ISSN 2747-2671 (online) PINISI JOURNAL OF ART, HUMANITY & SOCIAL STUDIES Vol. 1 No. 3, 2021

Problem of God and the Absolute: The Radhakrishnan View

Peter. O. O. Ottuh1, Onos Godwin Idjakpo 2 1 Department of Religious Studies and Philosophy, Delta State University, Abraka, Delta State, Nigeria. 2 Department of Religious Studies and Philosophy, Delta State University, Abraka, Delta State, Nigeria. * [email protected]

Abstract The problem of Ultimate Reality is one of the most important problems in the history of philosophy. In the enquiry into the nature of Ultimate Reality philosophers are also advocating a kind of dualism signifying two ultimate principles irreducible to each other, namely God and the Absolute. Since, the Absolute is the Ultimate Reality from the metaphysical standpoint and from the religious stand point God is regarded as the Supreme Reality, a question generally arises whether we identify the God of religion with the Absolute of metaphysics or we maintain a distinction between them. Although various solutions have been offered by different philosophers at different times, it was mainly Radhakrishnan, who has been credited as being the great reconciler of the problem of the relation between God and the Absolute. Hence in this present work an attempt has been made to highlight the solution offered by Radhakrishnan in this connection.

Keywords: Ultimate Reality; Radhakrishnan; The problem of God.

1. INTRODUCTION will. Spinoza, the first great absolutist thinker of Hastings Rashdall (1912) states that the modern Europe holds that God is identical with the Absolute is not God alone, but God and all other Absolute (Connelly 2015). Again he says that God spirits forming with Him a system or unity. He is identical with the Infinite Substance which is the makes a distinction between God and the Absolute one and the only reality. Hegel identifies the and takes God in the ordinary sense of a finite ii Absolute of his philosophy with the God of personal being. According to Rashdall, the religion. According to Hegel the only difference Absolute cannot be identified with God. The between the Absolute and God is that the former is ground on the basis of which Rashdall draws a the Ultimate Reality interpreted in terms of pure distinction between God and the Absolute is that, thought, whereas the latter is the same reality while God is to be regarded as a self conscious represented pictorially i.e. in terms of imagination unity of selves or spirits, the Absolute is the unity and emotion (Gabriel 2016). Bradley (1985) draws a of God and the selves, but that unity is not the mere distinction between God and the Absolute and unity of self-conscious spirit. Besides this logical admits that the idea of God tends to pass into that ground there is a religious demand which also of the Absolute. For Bradley the Absolute is not compels man to make such distinction between God and that God has no meaning outside of the God and the Absolute. The problem of Ultimate religious consciousness and is essentially practical. Reality is a very vexed problem in the history of The Absolute for him cannot be God, because in the philosophy both Indian and Western. Although it end the Absolute is related to nothing and there is a very old problem it has not lost its novelty cannot be a practical relation between it and finite considering the ever new theories springing up

26 Pinisi Journal of Art, Humanity and Social Studies

everyday. The Brahmasutra of Śaṅkara starts with conveniently define the Absolute as that structure the proposal of the enquiry after Ultimate Reality of the world system which any and every internally and this proves the importance of this problem in consistent purpose must recognize as the condition philosophy and particularly in the Vedānta system of its own fulfillment. So deny the existence of an (Sharma 1992). In the enquiry into the nature of Absolute thus defined, is in principle to reduce the Ultimate Reality philosophers are also advocating a world and life to a mere chaos” (Taylor 2018, p. 53). kind of dualism signifying two ultimate principles, An Absolute is the sort of entity which not irreducible to each other. The problem of God and only occupies a prime ontic category, but also the Absolute is one of the fundamental problems in occupies necessarily and unconditionally. An the philosophy of East and West. Absolute is such that it admits of no alternatives. If Generally God is regarded as the highest there is an Absolute of that essential sort, then it is principle of the theological interpretation of the meaningless to support that there might instead universe (Asadu & Nzuanke 2014, pp. 129-130), have been an Absolute of some other some what whereas the Absolute is the Ultimate Reality from different nature or essence (Duke 2016; Duke 2018; the metaphysical stand point. God is personal and Duke & John 2019; Duke 2020). When we make the Absolute is above personality (Ekpenyong & enquiry with our imperfect insight into modality, Okoi 2018). There is a basic unanimity among the we find that there are alternative Absolutes, but theologions that God is a personal being with our perfect insight into modality all such responding to our prayers and similar unanimity alternatively would vanish. The Absolute may be exists among Absolutists that the Absolute is an articulated into a number of members, each of impersonal Reality. But both God and the Absolute which requires and so includes all the others. An cannot be regarded to be equally real and ultimate Absolute must be taken as containing within itself at the same time. Therefore it has given rise to the the source of the Absoluteness claiming realm of serious problem of God and the Absolute. There values; it must be such as to embody all such are various philosophers who have discussed the values and to explain their detailed content. And if problem. The most impressive solution to the the Absoluteness and the claim of values can be problem of the relation between God and the shown to rest confusion, then there are and can be Absolute was offered by Radhakrishnan. In this no Absolutes. work we shall make a study of the Again, the Absolute may be conceived as a Radhakrishnan’s solution to this problem along concrete individuality, which is at the same time a with the views of some modern philosophers. concrete universal encouraging reality of all that experienced, of matter, life and spirit in their 2. CONCEPT OF THE ABSOLUTE relations and inter relations. It allows no gap Absolute is that which is not in any respect among these different elements, each of which is subject to conditions or limited; the first being directed towards the realization of values that are which is independent, subsistent, possessing embodied in the Absolute. Matter, life and Spirit within itself the reason for its existence and its are thus no appearances, but are different levels of qualifications, the fullness of being, the fullness of self-expression in the life of the Absolute. Another perfection (Victor 1992). The term Absolute is used feature which distinguishes this conception of the by the philosophers to signify the Ultimate Reality Absolute is that on it the individual selves instead regarded as one and yet as the source of variety; as of being appearances have been given a scope for complete or perfect and yet as not divorced from approximation to the unity and totality of Absolute the finite, imperfect world. The idea of the values. In this approximation lies the progressive Absolute is generally associated with a personality of the individual self which grows out transcendent Being divested of all concrete contexts of an antagonism between the self and the world and beyond all categorical determinations, setting up his rights and duties. The antagonism principally spatial, temporal and causal. Such a between the self of man and his not self pursues transcendent Being is an abstract universal, him and he is in the struggle so long as the ideals unchanging and unchangeable, not an object of or values he will be striving after will be held out to thought or discursive reason, but one of unique him as so many external goals. This happens so experience or intuition. “We may, in fact, long as he regards himself as a self centred moral

27 Pinisi Journal of Art, Humanity and Social Studies

person. The inward realization of the presence of philosophy, the Absolute was understood as the the ideal by man within himself may be said to primordial and fundamental, the basic factor of the constitute the true significance of Divine cosmos. In ancient philosophy the problem of Immanence of the sphere of religion. In religion Absolute was posed by Thales of Miletus (Whitrow therefore the horizon of human ideals is so 1940). According to him, the Absolute principle or widened as to merge into the wider sphere of the cause of all reality is water. For Aristotle the objective values and perfection which are Absolute was being in the absolute sense, the most embodied in the being of God. In religion perfect Substance. The Absolute is identified with antagonism between the individual self and the unity and good, the intellect, the self-thinking Absolute reaches the vanishing point though such thought. In modern philosophy, according to a state does not mean annihilation but rather Descartes the Absolute is an infinite and perfect enrichment of the individual self in the Absolute. being whose essence is to be the cause of itself. The Religion thus conceived leaves a very thin line of Absolute is the cause of the idea of the Infinite distinction between God and the Absolute. But on Being and of the idea of man himself who possess the whole, the standard concept of the Absolute in this idea. According to Spinoza, the Absolute is an metaphysics and the concept of God in popular infinite substance, uncreated, whose essence is theisms appear very different indeed and pose a existence, who is perfect and contains an serious philosophical problem. infinite number of attributes, including extension In the history of Absolutistic philosophy and thought (Connelly 2015). According to Leibnitz the Ultimate Reality has been presented in various the Absolute is the necessary being whose very ways and forms right from the classical up to possibility implies actuality (Connelly 2015). The modern times. Throughout the different ages there concept of Absolute occupies an important position have been development and changes in the in the history of philosophy. The finished example meaning of the conception of Absolute. Some of the of the Absolute we find in the philosophies of views are completely new, while some are Sunyavāda and Advaita Vedānta in the East and in reinterpretation of the ancient ideas in the light of the philosophies of Spinoza, Hegel and Bradley etc. new experiences. The expression ‘the Absolute’ in the West. Apart from the differences in details stands for that unconditioned reality which is their conceptions are essentiality the same. Hence either the spiritual ground of all beings or the the mark of an Absolute as conceived as , whole of things considered as a spiritual unity. The Sunyam, Substance or Reality is that it is beyond all Absolute is that which is not in any respect subject forms and qualities, it is beyond conceptions. It is to conditions or limited. It is the first being which is truly a transcendent existent. It is a category by independent, subsistent, possessing within itself itself. As reflected in human nature – it is such that the reason for its existence and its qualifications. its denial is logically self contradictory. Hence it is The Absolute is fullness of being, the fullness of the Ultimate Reality, the Absolute. The world may perfection. Again sometimes it is conceived of as or may not be, but the Absolute is. the source through which all being emanates. It contrasts with finite things, considered 3. ABSOLUTE IN THE individually and known collectively as the relative. According to the Upanishads the Absolute The Absolute has the archetypes, the potentialities is not a metaphysical abstraction or a void of and powers which get manifested in the world. The silence. It is the Absolute of this relative world of Absolute is pure consciousness, freedom and manifestation. The Absolute in the Upanishads is possibility. It transcends the space- time universe. not only the ultimate ground of all being and The Absolute is infinite in its possibility but only beings, but also the ultimate truth of one’s inmost one of its possibilities can be actualized. The being (Antonov 1999). The Ultimate Reality may be Absolute is the being which is the home of all viewed from two aspects. From the subjective side possibilities, the causal basis of all existence. It is this Ultimate Reality is called Atman and viewed infinite and has nothing outside to control it. from the objective aspect, it is Brahman. Atman and The variety of the conceptions of the Brahman are identical. Absolute manifests itself as Absolute is conditioned by the variety of subject and object and transcends both. God is not philosophical trends and systems. In the history of merely the transcendent numinous other, but is

28 Pinisi Journal of Art, Humanity and Social Studies

also the universal spirit, which is the basis of creator of everything Brahman has made all things human personality and its ever renewing vitalizing the whole of the world. Brahman is one, without a power. Brahman the first principle of the universe second. It is eternal, unchangeable, devoid of is known through Atman, the inner self of man. In growth and decay. It is the ground or the soul of the the Chandogya Upanishads it is said, “Verify, this world. The world emerges from Brahman, exists in whole world is Brahman and also this soul of mine Brahman and returns to Brahman. Brahman is within the heart, this is Brahman.” (Singh 1955, p. infinite, all pervading and all permeating. There is 118). From the objective point of view the Ultimate nothing which lies outside of the being of Brahman. Reality is called Brahman. This Brahman is of the The Ultimate Reality is called and nature of existence, knowledge and bliss. It is self - Brahman from the subjective and objective aspects existent; it does not depend upon anything else for respectively. Brahman and Ātman are identical. its existence. It is of the nature of consciousness. Brahman is Ātman. In the Upanishads, the subject The term Brahman has been derived from the root and the object, the self and the not – self are word Bṛh meaning to grow, to develop to expand, identified by saying that to evolve. The essence and substratum of all things – “That thou art”, (tat tvam asi). The Absolute in the world according to Upanishads is Brahman. manifests itself as subject and object, the self and Chāndogya Upanishad describes Brahman as not – self and overcomes and transcends the tajjālan. “Sarvam Khalu Idaṁ Brahman, tajjalan iti- opposition between them and comprehends them. verily,” meaning this whole world is Brahman, The different conceptions of Brahman correspond from which he comes forth without which he will to the different stages of Ātman. In subject we find be dissolved and in which he breathes (Röer 1850). the waking, dreaming, sleeping as lower stage and Yājñvalkya says that just as a lump of salt has no the fourth the turiya or Ānanda is the highest state. inner or outer part but consists entirely of savour, This Ātman is known as Brahman which is a non – so in truth, the self has no inner or outer part but dual universal consciousness, where subject and consists extirely of knowledge (Röer 1850). It is of object become one. The Absolute is Pure Existence, the nature of bliss also. The Bṛhadāranyaka Pure knowledge and Pure bliss - all in one. Upanishad also says that this is the supreme bliss. The Upanishads describe Brahman in two Both in the Aitareya and Taittiriya ways – one is cosmic Brahman or Brahman Upanishads Brahman is described as the creator of endowed with attributes and the other is acosmic the world. The states, “The Brahman or Brahman without any attribute. As a self, verily was (all) this, one only, in the beginning. cosmic Brahman is Saguna, all comprehensive, full Nothing else what so ever winked.” Further, “let of good qualities – Sarprapañcha. Brahman as the me now create the world” ((Röer 1850), p. 54). cosmic is attributed with name and form and is According to the Aitareya Upanishad Brahman not immanent in the world. The cosmic Brahman is only created the world but also the protectors of it regarded as the cause of production, maintenance immediately after creation of the world. The and destruction of the universe. Brahman is that also shares this view – “He from which the things of the world come into (the Supreme soul) desired. Let me become many, existence, by which they are supported and into let me be born. He performed austerity. Having him they are reabsorbed. The world with all things performed austerity he created all this, what ever is is the body of God who is their soul. God is not here” (Petek 2015, p. 65). Apart from the views on only the soul of nature but He is also the soul of Brahman as highlighted in the Aitareya and souls. The souls are souls in relation to their Taittiriya Upanishads, the bodies, but in relation to God they become His says that Brahman has created the world. body and He is their soul. Therefore Brahman is not According to this Upanishad Brahman is the root only the ground and sustainer of the world but also cause to emanate the entire world. By referring to the inmost essence of one’s higher self. By the Mundaka Upanishad, Radhakrishan says, “From cosmic aspect the Upanishadic thinkers try to show him are born life, mind, all the sense organs (also) that Brahman is an all inclusive unity of the matter ether, air, light, water and earths, the supporter of and spirit. The apparent dualism of the matter and all” (Petek 2015, p. 65). Besides, the spirit is resolved in the transcendent unity of Bṛhadāranyaka Upanishad states that being the Brahman.

29 Pinisi Journal of Art, Humanity and Social Studies

The acosmic Brahman is the transcendental Upanishads in the sense of -parināma- Absolute, the turiya or the fourth, indeterminate, vāda. For him Brahman transforms Himself as the indescribable and anirvacaniya (Kudelska 2002). It world of matter and of souls. On the other hand is the foundational consciousness, the fundamental Śaṅkara interprets them in the sense of Brahma – postulate of all knowledge. It has no limiting vivarta- vāda. Brahman unreally appears, through adjuncts. It is beyond space, time and causality. It ignorance, as the world of matter and of souls. holds the subjective and the objective world in a Śaṅkara does not deny the existence of a personal transcendental unity. Brahman is the indubitable God. He is the highest appearance admitted by ultimate knower which is presupposed by all Advaitism. affirmations and negations, all doubts and denials. It must be admitted that the cosmic and It is self – luminous and self proved. Brahman is acosmic Brahman are not two different entities. without beginning and end, eternal, permanent They are only the two aspect of the same reality. and is not affected by any change. It is existence, The Sarprapañcha conception must be understood knowledge and bliss. Existence, knowledge and negatively as that the world is not outside of bliss are not the attributes of Brahman, but these Brahman and the Nisprapañcha conception are the essence of Brahman. But the nature of this positively as that Brahman is more than the world. Brahman is not attainable by our intellect. It is not Acosmic Brahman is the basis of the cosmic the subject of our consciousness. The Absolute can Brahman. Cosmic Brahman is immanent in the be best described only in negative way, though it is world and is conditioned by Māyā, the inscrutable not itself negated by it. Yājñavalkya describes it – power by which Brahman conceals its real nature. “This is the imperishable, O Gārgi, which wise The cosmic Brahman is both immanent and people adore – not gross, not subtle, not short, not transcendent to the world. Man encased in his body long, without shadow, without darkness without and attached to passions cannot meditate upon air, without space, without attachment , without Impersonal Brahman. Upanishads have provided taste, without smell , without sight, without ears, also for a personal Brahman. He who knows without speech, without mind, without light, Brahman becomes Brahman. Taking the without breath, without mouth and without either Upanishads as a whole we find that there are at inside or outside. It does not eat anything nor can least two different ways of looking at the infinite. anything eat it” (Kudelska 2002, p. 232). Let this One of the trends describes Brahman as a description should be mistaken as more solipsism homogenous non-composite consciousness that is, and pure nothing, Yājñavalka adds in perfection without a second. It is negatively immediately that there is nothing outside of described as neti neti (not this, not this) and the Ultimate Reality which it may see, and the finite has no place in it. The world of matter and assumption of ultimate as non – entity lead to the souls are described as its appearance. There is no impossibility of the world of appearance so, other reality than Brahman. The relation between whatever is, owes its being to this transcendental Brahman and other appearances is one- sided. The reality. appearance is dependent on Brahman, but But this way of apprehending the Ultimate Brahman is in no way touched by the impurities of Reality in the Upanishads is the root of the appearance. The Upanishadadic seers trace all that celebrated distinction made by Śaṅkara between exist to Brahman. Brahman is the fullest reality, God and the Absolute. The former is called lower which is all inclusive. It is the identity in difference. Brahman (Apara Brahma) or Īśvara, and the latter The Absolute is the ground of all finites. is higher Brahman (para Brahma) or the Absolute. God is the personal aspect of the Absolute and the 4. RADHAKRISHNAN BIOGRAPHICAL Absolute is the impersonal aspect of God. Matter, SKETCH self and God are only manifestations of the is one of India’s Absolute. But Rāmānuja has rejected this best and most influential twentieth century distinction. For him the Absolute is the personal scholars of comparative religion and philosophy and the immanent God and matter and selves alike (Radhakrishnan 1979). He is an eminent expositor form His real body, He, being the soul of nature and interpreter of Indian traditional philosophy, and the soul of souls. Rāmānuja interprets the which carries with it the actual reflection of Indian

30 Pinisi Journal of Art, Humanity and Social Studies

culture. He is a philosopher, statesman, and a civilisation and its emphasis on material progress. diplomat consistently at the same time. His basic It was later published in the form of a book The philosophical position is an outcome of synthesis Future of Civilization. Radhakrishnan had to between the East and West traditions. Naturally he occupy many important positions by virtue of his combined the two traditions with perfect ease and talents. He led the Indian delegation to UNESCO is able to evolve a philosophy of synthesis. from 1946 to 1950. He was appointed Indian Radhakrishnan was born in an orthodox Ambassador to Moscow in 1949. Radhakrishnan family at Tirutani, a small town near Madras became the Vice- President of India in 1952 and (Chennai) on 5th September, 1888. He was the hold the tenure for 10 years. He was conferred the second son of his Orthodox Hindu parents ‘Bharat Ratna’ in 1954. In 1962 he became the Sarvepalli Veeraswami and Sitamma, who were President of India for five years ill 1967 (Murty & conventional in their outlook (Radhakrishnan Vohra 1990). Thus he realised the Platonic dream of 1979). philosopher becoming king. His appointment as His early life was spent in Tirutani and President was hailed by Bertrand Russell who said, Tirupati, both famous as places of pilgrimage. “It is an honour to philosophy that Dr. Perhaps on account of that early influence Radhakrishnan should be President of India and I, Radhakrishnan was naturally attracted towards as a philosopher, take special pleasure in this. Plato religion. He himself admits that since then he aspired for philosophers to become kings and it is a developed a firm faith in the reality of the unseen tribute to India that she should make a philosopher world, a firm faith which was never forsaken. He her President.” The world renowned philosopher had his early education in the Lutheran Mission statesman passed away at the age of 87 on 17th High School at Tirupati, and in Voorhees College, April, 1975 (Murty & Vohra 1990). Radhakrishnan Vellore (Tuck 1989). He studied in the Madras has established himself as one of the greatest Christian College and in 1909 he took his M.A intellectuals of the country. His vast knowledge of degree in Philosophy. His first book Ethics of the ancient Indian Religion and Philosophy, along with , a thesis prepared in connection with his his extensive acquaintance with the wisdom of the M.A Examination was published in 1908 when he west created the image of his being the only bridge was only twenty, which earned high fame to his – builder between the east and the west credit. His vocational career started in 1909, with his service in Presidency College, Madras as a 5. RADHAKRISHNAN’S SOLUTION TO THE lecturer in philosophy. Five years later in 1914, he PROBLEM OF ‘GOD AND THE ABSOLUTE was promoted as Professor of Philosophy in the Radhakrishnan was a firm believer in the same college (Tuck 1989). In 1917 Radhakrishnan Vedāntic Absolute (Murty & Vohra 1990). was transferred to the Arts College at Rajahmundry He is greatly indebted to the Upanisadic as a lecturer in Philosophy. He went to Mysore philosophy and also the Advaita Vedānta of University as Professor of 2 Philosophy in 1918 at Śaṅkara for his concept of Absolute Reality. His the request of the authorities of the newly integral idealism assimilates Śaṅkara’s Absolute established Mysore University and he held this and Rāmānuja’s God in the dynamic conceptual. post for a period of three years (Tuck 1989). As a philosopher, Radhakrishnan is fully aware of Besides his teaching work, Radhakrishnan the fact that it is not possible to give a naturalistic carried on with his writing work, mainly dedicated or a materialistic description of the Absolute. The to interpretation and explanation of different ultimate must be such that it can fully account for aspects of Indian culture, philosophy and religion. everything - the universe and even itself. He Between 1920 to 1929, he wrote as many as six conceives the Absolute as “Pure consciousness and books including two volumes of pure freedom and infinite possibility” and also An Idealist View of Life contains his (Radhakrishnan , 1960, p.68). The first two Hibbert lectures for the year 1929. Besides characters have described more or less, in the philosophy, Radhakrishnan kept in touch with Vedāntic manner, whereas the third character has developments in other fields of knowledge. At the been explained in the manner of Hegel’s Absolute Philosophical Congress at Harvard University in Idealism. For Radhakrishnan, the Absolute is pure 1926 he delivered an address on modern consciousness, because consciousness is the most

31 Pinisi Journal of Art, Humanity and Social Studies

ineffable and the constantly existing phenomenon. consciousness in man” (Radhakrishnan 1932, p. We can not think of any kind of existence without 275). relating it to consciousness. It is always there. It is Radhakrishnan’s monism has its roots in an infinite possibility because infinite worlds could teleology. Like Hegelianism the root concept of the arise from it. The universe is only one possibility of philosophy of Radhakrishnan is also the idea of the Absolute. It is pure freedom because its act of Spirit. But unlike many Hegelians and Indian actualizing a possibility is not determined by idealists who take the Spirit as substance anything, it is a free act. Radhakrishnan takes it as life. “Like Eucken he is a Radhakrishnan feels that the qualities of philosopher of life” (Radhakrishnan 1920, p. 414). existence, order, demand an ontological foundation As he puts, “Sprits is life not thing, energy, not and that can be provided by nothing less than the immobility, something real in itself and by itself, Absolute. Absolute is spiritual in nature, which is a and can not be compared to any substance free spirit. There is nothing beyond it. Its freedom subjective or objective” (Radhakrishnan 1920, p. is uninterrupted. The Absolute is described as 414). There is only one creative energy. It is the infinite. It is incapable of increase. The Absolute is essence of the Spirit. Brahman or the Absolute is complete in itself because it lacks nothing. It is the total spiritual reality, manifest and unmanifest, changeless because it is infinite. The wholly perfect actual and potential, realized and unrealized. The is the Absolute. Radhakrishnan asserts that the universe is but the temporal manifestation of the Absolute is beyond all its expressions. He says, Absolute. As a matter of fact, the self, God and “Pure being which is the Absolute can only be Absolute-all are names of the one universal spirit in indicated. It can be alluded to but not described” its different aspects. The self is the manifestation of (Radhakrishnan 1932, p. 272). Radhakrishnan is the spirit in the human centre through the body convinced that the nature of the Absolute cannot be and mind of man; God is the spirit as manifest in comprehended fully. In it all is found and all is lost. the world at large, whereas the Absolute is the total According to Radhakrishnan the universe is spiritual Reality. Everything of the universe is the a spiritual unity. The real is an Absolute who is expression of the Absolute. The Absolute of pure, passionless, perfect, changeless and eternal. Radhakrishnan is spiritual in nature and it is a free Radhakrishnan at times call the Ultimate Reality as spirit. There is nothing beyond it. Its freedom is Brahman and at other times the Absolute. He uninterrupted. The Absolute is described as wrote, “The Ultimate Reality is res completa, that infinite. The Absolute spirit being the Ultimate which is complete in itself determined by itself and Reality is self grounded and is also the foundation capable of being explained entirely from itself” of everything else. The Absolute is changeless (Radhakrishnan 1932, p. 272). Thus according to because it is infinite. It is eternal too. It is eternal in Radhakrishnan Brahman is the Ultimate Reality the sense of being timeless. Time is irrelevant to the from which everything is born, in which everything Absolute. Radhakrishnan calls the Absolute the lives and into which everything enters at the end. whole of perfection. Everything else is imperfect. He believes that the ultimate explanation of the The wholly perfect is the Absolute. Radhakrishnan universe has to be monistic. The Absolute in itself holds that the Absolute is beyond all its is essentially one. Like the Advaita Vedāntist expressions. His conception of Ultimate Reality is Radhakrishnan also believes that the Absolute does not pantheistic in character; it keeps on swinging in not admit even of internal differentiationthe between pantheism and theism. svagata-bheda as the Vedāntist calls it. The Like the Upanishads Radhakrishnan also differentiations that appear to be there are so only conceives that the Reality has four poises. These are from the point of view of creation. It is true that the Absolute or Brahman, the creative spirit or everything, in a sense, is an expression of the Īśvara, the world spirit or Hiranyagarbha and the Absolute, but these expressions do not in any way world, or Virāt- Svarupa. This order is only a affect the monistice character of the Absolute. logical succession and not a temporal one Radhakrishnan observes, “The same Absolute (Radhakrishnan 1920, p. 414). They are the four reveals itself in all these but differently in each. The aspects of one whole, the transcendental universal Ultimate Reality sleeps in the stone, breaths in the Being anterior to any concrete reality, the causal plants, feels in the animals and awakens to self- principle of all differentiation, the inner most

32 Pinisi Journal of Art, Humanity and Social Studies

essence of the world, and fourthly the manifest total reality, God is the Absolute from the cosmic world. They are co-existent and are not alternating end, the consciousness that informs and sustains poises. Brahman is the primordial existence. the world. The possibilities or the ideal forms are Radhakrishnan agrees with Śaṅkara in maintaining the mind of the Absolute or thoughts of the that this aspect of Reality is unconditional, Absolute. One of the infinite possibilities is being indeterminate, infinite and transcendent reality. It translated into the world of space and time” is free from activity. Īśvara is immanent, (Radhakrishnan & Muirhead 1958, p. 498). omniscient omnipotent, creator, destroyer and Over and above the principle of the maintainer of the world. God assumes the subject – Absolute or Brahman, Radhakrishnan also object distinction. In this respect Radhakrishnan’s introduces the concept of God in order to explain concept comes closer to Rāmānuja’s God. the order and harmony of the world. Hiranyagrabha is the world spirit in subtle form Radhakrishnan conceived the Supreme as revealing and virāt is the world spirit in its gross form. When itself in two ways- Absolute and Īśvara. God is the the Supreme Reality is viewed in relation to the Absolute in action; it is God, the creator. The real in cosmos we call it God. Brahman is the relation to itself is the Absolute and the real in transpersonal ground and Īśvara is the personal relation to the creation is God. Radhakrishnan feels God, the former is the object of Nirvikalpaka that the demands of reason have to be reconciled Samādhi and the latter is the object of Savikalpaka with the demands of experience. Both metaphysical Samādhi. One of the important characteristics of and religious aspirations have to be satisfied. The Radhakrishnan’s metaphysics is that for him the Absolute is the object of metaphysical aspiration Absolute is not only pure existence, pure and God of the religious aspiration. This implies consciousness, pure bliss, an indeterminate, that unlike Śaṅkara, Radhakrishnan is not prepared formless and impersonal being, but also God, the to reduce God to unreality by making it a product murta, the personal creator. of Māyā and ignorance. In so far as creation is real, The Absolute is full of infinite possibilities God is also real. God is an aspect of the Absolute. and the world is the actualization of one of them. The real as infinite possibility is the Absolute, but According to Radhakrishnan, “The abstract when we limit the Absolute to its relation with that possibility and the concrete realization are both possibility which has actually been realized in the contained in the one reality, which is Absolute – form of creation, then the Absolute appears as the God. The two aspects represent the absolute silence creator, as wisdom, love and goodness - as God. of the spirit and its boundless movemet. The Radhakrishnan explaining this in a clear silence is the basis of the movement, the condition way asserts, “We call the Supreme the Absolute of power. The distinction is only logical. The silence when we view it apart from the cosmos, God is of the spirit and its energizing are complementary relation to the cosmos. The Absolute is the and inseparable. The infinite is both amurta, precosmic nature of God and God is the Absolute formless and murta, formed. The co-existence of from the cosmic point of view” (Radhakrishnan the two is the very nature of Universal Being. It is 1935, p. 434). Radhakrishnan apprehended not a mere juxtaposition of two opposites. The Supreme Reality in two ways – One is personal, Divine is formless and nameless and yet capable of while the other is impersonal: God is the personal manifesting all forms and names” (Radhakrishnan aspect, whereas the impersonal aspect is the 1920, p. 418). Absolute. Radhakrishnan holds that God is not an From the above analysis it is prominent that ethical principle nor an intellectual concept or a Radhakrishnan putting forward a solution of the logical idea, but a perceived reality present in each apparently conflicting views of the Supreme as man. Man expresses his very intuition of reality eternally complete and of the Supreme as the self- through concrete forms. Through such concrete determining principle manifesting in the temporal forms he responds to the eternal reality. The process. God is not something over and above the Absolute is full of infinite possibilities, while God is Absolute. God is the Absolute viewed from the specific possibility. God appears as the ground of point of view of the world. Radhakrishnan holds, one of the specific actualized possibilities of the “While the Absolute is the transcendent divine, Absolute. The actualized part of the possibilities of God is the cosmic divine. While the Absolute is the the Absolute is being while the unactualised part of

33 Pinisi Journal of Art, Humanity and Social Studies

the Absolute is non-being. God is trying to make one sense the unrealized potentiality of the this non-being into being. God has an infinite Absolute is the environment of the creative power but He is an expression of the Absolute. personality of God. God can be regarded as a Though God is an expression of the Absolute, He creator because be attempts to actualize the cannot be conceived as mere appearance or mere unrealized potentiality of the Absolute. expression of the Absolute. He is not assumed only Radhakrishnan stated that God is attempting to for worship. God is actual being. He is a Supreme transform the non-being into being, the unrealized person. He is higher than his creation. God is not to into the realized. When the unrealized potentiality be believed as a distorted reflection of the Absolute. of the Absolute is fully realized than the distinction God is the real symbol of the Absolute Reality. between the creator and the created vanishes. The Therefore God has assumed double forms - the distinction between God and the Absolute also transcendent and immanent. then vanishes. In the language of Radhakrishnan in In His creative aspect He is immanent. But that case, “God lapses into the Absolute”. the Absolute is beyond it. Radhakrishnan asserts, Radhakrishnan pointed out that the Absolute is “The question of immanence and transcendence timeless. Time begins with creation. God in one does not arise with reference to the Absolute” sense operates within time. The Supreme values are (Radhakrishnan & Muirhead 1958, p. 75). Hence for potentially contained in the Absolute and God Radhakrishnan God and the Absolute are two attempts to actualize these Supreme values. different aspects of the same reality. Brahman and Radhakrishnan reconciles Absolute with God. He Īśvara are one. God is not a separate principle from doesnot want to transform the Absolute and God the Absolute. For Radhakrishnan “Īśvara is into one reality. Many thinkers in the East as well Brahman with creative power” (Radhakrishnan & as in the West have dispensed with either the Muirhead 1958, p. 77). The Absolute is impersonal Absolute or God. God is not an appearance of the while God is personal. But the Suprapersonal and Absolute. It is a creative power of the Absolute. We personal are the modes of expressing the same and cannot identity the Absolute with God, without one reality. God is not something over and above creating confusion. It is necessary to conceive of the Absolute. God is the Absolute viewed from the both the Absolute and God and find out a tenable point of view of the world. “While the Absolute is relation between them. Radhakrishnan wrote, “A the transcendent divine, God is the cosmic divine. personal God can only be an aspect of the Absolute While the Absolute is the total reality, God is the perhaps the executive authority of the Absolute” Absolute from the cosmic end, the consciousness (Radhakrishnan 1920, p. 410). The same Absolute that informs and sustains the world” whose individuation is God, an embodiment of (Radhakrishnan & Muirhead 1958, p. 88). creativity, dynamism and actuality; express itself In other words, when we view the Absolute progressively is matter, life, mind consciousness in relation to the possibility that has been and self - consciousness. The world has Absolute actualized it appears as power, wisdom and love significance and an ontological status of its own and as creator, sustainer and destroyer of the world being a real manifestation of the Absolute itself. and to that we give the name God. For Radhakrishnan is not in favour of using Radhakrishnan, God is the Absolute with reference symbols or idols to apprehend the reality of the to the world. The Absolute is the logical prius of Absolute. Human beings usually prefer to use the world, which means the Absolute is, in its one symbols to communicate with the eternal Reality. possibility, the logical ground of the world. When But Radhakrishnan feels that to use concrete the Absolute is considered to be the logical ground symbols for unseen reality is to reduce the very of the world then the Absolute is God. The essence of the Absolute, because Absolute is much Absolute is impersonal, while the God is personal. more than man’s idea or picture of it and more than But for this reason no dichotomy is to be drawn what man knows. It cannot be fully comprehended between God and the Absolute. Radhakrishnan by man. Man can achieve only the glimpse of the attempted to explain this point with a curious Absolute which is possible only in mystical analogy. He stated that life of a personal being is experience. Radhakrishnan believes that mystics possible only in relation to an environment. God, in experience the reality of God. And this fact is quite so far he is a person requires an environment. In comparable with scientific truth. Hence

34 Pinisi Journal of Art, Humanity and Social Studies

Radhakrishnan holds that God is a perceived or Absolute must be there with all its possibilities experienced reality present in us. God cannot be before the Divine creativity can choose one. The assumed only as an ethical principle or as an divine choice must be there before there can be intellectual concept or a logical idea. God is a Divine immanent in this world. This is a logical concrete presence in each man. God is a finite succession and not a temporal one” (Radhakrishnan power of the Absolute. He is not an eternal reality 1979, p. 65). Radhakrishnan following the for He exists only so long as the universe is not fundamental doctrine of the Upanishads stated that dissolved. God’s reality is derived from the the Brahman or the Absolute is the Supreme Absolute and He is again dissolved in the latter. spiritual Reality, both manifest and unmanifest, From the ultimate point of view God is a actual and potential. Radhakrishnan’s dual vision of contingent being, but from the cosmic point of view Reality as Absolute and God points out that He is creator and redeemer. God is not an eternal Brahman is not merely a featureless being but is the reality though He is not within time. He creates vital abode of infinite possibilities. An idea of a time, space and cosmos. Therefore, He is beyond formless and attributeless Absolute is barren, time. But He is not timeless, because His being is incapable of evolving love and respect and also absorbed in the Absolute. incapable of explaining creativity, order and progress. The concept of God satisfactorily explains 6. CONCLUSION the reality of the world from the finite point of view. Radhakrishnan does not make distinction He is the Absolute from the human end. The between God and the Absolute. For him God and the Absolute and God are the intuitional and the Absolute are identical. The Hindu never doubted the intellectual representations of the one Supreme reality of the one Supreme universal spirit, however Reality. much the descriptions of it may fall short of its nature. It is a sound religious agnosticism which REFERENCES bids us hold our peace regarding the nature of the Antonov, V. V. (1999). The New Upanishad: Structure Supreme Spirit. Radhakrishnan again admits, and Cognition of the Absolute.“. Polus”, Saint “ affirms that some of the highest and Petersburg. richest manifestations which religion has produced Asadu, O. & Nzuanke, S. F. (2014). Onomastics and require a personal God. There is a rational Translation: The Case of Igbo→English compulsion to postulate the personality of the Translation of Chi names. LWATI: A Journal of divine. While Hindu thought does justice to the Contemporary Research, 11(3), 122-140. personal aspect of the Supreme, it does not allow us Universal Academic Services, Beijing, P.R. to forget the Super-personal character of the central China (ISSN 1813 2227). Reality. Even those who admit the personal Bradley, R. C. (1985). On the central limit question conception of God urge that there are heights and under absolute regularity. The Annals of depths in the being of God which are beyond our Probability, 13(4), 1314-1325. comprehension” (Radhakrishnan 1979, p. 23). The Connelly, S. (2015). Spinoza, Right and Absolute Supra - personal and the personal representations of Freedom. Crc Press. the real are the Absolute and the relative ways of Duke, E. O. (2016). Content Analysis of The Catholic expressing the one reality. When we emphasise the School and Religion and National Values, nature of Reality in itself we get the Absolute Primary 1-6: Implications for Religious Brahman, when we emphasise its relation to us we Education in Catholic Primary Schools within get personal God. Calabar Archdiocese-Cross River In Radhakrishnan’s conception of an Absolute State. International Journal of Research in Basic - God, Brahman-Īśvara, the first term indicates and Lifelong Education, 5(1). infinite being and possibility and the second Duke, E. O. (2018). The Instrumental Functions of suggests creative freedom. We have the Absolute Cultural Studies and Policies in and God as creative power and also God as Contemporary Nigerian Society. International immanent in the world. “These are not to be Journal of Culture and History, 4(4). regarded as separate entities. They are arranged in this order because there is a logical priority. The

35 Pinisi Journal of Art, Humanity and Social Studies

Duke, E. O. (2020). The Ecumenicity of Ugandan Whitrow, G. J. (1940). The Evolution of Martyrologic Events. Bogoslovnic Cosmology. The Mathematical Gazette, 24(260), Vestnik, 80(4). 159-164. Duke, E. O., & John, E. O. (2019). A Critical Evaluation Of Traditional African Family System And Contemporary Social Welfare. Nduñòde, 15(1). Gabriel, M. (2016). What Kind of an Idealist (If Any) Is Hegel?. Hegel Bulletin, 37(2), 181-208. Kudelska, M. (2002). An attempt at a phenomenological description of the self- knowledge process in the . In Life Truth in its Various Perspectives (pp. 57-65). Springer, Dordrecht. Murty, K. S., & Vohra, A. (1990). Radhakrishnan: his life and ideas. SUNY Press. Petek, N. (2015). When The World Was Born: Images Of Brahman In Chandogya Upanishad With Some References To Vedic Hymns And Pre- Socratic Philosophy. In Человек в мире. Мир в человеке: актуальные проблемы философии, социологии, политологии и психологии (pp. 6- 16). Radhakrishnan S, (1979). The Hindu View of Life. George Allen And Unwin Ltd. Radhakrishnan, S. (1920). The Reign of Religion in Contemporary Philosophy. London: Macmillan. Radhakrishnan, S. (1935). An idealist view of life. Philosophical Review 44(2). Radhakrishnan, S. (1960). The Brahmasutra. Nirgrantha 2(2). Radhakrishnan, S., & Muirhead, J. H. (1958). The Spirit in Man. Bombay: Asia Publishing House. Rashdall, H. (1912). The Metaphysic of Mr. FH Bradley. British Academy. Röer, E. (Ed.). (1850). The Chandogya Upanishad (Vol. 3). Thomas. Sharma, A. (1992). Is a Pramāṅa According to Śaṇkar?. Philosophy East and West, 517-526. Singh, H. (1955). Sikh Religion: and Transmigration. S. Harnam Singh. Taylor, A. E. (2018). Elements of metaphysics. Routledge. Tuck, D. R. (1989). MINOR," Radhakrishnan, a Religious Biography"(Book Review). Journal of Asian Studies, 48(3), 660. Victor, P. G. (1992). Social philosophy of Vedanta: a study of the Upanishads, Bhagavadgita, Brahmasutra and Sankara'a commentaries on them. Calcutta: KP Bagchi and company.

36