Compatibility of Radhakrishnan's Metaphysics with his Epistemology and Ethics

Summary

This philosophical investigation examines whether Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan’s metaphysics is consistent with his epistemological and ethical positions. The author begins by outlining Radhakrishnan’s metaphysical stance, which affirms a hierarchical reality culminating in an absolute, non‑dual Brahman. According to Radhakrishnan, the empirical world is a manifestation of this ultimate reality, and individual selves are expressions of the one Spirit. The paper then analyses Radhakrishnan’s epistemology. He distinguishes between different modes of knowing: sense experience, scientific reasoning and spiritual intuition. While acknowledging the validity of empirical and rational knowledge for dealing with the phenomenal world, he claims that only intuition yields direct awareness of the absolute. This raises the question of how such an intuitive epistemology aligns with his ethical emphasis on social engagement and pluralism. The author argues that there is a tension between Radhakrishnan’s metaphysical absolutism and his advocacy of ethical activism. On the one hand, his non‑dualism suggests that all distinctions are ultimately illusory; on the other hand, he calls for moral effort to alleviate suffering and promote justice. To resolve this, Radhakrishnan posits levels of reality: the absolute level, where all is one, and the empirical level, where moral distinctions are meaningful. He maintains that intuition reveals the unity of existence but does not negate the reality of ethical obligations within the world of experience. The article also examines Radhakrishnan’s insistence on freedom and creativity. His ethics of self‑realisation requires individuals to express their unique potential while recognising the interdependence of all beings. The author contends that by linking intuitive knowledge to ethical action, Radhakrishnan offers a dynamic philosophy that integrates contemplation and service. However, critics argue that his reliance on intuition leaves his system open to subjectivism and makes it difficult to establish universally binding norms. In conclusion, the paper suggests that while there are unresolved tensions in Radhakrishnan’s philosophy, his attempt to harmonise metaphysics, epistemology and ethics is a significant contribution to modern Indian thought. It invites further exploration of how spiritual experience can ground moral responsibility without collapsing diversity into monism.