CONCLUSION

   INTER-RELIGIOUS ENCOUNTER

            AS ADVAITIC

            In this concluding section, we attempt to look at some of the prominent and encompassing characteristics in his works. We have not attempted to do a detailed and minute analysis of his intellectual works and mystical experience s , but we have tried to review his life in order to identify the most significant characteristics that have been present throughout his life and works, with special emphasis on advaita , the main focus of our search.

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF GRIFFITHS' VENTURE

            We can view the general characteristics of Griffiths' approach in terms of its negative and commendable features.

Negative Features

            We begin by addressing some of the general negative attacks and criticisms leveled against Griffiths and his own way of living as a sanny_si .

            In general, these criticisms could be classified as suggesting that he has been too progressive or too conservative. The orthodox hierarchy and many traditional Christians have been generally skeptical of any contact or dealings with the Hindus. For them the road which Griffiths was treading was destined for damnation, and any path leading to co-operation with the Hindus would not be in the interests of Christianity . Of course, such drastic allegations, which were made in the very initial stages of his activity, specially in __ntivanam, died down slowly on account of the popularity which Griffiths began to enjoy.

            A second set of criticisms was leveled against the `Hinduization' of Christianity . This tried to distinguish between `inculturation' which could be tolerated, as opposed to `Hinduization'. Griffiths' attempts at incorporating many of the `Hindu' elements in the liturgy, in the very life style and even in the construction of the __ram Church in Saccid_nanda __ram, were regarded as dubious attempts. These groups called for stopping the acceptance of Hindu customs and religious symbols in order to safeguard the pure doctrine of Christianity. For these opponents, Griffiths had overstepped the boundary and was trying for a loose formulation of Christianity and diluting the basics of Christian faith.

            As against these criticisms from the orthodox circles, there were also vociferous protests from those `radicals' who found in Griffiths' attempts a justification of the Brahminical __ram life and Brahminical Hinduism . For these people, the role of the church as a prophetic witness for the poor was being downgraded by Griffiths' attempts. Their general criticisms could also be divided into two classes.

            One group found fault in having recourse to the __ram and meditative practices. They advocated that the Church in India has a very special role to play to alleviate the inhuman suffering of the people. They appreciate the vast amount of service done by Christianity for the poor. They also note that even the non-Christians were impressed by these dedicated witnesses who give their lives for the poor. In this context to have recourse to the spiritual and meditative level, neglecting the social aspect, is subversive, they claim. According to these critics, the venture of Griffiths would only strengthen those traditional Christians who are indifferent to the cries of the poor and the needy and who seek an escape in the spiritual tradition , forgetting the existential, agonizing suffering of the millions.⁵⁵⁹ 

            There is another group of critics who claim that the liturgical tradition s and cultural groups with which Griffiths came in dialogue was itself the oppressive group. The Brahminical group whose privilege it is to establish __rams are the very same people who are the basic cause for the poverty of the lower classes/castes. The untouchables have no entry to such Hindu __rams. Further, since the Christians in India stem predominantly from the lower castes, they would not have had any access to such an __ram. In this context it would be inadvisable and even insulting for these `untouchable' Christians if a Christian priest himself founds an __ram based on the model of the Brahminical __rams.

            The above reactions could be interpreted as some general negative impressions to Griffiths' __ram experience and his dealing with the (high caste) Hindus. Now we shall turn to some further negative criticisms against his own method of living and writings. These regard his lectures, books and the numerous articles published by him.

            The most frequent criticism is that of syncretism. Some of the scholars get the impression that he accepted many things from such diverse fields, without properly absorbing them and making them his own. They point specially to his attempts to coax out the "universal wisdom" from such diverse religious sources and traditions . Further, they point out that such an attempt to integrate the different traditions is not just to the traditions themselves. They accuse him of being shallow without personalizing the other traditions. When one attempts to accept practically all good ideas under the sun, how can one really absorb and personalize them, they ask. They also point to the fact that many of his ideas are repeated and assume this as a further proof that his way of proceeding is superficial. The lack of sufficient bibliographical references also is pointed to as a deficiency.

            As such it is not our endeavor to defend him against these criticisms. We go forward to see what we consider as his strong and commendable aspects. Then towards the end in the general evaluation, we shall refer indirectly to the above criticisms. We shall try to appreciate the commendable aspects under three general categories: compre hensiveness, individuality and integration.

Positive Features

            They may be studied in terms of Bede's own advaitic features: comprehensiveness, individuality and integration.

            Comprehensiveness. Anyone who reads Griffiths' works or who is acquainted with him is struck by sense of wholeness or comprehensiveness in his vision of life and even in his own life. In all his writings a strong comprehensiveness or totality accompanies and guides him. By comprehensiveness, we mean a way of looking at reality with no positive exclusion of any aspects, but an affirmation of all the various aspects of reality.

            We have an initial idea of this comprehensiveness from a significant symbol he uses, that of the gothic cathedral. This symbol is used by him to describe Thomistic philosophy . About the deep admiration he himself had for Thomistic philosophy, he writes: "I began to read St. Thomas for myself but I saw his shadow cast on the poetry of Dante, and I recognized in the ordered structure of Dante's thought and the comprehensiveness of his vision something of the grandeur and immensity of a great cathedral. I had still only a very imperfect conception of its real significance."⁵⁶⁰ 

            In fact, the comprehensiveness which he so much admired in Aquinas is evident in his own life. The divergent sources which influence him, the diverse literature he so ardently read, his various artistic interests cannot be otherwise explained.⁵⁶¹

            Further, it must be emphasized that this comprehensiveness is not just at the epistemological level. It is a comprehension which goes from epistemology to a world view and world vision (Weltanschaung). Further, this comprehension extends itself to the whole of reality at a metaphysical level. Even in reality itself he sees a gradation of being. Thus, accepting the analogy of Being , he is convinced of a totality of Being which unifies all particular beings. His view is strictly comprehensive.

            Moreover, his interest in science, psychology and evolution, his involvement with music, art, paintings and literature, and his engagement with the conscious and the unconscious (and even the supra-conscious) are clear indications of this characteristic in him from the early stage. Even if "there was probably a good deal more enthusiasm than discrimination in all this reading,"⁵⁶² it is evident that this enthusiasm for the whole is part and parcel of his own life.

            Another simple illustration for the concern for the whole is his own description of the future of reality . Such a vision is for him something that involves "the earth and . . . the natural resources of the earth, . . . the sea and all the creatures in it, . . . the animal world as a whole, . . . and outer space."⁵⁶³ Such a comprehensiveness, which is at the same time interdependent and interactive is present all through his mystical and intellectual endeavor.

            Further, the chapter dealing with a unified vision indicates this same comprehension. The unified vision does not exclude anything, but is all inclusive and all encompassing. Methodologically, from the perspective of this whole he finds integration and unity; it is an integration in the totality .

            In this whole, everything including the evil and the inappropriate has its own place. Even though he is vehemently critical of modern science , he admits a place for it. Even the avidya and m_ya, which certainly are not to be appreciated, are facts of life and so have their own proper place in his vision of things.

            This comprehensiveness in his thinking and experience could be easily misinterpreted as syncretism, though the two certainly are different. Syncretism would be a narrow and uncritical acceptance of the other, without in any way making it critically part of the system. Comprehensiveness is a total, holistic view which at the same time does not deny anything in reality . There is a positive affirmation of the different and even the contradictory aspects. This aspect of comprehensiveness was extended notably to the sphere of religious faith and religious traditions towards the end phase of his life. His last book, Universal Wisdom is a clear case. There he tries to study the totality of religions within his grasp in order to see the basic insights of all these religious traditions .

            The symbol for this comprehensive view for Griffiths is the gothic cathedral, as already mentioned. "It was no longer simply the outward form of beauty, the triumph of craftsmanship and of the almost unconscious union of humanity with Nature which impressed me. I saw that behind all this there lay the power of a vast intelligence, not merely of an architectural genius but of a whole philosophy of life."⁵⁶⁴ From a Trinitarian perspective, the Father could be the symbol of this comprehensiveness and totality . Since he is the source of the whole creation and the origin of everything that is, he could easily be understood as the comprehensiveness itself.

            Individuality . The normal danger with comprehensiveness and totality is that of forgetting the individual, the concrete. There is the temptation in contemplating the beauty of the rose to forget the petals that constitute it. Moreover if one knows the totality, there is no need to get more individual pieces of knowledge for the individual pieces are not going to add anything new to the totality of knowledge one already possess. This could make one less open to other systems, to other sources of knowledge. An attempt at a totality of knowledge could actually lead to regression of further knowledge. But this is particularly the defect avoided by Griffiths for whom the real is important and not just in the context of the whole. There is great respect for uniqueness, differentiation, particularity and concreteness.

            Hence, the second clearly marked feature in his whole thinking process is that of individualization or concreteness. The comprehensiveness we have dealt with above never dissolves itself in the totality ; it positively accepts the differences, the diversity and even the contradictions.

            The best example for this is given in Griffiths' strict criticism of _a_kara's pure advaita . Griffiths' effort to revive the "relationship and reality " in the doctrine of pure advaita is a clear case of his insistence on individual existence. The two addi tional aspects of realism and relationship both imply individuality . Clearly, Griffiths is not speaking of a generalized and all comprehensive reality when he insists on the reality of the individual souls (j_v_tman ). For the existence of love or relationship individuality is a necessity.⁵⁶⁵ That is precisely what Ramanuja ⁵⁶⁶ and Madhva were looking for in Indian philosophy without finding it.

            Further, he emphasizes that he is in no way syncretic. For he is very careful not to mix the differences in different traditions and then to attempt an artificial and superficial synthesis. "The danger in the encounter with Hinduism is always that of superficial syncretism, which would regard all religions as `essentially' the same, and only differing in their `accidental' characteristics. Needless to say, this is destructive of all serious dialogue and makes real understanding impossible."⁵⁶⁷ Avoidance of syncretism implies that there are differences which cannot be easily bridged or easily reconciled. There are individual concrete ideas (or entities) which have to be accepted in their differences. It is respect for this uniqueness that prevents him from accepting syncretism in any way. Each individual is not only to be seen in the totality , but has its own uniqueness which does not give way to syncretism.

            This individuation is the metaphysical basis for pluralism. To talk of pluralism without genuine respect for the individual (be it a person , a culture or a religion) will be unmetaphysical and ultimately meaningless.

            That is why for him the best symbol for this aspect is that of the drop of water in the ocean, which actually retains its identity even in the vastness of the ocean. For him the traditional drop-ocean analogy , wherein the individual soul is dissolved in the ocean of Brahma as the final awakening and wherein the individuality is finally lost, is clearly unacceptable. We can recall once again Griffiths' question about the drop in the ocean. He asks would the drop in the ocean not cry out in great joy: `True, I am living, yet it is not myself who lives, but this ocean lives in me, and my soul is hidden away in its depths'? The soul that flows into God does not die, for how could she die through being drowned in life? Rather, she lives by not living in herself."⁵⁶⁸ 

            From the perspective of the Trinitarian symbol this individuation is clearly found in Christ. The incarnation is the concretization of the divine in the earthly. There is the role for differentiation, rootedness and involvement with the particular in Jesus.

            Integration. The third all-pervading characteristic that we find in Griffiths is that of integration. It has been with him from the very beginning of his intellectual career when he started to deal with the integration of the intuitive and the discursive faculties of knowing. It has remained with him till the end, where this aspect of integration has found manifold expressions . One can even say that integration is the key to understanding Griffiths' intellectual and even spiritual journey.

            Further, the actual relation between the various elements of totality and individuality could be sought only through categories of integration, though it may be mentioned that `comprehensiveness' and `individuality' do not belong to the same category. One is more than the other. Comprehensiveness encompasses individuals. So we cannot really speak of a `marriage' between two `equal' partners in this case.

            Further, it is truly astonishing to see the various realms of integration which Griffiths refers to in his writings. To mention a few of them, he advocates dialogue between:

            · Love and knowledge

            · East and West (marriage between East and West)

            · Feminine and masculine (anima and animus)

            · Science and religion

            · Christianity , Hinduism and other world religions

            · Material, psychic and spiritual dimension s in human

                        beings

            · Physical, subtle elements and divine elements in the

                        cosmos

            · Discursive and intuitive faculties of mind

            · Humanity, vegetation and animals in the earth

            · Nature and supernatural `sense of the sacred' in the

                        profane

            · Philosophy, literature and theology

            · The prophetic and the mystical aspects in Christianity and

                        also in Hinduism .

            · The conscious and unconscious dimensions in human life

            · The life of a practical monk and that of a theoretical

                        scholar in his own personal life

            The key symbol of integration would be that of `marriage', as the very title of his second autobiography indicates. In marriage, just as there is an integration of the male and the female resulting in offspring, we can see integration as an organic union between two `extremes' resulting in offspring. Actually the very process of integration itself could be seen as a `marriage' between the two above-mentioned characteristics: comprehensiveness and individuality .

            The Holy Spirit is the Trinitarian symbol for this integration. Just as it is biblical to see his action as unifying and integrating the whole of creation and taking the whole cosmos in Christ to the Father , this integration can be understood also from the perspective of advaita .

            The metaphysical relationship involving these three above characteristics is advaitic . It is an organic unity affirming the totality , the unity and the integrating transcendence . We shall be speaking of this advaita further to see it as the hermeneutic key in the inter-religious encounter .

ADVAITA: THE HERMENEUTIC KEY TO GRIFFITHS' INTER-RELIGIOUS ENCOUNTER

            The three above-mentioned characteristics shed some further light on the much discussed topic of advaita . As we have already seen, the whole life of Griffiths could be categorized and explained from the perspective of advaita. It is, as we shall attempt to show, the key to his whole hermeneutic venture, to his journey. At first hand this advaita could be understood as a relation between the three characteristics mentioned above. If integration could be viewed as a relation between comprehensiveness and individuality , then the whole relation comprising the three together could be classified as advaita.

            We have already seen in detail the exact theological understanding of classical (_a_karite) advaita and Griffiths' Christian contribution to it. There it was emphasized that the two crucial contributions of Griffiths are `realism' and `relationship '. We would say in short that any such ultimate relationship between two partners where an integration is sought and where both the partners retain their own individuality would be perceived as an advaitic relationship.

            In the case of classical Hinduism the two partners, j_v_tman and param_tman , constituted such a relationship . For Griffiths it is clear that the Christian eschatological vision is such an advaitic union. The individual soul (he would prefer to speak of the `spirit') would be ultimately related with the Ultimate Reality (God) in love. This relationship, wherein the individual is transformed and `taken up,' is an `integral' and `integrating' relationship. It is in this relationship that the individual finds his ultimate fulfillment , his ultimate wholeness and fullness. Viewed thus it is a holistic relationship, certainly beneficial to the individual.

Application to Other Modes of Relationship

            Not only in the realm of God-human being, but at the heart of every relationship there is present an element of this advaitic relationship. This modified advaitic relationship could be inspired and extended to almost every mode of relationship. It may not be claimed that in each type of relationship, the advaitic modes of relationship could be exactly perceived. What we strive for is to show that the most fundamental relationships in humanity, in the cosmos and in the divine, could be better understood through the category of advaita . Throughout these clarifications, it is important to stress the relationship between the various terms of interest. These relationships, all of which are not equal, could be more or less understood through advaita. An advaitic relationship is basically one where there is an integration between the two terms, a holistic trend, an organic growth, a tendency towards harmony, a mutual enrichment. It is a synthesis which does not negate the individual elements, but transcends them.

            An illustrative case is that of a normal relationship between two friends.⁵⁶⁹ In any case the three elements of knowing, willing and loving are involved in every friendship. None of these three dimensions can exist without the other. There is an organic, unifying relationship between knowing, willing and loving; one reinforces and strengthens the other and vice-versa. Further, in the process of the development of friendship, the personality and the very being of both friends are changed even at the most fundamental level of being. Just as there cannot be a genuine knowing without willing, so there cannot be a genuine friendship without intimately affecting the friends in the process. There is then a modified advaitic trend in this basic relationship between two persons?

            It is positively a relationship , and so no monologue; it effects a transformation, it is not chattering or, technically speaking, mere `noise;' it cannot be merely rhetoric, in the pejorative sense. In the Ricourian sense, it is a metaphor, whereby new meaning is created;⁵⁷⁰ it is the Word which is powerful and which transforms, changes and returns back changed and enriched.

            Thus the whole of reality can be better visualized as advaitic . The three characteristics of wholeness, individuation and integration are constitutive not just of modes of relationship, but also of the whole reality as such.

Relationship between God, World and Human Being

            As reality itself is advaitic every authentic relationship is basically advaitic . In general there are three types of possible genuine or non-genuine relationships.

            No-relationship. For pure advaita this would be the case where no genuine relationship is involved, but, at the most, that of absorption or dissolution. This could be the frame of pure empiricism as advocated by Hume. In this view there could be only individual objects existing independent of each other with no real relationship; hence there could be no relationship between j_v_tman and Param_tman.

            Over-relationship. As opposed to non-relationship, in over-relationship, there is a superficial or one-way relationship , namely, the superficial commonsensical relationship between the knower and the known. This implies that the knower observes the reality and knows it without the reality affecting the knower in any way. The knower could be imagined to be supervising or looking over the reality and establishing a one-way relationship with the reality. Knowledge of the reality is accordingly possible, but only at the level of discursive reasoning. It does not really affect the essence, the being of either the knower or the known. This is primarily knowledge at the scientific level or mathematical level in terms of so-called "neutral observation." Here "value-free-knowledge" is fostered. One is superior and can be imagined to be observing and directing the observed from above; there is a one-way relationship between j_v_tman and param_tman .

            In-relationship. As opposed to both the above types, in-relationship is a dynamic, organic relationship between the known and the knower. In a such a dialogue there is knowledge and love between the two partners, but the intuitive and discursive elements are respected. In such a relationship there is place for sat, cit and _nanda, and it is therefore advaitic . Both the partners are in a dynamic relationship effecting changes in ways unknown and unpredictable to both involved, thereby creating something dynamically new. According to this view the relationship between j_v_tman and param_tman is one of love, knowledge and bliss and there is an emergence of a new dynamics of relationship.

            An example of the first case, "no-relationship," is a monistic relationship such as a fire or burning bush, where everything is absorbed into the fire and the flame continues to grow more and more . In such a relationship, there is only a relation of consummation, where one remains. Whatever be the characteristics of the other object being consumed, the fire remains fire and the object ceases to exist. In this same category the astronomical blackhole falls.⁵⁷¹ But it must be emphasized that such a relationship can be imagined only at a purely discursive level, where the other dimensions are not considered.

            The second type of relationship , as opposed to an advaitic re lationship, can be termed an over-relationship. Such a relationship is between two partners without involving in any way a third significant term or partner. We can think of the force of attraction (gravitation) between two particles, where no third element enters. It is a common assumption in modern society with the assumption of the scientific mentality. One could try to show it to be a fallacy of the scientific era, to be corrected by the holistic and integrating vision.

            The third type of an "in-relationship" goes beyond the two cases mentioned above. It assumes a relationship which affects the partners involved, transforms them and transcends them, adding something new, a third factor, to the relationship. A change of being is required in this type of an "in-relationship". As already mentioned there is also a relationship of willing-knowing-loving also is dynamically involved here.

            To sum up the main characteristics of an advaitic relationship as visualized by Griffiths:

            · Individuality is respected and maintained, though in a

                        transformed manner.

            · Ever-se