Shaivism/Tantra/Nath New movements Kashmir Shaivism Gaudapada Adi Shankara Advaita-Yoga Nath Kashmir Shaivism Neo-Vedanta Inchegeri Sampradaya Contemporary Shaivism/Tantra/Nath Neo-Advaita Hinduism Buddhism Modern Advaita Vedanta Neo-Vedanta Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan BR (pronunciationⓘ; 5 September 1888 – 17 April 1975; natively Radhakrishna) was an Indian politician, philosopher and statesman who served as the President of India from 1962 to 1967.

Being a financially constrained student, when a cousin who graduated from the same college passed on his philosophy textbooks to Radhakrishnan, it automatically decided his academics course.

According to Radhakrishnan himself, the criticism of Hogg and other Christian teachers of Indian culture "disturbed my faith and shook the traditional props on which I leaned.

"[20] Radhakrishnan himself describes how, as a student,The challenge of Christian critics impelled me to make a study of Hinduism and find out what is living and what is dead in it.

My pride as a Hindu, roused by the enterprise and eloquence of Swami Vivekananda, was deeply hurt by the treatment accorded to Hinduism in missionary institutions.

Many of Radhakrishnan's family members including his grandchildren and great-grandchildren have pursued a wide range of careers in academia, public policy, medicine, law, banking, business, publishing and other fields across the world.

Love of the mother-tongue binds us all.In 1936 Radhakrishnan was named Spalding Professor of Eastern Religion and Ethics at the University of Oxford, and was elected a Fellow of All Souls College.

He was one of those stalwarts who attended Andhra Mahasabha in 1928 where he seconded the idea of renaming Ceded Districts division of Madras Presidency as Rayalaseema.

In 1931 he was nominated to the League of Nations Committee for Intellectual Cooperation, where after "in Western eyes he was the recognized Hindu authority on Indian ideas and a persuasive interpreter of the role of Eastern institutions in contemporary society.

[further explanation needed] His motivation lay in his pride of Hindu culture, and the defence of Hinduism against "uninformed Western criticism".

[4] According to the historian Donald Mackenzie Brown, He had always defended Hindu culture against uninformed Western criticism and had symbolized the pride of Indians in their own intellectual traditions.

[39] His specific interest in experience can be traced back to the works of William James (1842–1910), F. H. Bradley (1846–1924), Henri Bergson (1859–1941), and Friedrich von Hügel (1852–1925),[39] and to Vivekananda (1863–1902),[44] who had a strong influence on Sarvepalli's thought.

[web 1] In his book An Idealist View of Life, he made a case for the importance of intuitive thinking as opposed to purely intellectual forms of thought.

[web 1] He saw this empiricism exemplified in the Vedas: The truths of the ṛṣis are not evolved as the result of logical reasoning or systematic philosophy but are the products of spiritual intuition, dṛṣti or vision.

[web 1]From his writings collected as The Hindu View of Life, Upton Lectures, Delivered at Manchester College, Oxford, 1926: "Hinduism insists on our working steadily upwards in improving our knowledge of God.

The deities of some men are in water (i.e., bathing places), those of the most advanced are in the heavens, those of the children (in religion) are in the images of wood and stone, but the sage finds his God in his deeper self.

To Radhakrishnan, Advaita Vedanta was the best representative of Hinduism, as being grounded in intuition, in contrast to the "intellectually mediated interpretations"[web 1] of other religions.

According to Paul Artur Schillp: Nor would it be possible to find a more excellent example of a living "bridge" between the East and the West than Professor Radhakrishnan.

[38]And according to Hawley: 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.

[web 1] According to Radhakrishnan, there is not only an underlying "divine unity"[52] from the seers of the Upanishads up to modern Hindus like Tagore and Gandhi,[52] but also "an essential commonality between philosophical and religious traditions from widely disparate cultures.

"[40] 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.

[56]Rinehart also points out that "perennialist claims notwithstanding, modern Hindu thought is a product of history",[52] which "has been worked out and expressed in a variety of historical contexts over the preceding two hundreds years.

According to Sucheta Mazumdar and Vasant Kaiwar, ... Indian nationalist leaders continued to operate within the categorical field generated by politicized religion [...] Extravagant claims were made on behalf of Oriental civilization.

[53]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.

"[web 9] Rinehart notes that Hindu religiosity plays an important role in the nationalist movement,[54] and that "the neo-Hindu discourse is the unintended consequence of the initial moves made by thinkers like Rammohan Roy and Vivekananda.

"[54] Yet Rinehart also points out that it is ...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.

[62][note 8]Colonialism left deep traces in the hearts and minds of the Indian people, influencing the way they understood and represented themselves.

[68] 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.

[74] 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.

[76][note 10] 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.