The Hindu View of Life by Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

The book is an account of series of four lectures delivered by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan at the Manchester College, Oxford in September, 1926. Broadly the topics covered here relate to a Hindu context on Religious Experience, Conflict in Religion and Dharma. Keeping in mind that he addressed the students of Manchester College in the year 1926 and that it was an introductory lecture towards understanding Hindu religion, one can for the time being gloss over the apparently known facts/ideas about Hindu religion and can instead focus more on the relativity of these lectures towards understanding the ideas he proposes, in the present context. In this review I have tried to sum up his lectures.


HINDUISM:

At the onset he speaks about what Hinduism is and the difficulty in coming up with a single definition that would serve the purpose. He says

“Is it a museum of beliefs, a medley of rites, or a mere map, a geographical expression? Its content, if it has any, has altered from age to age, from community to community. It meant one thing in the Vedic period, another in the Brahmanical, and a third in the Buddhist. It means one thing to Saivite, another to Vaisnavite, and a third to the Sakta. The ease with which Hinduism has steadily absorbed the customs and ideas of people with whom it has come into contact with is as great as the difficulty we feel in finding a common feature binding together its different forms. But, if there is not a unity of spirit binding its different expressions and linking up the different periods of its history into one organic whole, it will not be possible to account for the achievements of Hinduism.”

To augment this he adds that though people of different races and cultures have been coming to India from centuries, Hinduism has not only maintained its supremacy but also has maintained its course unbroken, even if at times slow or static, all the while standing the strain of millenniums of spiritual thought and experience. Also, India has been a spiritual home to many countries that have followed the foundations Hinduism has supplied.

Who is a Hindu?

The term “Hindu” had originally a territorial and not a credal significance as the earliest followers of civilization on the Indian side of river Sindhu(Indus) were called Hindu by Persian and later Western invaders. As the civilization flowed from Punjab to Deccan, the Aryan culture (Vedic culture) developed at the bank of Sindhu came into touch with Dravid culture and later not only the Dravidians but also aboriginal tribes, savage and half civilized people got assimilated within and came to be known as Hindus. Slowly Hindu society built up with different communities worshiping different Gods and practicing different rites.

“It cannot be denied that in a few centuries the spirit of cultural unity spread through a large part of the land, and racial stocks of varying levels of culture became steeped in a common atmosphere.”

Hindu attitude to Religion

Comparing Hindu attitude with those of other religions, Radhakrishnan says that while there are fixed intellectual beliefs marking off one religion from another, Hinduism doesn’t set itself such limits. Here intuition, experience and inner realization are important than Intellect, dogma and outer expression respectively.

Religion is not the acceptance of academic abstractions or the celebration of ceremonies, but a kind of life or experience. It is insight into the nature of reality (darsana), or experience of reality (anubhava).

For a Hindu, religious faith doesn’t mean a blind belief in dogma but a belief in experience; an experience which is self-certifying and carries its own credentials. It is different from the mechanical faith (e.g. one that Christian theology has followed) which depends upon authority and wishes to enjoy the consolations of religion without the labour of being religious. Emphasizing on experience further, he says that religious faith is a spiritual perception liable to error and hence require testing processes of logical thought. The chief Hindu scriptures, Vedas, are a record of spiritual experiences of evolved souls having a keen sense of reality. They are not so much dogmatic dicta but transcripts from life. And the Hindu attitude towards Vedas is one of trust moderated by criticism since however precious those scriptures are we cannot deprive the present age of its right to inquire and sift the evidence. So, he stresses the need of conformity of interpretation of religious experience with findings of science. Now this leads to a philosophy based upon experiments.

A Hindu thinker also readily admits other points of view since he considers them worthy. Because of this attitude, he has, over ages, accepted the different ways different people aim at and this is how Epics, Puranas, Samkhya and the Yoga have found acceptance along with Vedas and have been assimilated in Hinduism.

“Hinduism is therefore not a definite dogmatic creed, but a vast, complex, but subtly unified mass of spiritual thought and realization.”

It is because of this readiness to experiment with thoughts and ideals that various movements like Buddhism, Jainism, movements by various leaders like Ramananda, Caitanya, Kabir, Nanak and then Brahmo-samaj and Arya-samaj came about, each stemming from the background of Vedas and in turn strengthening the insight.

RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE

The basis of existence, from a religious point of view, admits the presence of an Absolute or a God. In Hinduism, the Upanishads speak about the presence of an Absolute which is silence i.e. the Divine Darkness about which nothing can be said because it eludes the machinery of speech. But since human mind, being unable to resign itself to it, craves for something definite and limited, bringing down the Supreme/Absolute to the region of determined, it gives the Supreme highest form it can imagine i.e. a perfect personality. The supra-personal and the personal representations of the real are the absolute and relative ways of expressing one reality. When we emphasize the nature of reality in itself we get the absolute Brahman; when we emphasize its relation to us we get the personal Bhagwan(God).

Here criticizing the popular conceptions he adds that though a thinking Hindu desires to escape from the confusion of Gods into the silence of Supreme, the crowd still stands grazing at the heavens. In the name of tolerance we have carefully protected superstitious rites and customs and in recent times there have been no endeavours to raise the mental level of masses. He advises to use the temples and shrines as not only the places of worship but as seats of learning and school of thought, undertaking the spiritual direction of Hindus.


CONFLICT OF RELIGIONS

In the second lecture, he speaks about the conflict between different religions persistent in the world and essentially brings forth the tolerant Hindu views towards other religions. Citing examples from the Vedas, Epics and Buddhist view as adopted by King Ashoka, Radhakrishnan asserts how Hinduism has remained open to new ideas and thoughts. Unlike Semitic faiths possessing strange obsessions, where non-acceptance of religious metaphysics is a heinous sin meriting eternal punishment, Hinduism respects other creeds and possesses a democratic outlook, allowing them to get to the truth through their own traditions. Praising the Hindu method of reform, which does not use force or threat but suggestion and persuasion to let others see the truth, he says that Every God accepted by Hinduism is elevated and ultimately identified with the central reality which is one with the deeper self of man.

Though he praises the Hindu system which seeks unity of religion in a common quest but he also criticizes its neglect of the still uncivilized, who do possess crude beliefs which should have been eradicated as the Country progressed. Also he is aware of the outbursts of fanaticism here and there but he maintains that Hinduism as a rule never encouraged persecution for unbelief.

Towards the end of his second lecture, he speaks about the solution of the problem of conflict of religions, adding that a Hindu solution is likely to be accepted in the future. He appreciates the increasing mutual understanding of different religions and maintains that Every great religion has cured its followers of the swell of passion, the thrust of desire and the blindness of temper. It is the half-religious and irreligious who fight about dogmas and not the truly religious. One becomes more religious when one becomes more tolerant of diversity.

HINDU DHARMA

There are two lectures on Hindu Dharma. In the first chapter, Radhakrishanan speaks about the practical side of Hinduism and in the second he speaks about the division of Hindu society in terms of classes and how they help attain the Dharma.

First chapter:

Here he speaks about the concepts of Maya, Karma and Dharma according to Hindu system and emphasizes on the understanding of the concept of Maya and Karma to better understand the practical side of Hinduism i.e. its Dharma.

He starts this by clearing the chief objections raised against Maya and Karma. First is the doctrine of Maya which is supposed to repudiate the reality of the world, thus making all the ethical relations meaningless. It holds that world of nature is unreal and human history illusory. There is no meaning in time and no significance in life.

Stating that this theory is given by Samkara and various theistic systems adopted by large number of Hindus do not advocate this theory, he adds that Vedic thinkers adopted a realistic view of life; also, in the Upanishads we have an insistence on the relative reality of the world. Though he also urges us to understand Samkara’s theory by telling us his reasons:


1. The manifold experiences whether of co-existence in space or sequence in time is ever incomplete and partial and we cannot unify it. There will always be a surplus uncovered by the largest unity. The fact that the time and space world cannot be rounded into a systematic whole indicates that it is imperfect and unreal.

2. His theory is not drstisrstivada, that objects rise into being when we perceive them and disappear when we do not. We perceive objects and do not simply contemplate apparitions.

3. Subject and object are phases of spirit which have no existence apart from Brahman (mass of intelligence).

4. Samkara does not assert an identity between God and the world but only denies the independence of the world. How the finite rises from out of the bottom of infinite is incomprehensible mystery, Maya.

Allowing for the weakness of human mind in understanding an interrelation between God and world, Samkara advocates the theory of Maya.

Quoting the views of philosophers like Plato, Augustine, Leibniz, Hegel, Bergson and Croce on the subject of interrelation between God and world, he concludes that a wise agnosticism is more faithful to the situation.

Second objection: To the Hindu, ethical rules are meaningless because the world is divine.

To answer this, Radhakrishnan says that Hindu thought admits that the immanence of God is a fact admitting of various degrees. While there is nothing which is not lit by God, God is more fully revealed in the organic than in the inorganic, more in the conscious than in the unconscious, more in man than in lower creatures and more in the good than in the evil.

The concept of Karma, which is at times interpreted as denial of human freedom, is a rule of law not only in outward nature but also in the world of mind and morals. It is not a mechanical principle but a spiritual necessity, an embodiment of mind and will of God.

Coming to the practical side of Hinduism, he says that Hinduism is more a way of life than a form of thought. It is not a sect but a fellowship of all who accept the law of right and earnestly seek the truth. Dharma is right action and conformity with the truth of things. It doesn’t mean the repudiation of worldly activities (love, sex, and parental instinct, pursuit of wealth or power) or relationships but their attainment in a righteous way i.e. Dharma. It links up the realm of desires with the perspective of the eternal.

Second Lecture:

In second lecture he speaks about the racial differences persistent in the world and criticizes some advanced races for their attitude and dealings with lesser advanced ones. Giving a Hindu approach to the problem of the conflict of different racial groups, he says that Hinduism has adopted a safe course of democracy in the regard. Caste, on its racial side, is the affirmation of the infinite diversity of human groups. Different aboriginal tribes and races, which came to India, have been admitted into the larger life of Hinduism, given opportunities to share in the intellectual and cultural life of Hindus and responsibilities of contributing to its thoughts, its moral advancement and spiritual growth.

He then speaks about the class division in Hindu society into four major groups that of Brahmin, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas and Shudras and tells us about the basis of this division, their original roles in the advancement of society, their importance in the balance of social structure. He also discusses the concept of inter caste marriages and the increased monopoly of superior castes over inferior ones in the present times.

While concluding his lectures, he sums up all the ideas/ thoughts presented and goes on to say: We feel that our society is in a condition of unstable equilibrium. There is much wood that is dead and diseased that has to be cleared away.

Hinduism is a movement, not a position; a process, not a result; a growing tradition, not a fixed revelation. And that to grow further it requires a reinstatement of basic principles with special reference to needs of a more complex and mobile social order.

My views:

Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, who also served as a President of India from 1962 to 1967, was an eminent philosopher and a teacher whose birthday is celebrated as Teachers Day in India. Regardless of this fact, I am not sure that the people in general know much about his contribution towards increasing awareness about Hindu Philosophy.

These lectures were delivered in 1926, at a time India was under British rule. I wonder how he would have taken up the conflict in religions, had he had a clue about an increase in religious fanaticism over coming years. The two main events being the partition of 1947 and the Babri-Masjid incident of 1991, the latter being the one which played a large role in increasing the kind of religious fanaticism which undermined the idea of Hinduism as a tolerant religion, not to mention the subsequent incidents coming up in some states like U.P, Gujrat and Maharashtra; the wave of ‘Hindutva’ rising up and for the first time we becoming acquaint with terms like Hindu terrorism.

He speaks about the role of Vedas and Upanishads and tells us how they emphasize on a more realistic view of life. I wonder then why though the students in schools are made acquainted with the epics like Ramayana and Mahabharta but the philosophy of Vedas and Upanishads is held at bay. It is sad to note that students in high school, from as early as 8th standard nowadays, are stressed with the burden of competitive exams, working harder to secure a seat in the prominent Engineering or Medical colleges. Here I must mention that there is still a practice of institutions called ‘Gurukuls’ in India which does emphasize on the knowledge of these scriptures.

There were some ideas like concept of God, Maya and Moksha I didn’t agree with, being a non-believer, but then I do recognize their place in the Hindu system of belief in the way that they are understood and held sacred by and large by the believers.

On the whole I do believe that though we have witnessed a religious fanaticism and intolerance among the people in recent years, there is still hope because an average Indian is still tolerant and peace loving. Also a rise in economy and the rise of middle class have come along with an increased awareness of the global dynamics and importance of cross culture relationships. There are still many people, who not only understand Vedas and Upanishads, but also try to live by the way these proposes. But yet there is a large population which is even now bounded in superstitions, blind beliefs and dogmas and can easily become a prey either to their own impulses or to the fanatics whose loyalty is not to the religion but towards achieving their own selfish ends by any means.

If only texts like Vedas and Upanishads and philosophers like Vivekananda, S. Radhakrishnan and Ziddu Krishnamurty are read along with Epics and Puranas, can a Hindu truly understand and lead a religious life; a life which is an experience, a process and not a result.

3.5 stars rounded to 4

View all my reviews