An Idealist View of Life ¹

BY V. SUBRAHMANYA AIYAR

It is a source of supreme gratification to all believers in, or admirers of, Hinduism that so eminent a scholar and authority as Sir S. Radhakrishnan was invited to deliver the well-known Hibbert Lectures in 1929. Whatever impression his English readers and audience may have formed of his lectures, his own countrymen and co-religionists, much as they may differ from him on particular points of faith, will not hesitate to acclaim this literary performance of his as a remarkable achievement. It is remarkable in the sense that, till now, few Hindus and fewer Europeans or Americans have succeeded so well as he has in turning on man's religious experiences in general, and on some of the deepest religious convictions of the Hindus in particular, the powerful search-light of modern criticism. Among his predecessors, there was none greater than Prof. Max Muller as an exponent of the Philosophy of Religion as also Hindu religious thought. But Sir Radhakrishnan has outshone him in depth as well as in width of vision, not to say anything of his knowledge of the later researches made in this subject. In fact, our author covers so extensive a field and so ably too, that one cannot help agreeing with the learned reviewer of his book in Everyman when he says that it is "the most complete statement of religion in the language of the present that I have read . . . I know of no book that presents so well the ultimate truths of religion in the psychological idiom of this age."

The lectures do not aim at a defence of any specific religion, but at making a tentative attempt to discover truth and to discuss its bearing on the general religious attitude. They seek to interpret ‘life’ with a view to pointing out that it has a ‘meaning’ or ‘purpose’ and that "man has a destiny not limited to the sensible world." In other words, he uses the word ‘idealist’ in the sense that he is a seeker of ‘value’ but not in the sense of a believer in ‘subjectivism.’ He prepares the ground for the central topic of religion by examining the attitude of science towards it. Modern Physics, Astronomy, Biology, Psychology, Sociology, Comparative Religion, Politics are passed in rapid review to show how far they still are from the true religious spirit, which believes in God and the spiritual world. The values of the modern substitutes for religion, such as Theosophy, Anthropology, Christian Science, New Thought, are estimated. The general tendency in our day towards Atheism, Agnosticism, Scepticism, Humanism, Pragmatism, and Modernism are next discussed. They are all found to be lacking in the spiritual element, without which man's life is felt ‘incomplete.’ And he, therefore, believes that the present world is "waiting for a vital religion which it can follow with self-respect and joy!"

Now comes the main theme which begins with the important chapter on ‘Religious Experience and its Affirmations’ in which the author grapples with the fundamentals of the problem of religion, a problem which, he says, "exists directly only for the religious man who has the spiritual intuition or experience and indirectly for all those who, while they have no personal share in the experience, have yet sufficient belief that the experience does occur and is not illusory."

Next, the question is asked whether this ‘experience’ of the saints and the ‘belief’ of ordinary men, can stand the test of truth, which is really the most interesting issue. After rejecting dogmatic and speculative theology and showing how religious consciousness differs from philosophy or metaphysics, moral consciousness and mere consciousness of value, he describes religion as "the reaction of the whole man to the whole reality." Such "functioning may be called spiritual life as distinguished from the merely intellectual, moral, or aesthetic activity, or a combination of these." He says, further, that there is in it "a mystical element or apprehension of the real and an enjoyment of it for its own sake." There is in it an attempt to discover the ideal possibilities of human life, a quest for emancipation from the immediate compulsion of and petty moods. . . .The spiritual sense, the instinct for the real is not satisfied with anything less than the absolute and the eternal." This is, no doubt, one of the best interpretations of the religious sense in man, one that could be accepted by followers of all faiths extant. It is free from the defects of most of the definitions till now given.

Turning to the subject of the validity of such consciousness, he first of all adduces the evidence of the experience of great men of all countries: the Rishis of the Vedas, Sankara, the Buddha, Moses, Jesus, St. James, St. Paul, Muhammad, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Porphyry, Augustine, Eckhart, Dante, Spinoza, Bunyan, Wesley, who all testify to the felt reality of God.

In other words, if we understand him aright, he relies in the first place upon private, individual, or mystic experience. This evidence, he says, "is too massive to run away from."

In dealing with the ‘truth-value’ of such experience, he says that its validity is ‘self-established’ (svatassidqha), ‘self evidncing’ (svasamvedya) and ‘self-luminous’ (svayamprakasa). "It is its own cause and explanation. It is sovereign in its own rights and carries its own credentials. The ‘yogic’ (mystic) insight is ‘truth-filled’ or ‘truth-bearing.’ In short, what it knows is truth. Doubt and disbelief are no more possible."

The learned author here presses the claims of Hinduism on the attention of the thoughtful reader. Its ideas of harmony, self-discovery or divine nature of the individual, ethical universalism, and tolerance, re-birth, and degrees of salvation leading to the final liberation, of all, the glorious consummation of all spiritual aspirations, are brought out in great relief.

All the same, the question remains, if authority, tradition, and mystic experience form the bases of religion, in other words, the convictions of seers and saints are the sole grounds of the religious ‘beliefs’ of mankind, whether these intuitive apprehensions could be taken to be absolute and ultimate truths. Here come two of the most ably written chapters. One of them discusses the relative parts played by intuition and intellect, which is more philosophical than religious in its outlook, though the author places religious consciousness on a higher pedestal than philosophic thinking. Here he makes a critical examination of the views in this matter, not only of ancient Indian philosophers like the Buddha and Sankara but also of the greatest of thinkers of the West, ancient and modern, from Pythagoras to Croce, including Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibnitz, Pascal, Kant, Hegel, Bergson, Bosanquet, and Russell. He thinks that some of the most advanced minds of the West agree with Sankara.

"Intuition," he says, "is the direct perception or a simple steady looking upon an object. It lies beyond the intellect. It is the wisdom gained by the whole spirit." As such, intuitive truths are not liable to the doubts cast upon them by the intellect. Nevertheless, the intellect serves a useful purpose, in preparing the soul for apprehending intuitive truths. This however takes us to debatable regions.

Closely connected with this discussion is that bearing on the ‘creativity’ of intuitive knowledge, the most characteristic feature of ‘the spirit in man.’ This part of the book is perhaps the most brilliant. Though one may admit that the roots of all great thinking and noble living lie deep in life itself, yet, one may not subscribe to the view that they do "not lie in the dry light of reasoning." Similarly in regard to his observation: all creative work in science and philosophy, in outward life is inspired by intuitive experience. . . . "not by the plodding processes of the intellect." In these and similar statements he argues for the supreme value of intuitive knowledge and makes reason play the second fiddle. Though Bergson, the greatest of its modern protagonists, is not fully accepted by our author, yet Bergson's mystic intuition seems to have cast a spell on him. But inasmuch as the main theme of these Hibbert Lectures is religion, I respect the author's prepossessions in regard to religion; for I believe on matters religious or mystical that every man is equally entitled to hold his own convictions to be absolutely true, though one man's beliefs may be in direct conflict with another's.

The author says that religious intuition is "vivid, warm, joyous, hearty, and dynamic." "The thoughts of God are not known by the senses or reason. . . Spiritual insight differs from religious intellectualism. Religion revels in unverifiable hypotheses. . . . . The intuitive seers shrink from precise statements and clear-cut definitions." All the same, Sir Radhakrishnan seems to believe in religious evolution; for, he says, that to reach "true religion which has nothing in common with the spirit of negation, religion as practised today has a long distance to travel." The reader again may feel that the author has not told us what we should do when religious affirmations contradict each other and how we should find out which his ‘true religion’ of the future may be. I am of the opinion, that all religions must be either equally true or equally false, if reason be not the ultimate court of appeal. Invariably the religious bias of one man makes him assert the inferiority of others’ intuitions. The best Christians and Mahomedans hold that the doctrines of karma and rebirth are untrue. They sometimes ridicule them as marks of primitivity of beliefs. Again, great authorities like Doctor Otto and Bishop Gore, hold that their intuition tells them that Hindu ethics is lower than Christian morality, nay, that there is "no ideal of good life in Hinduism." But even the best intuitions appear to be helpless, if they cannot appeal to Reason. If an attempt be made to transcend contradictions and inconsistencies that we may know which religious intuition is finally ‘true,’ the attempt must ignore the finality of the truths till now revealed by any of the intuitions of the Seers and the Saints.

In as much as these lectures aim at an interpretation of ‘life,’ the scientific accounts of Matter, Life, and Mind cannot be overlooked. They are considered at length and then the unsatisfactoriness of their explanations is pointed out after an examination of the latest theories. The next chapter on ‘Human Personality and its Destiny’ is however of supreme value to Religion, for, it deals with what is known as ‘personality,’ ‘soul’ or ‘self’ and ‘consciousness,’ from the psychological and spiritual standpoints. The author here expounds the doctrines of karma, freedom, immortality, rebirth, and salvation, which are not merely learned but most thoughtful. Though men of other religions may trifle with some of his views owing to pre-judices, yet they appear to me to be very ably argued. This only proves the fact that in religion based upon intuition, we can never get at any consensus. But taking one's stand on intuition or mystic experience, I do not see why Hinduism should not be considered to be far ahead of other religions. Europe and America, though undoubtedly enlightened, have yet to reach a higher level wherefrom they could realise the validity of karma and rebirth. Turning to salvation we find the author describing it as ‘spiritualised harmony,’ ‘coherence within the individual’ and ‘harmony with the environments’ as its essentials, though, from the point of view of different religions, some are asserted to be truths and some, other than truths. His arguments in regard to karma, particularly ‘Rebirth’ appear to me to be exceptionally good; for, no explanation of the existence of ‘evil,’ yet offered by Western thinkers, however eminent, is so satisfactory. Man's survival, in some form, and his inheritance of many characteristics of a spiritual nature, are being more and more recognised even by such men as adhere to ‘reason.’ Here Sir Radhakrishnan has given some food for modern seekers after truth to think about at leisure.

In the concluding chapter on ‘Ultimate Reality,’ the author tries to reconcile the religious with the philosophical interpretations of the goal of existence. He examines the modern doctrines of Naturalism, Holism, Emergent Evolution, Ingressive Evolution, and offers many thoughtful criticisms. But we may pass on to the coping stone, the question of the reconciliation of the ‘God’ of religion and the ‘Absolute’ of philosophy. If he considers the Absolute also to be something intuited like the God of religion, I must plead inability to get a view of the Absolute as object, which is implied in his definition of Intuition, as quoted above. If it be a matter of reason and if the Absolute must itself be changing,–for, he speaks of it as being the ‘precosmic’ nature of God, who is also subject to time,–he must be in agreement with the Hegellian, Bradleyan and Bergsonian Ultimates which, like Sir Radhakrishnan's Absolute, are characterised by ‘never-ending activity.’ What is the relation of this Absolute to its everchanging appearances? Are they both Real in any sense? And what does Reality mean in the phrase ‘Ultimate Reltlity’? Religion, however, ignores such subtleties of thought. But Sir Radhakrishnan supports the Advaita view of God and the Absolute, as generally understood in the Pandit world. His object, however, in these lectures, is not a philosophical determination of the ‘Ultimate Truth’ but only a religious attempt to get at it. And I admit that in regard to religious issues, men must not push reason beyond the limits of their choice.

These differences, however, cannot in the least blind me to the outstanding worth of his spiritual views as presented in this volume. The author has rendered no small service to those whose object in life is to seek religious truth. If one could venture to take a peep into the future one would not hesitate to say that Sir Radhakrishnan's singularly wide outlook is the nearest approach to a religion that would be most welcome to cultured humanity in general in the years to come. No student of the philosophy of religion can, I presume, lay down this book without the feeling that he has come in contact with one of the most gifted and thoughtful minds of our day. In this short review, it is not possible to refer to all the invaluable topics of interest dealt with by him. Considered from the points of view of comprehensiveness, depth, and modernness, I must say that there are very few books on the subject of the religious value of life, to compare with it. And no Indian has, during the last half-a-century, given to the world a view of religion so strikingly independent and original.