply measure things by the fragmentary standards of intellect. We think with a certain totality or wholeness. Both intellect and intuition belong to the self. While the former involves a specialized part, the latter employs the whole self. The two are synthesized in the self and their activities are interdependent.” (An Idealist View of Life)

But Radhakrishnan could not rest content with merely assuming the mantle of the supreme messenger of Indian philosophy and culture. Hence he cast himself in the role of a supreme pioneer in the quest for inter-religious unity, fraternity and fellowship. His view was fundamentally and diametrically opposed to the myopic view of the British poet, Rudyard Kipling, who had gone so far as to affirm that “East is East, West is West and never the twain shall meet.” He was profoundly convinced like Dr. Arnold Toynbee, the greatest philosopher-historian of our century, about the basic underlying unity of all religions and the paramount need for harmony and coexistence among different religious communities. According to Dr. Radhakrishnan, the true meaning and purpose of religion is that it should be an integrating and cohesive force – a crucial factor for fostering harmony, brotherhood and unity among men rather than a factor generating bitterness, hostility, discord and strife. But the vast majority of followers of various faiths do not hold such a sensible and enlightened view of religion and thus their attitude to other religions has been far from one of charity, tolerance and catholi­city. Here one may aptly quote his perceptive and revealing observation: “The root meaning of the word ‘religion’ suggests that it should be a binding force, and yet by their claims to finality and absoluteness, attitude of religions to one another is one of unmitigated hostility.” (Recovery of Faith) Thus proselytiza­tion and indoctrination, oppression and persecution, confrontation and bloody conflict have been writ large in the annals of the religious history of mankind. So time and again, he has appealed to the enlightened rational conscience of mankind to wake up to the fundamental fact of the ultimate unity of all religions with such memorable words – “Even though we follow different roads, our goal is the same – reaching the ultimate mystery. We are all engaged in the same quest. We must treat one another as spiritual brethren. Toleration should be transformed into love.” (Religion and Culture) The aforementioned brief but remarkable statements of Dr. Radhakrishnan serve to demonstrate unmistakably how he has emerged as an unsparing and uncompromising critic of all forms of religious fundamentalism, dogmatism and fana­ticism and the supreme living embodiment of the quintessential spirit of Indian culture. For the distinctive spirit of Indian culture is the spirit of magnanimity, catholicity and inclusiveness in sharp contrast to the dogmatic and exclusive attitude characteristic of many world religious communities. But life inclusive attitude and spirit in religion which he so fervently believed in and advocated so passionately and unfailingly is no sterile syncre­tism or cheap eclecticism but the spirit of profound and enlighten­ed integration and assimilation. He shared Toynbee’s view that the contemplative spirit and intuitive spiritual vision and experience of the East should be blended and harmonized with the dynamic activist and empirical ethos of the West to ensure the enduring progress and vitality of human civilization and culture. Dr. Radhakrishnan’s pioneering role in the quest for inter-religious fraternity and fellowship and the world unity based on East­-West synthesis represents indeed his outstanding contribution to the world philosophic heritage and his supremely precious legacy to posterity. It was this unique role of a supreme unifier and synthesizer between Oriental and Occidental culture which has received well-deserved recognition and warmest acclaim from some of the celebrated Western thinkers and perceptive critics. Paying glowing tributes to this role of Radhakrishnan, C. E M. Joad hails him as the “Bridge-builder” and “Liaison Officer” between the East and West. Here one may aptly recall as well the revealing observation of Aldous Huxley: “More effectively than any living man, Dr. Radhakrishnan has contributed to the building of the bridge of understanding which at long last connects our two cultures – the Indo and the European.”

Though supremely conscious of the greatness and glory of the Indian spiritual heritage and intensely eager to bring it into limelight, Radhakrishnan was not complacently oblivious to the inescapable fact that Hinduism in our age has turned quiescent and stagnant, losing its pristine purity, dynamic vigour and vitality. After outlining the central principles of Hinduism he goes on to affirm: “If Hinduism lives today, it is due to them, but it lives so little. Listlessness reigns now where life was once like a bubbling spring....There is a lack of vitality, a spiritual flagg­ing.” (The Hindu View of Life) So he was acutely alive to the fact that what was imperative and indispensable was a thorough transformation, a reorientation and revitalization of many of the prevalent forms, institutions and conventions of traditional Hindu religion in the light of contemporary needs and realities. So he observes very sensibly: “There is much wood that is dead and diseased that has to be cleared away. Leaders of Hindu thought and practice are convinced that the times require, not a surrender of the basic principles of Hinduism, but a restatement of them with special reference to the needs of a more complex and mobile social order.” (Ibid) In this regard he has not failed to remind sharply the champions of orthodoxy and rigid status quo in the Hindu faith that “There has been no such thing as a uniform stationary unalterable Hinduism whether in point of belief or practice. Hinduism is a movement, not a position; a process, not a result; a growing tradition, not a fixed revelation..........” (Ibid) As C. E. M. Joad has aptly noted, Dr. Radhakrishnan has identified himself heart and soul with the movement known as “New Hinduism” that was seeking to remould and revitalize the age-old Hindu religion. As an outstanding champion and crusader of this movement, he was steadfastly committed to eradicating all the deep-rooted anomalies and distortions in the Hindu religion and ought to infuse into it new dynamism and vitality by the assimi­lation of Western rationalistic and scientific outlook and attitude. Only in this way, as he saw, could be ensured the enduring progress and perfection of the Hindu religion and culture.

In conclusion, it might aptly be said of Dr. Radhakrishnan that he is in the mainstream of that noble and magnificent ethical, philosophical and spiritual tradition of humanity, to which belong Tagore and Toynbee, Gandhi and Sri Aurobindo, Huxley and Schweitzer, Eliot and Dostoevsky, to name but a few. For, like them, he has brought to the life of modern man stricken with psychic disintegration, moral atrophy and spiritual starvation, the living and elevating message of an inclusive ethics and integral spirituality, born of a happy marriage between matter and spirit, knowledge and wisdom, reason and faith, action and contemplation.