Writing Panikkar’s biography
|
Meanwhile I was reading Panikkar’s texts there were coming to my mind question like: “Who was the man who write them?”, “Did he realized in his life the things he was writing about?”, “In which contexts, time and places, did he live and write?”, and so on. And because I didn’t find any satisfying material I started my personal research and soon I discovered that this man had a quite interesting life which was worthy to be described and known in order of batter understanding of his thoughts. I practiced this method in front of other figures finding it fruitful for myself and being appreciated by others[1].
|
In one moment I talked about writing a biography of Panikkar with the roman publisher Elido Fazi who was interested in it, so I wrote it and it was published it in 2013. Next year, 2014, the Fragmenta Editorial form Bacelona directed by Ignasi Moreta, published the Catalonian and Spanish version of my book translated by Jorge Pigem, a former assistant of Panikkar. This publications had a waste echo in media and were used by students and scholars. Next year, 2014, the Fragmenta Editorial form Bacelona directed by Ignasi Moreta, published the Catalonian and Spanish version of my book translated by Jorge Pigem, a former assistant of Panikkar. This publications had a waste echo in media and were used by students and scholars.
The Italian and original version was published with title Panikar. Un uomo e il suo pensiero (Panikkar. A man and his thought) instead in Spain it came out with a title Panikka. Una biografia (Panikkar. A biography), with some corrections and several changes. The reasons of this differences were not exclusively rhetoric or commercial and should be explained. Several months before the Italian edition, when the manuscript was already written, the Foundation Vivarium Raimon Panikkar published a letter signed by Joseph Torres, the Vice-President of it, in which was said that any biography of Raimon Panikkar was not welcome or even forbidden because against the will of Panikkar himself. Since the letter was sent to all e-mail addresses the Foundation possessed, there were reactions and discussion in the web in which different exponents explained unreasonableness of the Vivarium’s statement. Nevertheless the Foundation did not changed its mind and the letter was published in its official web-page where it still present[2]. Since I was not agree with the Vivarium’s statement and convinced that my book should be published but without any polemic, I changed the primary title Panikkar. Una biografia to Panikkar. Un uomo e il suo pensiero and removed from the text any reference to “biography” using at least the expression “biographical portraits”. Yet the Catalonian published was convinced that the book should be printed with the word “biography” in the title and he did it. Because he was also the editor of Panikkar’s works in Catalonia, naturally collaborated with the Vivarium and he didn’t want any conflict with it, he exposed the manuscript of the translation of my book to Milena Carrara Pavan, the President of the Foundation, who proposed some changes in the text. Since there were not so many and did not destroyed the general structure, sense and narration of the book, I accepted this censorship. Yet it has to be said that the Italian original and the Spanish/Catalonian versions are a little different. The new Italian version, untitled Panikkar. La vita e le opera (Fazi Editore 2018), follows the Catalonian/Spanish edition with some precisions and adds. This version was also published as an ebook in English translation made by Leonardo DiLisio[3].
There are to extremely different kinds of biographies: hagiographic and scandalous one. The first tends to hide any shadows of the hero, the second one wants to highlights them. I didn’t fallow neither the first not the second one. Writing a biography of Pankkar I wanted to offer a coherent narration which in one and not very large book that could give the portrait of this man and extend a horizon for better comprehension of his works[4]. Right from the beginning I was convinced that I will not say “everything” either because I didn’t have access to all the materials or because in order to say “everything” I should dedicated at least ten years of my life to it and write something like three volumes with thousands of pages which was for me existentially impossible. I was quite aware of all the limits of my work and yet convinced that it was a right thing to published it in that time. The results of this work are still valid even if in the future they will and should be completed and enlarged by other studies.
It is well known that Panikkar distinguished “bios” and “zoe”. The “bios” is physical, biographical, external and expose to be analyzed, instead “zoe” is spiritual, interior, mysterious and accessible only in the dialogical and loving relation. He would be most happy, especially in his own case, in some kind of “zoe-biography”. Yet the point is that on the one hand the “zoe-biography” cannot be written and on the other that one of the gates to “zoe” pass through “bios” and “biography”, since the interior is related with exterior and the spirit is incarnated. I think that the honest biography does not destroy the “zoe” but rather render it accessible. May be, as he said in one of the interview, was not interested in biographical understanding of himself, yet on the other had he said, that he was open to it and waiting for somebody who is going to do it. I wouldn’t like to say that my biography accomplished this task perfectly but at least it made a step towards this direction.
Wholeness
There were many Panikkars in Panikkar: a boy named Raimundo in Bacelona and elder man known Raimon in Tavertet, a student of chemistry in Bonn and professor of comparative philosophy of religions in Santa Barbarara, a priest Paniker from Opus Dei in Madrid and “sacerdos secundum ordinem Melchisedech” Panikkar from Varanasi, a theologian called “Father” in the Church and father and husband in his family. There was Panikkar reader and Panikkar writer, there was Raimundo who preached in cathedrals and Raimon who set in silence at Gange, there was Panikkar friend and lover and Panikkar opponent and polemist. He considered himself being Christian and Hinduist, Buddhist and a-theist who expressed his thoughts in Spanish, German, English, Latin, French, Italian and Catalan.
This complexity increases when we realize that a certain image of this man had his parents, brothers, sister and nephews who talk about him and that he is seen differently when we listen the witnesses of his confreres form Opus Dei, his colleagues form universities or his students or disciples. He is seen and known differently in Europe and inversely in India, differently in USA and otherwise in South America or in Australia. Briefly, there are different images, ideas and way of thinking about Panikkar among different people who know him in numerous places and in various periods of his long and lively life. Than thing change when we consider a personal link which relates this people with Panikkar and emotions which color a way of thinking about him. There are many Panikkars in dissimilar opinions about him among different people.
Raimon Panikkar was aware of his plurality and may be it stands at the bottom of his reflections about plurality or pluralism in which he tried to reconciled “one and many” (hén kaì pollà) which is one of the fundamental quests of his philosophy developed through decades. He was also aware that people know him partially or form one point of view, Spanish or American, Italian or Indian, and after all nobody know him really, hence he developed his theory based on difference between identity and identification which can be transcended by personal love or true dialogue. In one moment, when he was already old and famous, some of his friend were considered the possibility to write a biography the “master” form different point of view and by different authors but the project was not realized, probably because quite difficult in itself and problematic as long as he was alive. To all of that has to added also the conviction of Panikkar himself that any biography, based on historical narration, is enable to say all the truth and hence is reductive. Yet he himself was interested in and read biographies of some people he was interested in as it is testified by some volumes in his library[5]. He was also attracted by the idea, that a wise or holy man has no biography but only a message and was pretending to reach this ideal but he did he really realized it? Ironically it could be said that Panikka left to many traces. Finally I’d like add that in Panikkar there is a certain distance between the person he was and the personality the role he played in public.
In writing Panikkar’s biography it was necessary to face the question of many Panikkars in Panikkar, to concord different vision of this man presented by various people, reconciled the contradiction of being known and unknown which dwelled his heart and converts impossibility in a challenge. My writing was a compromise in which I unified different opinions and visions, dilled with having too much material and yet non having all the information that exist and choosing between things that could be said and this which should be avoided in order to respect the privacy of Panikkar himself and of some people related to him I was talking with and about.
In the end I created a literary structure in which I presented different events of his life and united them though narration which embraced his whole life and the most important of his works. It gave me the possibility to contemplate the wholeness of this personality in plurality of its contradictive aspects and proceed in continuity without avoiding raptures. I designed the whole line of his life but also found the turning points.
Important was not only to see and to narrate the whole life of Panikkar, but also to place him in the context of history and culture of his time. He lived in Europe of the Two World Wars, the Civil War of Spain and the Cold War of the second half of twenties century. His world was the one of the end of colonialism, independence of India and creation of a new order of the world with its global dimension in politic and economy. He lived in a time of changes in the catholic Church caused by the Second Vatican Council, encounters among different religions caused by massive migration and development of technology which met cultures and nations. To see Panikkar’s life in this historical context was an another important aspect to consider both his life and his work. He was a son of his time and also an attentive observer and critic of it. I think that see the life and the work of this man in the context of his epoch is an another aspect of the wholeness that the biography offers and may be only a biography can do it, hence it is necessary both in understanding it and in receiving it properly.
Chronology
Biography habitually uses the simple and direct way of narration, means chronology, which is blessing and damnation. It is blessing because gives the possibility to put facts, things and events in a certain order. The clarity in which we see that something in the life of a person was first and something else after is refreshing and offers the possibility to investigate on causes and effects. It is also a damnation because not everything in a life of a person can be reduced to a simple rule of cause and effect, and comprehend by establishing the “before” and the “after”. In the case of Panikkar it is really good and reveling to see all his life and work not only in a one shot of the wholeness but also in a long chronological succession. On the other hand trying to reach this purpose, which is proper for any biography, we realize that not everything can be understood in this way. Because he was complex person and because his life was quite rich a one event often has many causes and generate many effects and such a state of things make almost impossible the chronological narration. The biography is a compromise and it is also one of the reasons why I liked to talk about “a biographical portrait” and not simply about biography. Yet it does not exclude the necessity to established in the future the exact and detailed life calendar (calendarium vitae) of Panikkar related with the calendar of his work (opera autem schedule).
Trying to establish the chronology of Panikkar’s life almost automatically generated its geography, since the time and the space are related. This relation is, according to me, quite important because reveals not only when but also where each of his work was written. And because often he wrote some his texts in a long period of time, this texts were also written in different places. In the case of Panikkar it is not indifferent to know not only when and in which language some text where written but also be aware where they were composed. This seems to me be in agreement not only with Panikkar’s hermeneutic rule which relates text with context but also with his consideration that the chronology should be related to the topology. All of that gives the concreteness to his speculation, incarnates his thoughts and offers an important an important elements to interpreted them.
I’d like to mention an important Panikkar’s attitude which is with a contrast with his suspicion towards biography, which is only one of many of his contradiction. This man was almost obsessed with date and with conservation of documents related to his life. Almost all introduction or prefaces to his works have almost always the date and place in which were written, he kept the diary signing in it dates and places, this same regard his letters, he kept receipts for the stores, baying a book often he wrote in it when and where he bought it and then reading a book he signed when he started and finished to read it, and rereading it he noted down it again. Panikkar left so many chronological and topographic traces that whoever is studying his life discover that it is very often is possible to know exactly where he was in a precise moment. Writing his biography I often asked myself why did he do it? A person who defeats biography does not leave traces. Of course it could be a psychological explanation of such an attitude. In the case of Panikkar it could be said that this man, which for many years had no stable place for his life, so he signed the data in his texts and books which were his home and place, but I’m convinced that this attitude reveals a hidden desire that his life one day would be or even should be studied.
The study of Panikkars biography establish an order of his writings which has several consequences and important concerns for understanding and interpretation of his thoughts. First of all the chronological reading of his texts, related to the biographical events, reveals not only the link between life and work of this man, but also an evolution of his ideas. In fact there is a “first Panikkar” this one of Opus Dei, the “second Panikkar” who lives and writes between India and USA, and the “third Panikkar” this from Tavetet. The first one is radical, the second revolutionary and the third tends towards harmony and reconciliation. It is impossible to establish a precise moments of this periodization, because the evolution was slow, but the fact is undeniable. Only as an example one can take in consideration the idea of mission present in the “first Panikkar” which is rejected by the “second one” with his idea of dialogue and overpassed by the “third one” with his idea of intercultural dialogue and pluralism. A similar evolution could be established taking in consideration his ideas of other religions or technology and other of his ideas.
So, in understanding Panikkar important and helpful is not only the chronology of his life but also the chronology of his works, both possible because of studying his biography. In this point I’d like to mention another aspect which regards an evolution inside several of his important essays and books. It could be called the “history of redactions”. Panikkar was not only writing many of his texts through a long period of time (sometimes there were decades) but many of them had several versions, translation and editions. The first publication of The Unknown Christ of Hinduism from 1964 is quite different then the last one published in 2008. The same could be said about his El silencio del Dios published in 1970 which was elaborated several times and finally published in 2008 as The Silence of Buddha, and so on. If one day his archive is going to be accessible for scholars, and if, as I suppose, Panikkar kept also the manuscripts with corrections of different redactions and version of his text, in the future the studies will bring quite interesting results which will confirm the evolution of his thought and will explain the process through which passed his mind. Only the hypothesis of such a work and discoveries is quite exciting. Let me add, that during my investigation I met several person who had some versions of different manuscripts of Panikar’s works with his notes and corrections that one day should be taken in consideration. Such approach should be taken seriously in consideration by scholars especially in front of so called “opera omnia” of Panikkar, which not only reduces his “opera” to a selection of his writing (the best off) but also seems not to contemplate this fact the many of them has different publications, translations and versions created by Panikkar himself. The whole idea of “opera omnia” is based on some ideas which have a strong hermeneutic presuppositions and consequences which has to be taken in consideration by readers[6].
Lights and Shadows
Panikkar was a special person, a great spirit, profound thinker and writer, dedicated priest and man of prayer, courageous and generous, whose brightness and life inspired, attracted and fascinated. I think that my book highlight very clearly the undeniable positive and shiny aspects of this man. Yet during his life he did errors, hurt others and had his shadows. The study of his biography brings into the light also the dark side of that man and his life which possibly disturb persons who are admiring him and his works. During the work on his biography I met different kind of people who knew Panikkar. Some of them were fascinated by him and saw in him only the brightness, others didn’t like him at all and were quite critical either towards the person or towards his works, or both. The people who in the first moment were fascinated by Panikkar but with time discovered some of his imperfections could have different reactions: some of them removed the darkness and allowed in dialogue with me only the brightness, others ignored the positive aspects and highlighted only the negative ones. Generally his familiars, like his sister or nephews were inclined to talk quite honestly about the weaknesses of “Raimundo”, meanwhile his “disciples” or followers avoided any discussion about them. The question is serious and inevitable, also in order to evaluate his thought, yet the task is not easy to be faced up also because Panikkar himself was trying to avoid it or to interpreted on his own, subjective way. According to me also quite numerous relation which Panikkar had with men and women were not free form shadows, hurt and wait to be clarified. This same regards several of his friends, collaborators and colleagues. There are several “dark zones” in Panikkar’s life that could be mentioned in view of the future investigation.
Old Panikkar in some interviews talked about his parents with devotion, admiration and idealizing their love, yet according to me their marriage had to be not easy and it has to be remembered that Raimon Panikkar had a strong, painful and long conflict with his father. A similar thing should be said about his relation with his younger brother Salvador which should be analyzed in future including psychological, philosophical and economic aspects. His sister Mercede loved and admired him, yet even she with difficulty accepted some of existential choices of his brother and questioned them.
Panikkar’s relation with the Opus Dei and his founder Monsignor Escribá de Balaguer has several shadow lines. Those who dislike this catholic organization and like Panikkar have some difficulties to accept and interpret the fact that Raimon was a faithful member it for a one third of his life. In other words their see his belonging to the Opus Dei as something negative which also bring the whole question of political orientation of Panikkar in Spain in the time of General Franco. Instead this same relation being seen from the Opus Dei prospective is quite different because perceive Panikkar as restless, capricious, disobedient, ungrateful and unfaithful. It has to be remembered that Raimon Panikkar used to say that he himself left Opus Dei but in fact he was expelled from this organization principally because of his moral misconducts. In a word, the relation between Panikkar and Opus Dei was full of tension, quite dramatic and shady from both sides.
Another fact of Panikkar’s life, which disturb many people, is his marriage. He was a catholic priest voted to celibacy and by marrying Maria Gonzalez-Haba in 1984, he entered in conflict with the canon law of the Church, was suspended “ad divinis” and yet continued to celebrated sacraments and presented himself as a priest. The whole situation was complex and complicated dramatically Panikkar’s life for decades. The marriage was relatively unhappy and Panikkar himself with time considered it as an error carrying the consequences. Yet in the eyes of many, especially in the catholic milieu, he was considered as a priest who married and because of it for many his theology was discredited which, remembering his spiritual aspiration, dedication towards theology and priestly identity, was simply tragic. Only the future honest study, investigation and interpretation can sane the situation which is directly related with the evaluation and reception of his works in theology.
All of that shows that the life of this man was straighten between light and shadow and I think this same should be said about his intellectual work or writings. Both are waiting for a future deepening, honest search, long studies and laborious interpretation.
Conclusion
Since I have written the Panikkar’s biography several new volumes of his “opera omnia” were published with some text earlier unedited and many great studies about his thought were written. Today we know his ideas better and he is better known in a large public. On the other hand, during the five years which passed from the first publication of my biography, very few extended and deep thing were written about him and his life. In fact I could mention only the books of Achille Rossi, who presented Panikkar in the light of his friendship with him based on their correspondence[7] and one article written by Josef Ignasi Saranyana who clarifies some aspects about the relation of Panikkar with Opus Dei[8]. I think Panikkar will keep busy scholars for decades and it will pass many years before we will receive more complete and more suitable biography of him. Before it will happen some condition has to be accomplished and several works should be done.
First of all his archive should be expose and accessible in its integrity to scholars, thing which were precluded to me.
Second, all the material spread in the world, should be collected, preserved and make available. From my own experience I can say, that there is a quite large number of letters, registrations and memories to be discovered and saved. The people who knew Panikkar and have important documents and memories are simply dying and things are falling in irreversible oblivion. I just thinking about Mercedes Paniker, Salvador Paniker, Ancochea German Soto, Patric D’Souza, Scott Eastham, Maria Carmen Tapia, and so on.
Third, a particular and concrete studies on different aspects, periods, places and relations of Panikkar’s life, should be written. Based on such a research the future biography could be written, the knowledge will proceed and the reception of his work will be more fruitful.
©Maciej Bielawski (2018)
[1] Cf. Il cielo nel cuore. Invito al mondo esicasta di Niceforo il Solitario (2002); Tragedia folle. Mondo letterario di Vittorino Andreoli (2013); Dumitru Stăniloae and His Philocalical Vision (2017); Strannik. Spiritualità del pellegrino russo (2017); Sguardo contemplativo. Saggio su Pietro Damasceno autore filocalico (2018).
[2] Cf. http://www.raimon-panikkar.org/english/altre-biografie.html
[3] Cf. Maciej Bielawski, Panikkar. His life and His Works, Fazi Editore, 2018.
[4] Cf. M. Bielawski, “Understanding Panikkar and Making Him Understood: A Threefold Hermeneutic Structure – Graphe, Bios, Autos”, in K. Vatsyayan and C. Carpentier de Gourdon (ed.), Raimundo Panikkar. A Pilgrim Across Worlds, Niyogi Books, New Delhi 2016, pp. 67-72.
[5] Cf. M. Bielawski, The Song of A Library, Lemma Press, 2018.
[6] Cf. M. Bielawski, “Opera Omnia di raimon Panikkar”, http://goo.gl/JRKrfO (26.06.2015); I. Moreta, “A propósito de la Opera Omnia Raimon Panikkar: respuesta a Maciej Bielawski”, http://goo.gl/Ca8lEV (26.06.2015); L. Marcato, Le radici del dialogo. Filosofia e teologia nel pensiero di Raimon Panikkar, Mimesis 2017, pp. 65-77.
[7] Cf. A. Rossi, Riflessi. L’amicizia con Raimon Panikkar, L’altrapagina, 2012; Id., Un percorso condiviso. Le lettere di Raimon Panikkar, L’altrapagina, 2015.
[8] Cf. J.-I. Saranyana, “Raimon Panikkar: a propósito de una biografía”, in SetD 11 (2017) 323-348.
The Italian and original version was published with title Panikar. Un uomo e il suo pensiero (Panikkar. A man and his thought) instead in Spain it came out with a title Panikka. Una biografia (Panikkar. A biography), with some corrections and several changes. The reasons of this differences were not exclusively rhetoric or commercial and should be explained. Several months before the Italian edition, when the manuscript was already written, the Foundation Vivarium Raimon Panikkar published a letter signed by Joseph Torres, the Vice-President of it, in which was said that any biography of Raimon Panikkar was not welcome or even forbidden because against the will of Panikkar himself. Since the letter was sent to all e-mail addresses the Foundation possessed, there were reactions and discussion in the web in which different exponents explained unreasonableness of the Vivarium’s statement. Nevertheless the Foundation did not changed its mind and the letter was published in its official web-page where it still present[2]. Since I was not agree with the Vivarium’s statement and convinced that my book should be published but without any polemic, I changed the primary title Panikkar. Una biografia to Panikkar. Un uomo e il suo pensiero and removed from the text any reference to “biography” using at least the expression “biographical portraits”. Yet the Catalonian published was convinced that the book should be printed with the word “biography” in the title and he did it. Because he was also the editor of Panikkar’s works in Catalonia, naturally collaborated with the Vivarium and he didn’t want any conflict with it, he exposed the manuscript of the translation of my book to Milena Carrara Pavan, the President of the Foundation, who proposed some changes in the text. Since there were not so many and did not destroyed the general structure, sense and narration of the book, I accepted this censorship. Yet it has to be said that the Italian original and the Spanish/Catalonian versions are a little different. The new Italian version, untitled Panikkar. La vita e le opera (Fazi Editore 2018), follows the Catalonian/Spanish edition with some precisions and adds. This version was also published as an ebook in English translation made by Leonardo DiLisio[3].
There are to extremely different kinds of biographies: hagiographic and scandalous one. The first tends to hide any shadows of the hero, the second one wants to highlights them. I didn’t fallow neither the first not the second one. Writing a biography of Pankkar I wanted to offer a coherent narration which in one and not very large book that could give the portrait of this man and extend a horizon for better comprehension of his works[4]. Right from the beginning I was convinced that I will not say “everything” either because I didn’t have access to all the materials or because in order to say “everything” I should dedicated at least ten years of my life to it and write something like three volumes with thousands of pages which was for me existentially impossible. I was quite aware of all the limits of my work and yet convinced that it was a right thing to published it in that time. The results of this work are still valid even if in the future they will and should be completed and enlarged by other studies.
It is well known that Panikkar distinguished “bios” and “zoe”. The “bios” is physical, biographical, external and expose to be analyzed, instead “zoe” is spiritual, interior, mysterious and accessible only in the dialogical and loving relation. He would be most happy, especially in his own case, in some kind of “zoe-biography”. Yet the point is that on the one hand the “zoe-biography” cannot be written and on the other that one of the gates to “zoe” pass through “bios” and “biography”, since the interior is related with exterior and the spirit is incarnated. I think that the honest biography does not destroy the “zoe” but rather render it accessible. May be, as he said in one of the interview, was not interested in biographical understanding of himself, yet on the other had he said, that he was open to it and waiting for somebody who is going to do it. I wouldn’t like to say that my biography accomplished this task perfectly but at least it made a step towards this direction.
Wholeness
There were many Panikkars in Panikkar: a boy named Raimundo in Bacelona and elder man known Raimon in Tavertet, a student of chemistry in Bonn and professor of comparative philosophy of religions in Santa Barbarara, a priest Paniker from Opus Dei in Madrid and “sacerdos secundum ordinem Melchisedech” Panikkar from Varanasi, a theologian called “Father” in the Church and father and husband in his family. There was Panikkar reader and Panikkar writer, there was Raimundo who preached in cathedrals and Raimon who set in silence at Gange, there was Panikkar friend and lover and Panikkar opponent and polemist. He considered himself being Christian and Hinduist, Buddhist and a-theist who expressed his thoughts in Spanish, German, English, Latin, French, Italian and Catalan.
This complexity increases when we realize that a certain image of this man had his parents, brothers, sister and nephews who talk about him and that he is seen differently when we listen the witnesses of his confreres form Opus Dei, his colleagues form universities or his students or disciples. He is seen and known differently in Europe and inversely in India, differently in USA and otherwise in South America or in Australia. Briefly, there are different images, ideas and way of thinking about Panikkar among different people who know him in numerous places and in various periods of his long and lively life. Than thing change when we consider a personal link which relates this people with Panikkar and emotions which color a way of thinking about him. There are many Panikkars in dissimilar opinions about him among different people.
Raimon Panikkar was aware of his plurality and may be it stands at the bottom of his reflections about plurality or pluralism in which he tried to reconciled “one and many” (hén kaì pollà) which is one of the fundamental quests of his philosophy developed through decades. He was also aware that people know him partially or form one point of view, Spanish or American, Italian or Indian, and after all nobody know him really, hence he developed his theory based on difference between identity and identification which can be transcended by personal love or true dialogue. In one moment, when he was already old and famous, some of his friend were considered the possibility to write a biography the “master” form different point of view and by different authors but the project was not realized, probably because quite difficult in itself and problematic as long as he was alive. To all of that has to added also the conviction of Panikkar himself that any biography, based on historical narration, is enable to say all the truth and hence is reductive. Yet he himself was interested in and read biographies of some people he was interested in as it is testified by some volumes in his library[5]. He was also attracted by the idea, that a wise or holy man has no biography but only a message and was pretending to reach this ideal but he did he really realized it? Ironically it could be said that Panikka left to many traces. Finally I’d like add that in Panikkar there is a certain distance between the person he was and the personality the role he played in public.
In writing Panikkar’s biography it was necessary to face the question of many Panikkars in Panikkar, to concord different vision of this man presented by various people, reconciled the contradiction of being known and unknown which dwelled his heart and converts impossibility in a challenge. My writing was a compromise in which I unified different opinions and visions, dilled with having too much material and yet non having all the information that exist and choosing between things that could be said and this which should be avoided in order to respect the privacy of Panikkar himself and of some people related to him I was talking with and about.
In the end I created a literary structure in which I presented different events of his life and united them though narration which embraced his whole life and the most important of his works. It gave me the possibility to contemplate the wholeness of this personality in plurality of its contradictive aspects and proceed in continuity without avoiding raptures. I designed the whole line of his life but also found the turning points.
Important was not only to see and to narrate the whole life of Panikkar, but also to place him in the context of history and culture of his time. He lived in Europe of the Two World Wars, the Civil War of Spain and the Cold War of the second half of twenties century. His world was the one of the end of colonialism, independence of India and creation of a new order of the world with its global dimension in politic and economy. He lived in a time of changes in the catholic Church caused by the Second Vatican Council, encounters among different religions caused by massive migration and development of technology which met cultures and nations. To see Panikkar’s life in this historical context was an another important aspect to consider both his life and his work. He was a son of his time and also an attentive observer and critic of it. I think that see the life and the work of this man in the context of his epoch is an another aspect of the wholeness that the biography offers and may be only a biography can do it, hence it is necessary both in understanding it and in receiving it properly.
Chronology
Biography habitually uses the simple and direct way of narration, means chronology, which is blessing and damnation. It is blessing because gives the possibility to put facts, things and events in a certain order. The clarity in which we see that something in the life of a person was first and something else after is refreshing and offers the possibility to investigate on causes and effects. It is also a damnation because not everything in a life of a person can be reduced to a simple rule of cause and effect, and comprehend by establishing the “before” and the “after”. In the case of Panikkar it is really good and reveling to see all his life and work not only in a one shot of the wholeness but also in a long chronological succession. On the other hand trying to reach this purpose, which is proper for any biography, we realize that not everything can be understood in this way. Because he was complex person and because his life was quite rich a one event often has many causes and generate many effects and such a state of things make almost impossible the chronological narration. The biography is a compromise and it is also one of the reasons why I liked to talk about “a biographical portrait” and not simply about biography. Yet it does not exclude the necessity to established in the future the exact and detailed life calendar (calendarium vitae) of Panikkar related with the calendar of his work (opera autem schedule).
Trying to establish the chronology of Panikkar’s life almost automatically generated its geography, since the time and the space are related. This relation is, according to me, quite important because reveals not only when but also where each of his work was written. And because often he wrote some his texts in a long period of time, this texts were also written in different places. In the case of Panikkar it is not indifferent to know not only when and in which language some text where written but also be aware where they were composed. This seems to me be in agreement not only with Panikkar’s hermeneutic rule which relates text with context but also with his consideration that the chronology should be related to the topology. All of that gives the concreteness to his speculation, incarnates his thoughts and offers an important an important elements to interpreted them.
I’d like to mention an important Panikkar’s attitude which is with a contrast with his suspicion towards biography, which is only one of many of his contradiction. This man was almost obsessed with date and with conservation of documents related to his life. Almost all introduction or prefaces to his works have almost always the date and place in which were written, he kept the diary signing in it dates and places, this same regard his letters, he kept receipts for the stores, baying a book often he wrote in it when and where he bought it and then reading a book he signed when he started and finished to read it, and rereading it he noted down it again. Panikkar left so many chronological and topographic traces that whoever is studying his life discover that it is very often is possible to know exactly where he was in a precise moment. Writing his biography I often asked myself why did he do it? A person who defeats biography does not leave traces. Of course it could be a psychological explanation of such an attitude. In the case of Panikkar it could be said that this man, which for many years had no stable place for his life, so he signed the data in his texts and books which were his home and place, but I’m convinced that this attitude reveals a hidden desire that his life one day would be or even should be studied.
The study of Panikkars biography establish an order of his writings which has several consequences and important concerns for understanding and interpretation of his thoughts. First of all the chronological reading of his texts, related to the biographical events, reveals not only the link between life and work of this man, but also an evolution of his ideas. In fact there is a “first Panikkar” this one of Opus Dei, the “second Panikkar” who lives and writes between India and USA, and the “third Panikkar” this from Tavetet. The first one is radical, the second revolutionary and the third tends towards harmony and reconciliation. It is impossible to establish a precise moments of this periodization, because the evolution was slow, but the fact is undeniable. Only as an example one can take in consideration the idea of mission present in the “first Panikkar” which is rejected by the “second one” with his idea of dialogue and overpassed by the “third one” with his idea of intercultural dialogue and pluralism. A similar evolution could be established taking in consideration his ideas of other religions or technology and other of his ideas.
So, in understanding Panikkar important and helpful is not only the chronology of his life but also the chronology of his works, both possible because of studying his biography. In this point I’d like to mention another aspect which regards an evolution inside several of his important essays and books. It could be called the “history of redactions”. Panikkar was not only writing many of his texts through a long period of time (sometimes there were decades) but many of them had several versions, translation and editions. The first publication of The Unknown Christ of Hinduism from 1964 is quite different then the last one published in 2008. The same could be said about his El silencio del Dios published in 1970 which was elaborated several times and finally published in 2008 as The Silence of Buddha, and so on. If one day his archive is going to be accessible for scholars, and if, as I suppose, Panikkar kept also the manuscripts with corrections of different redactions and version of his text, in the future the studies will bring quite interesting results which will confirm the evolution of his thought and will explain the process through which passed his mind. Only the hypothesis of such a work and discoveries is quite exciting. Let me add, that during my investigation I met several person who had some versions of different manuscripts of Panikar’s works with his notes and corrections that one day should be taken in consideration. Such approach should be taken seriously in consideration by scholars especially in front of so called “opera omnia” of Panikkar, which not only reduces his “opera” to a selection of his writing (the best off) but also seems not to contemplate this fact the many of them has different publications, translations and versions created by Panikkar himself. The whole idea of “opera omnia” is based on some ideas which have a strong hermeneutic presuppositions and consequences which has to be taken in consideration by readers[6].
Lights and Shadows
Panikkar was a special person, a great spirit, profound thinker and writer, dedicated priest and man of prayer, courageous and generous, whose brightness and life inspired, attracted and fascinated. I think that my book highlight very clearly the undeniable positive and shiny aspects of this man. Yet during his life he did errors, hurt others and had his shadows. The study of his biography brings into the light also the dark side of that man and his life which possibly disturb persons who are admiring him and his works. During the work on his biography I met different kind of people who knew Panikkar. Some of them were fascinated by him and saw in him only the brightness, others didn’t like him at all and were quite critical either towards the person or towards his works, or both. The people who in the first moment were fascinated by Panikkar but with time discovered some of his imperfections could have different reactions: some of them removed the darkness and allowed in dialogue with me only the brightness, others ignored the positive aspects and highlighted only the negative ones. Generally his familiars, like his sister or nephews were inclined to talk quite honestly about the weaknesses of “Raimundo”, meanwhile his “disciples” or followers avoided any discussion about them. The question is serious and inevitable, also in order to evaluate his thought, yet the task is not easy to be faced up also because Panikkar himself was trying to avoid it or to interpreted on his own, subjective way. According to me also quite numerous relation which Panikkar had with men and women were not free form shadows, hurt and wait to be clarified. This same regards several of his friends, collaborators and colleagues. There are several “dark zones” in Panikkar’s life that could be mentioned in view of the future investigation.
Old Panikkar in some interviews talked about his parents with devotion, admiration and idealizing their love, yet according to me their marriage had to be not easy and it has to be remembered that Raimon Panikkar had a strong, painful and long conflict with his father. A similar thing should be said about his relation with his younger brother Salvador which should be analyzed in future including psychological, philosophical and economic aspects. His sister Mercede loved and admired him, yet even she with difficulty accepted some of existential choices of his brother and questioned them.
Panikkar’s relation with the Opus Dei and his founder Monsignor Escribá de Balaguer has several shadow lines. Those who dislike this catholic organization and like Panikkar have some difficulties to accept and interpret the fact that Raimon was a faithful member it for a one third of his life. In other words their see his belonging to the Opus Dei as something negative which also bring the whole question of political orientation of Panikkar in Spain in the time of General Franco. Instead this same relation being seen from the Opus Dei prospective is quite different because perceive Panikkar as restless, capricious, disobedient, ungrateful and unfaithful. It has to be remembered that Raimon Panikkar used to say that he himself left Opus Dei but in fact he was expelled from this organization principally because of his moral misconducts. In a word, the relation between Panikkar and Opus Dei was full of tension, quite dramatic and shady from both sides.
Another fact of Panikkar’s life, which disturb many people, is his marriage. He was a catholic priest voted to celibacy and by marrying Maria Gonzalez-Haba in 1984, he entered in conflict with the canon law of the Church, was suspended “ad divinis” and yet continued to celebrated sacraments and presented himself as a priest. The whole situation was complex and complicated dramatically Panikkar’s life for decades. The marriage was relatively unhappy and Panikkar himself with time considered it as an error carrying the consequences. Yet in the eyes of many, especially in the catholic milieu, he was considered as a priest who married and because of it for many his theology was discredited which, remembering his spiritual aspiration, dedication towards theology and priestly identity, was simply tragic. Only the future honest study, investigation and interpretation can sane the situation which is directly related with the evaluation and reception of his works in theology.
All of that shows that the life of this man was straighten between light and shadow and I think this same should be said about his intellectual work or writings. Both are waiting for a future deepening, honest search, long studies and laborious interpretation.
Conclusion
Since I have written the Panikkar’s biography several new volumes of his “opera omnia” were published with some text earlier unedited and many great studies about his thought were written. Today we know his ideas better and he is better known in a large public. On the other hand, during the five years which passed from the first publication of my biography, very few extended and deep thing were written about him and his life. In fact I could mention only the books of Achille Rossi, who presented Panikkar in the light of his friendship with him based on their correspondence[7] and one article written by Josef Ignasi Saranyana who clarifies some aspects about the relation of Panikkar with Opus Dei[8]. I think Panikkar will keep busy scholars for decades and it will pass many years before we will receive more complete and more suitable biography of him. Before it will happen some condition has to be accomplished and several works should be done.
First of all his archive should be expose and accessible in its integrity to scholars, thing which were precluded to me.
Second, all the material spread in the world, should be collected, preserved and make available. From my own experience I can say, that there is a quite large number of letters, registrations and memories to be discovered and saved. The people who knew Panikkar and have important documents and memories are simply dying and things are falling in irreversible oblivion. I just thinking about Mercedes Paniker, Salvador Paniker, Ancochea German Soto, Patric D’Souza, Scott Eastham, Maria Carmen Tapia, and so on.
Third, a particular and concrete studies on different aspects, periods, places and relations of Panikkar’s life, should be written. Based on such a research the future biography could be written, the knowledge will proceed and the reception of his work will be more fruitful.
©Maciej Bielawski (2018)
[1] Cf. Il cielo nel cuore. Invito al mondo esicasta di Niceforo il Solitario (2002); Tragedia folle. Mondo letterario di Vittorino Andreoli (2013); Dumitru Stăniloae and His Philocalical Vision (2017); Strannik. Spiritualità del pellegrino russo (2017); Sguardo contemplativo. Saggio su Pietro Damasceno autore filocalico (2018).
[2] Cf. http://www.raimon-panikkar.org/english/altre-biografie.html
[3] Cf. Maciej Bielawski, Panikkar. His life and His Works, Fazi Editore, 2018.
[4] Cf. M. Bielawski, “Understanding Panikkar and Making Him Understood: A Threefold Hermeneutic Structure – Graphe, Bios, Autos”, in K. Vatsyayan and C. Carpentier de Gourdon (ed.), Raimundo Panikkar. A Pilgrim Across Worlds, Niyogi Books, New Delhi 2016, pp. 67-72.
[5] Cf. M. Bielawski, The Song of A Library, Lemma Press, 2018.
[6] Cf. M. Bielawski, “Opera Omnia di raimon Panikkar”, http://goo.gl/JRKrfO (26.06.2015); I. Moreta, “A propósito de la Opera Omnia Raimon Panikkar: respuesta a Maciej Bielawski”, http://goo.gl/Ca8lEV (26.06.2015); L. Marcato, Le radici del dialogo. Filosofia e teologia nel pensiero di Raimon Panikkar, Mimesis 2017, pp. 65-77.
[7] Cf. A. Rossi, Riflessi. L’amicizia con Raimon Panikkar, L’altrapagina, 2012; Id., Un percorso condiviso. Le lettere di Raimon Panikkar, L’altrapagina, 2015.
[8] Cf. J.-I. Saranyana, “Raimon Panikkar: a propósito de una biografía”, in SetD 11 (2017) 323-348.
