|
1. Introduction.
Panikkar will be satisfied with
nothing less than whole, purnam. This
purnam is ekam and ekam
is advidiyam. And advidiyam is
an all embracing multiplicity. Nothing is
outside this plurality.[1]
All things will acquire a unique role. This
vision of Panikkar is reflected also in his
philosophy. His philosophy, multi-voiced or
rather pluridimensional, is the result of
the East-West Philosophical blending.[2]
In explicating, or rather, in deconstructing
Panikkar's multi-voiced philosophy, the
principle employed here is that of
Panikkar's own dialogical dialogue. This
dialogue, according to him, "must be capable
of revealing the truth of respective
philosophies not just expressing their
formal correctness."[3]
2. Starting of
Philosophy.[4]
When exposed to phenomenon man
gazes on the reality. It is the starting
point of philosophy. When one is exposed to
reality two reactions will concomitantly
follow. One is astonishment and the other is
disillusionment. The West took the former
(wonder) as the starting point of
philosophy. Together with Plato and
Aristotle man wonders at the phenomenon. The
East took the latter (disillusionment) as
the starting point of the philosophical
activity. Together with Buddha and Sankara
man is disillusioned by reality as it
appears to him. The two fundamental
phenomena of human experience (sorrow and
death), do not let man deceive himself about
ultimate reality.
Whether one is astonished or
disillusioned one thing is common. Things
are not what we think they are. That means
the fundamental attitude--the perceiver's
objectivity--is the same in both the Western
and Eastern traditions. The tension and the
rupture between thinking and being appear.
The tension arises precisely because one
expected something other than what is.
Philosophy is coming out of a revolt. Man is
not ready to accept the things as they are.
He wants to wonder or to be disillusioned.
Philosophy makes man restless. This
restlessness is also the cause for further
philosophizing and further progress of the
humanity. Philosophy causes restlessness
because of the difference between thinking
and being. And it is philosophy which claims
to mend the difference. It is philosophy
which alienates Man from his environment.
For it makes him aware of his distance from
the environment. And at the same time
philosophy offers Man the possibility of
overcoming this alienation. Philosophical
awareness makes us conscious of reality at
the cost of differentiating us from it, and
simultaneously offering to reunite us with
the real. The solution offered by the
philosophy of one generation will be
questioned by the philosophy of another
generation. And it will put forward its own
solution. Thus philosophy is on pilgrimage.
In the course of ongoing pilgrimage
philosophy will develop the culture of the
humanity.
The pilgrim philosophy must be a
holistic philosophy. Nothing is outside the
questioning of philosophy. All that is human
and phenomenal (mystery), thinking and being
is within the span of philosophy.
3. What is Philosophy?
Pythagoras, the one who used the
word philosophy for the first time,
distinguished three types of people: those
who loved pleasure, those who loved activity
and those who loved wisdom. The love of
knowledge has taken an extreme position in
the Western thinking. After Descartes
European philosophy was concerned almost
exclusively with ideas.[5]
It is just like the pathetic situation of
the young man who had written love letters
for years to his girl friend. But the girl's
love gradually turned toward the postman who
brought the letters and she eventually
married him. When philosophy found itself no
longer in immediate contact with reality, it
delivered itself constantly to the
intermediary, the logos, and finally
the logos. Philosophy wanted to
bridge the gap between thinking and being
and thereby to bring salvation to humanity
through knowledge, the logos. But it has
directed its attention so exclusively to the
intermediary that it finally identified
itself with the bearer of the news about
reality, the logos.
Today philosophy is concerned
almost exclusively with the logos.
Logos was deified by philosophy.
Philosophers have forgotten the cult, the
game, the dance, the myth and the rite.
Verbum entis (Metaphysics) has been
turned to verbum mentis
(Epistemology), to verbum mundi and
finally to verbum hominis. This
verbum hominis became the ultimate
criterion for truth.
That means truth and logos have
been almost identified. In its exaggerated
emphasis on logos Philosophy forgot the
intimate relationship between truth and
being. As the reason got upper hand in
philosophy, and myth was ignored, as a
consequence Being was forgotten.[6]
Truth dwells primarily not in my
intellect but in my being. The intellect can
grasp only what belongs to its level, the
logical or essential aspect of truth, not
its existential or ontological core.
Therefore philosophy is not love of
knowledge, ideas or study of truth. It is
the realization of one's truth, one's
person.[7]
Often in the past (Greek
philosophers, the Christian Fathers of the
Church, the thinkers of the Middle Ages, and
the Arabic, Chinese, Jewish and Indian
Philosophy) it was considered that the Queen
of all human forms of knowledge (the
ultimate Wisdom about the Universe,
including ourselves and God), was Theology,
which often they called philosophy or
sometimes Metaphysics (Aristotle). This
Wisdom, Theology or Philosophy, Brahmajñªna
or darsana, was an integral insight,
a complete vision of the ultimate truth of
human existence. Philosophy is not to be
considered as the discovery of Reality by
means of our reason, but as the integral
Wisdom concerning the problem of existence.
Here reason, though essential, is only a
part of the human instrument to face the
demands of Being and our participation in
it.[8]
That is why Philosophy in India, for
example, intends to be reasonable, but not a
simple rational speculation.[9]
4. Holistic Philosophy.
Philosophy has to be viewed as
the integration of the body, of society, of
the cosmos with the infinite. These three
gifts of philosophy have not been
sufficiently considered in the past. Now the
integration should be a common philosophical
task accepting logos, mythos
and pneuma.
i) Acceptance of the Logos.
We cannot do without
the logos.[10]
Logos could be given up only in favour of
the one-sided irrationalism, emotionalism,
fideism. Logos plays a double role in
philosophy: that of illuminating and
clarifying; and that of criticising, testing
and controlling.[11]
Reason offers the negative criterion for
truth: Reason only checks, controls, gives
us certain proofs and, when successfull, it
formulates. Something which does not pass
the sieve of reason or contradicts the
principle of non-contradiction, cannot be
true.[12]
If anything contradicts the logos, it cannot
be accepted.[13]
At the same time we cannot do with the logos
alone.[14]
The logos, however, must recognize its lower
and upper limits.[15]
For reason is not that which reveals,
or discovers, or puts us in immediate
contact with reality.[16]
It dares not to suppress either mythos or
pneuma, which are hidden from the logos.[17]
As the ,Rg Veda says:
The Word is measured in four quarters,
The Wise who possess insight know these four
divisions.
Three quarters, concealed in secret, cause
no movement.
The fourth is the quarter which is spoken by
Men. (I, 164, 45).
Logos is vªc,
śabda,
brahman, sound. Speaking is a
hermeneutics, an expression, an icon, a
form. That itself shows that there is anªhatanaªda
hidden.
ii) Taking up the Mythos
Together with Logos,
Mythos coexist in philosophy.[18]
The philosopher is a "philomythes"
(Aristotle), a lover of the myths. For in
the myths the meaning of life and the idea
of being are crystallized in a popular way.[19]
Philosophy is not only entry into the
thought, but also into the unthought. Man
unearths meaning from mythos per logos for a
particular context. Still myth is not
exhausted. The myth will be there for the
next generation when that generation
questions the myth's past meaning acquired
by the logos for the then particular
context. For the mythical always runs its
course above time and space. It is the myth
of Sun, for example, that made humanity in
one particular historical context to worship
the sun. In another context the same myth of
the sun will bring about the Newtonian
principle. By this the myth of the sun is
not exhausted. It is up to the coming
generation to examine the sun myth with
logos in their own particular historical
context, and thereby to improve upon the
Newtonian findings.[20]
Still there will be always something
unthinkable in the sun.
iii) Reception of the
Pneuma[21]
Not only does the
unthought (mythos) together with the
thought (logos) belong to philosophy,
but also the unthinkable (pneuma).
One can neither think on this pneuma nor
leave it as unthought, but one must receive
it as the never thinkable. The unthinkable
does not exist in itself as a fixed
dimension. This unthinkable gives futurity
and hope to humanity. Receiving the
pneuma is a permanent passage, a
pascha, or a pilgrimage. The pilgrimage
from mythos through logos to pneuma is
endless.
5. Exclaiming at
the Mystery[22]
The logos, the mythos
and the pneuma will converge into the
mysterion. Panikkar says that he can
say nothing about mystery because there is
nothing to say. Panikkar may be hinting at
the fact that when we have darsana[23]
of the mystery, we can only exclaim and
wonder at the Truth, the Mystery.
Kaţha
Upanishad says:
"Neither by the word nor by the spirit
nor by sight can he ever be reached.
How, then, can he be realized
except by exclaiming: 'He is!'" (KaţhUp.VI,
12).
The exclamation is at the "He" the Subject.
6. Truth is the Subject
For Aristotle philosophy is the
study of Truth.[24]
The difference between logical truth and
metaphysical truth lies in the fact that the
locus of the former is judgement, whereas
that of the latter is found in the thing
itself. Truth is more than a concept. Truth
lies in reality itself. Panikkar clarifies
truth by bringing the traditional Indian
classical snake and rope analogy: "This is a
rope" is the truth. By rejecting this
proposition we do not destroy the truth.
"This" remains true independently of human
judgement. The nature of the truth will be
the nature of "this".[25]
The meaning of the world is not that I may
know the sense of it, but its very
existence. The meaning of the world is the
world itself and not my knowledge of that
meaning.[26]
Truth lies in the subject of a sentence. The
truth is the subject, "this".
Truth is God. God is the only
absolute subject and the only absolute
truth. Things are true in as far as they are
objects to this subject. For they are not
subjects to themselves, they do not give
themselves their being. On the basis of the
fact that they are ob-jects of God, they
become sub-jects only in relation to the
objects which they generate, which they ob-jectify,
throw before themselves.
"This is a rope" is ultimately
true not when I say it or in the sense in
which I express it, but in as far as God
expresses it, for His expression makes both
the rope and the "this" that is a rope. When
we say "this is a rope," we only discover
that a rope is there and that our
proposition is true. That is why the
statement "this is a rope" is wrong if we
consider "rope" the ultimate reality of
"this". Likewise "I am I" will be ultimately
true in as far as God expresses. Otherwise
my ego, His thou, would not exist at all.
The whole mystery of this world's existence
consists in this, that He, the absolute I,
says the "this" and "you". Of course He
expresses it. This "I am I“ is "I shall be
I", "You will be that."[27]
7. Partaking in the Truth, by being known
Truth, like being, is my goal. I
must win the truth. When the temporalness is
past, we shall be in a position to realize
the full truth about ourselves; that is, the
proper personal identity of His expression,
"I am I". My ego will have grasped the truth
and will simply answer -- for my being is
only a divine answer -- "YOU", "You are,"
"You are the I," "You are I". My real
personality, my true ego, is this "you" of
yours. It is this you that I am.[28]
The Logos is the You of the
Father, so that ultimately our being is a
partaking of the Logos.[29]
Man is more than man. Man is a part of God.
Man's dependence on God has something in
common with that of the animals, plants and
the earth. It is a cosmic bond with the
Cause, Principle or Source of this very
cosmos.[30]
Whatever a being may be, it is only
because it is that, Brahman. All that
is really is only that
under-structure, for only that is common to
all. That is really the all and the
real ground of everything (cf. Atharva
Veda, X, 8, 2). The being is in all
beings, yet does not rest in them (cf.
Gita, IX, 4-5).[31]
In some way God and the world meet in the
Logos.[32]
I am not a subject, as He is,
but I am a predicate, His predicate. The
more I am Thou, the more true it will be
that "I am I" and the closer I shall come to
"Thou" and truly realize myself. Thus the
truth of my being will grow. Man comes near
to truth only to the extent that he is
truth.
Truth is not something that we
possess but something that possesses us or
besets us, something which we find in our
being. I approach real truth not through
wisdom of knowing the One alone, but through
a wisdom (or consciousness) of being known.[33]
8. Existential Truth in Union
Absolute truth is one, which is
absolute reality, the God. But existentially
truth is not one. Truth is as manifold as
the things that are. If truth is many, as
are existing things, then it also has the
metaphysical unity of existing things.
According to St Thomas Aquinas everything is
intelligible in so far as it is one. For he
who does not understand the one, understands
nothing.[34]
All can say "I am I" only in relation to the
absolute Truth. This is an inexpressible
ontological relation between God who calls
me and my being which is His call.
9. Truth is Relational
and Personal[35]
Truth brings about freedom and
fulfilment (both in the East and West). This
truth is not mere rightness of a proposition
but it is an existential truth. In general,
Greeks had the vision that man's fulfilment
is by the union with the divinity,
assimilation to being. But here begins Greek
intellectualism. For to be united with being
means to know being. Knowledge is precisely
this mysterious assimilation, this union,
between the knower and the known, between
subject and object. The wise man is the
seeker of truth,[36]
for truth always liberates.[37]
The wise man is he who works for the
salvation of his soul.[38]
The wise alone will be divinized and achieve
immortality and being.[39]
As a consequence philosophy has become a
purely rational, or rather rationalistic,
enquiry about Reality or the ultimate
Reality. It is in fact an anti-philosophical
conception of Philosophy.[40]
For how can man by his knowing be sure of
his salvation, his acceptance by the
ultimate Subject?
10. Love of Wisdom and
Wisdom of Love[41]
In the passionate love for Truth
philosophers often forget the truth of love.
Love not only ascends but also expects a
response. Philosophers often forget the
ultimate Subject's speaking. His speaking is
the real truth. Truth always comes as a
revelation. First we hear it, then we
believe it, and finally we see it (St.
Augustine). Through it God communicates
himself to us and we rise to Him as persons.
Philosophy is, because of the activity of
the Subject. It is the love of the Subject,
the unmoved mover, who brings perfection to
the universe (Aristotle). Man's love of
Truth (philosophy) comes out of the
Subject's love for the perfection of the
universe.[42]
Kªma
is the first principle of activity, the
creative and procreative force leading the
Supreme Being to come out of the closed
circle of its own existence.[43]
Hinduism will say that man is religious, not
primarily because he discovers or recognizes
his relationship with God, but because of
the reality or the ground which makes such
an awareness possible.[44]
We are children of the divine Truth. Truth
is the epiphany of being as existing and
therefore the authentic road to being: being
as manifestation of truth.[45]
For our temporal being also
truth is a manifestation, but for us it is
equally the veil of existing things, the
envelope under which we grasp being, as long
as we have not reached our God-filled state.
It is not a mere intellectual identification
of "I" with "I" but an ontological descent -
avatar - from "I" as "I".[46]
When the "I" as "I" appears, that means when
the subject comes, not just the logical
subject of a predicate but simple as
existing, then there is truth present: truth
is being as being. We are, as far as we are
truth, and meanwhile we are in the state of
becoming as long as we are true. Truth is
the horizon of being, the line of meeting of
earth and heaven, man and God.[47]
Philosophy as love of truth will
aspire for union, because it is the nature
of love to tend to have union with the
beloved. Through love philosophy helps to
realize the Truth, the Mystery, the Person.
For truth of philosophers is not an
amorphous God or Brahman, not a kind of sum
total of the total being.[48]
Panikkar may be intending to change the
philosophical dictum of Descartes: "I think
therefore I am", to "I love therefore I am".
For love presupposes the relation with the
Other and the relation from the part of the
Other. This correction on western philosophy
clarifies the Eastern darsana "Aham
Brahma asmi therefore I am". Thus we
come to the full meaning of the Pythagorean
insight that philosophy is a way to achieve
salvation, relation to the Transcendent.
------------------------
[1]Cf.
R.P., Blessed Simplicity: The Monk as
Universal Archetype, (New York:
Seabury Press, 1982), pp.35‑39.
[2]R.P.,
"The Myth of Pluralism: The Tower of
Babel ‑ A Meditation on Non‑Violence,"
Cross‑Currents 29, (Summer,
1979), pp. 216, 221; R.P.,
"Hermeneutics of Comparative Religion:
Paradigms and Models." The Journal of
Religious Studies VI, (Spring,
1978), p. 45.
[3]R.P.,
"Hermeneutics of Religion...."
Religious Studies, VI, 1978. p.
45‑46.
[4]R.P.,
"The Philosophical Tradition," in
Myth, Faith and Hermeneutics:
Cross‑Cultural Studies, (New York
1979), pp. 337-338.
[5]R.P.,
"The Existential Phenomenology of
Truth," Philosophy Today 2
(Spring 1958), p. 13.
[6]R.P.,
"The Philosophical Tradition,"
Myth..., (1979), p. 340.
[7]R.P.,
"...Truth," Philosophy Today
(Spring 1958), p. 16.
[8]
R.P., "Does Indian Philosophy need
Re-orientation? The recovery of its
theological background for the
re-orientation of Indian Philosophy."
Philosophical Quarterly 30 (October,
1957), pp. 191-193.
[9]R.P.,
"The Hermeneutics of Hermeneutics.
Reflections on the hermeneutics of
Tradition in Hinduism in view of a
dialogue with Christian thought."
Philosophy Today 2 (Fall 1967) p.
170.
[10]R.P.,
"Athens or Jerusalem? Philosophy or
Religion." Logos 2 (University of
Santa Clara 1981) p. 37.
[11]R.P.,
"The Philosophical Tradition," Myth...,
(1979), pp. 343-344.
[12]R.P.,
"Athens...," Logos 2 (1981) p.
37.
[13]R.P.,
"The Philosophical Tradition," Myth...,
(1979), pp. 343-344.
[14]R.P.,
"Athens...," Logos 2
(1981) p. 37.
[15]R.P.,
"The Philosophical Tradition," Myth...,
(1979), pp. 343-344.
[16]R.P.,
"Athens...," Logos 2
(1981) p. 37.
[17]R.P.,
"The Philosophical Tradition," Myth...,
(1979), pp. 343-344.
[18]R.P.,
"The Philosophical Tradition," Myth...,
(1979),pp. 344-345.
[19]R.P.,
"...need Re-orientation?..,"
Philosophical Quarterly 30 (October,
1957), p. 193.
[20]R.P.,
"The Philosophical Tradition," Myth...,
(1979), pp. 344-345.
[21]R.P.
"The Philosophical Tradition," Myth...,
(1979), pp. 346-347.
[22]R.P.,
"The Philosophical Tradition," Myth...,
(1979),pp. 347-348.
[23]Cf.
R.P., "The Hermeneutics of
Hermeneutics...," Philosophy Today
2 (Fall 1967) p. 170.
[24]Aristotle,
Metaphysics II, 1.
[25]R.P.,
"...Truth," Philosophy Today,
(Spring 1958), pp. 14 f.
[26]R.P.
in "Contemporary Hindu Spirituality,"
Philosophy Today 3 (Summer 1959), p.
122.
[27]R.P.,
"...Truth," Philosophy Today,
(Spring 1958), pp. 14-18.
[28]R.P.,
"...Truth," Philosophy Today,
(Spring 1958), pp. 15, 18.
[29]R.P.,
"...Truth," Philosophy Today,
(Spring 1958), p. 15.
[30]R.P.
in "Contemporary Hindu Spirituality,"
Philosophy Today 3 (Summer 1959),
pp. 124-125.
[31]R.P.,
"The Brahman of the Upani,sads and the
God of the Philosophers." Religion
and Society, (Sept., 1960) pp.
16-18.
[32]R.P.,
"...Truth," Philosophy Today,
(Spring 1958), p. 15.
[33]R.P.,
"...Truth," Philosophy Today,
(Spring 1958), p. 16.
[34]De
Veritate,
q. 21, a3, as quoted by Panikkar in
"Contemporary Hindu Spirituality,"
Philosophy Today 3 (Summer 1959), p.
120.
[35]Cf.
R.P., Blessed Simplicity..., New
York, 1982. p.128.
[36]R.P.,
"...Truth," Philosophy Today,
(Spring 1958), p. 19.
[37]R.P.,
"Athens...," Logos 2 (1981), p.
35.
[38]R.P.,
"...need Re-orientation?..,"
Philosophical Quarterly 30 (October,
1957), p. 193.
[39]R.P.,
"...Truth," Philosophy Today,
(Spring 1958), p. 19.
[40]R.P.,
"...need Re-orientation?..,"
Philosophical Quarterly 30 (October,
1957), p. 191. Cf. also R.P.,
"Athens...," Logos 2 (1981) p.
27.
[41]R.P.,
"The Philosophical Tradition," Myth...,
(1979),p. 343.
[42]R.P.,
"...Truth," Philosophy Today,
(Spring 1958), pp. 19-20.
[43]Cf.
BG III, 37, where kªma
is said to originate from rajoguņa,
the principle of activity; and also AV
IX, 2, 19-21; 23-35 as given by Panikkar,
The Vedic Experience, (London:
Darton, Longman and Todd, 1979), pp.
242-243.
[44]R.P.
in "Contemporary Hindu Spirituality,"
Philosophy Today 3 (Summer 1959), p.
124, 127.
[45]R.P.,
"...Truth," Philosophy Today,
(Spring 1958), pp. 19-20.
[46]R.P.,
"...Truth," Philosophy Today,
(Spring 1958), pp. 20-21. Cf. also R.P.
in "Contemporary Hindu Spirituality,"
Philosophy Today 3 (Summer 1959), p.
125.
[47]R.P.,
"...Truth," Philosophy Today,
(Spring 1958), pp. 20-21.
[48]R.P.,
"The Brahman of the Upaniêads
and the God of the Philosophers."
Religion and Society, (Sept., 1960)
p. 18.
|