Michael Amaladoss

The Indian Quest For Fullness
Theology as mystagogy relates it to spiritual experience, saving it from being an abstract, rational discourse. Theological reflection emerges out of the experience of divine mystery in the sacramental life and leads back to the same experience as it leads to fullness of life. This is how the Fathers of the Church, especially in the East, saw it. But with the impact of Greek philosophy on the process of reflection theology became a conceptual elaboration abstracted from lived experience. It set up an ‘objective’ world, freed from the subjectivity of experience. It robbed the experience itself of its mysteric dimensions. Rational, conceptual reflection however has fallen on hard times thanks to the Enlightenment which questions its rootedness in reality. In the era of post-modernity it is made irreal and relative. It has lost any link it had with experience. Hence the need to rescue theological reflection as mystagogy. I think that the Indian theological tradition, both Hindu and Christian, is well placed to help in this rescue. This is what I shall try to show in this paper.

The Indian Tradition
The focus of the Indian spiritual quest is self-realization. The individual self, ignorant of its fundamental oneness with the Absolute Self because of its limitations and sinfulness, seeks for freedom from its prison to realize its union with the Absolute. Realizing its union with the Absolute it discovers its oneness with Reality, that is all that exists. It is a non-dual – advaitic – union that transcends, while including, all differences. Raimon Panikkar envisions this as cosmotheandric communion. The Isa Upanishad sums it up: Behold the universe in the glory of God: and all that lives and moves on earth. Leaving the transient, find joy in the Eternal. (Isa, 1) The way to such freedom combines elements of wisdom or insight (jnana), loving devotion (bhakti) and unattaching work or service (karma). The proportions of this combination vary according to the different traditions. It is not my purpose here to elaborate this vision. I am just evoking it here because it is the context in which theological reflection finds its place. The starting point for the quest is the experience of the limitations of life, including suffering and death. It is from these that one seeks freedom. As the Upanishadic prayer goes:

Lead me from the unreal to the Real!
Lead me from darkness to Light!
Lead me from death to Immortality!

The seeker of liberation should have four attitudes or enabling capabilities: ability to discern between the permanent and the impermanent (viveka); utter detachment (vairagya); a virtuous life which includes virtues like a tranquil mind, self-control, renunciation, endurance or patience, faith or trust; and finally a burning desire for moksha or liberation (mumukshatva). These requirements already show that theological reflection as a part of the spiritual quest is not for everyone. It is not elite, but special.

The process of the quest consists of four stages: sravana or listening to the scriptures which reveal to us the reality of the Absolute; manana or reflection or pondering over the revealed word so as enter into it more deeply; nididhysana (concentration) that tries to make the scriptural vision our own and samadhi or repose in which one realizes and enjoys one’s communion with the Absolute. This leads to ananda or joy and shanthi or peace. Tradition suggests that the final realization is not merely the result of human effort, though it is required, but a gift and a manifestation. Theological reflection will correspond to the stage of manana. It is set in the context of a quest for realization, becoming one with the Real. Theology is not a pseudo-scientific, academic discipline as it has become in Euro-America.

Indian Christian Theology
Indian Christian theologians cannot but be affected by the spiritual context in which they are living. While many still follow – or are obliged to follow – the patterns inherited from Euro-America, a few are trying to find more inculturated paths to the Absolute. We can actually see three different tendencies, which have also emerged at various stages of history in the 20th century.
Some understand theology in the traditional Euro-American sense as “Faith seeking understanding”. For them ‘faith’ is a creed, a body of doctrines, which theology seeks to understand. This search uses the tools of philosophy, largely scholastic, but also influenced by some modern trends as they have emerged largely in Europe. Some human sciences will be taken into account when one treats of pastoral questions. Hermeneutics of the sacred scriptures is now an accepted practice, though there are efforts to subordinate it to accepted dogma. The hermeneutics that is applied to scripture is not often used to understand dogmatic statements, which are seen as non-historical, rational, objective, ever valid absolutes. Theology, in this sense, remains abstract and rational, that is conceptual. Systematic theology is carefully distinguished from biblical, spiritual, pastoral and moral theologies and dominates them.

Others see theology as “Faith seeking transformation”. Inspired by Latin-American models there are many liberation theologies like Dalit, Tribal and Feminist theologies. The focus is on ortho-praxis rather than ortho-doxy. The method is often described as the pastoral-theological cycle. One starts with faith as commitment to transform the world and looks at it with its discrimination and oppression, its inequality and injustice. One analyses this reality to understand its structures and causes. This knowledge questions one’s received faith statements. These are then interpreted in the light of experience in view of transforming the reality. Interpretation leads to theological reflection, which is oriented to praxis. In the light of the faith vision clarified by interpretative reflection one discerns what needs to be done to transform life and reality. Then one gets into action and the cycle starts again. Theology here is focused on life in this world and is action-oriented. Some would suggest that in order to transform the world, it is necessary also to transform persons, their mind-sets, attitudes, goals and desires. The focus here is on the agents and their spiritual transformation which would inspire and motivate them to act. The transformation of the world would lead to the ongoing realization in history of the Reign of God, which is a community of freedom, fellowship and justice. These are two poles of a theology wanting to liberate the people and the world.

A small group of theologians look, not merely at the reality from which people and the world have to be liberated, but at the ultimate goal into which everything has to be freed and find fulfillment. They would be inspired by the Upanishadic hymn:

Fullness there, Fullness here!
From Fullness proceeds Fullness,
When Fullness has proceeded from Fullness,
Fullness remains.
Om! Peace! Peace! Peace!

Everyone and everything comes down from the Absolute-Fullness and goes back to that same Fullness. We are aware of our limitations, sufferings, divisions, conflict. While we can try to do away with human-caused sufferings, natural limitations and calamities, illnesses and death are part of our lives. We are destined to transcend all these in a cosmotheandric communion, which includes God, the humans and the cosmos. It is an inclusive transcendence. The theological reflection that is part of this sadhana (spiritual quest) can be described as “Faith, as experiential commitment, seeking for Fullness, as inclusive transcendence.” The need to work for liberation in and of this world is not denied, but it is not absolutized. One thinks, not only of the liberation from, but of the liberation for. One does not stop with the cosmos or the humans, but reaches out to the Absolute foundation which is the Real. We will have to spell out the implications of this vision.

An Inclusive Vision
We can see that this Indian vision is inter-religious. One can see the influence of Hinduism in the spelling out of this vision. This represents a slow evolution. When Christianity came to India it looked at other religions as evil. Even Roberto de Nobili, who was sympathetic to Indian culture affirming that one can be a Christian religiously and an Indian culturally was critical of Indian religions. In the early decades of the 20th century, the Christians saw many good elements in Hinduism and set it a framework of “preparation – fulfillment”. In the 1960s Swami Abhishiktananda tried to show how the advaitic (non-dual) experience of Ramana Maharishi will find fulfillment in the experience of the Trinity. But taking up a serious practice of Hindu sadhana and claiming to have had an advaitic experience, he tried later to re-interpret Christianity in the light of advaita. The “I am” sayings of Jesus in St. John’s gospel suggest Jesus’ experience as advaitic: “I and the Father are one!” (Jn 10:30) In his prayer, reported in John 17, Jesus communicates this experience to the disciples: “As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us.” (Jn 17:21) Perhaps I can take a moment here to explain what is advaita (for non-initiates).

Advaita holds that God and the world (including the humans) are not-two (a-dvaita). God alone is Real. But everything is dependently real. They are not cut off from each other, opposing them to each other in a dichotomous sense, in which creation is sometime understood. They are distinct, but not different. It is a mutual indwelling. God is in us and we are in God. But our sinful egoism distorts this deep communion and oneness. It is possible to experience this oneness if we free ourselves from our egoism and attachments. It is our egoism and desire that also separate us from others and the cosmos and gives rise to all sorts of inequalities, discriminations, oppressions and sufferings. Once our egoism and desire disappear, inequality and injustice too would vanish and we will discover our communion with God, the others and the cosmos. There will be cosmotheandric communion. St. Paul sees this as “God being all in all” (1 Cor 15:28). In his letter to the Colossians he suggests that in Christ “all things hold together… for in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things.” (Col 1:17, 19-20) This is the fullness that the Indian theologians are seeking to achieve and experience. As St. Ignatius of Loyola said, we have to find God in all things and all things in God.

Such an inclusive vision discovers Hinduism and other religions not as enemies but as co-pilgrims to the Absolute. This perspective was affirmed by John Paul II in his encyclical The Mission of the Redeemer, in which he says that the Spirit of God is present and active in all cultures and religions. Indian theologians had tried to spell out the implications of such a vision even before the letter of John Paul II. At a seminar on “Inspiration in Non-Biblical Scriptures” in 1973 they accepted that the scriptures of other religions can be considered inspired in an analogical way. Though God has spoken to the others through their scriptures, in so far as God is speaking, God’s word is not irrelevant to us. So Indian Christians were encouraged to be nourished by reading the scriptures of other religions and some do. In 1988 they had another seminar on “Sharing Worship” in which they suggested that the believers of different religions worship one and the same God through a variety of symbols and rituals. Therefore, though each one should be loyal to the way in which s/he has been called by God, sharing worship is permitted.

The implications of such a broadening for Indian theology is tremendous. If God is present and active also among other believers, we can think and speak of and experience God authentically and fully only in an inter-religious way, in deep dialogue with other believers. In doing theology when I am listening to and dialoguing with the word of God in my living context, I can take into account, not only the Bible, but also the other scriptures. My experience of God also enters into dialogue with the experience of my neighbours of other religions. Inter-religiosity affects both the themes and the method of theological discourse. Behind such interaction at the level of theology lies collaboration in pursuing the goal of life for all, namely cosmotheandric communion. It becomes a shared search because we have a shared vision of a shared goal.

Inter-religious Theology
Theology can be inter-religious in three ways. First of all, a Christian theologian can do theology within the Christian perspective while being sensitive to the multi-religious context. Secondly, a Christian and do comparative theology contrasting the different approaches of the religions to a question in a similar context. Such comparison can also happen in a dialogical setting when a believer of each religion speaks for his/her tradition. Thirdly, in the context of intra-personal dialogue, a theologian seeks to integrate the perspective of the other in his own reflection. Today we have people who claim to be Christian-Hindus or Hindu-Christians. Such experiences of double-identity is certainly a step towards the cosmotheandric communion that all are moving towards.
Such an inter-religious approach is possible because the goal is the transcendent Absolute and the context is experiential. What are seen as contraries at the conceptual level may be transcended at the experiential level. Someone who is sharing experience is not bothered about clear and distinct rational formulations. Rather in a poetic mood symbols and metaphors are multiplied and make a cumulative effort to communicate an experience that is beyond simple communication.

Inter-religious theology is also pluralistic. Absolute Reality is one. But it can have many symbolic manifestations. The many manifestations are true, but only partially, not absolutely true. Each manifestation is different according to the historical, cultural, human and social circumstance in which it emerges. It is relative – that is, relative to the circumstances of manifestation and perception. The source of this relativity is not subjective, but objective. It is not the free, idiosyncratic creation of the subject and therefore is unreal. The divined manifestation is limited both by the freedom of God who chooses to manifest particular aspects of Godself and by the limitations of the persons receiving the manifestation. Whatever is affirmed is true, but not the full truth. While being sure of the truth of one’s own perception and affirmation, one is open to the different perception and affirmation of the others. A religious fundamentalist is one who absolutizes the relative truth of his/her affirmations. Theologizing in a pluralistic manner one is open to growth and change and also to the other in his/her difference, which is either complementary or challenging.

Theology is also experiential. Theology is only a stage in the process of self-realization – the self and the Self. It has its roots in divine self-manifestation or revelation in the scriptures and leads to God-experience. The experience of the divine is not merely a rational exercise. The whole person is involved: the imagination, the emotions, reason, the intuitive intellect, the energy field, the body. It is a holistic experience. As a matter of fact in the Indian tradition of concentration, used both in Hinduism and Buddhism, there is an effort to silence the reason altogether in order to release the intuitional capacity of the intellect. Rather than knowledge one speaks about an experience of Fullness, of the dancing Cosmos. Let us look at this a little more elaborately in the next section.

What Language?
Theology is supposed to be talk (logia) about God. But what kind of language can we use to talk about God? In the European scholastic tradition the privileged place was given to reason. Reason abstracts concepts from sense experience and then links them up logically. Theology uses these concepts to talk about God by projecting them forward analogically: God is good, not like us, but good infinitely. We do not really grasp this infinite good with our limited minds. So there is an element of apophatism or negative theology. What happened in European tradition was that this apophatism was soon forgotten in practice. Conceptual structures about God were projected as objectively true. At work was a correspondence theory of truth between reason and reality. Our reason was capable of reflecting reality as it is and so of making affirmations about reality that are objective and true, not tinged by any subjectivism. Our affirmations, of course, can be expressed in language, through the use of words that express the concepts.

This process of knowing collapses during the Enlightenment when the capacity of reason to reflect reality as is it is questioned. Our conceptual world and the language in which we express it is our own. It does not really touch reality, which is the great unknown. If this is true of the reality of the material world, the world of God is much more inaccessible. It is only a step from there to deny what one cannot know. What we say about reality and about God are our own imaginative constructions. As such they have to interpreted and deconstructed. Reality and truth are elusive. In post-modernity, every expression is subjective and relative. We live in the worlds of our own creation. It is not my purpose to here to elaborate on this process of deconstruction of knowledge. It is enough to point this out and to refer to its impact on theology. Talk about God becomes an irrelevant exercise. The Scholastic theologians of the Church speak about critical realism. They suggest that our reason is capable of reaching out to reality though it is conditioned in many ways. Therefore it needs constant purification. But this can only be apophatic or negative, not really positive. What is wrong with contemporary theology in Euro-America is that it accepts the knowledge framework, based on reason and concepts that is used by Greek and contemporary philosophy.

Indian theology would challenge this framework. At the level of rational knowing it may embrace some sort of critical realism. Indian theories of knowledge also speak about perception, inference and testimony. But Indian theology would refuse to accept that there is no other ways of knowing. The intellect is not limited to reason. It has an intuitive capacity of knowing that transcends reason. Beyond rationality there is awareness which is mediated by the emotions and the energy field. Even in Euro-America one speaks of emotional intelligence. It is more than reason. Intellectual insight is not mere rational perception. Besides the intellect there is also the force of action and love that brings us into contact with the world, the others and God. All these help to trigger experiential insight. As I have pointed out above, insight is released only when reason and the rational process is silenced.

It is not a process of analogy that extrapolates, but rather a mystical process of unknowing. Such an insight cannot be adequately expressed at all. Rational conceptual thought that is abstracted from the sense perception of the material world is the least adequate. Symbol, metaphor and poetry are more adequate. They are not totally adequate either. But, at least they try to reach out to the unknown and the unknowable through repetitive and imaginative efforts. Hence the inevitable pluralism of expressions that converge, but are not complementary. Now-a-days the term ‘symbol’ too seems to come under suspicion. The reason may be that it is looked at from a conceptual framework through cognate terms like metaphor. Indian theologians – Hindu and Christian – use the term dhvani or suggestion. The language of dhvani is not denotative, but connotative. It is like symbol. It does not claim to represent experience as it is, because it cannot be so represented. It can only be suggestively evoked. This is done through symbol and dhvani. The Indian tradition adds one more dimension to this process of knowing. In order to grasp the suggestion one must have an aptitude for it. A person who is tone deaf, for instance, cannot appreciate music. So the perceiver of dhvani must be sahridaya. S/he must have a heart that is in syntony with the experience. It is significant that Eastern Fathers like St. Ephrem used poetry to express their theological insights. Tamil poets like Nammalvar founded a whole religious tradition through his bhakti poems.

There is no difficulty in commenting on such poetic expression in ordinary rational-conceptual language. The problem starts only when the ordinary conceptual language is given priority. On the contrary it is always a second order expression subordinate to the first order expression in symbol and poetry. Poetry of course can also take narrative forms. The important thing is to relativize rational-conceptual language as the medium of theological reflection in reference to the experiential awareness that is characteristic of religion. Non-rational need not mean irrational. Poetry can hold in tension the subjective and the objective, the immanence and the transcendence in a way that rational-conceptual language cannot. The relativization of rational-conceptual language and the use of symbol and dhvani may not result in clear and distinct ideas. We have to realize that religion is the realm of experience, not of clear and distinct ideas. If we go back to the origin of our dogmas we would realize that they are more negative formulations that condemn what are seen as heresies than positive affirmations of Reality. When the Council of Chalcedon affirms that Jesus Christ in one person in two natures, it does not offer us a positive perception of who Jesus Christ is. Rather it tells us who Jesus Christ is not, allowing us to experience Jesus in all his richness. That is why it is amazing to note the amount of time and effort spent by ecumenical groups to arrive at exact conceptual formulations in language of agreed truth. One can easily predict that this will never happen in a way that will satisfy everyone.

Indian Theology is Mystagogical
Indian theology is mystagogical in many ways. Its focus is the mystery of God-experience. It is not a rational-conceptual framework that theologians have built up as a true replica of the divine. It does not start with faith as a rational-conceptual affirmation of God. It is not simply an explanation of dogmatic statements. It is born out of and mediates God-experience that is more an intuitional awareness than its rational-conceptual elaboration. It is not practical and pastoral as many liberation theologies are. Not that it denies the need for transformation. But personal and social transformation is set in the context of transcendence. Theology then leads to the experience of the mystery of Fullness. The experience of Fullness relativizes all religious systems that are only scaffoldings to reach out to the Absolute. It refuses to absolutize the relative manifestations and perceptions of the Absolute. Its proper language is symbol and dhvani. It tolerates rational-conceptual language as inevitable and useful at a certain stage of the spiritual pursuit. But it refuses its pretentions to be a faithful picture of reality that can judge the symbolic and dhvani dimensions. Realizing the mystery at the heart of reality it experiences its oneness and communion with the whole of reality.

This may be indicated as cosmotheandric communion. The passage towards this cosmotheandric communion involves an overcoming of its negations that are manifested in the world as inequality and injustice. But it does not promise an utopia in history. Theological reflection is only a stage or a dimension of a cycle of sadhana, which is an effort to empty oneself so as to be capable of receiving the experiential insight of the Absolute that is Fullness. While it does not exclude rational-conceptual reflection its roots are in an experiential intuition that involves the whole person: the energies, the emotions and the intellect. Detached from this whole, the rational-conceptual reflection is worth nothing. While we contest the inaccessibility of the real proposed by modern European theories of knowledge, we affirm its accessibility only in the context of a life that goes beyond mere reason. Theology has to get out of the straight-jacket of reason into which Euro-American theories of knowledge have pushed it since the Enlightenment. It would be a pity if we accept its pretensions to be universal.

Precisely because the intuitional experience of Fullness relativizes all religions, theology can be inter-religious. It need not be. One can reach the Absolute in any way and rediscover everything in the Absolute. But in a multi-religious global world an inter-religious sadhana seems indicated. For people who feel heir to two religious traditions an inter-religious approach seems inevitable and profitable. For example, I feel that Hinduism is the religion of my ancestors. I see no reason to run away from it. So I seek to integrate it at various levels. Similarly other Christians may seek integration with Buddhism, Islam or cosmic religiosity. Corresponding to Hindu-Christians, there are Christian-Hindus. My dialogue with Hinduism has actually helped me to rediscover the mystagogical dimensions of Christianity.

Conclusion
Theology is not spirituality or sadhana. It remains in the sphere of knowledge. But it is only a dimension of a spiritual process. It must not be abstracted from it. The spiritual process itself leads, not only to personal or social transformation, but to cosmotheandric communion. Theology must not be reduced to a rational-conceptual discourse. The intellect is also intuitive. The ‘word’ is more than concept. Modern European philosophy seems to accept too easily the idea that our urge to know cannot go beyond our mind. Then it goes around looking for ‘traces’ of the other. Theology is not a rational discourse, but wisdom. It is expressed in poetry, song and story – also in dance. Its focus is life in the world.

As part of a search, theology cannot be purely denominational. The search may start from a particular denominational context. But since the object sought after – God – transcends all name and form, the search too will transcend all denominations. But the transcendence is inclusive. A transcendent theology will not speak a common, perhaps abstract, non-denominational language. Rather it will be a dynamic interaction between different denominational languages. From such an encounter symbols may emerge that are not representative of any one denomination, but related to all of them. A connotative signification can only arise out of a denotative reference, though it transcends it. A symbol may relate to many denotative affirmations. It is in this sense that theology is interreligious. It is not an easy equation nor merging of perspectives but a dynamic encounter that a tensive symbol gives rise to.

For example, who is God for us in India? God is the unknown Absolute beyond all names and forms. Yet this Absolute manifests itself in various ways in history. Christians believe that one such manifestation is unique – an incarnation. But it does not cancel out other manifestations, but rather requires them. God and the world are not-two – advaitic. The world is not outside God the creator as in the material sphere. God is immanent in God’s creation as the (spiritual) self is immanent in its creations. Yet creation is totally dependent on God. Ramanuja consider the world as the body of God, thus indicating its dependence and difference, but also its unity. This is the significance of the term ‘cosmotheandric communion’.

Similarly, the identity of Jesus is not that he is one person in two natures. This says nothing more than that Jesus is divine and human. This is not a rational discovery, but an affirmation of an experience of Jesus who divinizes us, who becomes man to make us gods. The images of Jesus as the Way, the Sage, the Avatar, the Satyagrahi, the Servant, the dancer and so on tell us who Jesus is for us in Asia. None of this is adequate. Such symbols can be infinite. But they are more relevant to our experience that abstract dogmatic formulations. They also are the stuff of theology.
Anthony De Mello was not a theologian in any ordinary sense. Yet he has justify a body of teaching in the form of stories. They are not denominational. He had collected these stories from all kinds of sources: Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim and Cosmic traditions. His sources are multi-religious. But they lead to sadhana or spiritual practice leading to a life in freedom. The focus is deeply Christian. Raimon Panikkar claims to be a Christian, who has passed through Hinduism and Buddhism and returned as a Christian. As Paul and John before him, contemplating Jesus he discovers the mystery of Christ which is transcendent and universal, present and active everywhere. He expresses this in a pithy phrase: “Jesus is the Christ, but Christ is more than Jesus.” Jesus then becomes a ‘symbol of God’, the ‘cosmic Christ’ – a ‘Sacrament’ as Schillebeeckx would say or a ‘Real Symbol’ as Rahner would assert. This is not, obviously, a dry repetition of Chalcedonian dogma.

Swami Abhishiktananda (Henri Le Saux) began his encounter with Hindu spirituality, seeing the Trinity as the fulfillment of the Hindu vision of advaita. But as his search continued he began interpreting Christian experience in terms of Hinduism. He saw in Jesus the perfect Advaitin, who could say: “I and the Father are one!” In Jesus, such an advaitic communion is accessible to all humans. He saw such advaitic communion as transcending the names and forms both of Christianity and Hinduism. But to his last day he was faithful both to Christian (the Eucharist and the psalms) and Hindu (meditation and the Upanishads) ways of reaching out to the divine. Concretely, his disciple Marc was initiated to sannyasa (renunciation) jointly by a Hindu (Swami Chidananda) and a Christian (Swami Abhishiktananda) guru. What this shows is a focus on the Absolute beyond, not only our perceptions, but also its own manifestations. Both Panikkar and Abhishiktananda have not created their own poetic expressions of the Mystery, but comment on the poetry of the Bible, the Vedas and the Upanishads.

1. I have tried some Indian theologizing in some of my books. See Towards, Fullness. Searching for an Integral Spirituality (Bangaluru: NBCLC, 1984); The Dancing Cosmos. The Way to Harmony. (Anand: Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, 2003) and The Asian Jesus (Delhi: ISPCK, 2005)

Indian theology has then to become a mystagogy, born out of and leading to spiritual experience as insight which can find expression only in symbolic language. When will we give up the rational-conceptual discourse that we have inherited from Euro-America?

Michael Amaladoss, S.J.
Institute of Dialogue with Cultures and Religions,
Chennai, India.