Editing Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (section)

==Influence==
[[File:Sarve palli raadhakrishnan, tankbund.JPG|thumb|Statue of Sarvepalli at Hyderabad (Tankbund)]]
Radhakrishnan was one of world's best and most influential twentieth-century scholars of comparative religion and philosophy.<ref name="Pollock" /><ref group=web name="IEP" />

Radhakrishnan's defence of the Hindu traditions has been highly influential,<ref name=sharf1998/> both in India and the western world. In India, Radhakrishnan's ideas contributed to the formation of India as a nation-state.{{sfn|Long|2007|p=173}} Radhakrishnan's writings contributed to the hegemonic status of Vedanta as "the essential world view of Hinduism".{{sfn|Rinehart|2004|p=199}} In the western world, Radhakrishnan's interpretations of the Hindu tradition, and his emphasis on "spiritual experience", made Hinduism more readily accessible for a western audience, and contributed to the influence Hinduism has on modern [[spirituality]]:
{{blockquote|In figures such as Vivekananda and Radhakrishnan we witness Vedanta traveling to the West, where it nourished the spiritual hunger of Europeans and Americans in the early decades of the twentieth century.{{sfn|Rinehart|2004|p=199}}}}

===Appraisal===
Radhakrishnan has been highly appraised. According to Paul Artur Schillp:

{{blockquote|Nor would it be possible to find a more excellent example of a living "bridge" between the East and the West than Professor Radhakrishnan. Steeped, as Radhakrishnan has been since his childhood, in the life, traditions, and philosophical heritage of his native India, he has also struck deep roots in Western philosophy, which he has been studying tirelessly ever since his undergraduate college-days in Madras Christian College, and in which he is as thoroughly at home as any Western philosopher.<ref name=Schillp/>}}

And according to Hawley:
{{blockquote|Radhakrishnan's concern for experience and his extensive knowledge of the Western philosophical and literary traditions has earned him the reputation of being a bridge-builder between India and the West. He often appears to feel at home in the Indian as well as the Western philosophical contexts, and draws from both Western and Indian sources throughout his writing. Because of this, Radhakrishnan has been held up in academic circles as a representative of Hinduism to the West. His lengthy writing career and his many published works have been influential in shaping the West's understanding of Hinduism, India, and the East.<ref group=web name="IEP" />}}

===Criticism and context===
Radhakrishnan's ideas have also received criticism and challenges, for their perennialist{{sfn|King|2001}}{{sfn|Rinehart|2004|p=180}} and universalist claims,{{sfn|Mazumdar|Kaiwar|2009|p=36}}{{sfn|Rinehart|2004|p=196-197}} and the use of an east–west dichotomy.<ref group=web name="IEP" />

====Perennialism====
{{Main|Perennial philosophy}}

According to Radhakrishnan, there is not only an underlying "divine unity"{{sfn|Rinehart|2004|p=180}} from the seers of the Upanishads up to modern Hindus like Tagore and Gandhi,{{sfn|Rinehart|2004|p=180}} but also "an essential commonality between philosophical and religious traditions from widely disparate cultures."{{sfn|King|2001}} This is also a major theme in the works of [[Rene Guenon]], the [[Theosophical Society]], and the contemporary popularity of eastern religions in modern [[spirituality]].{{sfn|King|2001}}<ref name=sharf1998/> Since the 1970s, the Perennialist position has been criticised for its essentialism. Social-constructionists give an alternative approach to religious experience, in which such "experiences" are seen as being determined and mediated by cultural determinants:<ref name=sharf1998/><ref name=sharf2000/>{{refn|group=note|See, especially, [[Steven T. Katz]]:
* ''Mysticism and Philosophical Analysis'' (Oxford University Press, 1978)
* ''Mysticism and Religious Traditions'' (Oxford University Press, 1983)
* ''Mysticism and Language'' (Oxford University Press, 1992)
* ''Mysticism and Sacred Scripture'' (Oxford University Press, 2000)}}

As Michaels notes:
{{blockquote|Religions, too, rely not so much on individual experiences or on innate feelings – like a ''sensus numinosus'' (Rudolf Otto) – but rather on behavioral patterns acquired and learned in childhood.<ref>{{cite book|author=Michaels, Axel|title=Hinduism: Past and Present|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=iOU9DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA100|year=2004|publisher=Princeton University Press|isbn=978-0-691-08953-9|page=100|access-date=6 December 2018|archive-date=18 April 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210418170724/https://books.google.com/books?id=iOU9DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA100|url-status=live}}</ref>}}

Rinehart also points out that "perennialist claims notwithstanding, modern Hindu thought is a product of history",{{sfn|Rinehart|2004|p=180}} which "has been worked out and expressed in a variety of historical contexts over the preceding two hundreds years."{{sfn|Rinehart|2004|p=180}} This is also true for Radhakrishan, who was educated by missionaries{{sfn|Rinehart|2004|p=195}} and, like other neo-Vedantins, used the prevalent western understanding of India and its culture to present an alternative to the western critique.{{sfn|King|2001}}{{sfn|Rinehart|2004}}

====Universalism, communalism and Hindu nationalism====
According to Richard King, the elevation of Vedanta as the essence of Hinduism, and Advaita Vedanta as the "paradigmatic example of the mystical nature of the Hindu religion"{{sfn|King|2001|p=128}} by colonial Indologists but also neo-Vedantins served well for the [[Hindu nationalism|Hindu nationalists]], who further popularised this notion of Advaita Vedanta as the pinnacle of Indian religions.{{sfn|King|2001|pp=129–130}} It

{{blockquote|...provided an opportunity for the construction of a nationalist ideology that could unite Hindus in their struggle against colonial oppression.{{sfn|King|2001|p=133}}}}

This "opportunity" has been criticised. According to Sucheta Mazumdar and Vasant Kaiwar,

{{blockquote|... Indian nationalist leaders continued to operate within the categorical field generated by politicized religion [...] Extravagant claims were made on behalf of Oriental civilization. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan's statement – "[t]he Vedanta is not a religion but religion itself in its "''most universal and deepest significance''" – is fairly typical.{{sfn|Mazumdar|Kaiwar|2009|p=36}}}}

Rinehart also criticises the inclusivity of Radhakrishnan's approach, since it provides "a theological scheme for subsuming religious difference under the aegis of Vedantic truth."{{sfn|Rinehart|2004|p=196-197}}{{refn|group=note|Rinehart: "Though neo-Hindu authors prefer the idiom of tolerance to that of inclusivism, it is clear that what is advocated is less a secular view of toleration than a theological scheme for subsuming religious difference under the aegis of Vedantic truth. Thus Radhakrishnan's view of experience as the core of religious truth effectively leads to harmony only when and if other religions are willing to assume a position under the umbrella of Vedanta. We might even say that the theme of neo-Hindu tolerance provided the Hindu not simply with a means to claiming the right to stand alongside the other world religions, but with a strategy for promoting Hinduism as the ultimate form of religion itself."{{sfn|Rinehart|2004|p=196-197}}}} According to Rinehart, the consequence of this line of reasoning is [[Communalism (South Asia)|communalism]],{{sfn|Rinehart|2004|p=196-197}} the idea that "all people belonging to one religion have common economic, social and political interests and these interests are contrary to the interests of those belonging to another religion."<ref group=web>{{Cite web|url=http://www.pluralindia.com/book/Illustrated_prmier/Chapter_5.pdf|title=Ram Puniyani, ''COMMUNALISM : Illustrated Primer, Chapter 5''|access-date=1 December 2013|archive-date=3 December 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131203043727/http://www.pluralindia.com/book/Illustrated_prmier/Chapter_5.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> Rinehart notes that Hindu religiosity plays an important role in the nationalist movement,{{sfn|Rinehart|2004|p=196-197}} and that "the neo-Hindu discourse is the unintended consequence of the initial moves made by thinkers like Rammohan Roy and Vivekananda."{{sfn|Rinehart|2004|p=196-197}} Yet Rinehart also points out that it is

{{blockquote|...clear that there isn't a neat line of causation that leads from the philosophies of Rammohan Roy, Vivekananda and Radhakrishnan to the agenda of [...] militant Hindus.{{sfn|Rinehart|2004|p=198}}{{refn|group=note|Neither is Radhakrishnan's "use" of religion in the defence of Asian culture and society against colonialism unique for his person, or India in general. The complexities of Asian nationalism are to be seen and understood in the context of colonialism, modernisation and [[nation-building]]. See, for example, [[Anagarika Dharmapala]], for the role of Theravada Buddhism in Sri Lankese struggle for independence,<ref>{{Cite book | last =McMahan | first =David L. | year =2008 | title =The Making of Buddhist Modernism | publisher =Oxford University Press | isbn =9780195183276}}</ref> and [[D.T. Suzuki]], who conjuncted [[Zen]] to [[Nihonjinron|Japanese nationalism]] and [[Bushido|militarism]], in defence against both western hegemony ''and'' the pressure on Japanese Zen during the [[Meiji Restoration]] to conform to [[Shinbutsu Bunri]].<ref>{{Cite journal | last =Sharf | first =Robert H. | title =The Zen of Japanese Nationalism | journal =History of Religions | volume =33 | issue =1 | pages =1–43 | date =August 1993 | url =http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/HistoricalZen/Zen_of_Japanese_Nationalism.html | doi =10.1086/463354 | s2cid =161535877 | access-date =1 December 2013 | archive-date =29 December 2020 | archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20201229174255/http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/HistoricalZen/Zen_of_Japanese_Nationalism.html | url-status =live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite book | last =Sharf | first =Robert H. | year =1995 | title =Whose Zen? Zen Nationalism Revisited | url =http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/CriticalZen/whose%20zen_sharf.pdf | access-date =1 December 2013 | archive-date =2 February 2019 | archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20190202090252/http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/CriticalZen/whose%20zen_sharf.pdf | url-status =live }}</ref>}}}}

====Post-colonialism====
{{Main|Orientalism|Post-colonialism}}

Colonialism left deep traces in the hearts and minds of the Indian people, influencing the way they understood and represented themselves.{{sfn|King|2001}} The influences of "colonialist forms of knowledge"<ref group=web name="IEP" /> can also be found in the works of Radhakrishnan. According to Hawley, Radhakrishnan's division between East and West, the East being spiritual and mystical, and the West being rationalist and logical in its forms of knowledge, was constructed during the 18th and 19th centuries. Arguably, these characterisations are "imagined" in the sense that they reflect the philosophical and religious realities of neither "East' nor West."<ref group=web name="IEP" />

Since the 1990s, the colonial influences on the 'construction' and 'representation' of Hinduism have been the topic of debate among scholars of Hinduism. Western Indologists are trying to come to more neutral and better-informed representations of India and its culture, while Indian scholars are trying to establish forms of knowledge and understanding which are grounded in and informed by Indian traditions, instead of being dominated by western forms of knowledge and understanding.<ref name=sweetman/>{{refn|group=note|Sweetman mentions:
* Wilhelm Halbfass (1988), ''India and Europe''
* IXth European Conference on Modern Asian Studies in Heidelberg (1989), ''Hinduism Reconsidered''
* [[Ronald Inden]], ''Imagining India''
* [[Carol Breckenridge]] and [[Peter van der Veer]], ''Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament''
* [[Vasudha Dalmia]] and [[Heinrich von Stietencron]], ''Representing Hinduism''
* [[S.N. Balagangadhara]], ''The Heathen in his Blindness...''
* [[Thomas Trautmann]], ''Aryans and British India''
* Richard King (1989), ''Orientalism and religion''
<br />
See also [[Postcolonialism]] and [http://kashuradab.wordpress.com/2012/03/07/the-pizza-effect-in-indian-philosophy/ Mrinal Kaud, ''The "Pizza Effect" in Indian Philosophy'']}}

==== Feud with ''The Modern Review'' ====
Radhakrishnan's appointment, as a southerner, to "the most important chair of philosophy in India" in the north, was resented by a number of people from the Bengali intellectual elite, and ''The Modern Review'', which was critical of the appointment of non-Bengalis, became the main vehicle of criticism.{{sfn|Minor|1987|p=37}}{{sfn|Murty|Vohra|1990|p=30-31}}{{sfn|Gopal|1989|p=116}} Soon after his arrival in Calcutta in 1921, Radhakrishnan's writings  were regularly criticised in ''The Modern Review''.{{sfn|Gopal|1989|p=116}} When Radhakrishnan published his ''Indian Philosophy'' in two volumes (1923 and 1927), ''The Modern Review'' questioned his use of sources, criticising the lack of references to Bengali scholars. Yet, in an editor's note, ''The Modern Review'' acknowledged that "As professor's Radhakrishnan's book has not been received for review in this Journal, ''The Modern Review'' is not in a position to form any opinion on it."{{sfn|Minor|1987|p=34}}

In the January 1929 issue of ''The Modern Review'', the [[Bengalis|Bengali]] philosopher [[Jadunath Sinha]] made the claim that parts of his 1922 doctoral thesis, ''Indian Psychology of Perception'', published in 1925, were copied by his teacher Radhakrishnan into the chapter on "The Yoga system of Patanjali" in his book ''Indian Philosophy II'', published in 1927.{{sfn|Minor|1987|p=34}}{{sfn|Murty|Vohra|1990|p=31}} Sinha and  Radhakrishnan exchanged several letters in the ''Modern Review'', in which Sinha compared parts of his thesis with  Radhakrishnan's publication, presenting altogether 110 instances of "borrowings."{{sfn|Minor|1987|p=35}}{{sfn|Murty|Vohra|1990|p=31}} Radhakrishnan felt compelled to respond, stating that Sinha and he had both used the same classical texts,{{sfn|Minor|1987|p=36}} that his translations were standard translations, and that similarities in translations were therefore unavoidable. He further argued that he was lecturing on the subject before publishing his book, and that his book was ready for publication in 1924, before Sinha's thesis was published.{{sfn|Minor|1987|p=35}}

Scholars such as Kuppuswami Sastri, [[Ganganath Jha]], and Nalini Ganguli confirmed that Radhakrishnan was distributing the notes in question since 1922.{{sfn|Murty|Vohra|1990|p=32-33}}{{sfn|Gopal|1989|p=117-118}} Ramananda Chatterjee, the editor of ''The Modern Review'', refused to publish a letter by Nalini Ganguli confirming this fact, while continuing publishing Sinha's letters.{{sfn|Gopal|1989|p=117-118}} The General Editor of Radhakrishnan's publisher, professor Muirhead, further confirmed that the publication was delayed for three years, due to his stay in the United States.{{sfn|Murty|Vohra|1990|p=32-33}}{{sfn|Minor|1987|p=35-36}}

In Summer 1929, the dispute escalated into a juristic fight. Responding to the alleged "systematic effort [...] to destroy Radhakrishnan's reputation as a scholar and a public figure,"{{sfn|Gopal|1989|p=118}} Radhakrishnan filed a suit for defamation of character against Sinha and Chatterjee, demanding Rs. 100,000 for the damage done,{{sfn|Gopal|1989|p=118}} and Sinha filed a case against Radhakrishnan for copyright infringement, demanding Rs. 20,000.{{sfn|Gopal|1989|p=118}}{{refn|group=note|The timeline is not clear from these sources. According to Gopal, Radhakrishnan filed his lawsuit in the summer of 1929, to which Sinha filed a clounter-claim.{{sfn|Gopal|1989|p=118}} According to Minor and Murty & Vohra, Sinha filed a lawsuit first, to which Radhakrishnan responded.{{sfn|Minor|1987|p=37}}{{sfn|Murty|Vohra|1990|p=33}}}} The suits were settled in May 1933, the terms of the settlement were not disclosed, and "all the allegations made in the pleadings and in the columns of the ''Modern Review'' were withdrawn."{{sfn|Minor|1987|p=37}}{{sfn|Murty|Vohra|1990|p=32-33}}