INTRODUCTION

        THE HERMENEUTICS OF ADVAITA

PLURALISM AS A LIVED EXPERIENCE

            We live in a world where pluralism and diversity are felt acutely. In our world and particularly in India , we experience pluralism in religions , cultures, world-views, languages and customs. India is not merely a "melting pot " of diverse religions and cultures but also the place for healthy dialogue and mutual appreciation, without which the very existence of the nation is threatened. Such a dialogue and encounter is crucial for the very survival not only of India, but also of the whole world.

            The fundamental experience of Indian religions could be termed "advaitic ." Though "advaita" has been interpreted diversely, no Indian religion or philosophy could be understood apart from it. In this book, an attempt is made to approach dialogue which is so essential for India from the perspective of India's rich philosophical heritage: advaita. It is our contention that advaita could be a crucial basis and fundamental incentive to religious dialogue .

            Though our approach is derived from the Indian experience , we visualize that its role is not limited to India alone. We realize that such a vision has world-wide relevance. The phenomenon of globalization cannot be ignored even in religious and cultural dimensions of human life. So the international or global dimensions of our work is confirmed by the very choice of the person in our work. Bede Griffiths (1906-1993) was born in England and has made India his home. Our search for an advaitic vision of dialogue is based on the experiential life of this person. It could be a stimulus and encouragement for others as well, to situate their lives on an advaitic and dialogical situation: be it religious, philosophical , cultural or linguistic.

            The aim of our search in this book, therefore, is to show that advaita forms the hermeneutic key in the inter-religious dialogue as carried out by Bede Griffiths. Here we assume that we could rightly enlarge the sphere of hermeneutics to include not just interpretation of classical texts , but also interpretation and encounter between various religious traditions . We try to visualize the dialogue and interaction between religions carried out by Griffiths as hermeneutics.

            We need to introduce the person of Griffiths. That is carried out in the first chapter. We have divided his life into three sections, which would roughly characterize his search and conversion to the Catholic Church, his becoming a Benedictine monk and coming to India, and then finally his life as a full-fledged sanny_si in his own __ram in India. His life journey is truly interesting and the various steps he has taken in his life have contributed significantly to his own theological development. Born an Anglican , he lived his student life primarily as an agnostic . Later he found meaning in the Roman Church, became a monk and further experienced the significance of Indian heritage and its religious traditions for his own life. That urged him to take a significant turn in his life-style to live like a Hindu sanny_si or advaitin. When he died in 1993, he was fully at home in India both as a Christian and as an Advaitin, whereby he experienced intimate union with the divine.

            Thus he takes us to the profound concept of advaita , as he has experienced in his own life journey. In order to understand this significant notion of advaita, we have divided it into four phases corresponding to the life of Griffiths. Advaita basically means non-duality. And it is the theological term in the general Indian philosophy that is used to denote the relation between the divine and the human or between God and world and between God and the individual. This theory of advaita sums up the basic creation account and eschatology in Hinduism , since Hinduism does not have or need its own separate theology of creation or eschatology. The popular and predominant theory of advaita, normally grounded in the Indian philosopher _a_kara, affirms that there is a relation of identity between God and world. This implies that ultimately the world and the individual's soul are m_ya, or unreal. Basically everything is God. Griffiths takes up, and elaborates on, this reductionistic or nihilistic understanding of popular advaita. But he gives a Christian interpretation to advaita, whereby the reality of the world and the value of relationship are stressed. Thus he is able to introduce the Christian notion of love to advaita, which is traditionally seen in terms of j__nam_rga or the Gnostic way. It is Griffiths' achievement to have been able to achieve a healthy synthesis between the Gnostic elements of traditional advaita and the love or relationship found in his Christian heritage.

            With this enrichment, he has been able to show the advaitic intuition not just in classical Hinduism , but in the whole universe. The best example for this is the Christian doctrine of Trinity . In the Christian understanding of Trinity, there is a union between the different persons, preserving their individuality (reality ) and at the same time giving scope to a healthy relationship of love.

            In 1990, at the age of 84 when Griffiths suffered a stroke, he could accept that stroke in the true spirit of advaita , as a gift from God or as a discovery of the mother , of the feminine in his life . This stroke enabled him to experience the divine in a much more intimate and advaitic manner. His whole life took a different turn after the stroke until his death in 1993. He advocated a change of consciousness effected through mantra and meditation as the felt need for today's world.

            In the next chapter, we study the unifying vision of Griffiths' universe. He sees the whole cosmos divided in terms of its physical, psychological and spiritual dimension s. In analyzing and assimilating these dimensions, Griffiths tries to take seriously the findings of modern science and modern psychology . Then he traces the development in each of these dimensions and comes finally to the spiritual dimension. It is here that religions have a significant role to play. This religious or spiritual dimensions leads to a unity in the totality of the one. This does not in any way belittle the uniqueness and individuality of religions.

            It is in this context of advaita that we articulate his future vision for the whole world. According to Griffiths, the Western world, dominated by science and technology, has to marry the Eastern world dominated by spirituality and the feminine aspect. In his vision of the future, he is against every sort of reductionism, specially the materialistic reductionism as it is practiced in the West. And the three dimensions of life, the physical, psychological and spiritual, are to be respected. The new world will have a spiritual basis and so will be an integrated world. In the spirit of advaita, it is an integration where individual differences are accepted, affirmed and transcended. Thus the future world, according to Griffiths, would be a holistic and unified world where individuality is respected and integration sought.

            It is in this context of the unifying totality of the one that we examine Griffiths' understanding of religious dialogue and encounter . In the fifth chapter we analyze his theology of religions. For the sake of convenience, we have divided his developing theology of religions in terms of the three stages in his life. In his first phase, his view of religion could be vaguely categorized as that of identity. That gave rise to the fulfillment theory of religion in the second phase, as he becomes acquainted with Hinduism . Finally, in his third stage of direct encounter with advaita he was convinced of the complementary nature of religions. Within this complementary nature of religions, he could convincingly advocate a religious dialogue based on an advaitic vision.

            It is clear that for Griffiths religious dialogue is crucial not just for the survival of the different religions, but also for the survival of the world itself. So in an advaitic vision he sees it as imperative that different religions interact, trying to reach a wholeness or totality , without sacrificing their own uniqueness. Different religions have different roles and functions, but they point to an advaitic totality, to a unifying and integrating wholeness. Griffiths is not seeking uniformity of religions, but unity of religions. He is not seeking a world religion, which would replace all other religions and bring them under its control; rather he is seeking a mutual hermeneutic encounter between different religions, which would form the basis for the total integration of the whole cosmos. His vision is truly integrating, holistic and unifying, without in any way sacrificing the individual uniqueness of each religion. Hence, there is a need and scope for a relationship of love between religions. There is a scope for acceptance and affirmation between religions . In this way his view of inter-religious dialogue is advaitic . Such an understanding of advaita constitutes a hermeneutic key in carrying out and understanding the religious dialogue as practiced by Griffiths.

CONTEXT AND CHALLENGE

            The larger context of the concern of this book has a personal, societal and theological basis. Basically, it tries to encounter the plurality of religions and sees how a committed believer can respond to it.

            This concern has a personal background. It goes back to my early childhood. I was born in Kerala with a population of more than 30 million people. Of these about 30 percent are Christians. But the little village, where I lived and grew up as a child, was religiously homogeneous. The Christian atmosphere and influence affected me. I did hear of the Hindus, but they lived far away, and I did not have any personal contact with them. My initial meetings with the non-Christians were in school and were superficial. I felt myself fully at home with my own religion and did not feel the need to know their religious beliefs in any way. Having been brought up as a normal Christian boy, I went to Bihar in North India , where for the first time, I was really exposed to the Hindus. There I experienced what it was to be living as a member of a minority community. As such the Christians there did not have much problem with the majority community, but everything was not in order. Some distance from the majority community could be felt, and there was an element of foreignness associated with the Christian community, which I had not felt in Kerala.¹ 

            At a societal dimension, there is a growing fundamentalism , both in Islam and in Hinduism , which the Christians also come to feel in recent times. The thousands of people who are killed² every year because of their religions made me reflect on the need for a religious dialogue . The Jesuit pioneers like Robert De Nobili (Arul_nandan) and Joseph Constantius Beschi (V_ram_munivar) who took such steps inspired me.

            As such the Christians in India can play a special role in bringing about such efforts at dialogue and rapport between religions . The Hindus and the other minority community, Muslims,³ live in constant tension. Hence, Christians who are a still smaller community and who receive much respect in India from both the groups could be bridge-builders between the two communities.

            Added to it was my philosophical and theological training in the later years which made me see the need for a deeper encounter with the majority Hindu community. This has made me realize the difficulty and the chance to understand theologically the plurality of religions. From a theological perspective, even after the broadening of horizons after Vatican II , there were still points of difficulty and tension to understand the role and function of other religions.

            It was at this time that I had a chance to meet Father Bede Griffiths personally. I had the fortune to make a retreat in __ntivanam. The one-week stay there impressed me tremendously. The simplicity of his life coupled with a radiance of joy and calmness was fascinating. His efforts at an encounter of religions did make a significant impact in India . These are some of the factors which urged me to take this theme for my research.

            Theologically the problem facing this discussion is one of understanding the plurality of religions. We try to find a suitable way to understand the multiplicity of religions and to be enriched by it. In order to situate this problem of understanding the plurality of religions, it is necessary to do an elaborate study on understanding and on pluralism. So the next section first focuses on the issue of understanding, that is, hermeneutics . Then we turn our attention to the fact of pluralism of religion as a constant challenge. This challenge leads to a mutual interaction and enrichment through dialogue, so that pluralism of religions which leads to inter-religious dialogue will in turn deepen and strengthen the different religions themselves. It is in this context of religious dialogue that we wish to bring in hermeneutics and the profound notion of advaita as the key to hermeneutics.

            Hence, we shall consider some notions of hermeneutics before we focus on advaita and religious pluralism.⁴ Hermeneutics will be a basis to understand the coming chapters where we will deal with the same topic from Griffiths' deeper perspective.

UNDERSTANDING AS GRASP OF MEANING

            The word "hermeneutics " is derived from the Greek verb ermeneúein with its derivatives ermeneús and ermenéia. The term means "to proclaim" or "to speak out, to interpret or to explain." It also means "to translate." There is a variety of shades of meaning, which would be classified in terms of the general notion of "making one to understand" or "making some object understandable."⁵ It occurs at a preliminary level in every linguistic expression or speech. It is more relevant in the interpretation or explanation of some object that is not very clear or is difficult to understand, as in the case of historical or literary text, whose meaning is not immediately known and so must be brought to understanding . Moreover even in translating a text to another language hermeneutics is involved since every translation consists of placing the linguistic horizon of understanding in a different field of significance. The origin of the term érmeneúein could be traced back to Hermes,⁶ the divine messenger. It remains certain even in the Greek thought that hermeneutics had originally meant a divine message, though not exclusively the understanding and interpreta tion of divine speech. Even from its very origin hermeneutics indicates a sacred sphere as the understanding and interpretation of the divine Words.

            Correspondingly, the word `hermeneutics ' came to be used first in theological discourses. In modern times it came to be understood in the sense of "the art of understanding " or "a teaching of the proper interpretation ," that is, to derive the sense of the Bible for the proper interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. At the same time it must be remembered that the problem of interpretation is much broader and older than interpretation of Sacred Scriptures.⁷ The question of the proper interpretation was also directed to secular texts, like literary works, historical witnesses and old canonical texts. The biblical problem must be seen in this wider context.

            Today from a philosophical context, hermeneutics has attained a much wider significance. Still the basic relation to the Divine and to the Bible has to be kept in mind, although today's philosophical understanding ⁸ is far-reaching.⁹ Within this background we shall try to see how hermeneutics is related to the wider realm of understanding as such.

HERMENEUTICS AS THE PROBLEM OF UNDERSTANDING

The Terminology

            It can be said without any exaggeration that the problem of hermeneutics is that of understanding . What does it actually mean to understand? For a preliminary clarification we make use of the history of the term `to understand'. The verb `to understand' and its equivalent German word `verstehen ' meant originally in a practical sense that one "understands his subject" or "stands for (einstehen) his object", whereby he represents his cause or his subject effectively and successfully.¹⁰ From this concrete case it was generalized to have both a general and a practical sense to implying that "one understands his object" if he has enough knowledge and skill to accomplish his work. Moreover, in a theoretical sense, it meant grasping the insight, capturing the content and relations of meaning. So one understands what one says, one understands a book, a language, a particular context and even a development of thought. All these diverse categories of understanding imply that understanding is, in short, grasping the meaning (Sinn).

            In the course of time, the significance of the verb "verstehen " (to understand) and the noun "Verstand" (mind) developed in different directions, since the Latin pairs `ratio ' and `intellectus ' are translated into German as `Verstand' and `Vernunft' or in English as `reason' and `intellect.'¹¹ Earlier Verstand corresponded to verstehen, or reason to understanding . But today in the strict sense, Verstand means the faculty of rational, logical, conceptual, judgmental and evaluating thought. As against this, the verb `verstehen' evolved a different sense. It implied the apprehension of inner insight, in which we find meaning. It corresponds not to the Verstand as `ratio', but to the `Vernunft' as `intellectus'. If we speak of verstehen (understanding) in the cases of historical and social sciences, if we visualize verstehen as the fundamental concept and problem of hermeneutics , then verstehen corresponds not to the rational, discursive knowledge of Verstand, but to the intellectual insights of the Vernunft, that is, not to `ratio', but to `intellect.'

Verstand and Vernunft

            The problem and concept of understanding takes us to the classical duality between Verstand and Vernunft, which occurs recurrently in many treatises of history and thought, constituting thus a basic problem of human experience . This duality can be found already in Plato. This difference is continued and Aristotle who distinguished between diánoia and nous¹² in the medieval ages by the use of the Latin terms `ratio ' and `intellectus '. In Thomas Aquinas `ratio' means the capacity of conceptual, discursive thinking, that is, rational thought in the strict sense of judging conceptually and concluding mediation . The `intellectus', the higher capability of immediate mental perception, is the capability of deriving insights from the immediately given, leading to the apprehension of being and the laws of being and to the contents of its essence. Still both these faculties do not completely fall into an ultimate opposition but remain together and related to each other, since the immediacy of Vernunft must express itself through the mediation of conceptually articulated and differentiated expressions .

            So, according to Aquinas , the `ratio ' is related to plurality and seeks the unity of knowledge synthetically. As against this the `intellectus ' grasps immediately the unity and totality , in which the plurality is contained and from which this plurality is to be derived.¹³ This same plurality would be taken up also by Nicholas of Cusa, for whom `ratio' implies the differentiating Verstand, which forms concepts, limits objects and holds them together and so is subjected to the limited, to the measurable and to the countable. As against this, the `intellectus', the faculty of immediate mental perception, is subjected not to contrasts but to unity, not to the finite but to the infinite, not to the divisible (many) but to the indivisible¹⁴ (one); it is not conceptually mediated, but known immediately and beyond concepts.

            In rationalism, specially in René Descartes (1596-1650), mental knowledge was limited and captured and restricted to the mere `ratio ', in the sense of the conceptual logical-mathematical thoughts. The actual difference between Verstand and Vernunft is ignored and reduced to mere Verstand. Pure reason or the rational is made absolute. It loses thus its own basis in the perception of being through Vernunft. This levelling of the differences between itself and Verstand shows itself in the fact that in German, since the time of Christian Wolff, the word Vernunft was equated to `ratio' and it meant not intellectual-Vernunft insights, but only rational-conceptual thought.

            As opposed to Descartes, Pascal introduces again this difference between Verstand and Vernunft, with which he tries to overcome the rationalistic reduction and narrowing of the Vernunft. For Pascal, there is a higher "esprit de finesse" as against the narrower "esprit de géometrie."¹⁵ The realm of mere "raison" would be exceeded by that which Pascal calls "intelligence" or "cœur," which has become famous in his often quoted sentence, "Le cœur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point."¹⁶ Here for Pascal "Vernunft" or "cœur" stays opposed to rational and mathematical thoughts and is not just an irrational feeling, but a higher and finer faculty of intuitive perception and sympathetic understanding , in which certainly the emotional power of the mind and love are included. For him this forms the highest and unified faculty of mental and spiritual knowledge. In this faculty of the heart, the fullness and richness of meaning of reality in its deepest level and richness is expressed.

            This same difference is found in modern philosophy and gains a new sense in the philosophies of Kant and Hegel. Even though Verstand and Vernunft are determined in different ways, Verstand is actually considered as the lower faculty of objective knowledge and categorical thinking, which is limited to conceptually graspable and limited objects. Vernunft is a higher faculty and it grasps a non-objective unity which exceeds the conceptual realm. Thus for Kant, Vernunft becomes the place for transcendental ideas, that is, the faculty to apprehend the ultimate metaphysically comprehensive totality -- world, soul and God -- which exceed the realm of experience , even though these totalities cannot always be apprehended as real. For Hegel the "abstract Verstand," which limits and holds together the finite and individual contents, belongs to a lower category than the "speculative Vernunft," which reaches the dialectical unity of all opposites and in which the Absolute reveals itself, and the full truth of the objects opens up.

            This historical background is significant for the problem of understanding . It points to a basic experience of human knowledge, which expresses itself in the duality of Verstand and Vernunft. From this it follows that understanding is in the actual sense not the mediation of rational thought, but belongs to the realm of immediate intellectual insights. Still both these aspects are related to and dependent on each other, to the extent that mediation presupposes immediacy, and that the interaction between Verstand and Vernunft is actually a "mediation of the immediacy."¹⁷ To this extent immediacy demands a mediation in order to become the "mediating immediacy."¹⁸ If we characterize the duality between Verstand and Vernunft in terms of the Hegelian mediation and immediacy, then it reveals also the meaning of two other conceptual pairs -- "understand" (verstehen ) and "interpret" (auslegen ) -- which occur very often in contemporary hermeneutics , even though little differentiated. By `understanding' we can mean the immediacy of the insights of Vernunft, which denotes meaning. On the other hand, `interpret' would mean the mediation through the knowledge of Verstand, which presupposes the mediacy of prior understanding. This in turn leads through a process of justification, explanation and classification to a deeper and explicitly developed understanding, which consciously becomes aware of its own differentiated elements through a mediation and which in turn enables a new mediacy of mental appropriation of meaning.¹⁹

Explanation and Understanding

            Natural Science and Social Science. Since the difference between natural science (Naturwissenschaften) and social science (Geisteswissenschaften), as formulated by Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911), became commonly accepted, the methodological difference of these sciences was again stressed through two key words, `explain' (erklären) and `understand' (verstehen ), which would also enable us to clarify our understanding of the term `understand'. As generally accepted, the natural sciences `explain', while the social sciences `understand'. Natural events must be explained; historical events and history, values and cultures must be understood. Here `to explain' implies the causal setting or positioning of an individual event on its general laws. If an event can be derived from the common effects of natural laws, if the relation between the cause and effect is known, then the event is `explained.' To `understand' implies a higher appropriation of meaning, which goes beyond every causal explanation. A particular event in history or a concrete work of art -- like Michelangelo 's Pietà or Goethe's Faust -- can never be adequately explained by causally tracing back to the causes to which the actual work may owe its existence. Even if all the causes, which have given rise to a particular effect are known, its meaning and value is by no means exhaustively grasped. Still, such a work can be `understood', so that it reveals itself in its artistic value, is meaning content and its spiritual power. We may trace such an understanding back to Dilthey's "einfühlendes Miterleben" and so to an actual, "Erleben", or, following Rickert, we can go beyond any such moments of experience to reach an ideal content of significance and value (Sinn- und Wertgehalt) in order to comprehend this process. In any case, it is clear that such an understanding goes beyond causal explanations, so that it grasps significance and mediates meaning.

            Here it could be asked if in every explanation , understanding , which reveals significance, is not -- as the condition for its possibility -- presupposed. The scientist of the natural science must first understand the individual phenomena, that is, he should, at least temporarily, grasp the phenomena in its uniqueness, in its content and structure, before he `explains' it. Further, he must himself `understand' his explanation, that is, he must see through the correlation between the natural causes and their effects. Also every mathematical formula and calculation must