Fr. Bede Griffiths, a Benedictine monk, came to India with a deep conviction that the only hope for humanity—and even for the cosmos—to be restored to the Creator lay in the Catholic Church, with the Pope receiving authority through St. Peter, the first bishop of Rome. Since apostolic authority continues only in and through the Catholic Church, even the Word of God as the foundation of Christian faith was, in his view, insufficient without the Tradition entrusted to the Catholic Church.
After a failed attempt to establish a Benedictine monastery in Kengeri, near Bangalore, he moved to Kurisumala in Kerala, where he helped establish a Syrian Malankara monastery alongside Fr. Francis Acharya (born Jean Richard Mahieu). However, he still felt that this was not the right place for his experiment—his vision of uniting the rational West with the intuitive East. Eventually, an opportunity arose for him to take charge of Saccidananda Ashram in Thannirpalli, near Trichy, originally founded by Father Jules Monchanin (Swami Parama Arubi Ananda) and Father Henri Le Saux (Swami Abhishiktananda).
However, through his personal study and deep meditation, Bede came to believe that the need of the hour was not the traditional Catholic Church but rather a synthesis of the rational West and the mystical East, embracing all religious faiths as part of a collective human aspiration to become one with the Eternal Brahman. Though he almost abandoned his identity as a Benedictine monk and Catholic priest towards the end of his life, he ultimately died within that identity—listening to the Farewell Discourses of Jesus from the Gospel of John, as per monastic custom.1
Bede sought to create a synthesis between East and West by “constantly discovering something new”2. However, the logic he used in his writings often made me feel that he—like many who attempted to find a universal, unknown, cosmic Christ in all religious faiths, particularly in Hinduism—was trying to create a Square Round or Round Square. In stretching beyond the text, he relied on certain Western rational arguments, which he himself admitted were incomplete and remained masculine without their marriage with Eastern mysticism.3
I am not a theologian like Griffiths (or scholars like Panikkar, who greatly influenced Griffiths in his early days of exploring Eastern mysticism). Nor am I a biblical scholar with expertise in church history, Hebrew, Greek, or Latin. But as a simple layperson, I ask: Why do we need a universal religious faith through synthesis or syncretism? Why not allow each religious tradition to uphold its own heritage while evolving to meet the needs and challenges of its adherents in every contemporary period?
Though we Indians strongly believe that humanity is one family (Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam), we also uphold the unity of the family while recognizing the necessity of diversity, accommodating each individual within the universal family of God. As Pramukh Swamiji stated in his address at the Millennium World Peace Summit in New York (August 29, 2000):4
“We religious leaders should not dream of only one religion in the world but dream of a world where all religions are one—united. Unity in diversity is the lesson of life. Flourishing together is the secret of peace.”
Even though we Hindus say all religions are one, I do not fully agree with this. Just as no two individuals are identical—though both are human—no two religions are the same, even though they belong to the category of religion.
But what about the claims of uniqueness and exclusivism within each faith? Many scriptures promote this view, or their followers interpret certain texts out of context, twisting them (a practice I call “text-torturing”). For example, though the Mukti Veda never explicitly claims that Mukti Nath is the only way to salvation or that there is no other name given apart from Mukti Nath (a claim often quoted out of context), how can one uphold His uniqueness while distinguishing Him from the deities of other faiths? (For more on this, see: https://dayanandbharati.in/uniqueness-of-muktinath-exclusivism-versus-inclusivism-a-dialogue/)
My simple suggestion is this: Allow the Gospel to incarnate within every worldview. The Gospel has an inherent power to transform worldviews from within, undergoing transformation through them, bringing regeneration rather than violently uprooting cherished social, cultural, and religious values. Each bhakta of Mukti Nath must work out how to practice and promote the uniqueness of the Lord through their life and teachings. But there is no point in advocating for a single universal religion or treating all religions as identical. Such an attempt is nothing but trying to create a Square Round.
At the same time, I am not endorsing a ‘free-for-all’ approach, where postmodernism grants every bhakta the freedom to interpret Scripture [of any faith] based solely on personal experience. While personal sadhana is important in bhakti, it must be anchored in the shared wisdom of the local mandali and the wider body of the Lord. Scripture—not individual interpretation—should remain the foundation. Though personal devotion deepens faith, true spiritual growth requires both personal seeking and collective discernment. Striking this balance is essential, as extremes—whether rigid institutionalism or unchecked individualism—can lead one astray.
As Griffiths concludes in The Marriage of East and West, we must ultimately go beyond our “signs and symbols,” as they only point to That Beyond, where no symbols are needed (The Marriage of East and West, p. 27).5 Yet, he also acknowledges that as long as we live in this body, we need signs and symbols. Only upon reaching the Further Shore, beyond human comprehension, will all symbols disappear, merging into the Eternal Brahman or Cosmic Energy. But who knows what lies beyond? Every religious tradition speaks of it in signs and symbols.
For me, even this “going beyond” is itself just another kind of sign and symbol, one we attempt to comprehend within the limits of human language.6 Whether it is the ātman realizing its oneness with Brahman, the Buddhist Nirvāṇa, the Vaikunta of the Vaishnava tradition, the various forms of mukti in Śaiva tradition, or eternal life in heaven—all are merely human descriptions of a reality beyond human grasp.
Above all, as Griffiths says, unless cyclical cosmology finds its mukti in time and history through the linear view of everything completed in that Cosmic Unity—which will remain eternally permanent—Hinduism will remain incomplete. According to him, as Hinduism needs to find its fulfillment in Christianity, Christianity needs the Cosmic Christ to make it complete.7 But for a Hindu, mukti is not in time and history but from time through history.8 Then, for me, heaven is not the absence of suffering and pain but finding peace amidst suffering and pain.
However, returning to this cyclical versus linear theory, both are forms of permanence. For the Hindu, cyclical cosmology, as it repeats endlessly, is another kind of permanence, much like the eternal union of atman with Brahman.9 We could even go a step further and argue that this eternal cyclical cosmos is preferable, as it grants multiple opportunities for the atman to work out its mukti through several births rather than remaining in an eternally monotonous heaven or hell. Imagine how life would not only be boring but also intolerable if it followed one monotonous path from cradle to grave. Why should we desire to go to such a monotonous heaven or hell for eternity?
Of course, for the sake of argument, one could counter this view with various points. However, my position is that this notion of becoming one with the Eternal Brahman or Cosmic Energy is merely another form of sign and symbol, expressed in human language.
For me, as I have reiterated several times, mukti begins here in this life while we are still in this body. Whatever awaits me on the Further Shore is not my primary concern. Whether it is becoming one with Brahman, Nirvana, remaining in the presence of God eternally, or any other form of expression, I am not preoccupied with it. Since I have already glimpsed that experience in this life, I believe the Further Shore will simply be an amplified version of the mukti I already enjoy here on earth—living in solitude as a recluse, reading, writing, meditating, composing poems, doing cross-stitch work, and enjoying cooking for others, including making pickles for them.
A Christian might blame the Renaissance for creating the so-called ‘masculine, rationalist mind of the West’10 and call for the formation of an authentic church by abandoning this Western masculine Christianity in favor of integrating the best elements of the East and Africa11 to create a universal church. However, such a vision is impractical, as pluralism is a reality in all spheres of life, including religion. The best approach is to accept this diversity and allow locals to work out their own solutions to the challenges they face in each society. Local issues require local solutions, and no global solution exists for local problems anywhere in the world.
Though the followers of Muktinath, including Hindu bhaktas, may claim His universal presence and authority, His teachings must be contextualized to address local issues. For instance, while both race and caste involve discrimination against fellow humans, the same kind of reform cannot be applied to both. Caste, being more of a social issue, requires a collective and structural approach rather than a purely theological solution. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar criticized Christian missionaries for failing to eradicate untouchability, arguing that they merely addressed it theologically while neglecting the deeper social and structural changes needed for real reform. This reinforces the point that caste discrimination cannot simply be resolved by theological doctrines but requires a localized, community-driven approach that directly confronts the entrenched social order. [See: https://dayanandbharati.in/theology-versus-sociology/]
In this sense, no marriage is possible between the rational West and the mystic East. We can live as neighbors—either by cooperating through mutual acceptance or by tolerating one another while acknowledging the tensions that remain. We may not be able to change our neighbor, but we can learn to coexist, whether in mutual respect or in tension. However, no single global solution will work for everyone, as every issue is shaped by society, culture, and tradition. Alternatively, a philosophical or mystic resolution would be to envision a Romantic Truth, objectifying it beyond our comprehension, as Griffiths himself does in his vision of a mystical union between East and West:
“We have always to bear in mind that the divine Mystery—the ultimate Truth—always lies beyond our conception. The great Myths of the world reveal different aspects of this mystery according to the imaginative insight of the different peoples of the world. In Jesus, the Myth took a particular historical form which is recorded in the New Testament and preserved in the Church. But the Myth is capable of new understanding as the human mind reflects upon it. It has been given a particular rational and legal structure by the Western mind, but the Eastern mind and the primitive intuitive mind throughout the world are capable of discovering new depths of meaning in it, and the modern Western mind, freed from the shackles of a mechanistic model of the universe, is capable of rediscovering the meaning of the Myth. The building of the Church as the manifestation in history of the presence of God in man is therefore the work of all mankind.12 The Hindu, the Buddhist, the Muslim, the humanist, the philosopher, and the scientist all have something to give and something to receive. The Christian, regardless of the church to which he belongs, cannot claim to have a monopoly on the Truth. We are all pilgrims in search of truth, of reality, of final fulfillment. But we must recognize that this Truth will always remain beyond our understanding. No science, philosophy, or theology can ever encompass the Truth. No poetry, art, or human institution can ever embody it. The great Myths are only reflections in the human imagination of that transcendent Mystery. Even the Myth of Christ still belongs to the world of signs, and we must go beyond the Myth to the Mystery itself—beyond word and thought, beyond life and death. For the ultimate Mystery can only be known through the passage of death. ‘You have died,’ wrote St. Paul, ‘and your life is hidden with Christ in God; when Christ, who is our life, appears, you also will appear with him in glory.’ (Colossians 3:3)—p.202
Though I uphold the reality of pluralism, when pluralism turns into relativism and exclusivism, I would choose exclusivism for its distinct advantages. Exclusivism does not allow for self-justifying excuses that seek refuge in relativistic pluralism. While pluralism broadens the scope for diverse expressions and aspirations, it can also be so flexible that it provides an escape route for self-justification when one fails to uphold one’s own creed. [See more on this in All Are Not the Same].
Notes
1 Postscript. Laurence Freeman OSB, Salvador, Brazil, May 2003, in Bede Griffiths, Marriage between East and West, Saccidananda Ashram, Thannirpalli, year not mentioned,Pp.187-189.
2 Bede Griffith, The Golden String,[ first edition 1954, Harvill Press, London], Michigan, Zondervan, 1994
3…There is a saying in one of the apocryphal gospels, ‘When will the kingdom of God come?’ and the answer is given ‘When the two shall be one, when that which is without is as that which within, and the male and the female shall be one.’ This is the return to Paradise, the reversal of the effects of the Fall.— p. 124
5…It is now known that all these words and images are but outward signs of a hidden mystery, and the myth and the symbol are recognized for what they are. It is thus that today we have to look on all the myths and symbols of religion as signs of a mystery which is beyond word and thought and yet which reveals itself and makes itself present through these symbols.—Griffith, Marriage, op. cit. p. 123
…The whole creation and all human history are ‘symbols’ of a transcendent mystery. All religious doctrines are ‘myths’ or symbolic expressions of a truth which cannot properly be expressed. Every form of priesthood and sacrifice, of ritual and sacrament, belongs to the world of ‘signs’ which is destined to pass away. Today, more than ever, we are being called to recognize the limitations of every form of religion. Whether Christian or Hindu or Buddhist or Muslim, every religion is conditioned by time and place and circumstances. All their outward forms are destined to pass away. As a Muslim saying has it: ‘Everything passes save his face.’….Idolatry consists a stopping at the sign; true religion is the passing through the sign to the Reality.—ibid. p. 145
6. It is difficult for us with our time-bound minds and space- bound bodies to understand this eternal reality, or rather it is impossible, but that there exists in each one of us something that corresponds to that eternal being, a little spark, a ray of light, which touches our minds and awakens us to this transcendent mystery….—ibid. p. 167
7 Human history is part of cosmic history and Jesus as a historic person takes his place in the evolution of humanity. Again a historic event is encountered as part of our psychological experience: history is not merely a succession of events, interpreted in the light of human experience. Nor if Christian revelation centres on a historic person and a historic event can we deny that history also has its place in Hindu experience…What is significant in the life and death of Jesus is that it is seen in the context not of cyclic time, the ‘eternal return’ of the cosmic revelation, but in the context of the history of a particular people, and that it comes at the ‘end’ to ‘give history its fulfilment’ It is a unique historic event which gives meaning to all human history and reveals its final purpose.(p. 179)…The danger of Hinduism is that it tends to see time and history as a passing phenomenon without any ultimate significance. The danger of Christianity is that it tends to attach too much importance to temporal events and to lose the sense of the timeless reality….—ibid. p. 179-80
8… So if this (goal) is not there, the thought which is thinking in terms of something happening in time is not there. Unfortunately, there is nothing to happen. Happening is in time. When time is not there, there is no happening, nothing to happen there. Atman is Brahman — that is exactly what it means — the Brahman you want in the future is already here; there is nothing to happen here. Achieving (it doesn’t matter what you call it) is in time, so it is bound to be caught up in cause and effect. You want to produce a result, but this is not a result, not a happening, not an achievement.— Remembering U.G. Krishnamurti, Compiled from conversations in India and Switzerland, 1973 to 1976 (author name, publisher, year is not mentioned. This is from website I think. As I read in the Computer, the page number is based on the format in the Computer.), p.183
9 In general it is claimed that while Hinduism upholds cyclical view of life and creation, Christianity linear theory. However in Hinduism also this cyclical is within a liner when as Thapar said, ‘sufficiently stretched’:
….Both the ‘short’ and the subsequent ‘long’ Yuga were part of a cyclic vision of time, but the very length of the ‘long’ Yuga made it more linear than the ‘short’ Yuga: ‘Where cyclic time takes a spiritual form it can be seen as almost linear when sufficiently stretched” (Thapar 2011: 292). Yet ‘historical awareness’ played a far greater role when people believed in the ‘short’ Yuga. Strictly speaking, ‘The Indians did not believe in ‘cyclic time., if by that is meant an endless and beginningless recurrence of events. It is true that the narratives recounted in the Puranas allude to vast cosmic cycles of repeated creation and dissolution (the kalpas), but these are cycles of change within linear time.” (Perrett 1999: 314)—Johannes Bronkhorst, How The Brahmins Won: From Alexander to the Guptas, New Delhi, Manohar Publishers, [2024] Reprint 2025], Note, 36, p. 14. Further explaining further on this point Prof Sharma says:
…the Mimasa school dispensed with this otherwise widespread concept of time in Hinduism in favour of a linear one, one supposedly more conducive for a sense of history.{ J. L. Nehru, The Discovery of India (New York: The John Day Company, 1946, p. 94} (p. 94) …It has been pointed out that it is not the concept of time but of cosmology which is cyclical in Hindu thought, and further that this concept itself appears in its full-fledged form only around the first century….— Arvind Sharma, Hinduism and Its Sense of History, New Delhi, Oxford, 2003, p 95
10 ‘…the genius of Greece and Rome blended with the oriental Semitic culture of the Christian religion to create a balanced and harmonious way of life,…at the Renaissance this harmony was lost, and the dominant, aggressive, masculine, rationalist mind of the West took charge, so that Europe remains today in a state of imbalance.’ But what about Asia and India which though managed to welcome so many values from other traditions, still managed to retain its own unique identity and place in the world.—Griffith, Marriage, op. cit. p. 150
11…The Christian churches, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant, have all been shaped by the western mind. They have built up structures of doctrine and discipline, of law and morality, which all bear the impress of Western genius. The Eastern churches have retained something of an Oriental character but are still dominated the Greek mind. Even the original Semitic tradition, which gave birth to Christianity, though deeply intuitive has still a dominantly masculine character. All the Christian churches, Eastern and Western, have to turn to the religions of the East to Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism and the subtle blend all these in Oriental culture, and to the deep intuitions of tribal religion in Africa and elsewhere, if they are to recover their balance and evolve an authentic form of religion which will answer to the needs of the modern world.—ibid. p. 151
12…Christianity itself soon came to develop a ritual and a sacrifice, a church and a priesthood, an organization of ever greater complexity. But this system of law is like every other system. It is conditioned by time and history, by external circumstances and events, and like all such systems it is destined to pass away. A visitor to Rome seeing the magnificent building of St Peter’s might well be inclined to say, ‘Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings: and be told, ‘Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.’115 Such is the fate of all earthly religion.—p. 143 [This is a remarkable confession of a Catholic Priest who insisted once that salvation is possible only through Catholic church that too in time and history. Now he says that this organized Catholic religion is conditioned by time and history.—db]
Appendix:
Postscript. Laurence Freeman OSB, Salvador, Brazil, May 2003.Pp.187-189.
….According to monastic custom I read him the (p.187) Farewell Discourses of Jesus from the Gospel of John, scripture passages of sublime transcendence and overwhelming intimacy He listened with absolute attention as it every word was meant for him personally and contained a vital truth he desperately needed to hear. From time to time he would be satiated and ask me to pause for a moment while he absorbed the thought and the emotion that were flooding him.
Like a sleeping Buddha you lie
In a parabola of exhaustion,
A universal of supreme repose.
“I am very contented” you will say
To the pilgrimage of doctors
Who come to stare and nod,
Charming them a moment out of
Their morning round of suffering.
Like Krishna after the shepherdesses
You recline on a saffron cloud,
Your gums munching baby food spooned
To you by a woman’s unconditional love
Remembering and desiring nothing,
Wholly vulnerable to the next lance of love,
Patient to be wrestled again
Between the angel and the goblin.
Like Christ sleeping with his friends
Behind the curtains of discipleship
You sink in them to the Father-ground of all
Shaking with a lover’s sobs still
When the words of Jesus are fed you
Or some stille to of truth escapes an idea
And you remember you do not exist.—pp. 187-188
Leave a Reply