CHAPTER-III

INTELLECT AND INTUITION

3.1 INTRODUCTION :

Atma jffana (knowledge of self) is earned through learning that distinguishes

Vidya (knowledge) from Avidya (ignorance). Intuition is the supreme source of
knowledge that occurs in mental activity. This may not be the paramount source of
knowledge, may be just a transcendental sense as held by Spinoza, a contemporary
of Samkara.

Intuition literally means the ability to know something by using feeling

rather than considering the facts. Intuition is an idea or a strong feeling that
something is true although one can not explain why. For example, one says that I
have an intuition that something awful is about to happen . Intellect is the ability to
think in a logical way and understand things specially at an advanced level.

In ethics, the view that we apprehend moral truths direct by a special faculty
analogous to sense perception. More generally this is supposed to be an aspect of the
faculty by which we apprehend all apriori truths.1 Mind does not function in
fraction. It has validity in aesthetic sensibility. Both are complementary; for
aesthetic, knowledge is supplied by intuitive experience. Intuitive knowledge is real,
it penetrates deep into the heart of reality. According to Dr. Radhakrishnan the real
is the sole base that is not in space and time, neither it is universal.2

A number of questions can be raised about intuition. All questions do not

meet with definite answers. One question leads to series of other questions. The
6
4
 first question - does it occur to a mind naturally without prior seeking? Or effort is
to be made to get it? What then is the nature of the effort? Is intuition of the same
value to all or does it differ from man to man? Intuition, therefore is not free from
ambiguities, and answers to the above questions are different to be given.

According to Bergson intellect and intuition are two sources of moral and
religious consciousness. In his book The Sources of Morality and Religion he
indicates that intuition is not natural but the outcome of the laborious efforts, but he
hardly specifies efforts. Intuition, therefore varies according to efforts put by the
individuals.

Intuition reflects knowing, it has direct recourse to knowledge by which we

see things as they are, knowledge has certain forms - the intuitive knowledge and
the logical knowledge, imaginative knowledge and intellectual knowledge,
individual and the universal knowledge - intuition may be again productive of
images or productive of concepts. " 3 Intellectual knowledge is not possible until data
are supplied from some where.

Intuitive knowledge is the knowledge of self as the Hindu philosophers

deem it. This is just atma jnana (self-knowledge). This is indivisible, one and
above all. Self knowledge is not logical. It is the basis upon which ail categories of
knowledge stand and grow. It is the direct knowledge.

Intellect is useful for action, the knowledge that helps inventing a tool,
thereby controlling environment. Intellect is useful for action that ultimately begets
culture. Both intellect and intuitive knowledge are justified. But intuitive knowledge
lies beyond intellectual knowledge. They are not contrary to each other but rather
complementary. Intuition too has an itellectual side. Therefore the distinction
between the two may be analogous to that of understanding and reason.
Understanding is abstract while reason is concrete, finding universal in particulars
and forming with them an inseparable unity.
6
5
 In Indian Philosophy Intuition is an im portant
source o f know ledge. Sri Aurobindo views intuition in
a restricted sense. He takes it as higher knowledge but
does not take it as the highest source of knowledge. He
distinguishes between intuition and reason and argues
that reason can know only phenomena. It cannot
comprehend Being (Absolute). Reason, therefore helps
cultivation of empirical knowledge, having the way for
the realization of Absolute, but cannot reach Absolute
by itself.

Intellect can be described as faculty of knowing

and reasoning. Intellectuals therefore are persons of good
understanding which guides intellect to actions and the
persons become enlightened. They only are recognized
as intelligentsia of the society.

The word intelligentsia was first used by the

Russian revolutionary in 1917. The Hindu thinkers
believe that there is certainly something beyond
understanding by which man can be at least conscious o
f his personal self and that can be philosophically
termed as intuition. One cannot take an outward view of
it. It is something inner that can be owned by the sheer
in practices. One o f the characteristics of the Indian
philosophy is that it lays emphasis on wisdom that
comes out of ones inner self. The knowledge of self is
possible only through intuition. 4
Dr. Radhakrishnan
says that in intuitive apprehension we become one with
truth and one with the object of knowledge. The object
seen, however, is the inseparable part of the self.

Intuition once conceived does the functions of

sense. It is a form of uninferred immediate knowledge.
It is only an account of knowing reality. Immanuel Kant
held that in our immediate awareness of our selves we
have an intuition, not mediated by thought of the will as
the ultimate fact of reality.

6 6
 Intuitive knowledge provides major premise of the universal scale which
remains without questions. Intuition indeed is the apprehension of soul, not
irrational assumption. Intuition avoids disbelief. Spinoza aptly says : To know the
essence of things i.e. to understand them not in their general aspect as the scientists
do, but so to say as God does from within, we need the higher grade of
knowledge............ 6. So intuition is an important means of knowing the highest
reality which cannot be apprehended by any other means.

3.2 CRITICISMS OF INTELLECT :

Dr. Radhakrishnan says that it would be correct to call his philosophy by the

name Integral Experience. Prof. C.E.M. Joad in his book Counter-Attack from the

Eastdescribes Dr. Radhakrishnan as a liaison officer between two civilizations.

Prof. J.H. Muirhead calls him a philosophical bilinguist. Dr. Radhakrishnan is a

synthetic philosopher and conceives that there are different grades of consciousness

and ways of knowing. Knowledge is scientific, mathematical, realistic, rational and

also extends axioms and values to intuitions.

Indian Philosophy is intuitive in character. Behind the intellect there is a

superior power of consciousness called intuition which discerns the truth, the thing-

in-itself and the real in its native individuality. We get in it the vision of truth and

direct immediate perception. After we have acquired the discipline of intellect,

intuition begins to unfold in us. By such an emergence of intuitive consciousness the

intellect is transcended and comprehended in the higher consciousness. The nature

of the reality is fully manifested in intuition and one becomes free from speculative

intellect as well as past impressions. There are three ways of knowing viz. sense-

experience, discursive reasoning and intuition.

6
7
 The sense experiences give us the knowledge of sensible qualities of object.
The data serve as the subject matter of natural science which give the conceptual
structure to describe them. Intellect gives us the logical knowledge based on the
dense material. The data are analysed, synthesized and developed into conceptual
knowledge. The knowledge so derived is indirect, conceptual and symbolic. These
depend on our perceptions, interests and capacities. Intellect is an inadequate
instrument. It fails to give us knowledge of the object in itself. It goes about and
about the object without taking us to the heart of it. Both sense and reason call for a
higher consciousness. A higher unity in which thought, feeling and volition are
blended into a whole. Intuition comprehends the entire nature of reality. Dr.
Radhakrishnan agrees with Bradley. He says that we can form the general idea of an
absolute experience in which phenomenal distinction is merged, a whole become
immediate at higher stage without losing any richness.

Western Philosophy is mainly empirical and rationalistic which lays stress on

science, logic and humanism. As a rational animal man utilizes critical intelligence
for practical ends. Western Philosophy insists that the intellectual method is the
organ of knowing the Ultimate Reality. This is the determining feature of ancient
Greek Philosophy especially in the thoughts of Socrates, Plato etc. It is found in a
developed form in modern philosophy also. According to the advocates of this
method since philosophy is concerned with thinking reason alone is the final test of
knowledge. From the Socratic insistence on the concept to Russells Mathematical
Logic, the History of western thoughts has been a supreme illustration of the
primacy of the logical. Rationalism is deed in our bones, and we
7

feel secure about scientific knowledge and skeptical about religious faith.

Socrates regarded that conceptual knowledge as the highest type of

Knowledge. Plato also supports conceptual knowledge as most intellectual which
6
8
 according to him alone reveals the universal, changeless and essential elements in

things as true knowledge.

According to Descartes reason is the only source of knowledge. Spinoza also

shows the importance of mathematical method in Philosophy and accepts reason or
intellect as the source of knowledge.

The climax of intellectual approach to reality is found in modem Western

Philosophy in the thought of Leibnitz. He holds the extreme rationalistic view that
all our knowledge and ideas are implicit in our mind from the very beginning. Only
reason is the final test of knowledge through which only definite, true and universal
knowledge can be attained.

The life force evolves intellect as an instrument for the practical control of
the environment. Intellect is useful for action. It is the tool- making faculty by
means of which life fashions inanimate matter into instruments for the extension of
its own power.

The intellect depends on the data of sense experience. It associates and

analyses sense data and draws conceptual knowledge out of them. Intellect stiffens
our life and binds it in concepts. It is an instrument of consciousness that gives us
empirical knowledge. Intellect is a part of consciousness while intuition is the
totality of consciousness. Man experiences different grades of consciousness.
Comparatively intellect is a lower grade of consciousness. While sense is the lowest
form of awareness, intellect is higher to it and intuition is the highest consciousness
that assimilates and transfigures sense and discursive knowledge.

Intellectual knowledge is one of abstractions. The intellect abstracts only

those qualities or functions from the reality which serve individuals practical

purposes. It abstracts only those qualities which are practically useful.

6
9
 Intellect is a finite and limited principle of knowledge. It cannot perceive the
reality in itself. As it does not perceive the truth, it invents theories and awaits
confirmation. Intellect gives us partial knowledge of the relations, symbol and
characteristics of a thing, but it does not comprehend the truth. Each knowledge
increases with experience. Intuition gives us profound consciousness of reality.

In intellectual knowledge there always remains the distinction between the

subject and the object. The contact is always mediated by sense perception. It does
not provide knowledge of reality. A thing is known in its definite relation to other
object through reason. It postures the existence of a reality- the validity of which is
derived through connections.

Intellect does not impart knowledge of reality. It is valid only so long the

intuition does not manifest in us. Dr. Radhakrishnan says that logical knowledge is non-

knowledge, avidya and valid only till intuition arises. Intuition is experienced, and gets

back to the primeval spirit in us from which our intellect and senses are derived. The

more deeply we advance and penetrate, the more the intellect gives way to the universal

and infinite consciousness viz. intuition. We get back to the source of intellect, the

supreme consciousness. The intuitive consciousness is the totality of vision.To quote

Dr. Radhakrishnan: It is the wisdom gained by the whole

spirit which is above any fragment thereof, be it feeling or intellect. The whole life
g

of mind is more concrete than that of any specialized mode of it.

The intellect is one and continuous with intuition. The intellect advances and
ultimately consummates itself in the latter. Intuition is supra rational and it is not
irrational. One becomes more and more rational when advances towards intuition.
Dr. Radhakrishanan observes: Intuitive knowledge is not non-rational; it is only
non-conceptual. It is rational intuition in which both immediacy and mediacy are
9
comprehended.
7
0
 Hegel in his dialectical method lays much stress
on reason to make it organic to reality and
completely denies the importance of feeling and
willing - the two faculties of mind. But being the
method of analysis only intellectual method cannot
supply the materials of knowledge. An exact
explanation like mathematical laws are not possible in
philosophy; further philosophy is an explanation of
fact and values based on real experience. Thus if
intellect is taken as the only method of philosophy it
would lose all its richness, flexibility and
concreteness. It becomes rigid, abstract and static and
there would be no distinction between mathematics
and philosophy.

Therefore the anti- intellectualist philosophers

have rejected intellect as an instrument of
metaphysical enquiry levelling criticisms against it.

In the Upani^ads it is stated that the Ultimate

Reality is beyond the reach of resoning or discourse.
Intellect or reason is limited in its approach to the
realization of the ultimate values of life. This
inadequacy of intellectual knowledge is found in the
intuitive development of knowledge which limits the
intellectual knowledge and cannot reach the root of a
thing nor can attain the whole.

According to the extreme supporters of intuition

intellect is completely unimportant or destructive. But
Bradley, Bergson and Lossky are some of the
philosophers who lay some philosophical importance
to intellect.

According to Bradley intellect is a falsification

of the real 10 by breaking up the non-rational unity
of reality into relational differences.

Eminenet thinker Gentile holds that intellect

being a passive receiver or spectator, fails to grasp
the reality. The passive intellect and the independent
object are both abstractions and false.' '

Criticisms are levelled against intellect in Indian

Philosophy also. The condemnation of reasoning or
tarka is as old as the Upanisads which placed the
7
1
 Ultimate Reality entirely beyond the limit of reasoning and argumentation,
Samkara repeatedly asserts that discursive intellect cannot grasp reality. Brahman
can not become the object of perception, as it has no form and it does not land itself
to
12
inference and other means, as it has no characteristic marks. He maintains that
reasoning as it depends on individuals has no solid foundation. Arguments held
valid by some, may be proved fallacious by others. Reasoning, in so far as it is
independent of authoritative revelation has nothing to check its hastiness and
consequently a reasoned conclusion cannot be placed above the risk of refutation by
a logician. It is, therefore only logical quibbling that is condemned by Samkara.
We can not question the validity of intellect in the phenomenon world.
Dr. Radhakrishnan is seemed to be influenced by the attitude of Samkara. In
/
_
Sunyavada Nagarjuna shows the absurdity of dogmatic and rationalistic view of
reality. By exposing the hollowness of their logic and the self contradictory
consequence of their assumptions, Nagarjuna wanted to disprove the calm of reason
to apprehend reality.

Dr. Radhakrishnan holds the inadequacy of intellectual knowledge. Intellectual

knowledge stands in the way of intuition for the apprehension of Ultimate Reality.

But Dr. Radhakrishnans criticism of intellect is different from the criticism

of other thinkers. His criticism of intellect is not the total denial of it; but he only

tries to show the limits of its scope. Dr. Radhakrishnan never denies the significance

of intellect; his integral experience also includes reason or intellect.

Dr. Radhakrishnan observes that being analytic in nature intellectual knowledge

gives us a separate tenn and relation but fails to give a unified knowledge. By the

process of analysis, it may help to have an organized systematic expression

of a thing; but it cannot replace intuition. He says: It deals with relations and
(3
cannot grasp the relationless absolute . Thus intellectual method however, rich it
7
2
 might be, is true only in the scientific analysis but so long we remain at the level of

intellect, profound philosophic synthesis cannot be obtained.

A noted advocate of intusionism Bergson also holds the view that

intellectual analysis is useful only in science and in our day-to-day life which only

goes round the reality but cannot grasp the reality which according to him is an ever

mobile Elan-Vital. He says that intellect does not give us split sunset which has its

own beauty, but a conceptual notion that it has qualities of gold, light etc.

Intellectual knowledge is based on the presupposition of the duality between

the subject and the object, between the knower and the known where the
consciousness of a thing and its being remained is always distinct. Thus it is
applicable only in the empirical field where the duality between the subject
experiencing and the object experienced is distinct. But reality as a synthesis of
thing and being, subject and object a non-dual pure identity is beyond the reach of
the discursive intellect. To quote Dr. Radhakrishnan: We have to pass beyond
thought, beyond the clash of oppositions......... If we are to reach the real where

mans existence and divine being concide.14

Intellect in its very attempt to know reality separates the that from the

what. But to know the reality in its unique unity and synthesis if any could be

made by intellect to unite the that to the what. However, the original unique

unity of the reality cannot be restored. According to Dr. Radhakrishnan if we want

to know things in their uniqueness, in their indefensible reality, we must transcend

discursive thinking.

Bradley also maintains the same view in his distinction between the that
and the what. According to Bradley in making a judgement upon anything the
predicate is separated from the subject. A distinction is always made between that
7
3
 and what. Thus the very essence of thought - reflection lies in the mental
separation of that from what. Thought is limited in the approach of realizing the
notion of reality for the reason it is wide. The what may extend it but can never
embrace the reality. Thought lives in the distinction between the reality o f that
and the abstract character of what. Thought in its actual process and results cannot
transcend the dualism o f that and the what'5.

Intellect being enveloped by the categories of understanding like space,

time and causality etc. provide us only the appearance of reality and not reality
proper. By the application of the categories, thought only distorts reality and its
attempts to interpret reality is only an effort to misinterpret it. The categories are
applicable only to the world of experience which is always within space and
time- where the reality is non-spatial, non-temporal by nature. Dr. Radhakrishnan
holds : Our intellectual categories can give descriptions of the empirical universe
under the forms of space, time and causality, but the real is beyond these. While
containing space, it is not spatial, while including time, it transcends time,
while it has a causality bound system of nature within it, it is not subject to the law
of cause'6.

Immanuel Kant while making the distinction between phenomena

(appearance) and noumena (reality) shows the application of categories only to the

phenomenal world beyond which reality is infallible to it. This shows the limitation

of intellect.

Being conceptual in nature thought becomes symbolic. Concept is formed by

abstracting the universal essence of individuals and thus stands only as a symbol.
Thought thus is indirect knowledge. Being concept mediated it fails to grasp the
reality - a concrete individual aspect. Reality is an immediate individual experience.
Conceptual knowledge by intellect gives us only objective knowledge. Though
7
4
 conceptual knowledge is useful for the expression of perceptual knowledge the
conceptualization of experience cannot grasp the whole truth which being beyond
the concept is pure subjective identity. Intellect is thus limited in the apprehension
of reality. According to Dr. Radhakrishnan, What is immediately apprehended is
different from what is conceptually constructed'7.

Further, in the attempt to know a thing intellect always relates it with

something else and thus becomes relational in nature and is unable to grasp the non-
rational absolute spirit. Its attempt to know the real stands in the way for attainig
reality which is spiritual and non-rational unique identity.

Bradley also holds that logical thought is the relational way of explaining

thing; but reality which is an unrelated whole of experience cannot be conceived in

a relational form. Intellect instead of apprehending reality is merged in the

undifferentiated one Absolute along with feeling and willing.

Relational thought fails to give us the reality in its organized comprehensive

essence. It gives us the relative knowledge of reality as everything in this universe
is relatively true being the appearance of the Absolute. Hence, though intellect fails
to give us whole truth it gives us partial truth. So for Dr. Radhakrishnan : it is the
creative effort of the whole man as distinct from the intellectual effort that can
Is

apprehend the nature of reality .

In the field of epistemology intellect is found to work always on the

materials supplied by sense experience. Hence, in the pursuit of reality along with

intellect sensations should also be presupposed. Thus intellect cannot be taken as an

independent means.

In its progressive march intellect may help us to clear the distinction between
right and wrong by removing obstacles caused by error and thus makes us ensure
7
5
 about the commitment of errors and mistakes by the discursive knowledge. But it

fails to enter into the heart of the reality. So it can be taken as a means of knowledge

and never as the end in itself.

The aspiration of the human life - the realization of reality is possible when
intellectual function will be combined with the functions of other two faculties of
feeling and willing. To quote Dr. Radhakrishnan : All the aspirations of the
human mind, its intellectual demons, the emotional desires, volitional ideas are
19

there realized.

But Dr. Radhakrishnan has not totally rejected intellect; rather he has taken it
as a supplementary factor in the process of his ultimate realization of intuition.
20
He says : Intellect need not be negated but only to be supplemented. Intellectual
knowledge by the pragmatic outlook helps us to serve our practical interest to act on
our environment to do things and to predict and control them; but fails to give us an
access to reality. Thus what we establish intellectually or theoretically should be
brought to practice.

Thus intellectual progress helps us to clear the mental atmosphere by

removing the shadows caused by errors and illusions. Though it is not a way of

knowing things it is a way of arranging, correcting, regulating and systematizing

thought. It is a way to knowledge or truth but cannot achieve the wisdom where the

human soul realizes its identity with the supreme soul.

Though the insufficiency of intellectual knowledge is shown by Dr.

Radhakrishnan he never regarded intellect as antagonistic to intuitive knowledge. In
this regard Dr. Radhakrishnan has criticized Hegel for the reason that intuition is
regarded by him as something unrelated to intellect. Reflective knowledge is a
preparation for intuitive apprehension. He opines : Though intuitive truths cannot
7
6
be proved to reason they can be shown to be not contrary to reason, but consistent

with it.*'

Thus in criticising intellect Dr. Radhakrishnan never proves himself to be an

anti-intellectualist. To him, intuition which ignores intellect is useless. The two are

not only incompatible but vitally united.

Dr. Radhakrishnan has not used intuition to mean regretful acknowledgement

for the doctrine which could not be justified on intellectual grounds. It is not a shadowy

sentiment or pathological fancy fit for caprice. His intuition is not antagonistic to

intellect too. Intuition transcends thought but does not negate it.

Thus in his criticism of intellect he only shows the limitations of intellect but

never regards intellect and intuition as constituting any kind of polarity. They are

not opposed to each other. Rather he maintains a continuity between intuition and

intellect. In other words in his criticism of intellect it is the misuse of thought and

not the thought proper which is criticized.

Dr. Radhakrishnan is not a complete enthusiastic intuitionist nor an over

intellectualist. Thought may give an idea of reality but an idea of reality is not
reality itself. Manana or deliberation is an essential step for the rise of true
intuition. Dr. Radhakrishnan says that philosophy is not matter of dialectic and
intellectual jugglery, but a product of life and meditation on it. Intellectual
interpretation of experience is an indispensable stage of discipline leading to the
highest revelation. Reality transcends the power of discursive thought. But a
rigorious exercise of intellect must precede the highest experience. The role of
intellect has never been nullified by Dr. Radhkrishnan. He says : Intellect is not
merely repetitory but also constructive and creative. It can create novelties and
understand novelties, for they are not only differences but also identity in
7
7
 22
difference. So intellect plays a role even in the apprehension of the Ultimate
Reality. It gives us a symbolic knowledge of the reality. Intellectual discipline is a
precondition for the intuitive grasp of reality. Our intellectual efforts consist of
intertwining of conceptual thought and intuitive insight as Ruth Reyna observes :
In his emphasis upon intuition as the means by which the individual certifies the
Supreme as Real and One, Radhakrishnan does not intend to invalidate the intellect

but only to supplement it.23

Thus intellect as regarded by Dr. Radhakrishnan is related with intuition - a

relation of interdependence. To quote him : The results of intellect will be dull and
empty, unfinished and fragmentary without the help of intuition, while intuitional
insights will be blind and dumb, dark and strange, without intellectual confirmation.
The ideal of intellect is realized in the intuitive experience, for in the Supreme are
24
all contraries reconciled.

3.3 NATURE OF INTUITION :

Intuition reveals the inner truth and holistic knowledge about the superficial

knowledge of reality that intellect gives us. Dr. Radhakrishnan personally uses

intuition to mean integral experience. He elucidates the nature and salient features

of intuition as follows.

1. Intuition reveals the knowledge of the thing-in-itself.

2. Intuition has four-fold process.
3. Intuition is knowledge by identity.
4. Intuition carries with its own guarantee.
5. Intuitions have the character of revelation.
6. Genius and creative work depend on intuition.
7. Religious intuition is the highest type of intuition.
7
8
 8. Intuition leads to salvation and 9,

Intuitions are ineffable.

The above characteristics are discussed below at length.

1. Intuition reveals the knowledge of the thing-in-itself :

Intuition gives us direct perception of things-in-themselves. Whereas

intellect gives us awareness of the qualities of a thing, intuition gives us knowledge

of the object-in-itself with its attributes and qualities. Intuition reveals the nature of

reality, the truth of things. It gives us the experience of things as they are as unique

individuals.

2. Intuition has four-fold process :

The development of intuitive consciousness involves four-fold process - the

preparation, incubation, illumination and verification. In all creative works of art

and discovery intuition is essentially involved. Preparation for the emergence of

higher consciousness requires the discipline of mind and constant culture of will. By

the purification of will, emotion and thought we arrive at a calm and tranquil mind.

Incubation is the period of repose during which no conscious thinking is

done. At the third stage there is the leap or jump into illumination, a vision, a flash
of insight and an immediate order of thinking. It transcends reason. Intuition gives
us spontaneous knowledge. After the process of logical thought is complete there
comes the light or illumination. It is because of this leap into intuitive consciousness
that it becomes imperative to link reason with the perceived truths. The data of
knowledge in intuition is subsequently verified. Intuition is synthetic vision which
comprehends as well as transcends reason.
7
9
 3. Intuition is knowledge by identity :

Intuition is a state of consciousness in which the self gets completely

identified with the reality. It is a knowledge of being the reality and of feeling
oneness with it. In intuition the subject does not remain the knower of the reality
rather the knower and the known become identified in one. No distinction of subject
and object remains in consciousness. The object does not remain outside the self; it
becomes part of the self when the knower becomes one with the object in
consciousness. When the duality between the subject and the object culminates in
the absolute union and oneness intuition is experienced. Intuition reveals to us a
state of consciousness and not merely a definition of the object. Dr. Radhakrishnan
says that Intuitive knowledge arises from an intimate fusion of mind with reality. It
is awareness of the truth of things by identity. We become one with the truth, one
with the object of knowledge. The object is seen not as an object out side the self,
but as part of the self.

An intuition is the knowledge of object. By being the object the knower

establishes identity with the known. The mind is aware not only of the object but of

his own of mind. What intuition reveals is not so much a doctrine as a

consciousness; it is a state of mind and not a definition of the object.

4. Intuition carries with its own guarantee ;

Intuitive knowledge is spontaneous or immediate. It comes to us as a vision.

The laboured process of syllogistic reasoning is not there in insight. Intuition
renders service as the data of reasoning. It carries its own guarantee of authenticity
within itself. The basis of reason is intuition. Just as we cannot distrust mathematics
simply because its premises are not demonstrated we cannot disbelieve intuition
because of the absence of the chain of syllogistic reasoning in it. Dr. Radhakrishnan
8
0
 holds that the experience is felt as the nature of a discovery or a revelation, not a
mere conjecture or a creation. The knowledge so revealed has an immediate and
intuitive certainty transcending any which mere reason can reach.

Intuition is self-luminous and self-evident. As it is a state beyond reason,

reason cannot prove its validity though it may show the vestiges and support for the
former. Though the supreme ecstasy is a rare occurrence its lower forms are
experienced by artists and poets in devotion. In great works of art, inspiration and
dedicated love, the flashes of intuition come to the mind. It is very difficult to give a
rational proof for such an experience. Dr. Radhakrishnan says: It is self established
(Svatahsiddha), self evidencing (Svasamvedya), self luminous (Svayamprakasly). It
does not argue or explain but it knows and is. It is beyond the bounds of proof and
touches completeness. It comes with a constraint that brooks no denial. It is pure
comprehension, entire significance, complete validity. 25 The seer has intuitive
certainty of the experience which transcends reason. The seers, Buddha, Christ,
Dante, Theresa and others speak of divine presence of experience. When a man
returns to his normal consciousness from his mystic experience he has abiding
certitude and conviction. As our experiences have intrinsic validity there can be no
question of truth and falsehood. Such experiences are not required to cohere or
correspond with anything external in world.

5. Intuitions have the character of revelation :

Intuition has always the character of revelation. We neither have the intuitive
experience at our command nor can retain its experience at our will. Its descent is
sometimes unexpected. Because such experiences are received at rare intervals in an
unprecedented manner; they have the character of revelation. Those who receive this
experience are the chosen beings of God. Only those persons who are chosen by
God realize the triumphant vision.
8
1
 6. Genius and creative work depend on Intuition :

All dynamic acts of thinking result in intuition. Genius is realized by

constant intellectual effort which comes as a gift of God to the individual. The
exercise of reason in the realms of science, poetry, mathematics and arts result in the
work of a genius person. Dr. Radhakrishnan observes: Genius in one sense of the
term is a gift of the gods, in another it is an infinite capacity for learning in patience
and humility. 26

7. Religious intuition is the highest type of intuition :

There are many types of intuition viz ethical, aesthetic, logical, scientific and
religious. Religious intuition is the highest of all types. Dr. Radhakrishnan says that
the religious intuition is an all-comprehending one, covering the whole of life. While
the spirit in man fulfils itself in many ways, it is most completely fulfilled in the
religious life. Religious intuition reveals the vision of God. We experience infinite
consciousness, power and blessedness. The spirit in man fulfils itself in the
communion with God. The divine consciousness, omnipotence, joy and blessedness
exalt an individuals entire being. According to Dr. Radhakrishnan while every
genius is in his own way a pioneer of the evolution of spirit, in the religious genius,
we have a simultaneous exaltation of the different powers of the inward life. He
combines most or all of the superiorities and intensities, imaginative vision,
intellectual strength and practical power,

8. Intuition leads to salvation :

The individual self gets identified with God in religious experiences and
realizes the supreme state of life. When man realizes union with God, a spiritual
conversion or rebirth takes place in him. The experience of omniscience,
omnipotence and joy totally transforms man in his fullness. He becomes a spiritual
8
2
 man with all his powers exalted to the highest degree. God is revealed to him more
than others. Intuitive consciousness is identical with Brahman. To know that
Supreme Brahman is to become that Brahman. The seers reborn into spirituality at
the moment get intuitions of the Divine. Dr. Radhakrishnan maintains that these
souls are men transfigured and rendered new whose every power is raised to its
highest extent. In them the universality finds its expression and God manifests
Himself more than in others.

9. Intuitions are ineffable :

The intuitive experience is ineffable. One cannot define such an experience

in sensible terms. Concepts can neither explain nor describe it. The vision of God is

too great for words to describe. The experience is non-sensuous and cannot be

described in terms of sensation or reason.

Intuitions are variously interpreted in terms of tradition, culture, training,

environment and heredity. We have to discover the given and the interpreted

elements in the utterances of seers. Intuitions are also mediated by the psychological

structure of an individual. The seers of different religions perceive different gods,

deities or symbols. Intuitions are experienced in the background of religious

knowledge and belief. St. Theresa recognizes the revelation of trinity which could

not have been possible if she had not read about trinity before. St. Paul hears the

voice of Jesus on the Damascus road evidently because he learnt about Jesus prior to

his vision. When our soul is in contact with the mighty spiritual power by

consciousness and bliss we experience the truth immediately. The spiritual

experience is always mixed up with the individuals interpretation.

It is however observed that the East stresses on the unfolding powers of

intuition and the West emphasises on the critical aptitude of intelligence. Where
8
3
 as the Eastern systems are mainly idealistic, spiritualistic, axiological and intuitive,
the Western outlook is rational, intellectual, realistic, scientific and existential. Dr.
Radhakrishnan is a synthetic philosopher and conceives that there are different
grades of consciousness and ways of knowing. Knowledge is scientific,
mathematical, realistic and rational and also extends to intuitions axioms and
values.27

Dr. Radhakrishnan uses intuition in the generic sense as a connecting link

between reason, intuition in the special sense. Intuition implies a unity between the

knower and the known.On intuition knowledge Dr.Radhakrishnan tells that it is

knowledge by coincidence or Identity. This involves two things- (1) The reality with

which unity is attained and (2) The degree of unity. Knowledge in any form is due to

intuition. It is seemed that all intuition is unity. J.G.Arapura holds : Sense perception,

reason and mystical experience represent the various degrees of unity.28

It is commonly held that it is far more natural for intuition to go forward in

its own direction and meet mystical experience than to move in the opposite
direction and to meet reason or intellect. The erroneous notion which is ordinarily
entertained that intuition is supernatural. The fact is that by definition intuition is
neither supernatural nor opposed to reason. Arapura says : There are many who
argue that they have no experience of intuitive knowledge. This is due to a
misapprehension. Intuitive knowledge is not limited to the highest knowledge of
God.29

Again the generic concept of intuition as distinct from the specialized

concept can be applied as the binding factor in all the three. For, only on account of
it the three forms of knowledge - reason, intuition and mystical experience can be
directed towards one another.

8
4
 To quote Arapura: M Stands for mystical intuition, I for specialized
intuition, that is, intuition of feeling and R for rational intuition. The extended line
MIR is to be regarded as an expansion, or analytical representation of I, which is
generic intuition being potentially the same as integral experience. Integral
experience in the specialized sense is the same as mystical experience (M). This is
the outline of the methodological procedure that can be detected as implicitly
operative in Radhakrishnans thought. 30

The intuition as revealing the whole spirit is regarded by Dr. Radhakrishnan

as the integrated Whole into which all the aspects of mind properly cultivated will

develop and will also be merged. So intuition is found to be dominant and persistent

theme of Dr.Radhakrishnans philosophy.

Intuition according to Dr. Radhakrishnan is direct and immediate knowledge

which is appropriately named by him as Aparoksa Jnana (Direct knowledge). It is

Aparoksa in the sense of non-meditative knowledge where the reality is known by

it without the help of sensations. Arapura says : It arises from intimate fusion of

mind with reality. 31 It is called Saksatkara or direct meeting with the reality. In

this sense it is different from pratyaksa which is direct knowledge.lt comes through

sensations and perception.lt is direct in sensuous sense.

As a means of knowing the reality, intuition is distinguished from

imagination. Reality is an ultimate spiritual principle of life. This can be done only

in intuitive realization. To quote Arapura : Intuition is as strong as life from whose

soul it springs. 32 Intuition pierces through the veil of ignorance and the individual

realizes his true identity. By intuition one can realize the true nature of self. This

knowing is self-awareness or self-consciousness. It is through intuition that one

realizes ones identity with the Supreme Self.

8
5
 Thus intuition is regarded by Dr. Radhakrishnan as identity of subject with

the object where the subject becomes one with the object and differs from empirical

knowledge where there is always a duality between the subject and the object.

According to Dr. Radhakrishnan intuition' into which all the aspects of mind are

cultivated is a revelation of the whole spirit. He says : In the experience itself the

self is wholly integrated and is, therefore, both the knower and the known. 33

Neither sense perception nor intellect is exempted from the pervasive power

of intuition. They are linked up with each other and ultimately merged in the

integrated self. Dr. Radhakrishnan has used intuition in different senses the

culmination of all of which are found in integral experience.

Within the rational intuition and intuition of feeling there is an intrinsic

movement which progresses to mystical intuition by which one can experience the

supra-concious reality which is the true destiny of human life. It is presupposed by

all grades of intuition.

Mystical intuition is a faculty of divine insight present in human

consciousness by which one can transcend the intellectual distinctions in the

intuitive reality and by it, according to Chandogya Upanisad, the unperceived

becomes perceived and the unknown becomes known. 34

In Dr. Radhakrishnans concept of intuition the roles played by reason,

feeling and mystical experiences are found to represent the various degrees of unity.

The unities established by the rational intuition and intuition of feeling are taken as

partial in relation to mystical intuition in which unity is found in a complete form.

Thus the relation between empirical and mystical intuition is found by him as the

relation between the parts and the whole.

8
6
 Unity found in the order of feeling is a psychological unity while logical

unity entails in the second form of rational intuition and the ultimate spiritual unity

is found in the final and the third form of mystical type.

All these different forms of intuition culminate ultimately in the integral

experience which is the unity of continuity and discontinuity - a synthesis of the

two. Dr. Radhakrishnan holds : The realization of this undivided unitary life from

which the intellect and emotion, imagination and interest arise is the essence of the

spiritual life. 35

Thus intuition is not regarded by him as anything opposed to any of the

forms of cognition or intellect or sense perception. On the other hand it is taken by

him as the basis of all these. Dr. Radhakrishnan in this respect never regarded

intuition as antagonistic to the intellect.

Knowledge based on intuition is not necessarily opposed to reason and

understanding. Every great intellectual work may be philosophical, scientific or

whatever it be is based on intuition.

An intellect cannot transcend the dichotomy of subject and object to have an

integral view of reality. Intellect should be transcended by means of intuition in

which there arises an intimate relation of mind with reality.

Again, the immediacy of intuitive knowledge can be mediated through

intellectual definition and analysis. Intellect is used to test the validity of intuition

and to communicate them to others. While intuitive experience carries within the

highest degree of certitude, it has only a lower degree of conceptual clearness. 36

The relation between intuition and intellect can be clearly understood from a
significant passage of Dr. Radhakrishnan : Both intellect and intuition belong to
8
7
 the self, while the former involves a specialized part, the latter employs the whole
3
7

self. The two are synthesized in the self, and their activities are interdependent.

Complete realization o f life and the realization o f the whole spirit is found in the

intuitive experience. The true goal of intuitive experience is found in mystical intuition and

integral experience centres round it. Mystical intuition is presupposed by all other forms o f

intuition.

Mystical intuition is an autonomous rise o f mind to the level o f supra conscious

stage beyond the limit o f finite human consciousness. The occurrence o f mystical intuition

in supra conscious level shows the uniqueness and thus distinguishes itself from other forms

o f intuition which occur in ordinary level of consciousness. The moments o f mystic vision

are transitory that cannot be grasped. It is something like Bradleys immediate experience

which vanishes the moment we try to know it. It is a state o f experience which is beyond

description but can only be felt. Thus it should not be confused with the other functions o f

the mind. By its unique autonomous nature it functions independently, unifying all values

and organizing all experiences o f life.

Thus Dr. Radhakrishnans mystical intuition must be distinguished from the

dogmatic use o f mystical experience. Dr. Radhakrishnans mysticism is not a mysticism

based on miraculous ideas, opposed to scientific and rationalistic belief. The true mystical

intuition according to him is not a flight to unreason or a

glorification o f ignorance and obscurity. It assumes the indivisible oneness of

38

human life, whose apprehension cannot be contrary to reason. Thus the fullness o f

mystical intuition, reason and feeling is found in Integral Experience. The elements o f

reason, feeling and intuition are not taken by Dr. Radhakrishnan as steps leading to absolute

knowledge but these are taken by him as the very constitutive elements which are integrated

in the whole o f indivisible spiritual reality.

8
8
 Mystical intuition is regarded as the heart of Integral Experience where a

synthesis of it is found with all other faculties of mind. It is the ultimate experience

which maintains an integral unity of the whole by determining the identity of the

parts. In this stage of experience the self is absorbed in the Ultimate Reality and

realizes its identity with the Ultimate Reality and here the significance of Tat-

Tvam-asi (That-thou-art) is found.

We are thus having a unity of the Infinite and the Finite which is

reconciled in the spiritual reality and is the highest Ultimate Reality in Dr.

Radhakrishnans thought.

But in a pure mystical experience of intuitive form this reconciliation is not

found; rather to maintain its uniqueness it becomes discontinuous with other

faculties of mind. Thus mystical intuition though centres round the Integral

Experience supersedes all other forms of intuition. But this abstract notion of

mystical intuition according to Dr. Radhakrishnan is only theoretical. For, in

Dr.Radhakrishnans hand mystical intuition along with other forms are culminated in

the comprehensive Whole of Integral Experience and thus differs from religious

mysticism which is a mere discontinuity with the rest of life.

Thus by reconciling the duality between Finite-Infinite and Immanence-

Transcendence Dr. Radhakrishnan has tried to attain a stage of complete peace or

Shanti, a state of positive bliss or Ananda, a state of enlightment i.e. divine

knowledge or Joy. It is a positive feeling of calm and confidence, Joy and strength
39
in the midst of outward pain and defeat, loss and frustration.

Integral experience represents the ideal of Jivan Mukti or deliverance during

this life by the realization of spirit in its true identity with the spiritual self. It is

8
9
 a state where the minds stress and strains of the embodied state are ceased for ever.

A perfect inner peace in coherence with the outward world is brought here. By the

realization of ones identity with the spiritual self, one realizes its true identification

with the universal self where the presence of same spirit is felt in all minds. Thus

the ancient concept o fJivan Mukti is interpreted by Dr. Radhakrishnan in his own

way as integral experience.

It is a state that reason cannot explain rather it requires no explanation, a

state of feeling and identification with eternal reality. For Dr. Radhakrishnan it is

self-established (Svatassiddha), self-evidencing (Svasamvedya), self-luminous

(Svayam-prakasa). It is a state where the tension of normal life disappears giving

rise to inward peace, power and joy.

Thus in Dr. Radhakrishnans theory of intuition the unitary self of Samkara is

transfonned into the integral self. Intuition dealing with the appearances gives us

most certain and immediate knowledge. Wisdom or perfect knowledge of reality is

developed in intuition. In the integral level of intuition the subject-object duality is

lost and all comprehensive self-awareness arises by the attainment of wisdom where

there arises integral and undivided consciousness. Intuition is the culmination of

intellectual endeavour. The idea of intellect is however realized in the intuitive

experience.

The realization of the integrated unitary self is the essence of spiritual life which
is the main theme of Dr.Radhakrishnans philosophy. It is in integral knowing
40
that the spirit in man reaches its highest development.

In the Hindu system of Yoga Philosophy the idea of this self-integration is

found where mind controls itself by the processes of eight-fold methods, viz, Yama
(abstention), Niyama (observance), Asana (posture), Pranayama (regulation of
9
0
 breath), Pratyahara (withrawal o f senses), Dharana (attention), Dhyana (meditation) and

Samadhi (concentration). Absolute meditation or Samadhi leads to liberation or Moksa.

Though intuition is potentially found present in man, yet without proper cultivation

the realization o f it is not possible. Dr. Radhakrishnan in this way encourages the path o f

practice in religious field; for religion shows us the spiritual path. Though the influence of

religious outlook is found present in all only a few can attain it. It is divine insight present

in all persons. But only a few specially gifted ones could realize it. Since intuitive

experience are not always given but

4i
only at rare intervals, they possess the charater o f revelation.

Dr. Radhakrishnans intuition is not an intellectual description being beyond the

reach o f subject - object duality. It is inexpressible, non conceptual eternal experience

which is utterly silent. Through silence we confess without confession that the glory o f

spiritual life is inexplicable and beyond the reach o f speech and

42
mind.

Dr.Radhakrishnans account of intuition, we can say, is not fragmented by

speculative theorisation on its part. As soon as, we quieten our mind and try to meditate on

our own being we could discover the divine centre o f our consciousness. This divine

consciousness is not other than ones realization o f who am T and T am essentially That.

It is a direct experience without any mediator. Intellect and reason have nothing to do

anything with this experience. This is practicable realization o f non-dualism o f subject

and object or I and That. Here lies the importance of Dr. Radhakrishnans intuitive

experience.

9
1
 3.4 RELATION BETWEEN INTELLECT AND INTUITION :

Relation of Intellect with Intuition is discussed below at length.

(a) The East lays emphasis on the development of the powers of intuition and

the West on the critical faculty of intelligence.

(b) Philosophy can be seen in common with sciences, but it diffuses science in
certain ways. Both science and philosophy have common interest in the
intellectual pursuits. Yet philosophy is much towards intuition. If all
knowledge were of the scientific type the contemporary challenge to religion
would have been final. The validity of intellectual knowledge cannot be
questioned. But question can be raised about reality of intuitive knowledge
and the condition of its validity. The western mind lays great stress on
science, logic and humanism. Still there are something more interior to
intellect beyond its superficial discernible aspects or beyond logical argument
and proof and that is what philosophy is after.

Knowledge system bifurcates into two - intellectual and intuitive. According

to Dr. Radhakrishnan intuitive knowledge reveals the real and not merely the outer
appearances of things. In Dr. Radhakrishnans vision intellectual knowledge is a
scattered, broken movement of the one undivided infinite life which is all possessing
and ever satisfied. Intuitive knowledge is unimprisoned by division of space,
succession of time or sequence of cause and effect. Our intellectual picture indeed is
a shadow cast by the integral knowledge, which possesses the object truly and
securely.

(c) Indian Philosophy is intuitive in character. Behind the intellect there is a

superior power of consciousness called intuition which discerns the truth,
the thing-in-itself and the real in its native individuality. We get in it the
9
2
 vision of truth and direct immediate perception. After we have acquired the
discipline of intellect, intuition begins to unfold in us. By such an emergence
of intuitive consciousness the intellect is transcended and comprehended in
the higher consciousness. The nature of the reality is fully manifested in
intuition and one becomes free from speculative intellect as well as past
impressions.

(d) In intellectual knowledge there always remains the distinction between the

subject and the object. The contact is always mediated by sense perception.

The consciousness of a thing and its being remained distinct. For the intellect

to know a thing is to know its relations. A thing is known in definite relation

to other object through reason only. It postulates the existence of a reality -

the validity of which is derived through connections. Intellectual knowledge

is verified and developed through progressive enquiiy. If we want to know

the reality we must transcend discursive thinking. Intuition is direct and

immediate perception. Dr. Radhakrishnan thinks that direct perception or

simple and steady looking upon an object is intuition. It is not a mystic

process, but the most direct and penetrating examination possible to the

human mind.

(e) Intellect does not impart knowledge of reality. It is valid only so long the

intuition does not manifest in us. Dr. Radhakrishnan thinks that logical

knowledge is non-knowledge, avidya, valid only till intuition arises. Intuition is

experienced when we break down the shell of our private, egoistic existence and

get back to the primeval spirit in us from which our intellect and our

sense are derived. The more deeply we advance and penetrate, the more the
intellect gives way to the universal and infinite consciousness viz. intuition.
We get back to the source of intellect, the supreme consciousness. The
9
3
 intuitive consciousness is the totality of vision. It is the wisdom gained by
the whole spirit which is above mere fragment thereof, be it feeling or
intellect. The whole life of mind is more concrete than that of any specialized
mode of it.

(f) The intellect is one and continuous with intuition. The former advances and
ultimately consummates itself in the latter. Intuition is not irrational but supra
rational. When we become more and more rational we advance towards
intuition. Intuitive knowledge is not non-rational; it is only non-conceptual. It
is rational intuition in which both immediacy and mediacy are
comprehended.

Dr. Radhakrishnan further points out the relation between the two to the
following extent.

1. Intuition is related to intellect as a whole. It comprehends sense and

intellectual knowledge.

2. Intuition depends on the intellect and also transcends it.

3. Intuition is the final and supreme knowledge, whereas the intellect grows

and develops from error to truth.

4. Both intuition and intellect belong to the self.

5. Intuitive religion differs from intellectual religion.

The above points of relation can be discussed as follows.

I. Intuition is related to intellect as a whole. It comprehends sense and

intellectual knowledge:

Intuition is all comprehending, synthetic and integral knowledge. It is the

source of the categories of thought. Logical knowledge is a part of the total

9
4
 experience. The different grades of consciousness consummate in intuition. There is
the spiritual unity in intuitive experience. The knowledge gained by insight has the
unity of sense and reason.

2. Intuition depends on the intellect and also trancends it:

The above point clarifies that intuition is wholly dependent on thought. It is

immanent in the very nature of thinking. It dynamically continues after thought.
Intuition comes to us after a long process of analytical reasoning. It is therefore,
higher and dependent on intellect. Dr Radhakrishnan says that intuition is not
independent but emphatically dependent on thought and is immanent in the very
nature of our thinking. It is dynamically continuous with thought and pierces thought
conceptual context of knowledge to the living reality under it. It is the result of a
long and arduous process of study and analysis and is therefore higher than the
discursive process from which it issues and on which it supervenes.

Intuition is not merely complementary to reason, it is transcendent to it. It is

the source of reason. It is its perfection too. It is reason and vision in one exalted

experience.

But reality does not confonn to the categories of intellect. It is intuition alone
which grasps the reality, the inner being behind its qualities, relations and functions.
Reality is life, movement, duration and concrete continuity. Intellect fails to
apprehend the mobile reality. The concepts of intellect are static, immobile and
dead. Therefore the categories of thought cannot be applied to reality. Truth lies
beyond the grasp of intellect. For knowing the reality a higher dynamic and mobile
principle is necessary. If intellect were the highest consciousness then truth would
remain unknown even to the omniscient God. Dr Radhakrishnan observes; If all
knowledge were of this conceptual kind, truth lies not only beyond the grasp of the
43
human mind, but beyond the grasp of omniscience itself.
9
5
 3. Intuition is the final and supreme knowledge, whereas the Intellect grows

and develops from error to truth :

Intuitive knowledge is the highest knowledge. It reveals the reality as a whole.

Therefore intuitive knowledge is incapable o f growth. The intellectual knowledge grows

and develops till it finally culminates in the self-existent knowledge. The conceptual

knowledge develops with thought and accumulation o f knowledge. Dr. Radhakrishnan

holds : Direct knowledge is incapable o f growth, for it is

individual and therefore incommunicable. Intuition is the ultimate vision o f our

44
profoundest being.

Intuition is both mediate and immediate consciousness o f things. It is the mediated

awareness and immediate experience o f things. It gives us a synoptic view o f the reality as

a whole; it is not mere awareness o f immediate experience as dissociated from the

discursive logical knowledge. It is an experience in which the knowledge received gets

transfigured in a synthetic knowledge. Intuition is the synthesis o f sense, reason and

insight.

4. Both intuition and intellect belong to the self :

Both intuition and intellect belong to the self. When the whole self reacts

to reality intuition is experienced; but intellect is a faculty o f self which comes

in contact with the reality only partially. When the entire self comes in contact with

the object there is a profound, deep, inner and full knowledge o f the object.

Dr. Radhakrishnan observes : Both intellect and intuition belong to the self. While

the fonner involves a specialized part, the latter employs the whole self. The two
45
are synthesized in the self and their activities are interdependent. Again intuition is not
mere reason, it is emotion, feeling, imagination, will and contemplation. Perception,
emotion and will fuse together in one unitary consciousness. To quote
9
6
 Dr. Radhakrishnan : In it we think more profoundly, feel more deeply, and see
more truly. We see, feel and become in obedience to our whole nature, and not
simply measure things by the fragmentary standards of intellect, we think with a

certain totality or wholeness.46

5. Intuitive religion differs from intellectual religion :

Religion based on intellectual knowledge is closed, narrow and dogmatic. A

rational individual desires standardization in worship, dogmas and prayers. They

erect walls of their temples, churches, mosques and traditions. When the barriers of

walls are broken down they think that their religion is being demolished. The

intellectual man regards forms as final. The followers of such a religion believe in

the congregational worship and follow definite systems of dogmas or ritual.

But the seers do not follow the different systems of dogma. They experience

the godhead in their lonely pilgrimage. They want a living contact with God. The

true religion is not one based on logical argument and proof. It is a system of insight

or religious experience. All religions are based on the revelations of the supreme

mystic experience.

Dr. Radhakrishnan in his An Idealist View of Life attempts to explain the

relation between intellect and intuition from certain angles. He refuses to associate
the insistence on intuition with anti-intellectualism. According to him intuition is not
opposed to intellect. Dr. Radhakrishnan explaining the relationship between the two
says that intuition which ignores intellect is useless. Intellect and intuition are
compatible with each other. He even goes a step further and claims that intuition is
not independent but emphatically dependent on our thought or reason. It is the
response of the whole men to reality. Intuition is immanent in the very nature of our
thinking.
9
7
 Thus we see that Dr.Radhakrishnan has rejected the view that intellect is

opposed to intuition. Let us now try to have a more detailed understanding of Dr.

Radhakrishnans view regarding the relation between intellect and intuition.

According to him there are three ways of knowing. These are as follows.

(a) The first is sense experience. Sense experience gives us the knowledge of the

sensible qualities of the external world.

(b) The second is intellectual apprehension or discursive reasoning or logical

reasoning. It is an indirect way of knowing. In this way of knowing,

knowledge is obtained through concepts of symbols. In the intellectual way

of knowing the processes of analysis and synthesis are employed. The data

supplied to us are analysed. The result of the analysis provides a more

systematic knowledge of the object perceived. This logical or conceptual

knowledge is indirect and symbolic in its character. It helps us to handle and

control the object and its working. According to Dr. Radhakrishnan both

sense knowledge and intellectual knowledge are the means by which we

require a control over our environment for practical purpose.

(c) The third way of knowing is intuition. In intuition the difference between the

knower and the known is completely absent. Perhaps a clearest example of

intuitive knowledge is the knowledge of the self. Here division between the

knower and the known is completely lost. Here to the known, the reality is

the reality. In intuition thus the knower is absent.

Through a detailed discussion containing the summaries of the views of

various philosophers Dr. Radhakrishnan wants to establish the point that intuition is
not opposed to intellect. Intuition is direct and immediate. We do not find here any
distinction between the knower and the known. But in intellect this distinction is
9
8
 always present. In one sense intuition does not cancel but goes beyond it. While
discussing the relationship between intellect and intuition Dr. Radhakrishnan points
out that the root principles of our life and thought are not derived from intellect or
sense perception. They are ultimately derived from intuition. He says that from the
point of view of intellectual cognition it is a mere hypothesis that the realms of
nature and spirit, existence and value are not apposed to each other. But in contrast,
from the point of view of intuitive awareness it is a fact that they are not opposed to
each other. Dr. Radhakrishnan appears to have supported the self-evidence theory of
truth. He maintains that if all knowledge is dependent for its validity on external
criteria then no knowledge is valid at all. If one knowledge is dependent on another
knowledge for its validity then the second knowledge will be dependent on a third
knowledge and so on. As a result there will an infinite regress. If we are to avoid this
infinite regress then we are to assume that some knowledge is intrinsically valid.
Intrinsically valid knowledge is cognised through intuition. So intuition is a
legitimate way of knowing. Drawing the distinction between intellect and intuition
Dr. Radhakrishnan says that intellectual knowledge is indirect. It is capable of
growth. But intuitive knowledge is direct. It is not capable of growth. In intellect we
come across the partial truths of the divided mind. But in intuition we do not come
across such truth.

Dr. Radhakrishnan says that if all our knowledge were of an intuitive

character then there would be no need for logical test. In intuitive knowledge the

unity between the knower and the known would be complete. But in case of

intellectual knowledge this completeness is differently observed. In intellectual

knowledge there is the distinction between the knower and the known.

Both intuition and intellect have their distinct functions. Dr. Radhakrishnan
therefore rejects the view that intuition is opposed to the intellect. Intellect and
9
9
 intuition have their distinct purposes. The intellect has a practical role. It enables us to

know the conditions o f the world in which we live and to control them for our ends. But

intuition is beyond such utilitarian considerations. Intuition involves integral experience.

The Indian philosophers call it perfect knowledge (Samyak Jnana). According to Dr.

Radhakrishnan intelletual cognition prepares us for intuitive cognition. Therefore the

intellect cannot be regarded as opposed to intuition. The latter does not cancel the former.

On the other hand if an intuition cancels intellect then that intuition is completely useless.

3.5 CONCLUDING OBSEVATIONS :

According to some philosophers there can be distinction between intuition and

intellect. Intuitive knowledge is not non-rational; It is only non-conceptual. Need o f

intuition in philosophy therefore cannot be ruled out; for all human thoughts are not derived

from perceptional experience or logical knowledge. Something is born o f the deepest

experiences o f the soul which Dr. Radhakrishnan emphasizes most.

Noted thinker Theophrastus holds that if all knowledge depends for its validity on

external criteria then no knowledge is valid. One thing indeed depends on another. It is

difficult to believe that knowledge is not true. Self knowledge is self valid. Intuitive

knowledge is a liberated knowledge. Dr. Radhakrishnan is closer to ancient Hindu thought

that believes in mans spiritualization or attainment of liberation. Nature works for the

liberation o f human spirit.

Philosophy provides machinery o f logical proof which ultimately ends in

conceptual. At the same time philosophy does not overlook the other side i.e. the intuitive

side. As a matter o f fact we have throughout out life the intuitive and intellectual sides at

works. Dr. Radhakrishnan illustrates that even in pure mathematics

10
0
where the conclusion is not evident until the data are brought together and set forth

in logical sequence; there is an element of intuition.

Intuition and intellect are not exclusive. Intellectual process are more useful
in the observation and description of things and relationships between them. Intution
gives us an idea of the whole where as intellect provides analysis of the parts. Yet
there is an apparent union between them. Intuition gives the objects in itself while
intellect details its relationship. Intuition asserts uniqueness of the objects but
intellect tells of the qualities of the objects.

Intuition is neither abstract nor formless. It is wisdom - the nous of which

Aristotle speaks. It is the all pervading intelligence of Dante. Dr. Radhakrishnan

highlights its application in different fields of human activities - science, arts,

literature and religion. Science has objective approach and it ignores subjective

aspects.

Dr. Radhakrishnan forms a different opinion about history not as visualized

by other people. History is neither a chapter on accident nor a determined drift. It is

a pattern of absolute significance. Social and intellectual life are determined by the

mode of production and its immediate consequence. Dr. Radhakrishnan asserts that

history does not take into consideration only economic factors and its paraphernalia

of production and consumption. History is a plan of spiritual development, a gradual

development and spiritualization of man.

Dr. Radhakrishnan holds that we have a divine community where individual

attains godhood. The validity of divine existence is not accidental, but divinely well-

planned. If God is the whole reality which intuitive knowledge affirms, it is to be

shown that the general character of the universe is quite consistent with this intuited

certainty of God. It is the only way by which religious truth can be

10
1
 recommended to the large majority of people. This is the way one can defend

himself from uncriticised intuition and dogmatism.

Dr. Radhakrishnan opines imagination differently. He says imagination

which is just a guess work may not help us to light upon the truth except by
accident. Similarly intuition which is an activity of the whole cannot be gained by
mere rational effort. The intuitive elements are present even in scientific cognition.
In Dr. Radhakrishnans observation there is a complete fusion of the subject and the
object. In order to explain this fusion he states an excellent illustration - when the
camera takes the place of human observation it is the observer who has to fix it in
the position. If at any stage the observer is careless or prejudiced the whole process
becomes a failure. Science being a valid form of knowledge is actually the product
of intuitive knowledge.

In all intuitive knowledge man ceases to be an impartial spectator. His whole

being is at work. The application of intuition in science is witnessed not in
methodology which is governed by objective approach; but in the genius of man
who is engaged in scientific enquiry.

Intuitions are convictions arising out of a completeness of life in a

spontaneous way which is more akin to sense than to imaginations or intellect.
Celebrated Greek thinker Archimedes solved his problem in his bath and not in his
study. He said that happy ideas come unexpectedly without effort like an inspiration.
For him the happy ideas never come when his mind is fatigued or when he is at the
working table.

According to Dr. Radhakrishnan, religious scriptures prescribe us purity and

peace of the mind so that we can hear the silence from which all words are bom.
Thereby they are only insisting on preparation for reaching the highest knowledge
that opens midway between molecule and milky way. Most human experience of
10
2
 nature come through a narrow window between molecule and milky way. This is

the nature of intuition.

Dr. Radhakrishnan conceives intuition more or less in Bergsons way. Intuition

unites instinctive knowledge. Instinctive knowledge outpours spontaneously from the

natural impulses, aptitude or faculty. Intuitive knowledge deals with objects not with

symbols. Intuitions perform the functions of the sense, instinct and intellect; not only

these but also something more. It is a form of uninferred or immediate knowledge that

enables to know reality. Value judgment is possible only through intuition. Intuition

helps to distinguish what is good, what is desirable and important.

Intuitive knowledge, it is said, is not convinced by reason, it is always

immediate knowledge. Brahma experience is given in intuition which is not

irrational or anti-rational; but supra-rational.47 God is an intuitive fact, not an

observed fact. If God is conceived as finite, eternal and necessary it is possible to
look upon the world itself as finite, eternal and necessary. God is simple and His
ways are simple too. So he can be understood in a simple intuitive way. God of
religion is a Supreme Being and in that sense He can be fortuitous. Gods existence
cannot be deduced from the very conception of God Himself.

Bergson and Bradley argue that whatever be the object-physical or non

physical intellect goes about it but does not take us to the heart of the object. For
Bradley all intellectual exercises are falsification of the real. Intellect being
enveloped by categories of understanding like space, time and causality provides
only appearances of reality but not reality in true sense. Time is dependent on the
state of mind as it changes with the change of mind. The idea of time vanishes
suddenly along with its related concepts - space and causation.

Intuition is neither an abstract thought and analysis nor formless darkness; it

is wisdom, the diffussive mental capacity of Dante. Intuition transcends thought
10
3
but does not negate it. Intuitive knowledge, however, is not non-rational; it is only

non-conceptual.

JnSna in Hinduism is the way of knowledge. Jnana yoga therefore is one of

the four types of yoga of stretching knowledge as the path to liberation. Intuition is a

form of immediate knowledge. Intuitive knowledge can be mediated through

intellectual analysis. This analysis is the function of philosophy that consists of

classification of demonstrable knowledge.

To sum up, intellect and intuition are two ways of apprehending reality.

Intellect is the faculty of knowing as compared to will or feeling whereas intuition is

a form of uninferred knowledge. Both the views can be held separately yet they

unfailingly proceed together.

10
4
 NOTES AND REFERENCES

1.David Crystal (ed.) - Intuitionism in The new Penguine Encyclopeadia 2003 P. 776
2. S.P. Dubey-The Metaphysics of Spirit (ed) P.123.
3. Wildom Carr - The Philosophy of Croce (1917) P.59.
4. S.Radhakrishnan - An Idealist View of Life. (Collected and translated into English from the

Assamese rendering named as Ji vanar Adarshabad. Original - An Idealist View ofLife) P. 115.

5. Edward D.D, D Miall - The Philosophy of Religion. P. 188.

6. S. Radhakrishnan - An Idealist View of Life P.123.

7. Ibid P.105 (1932) (Reproduction [ed]1979).

8. Ibid. P.147.

9. Ibid. P.153.
10. Ibid. P.106.

11. D.M Datta- Chief Currents of Contemporary Philosophy, P. 109.

12. Sariraka-Bhasya, I I : No. I & II.

13.S. Radhakrishnan- An Idealist View of Life. P. 175.
14. Radhakrishnan-Indian Philosophy. Vol. I P.l 76. (8th Impression. 1966).

15. F.H Bradley-Appearance and Reality P.148.

16. Radhakrishnan-Indian Philosophy, Vol. I : P. 174. (8th Impression. 1966).
17. S.Radhakrishnan - An Idealist View of Life. P.l 10. (Reproduction [ed.] 1979).

18. Ibid. P.107.

19. Radhakrishnan - Indian Philosophy. Vol. I . P. 177. (8th Impression. 1966).

20. Ibid. P.179.

21. S. Radhakrishnan - An Idealist View of Life. P. 121.
22. S. Radhakrishnan - The Reign of Religion in Contemporary Philosophy. P. 198.

23. Ruth Reyna - The Concept of Maya from the Vedas to the 20"' century. P.61.
24. Radhakrishnan -Indian Philosophy. Vol. - 1P. 179. (8th Impression. 1966)

25. S. Radhakrishnan- An Idealist View of Life. P.93.

26. Ibid. P.148.

10
5
27. Ibid P. 93.
28. J.G. Arapura -Radhakrishnan and Integral Experience. P. 67.
29. Ibid. P.793.

30. Ibid. Pp.65-66.

31. Ibid. P.109.
32. Ibid. P.121.
33. S. Radhakrishnan - An Idealist View of Life. P. 76.

34. Chandogya Upanisad. Vol. - VI, SI. 13.

35. S. Radhakrishnan - An Idealist View ofLife. P.166 (1932).

36. Radhakrishnan - Indian Philosophy, Vol. - II P. 514. (8th Impression -1966).

37. S. Radhakrishnan - An Idealist View ofLife. P. 120.

38. S. Radhakrishnan - Eastern Religions and western thought. P.63.

39. S. Radhakrishnan- An Idealist View ofLife. P. 173.

40. Ibid. P. 136 (1932) (Reproduction [ed.] 1979).

41. Ibid. P.73.

42. Ibid. P. 79 (1932) (Reproduction [ed.] 1979).

43. Ibid. P. 137,

44. Ibid. P.144.

45. Ibid. P.153.

46. Ibid. Pp.152-153.

47. T.M.P. Mahadevan and G.V. Saroja - Contemporary Indian Philosophy. P.54.

10
6