________________
BEING AND DIFFERANCE RADHAKRISHNAN AND DERRIDA
M. V. Baxi
Sarvapelli Gopal has shown what Radhakrishnan was doing in his work, Indian Philosophy :
"He reconstructed the arguments of the ancient texts and assessed them in relation both to the debates which formed their original context and to modern controversies. The text is the point of mediation between two minds and the interpretation must not only satisfy the curiosity but disturb the consciousness of the present day reader”. (Emphasis added)
Gopal's reference to Radhakrishnan's reconstructive reading of the philosophical texts reninds us inmediately of the contemporary poststructuralist French philosopher Derrida's deconstructive readings of the texts of Western philosophy. This is because of the fact that post-structuralism and post-modernism have become dominant in current philosophical discourse. For example, Magliola considers Derrida very close to Nāgārjuna?, while Coward, comparing Sankara and Derrida on the problem of relation of language to reality, finds Derrida and Sankara in the opposite canips. However, when Coward compares Derrida and Bhartphari on the origin of language, lie finds substantial concord between Derrida and Bhartyhari but he also clarifies that Derrida's deconstruction is not compatible with Advaita Vedanta or Buddhism. Further research by Indian and Western scholars is required in this area of comparative philosophy, but it follows both from Magliola's and Coward's analyses that if Sankara and Derrida find themselves in opposite camps and if Radhakrishnan is in Sankara's camp, then it follows that Radhakrishnan's philosophy also is incompatible with Derrida's deconstruction.
In this paper, Radhakrishnan's notion of Being has been considered in relation to Derrida's strategy of differance and the following points have emerged from such a comparative analysis :
(1) Radhakrishnan's Being has an ontological depth. Derrida's differance has no "ontic import" and "ontological weight”. Tlius, Radhakrishnan's notion of Being is different from Derrida's strategy of differance.
(2) Radhakrislınan's notion of Being involves some kind of negative theology, but as Derrida's differance has no ontological import, it does not involve any kind of ontotheology.
