Return to the Center (Bede Griffiths)
A Poor Man’s Aurobindo
[My 3-star Amazon review (NDA) of “Return to the Center” by Bede Griffiths.]
Bede Griffiths (1906-1993) was a British-born Benedictine monk who lived in ashrams in South India and became a noted yogi. A fan of my reviews suggested that I read him, and so I got a copy of “Return to the Center,” because I thought it would be about meditation. The book had little information about meditation, but some interesting, though flawed, insights into spiritual life and related subjects.
Even though Griffiths was a Benedictine monk, but doesn’t grok the three sacred vows of a Christian – obedience, poverty, and chastity. He writes:
“How then to understand obedience? Poverty is detachment from the world, chastity is detachment from the flesh, and obedience is detachment from the self. This is the most radical detachment of all. The self is the principle of reason and responsibility in us, it is the root of freedom, it is what makes us men.”
As I have written, obedience is a synonym for Communion (presence + oneness). We are disobedient because we sin (miss the mark) by ignoring or avoiding a connection to the Spirit. Obedience is to atone for our sin by reassuming the “asana” of at-one-ment with the Divine. Poverty is a synonym for letting go or self-emptying. It naturally follows obedience, because once we connect to the Spirit (which is both Presence and Power), we then must empty ourselves in order to receive the Benediction, the down-poured Spirit, Light-Energy from above. Chastity is allowing the pure (or white, or clear) Light-Energy (or Grace) to en-Light-en, or “save” us.
Griffiths is not a fan of modern civilization. He opines:
“Science is the lowest form of human knowledge. Theology is above philosophy, because it is open to the wall of transcendent reality, but its methods are still those of science and philosophy.”
In contradistinction to Griffiths, I say that science is hardly the lowest form of human knowledge and that most theology is below philosophy and does not use the methods of objective philosophy and science.
Griffiths is also not particularly astute regarding social issues. He writes:
“The negro will remain a perpetual challenge to white civilization until the wisdom which he possesses, the intuitive wisdom of primeval man, has been recognized.”
I hardly think his view regarding blacks is the right one.
Despite his flaws, Griffiths is an inspiring writer who hits the nail on the head a number of times in this book. Here is an example:
“The creature is a limited, finite being in which the infinite being of God is reflected. It is though the one divine light were received into each of these ‘capacities,’ each reflecting it in its own waynand breaking it up into innumerable colors, each a reflection of the one light. The one Word reflects itself in each of these energies, giving to to each its own proper being, but remaining unchanged in itself. The Spirit – the divine Shakti – fills each of these capacities with its infinite energy and pervades the whole creation to the furthest reaches of matter – yet its energy remains ever the same. ‘This [the divine Being] is full; that [the creation] is full; take the full [the creation] from the full [the divine] and the full remains.’”
Griffiths, who astutely equates the divine Sat-Cit-Ananada with the Holy Trinity, has great admiration for the iconic Sri Aurobindo. Regarding Auribindo, he writes:
“In Sri Aurobindo the values of being and becoming, of spirit and matter, of the One and the many, of the eternal and the temporal, of the universal and the individual, of the personal God and the absolute Godhead are intehrated in a vision of the whole, which has never been surpassed in depth and comprehensiveness.”
Given Griffiths’ great admiration for Aurobindo, it is no coincidence that his writings are a reasonable facsimile of the renowned sage’s. Hence, if you resonate with Aurobindo, you will likely find Griffiths an amenable read.
[My 3-star Amazon review (NDA) of “Return to the Center” by Bede Griffiths.]
Bede Griffiths (1906-1993) was a British-born Benedictine monk who lived in ashrams in South India and became a noted yogi. A fan of my reviews suggested that I read him, and so I got a copy of “Return to the Center,” because I thought it would be about meditation. The book had little information about meditation, but some interesting, though flawed, insights into spiritual life and related subjects.
Even though Griffiths was a Benedictine monk, but doesn’t grok the three sacred vows of a Christian – obedience, poverty, and chastity. He writes:
“How then to understand obedience? Poverty is detachment from the world, chastity is detachment from the flesh, and obedience is detachment from the self. This is the most radical detachment of all. The self is the principle of reason and responsibility in us, it is the root of freedom, it is what makes us men.”
As I have written, obedience is a synonym for Communion (presence + oneness). We are disobedient because we sin (miss the mark) by ignoring or avoiding a connection to the Spirit. Obedience is to atone for our sin by reassuming the “asana” of at-one-ment with the Divine. Poverty is a synonym for letting go or self-emptying. It naturally follows obedience, because once we connect to the Spirit (which is both Presence and Power), we then must empty ourselves in order to receive the Benediction, the down-poured Spirit, Light-Energy from above. Chastity is allowing the pure (or white, or clear) Light-Energy (or Grace) to en-Light-en, or “save” us.
Griffiths is not a fan of modern civilization. He opines:
“Science is the lowest form of human knowledge. Theology is above philosophy, because it is open to the wall of transcendent reality, but its methods are still those of science and philosophy.”
In contradistinction to Griffiths, I say that science is hardly the lowest form of human knowledge and that most theology is below philosophy and does not use the methods of objective philosophy and science.
Griffiths is also not particularly astute regarding social issues. He writes:
“The negro will remain a perpetual challenge to white civilization until the wisdom which he possesses, the intuitive wisdom of primeval man, has been recognized.”
I hardly think his view regarding blacks is the right one.
Despite his flaws, Griffiths is an inspiring writer who hits the nail on the head a number of times in this book. Here is an example:
“The creature is a limited, finite being in which the infinite being of God is reflected. It is though the one divine light were received into each of these ‘capacities,’ each reflecting it in its own waynand breaking it up into innumerable colors, each a reflection of the one light. The one Word reflects itself in each of these energies, giving to to each its own proper being, but remaining unchanged in itself. The Spirit – the divine Shakti – fills each of these capacities with its infinite energy and pervades the whole creation to the furthest reaches of matter – yet its energy remains ever the same. ‘This [the divine Being] is full; that [the creation] is full; take the full [the creation] from the full [the divine] and the full remains.’”
Griffiths, who astutely equates the divine Sat-Cit-Ananada with the Holy Trinity, has great admiration for the iconic Sri Aurobindo. Regarding Auribindo, he writes:
“In Sri Aurobindo the values of being and becoming, of spirit and matter, of the One and the many, of the eternal and the temporal, of the universal and the individual, of the personal God and the absolute Godhead are intehrated in a vision of the whole, which has never been surpassed in depth and comprehensiveness.”
Given Griffiths’ great admiration for Aurobindo, it is no coincidence that his writings are a reasonable facsimile of the renowned sage’s. Hence, if you resonate with Aurobindo, you will likely find Griffiths an amenable read.
