Religious Philosophy of Tagore & Radhakrishnan

Email

Whatsapp

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Copy link

This work presents an exposition of the religious philosophies of Rabindranath Tagore and Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, comparing their views on various religious topics. It identifies both the commonalities and differences in their perspectives. Through this comparative study, key religious concepts in each chapter are clarified.

The author asserts that Tagore and Radhakrishnan's views on God, the world, the problem of evil, humanism, mysticism, and self-realization offer profound insights into important religious concepts. The book combines a traditional approach to the philosophy of religion with modern perspectives found in contemporary religious philosophy.

By conducting a comparative and analytical study, the author hopes to provide new directions for the development of contemporary Indian religious philosophy.

HARENDRA PRASAD SINHA is a University Professor in the Postgraduate Department of Philosophy at Magadh University, Bodh Gaya. He studied at Patna College and the Postgraduate Department of Philosophy, Patna University, where he obtained his M.A. degree in 1957. He was awarded a Ph.D. from Patna University in 1975.

His areas of specialization include the philosophy of religion, Indian philosophy (including contemporary Indian philosophy), and comparative religion. With over 35 years of teaching experience, he has guided numerous Ph.D. scholars and supervised significant UGC research projects.

Dr. Sinha has actively participated in national and international seminars and conferences and has contributed more than 30 research papers to esteemed journals. His notable publications include:

Dharma-Darshan Bhartiya Darshan (which has gone through multiple editions)

The Religion of the Rigveda

The Religions of the World: A Comparative Survey

Scholars of Indian Philosophy, these days, are obsessed with the problem of discovering new ways of studying Indian Philosophy. They are very much conscious of the oft-repeated comment that Indian Philosophy in the recent past has generally remained repetitive. They are also aware that 'rootlessness' makes philosophical thinking chaotic and directionless, and, as such, they are not prepared to break away from their tradition, which, even now continues to be as strong as ever. But they are somewhat at a loss to decide as to how to infuse a sense of freshness in their philosophical thinking.

Conservatism indeed hinders creative thinking if it remains dogmatically tied-down to traditional and hackneyed ideas. But, this also is true that every creative thinking takes off its flight only when it traverses the run-way of traditional ideas. The point of innovation lies not so much in the themes discussed, but in the manner in which they are discussed. Every novel insight is the result of the use of some novel technique of thinking. The present book is also an experiment on that line. It seeks to apply a new technique of doing philosophy on the themes taken up from the Indian tradition and developed, in their own ways, by two of the prominent Indian Thinkers of the recent past.

The themes chosen are the same old familiar ones, and yet the final results of the deliberations are refreshingly illuminating. Per-haps the reason for taking up only Tagore and Radhakrishnan for a deliberation of this kind is also determined by a similar con-sideration. These two thinkers are very much bound by the tradition which they want to uphold and highlight. And yet, they carry on the spirit of those ancient thinkers, who, even though professedly commenting on the Upaniṣads, come to develop novel ideas and approaches in their thinking. Both Tagore and Radhakrish-nan are innovative and creative in that sense. Ideas that they develop are all openly taken from the Upanisads, and yet they are sought to be covered by a sort of a garb that is in keeping with the demands of the time. Perhaps this element of novelty in these two thoughts leads the present scholar to subject their ideas to his own philosophical scrutiny, in the hope that in the freshness of their approaches he would be able to discover the seeds of his own creative effort.

That is why, the work is partly expository; but the exposition also has been shaped in accordance with the reflective needs of the work. The sections under which the philosophical ideas of Radhakrishnan and Tagore are developed are indeed the familiar 'heads' under which any conventional discussion of Religious Philosophy proceeds. The important sections are on 'Nature of Religion', 'God', 'World', 'Man', The Problem of Evil', 'Mystic Experience', 'Self-realization' etc., but this classification itself has been made with an explicit purpose. The author is able to extricate from each of these expositions some important philosophical concepts, the analysis of which provides the element of novelty and fresh-ness that the work promises to provide.

Yes, The reflective part of the work constitutes its special fea-ture. It firstly enters into a comparative analysis of the views of the two thinkers on the themes chosen. This comparative analysis enables the author to pick up certain philosophically interesting concepts. These concepts include not only the old familiar concepts that the Indian Philosopher is discussing for centuries, but some entirely novel concepts that have a relevance for present-day philosophical thinking. For example, under the section 'God' the concepts that demand analysis include not merely the familiar idea of 'Absolute and God', but also ideas having a contemporary Rele-vance like the notion of 'humanisation of God'. Likewise, under the section on 'Man' one very interesting concept that has been analysed in a new way is the idea of 'uniqueness and universality'. On the basis of a comparative analysis of the two views on the traditional topic of 'the Problem of Evil', the author is able to pick up and analyse 'the concepts of Fact and ultimate fact'. In this way the main thrust of the work is towards the analysis of some import-ant and philosophically interesting concepts that emerge from the comparative analysis of the two views. The analysis done brings to the surface some such issues and ideas which do not remain evident in the expository descriptions.

The work has been undertaken in clear awareness of the fact that there is a difference between what can be called, 'the traditional approach' in the philosophy of Religion and 'the Modern approach'. The traditional Philosophies of Religion seek to provide final answers to religious questions. They take up various religious concepts, anticipate problems with regard to them, solve those problems in their own ways and thereby develop a system of religious philosophy.

Recent Philosophies of Religion do not approve of this technique.

They feel that philosophy also is not a popular pursuit but is a technical and academic discipline. Therefore, a philosopher is not expected to do all that a religious teacher or a preacher does.

Philosophy, according to them, is a second-order enquiry, and therefore, in spite of very great differences within their camps they all agree in believing that the main function of philosophy is clarification of concepts. They are not interested in evolving any system of philosophy, for, they know that it is a vain pursuit.

They, therefore, pick up concepts and seek to clarify them. For this they develop definite techniques. This also is true that techniques vary from individuals to individuals and also from groups to groups.

But, broadly speaking, all these techniques are varieties of what is known as, conceptual analysis. If one views what these philosophers do, he will be amazed to find a host of separate even the unconnected problems being discussed, by the same thinker. That is so because they feel that if in any direction they succeed in bringing about certain clarifications and raising certain new issues, they have notably served the cause of philosophy.

This work claims to combine in its own way both these techniques. It does give exposition of some of the main views of the two thinkers included in this study. But that has been given merely to provide the raw materials from out of which genuine philosophical concepts have been picked up and clarified. Therefore, the main purpose of this work is not historical but reflective.

The area chosen for this work is Contemporary Indian Philosophy. That is also not without reason. It is very often said that Contemporary Indian Philosophy is purely repetitive, it merely restates what has already been asserted by ancient Indian Philosophy. The hos tile critics go to the extent of suggesting that even terms and modes of expression used by them are exactly similar to those of ancient Indian Philosophy.

This work obviously does not enter into this controversy, but takes up Contemporary Indian Philosophy as its area, with the explicit intention of showing that even the so-called repetitive assertions of the contemporary Indian thinkers contain the germs of such philosophical activities which may be considered genuine and useful by the so-called modern academic thinkers.

This work limits its scope to only two of the contemporary Indian thinkers, Tagore and Radhakrishnan. That is so because these two thinkers share many things in common. In fact, their religious philosophies develop more or less on the same pattern. Moreover, it was felt that a comparative estimate of the two philosophies could suggest some new ideas and could throw new light on some religious concepts.

As such, this work gives an exposition of the views of two thinkers on different religious topics, compares them and tries to gather the points that they share and also those in respect of which they differ. This forms the exposition part of the thesis. But in the exposition itself, particularly in the process of comparison, reflection makes its place and is able to draw some new ideas. Then this work also seeks to derive certain important religious concepts from the exposition of the two philosophies. It seeks to clarify them and thereby it is also able to suggest some new ideas in the light of which philosophical deliberations may proceed further.

Every chapter, therefore, has been divided into various subheads. The first two sections in each chapter devote themselves to the exposition of the views of the two thinkers. The third section seeks to institute a comparison between the two and thereby enumerate the common points as well as the points of difference.