Relationship Between the Spiritual and the Secular: Vivekananda,Gandhi and Radhakrishnan

Introduction

The idea of spiritual was repeatedly invoked by the wide range of modern Indian thinkers, like Swami Vivekananda, Dayananda Saraswati, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Aurobindo Ghose, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Vinoba Bhave, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and others. It was repeatedly used to articulate anti-colonial politics, the idea of service, love for others, nationalist agenda, identity of Indian culture and civilization and so forth. Thinkers like Tilak, Gandhi and Radhakrishnan often appealed to spiritualize politics. Along with repeated usage of the spiritual for temporal goods, it was also used to enunciate higher goods beyond ordinary material existence.

What was this recurrent idea of spiritual in the writings of key Indian thinkers? Why was it frequently invoked in the socio-political realm and what were its diverse predicaments? What kind of relationship they establish between the secular and the spiritual domains? Do they make strict distinction between the spiritual and the secular domains or pronounce unique relationship between the two? To engage with these questions, the article explores writings of three key thinkers—Vivekananda, Gandhi and Radhakrishnan. This article probes varied usages, meanings and dimensions of spiritual, and the nature of relationship they establish between the spiritual and the secular domains.

The article argues that the thinkers discussed felt two kinds of demands in their life simultaneously. On the one hand, they were attracted towards religious good and wished to pursue them and, on the other hand, they also felt the pressure of demands of their age and wished to live by them. The religious aim was realization of moksha (liberation or salvation), and the demands of their age were to address social and political issues. Thus, their life was fundamentally marked by the search for the solution which addressed both the demands. In search for a solution, they argued for the spiritual way of life, sensitive to both religious and temporal demands. Though defined differently, they wished to fulfil both the demands through it and gave different reasons for the integration of spiritual way of life with the secular activities such as social service and politics. What was distinctive about this frequent usage of the spiritual was its usage to articulate both the secular and the religious and the otherworldly goals. In this light, the article further avers that none of the thinkers explored are strictly secular, if it means differentiation of social and political domains from religion on the one hand and rise of ‘exclusive humanism’ and ‘immanent frame’ on the other hand, as is central to modern Western secularity. ²

Vivekananda

Life and thought of Vivekananda was marked by three interrelated concerns (Raychauduri, 1998, p. 1). First, he aspired for the realization of oneness with God in conformity with Advaitic tradition. Second, he emphasized national regeneration of India and jiva-seva or serving humanity as integral to Vedanta. Third, he tried to articulate and spread the highest Vedantic spiritual truth which he believed to be universally relevant and applicable.

In his search for God, Vivekananda accepted the authority of Advaita over other religious traditions and was convinced that through its reinterpretation, he can realize God (William, 1981, p. 209). Diversity of Indian spiritual tradition for him was encapsulated in it, and it was the source of all Indian sects. He declared that three strands of Vedanta, Dvaita (dualism), Visistadvaita (qualified monism) and Advaita (monism), instead of fundamentally distinct, represented three successive stages in spiritual progress (Raychauduri, 1998, pp. 2–3). He affirmed non-dualist Brahman (supreme power) to be the only reality and all human beings to be the manifestation of Brahman. Though all human beings were spiritually one and united, it was maya (relative reality or apparent manifestation) that created the illusion of individual identity and separation (Vivekananda, 2013a, pp. 373–74). For him, the absolute end of life was the realization of oneness with Brahman by overcoming individual identity and separation.

Importantly, in a departure from tradition, Vivekananda gave secularist orientation to Vedanta while reformulating it, expressed concern for the social world and integrated spiritual quest with the programme of national regeneration and service to humanity. He also redefined the role of sanyasi or renouncer. After the death of his teacher Ramakrishna, Vivekananda wandered the whole of India as a sanyasi and expressed his discontent and dissatisfaction towards excessiveness of foreign domination, ‘effeminacy’ of the masses, widespread poverty, ignorant religiosity and oppressive ritualistic practices (Vivekananda, 2013b, p. 460).

In this backdrop, Vivekananda pronounced a programme for national regeneration. He defined it as the reaffirmation of Indian spirituality and Vedanta. He cautioned that such a programme was possible not by neglecting the temporal world but by acquiring minimum material flourishing of the country. He observed that spirituality was for strong and brave, and therefore the ‘weak’ and ‘degenerate race’ before pursuing it require rajas, that is, this-worldly virtue or activity (Vivekananda, 2013d, pp. 181–182). For him, India was enveloped in intense tamas (inactivity and idleness), leading to abject poverty, lack of material development and servitude mentality. Overcoming tamas, he observed, required inculcation of new spirit of rajas, necessary for the material development. To gain rajas, he admired West and suggested learning material accomplishment and achievements in the field of science and technology from it. His admiration for the West was less for its material achievements and more for the immense energy or rajas which formed it (Raychauduri, 1998, p. 6).

Vivekananda opposed caste restrictions, priesthood and excessive ritualism as part of national regeneration. Caste system based on the principle of discrimination, division and contempt, he believed, was responsible for the decline of Hinduism. ³ He also argued for elevating the masses from abject poverty. He denounced ritualism, cow protection and feeding stones in the temple by asserting that what was the need of doing them when God in the form of human beings remains starved and unattended (Vivekananda, 2013c, p. 286).

Fusing immense spirituality with immense practicality, Vivekananda argued jiva-seva or service to humanity to be integral to spiritual quest. Though he recognized the role of meditation and jnana (knowledge), he underlined the need of karmayoga (spiritual realization through action), involving efforts for material welfare of the poor. His idea of seva (service) had three components. First, physical and material welfare and included relief measures for those struck in famine and draught, tending sick and poor and distribution of food, medicine and clothes. Second, it involved providing secular education (both elementary and technical) to the masses for their intellectual development. Lastly, it included spreading the Vedantic message and its teachings.

Vivekananda argued seva as necessary for moksha or attainment of God by using the analogy of marriage between renunciation and service to humanity. ⁴ He gave three reasons for it. First, his idea of social service was inspired by the belief in the Godliness of all human beings. For him, service to the poor meant serving the God, as God dwells in every human being. Addressing his fellow sanyasis, he said,

If you want any good to come, just throw your ceremonials over-board and worship the Living God, the Man-God–every being that wears a human form–God in His universal as well as individual aspect. The universal aspect of God means this world, and worshipping it means serving it–this indeed is work, not indulging in ceremonials. (Vivekananda, 2013c, p. 285)

Enunciating seva, Vivekananda made distinction between seva and helping others out of compassion. He argued that human beings could only serve God and cannot help God. His seva was inspired by the belief that God dwells in every human being and thus serving others was like worshipping others as a manifestation of God. ⁵

Second, Vivekananda endorsed social service as a reaffirmation of the message of great seers of India. By invoking the examples of individual saints such as Buddha, Kabir, Chaitanya and Nanak and movements such as Buddhism, Islam and Bhakti, he pronounced that these figures and movements represented great examples of dedicated service to humanity inspired by religious belief. Thus, instead of inventing anything new, he was just reaffirming the perennial spiritual truth. Third, eradication of poverty and material development, he believed, was indispensable for the spread and acceptance of Vedantic teachings. He observed that the lessons of spirituality cannot be taught to those with hungry stomach. Acceptance of spiritual message required material flourishing of the country, possessed with rajas. Hence, he repeatedly underlined the need for Western-style material achievements in India, but inspired by Vedanta (Vivekananda, 2013b, p. 367).

While stressing on seva, Vivekananda redefined the role of sanyasi. To perform the dual task of active service and national regeneration, he was interested in creating a band of sanyasis committed to it (Vivekananda, 2013e, pp. 314–315). He underlined on their special significance in performing active service, eradicating widespread poverty and for spreading secular and spiritual education for the following reasons. First, renunciation of worldly pleasure and the acceptance of poverty was an act of strength. He was convinced that sanyasis full of strength had greater potential in committing themselves for altruistic service than a householder. Free from kinship ties and their own individual material needs, they would be more suitable for dedicated service. Second, sanyasis can be effective agents of change as they always enjoyed authority and respect in the society. Due to that, their teachings and acts would be more acceptable and would enjoy wider support. Third, purified ascetics would be more suitable and effective to loosen the stranglehold of existing interest groups and corrupt religious leaders and to transform the society.

Such a role for the sanyasis was new in Hindu tradition. Traditionally, their aim was to realize God through meditation and detachment from the world. In a departure, Vivekananda defined renunciation not as escape from the social world but abandoning the false nature of reality due to maya (Brekke, 2002, p. 37). The false nature of reality hides the spiritual unity and thus Vedanta emphasized on giving up the illusion and not the world in literal sense. Renunciation for him was purely a state of mind according to which, without leaving the world, the actions in the society should be performed. Detachment does not mean non-action but action without being attached with it and its fruits. With a new state of mind, the renouncer would realize the spiritual nature of the world and would see God in every human being. Such a new perspective, according to Vivekananda, would lay the foundation of active service and national regeneration. Hence, in a novel way, he derived the agenda of national regeneration and social service from Vedanta and integrated it with the ideal of moksha.

Gandhi

In Gandhi’s political philosophy, religion occupies a unique position. Though engaged in politics, he was unequivocal in declaring that his fundamental concern was religious and his politics was inspired by it (Iyer, 2013, p. 110). He considered pursuit of moksha as the highest ideal and like Vivekananda affirmed service to humanity, but for different reasons. Gandhi integrated moksha and politics in a unique way by redefining both.

Gandhi upheld the view that all creations were divine and constituted an integrally interdependent system as divine cosmic spirit or Brahman regulated the universe from within (Parekh, 1989, pp. 70–71). Distinguishing atman or soul from the self, he defined realization of former as moksha whereas latter to be a great obstacle. Atman as the manifestation of Brahman for him dwells in every human body and was the basis of divinity and unity of all humans. Also, it was through atman that humans were related with cosmos.

Contrary to atman, self represented the unique temperament and propensity within human beings which they inherited from birth as the fruit of their own karma (actions) done in previous births. This self along with body, for Gandhi, was the seat of infinite desires, wants and ego which created illusionary consciousness of separateness and individuality by hiding spiritual unity and indivisibility. Human beings ignoring atman identify their own essence with self. As a result, they affirm the distinction between self and other and permanently strove to preserve, protect and assert themselves as distinct individual (Parekh, 1989, p. 95). For Gandhi, then, to attain moksha meant realization of oneness with underlying atman and unity with all human beings by the dissolution of human self.

Departing from traditions, Gandhi argued for intense engagement in society and politics for realizing moksha (ibid.). Traditions underlined detachment and non-intervention to break all kinds of emotional and worldly bonds to realize moksha. Against that, Gandhi emphasized on serving humanity by engaging in politics (Iyer, 2013, pp. 32–33).

It was no common engagement but was guided by universal love and active service. For Gandhi, love was the only way to dissolve the distance between self and the other. Such a love involved concern and suffering for the well-being of others to the greatest extent possible (Parekh, 1989, p. 98). Negatively, it meant abstention from doing all kinds of harm and injury to others. Positively, it meant active service and devoting oneself for wiping out tears from every eye. Those inspired by active service would fight against social suffering not for themselves but for the love for others. Thus, for Gandhi, those willing to identify themselves with all of mankind get engaged in active service and extend greatest possible help to others. He believed that the barriers between self and other could be demolished only by actively serving others.

Further illustrating on active service, Gandhi invokes the concept of yugadharma (duties appropriate for historic age to realize moksha). In Hindu tradition, the distinction was made between two kinds of dharma (duty or moral law): sadharandharma (eternal principles) and yugadharma. Sadharandharma refers to attainment of moksha by all human beings whereas yugadharma elaborates the means for attaining it.

Gandhi argued that though the sadharandharma was eternal, meaning and content of yugadharma changes with changing time. If active service was yugadharma, then its nature and content changes with change in kala (time) and desh (space) (ibid., p. 99). He said, at every age, certain kinds of actions and areas of life always provided unique opportunity for active service. Hence, the content and meaning of service had to be reconceptualized according to the new demands, needs and circumstances of modern age (ibid., pp. 99–100).

Departing from tradition and from Vivekananda, Gandhi argued politics as the new yugadharma and most suitable means for active service (Iyer, 2013, p. 116). He defined uniqueness of modern age as politics taking the centre stage of social life and observed that ‘politics today encircles us like the coils of a snake from which one cannot get out no matter how one tries’ (ibid., p. 45). In modern age, politics was all pervasive and mediated all kinds of human activities and social relationships. The state had acquired a central role, directly or indirectly regulating all aspects of social and individual life. Besides, politics was the source of varied kinds of evils, like foreign domination, economic inequalities, moral degradation and others. It was more true for India where politics was the cause of political dominations, economic exploitations, injustices and poverty.

Importantly, politics was not only the source of exploitation and oppression but was crucial to overcome them. Highlighting its redemptive aspect, Gandhi said that the evils of the modern age cannot be fought from outside but by actively engaging in politics. It was the means to address social, economic and political dominations by changing its meaning from within. He argued that it was the duty of every religious person to get engaged in politics (Parel, 2007, p. 20) and suggested redefining politics by spiritualizing it. Spiritualized politics would be a means for active service and ending oppression for spiritual end (Iyer, 2013, p. 109). Indeed, for Gandhi, politics was the best-suited path in the modern age for the realization of moksha, the means for performing service and fighting against prevalent exploitation and oppression.

Such an integration of moksha and politics radically redefined both. Moksha, for Gandhi, was not about experiencing mystical unity with Brahman alone but losing one’s own self in the active service of mankind (Parekh, 1989, p. 106). It involved both ananda (joy) and dukha (suffering) as a seeker suffers for others by engaging in politics and by making suffering of others as his/her own. Moreover, modern age sanyasis deeply engage in politics and in active service for the sake of moksha.

Redefining politics, Gandhi refused to make distinction between religion and politics. Inspired by the idea of active service and love, his spiritualized politics was highly interventionist and transformative in its spirit. It neither meant struggle for power nor holding public position but public good through active service for religious end. Politics was about carrying out wider social reform in the society for the purpose of realizing oneness with fellow beings. Politics as active service became the necessity to make the world better in every department of life (Iyer, 2013, p. 127).

Such a spiritualized politics manifested in a number of forms. Gandhi opposed importation of modern Western institutions and argued for regenerating India’s civilizational and cultural values. Instead of modern state, he emphasized on rejuvenating village communities and instilling new moral courage in humans to govern life through cooperation, mutual service and interdependence. Gandhi’s struggle against untouchability was also inspired by spiritual belief. Untouchability violated three central precepts of Hinduism—the unity of life, non-injury and universal compassion (Parekh, 1999, p. 242). Practice of untouchability based on inequality, discrimination and degradation denied the sacredness of others. By insulting and hurting ‘untouchables’, caste Hindus, along with harming others, failed to comply with ahimsa (non-violence) and compassion, the central message of Gita. Thus, Gandhi’s campaign against untouchability was focused on transforming and persuading the caste Hindus for the sake of Hindu religion.

Gandhi opposed modern civilization because of its flawed conception of human beings which was body-centric and materialist in nature. Modern body-centric view visualized human beings as possessing discrete bodies, the body which was seat of infinite desires and wants. It made ‘bodily welfare’ as the ‘object of life’, ignoring the spiritual nature and ideal (Parel, 2007, p. 18). Excluding the ideal of realizing oneness with cosmic spirit, modern civilization was caught in the vicious cycle of fulfilment of bodily desires and wants. Such a view instead of facilitating the dissolution of self and ego perpetuated them infinitely. This infinite perpetuation of self and desires for Gandhi was the source of violence, greed, hatred and domination in the modern world.

Gandhi argued Brahmacharya (abstinence) to be integral to spiritualized politics. He was of the view that social evils like untouchability and communalism could only be fought by preparing the masses for heroic sacrifices and for transformative changes. To do that, society needed exemplars with unusual amount of spiritual shakti like ancient Indian rishis (seers), Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha (Parekh, 1999, p. 194). In search of such a shakti, Gandhi saw brahmacharya as the way to acquire it. Retrieving spiritual powers, he argued, required mastery over senses, especially over sexual desires. He saw sexual activity as an impediment in the unity of human beings for the reason it reinforces the duality of male and female, affirms the ‘otherness’ of the opposite sex and was the source of passion, desires and was energy-consuming. Gandhi was convinced that only a Brahmachari (celibate) by preserving enormous amount of physical, psychic and spiritual energy and by overcoming the duality of male and female could act as effective exemplars. Free from sensual pleasures, Brahmacharis would be able to serve their country better than others. Gandhi himself wanted to be such a pure Brahmachari to execute spiritualized politics.

Gandhi’s spiritualized politics had several implications. First, he refused to make distinction between religious and secular domains. He saw all activities and domains of life as an indivisible whole, guided by religious belief. Activities of temporal domain, including politics and sexuality, were organically linked with the spiritual end. Pursuit of artha (material welfare) in the form of politics was organically bound with the search of moksha (Rodrigues, 2011, p. 60). Second, he refused to make distinction between religious and political aims as both aspired for active service. His involvement in politics was to serve others for the attainment of moksha. Third, he refused to accept purely human flourishing or hedonism as an absolute end. Though, he actively engaged in the pursuit of human flourishing by fighting against exploitation, poverty and oppression but not as an end in itself. His engagement in social service and human flourishing was integral to realize moksha. Moksha was the absolute ideal, whereas the effort in favour of flourishing of others was the necessary means. Fourth, the ideal of moksha was not individualistic but was organically connected with the suffering of others. It was only by serving others that humans can dissolve self, necessary for the realization of oneness with Brahman. His idea of moksha was highly interventionist and activist in nature, as it demanded social reforms and transformations through engagement in politics. Fifth, by arguing politics as new yugadharma, Gandhi equated politics with dharma. According to the traditional theory of purushartha (basic aims of life), political activity comes within artha. But Gandhi elevated politics to the category of dharma. Sixth, by emphasizing on the necessity of brahmacharya, Gandhi integrally related kama (pleasure or sexual desire) with politics or artha and also with moksha.

Radhakrishnan

Radhakrishnan, in his writings, systematically engaged with Vedanta and defended it from the charge of being otherworldly, ignoring ethics and neglecting the temporal domain. ⁶ Inspired by Adi Sankara’s non-dualistic Vedanta, he articulated the idea of religion which was ethically sound and socially relevant. He later called it as ‘the religion of the spirit’ (Minor, 1981, pp. 305–306). Opposing separation of religion or spirituality from politics, he held such a separation to be the cause of many of the modern problems.

Radhakrishnan believed in non-dualistic Absolute reality which he called as Brahman. Brahman, for him, was universally present and was both immanent and transcendental. Material world derives its existence from Brahman, and in humans, Brahman was present in the form of atman. Brahman being immanent was also transcendental as the reality of the universe does not exhaust all its possibility. Experiencing oneness with the Brahman for him was the highest goal by overcoming maya. Maya hides the divine, universal and united aspect of human beings and was the cause of egoism, dualities and identification of humans with the body. He explained oneness with the God ⁷ as the fusion of atman with the Absolute. Atman, for him, was no ordinary socio-historic human self but the self which subsist even after all the changes in the outer and physical world.

Radhakrishnan, in his later writings, identified experiencing the Absolute as the essence of ‘Hinduism’ and of all the religions in the world (ibid., pp. 317–318) He said, ‘While the experiential character of religion is emphasised in the Hindu faith, every religion at its best falls back on it’ (Radhakrishnan, 1932, p. 90). Such an understanding asserted the essential unity of all religions and made intuitive experience as the test of truth for all religions and, thus, distinguishes between essential and non-essential elements. For him, traditions, dogmas, rituals and symbols were non-essential elements and only had instrumental value to convey the message of experiencing the same Absolute Reality (Minor, 1981, pp. 320–321). He considered conflicts regarding these non-essential elements as fruitless and avoidable.

Radhakrishnan clarified that the spiritual aim should not be confused with otherworldliness (Radhakrishnan, 1948, p. 74). Gita’s central message was not escape from the temporal world but to attain liberation while being involved in performing duties in the world. Radhakrishnan pronounced that the spiritual goal and ethical means were organically related, as the latter was necessary for the purification of mind and burning away of egoism, necessary for the realization of the Absolute.

Rejecting strict distinction between the spiritual and the secular domains, Radhakrishnan wrote, ‘The things of Caesar should be related to the things of God. Spiritual values must permeate the world of life. Religion is not an opiate for the disorders of the spirit. It is a dynamic for social advance’ (ibid., p. 76). Instead of being separate, he believed politics should be permeated, infused and shaped by spirituality. Spiritual way of life does not deny the reality of the world but points out its lower status in comparison with the Absolute reality. The relationship between the two was hierarchical in which the secular was placed below the spiritual. He said such an understanding was adequately expressed in Hindu threefold disciplines of life in the form of four ends of life (four purushartha), fourfold order of society (four varna) and fourfold successive stages of life (four asrama) (McDermott, 2008, p. 187). The threefold disciplines of life underlined the supremacy of spiritual experience—of the four ends, spiritual was supreme; of the four classes, the Brahmin (priestly class) engaged in spiritual pursuit was the highest; out of the four stages, the sanyasa (renunciation of the world) was of utmost importance. By following these threefold disciplines in life, a Hindu strove for experiencing oneness with the Brahman without making strict distinction between the spiritual and the secular activities.

Radhakrishnan insisted on spiritualizing politics in the light of religion to address many of the modern problems, such as narrow nationalism and religious intolerance (Minor, 1981, p. 321). For that, he emphasized on inner spiritual regeneration of human beings and for transforming socio-political domain according to that. He was convinced that nationalism had taken aggressive and exclusivist turn during the Second World War, and as a result, nations were ready to inflict insurmountable pain and destruction on others. Root cause of it was fundamentally wrong idea of human nature and their destiny (Radhakrishnan, 1948, pp. 20–21).

He identified it as the eclipse of spiritual way of life and ‘rootless secularism’ (ibid., p. 23). The new secular age subordinated the spiritual aspect of humans to the temporal and understood human beings as solely either economic or political beings. It conceptualized humans to be primarily regulated by the laws of supply and demand and class conflicts. Modern politics defined human beings as excessively political and established the centrality of state in human life. It upholds apotheosis of man and claims human beings to be absolute and self-sufficient in themselves, completely independent from any kind of spirituality. It declares man as God on earth and rebels against the God. Radhakrishnan said, ‘Wars are a result of this apostasy, this exaltation of nature unmodified by the grace’ (ibid., p. 22).

Against narrow nationalism, Radhakrishnan argued for global spiritual unity to attain universal peace, love and brotherhood (Radhakrishnan, 1963, p. 30). Universal loyalty, for him, demanded revival of true spirit of religion, emphasizing on indivisibility of the world and the sacredness of all human beings. The true spirit of religion underlines that despite individual, regional and national differences, the world constituted a single whole as everyone was the manifestation of the same divine reality. It highlights the universal presence of Absolute in every human being which unites people spiritually despite temporal differences. He said that once this spiritual unity would be recognized, instead of fighting for their country, human beings would fight for the whole of human civilization. They would act not only for their national, local or individual interest but also for universal brotherhood, love and peace (Radhakrishnan, 1948, p. 17).

Moreover, the spirit of religion would underline that the perfection of human beings lies in higher aim of experiencing God than merely in accomplishing material advancement alone. It would underscore the fact that humans were capable of higher spiritual stage of life, above the material and intellectual stage. Radhakrishnan underlined the role of saints and seers in spreading the spiritual message (Srinivasan, 2006, p. 247). His saints, rather than severing ties with the secular world, would intervene in it and would inspire, revive and strengthen the life of their generation for loka-samgraha, that is, solidarity of the world (Schilpp, 1952, p. 65). For him, Gandhi was such an exemplar, ⁸ a religious man who integrated his religion with politics and made active service part of spiritual life.

Along with narrow nationalism, Radhkrishnan expressed concern about growing religious intolerance and conflict. The source of intolerance for him was religious exclusivism, claiming monopoly and finality over infinite truth (Pappu, 1989, p. 248). He said,

The greatest of the temptations we must overcome is to think that our own religion is the only true religion, our own vision of Reality is the only authentic vision, that we alone have received a revelation and we are the chosen people, the children of light and the rest of the human race live in darkness (Radhakrishnan, 1957, p. 269).

Against religious exclusivism, Radhakrishnan argued for toleranc ⁹ which could be accomplished only with correct understanding of the Absolute. The aim of all religions was to experience Absolute, whereas differences persist at the level of dogmas, ceremonies and symbols (Radhakrishnan, 1948, p. 54). Brahman, he argued, was infinite and cannot be fully encompassed or exhausted by any one religion. All religions need to be tolerated and accepted as they were the diverse attempt to grasp the infinite by the finite mind. Religious diversity for him was indispensable as the natural expression of the infinite Absolute. Radhakrishnan argued that once such an understanding would be accepted, tolerance between different religions would prevail. The tolerance would flow from the conviction that different religions, including their own, were just partial and limited manifestation of the Absolute.

Despite being critical of ‘rootles secularism’ as a world view, Radhakrishnan endorsed secularism as a political doctrine. For him, secularism in India rejected religious fanaticism and sectarianism but not religion itself. Secular state in India, he stated, though distinguishes itself from all the religions and remain committed to not supporting any one particular religion, affirms and extends support to ‘religious values’ (Minor, 1981, p. 326).

Foundation of secularism for him was not independent or neutral stance of politics towards religion but affirmation of universality of spiritual values (Radhakrishnan, 1956, p. 392). He defined universal spiritual values as belief in infinite Absolute, which can be experienced but cannot be defined. It subordinates different religious rites, ceremonies, dogmas, authorities and conduct to the religious experience. Therefore, secularism for Radhakrishnan was a ‘religious’ position which though does not support any one particular religion but promoted religious values defined in the religion of the spirit. Secularism was neither a religious nor anti-religious but was a doctrine which emerged from certain understanding of spiritual reality. Secular state’s respect towards religions does not arise from its independence or indifference towards religion but from the acceptance of the reality of infinite Absolute and spiritual values. It respects and accepts religious diversity because it upholds and practices the religion of the spirit the fundamental principle of the Indian genius, of the Indian spirit itself (Minor, 1981, p. 327).

Invocation of Spirituality and the Idea of Secular

In the light of the above discussion, this section argues that the idea of secular, central to the modern Western tradition, is conspicuously absent in the world view of the three thinkers discussed. To clarify the usage of the term, distinction is made between secular, secularization and secularism. Secularization has been associated with certain sociological changes in the society with the advent of modernity such as urbanization, industrialization, rise of literacy, demystification and disenchantment. Secularism, on the other hand, is used to define modern stance on the relationship between the state and the religion and speaks of different kinds of disjunctions between the two. This section focuses on the category of secular instead of secularization and secularism. Secular represents a modern world view, giving rise to distinctive imagination of social existence where the relationship between human beings and God and between human beings themselves has been redefined. Different scholars have highlighted several dimensions and meanings of such a secular world view. Being selective, this section focuses on two specific dimensions of secular and their relevance for the life and thought of Vivekananda, Gandhi and Radhakrishnan.

The theory of functional differentiation of domains or the wall of separation between sacred and secular is the most dominant understanding. Dividing reality into religious and non-religious categories, secularity is professed as the emergence of new distinct and autonomous domains, namely, political, economic, social and others, independent of, and distinct from, religion or remotely connected to it. It is insisted that the norms and principles of political or social domains are internal to the rationality of these domains, independent of religious justifications. Accordingly, the political or public domain was emptied of reference to transcendental reality. Moreover, religion is increasingly defined as the matter of personal belief and is pushed to the private domain. Human beings can still be believers but their belief should neither govern nor interfere in their public conduct.

The underlying assumption is that these essentially non-religious domains have been confused with the religious in the past, but now that we have arrived at a non-religious scientific understanding of the world, we can step aside from powerful hold of religion and look from a methodologically neutral standpoint (Fitzgerald, 2007, p. 11). It also understands the non-religious as the domain of normal human behaviour which is more real than the supernatural religion. To be neutral and impartial in non-religious secular domain meant not to invoke personal religious beliefs in the public sphere.

John Locke was among the first in the West to argue for non-political and privatized religion, separated from public rationality. In A Letter Concerning Toleration, he demarcates the businesses of civil government from that of religion (Goldier, 2010, pp. 7–67). Dividing human life in the spheres of religious pursuit and of civil interests, he argued for the non-interference of one into another. For him, religion is the sphere concerned with the salvation of soul which is a matter of private concern, whereas civil interest pertains to the life, liberty, health and indolence of body and to the possession of outward things such as money, land and furniture and is in the public domain. The magistrate concerned with civil interests should not meddle into the private domain of religion, and the public domain should also be independent of specifically religious justification. In India, Jawaharlal Nehru was the exponent of such a notion of secularity. He opposed invocation of religion in politics and considered the pervasiveness of religion in social life a hindrance. He defined social progress as the liberation of the non-religious social, political and economic from the religion which needs to be guided by secular ideals or reasoning, independent of religion or faith.

In the backdrop of such an understanding of secular, it can be argued that none of the three thinkers discussed are strictly secular as they refused to distinguish social and political from religious faith. Moksha for them was the highest ideal according to which social and political activities need to be defined and performed. Secular domain, rather than being distinct from the spiritual, was the domain for realizing higher good. Indeed, for them, life constituted a single whole where differentiation of domains was not possible as the whole universe was informed by the same cosmic spirit. Rather than making a distinction between their spiritual commitments on the one hand and social and political commitment on the other, they argued for socially and politically concerned religious faith. Despite prioritizing spiritual dedication, they argued for active engagement in social welfare and politics, the engagement which was guided and inspired by the spiritual.

Vivekananda articulated such a socially and politically committed religious belief in socially concerned Vedanta. As a sanyasi, though engaged in the quest for God, he emphasized on active engagement in the society in the form of seva and national regeneration. His commitment to seva was inspired by his Vedantic belief of Godliness of all human beings. Rejecting strict distinction between the activities of spiritual and secular domains, he argued for spiritually inspired ethics. His programme for national regeneration was inspired by the belief that the acceptability of spiritual message required material flourishing of the country possessed with rajas. He further integrated the activities of spiritual with the secular by arguing active engagement of the renouncer in the service and welfare of others rather than living a detached life.

Gandhi was more vocal in refusing to make the distinction between religion and politics. He saw all the activities and domains of life as an indivisible whole, guided by religious belief. No activity of life was either spiritual or material, including politics and sexuality. Realization of moksha required dissolution of individual self, and social service was the path to it. However, meaning and content of social service changes with changing times. Articulating politics as the most effective means of social service in the modern age, Gandhi equated politics with dharma and articulated politics as the yugadharma of the present age. Gandhi’s politics was sacralized when it was argued as the only path for the realization of moksha in the modern age. Politics instead of being separate from religion becomes integral to religious faith.

Radhakrishna argued for the infusion of politics by the morality derived from religious belief. Many of the modern problems, like narrow nationalism, world wars and religious strife, according to him, could be solved only by spiritually inspired public ethics and morality. Thus, for the three thinkers, all human activities were sacred, and there was no strict differentiation of domains. Political and social activities instead of being independent of religion were integrally related. Moreover, according to their cosmic imaginary, the whole universe constituted a single whole where strict differentiation of domains was not possible. ¹⁰

Charles Taylor, in his seminal work ‘A Secular Age’, rather than emphasizing on disjunction between temporal and spiritual domains, explains secular age as the emergence of modern social imaginary ¹¹ (Taylor, 2007). He articulates modern secularity as a monumental shift in the social imaginary of the North Atlantic West which is opposed to any claim made in the name of something transcendent of this world and its interest. Its two most important characteristics are the rise of ‘exclusive humanism’ and the dominance of ‘immanent frame’.

He identifies rise of exclusive humanism as the major shift in the idea of ‘fullness’ in the Judeo-Christian tradition. The shift is explained as an eclipse of all goals of fullness beyond human flourishing and emergence of a self-sufficient humanism which accepts no final goals beyond this world and its interests, nor any allegiance to anything else beyond this-worldly flourishing. Secularity marked the transition from earlier notion of fullness defined in terms of transcendental goals to the rise of a society in which, for the first time in history, a purely self-sufficient this-worldly humanism came to be a widely available option (Taylor, 2007, p. 18). In the pre-modern Christian society, the fullness of life or the highest goal was predominantly defined in terms of transcendental goals which always made reference to something beyond and was expressed in the idea of serving God by the renunciation of human flourishing.

The beginning of modern secular age was marked by this eclipse of pre-modern notion of fullness and the emergence of a new idea of fullness which defined human flourishing without any reference to transcendental goals. For Taylor, the resources for this monumental shift in fullness crystallized only in sixteenth and seventeenth centuries through various historical processes within the Christian tradition. The rise of exclusive humanism as the new idea of fullness, according to Taylor, constituted the core of emergence of secular age. It was the age of availability of new alternative options of fullness referring to some or the other kind of human flourishing distinct from the pre-modern notion. Once this option of exclusive humanism became a possibility, it soon pushed other ‘naive’ ideas of fullness to the margins. Moreover, the availability of modern secular ideas of fullness multiplied in the course of history, and other ideas of fullness also came into being beyond the original idea, but within the immanent framework, of exclusive humanism.

Related to it is the idea of dominance of immanent frame that is self-sufficient and governed by its own laws. The crucial change is that the natural order and its laws are understood in its own terms without any reference to anything outside it. It opened the possibility of conceiving and imagining the world and activities within it as being accounted for on its own terms which makes no reference to transcendental reality. People make sense of things entirely in terms of this-worldly causality. The cause and effect relationships are understood in this-worldly terms as a matter of nature, technology, human invention or accidental. It is constitutive of the frame in which modern secular people see non-metaphysical, non-transcendent knowledge as sufficient to grasp a world that works entirely of itself. Immanent frame refers to growing belief that the order in the world is now impersonal, perhaps set in motion by a watchmaker God but working by means of its own laws.

Vivekananda, Gandhi and Radhakrishnan neither adhere to exclusive humanism nor subscribe to immanent frame. Following religious tradition, the three thinkers aspired for oneness with Brahman as the absolute end beyond exclusive humanism. Vivekananda underlining seva and national regeneration emphasized on renunciation, beyond human flourishing. Gandhi categorically stated that he aspired for moksha throughout his life, and his engagement in politics was not primarily for self-sufficient human flourishing but for the higher good. Radhakrishnan avers experiencing the Brahman beyond all forms of material welfare as the absolute goal. Importantly, instead of ignoring human flourishing altogether, the three thinkers articulated it as integral to the realization of higher good. Their idea of human flourishing was not restricted to the immanent frame or to exclusive humanism. Vivekananda’s emphasis on seva was neither an end in itself nor was it separated from spiritual goal. Similarly, for Gandhi, love, social service and politics, rather than being an end in itself, were the means for realizing moksha. Radhakrishnan, inspired by the Vedantic philosophy, argued for informing politics with the message of spiritual oneness of all human beings which would lead to cooperation, compassion and peace in the world.

Moreover, none of the three thinkers subscribe to immanent frame. Against that, they frequently invoked the idea of transcendental reality, whether as cosmic spirit or God to explain the world, its orderliness and to affirm the reality of temporal domain. They believed that there is an order in the universe in the form of extra-human cosmic spirit pervading the universe. They even explained and justified their social and political philosophy by referring to prevailing underlying cosmic order. Vivekananda saw human beings as living God and, therefore, argued for serving them. He also believed in incarnation or avatar and considered Ramakrishna to be one of them. Gandhi also believed that all human beings were the manifestation of the same divine-extra cosmic spirit and were not solely material and intellectual beings. His idea of yugadharma was inspired by the belief that the world passes through several cosmic cycles which were not determined by human beings but by the extra-human force. Radhakrishnan endorsed spiritual aspect of human beings and the cosmic order and believed in incarnation and considered Gandhi to be one of them.

To conclude, the purpose of the article is to underline the possibility of alternative imagination of the relationship between the spiritual and the secular and is not so much to highlight the limitations of Western theory of secular as such. Western theories of secular might be relevant for the West or even for other parts of the world but do not easily fit in Indian context, if we take the writings of the three thinkers seriously. That does not mean to say no one endorses Western understanding of secular in India, but the point is that the three thinkers discussed do not agree with it and offer the possibility of alternative imagination.

The three thinkers were not strictly either spiritual or secular because their spirituality was constitutive of social and political commitments and vice versa. They articulated and defined spiritual to address social and political concerns and pronounced the idea of secular which remained committed to spiritual belief and goals. Such an understanding of spiritual and the secular opens up the possibility of redefining the relationship between the two in several ways.

First, spirituality or religious belief can be the source of imagining politics or secular which remain committed to several modern political values like realization of social and religious reforms, national regeneration, toleration, material development and welfare and could be antithetical to narrow nationalism, religious sectarianism, foreign domination, caste oppression and others. Second, arguments in favour of politics and secular and political values can themselves be derived from spiritual belief or religious commitment. Thus, the spiritual becomes the resource for justifying and defending many modern political commitments. Third, spirituality can also be the source of inspiration for secular actions and political activism. Spirituality can inspire assertion of political actions which remain committed to social transformation. Fourth, spiritually inspired politics can adopt critical stance. Socially and politically committed spirituality can be critical to certain aspects of modernity and politics and to traditionally held belief and religious practices.