Philosophy Of Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan

September 5, 2013

[b] Metaphysics[/b]
[color=#23262A][font=Tahoma]
Radhakrishnan located his metaphysics within the Advaita (non-dual) Vedanta tradition (sampradaya). And like other Vedantins before him, Radhakrishnan wrote commentaries on the Prasthanatraya (that is, main primary texts of Vedanta ): the [i]Upanisads[/i] (1953),[i]Brahma Sutra[/i] (1959), and the [i]Bhagavadgita[/i] (1948).[/font][/color][color=#23262A][font=Tahoma]
As an Advaitin, Radhakrishnan embraced a metaphysical idealism. But Radhakrishnan’s idealism was such that it recognized the reality and diversity of the world of experience ([i]prakṛti[/i]) while at the same time preserving the notion of a wholly transcendent Absolute (Brahman), an Absolute that is identical to the self (Atman). While the world of experience and of everyday things is certainly not ultimate reality as it is subject to change and is characterized by finitude and multiplicity, it nonetheless has its origin and support in the Absolute (Brahman) which is free from all limits, diversity, and distinctions ([i]nirguṇa[/i]). Brahman is the source of the world and its manifestations, but these modes do not affect the integrity of Brahman.[/font][/color][color=#23262A][font=Tahoma]
In this vein, Radhakrishnan did not merely reiterate the metaphysics of Śaṅkara (8th century C.E.), arguably Advaita Vedanta’s most prominent and enduring figure, but sought to reinterpret Advaita for present needs. In particular, Radhakrishnan reinterpreted what he saw as Śaṅkara’s understanding of [i]maya[/i]strictly as illusion. For Radhakrishnan, [i]maya[/i] ought not to be understood to imply a strict objective idealism, one in which the world is taken to be inherently disconnected from Brahman, but rather [i]maya[/i]indicates, among other things, a subjective misperception of the world as ultimately real. [See Donald Braue, [i]Maya in Radhakrishnan's Thought: Six Meanings Other Than Illusion[/i](1985) for a full treatment of this issue.][/font][/color]

September 5, 2013

[b] i. Ethics of Caste[/b]
[color=#23262A][font=Tahoma]
Radhakrishnan affirms that the caste system, correctly understood, is an exemplary case of ethical tolerance and accommodation born out of an intuitive consciousness of reality. “The institution of caste illustrates the spirit of comprehensive synthesis characteristic of the Hindu mind with its faith in the collaboration of races and the co-operation of cultures. Paradoxical as it may seem, the system of caste is the outcome of tolerance and trust” (HVL 93) Based not on the mechanical fatalism of karma, as suggested by Hinduism’s critics, but on a recognition of Hinduism’s spiritual values and ethical ideals, caste affirms the value of each individual to work out his or her own spiritual realization, a spiritual consciousness Radhakrishnan understands in terms of integral experience. Just as Radhakrishnan sees his ranking of religions as affirming the relative value of each religion in terms of its proximity to Vedanta, the institution of caste is a social recognition that each member of society has the opportunity to experiment with his or her own spiritual consciousness free from dogmatic restraints. In Radhakrishnan’s eyes, herein lies the ethical potency and creative genius of integral experience. Caste is the creative innovation of those “whose lives are characterized by an unshakable faith in the supremacy of the spirit, invincible optimism, ethical universalism, and religious toleration” (IVL 126). [For a discussion of the democratic basis of caste in Radhakrishnan's thinking, see Robert Minor,[i] Radhakrishnan: A Religious Biography[/i](1989).][/font][/color]