Understanding Panikkar and making him understood:
a threefold hermeneutic structure: autós – biós – grafé.
a threefold hermeneutic structure: autós – biós – grafé.
We are only beginning to realize the extent and the depth of Raimon Panikkar’s work and vision. Personally I’m convinced that his work is a particular, maybe even unique, testimonial of the human spirit of all time and a special tribute for our epoch.
In the evening of his life Panikkar said that
his writings were not “simply speculative but rather autobiographical” and I’m
thinking that his writings (grafé), his
life (biós) and the mystery of his person (autós) are inter-in-dependent. If we want to understand his
writings (grafé) we have to know his life (biós) and one of the ways to understand a deeper dimension
of his life (biós) is to read it through his
writings (grafé). And yet both - his writings and
his life - are rooted in the mystery of Panikkar’s person (autós),
which is placed in something deeper and bigger than the events of his life and
pages of his writings. Yet none of these three elements can exist without the
other two and none of them can be privileged or separated from the two others,
because the three of them are one, are united or, as he would like to say, inter-in-dependent,
and they have to be taken into consideration together.
Grafé
This is the most material, most concrete and the very first dimension through which today the people have and are going to have access to Panikkar’s vision. Panikkar was many things, and even if he used to say that he had given the best of himself in liturgies, conferences and relations with others, it is certain that he was also a writer and today his vision primary subsists in his texts. In order to understand him it is necessary to pay attention to their formal aspect.
Panikkar was writing in at least seven languages (Latin, Spanish, Catalonian, German, English, French, Italian) and his work remains multi-linguistic. Even if today we are gradually receiving his “Opera Omnia” in a one-language form, starting with an “Italian matrix” subsequently translated into Catalonian, Spanish, French, English or German, Panikkar’s thought is multi-linguistic. Panikkar was a pluralistic man also from the linguistic point of view.
Panikkar expressed himself primary in the Anglo-Saxon and Romanic branches of Western-European languages. Even though he knew basic Sanskrit and Hindi, his famous neologisms are all rooted in Greek or in Latin (e.g., cosmotheandrism, tempiternitas, christophany, etc.). Although it is relatively easy to translate him into one of these Western-European languages, yet things change if we try to do it into other linguistic families like Slavic, Semitic, Hindi, Chinese, Swahili. Panikkar used to say: “Not everything can be said in English” and it could be add: “Not all Panikkar is translatable” which of course emphasizes the whole question of understanding him and making him understood. In other words: Can Panikkar’s universal vision be made worldwide? And if – how?”
Panikkar was writing through more than seventy years and a chronological approach to his work cannot be avoided in a certain level of understanding. It is not an easy task yet indispensable. In Panikkar there is a certain evolution and even though he tends to a harmony, there are some contradictions in his thinking. We can talk, of course only to a certain extent, about the “first”, the “second” and maybe even about the “third” Panikkar. For example the “first Panikkar” is clearly theocentric and the “second one” is cosmotheandric, or rather, pluri-centric. The “first” is clearly Christ-centric the “second” Chistophanic. The “first Panikkar” speaks about the object of faith, for the second one faith has no object. The “first one” is radical, the second revolutionary, the third tends toward a harmonious synthesis of the “first” and the “second” one. It is fascinating to see how and why he changed and reflect on what it means.
The whole question is not purely academic or theoretical because following the evolution of Panikkar himself, whoever trails his development can participate in it and experience it. For example, following the steps of Panikkar from a Christocentric vision into a Christophanic one, one can make a qualitative leap, a real spiritual experience, which can have something to do with an interior transformation.
Along the way of understanding the writings of Panikkar different interpretations are going to appear. The question is: does Panikkar, being pluralistic by definition, allow different interpretations? Are we going to have different and many Panikkars after Panikkar? Yes, and yet the many are one.
In my opinion, the most urgent thing today is to collect Panikkar’s entire patrimony and make it accessible for people without any exclusivity or censorship. To have everything collected and available is not enough yet it is the condition sine qua non to understand Panikkar and the honest exigency to make him known.
Biós
The work of Panikkar is like a huge lake and his life like a mountain, which rises above the water and is reflected in it. Navigating on the lake in different directions we can see the mountain from different perspectives and contemplate different aspects of the personality of Panikkar, yet if we want to see the whole lake we have to climb the mountain. In another words we have to know his life if we want to see his whole work in the proper perspective.
Panikkar’s work and life belong one to each other. Any authentic and honest study of his writings sooner or later has to face this man’s biography.
Yet climbing this mountain is not an easy task, because the rock from a distance looks nice yet as we come closer it is difficult to climb, sometimes unpleasant and even disagreeable. Looking closer to Panikkar’s life we see that Panikkar made errors, created conflicts, hurt persons and felt ashamed. There were lights and darkness in him and in his life as in all human beings. It would be wrong to judge him and his work only from the perspective of these errors, yet it is useless and dishonest to avoid and to hide them. Panikkar was great not because he was innocent but even though he was sometimes wrong. We can see his greatness and better appreciate his search for freedom when we contemplate also his limitations, that is, his humanity.
Panikkar’s resistance to a possible biography about him has several explanations. His life was so rich and original that he himself probably had difficulties understanding it and talking about it. He knew that the richness and complexity of life couldn’t be reduced to a biographical narration. He had a certain mystical tendency according to which a wise man, a mystic, should not be known, shouldn’t have a biography, should be hidden and should have only a message. He was quite resistant to any kind of psychology, which from one point of view is somewhat correct and yet on the other hand can hide some psychological problems of his personality. Panikkar was quite aware that during his life he made mistakes and it was not easy for him to reconcile these facts with the image of a wise philosopher.
In my opinion the biographical approach to Panikkar is inevitable and there are several reasons for that. First of all Panikkar did not have only a biography and spiritual experience but also a life: a very rich, interesting and in a certain way beautiful one which should be known. Secondly, behind his quite speculative, metaphysic and mystic writings, the concreteness of his life is needed in order to appreciate his message. In other words, a reader somehow needs to know the answer to the question which had been put already by his friend Abhishiktananda, who after he had read his The Unknown Christ of Hinduism wrote in his diary: “Did he (Panikkar) accomplish all of that in his life?” The question cannot be avoided and the answer to that question has to pass through the knowledge of Panikkar’s life. Whoever reads him, earlier or later asks: “How did he live it? How did he accomplish all of that in his life? Is that real or are those only words?” Biography is not the only answer but without this no other answer can be given. In other words, the life of Panikkar can provide the validity of his teaching and so it has to be known. We need to dialogue with the thoughts of Panikkar, we need to dialogue with his life, and we need to juxtapose his life and his work.
The elderly Panikkar said: «As soon as I had a hunch I started writing a new book or at least an article in order to check, clarify, deepen, and finally formulate my experience - although dressed in philosophical language that I believe is necessary». That means that all his theories are rooted in his personal experience and in order to understand them well it is useful, if not necessary, to know the circumstances and the events that generated his reflections and in order to accomplish it the knowledge of this man’s life is inevitable.
I think that Panikkar is going to keep different researchers busy for a long time yet and from time to time we are going to be presented with a new discovery of letters, notes, confessions, etc., which will call us to review what we know about his life and how we understand his vision. Also in the case of his life we are going to have different biographies of this man and different interpretations of the events, which are going to influence the comprehension of his ideas.
At the present moment a widespread effort should be made to collect any kind of testimony about his life. This should be done quickly because time is passing and many witnesses are passing away. It is obvious for me that Panikkar’s personal archive should be accessible for this biographical research.
Autós
One of the verses from the Veda Panikkar loved the most was: “What thing I am I do not know, I wander secluded, burdened by my mind” (RV I, 164,37). This indicates the unknown, hidden or apophatic dimension of his existence and also of his writings. This dimension is present everywhere in the life and the work of this man. It is present, yet it can be neither eliminated nor explained. Panikkar was in a touch with this inexplicable and silent dimension, with his “autós”, which, in keeping with the tradition could be called: atman (which is also Brahman), void or sunyata (which indicates also plenitude) and which has to remain in silence and it cannot be illuminated because it remains in darkness.
Using another image we could say: his work is a circle, his life is its radius and yet the wheel moves because of the void at the pivot in the center.
In the existence of Panikkar there is something, which cannot be understood yet this “something” is communicated to us by his life, as we know it. Also his writings cannot be reduced either to bits, pages or exegetical studies, yet passing by letters, words, sounds and meanings we have access to their deepest dimension. Passing by the visibility of biography we reach the invisibility of life. We reach the silence of the word of Panikkar passing by the words and sound of his teaching.
All three dimensions (autós – biós – graphé) are inter-in-dependent. To the image of a lake (writings – grafé) and mountain (life – biós) of Panikkar, which correspond one to another, one more element should be added: the cloud which covers the top of the mountain and reflecting in the surface of the water is mixed in with the depth of the lake. Both the cloud, which covers the top of the mountain and the depth of the lake, cannot be penetrated. They both symbolize the mystical character of Panikkar’s writing and the enigma of his personality.
And so, I see the challenge of understanding Panikkar and making him known as a practice of threefold structure: autós – biós – graphé. These three words are symbols in a needful and dynamic interrelationship. In my opinion, it is only by facing each of the three dimensions of this structure and putting them together that the misunderstanding of Panikkar’s work can be avoided and his thought can be fruitfully received and can influence the life of other people.
© Maciej Bielawski (2013)
This is the most material, most concrete and the very first dimension through which today the people have and are going to have access to Panikkar’s vision. Panikkar was many things, and even if he used to say that he had given the best of himself in liturgies, conferences and relations with others, it is certain that he was also a writer and today his vision primary subsists in his texts. In order to understand him it is necessary to pay attention to their formal aspect.
Panikkar was writing in at least seven languages (Latin, Spanish, Catalonian, German, English, French, Italian) and his work remains multi-linguistic. Even if today we are gradually receiving his “Opera Omnia” in a one-language form, starting with an “Italian matrix” subsequently translated into Catalonian, Spanish, French, English or German, Panikkar’s thought is multi-linguistic. Panikkar was a pluralistic man also from the linguistic point of view.
Panikkar expressed himself primary in the Anglo-Saxon and Romanic branches of Western-European languages. Even though he knew basic Sanskrit and Hindi, his famous neologisms are all rooted in Greek or in Latin (e.g., cosmotheandrism, tempiternitas, christophany, etc.). Although it is relatively easy to translate him into one of these Western-European languages, yet things change if we try to do it into other linguistic families like Slavic, Semitic, Hindi, Chinese, Swahili. Panikkar used to say: “Not everything can be said in English” and it could be add: “Not all Panikkar is translatable” which of course emphasizes the whole question of understanding him and making him understood. In other words: Can Panikkar’s universal vision be made worldwide? And if – how?”
Panikkar was writing through more than seventy years and a chronological approach to his work cannot be avoided in a certain level of understanding. It is not an easy task yet indispensable. In Panikkar there is a certain evolution and even though he tends to a harmony, there are some contradictions in his thinking. We can talk, of course only to a certain extent, about the “first”, the “second” and maybe even about the “third” Panikkar. For example the “first Panikkar” is clearly theocentric and the “second one” is cosmotheandric, or rather, pluri-centric. The “first” is clearly Christ-centric the “second” Chistophanic. The “first Panikkar” speaks about the object of faith, for the second one faith has no object. The “first one” is radical, the second revolutionary, the third tends toward a harmonious synthesis of the “first” and the “second” one. It is fascinating to see how and why he changed and reflect on what it means.
The whole question is not purely academic or theoretical because following the evolution of Panikkar himself, whoever trails his development can participate in it and experience it. For example, following the steps of Panikkar from a Christocentric vision into a Christophanic one, one can make a qualitative leap, a real spiritual experience, which can have something to do with an interior transformation.
Along the way of understanding the writings of Panikkar different interpretations are going to appear. The question is: does Panikkar, being pluralistic by definition, allow different interpretations? Are we going to have different and many Panikkars after Panikkar? Yes, and yet the many are one.
In my opinion, the most urgent thing today is to collect Panikkar’s entire patrimony and make it accessible for people without any exclusivity or censorship. To have everything collected and available is not enough yet it is the condition sine qua non to understand Panikkar and the honest exigency to make him known.
Biós
The work of Panikkar is like a huge lake and his life like a mountain, which rises above the water and is reflected in it. Navigating on the lake in different directions we can see the mountain from different perspectives and contemplate different aspects of the personality of Panikkar, yet if we want to see the whole lake we have to climb the mountain. In another words we have to know his life if we want to see his whole work in the proper perspective.
Panikkar’s work and life belong one to each other. Any authentic and honest study of his writings sooner or later has to face this man’s biography.
Yet climbing this mountain is not an easy task, because the rock from a distance looks nice yet as we come closer it is difficult to climb, sometimes unpleasant and even disagreeable. Looking closer to Panikkar’s life we see that Panikkar made errors, created conflicts, hurt persons and felt ashamed. There were lights and darkness in him and in his life as in all human beings. It would be wrong to judge him and his work only from the perspective of these errors, yet it is useless and dishonest to avoid and to hide them. Panikkar was great not because he was innocent but even though he was sometimes wrong. We can see his greatness and better appreciate his search for freedom when we contemplate also his limitations, that is, his humanity.
Panikkar’s resistance to a possible biography about him has several explanations. His life was so rich and original that he himself probably had difficulties understanding it and talking about it. He knew that the richness and complexity of life couldn’t be reduced to a biographical narration. He had a certain mystical tendency according to which a wise man, a mystic, should not be known, shouldn’t have a biography, should be hidden and should have only a message. He was quite resistant to any kind of psychology, which from one point of view is somewhat correct and yet on the other hand can hide some psychological problems of his personality. Panikkar was quite aware that during his life he made mistakes and it was not easy for him to reconcile these facts with the image of a wise philosopher.
In my opinion the biographical approach to Panikkar is inevitable and there are several reasons for that. First of all Panikkar did not have only a biography and spiritual experience but also a life: a very rich, interesting and in a certain way beautiful one which should be known. Secondly, behind his quite speculative, metaphysic and mystic writings, the concreteness of his life is needed in order to appreciate his message. In other words, a reader somehow needs to know the answer to the question which had been put already by his friend Abhishiktananda, who after he had read his The Unknown Christ of Hinduism wrote in his diary: “Did he (Panikkar) accomplish all of that in his life?” The question cannot be avoided and the answer to that question has to pass through the knowledge of Panikkar’s life. Whoever reads him, earlier or later asks: “How did he live it? How did he accomplish all of that in his life? Is that real or are those only words?” Biography is not the only answer but without this no other answer can be given. In other words, the life of Panikkar can provide the validity of his teaching and so it has to be known. We need to dialogue with the thoughts of Panikkar, we need to dialogue with his life, and we need to juxtapose his life and his work.
The elderly Panikkar said: «As soon as I had a hunch I started writing a new book or at least an article in order to check, clarify, deepen, and finally formulate my experience - although dressed in philosophical language that I believe is necessary». That means that all his theories are rooted in his personal experience and in order to understand them well it is useful, if not necessary, to know the circumstances and the events that generated his reflections and in order to accomplish it the knowledge of this man’s life is inevitable.
I think that Panikkar is going to keep different researchers busy for a long time yet and from time to time we are going to be presented with a new discovery of letters, notes, confessions, etc., which will call us to review what we know about his life and how we understand his vision. Also in the case of his life we are going to have different biographies of this man and different interpretations of the events, which are going to influence the comprehension of his ideas.
At the present moment a widespread effort should be made to collect any kind of testimony about his life. This should be done quickly because time is passing and many witnesses are passing away. It is obvious for me that Panikkar’s personal archive should be accessible for this biographical research.
Autós
One of the verses from the Veda Panikkar loved the most was: “What thing I am I do not know, I wander secluded, burdened by my mind” (RV I, 164,37). This indicates the unknown, hidden or apophatic dimension of his existence and also of his writings. This dimension is present everywhere in the life and the work of this man. It is present, yet it can be neither eliminated nor explained. Panikkar was in a touch with this inexplicable and silent dimension, with his “autós”, which, in keeping with the tradition could be called: atman (which is also Brahman), void or sunyata (which indicates also plenitude) and which has to remain in silence and it cannot be illuminated because it remains in darkness.
Using another image we could say: his work is a circle, his life is its radius and yet the wheel moves because of the void at the pivot in the center.
In the existence of Panikkar there is something, which cannot be understood yet this “something” is communicated to us by his life, as we know it. Also his writings cannot be reduced either to bits, pages or exegetical studies, yet passing by letters, words, sounds and meanings we have access to their deepest dimension. Passing by the visibility of biography we reach the invisibility of life. We reach the silence of the word of Panikkar passing by the words and sound of his teaching.
All three dimensions (autós – biós – graphé) are inter-in-dependent. To the image of a lake (writings – grafé) and mountain (life – biós) of Panikkar, which correspond one to another, one more element should be added: the cloud which covers the top of the mountain and reflecting in the surface of the water is mixed in with the depth of the lake. Both the cloud, which covers the top of the mountain and the depth of the lake, cannot be penetrated. They both symbolize the mystical character of Panikkar’s writing and the enigma of his personality.
And so, I see the challenge of understanding Panikkar and making him known as a practice of threefold structure: autós – biós – graphé. These three words are symbols in a needful and dynamic interrelationship. In my opinion, it is only by facing each of the three dimensions of this structure and putting them together that the misunderstanding of Panikkar’s work can be avoided and his thought can be fruitfully received and can influence the life of other people.
© Maciej Bielawski (2013)
