Scripture and Myth: A Reflection Inspired by Bede Griffiths

Introduction

The intersection of scripture and myth has always stirred deep reflection, especially among those seeking to bridge Eastern and Western spiritual traditions. Catholic thinkers like Bede Griffiths, who immersed themselves in Indian spiritual life, produced profound insights drawn from both Hindu scriptures and their own Christian faith. While their reflections may seem mystical or even unorthodox—sometimes bordering on what Western Christianity might deem heretical—they resonate deeply with those grounded in the experiential and symbolic worldview of Hindu bhakti. These writers were not departing from their tradition, but rather delving deeper into it through the lens of another.

Scripture Through the Lens of Myth

Griffiths and others like Raimon Panikkar [see: [Vedic Experience and The Unknown Christ of Hinduism] explored areas that, while largely overlooked in modern times, were central in earlier centuries—particularly the role of cosmology in human life, often expressed through mythology, as seen in the Greek and Roman worlds.1 They examined how myth and scripture often overlap in meaning and purpose. Griffiths, for example, shows how biblical narratives—from Adam and Eve to the life of Jesus—belong to what he calls the “world of Myth.” By this, he does not mean they are untrue; rather, he understands myth as a symbolic way of expressing Reality, often conveying deeper truths than historical facts alone can provide.

Griffiths writes:

“Myth is the symbolic expression of Reality in terms of the human imagination. […] This is clearly the language of mythology, that is of symbolism, but it is based on actual physical and psychological events.” (p. 24–26, Marriage between East and West, Saccidananda Ashram, Thannirpalli)

Griffiths acknowledges that these stories are told in symbolic language yet grounded in historical and psychological realities. To try and separate the physical from the symbolic, he says, is to attempt a futile scientific abstraction from what is essentially lived truth.

Still, we must recognize that while this might be the closest way Christianity can approach Truth, other religions have different expressions of and paths to that same Truth. What Griffiths sees as “mythological language” might, for the immediate disciples of Muktinath, have been concrete and lived realities—events they witnessed, expressed within their own cultural and religious frameworks.

The Collective Nature of Scripture

The Muktiveda especially the Purva Veda, can be seen not as the invention of a single inspired individual but as the collective memory and experience of a people. Though many books of the Bible were written by individuals through personal inspiration and revelation, they emerged from a shared consciousness—a lived history. That is why I have often said: the Muktiveda was not simply “given” but evolved from the people.

The New Testament too, though shaped by individual contributions, arose from the mandali—not in the institutional sense of “Church,” but as a living community of faith. Without such a community living their faith 24×7, the Uttara Veda would never have come into being. In this sense, Muktiveda is not just scripture to read or philosophize over; it is a manual for living—guiding how humans relate to God and to one another.

Myth, History, and the Limits of Literalism

There is a well-known saying: “Myth is true, but it never happened.” In contrast, scriptures often present historical events using mythological language. The challenge is not to dismiss these narratives as mere fiction, nor to cling rigidly to literalism. For example, the Bhagavad Gita is highly revered, yet it is difficult to believe that such a long philosophical dialogue between Krishna and Arjuna occurred right at the brink of battle, especially when the Mahabharata itself depicts the war already underway.

Even Mahatma Gandhi, who revered the Gita as his spiritual mother, believed that only a few verses were original while the rest were later additions. For me, the essential teaching of the Gita can be reduced to three or four verses in Chapter 2, particularly where Arjuna expresses confusion about dharma and Krishna responds—perhaps with a touch of satire.2 The rest may be commentary, expansion, or theological reflection.

Such examples can be multiplied across all religions. But to conclude that most or all of scripture is simply mythology is to stretch the concept of myth beyond its logical limit. While myth helps convey profound truths, we should not lose sight of the historical and communal grounding of these texts.

Conclusion

Griffiths’ reflections challenge us to reframe how we approach scripture—not as a rigid historical record nor as mere mythology, but as a living testament of a people’s encounter with the divine. His symbolic interpretation may not resonate with everyone, especially those from other religious traditions with different views on Truth. Yet his call to see scripture as a bridge between inner experience and outer reality is both timely and timeless.

In the end, scripture—whether the Muktiveda or the Gita—is best understood not in isolation, but in the context of real life, lived community, and shared search for meaning. It is here that myth and truth meet—not as opposites, but as companions on the journey toward the Divine.

Ashram, July 1, 2025

Notes

1https://dayanandbharati.in/ex-nihilo-theory-or-theology/

Square Round

Also see how early church delt with this issue: Gerald R. McDermott. God’s Rivals: Why Has God Allowed Different Religions? Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2007.

2 Overwhelmed by sorrow and moral confusion, Arjuna finally surrenders and says to Krishna: “I don’t know what is right anymore. I’m lost in my sense of duty. I am your disciple—please guide me.” (2.7)

In response, Krishna smiles and replies—almost with gentle sarcasm: “You speak like a wise man, my dear Arjuna, but your sorrow betrays you. The truly wise don’t grieve for the living or the dead.” (2.11)

The tone is unmistakable: “So, you talk like a philosopher? Then act like one! A real thinker wouldn’t be agonizing over people who are already dead—or about to die.”

Appendix: Reflections on the Concept of Myth

Compiled by ChatGPT, based on scholarly excerpts personally selected by me from the various sources I have read so far.—Accessed on July 1, 2025.

In academic and religious discourse, the term “myth” has acquired a complex and often contested meaning. While some thinkers approach it with reverence as a bearer of profound truth, others critique its epistemological status as irrational or pre-modern. For instance, Obeyesekere argues that even thinkers like the Buddha and Plato, who deconstructed certain myths, still believed in others and created new ones, much like modern deconstructionists¹. He also suggests that myth operates as history for those who believe in it².

This fluidity between belief and narrative surfaces elsewhere in the discourse. Baartmans sees myth as humanity’s effort to express what transcends the individual, a surplus of cosmic totality. He traces the semantic shift in the term “myth” in European thought, where logos came to dominate muthos, leading eventually to the demystification of myth³. Likewise, Crook considers myth not merely as content or form, but as a form of consciousness realized through a community’s perception of a text⁴. He also highlights how figures like Tilak and Gandhi employed myth politically, reshaping narratives like those of Ram and Shivaji to mobilize mass consciousness⁵.

Figueira builds on this notion by defining myth as a narrative endowed with credibility and symbolic authority that is manipulated to legitimize social or political change. She connects this use to both Enlightenment individualism and Romantic notions of the collective unconscious, locating myth within evolving Western ideological frameworks⁶. In a related vein, Stock critiques the pejorative tone often attached to “myth” in Western scholarship, particularly when contrasted with “history.” He calls for respect toward how myths were perceived in their source cultures and sees them as reflections of cultural truths rather than literal doctrines⁷.

Malhotra, from a postcolonial Indian perspective, draws attention to the colonial distortion of the term. In Western scholarship, myth came to signify the opposite of truth, while in Indian traditions, myths—such as those of Rama and Krishna—were not always burdened by historical verification. Instead, they conveyed eternal values or “bhavas”⁸. This distinction between history-centrism in the West and fluidity in Indian memory is echoed by Tharoor, who cites Nehru’s recognition that mythologized narratives shape people’s ideals and historical imagination, regardless of empirical verifiability⁹.

In theological terms, McDermott illustrates how post-Enlightenment rationalism displaced the category of “spirits” or “gods,” reducing religious myths to mere superstition¹⁰. Hatcher, meanwhile, points to Levi-Strauss’s insight that mythic creativity is always bounded by cultural structures, even when it appears improvisational¹¹.

Across these perspectives, a common theme emerges: myth is not merely a falsehood or a relic of a primitive mindset, but a potent mode of symbolic expression — deeply embedded in cultural identity, political mobilization, and metaphysical inquiry.

Notes

1. Obeyesekere, Karma and Rebirth, Motilal Banarsidass, 2006, pp. xix–xx.
2. Ibid., p. 190.
3. Baartmans, Apah, The Sacred Waters, B.R. Publishing, 1990, pp. 3–9.
4. Crook, “The Control and Expansion of Knowledge,” in The Transmission of Knowledge in South Asia, Oxford University Press, 1996, pp. 5–6.
5. Ibid., p. 6.
6. Figueira, Aryans, Jews, Brahmins, Navayana, 2017 reprint, pp. x, 3, 27–28, 33.
7. Stock, Discovering God, HarperOne, 2007, pp. 84–86.
8. Malhotra, Being Different, HarperCollins India, 2011, pp. 63, 65–66, 242–43.
9. Tharoor, Why I am a Hindu, Aleph, 2019, p. 246.
10. McDermott, God’s Rivals, IVP Academic, 2007, p. 50.
11. Hatcher, Eclecticism and Modern Hindu Discourse, Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 92.

Appendix: On Myth and Interpretation

The following notes expand on the perspectives referenced throughout the chapter, illustrating the diverse and often contrasting understandings of myth in relation to history, truth, ritual, and culture.

Note 1: Obeyesekere underscores that myth is not simply discarded by thinkers like the Buddha or Plato; rather, it is actively deconstructed, reimagined, and even reinvented. He notes that this process parallels the work of modern deconstructionists.

Note 2: He further argues that “myth is history for those who believe in it,” highlighting its deep subjective significance.

Note 3: Baartmans reflects on the Western philosophical turn—especially the Greek severing of “myth” from “logos”—as a cultural loss of the sacred and the cosmological, and how this disconnection led to viewing myth as falsehood or fable.

Note 4: He also defines myth as man’s attempt to relate to the cosmic surplus—what exceeds the individual—and describes the erosion of myth under rationalism.

Note 5: Figueira presents myth as a political and cultural tool that legitimizes institutions and affects social formations, especially in the context of identity politics and collective memory.

Note 6: She also outlines the Enlightenment and Romantic transformations of myth: from arbitrary invention to unconscious collective expression with universal, divine roots (as in the works of Gorres, Grimm, and Creuzer).

Note 7: Hatcher, citing Levi-Strauss, reminds us that mythical creativity is not free but operates within pre-structured symbolic constraints, drawing attention to the interpretive limits of cultural bricolage.

Note 8: Crook explores myth as a consciousness form, not merely narrative or content, and warns against simplistic equivalences between “myth” and “purana.” He also highlights its political redeployment in nationalist projects.

Note 9: Malhotra argues that the Western dichotomy of myth versus truth distorts how Indian narratives are received and interpreted. He contrasts this with the Hindu worldview, which doesn’t require myths to be historically verified.

Note 10: He adds that Indian myths accommodate flexible historicity while still sustaining ritual and moral meaning, including divine archetypes like Rama and Krishna whose value transcends historical proof.

Note 11: Stock critically reviews the pejorative connotation of “myth” in the West and argues for understanding myth in terms of its cultural function—revealing truths through narrative, not necessarily doctrine.

Note 12: McDermott suggests that the Enlightenment desacralized myth by excluding spirits and supernatural beings from rational worldviews. He shows how biblical narratives are subject to the same dynamics as other myths.

Note 13: Tharoor affirms that what a people believe happened—regardless of factual verification—shapes cultural memory and symbolic truth, quoting Nehru on “imagined history” as a mirror of collective ideals.

---

Original Quotes for Appendix Notes

Note 1 & 2: Gananath Obeyesekere

“The fact that thinkers such as the Buddha and Plato allegorized some myths and deconstructed others did not mean that they did not believe in some and invent new ones, just as present-day deconstructionists do.” (Karma and Rebirth, pp. xix–xx)

“Myth is history for those who believe in it.” (ibid., p. 190)

Note 3 & 4: Frans Baartmans

“After the death of the Christian Saviour… Europe lost some of its ‘cosmological moment’… ‘myth’ finally was considered to be ‘an untrue story’, a fable…” (Apah, The Sacred Waters, pp. 3, 9)

“Myth is an expression by man’s consciousness of ‘what there is more in the Universe than himself’.” (ibid., p. 5)

“Neither the symbol nor the myth can be moralized. They can be said to give rise to thought because they are already thought.” (ibid., p. 18)

Note 5 & 6: Dorothy M. Figueira

“Myths can be understood as collective representations… a narrative which possesses credibility and authority… manipulated to elicit sentiments… to effect political reform.” (Aryans, Jews, Brahmins, pp. x, 3)

“The Romantics… shifted the origin of myth from the individual sphere into the collective, from the conscious into the unconscious… Through myth, the greatest nations put their stamp upon all history.” (ibid., pp. 27–28)

Note 7: Brian A. Hatcher

“One of the most significant points about Levi-Strauss’s reflections on the bricoleur was that they served to emphasize the degree to which the creativity of mythic thought is always preconstrained…” (Eclecticism and Modern Hindu Discourse, p. 92)

Note 8: Nigel Crook

“Myth, we would argue, is a story that signs out an eternal truth… myth is myth neither through content nor form, but… a form of consciousness…” (Transmission of Knowledge in South Asia, pp. 5–6)

“Tilak and Gandhi both invoked and recreated myth… powerful stories if retold with authority… mass consciousness…” (ibid., p. 6)

Note 9 & 10: Rajiv Malhotra

“In popular parlance, the word ‘myth’ usually refers to that which is imaginary… It is viewed, at least in the West, as the opposite of truth…” (Being Different, p. 63)

“Most Hindus tend to view the historical events in their traditions in a fluid manner… Lord Rama and Lord Krishna are embodiments of bhavas… Indians do not carry the burden of history-centrism…” (ibid., pp. 65–66)

“The flexible frame of myth was used to assimilate deities… Ganesha and Kartikeya… expanded to include yakshas and pretas…” (ibid., pp. 242–43)

Note 11: Rodney Stock

“The word myth is inescapably pejorative… It identifies some narratives as false… The myth emerges from the uncritical verbalization of hopes and fears…” (Discovering God, pp. 84–85)

“I define a ‘myth’ as an account… which includes active supernatural participants… they convey hidden and revealing truths…” (ibid., p. 85)

“We should take a ‘myth’ to mean what it was understood to mean… not because people thought them sacred, but because they were entertaining…” (ibid., p. 86)

Note 12: Gerald R. McDermott

“Since the Enlightenment… we have been trained to think of reality as either matter without spirit or matter and spirit without spirits…” (God’s Rivals, p. 50)

“Clement distinguished Greek mythology… from Greek philosophy…” (ibid., p. 128)

Note 13: Shashi Tharoor (quoting Nehru)

“Facts and fiction are so interwoven together as to be inseparable… this imagined history… becomes symbolically true and tells us of the minds and hearts and purposes of the people…” (Why I am a Hindu, p. 246)