RADHAKRISHNAN

FROM AN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVE

 

ARCHIE J. BAHM

University of Mexico

 

            One need have no hesitation in honouring S. Radhakrishnan for here is a person to whom honour is obviously due. In America his name is better known than that of Shankara or even Aurobindo. He is better known in the United States today than any other Indian except Gotama, Gandhi, Nehru and perhaps Tagore. His command of Western philoso­phy makes Western philosophers respect him quite apart from his other achievements. And his ability to speak to them in a language which is closer to their own way of thinking than most others who have tried to express Indian philosophical ideas to them gives him a ready audience in America.

 

            But his success not merely as a teacher of philosophy, writer on philosophy and as a philosopher but also in the world of practical political affairs gives American philosophers cause for notice. Only in India, and certainly not in the United States, could a life-long philosopher and teacher of philosophy become the head of a great nation. Although there are now more than four thousand teachers of philosophy in the United States, only two that I know of have ever risen to political prominence, both as United States Commissioners of Education, Wm. T. Harris about a century ago and Sterling McMurrin during the past two years. The profundity of interest in philosophy in India is the envy of philosophers in all other countries. And the success of Radhakrishnan not only in teaching philosophy but in rising in personal stature to a position of practical political prominence gives many American philosophers fur­ther cause of envy. Since the time of Plato, Western philosophers have idealized philosophers as rulers; here when an Indian philosopher attains power, as a political leader, with opportunity for employing philosophical wisdom in influencing the affairs of state he automatically fulfils that Western ideal. The story of how Radhakrishnan employed his philo­sophical wisdom in public affairs is yet to be written. It should become a classical document of the history of philosophers in politics.

 

            Turning to another side of Radhakrishnan’s success story, there is an aspect which serves to dismay some Americans. He so thoroughly dominates the field of honour that every person who writes a book seems to feel that he has failed unless he has obtained the blessings of Radhakrishnan in the form of an introduction to it. The practice of having a noted authority prepare an introduction is indeed a common one. But in the case of Radhakrishnan, this has become a mass phenomenon. Such phenomenon seems to have certain implications. One of these is that Indian thinkers appear to be unable to stand on their own feet and live by their own personal honour; at least this appearance to individual­istic Americans is hard for them to understand, even though they may recognize the actual kinship of thought by so many Indians immersed in feeling themselves as children of “The Mother” presents no problem here to Indians. Yet, so long as the towering stature of Radhakrishnan overshadows all others, the undoubted capacities of other Indian think­ers may be left unnecessarily in the shade. Another apparent implication, which may be an appearance only, is that such a seemingly great quantity of introduction to long and complex works must signify some lack of thoroughness, in face of multitudes of other duties; however, a man with indefatigable energy can accomplish marvels unattainable by others.

 

            Although I have admired Radhakrishnan’s world outlook and universal vision and his personal efforts in behalf of world peace and harmony through mutual understanding by philosophers of different cultural traditions, I was startled here in Banaras recently when an Indian teacher of philosophy said he disliked my views because they resembled Radhakrishnan’s. He was referring to my interest in comprehensive con­structive synthesis of a world hypothesis which would include the essential virtues emphasized in each of the world’s great cultural traditions. I fear that Radhakrishnan would not approve my organicism as a world Hypothesis, even though he might commend its breadth of scope and optimistic outlook.

 

            Surely the time has come for both historians of philosophy and philosophers concerned with their own philosophical systems to take full account of the major contributions of both Hindu, Western and Chinese philosophical traditions. To omit anyone of them is to short-change our historic and our emerging philosophies. The History of Philosophy: Eastern and Western, edited by Radhakrishnan, was indeed a landmark in tendencies in this direction. It included chapters on Chinese philoso­phies as well as Hindu and Western. But also, the portion devoted to Chinese thinkers was thin as compared with the others. Both Indian and Western thinkers including Radhakrishnan, continue to fall short in their appreciation of, and appropriation of, the wisdom of China. This failure is easily attributable to the great linguistic difficulties in learning and interpreting Chinese languages and need not indicate any lack of willing­ness to admire and profit from Chinese insight. Yet, the fact remains that without some grasp and integration of Chinese contributions into a world vision, such a vision will remain inadequate to serve as a long-run world philosophy. Radhakrishnan may yet make further contributions in this direction; his joining with P. T. Raju in preparing The Concept of Man, an introduction to comparative philosophy calling upon Hebrew, Greek, Chinese and Indian philosophers in a cooperative (1964) effort, may be a significant gesture in this direction. (1937)

 

Back