The following reflection on the Trinity or Sachidananda is based on Fr. Bede Griffiths’ thoughts about the Trinity as Sachidananda. I have provided his points in the notes.
The fact is that God is not Hindu, Christian, or Muslim. But the riddle is that there exist Hindu god(s), Christian god(s), and the Islamic God. When different religious traditions attempt to understand and convey their particular concept of God, they develop technical terms after long discussions and debates. In the case of Islam, what the Holy Quran says about God is final, though their tradition has various approaches to understanding Him. In this process, most traditions have to resolve internal contradictions within their scriptures or theological traditions to present a cohesive view of God.
Take Hinduism, for example. The fact is that polytheism is the Hindu reality, though, due to Western influence, later elitist Hinduism tried to promote monotheism by bending and twisting various textual claims. However, my understanding is that even terms like polytheism, pantheism, monotheism, or monism fail to fully convey how Hindus perceive God. Instead of using these terms, I would say that since each Hindu has their own chosen personal deity, it would be more accurate to describe Hinduism as believing in or worshiping the gods of many people rather than believing in many gods, if we wish to accommodate the principle of monotheism. [see more on various theisms: https://dayanandbharati.in/unknown-god-primitive-pantheism/]
Given this reality, an outsider should be even more careful when trying to understand the theology of God in another tradition. Take, for example, the Trinity. It clearly speaks of a Christian God, which was later formulated through Mukti Veda to reconcile contradictions within scripture and tradition. Uttara Veda (New Testament) never speaks of the incarnation of God in the way Hinduism does. Even Muktinath is not directly mentioned as God but is instead described as the Word of God, Son of God, and Suffering Servant. The famous phrase Christ is Lord is not found in Mukti Veda but emerged from the early Mandali to express their allegiance to the Lord in contrast to Caesar, who was no longer Kyrios to them.
Now, if Christians wish to convey the concept of the Trinity to a Hindu, there is no point in using the term Sachidananda. I have already shared my view on this above.1 But the question now arises: if a Hindu wants to follow Muktinath, what should their understanding of God, in general, and Muktinath, in particular, be? There is no need for them to understand the Christian Trinity or the phrase Christ is Kyrios. Rather, remaining within their own tradition, they can create their own concept of God and the Lord that serves their purpose. However, the question—and the warning—is that this approach may lead to distortions and fail to represent the teachings of scripture, ultimately leading to pluralism, which could dissolve into the famous saying, “As many souls, so many views.” In one sense, this is true. It may not align with the Christian Bible, which was formed centuries later, or with systematic theology, which was developed later. But it would not disturb a Hindu bhakta who wishes to remain within the Hindu tradition, as relativism and pluralism are fundamental aspects of the Hindu/Indian worldview.
I know this perspective may raise alarms among Christian circles. However, they themselves know that Christianity also upholds a form of exclusivistic pluralism, with each denomination claiming that its interpretation of God and the Lord is the correct one. Ultimately, for a Hindu, bhakti and faith do not depend on the correct understanding of theology, which emerged through systematic theological traditions and rigorous exegetical analysis. Rather, what matters is a right personal relationship with God, known as bhakti.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with Christians using the term Trinity or Hindu bhaktas of the Lord using Sachidananda. But when each side tries to interpret the other based on their own religious tradition or theological view, it serves no one’s interest. We Hindu bhaktas using Indian theological terms like Bhagavan, Krupa, Karuna, Daya, Avatar, and Prayaschitta to express their bhakti in the Lord within their own tradition is very different from a Christian theologian attempting to propose a universal, unknown cosmic Christ who is neither the Christian Trinity nor the Hindu Sachidananda.
Traditionally, earlier attempts to create an authentic Indian Christian theology, whether by Western Christians or Westernized Indian Christians, always kept one goal in mind: to safeguard the doctrinal purity of their particular denominational church and theological viewpoint. Even several Indian pioneers—almost all of whom were Hindu converts to Christianity or Hindu Christians—could not escape this mental framework. (Brahmabandab Upadhyaya was both a convert and a rebel.) There is nothing wrong with having a firm conviction in certain doctrines and trying to express one’s scriptural view on theology.
However, as a Hindu bhakta of the Lord, this shield of protecting doctrinal purity of any denominational church is unnecessary. When I express my bhakti in the Lord, I must use Indian categories and technical terms. However, attempting to dissolve every particular theological tradition in order to create a new, universal theology that transcends all signs and symbols will not serve anyone’s needs.
For example, although Hinduism speaks of Nirguna Brahman (God without attributes), this concept cannot be applied to God as a person. Most Hindus believe God is personal and cannot conceive of a God without attributes. Of course, several Hindu saints have sung about the so-called Nirguna Brahman as God. But for me, even this Nirguna is an attribute—as I have often said, there is no such thing as tasteless taste or colorless color. Therefore, one cannot apply the concept of Nirguna Brahman to the Christian Trinity by assigning Brahman to God the Father, Ishwara to the Lord, and Maha Shakti to the Holy Spirit.
So, how am I to understand or articulate the so-called Trinity, which can be inferred but is not explicitly stated in Mukti Veda, particularly in Uttara Veda? To be honest, as a layperson, this is impossible for me. Moreover, I see no need for such a doctrinal statement to construct some kind of Trinity for my bhakti. However, my understanding of God and the Holy Spirit in my relationship with the Lord is as follows:
- Muktinath is my Guru.
- This Guru is my God.
- His indwelling presence and guidance—as an inner witness in my spirit or consciousness—is my Holy Spirit.
But I do not need any separate technical term to express this relationship in order to construct a systematic theology. Since pluralism is our Indian reality, let there also be pluralism in theology.
Ashram, 19-9-23
Notes
1 https://dayanandbharati.in/paulianity/
Sachidananda as Trinity by Griffith
The doctrine of the Trinity was developed from St John’s Gospel by the Greek fathers, using the language of Greek conceptual thought, in terms of essence and nature and person and relation, and this has become the normal form of the doctrine in Christian tradition. But it is possible that the (p.188) same experience could be interpreted in other terms, drawn a different tradition. In Hinduism the experience of God as we have seen, in terms of Brahman, Atman, Perusha. Would it not be possible to interpret the experience of Jesus in the light of the Hindu understanding ultimate reality? We could then speak of God as Saccidananda -Being, Knowledge, Bliss and see in the Father, Being, sat, Being, the absolute eternal ‘I am’, the ground of Being, the source of all. We could then speak of the Son, as the cit, the knowledge of the Father, the Self-consciousness of eternal Being, the presence to itself in pure consciousness of the infinite One; Being reflecting on itself, knowing itself, expressing itself in an eternal Word. We could then speak of the Father as nirguna Brahman, Brahman ‘without attributes’, the infinite abyss of being beyond word and thought. The Son would then be Saguna Brahman, Brahman ‘with attributes’, as Creator, Lord, Saviour, the Self-manifestation of the unmanifest God, the personal aspect of the Godhead, the Purusha. He is that ‘supreme person’, (Purushottaman) of the Bhagavad Gita, the ‘unborn, beginningless, great Lord of the world’, the ‘supreme Brahman, the supreme abode, the supreme purity, the eternal divine Person (purusha), the primal God (adideva), the unborn, the omnipresent (vibhum)’.
Finally, we could speak of the spirit as the Ananda, the Bliss or Joy of the Godhead, the outpouring of the super- abundant being and consciousness of the eternal, the Love which unites Father and Son in the non-dual Being of the Spirit. This spirit is also the Atman, the Breath (pneuma) of God, which is in all creation and gives life to every living thing, which in man becomes conscious and grows with the growth of consciousness, until it becomes pure, intuitive wisdom. The Atman is the spirit of God in man, when the human spirit becomes wholly pervaded by the divine spirit (p.189) and attains to pure consciousness. It is conscious Bliss, consciousness filled with joy, with the delight of Being. This was the spirit which filled the soul of Jesus and gave him perfect consciousness of his relationship as Son to the eternal ground of being in the Godhead.— Bede Griffiths, Marriage between East and West, Saccidananda Ashram, Thannirpalli, year not mentioned, pp. 188-190
…the Spirit, which is neuter in Greek, has been given a masculine character. But the Hebrew tradition also preserves a word for the spirit (ruah) which is feminine, and in the Syrian Church this feminine gender was preserved, so that they could speak of the Holy Spirit as Mother….—p. 190
But it is in the Holy Spirit that the feminine aspect of the godhead can be most clearly seen. She is the Sakti, the power, immanent in all creation, the receptive power of the Godhead. The world comes forth from the Father, the eternal Ground of Being, in his Word, the Cosmic Person (purusha) .In him the ideas or archetypes of all created beings are hidden; he is the exemplar of all creation. But it is the Spirit who (p.190) conceives these ‘ideas’ in her maternal womb and brings them fourth in creation. She is the Great Mother (the Devi) who nourishes the seeds of all beings and makes them grow. Still more, she is the mothering Spirit in him, who receives the Word, the Wisdom of God, in her heart, of whom in the Christian tradition Mary is the figure, receiving the Word ofGod in her heart and bringing him forth in his earthly manifestation. Even in the bosom of the Godhead itself, the Spirit is the eternal feminine, who on the one hand receives Word of God coming from the Father, and on the other the Bride of the Son, through whom the creation is conceived and brought into being.—pp. 190-191
See ‘God and the Masculine Pronoun’ Appendix, in Gerald R. McDermott. God’s Rivals: Why Has God Allowed Different Religions? Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2007. pp. 169-173
Leave a Reply