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